Considering the ships in-game are not properly scaled to size and differing sizes of warp cores do not exist in-game, your point is moot. But should we continue this line of reasoning, cannon housing comprises far less hull space than a beam array arc.
You can get as technical as you want as to why escorts should be limited in their cannon mounts, but since the decision has been made by Cryptic not to do so then thee reson no longer matters. If you want a balanced game, demand Cryptic make more than Wild West shoot-em-up gameplay where your career choice actually matters.
Regardless of scaling and size disparities the point is not moot. Even if the ships are not scaled correctly the cruisers are still way bigger, meaning that they should have the capacity to carry any type of weapon.
An escort has 4 forward mounted weapons? Then a cruiser, with its enhanced size (regardless of incorrect scaling) should be able to forward mount exactly the same weapons AND run them with higher power.
As I stated in my original post, the reason they don't is because of game balance, and if Cryptic chooses to limit any ship in its weapons capacity then reason is no longer needed as balance rules over all.
I really hope they do limit the number of cannons an escort can carry. It would be funny just to see the cannon fanboys scramble to find a new tactic.
Regardless of scaling and size disparities the point is not moot. Even if the ships are not scaled correctly the cruisers are still way bigger, meaning that they should have the capacity to carry any type of weapon.
An escort has 4 forward mounted weapons? Then a cruiser, with its enhanced size (regardless of incorrect scaling) should be able to forward mount exactly the same weapons AND run them with higher power.
As I stated in my original post, the reason they don't is because of game balance, and if Cryptic chooses to limit any ship in its weapons capacity then reason is no longer needed as balance rules over all.
I really hope they do limit the number of cannons an escort can carry. It would be funny just to see the cannon fanboys scramble to find a new tactic.
Clearly you've been around the 2000's definition of 'balance' far too long. Try playing something older than that or paper D&D where balance actually means something. But by all means, lobby for cannons on every cruiser. I shall enjoy demolishing your toothless tiger as it never gets a weapon pointed my direction.
Synergy. Used by pros everywhere.
Jack Emmert: "Starfleet and Klingon. ... So two factions, full PvE content." Al Rivera hates Klingons Star Trek Online: Agents of Jack Emmert All cloaks should be canon.
But do you think that tac abilities should buff science ability damage? That's like saying "my skill in arming a torpedo will make this gravity well do HUGE damage."
No they should not. Ive said as much before in other threads.
I cannot believe I completely ignored this thread... and now having read the whole thing I have a few things to say. First off I applaud bloctoad for being that wonderful waterlogged wart that everyone knows and loves.
Secondly I give props to Icegavel and Darramous for having put up with him as long as they have, and Icegavel again for having put out such a long and thought out response. I also want some of that popcorn.
I also give my usual regards to Roach and his voice of reason and actual sense.
Anyways, that was pretty much it. I really have nothing to say to this proposal other than that there are some actually quite good ideas, but it's highly unlikely that there will be any changes made to the current meta. The new Kumari line is direct evidence and a rather blatant slap to the face of cruisers and science ships. To say nothing of the middle finger it gives the KDF.
That is all.
It is said the best weapon is one that is never fired. I disagree. The best weapon is one you only have to fire... once.
The new Kumari line is direct evidence and a rather blatant slap to the face of cruisers and science ships. To say nothing of the middle finger it gives the KDF.
I am also quite unhappy with the kumari line. I was hoping, really hoping that the 5 weapon ship would be a sort of long range artillery ship, something like a cruiser or sci vessel with poor maneuverability but mounting DBBs, maybe even use fighters. Heck, even a straight out 5 forward, 3 rear weapon configuration on a fed cruiser wouldn't be more than an interesting option.
But now its looking like all other escorts will become obsolete in a few days.
I cannot believe I completely ignored this thread... and now having read the whole thing I have a few things to say. First off I applaud bloctoad for being that wonderful waterlogged wart that everyone knows and loves.
Secondly I give props to Icegavel and Darramous for having put up with him as long as they have, and Icegavel again for having put out such a long and thought out response. I also want some of that popcorn.
I also give my usual regards to Roach and his voice of reason and actual sense.
Anyways, that was pretty much it. I really have nothing to say to this proposal other than that there are some actually quite good ideas, but it's highly unlikely that there will be any changes made to the current meta. The new Kumari line is direct evidence and a rather blatant slap to the face of cruisers and science ships. To say nothing of the middle finger it gives the KDF.
That is all.
Why thank you. If I wasn't around you all might be bored enough to actually play the--okay so no one could realistically be that bored.
Jack Emmert: "Starfleet and Klingon. ... So two factions, full PvE content." Al Rivera hates Klingons Star Trek Online: Agents of Jack Emmert All cloaks should be canon.
You simply haven't understood a word of it. It seems to me you should check yourself before you call anyone else "mentally slow" or an "idiot." So I'll explain it to you one more time in the most elementary terms possible. You hit 'U' to view your captain then click on your ship to view it. What you see is a picture of a ship with lots of little boxes that are either empty or filled with icons.The icons at the top of the picture and those underneath the vertical line of three icons are your weapons slots. These are hardpoints. You propose that DHC be limited to two of these hardpoints. At no time have I stated you would lose hardpoints. You would simply not be able to equip additional DHC hardpoints under your proposal. I am not the one who has been off-topic. You simply fail to understand the argument in terms of your absurdly asinine proposal.
They are not called hardpoints. This is not Top Gun, we are not talking about a jet fighter, and there is nothing either hard or pointy about an equipment slot. If you can't be bothered to use the proper terminology, I don't see any reason to continue the discussion. Intelligent people use the contextual meanings of words, they do NOT try to rewrite the ruules of the English Language simply because they've been thoroughly trumped in an argument about a video game.
Why thank you. If I wasn't around you all might be bored enough to actually play the--okay so no one could realistically be that bored.
So, not only are you arguing a totally flawed point and refusing to use words properly, you're arguing about something that doesn't affect you because you can't be bothered to play? Why continue posting here? Why look at the forums? For The Sisko's sake, I feel like I just walked into Monty Python's Argument Clinic skit... I did NOT pay you, and I do NOT want to argue in my spare time! Hopefully, you'll leave by the time The Fuzz shows up...
Fact is, I LIKE playing this game (call me crazy). But I want to see it BETTERED. I want to see it FAIR. I don't want to see a Tac-DPS Slugfest that undoubtedly makes Gene Rodenberry's ashes stir.
No they should not. Ive said as much before in other threads.
Then why continue arguing against Tac nerfs? If you believe in the premise on which I was inspired to write this post, why do you argue against it? Are you playing PWE's Advocate?
Then Engies and Sci need a buff to be more capable . Not nerf tacs to bring them down to a similiar state then buff Engies and Sci.
Which is how I see your ideas.
Again, you say this, and again, I reply: one does not simply balance a game by buffing everyone. That leads to chaos and an un-fun game. Nerfs are not happy things, but they are necessary evils. Only when you understand this will you see merit in anything I have to say. Until then, I'd might as well be saying all of this to a tree. Or a rock. Or dStahl.
I cannot believe I completely ignored this thread... and now having read the whole thing I have a few things to say. First off I applaud bloctoad for being that wonderful waterlogged wart that everyone knows and loves.
Secondly I give props to Icegavel and Darramous for having put up with him as long as they have, and Icegavel again for having put out such a long and thought out response. I also want some of that popcorn.
I also give my usual regards to Roach and his voice of reason and actual sense.
Anyways, that was pretty much it. I really have nothing to say to this proposal other than that there are some actually quite good ideas, but it's highly unlikely that there will be any changes made to the current meta. The new Kumari line is direct evidence and a rather blatant slap to the face of cruisers and science ships. To say nothing of the middle finger it gives the KDF.
That is all.
First response, I applaud you for wading in this far. I quite think that, if he had two brain cells to rub together, Bloctoad might be a worthy debating adversary. Maybe he will be, eventually. But not until he learns to use context and terms based on the topic of the conversation, a skill he has yet to master (if anything he's said thusfar is to be believed in any extent)
Second, I thank you for the props. I've dealt with worse trolls and dumber fools. This is NOTHING compared to the flame wars of my past.
Lastly, I have to agree with your point about the Kumari. It throws all pretense of balance out the window, kicks the KDF in the groin, and runs around wearing tin foil on its head screaming about balance like it'd be the apocalypse.
They are not called hardpoints. This is not Top Gun, we are not talking about a jet fighter, and there is nothing either hard or pointy about an equipment slot. If you can't be bothered to use the proper terminology, I don't see any reason to continue the discussion. Intelligent people use the contextual meanings of words, they do NOT try to rewrite the ruules of the English Language simply because they've been thoroughly trumped in an argument about a video game.
So, not only are you arguing a totally flawed point and refusing to use words properly, you're arguing about something that doesn't affect you because you can't be bothered to play? Why continue posting here? Why look at the forums? For The Sisko's sake, I feel like I just walked into Monty Python's Argument Clinic skit... I did NOT pay you, and I do NOT want to argue in my spare time! Hopefully, you'll leave by the time The Fuzz shows up...
Fact is, I LIKE playing this game (call me crazy). But I want to see it BETTERED. I want to see it FAIR. I don't want to see a Tac-DPS Slugfest that undoubtedly makes Gene Rodenberry's ashes stir.
Then why continue arguing against Tac nerfs? If you believe in the premise on which I was inspired to write this post, why do you argue against it? Are you playing PWE's Advocate?
Again, you say this, and again, I reply: one does not simply balance a game by buffing everyone. That leads to chaos and an un-fun game. Nerfs are not happy things, but they are necessary evils. Only when you understand this will you see merit in anything I have to say. Until then, I'd might as well be saying all of this to a tree. Or a rock. Or dStahl.
First response, I applaud you for wading in this far. I quite think that, if he had two brain cells to rub together, Bloctoad might be a worthy debating adversary. Maybe he will be, eventually. But not until he learns to use context and terms based on the topic of the conversation, a skill he has yet to master (if anything he's said thusfar is to be believed in any extent)
Second, I thank you for the props. I've dealt with worse trolls and dumber fools. This is NOTHING compared to the flame wars of my past.
Lastly, I have to agree with your point about the Kumari. It throws all pretense of balance out the window, kicks the KDF in the groin, and runs around wearing tin foil on its head screaming about balance like it'd be the apocalypse.
You'll just have to agree to disagree and continue to wallow in your mire of ignorance. Clearly option concerns a player of your skill set.
Jack Emmert: "Starfleet and Klingon. ... So two factions, full PvE content." Al Rivera hates Klingons Star Trek Online: Agents of Jack Emmert All cloaks should be canon.
Annoying shameless plug is annoying. There's nothing there to read, it's three sentences from someone who clearly doesn't understand how the game works. I've given examples, time and time again, in this thread that I know how to build and fly ships. I am the case in point where he's totally mistaken.
I am also quite unhappy with the kumari line. I was hoping, really hoping that the 5 weapon ship would be a sort of long range artillery ship, something like a cruiser or sci vessel with poor maneuverability but mounting DBBs, maybe even use fighters. Heck, even a straight out 5 forward, 3 rear weapon configuration on a fed cruiser wouldn't be more than an interesting option.
I'm still hoping the Fleet Dreadnought Cruiser will get a fifth weapon slot instead of a 10th console slot, maybe with the ensign tactical station also upgraded to lieutenant; since this would be instead of the extra tactical console it would most likely otherwise get it's actually less of a damage bonus overall (about 12.5% base if you were running 9 beam arrays instead of 8). What it would do however is allow for some very powerful hybrid builds since slotting a second forward torpedo launcher wouldn't hurt your firepower relative to other ships. Or you could run mixed beams and cannons to give you forward burst damage when you prepare for a lance blast.
One other feature I read somewhere (possibly this thread) that has interested me about possible changes to the cruiser and science ships would be the addition of a warp-core slot for cruisers, and a mission pod slot for science ships.
Warp cores could let you pick a significant power system bonus without using up a console slot. Not sure what mission pods could do for science ships, except maybe allow for special class of deployable ability, such as sensor probes, or probes that detonate like a special torpedo to create a tyken's rift or gravity well. Either that or allow for further optimisation of science abilities in builds.
^This. Also, you can teach synergy but you can't teach skill. Both can be improved by learning proper ways of playing the game. However, when either is ignored through ignorance or stubbornness, you see another balance thread of which this thread is a parody.
Jack Emmert: "Starfleet and Klingon. ... So two factions, full PvE content." Al Rivera hates Klingons Star Trek Online: Agents of Jack Emmert All cloaks should be canon.
Just so you know Escorts are not as high and mighty as you make them out to be. As it is now it takes at least 2 ships alpha striking the target on top of a subnuc just to get 1 kill in PvP. Damage resistance abilities have been so buffed that even my escort on it's own can survive a full alpha strike from another escort, even a bug ship's alpha. Sorry but your thing about the escorts being OP is just flat not true.
FYI I have an average DPS of 7000 to 8000 with an alpha strike that hit 18,000 to 20,000. And I still can't take down ships in a single alpha strike because of how beefy the defensive skills are. It regularly takes 2 or 3 escorts going full alpha strike with a sci doing subnuc on the target to kill anyone in PvP.
Note: full alpha means hitting every single one of you damage boosting skills at once. NOT just hitting attack pattern alpha.
Comments
Regardless of scaling and size disparities the point is not moot. Even if the ships are not scaled correctly the cruisers are still way bigger, meaning that they should have the capacity to carry any type of weapon.
An escort has 4 forward mounted weapons? Then a cruiser, with its enhanced size (regardless of incorrect scaling) should be able to forward mount exactly the same weapons AND run them with higher power.
As I stated in my original post, the reason they don't is because of game balance, and if Cryptic chooses to limit any ship in its weapons capacity then reason is no longer needed as balance rules over all.
I really hope they do limit the number of cannons an escort can carry. It would be funny just to see the cannon fanboys scramble to find a new tactic.
Clearly you've been around the 2000's definition of 'balance' far too long. Try playing something older than that or paper D&D where balance actually means something. But by all means, lobby for cannons on every cruiser. I shall enjoy demolishing your toothless tiger as it never gets a weapon pointed my direction.
Synergy. Used by pros everywhere.
Al Rivera hates Klingons
Star Trek Online: Agents of Jack Emmert
All cloaks should be canon.
No they should not. Ive said as much before in other threads.
R.I.P
You are one of the people whom I see regularly on these forums advocating reasonable thoughts. It's appreciated, even if our opinions differ.
Secondly I give props to Icegavel and Darramous for having put up with him as long as they have, and Icegavel again for having put out such a long and thought out response. I also want some of that popcorn.
I also give my usual regards to Roach and his voice of reason and actual sense.
Anyways, that was pretty much it. I really have nothing to say to this proposal other than that there are some actually quite good ideas, but it's highly unlikely that there will be any changes made to the current meta. The new Kumari line is direct evidence and a rather blatant slap to the face of cruisers and science ships. To say nothing of the middle finger it gives the KDF.
That is all.
I am also quite unhappy with the kumari line. I was hoping, really hoping that the 5 weapon ship would be a sort of long range artillery ship, something like a cruiser or sci vessel with poor maneuverability but mounting DBBs, maybe even use fighters. Heck, even a straight out 5 forward, 3 rear weapon configuration on a fed cruiser wouldn't be more than an interesting option.
But now its looking like all other escorts will become obsolete in a few days.
Lol. Im a longwinded brash poster enthralled with what the KDF could be but that does not mean I do not also desire balance in STO. :-P
R.I.P
Why thank you. If I wasn't around you all might be bored enough to actually play the--okay so no one could realistically be that bored.
Al Rivera hates Klingons
Star Trek Online: Agents of Jack Emmert
All cloaks should be canon.
So, not only are you arguing a totally flawed point and refusing to use words properly, you're arguing about something that doesn't affect you because you can't be bothered to play? Why continue posting here? Why look at the forums? For The Sisko's sake, I feel like I just walked into Monty Python's Argument Clinic skit... I did NOT pay you, and I do NOT want to argue in my spare time! Hopefully, you'll leave by the time The Fuzz shows up...
Fact is, I LIKE playing this game (call me crazy). But I want to see it BETTERED. I want to see it FAIR. I don't want to see a Tac-DPS Slugfest that undoubtedly makes Gene Rodenberry's ashes stir.
Then why continue arguing against Tac nerfs? If you believe in the premise on which I was inspired to write this post, why do you argue against it? Are you playing PWE's Advocate?
Again, you say this, and again, I reply: one does not simply balance a game by buffing everyone. That leads to chaos and an un-fun game. Nerfs are not happy things, but they are necessary evils. Only when you understand this will you see merit in anything I have to say. Until then, I'd might as well be saying all of this to a tree. Or a rock. Or dStahl.
First response, I applaud you for wading in this far. I quite think that, if he had two brain cells to rub together, Bloctoad might be a worthy debating adversary. Maybe he will be, eventually. But not until he learns to use context and terms based on the topic of the conversation, a skill he has yet to master (if anything he's said thusfar is to be believed in any extent)
Second, I thank you for the props. I've dealt with worse trolls and dumber fools. This is NOTHING compared to the flame wars of my past.
Lastly, I have to agree with your point about the Kumari. It throws all pretense of balance out the window, kicks the KDF in the groin, and runs around wearing tin foil on its head screaming about balance like it'd be the apocalypse.
You'll just have to agree to disagree and continue to wallow in your mire of ignorance. Clearly option concerns a player of your skill set.
Al Rivera hates Klingons
Star Trek Online: Agents of Jack Emmert
All cloaks should be canon.
And I guess you'll just have to visit the local elementary school in your spare time (since you're not playing) and ask THEM to teach you.
Annoying shameless plug is annoying. There's nothing there to read, it's three sentences from someone who clearly doesn't understand how the game works. I've given examples, time and time again, in this thread that I know how to build and fly ships. I am the case in point where he's totally mistaken.
One other feature I read somewhere (possibly this thread) that has interested me about possible changes to the cruiser and science ships would be the addition of a warp-core slot for cruisers, and a mission pod slot for science ships.
Warp cores could let you pick a significant power system bonus without using up a console slot. Not sure what mission pods could do for science ships, except maybe allow for special class of deployable ability, such as sensor probes, or probes that detonate like a special torpedo to create a tyken's rift or gravity well. Either that or allow for further optimisation of science abilities in builds.
Game Balance - Ship Size and Wingmates
http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/showthread.php?t=558331
This has my official stamp of approval.
Al Rivera hates Klingons
Star Trek Online: Agents of Jack Emmert
All cloaks should be canon.
FYI I have an average DPS of 7000 to 8000 with an alpha strike that hit 18,000 to 20,000. And I still can't take down ships in a single alpha strike because of how beefy the defensive skills are. It regularly takes 2 or 3 escorts going full alpha strike with a sci doing subnuc on the target to kill anyone in PvP.
Note: full alpha means hitting every single one of you damage boosting skills at once. NOT just hitting attack pattern alpha.