no, it doesnt,
it makes one group of ships arbitrarily called escorts
have stats of fighter ships despite being as big as big as ships arbitrarily cruisers
when half from each group would be better labelled frigates or destroyers if anything
and ends up breaking weapon balance.
all of which where decided arbitrarily to give one literally imagined class an advantage they shouldnt have.
or do you not understand what an arbitrary decision is
You do realize that your solution to said "arbitrary decision" (which in fact all forms of game balance are) is to substitute a different arbitrary decision; this time to use a piece of data that, in most cases, doesn't even exist as the basis for your vision of ship balance?
there are 3 factors to balance
dps
agility
health
providing equal cost a given item or character trades one for the other,
that is how you balance a game, virtually all games.
Congratulations on completely ignoring defensive capability and healing potential in your omniscient analysis of game balance.
yea, never did make sense to let shuttles equip the same weapon as a capital class whos weapons would have been bigger than the shuttle.
though you are still better off getting rid of the ship clasifications as anything other than an indicator of the bridge & systems bias and sorting the ships by weight.
no, you just get rid of the fairy magic stats and sort them all be their wieght, rather than "hearp derp this ship will do 1 second 180s just because".
and thus we have the problem of the turn rate of "escorts" negating the firing arc restriction of DHCs, which breaks the system thats supposed to balance them.
You can't change the game's core classification system of ships since its built into every weapon, unique item, captain type and other equipment.
Weight of a ship is not indicative of its class either. A ship through its design can be really heavy and still be fast or turn very well.
For simplicity leave the current ship classification as it is. its not based on weight but on boff station layout and weapon slot layout. Aka cmdr tactical slot ships = escorts.
I like the basic idea, but I'm not clear on how this balances? Surely it means that smaller ships are just getting shafted with larger ships suddenly doing more damage, so it doesn't really balance anything that I see, but rather it gives cruisers and other bigger ships higher DPS. Aside from bugs with crew damage/repair and how science abilities work I think the ships are currently balanced reasonably well against one another for PvP, at least, for a system where size is irrelevant.
....
It balances damage output with the ship's flight performance and boff station buff capability. An escort takes a penalty for equipping the biggest, heaviest weapons in the game if they choose to BUT they do have a means of counter-acting that penalty..not completely but there are ways. Cruisers and larger ships receive the benefit of their size and larger power systems... the 'lighter' weapons get boosts while they only have one weapon that is bigger than them they will take a penalty to (DHCs).
The point is to make ships have their role as close to canon as possible. The Defiant and Jemhadar bug ships never one-shotted cruisers...they one-shotted each other. To take out a galaxy class three or four bug ships hit it at once for some time and ended up ramming it to take it out. The defiant in the Sacrifice of Angels episode was not one-shotting galor class cruisers or jemhadar carriers..nor breen cruisers...it was flying around popping enemy escort size ships. In fact the one ship the defiant took out that was cruiser sized was one breen ship they were engaging...and it took them several passes and friendly firepower support from a couple of galaxy class ships to do it.
The balance these changes would bring are quite simply a step towards bringing ships more into focus with their role and ship type. An escort is fast and nimble.. and very small. To give it 100% performance with the heaviest weapon in the game is simply unbalancing. It is why today escorts have such a ridiculous damage output. Dual Cannons oth do just fine ..they still put out a high amount of damage...higher than a cruiser with beams... but it should not be able to put out more damage than a battlecruiser/dread with a facefull of DHC's.
Smaller ships get shafted when it comes to using heavier weapons yes. Larger ships get bonuses from lighter weapons and have no-penalty access to heavier weapons. Balance? Speed, turn rate, boff station damage stacking capability. The escort will remain the premier damage dealer its just that cruisers and heavier ships now present a clear danger to the escort.
One of the main problems with STO is that all ships are balanced as if they were the same size; so you have silly situations where a Tactical Escort Retrofit is ripping an Odyssey to shreds, which shouldn't happen at all. I discussed in a thread of mine a way to scale ships by size without weakening players, by letting you file a group of small ships, or a single capital ship, or some mixture of the two.
I read that. problem with it is too many changes to the core code (ship classification, AI issues, etc).
Regarding weapons limited by ship; it would be nice to see capital ship specification weapons. Specifically, a broadside only weapon (90 degree arc to either side) or a quad beam bank (45 degree arc), these be more powerful than similar weapons to account for the greater difficult in deploying them. So a quad beam bank would actually be stronger than dual cannons/dual heavy cannons, since cruisers will have a much harder time bringing such a weapon to bear. Likewise broadside banks would be better than standard arrays (probably just under dual beam banks) because they far only into the overlap areas, so if you take too many then you're screwed when an enemy is in front or behind. Either that or they'd have the same kinds of basic DPS, but with innate critical chance and critical severity. This wouldn't be unfair to escorts as capital ships would only be able to use them effectively against other slow moving ships (or things that don't move at all), and escorts still have the advantage on tactical abilities and often tactical consoles as well.
Thats the idea except without adding weapons for specific ship sizes, we merely use the existing ones and give them ship-size based pros and cons.
Definately drinking the kool-aid.
His ideas on Escorts are way off and do not even take into consideration the skills, equipment choices and build designs of BOff abilities that accent Escort mobility.
He just harps on the subject without evidence.
All Escorts and Escort hybrids have a higher turn rate than cruisers with an enertia rating to match to show that that these vessels are more nimble than Cruisers as part of thier design.
He player can further enhance this aspect with high skills that effect turn rate, BOffs powers like EvM (with a DOff to lower its CD), cycling ApO to increase turn and speed, A2B to increase Engine power and ApO cool down, A2D for its movement buff or even RCS consoles to increase the vessels turn rate score.
Thier are no magic boots, just already existing game mechanics that smarter players have learned how to use.
The only change I can see that is needed that will effwct Escorts mobility is removing the Movement protection buff from ApO. Then Escorts would suffer the downside again of being Tractored, covered in Warp plasma and other movement debuffs that where once thier weakness.
You offer nothing but speculation and conjecture based on weak testing backed as far as I can tell with no actual experience with the whole STO game mechanic and its numerous little buffs and debuffs.
You are blind to the actual issue.
"doesnt even exist"? are you deliberately ignorant or just uninformed?
the att def spd paradigm is the basis for how the classic mmo classes where supposed to be be balanced
its also the basis for rts balance and the balance schema in other generas.
You're predicating your entire argument on somehow applying mass, tonnage and dimensions to STO ships. Please provide for me those exact specifications on every in-game ship. You can't, because for a majority of STOs ships that data doesn't exist.
wrong, you snide prat.
you just clearly and openly admitted you dont know the first thing about the foundation of game balance.
and to make it funnier, i think you may actually be convinced you had a point.
I'm sorry, whose the one that jumped straight to personal insults instead of actually trying to defend their position with facts and information?
no idea, but if you think you are in any position to use that line on anyone, then you are making yourself out as an ignorant hypocrite, that cant have a discussion without resorting to ad-hom, and mistakenly thinking that's anything other admission of defeat by you.
See above. I've provided counterpoints for your positions, and you respond with nothing but personal insults. Either back up your claims and assertions with information, or stop spewing your venom at people who disagree with you.
I suppose you have source documentation to back up that those aren't 100% made up figures? I see zero citations on any of those links.
I also see you've left out the Centaur, Shi'Kar, Oberth, NX, Nova, Aurora, Quasar, Saber, Rapier, Ushuan, Gladius, Excalibur, Vesper, Exeter, Cheyenne, Dakota, Stargazer, Akira, Oslo, Zephyr, Thunderchild, Olympic, Hope, Horizon, Ambassador, Celestial, Envoy, Venture, Vigilant, Gallant, Sau Paulo, Intrepid, Cochrane, Discover, Bellerophon, Sovereign, Majestic, Noble, Imperial, Regent, Cerberus, Phoenix, Hephaestus, Destiny, Oracle, Trident, Nimbus, Polaris, Sol, Comet, Dervish, Gryphon, Hermes, Maelstrom, Avenger, Vanguard, Emissary, Nomad, Odyssey, Gal-X, Armitage, Chimera, Steamrunner, Vesta, Atrox, Kumari, Charal, and Kyzon classes.
How about the entire Klingon fleet? Do you have dimensions and masses for every one of them?
I'll save you the trouble, you don't. Because the vast majority of the above named classes do not exist outside of STO, and many of those that do have either no official data, or contradictory data as to their mass and dimensions. How exactly do you plan on implementing a system linchpinned by size and tonnage when you can't provide accurate size and tonnage information?
that wouold be you with your 'cool ade' statement followed by my reply to it.
how exactly are any of those excluded by basing a ships stats on its size?
simply, they arent
parroting is not a form of wit, i explained the damage vs agility vs health paradigm, you straw-manned it.
i have provided much more here than the personal pole waving about 'skills' that others have done.
No, you've done nothing but incoherently rage at people who have expressed serious concerns at a radical proposal that would do far more harm to the "balance" that you claim to champion.
im not dancing around anything.
i already explained the balance paradigm that is referenced across the gaming world.
all you have done is use circular argument by basing your assertion on itself
YOU may thing what im saying looks foolish, but at least what i am saying is not afflicted by one of the most common rational fallacies you can ever bring to a debate
And yet you still haven't answered the question, despite repeating the assertion later in the same post. You don't get it both ways.
interpolation and trigonometry are very useful tools.
and if you think for a second that i am going to do all that work just for you to scoff at it through a haze of falatious reasoning then dont bother.
i gave you examples, to establish the premise they can be derived. i have no intention of doing more.
Translation: I don't have the facts requested, and will therefore refuse to talk about my lack of facts.
Secondly, you need a hell of a lot more than a relative size to a known object to accurately calculate things like mass. Or had you not realized that different objects are made from different things and in different internal configurations?
you are clearly just being obtuse.
if you knew what you where talking about you would realise you only need two referenced points of agreement.
for this you only need the in-game models and their unscaled volume to establish relative figures using agreed stats.
like the galaxy and the defiant, from there you can use to derive relative mass values from to determine ship base stats.
its highschool maths.
And we're back to personal attacks. If you don't have the information you're basing your entire position on, just admit it instead of jumping straight at people with insults. Admitting a flawed argument is flawed is a lot more acceptable than continuing to TRIBBLE and moan when people call you out on the gaping holes in your proposal.
I'll also leave you with this little nugget as an example of how relative size calculations based on a single observation are hilariously vague.
"incoherant" basically means without rationality.
i am the only one in this debate who has avoided common rational fallacy,
making your claim baseless and hypocritical, further more you have made more disingenuous assertions in this post, when the only thing i reacted to was the ad-hominem trolling made by you with that condescending "drinking the cool ade" comment of yours.
You were slinging mud at people who disagreed with you long before I entered the conversation. Don't try to pin your vitriol on those who have done little more than identify the massive logical flaws in your argument.
give me 1 good coherent reason,
not the fallacious circular argument you tried earlier,
why my advanced escort
despite being bigger than, BOTH the intrepid AND heavy cruiser
both INGAME and in CANNON,
is granted a crutch to its stats
that lets it out manoeuvre both.
Because it was designed to. The Prometheus is a bleeding edge warship that far outsrips the two classes you're comparing it to.
do you have a rational reason for this disparity?
can you explain why with 3 equally geared ships, the game will grant my advanced escort DEMONSTRABLE dominance in both dps AND agility, in a way that negates the disadvantage of nerrow firing arcs against all but another escort or similar or better agility?
So now DHCs are unbalanced by their narrow firing arcs? Werent you making the argument a few posts ago that the exact opposite was true?
Ok back to OP idea, what if the "warp core module" will be based on ship class?
Cruiser core - bonus power, + various bonuses based on subtype kinda like the differing shields, deflectors,etc... ex( you could select "x" type of cruiser core that would boost your base turn,engineering stats, and negates "x" amount of weapon energy drain)
but only cores for your ship class could be outfitted.
So we could have Science cores, Escort cores, Cruiser cores each with several subtypes the player could then select the best fit for their current needs. This would seem easier since it would essentially grant a special console bonus to the base ship stats, and we know the first go round of whatever it ends up being will be bugged but I would think it would be easier to tweak it for balance as it is a console, most likely in a special slot but still a small group of samples instead of having to go over all the current code to decide "where did we mess that up at?...scratches head"
you used circular reasoning that the numbers ingame make the ship have both dps and agility superiority because that it how it is ingame.
i gave the the dps vs agility vs health model.
now you are just shifting the goalposts to suit yourself
You made an argument, specifically that an Advanced Escort functioning as it does in-game is using a crutch. I have asked you repeatedly how something operating as it was designed to is using a crutch. You have repeatedly refused to answer that question.
who the heck is going to do all that work just to deal with someon being as obtuse as you are and will dismiss it anyway?
and, yea, you must be right, klingons MUST make their ships out of Styrofoam...
when it comes to comparitive technology, opperating in the same physical model, then yes, you can imply mass from relative volume because in order for one ship to easily outmanouver another it must easily out spec the other.
which is not the case with ***** ships all upgraded with mk12 gear.
You've made an argument that in-universe mass and dimensions should dictate, at least in part, in-game stats. You've also refused to adequately provide an accurate means for determining those in-universe mass and dimensions, especially on ships for which said information was never created.
obtuse is not an attack its a discription, if i had made some asinine comment about 'cool ade' that would be an attack.
you have no basis for any of this paragraph since, for you, the best case scenario is that you are guilty of it yourself.
You want asinine comments?
making your claim baseless and hypocritical, further more you have made more disingenuous assertions in this post, when the only thing i reacted to was the ad-hominem trolling made by you
and if you think for a second that i am going to do all that work just for you to scoff at it through a haze of falatious reasoning then dont bother.
theres some of your stats that dont exist
parroting is not a form of wit, i explained the damage vs agility vs health paradigm, you straw-manned it.
i have provided much more here than the personal pole waving about 'skills' that others have done.
And those are just from your last two or three posts. You've done nothing beyond insult and attack anyone who challenges your assumptions, mostly because you seem to have absolutely nothing to back them up with.
yet they still came to an agreed model to use ingame. from which trigonometry and interlopation could be used to derive workable stats. that dont end up with us playing escorts online and waiting for for more ships derived from novels to be added just to proved escort cruisers in the c-store.
which is where the game is going if you didnt notice the vesta.
I must have missed the part where the Akira, Thunderchild and Armitage classes had their stats based on their in-universe dimensions. Oh wait, I didn't, because it didn't happen.
you are being disengenuous again.
the fallacy you are using now is called a "false dichotomy" i did not say you do not need mass and dimentional data, i said you dont need cannon data on all ships.
that you(you should remember this part) only need a few aggreed points of reference, like the galaxy and the defiant.
you can interpolate the rest of the data from there
.
You're the one refusing to use, create or provide canon data, after making a huge deal out of needing canon data, and I'm the one being disingenuous?
il consider acusations of illogic when you arent putting on a parade of common rational fallacy.
you have not found a single hole in my idea, besides "dont like it" and been disengenuous in your debate over it.
See above. I'm not the one basing my argument on a premise that I can't provide facts for, nor am I the one who has contradicted their own argument. In addition, I'm not the one punctuating every other sentence with a personal attack.
no. thats myopic and evades the point of the question.
all i have to do is point out that the t5 saber. if i had that, i would be in an older model ship, and i would still be outperforming the other example ships
to make the flaw in your argument even more aparent.
The Saber was designed and constructed after the Defiant class was. It post-dates both ship's you're comparing it to, and consequently was also designed to be a small, punchy and agile warship.
if i had a fleet HEC,
a ship the that is bigger than the fleet excelsior
and bigger than a fleet luna
i would still be out outperforming them
even if the luna now technically has the same turn rate, it has wrose inertia and a worse impulse modifier
and out of the 3 the luna is now the 'bleeding edge' ship.
Incorrect. The Luna was conceived of in the early 2370s and built only a few years after the end of the Dominion Wars. Not only is it not a warship, it was meant for extended long-range exploration and scientific pursuits. Comparing a research vessel to a warship, which the Akira class absolutely is, and expecting the research ship to function in exactly the same manner is ridiculous.
As for the Excelsior, you're expecting a ship class over a century out of date to outperform a modern warship? Be realistic.
you are strawmanning again.
my argument the entire time has been that dhc's vs beams is balanced by firing arc,
BUT, the turning circle bestowed on big ships, just because they are escorts, neutralises the firing arc limitation.
So it's balanced when you say it's balanced, but it really isn't balanced. Good to know.
I'm sorry, whose the one that has vaccilated between wanting mass and dimensional data, then not wanting it, and arguing that dhcs and beams are balanced, except they're not.
i win, and here is why,
-- if they do not fix the disparity in agility that makes firing arc of DHCs a non issue, people will keep pointing it out.
if people keep pointing it out, it will be sorted by one or a combo of the following
power creep with a buff to beams,
new ships this time escort-cruiser versions of the vesta,
a ''nerf to dhc power use'' (stated preference of the devs)that will TRIBBLE the klingon faction hard.
Word of advice, in a conversation based on facts and information, declaring "I win" does absolutely nothing.
Secondly, it's interesting to see that suddenly dhcs and beams are out of balance, since only a few sentences ago they were apparently balanced.
Thirdly, fixing a power, weapon, ability or mechanic that is not performing as well as it should is not an example of power creep. Which apparently you know since you followed with...
if they do fix it, the agility disparity lays bare the current power creep in passive heals
-making dps set-ups essential, yet not dominant for the same reason few use the gal-x
because getting more nimble targets in your arc is frustrating.
because you are using circular reasoning, i am attempting to get you to understand that.
No, you haven't. You've dodged the issue every single time, either because you don't actually know the answer, or you know the answer will undermine your argument. So for the fourth time: How is a ship functioning in-game exactly as it was designed to using a crutch?
the most obvious one you took is
when the full quote, in context, had links to ship stats.
that, is called intelectual dishonesty, and one of the singular most common forms of it.
You had stats for a tiny fraction of ships. Stats by the way that you cannot provide documentation for. And when asked to provide both said documentation, and stats for other ships, you've completely refused. How intellectually dishonest is flat out fabrication of data?
i used ''description'' of rational fallacy. unlike you whos first instinct was an ad-hominem about 'cool ade'
I'm sorry, do you actually have anything to add, or are you going to continue to go back to a single quote from a post multiple pages ago and use that as an excuse to continually insult me?
gave you the links in that quotemining you did.
you have just lied
I'm sorry, did you provide documentation that random numbers in a wiki article are accurate when there are no citations on said wiki? Did you provide dimensions and masses for the other ship classes?
No you did not. Guess who just lied. That's right, you.
you want a real life example?
the us's iowa class ww2 ship given moders systems
you want an ingame mechanic you reflect this?
lets only allow ships to mount tech of the mark level they get as default.
it doesnt work like that every ship in the game can be fitte with the ''bleeding edge'' in tech, and unlike the baseless advantage the game grants to escorts this one doesnt descriminate for the sake of it.
Every ship ingame isn't a bleeding edge warship. I've never made that argument. You continue to put warships, advanced and otherwise, up against ships absolutely not designed for speed, maneuverability and offensive power. Of course the warships are going to come out in front in those categories.
i at no point stopped claiming DHCs are balanced against beams
i said it seems unbalanced BECAUSE escorts are granted a discriminatory privilege to their turnrate
an advantage only they have, and an advantage that eliminates the narrow firing arc of DHCs for escorts.
And we're back to "it's balanced when I say it's balanced, but not balanced when I want to use it to strengthen my argument".
*face palm*
if you would stop turning my position into something it isnt you would not be surprised by my comment on power creep.
If you would actually post in a coherent, understandable fashion, and stop shifting your positions at the drop of a hat, folks wouldn't be surprised at the occasions where you actually get something right.
to borrow words from your last paragraph and try to phrase my argument differently for you.
the mechanic that is not performing well
is the one that is giving just escorts a bonus to their turn-rate
this bonus to their turn rate has a knock'on effect,
(with me so far? heres the next bit that is the link to the whole firing arc, turn rate vs DPS)
the effect is that makes the DHC firing arc a non issue for them
since for no reason, they can move like ships one quarter their size.
providing what is essentially a game legal 'exploit'.
Finally, the heart of the issue. You don't like escorts being nimble. You could have saved a TRIBBLE ton of time and aggravation by simply stating that, as opposed to trying to fundamentally rewrite the game's mechanics in a completely nonsensical manner based on information that you cannot, or will not, provide.
nonsensical means without sense,
basing their agility on weight is as sensible as you can get without limiting the mk level of gear by ship.
nonsensical would be giving all ships the same access to tech then discriminating with other stats.
So basing an entire balance paradigm around in-universe information, when the overwhelming majority of in-game ships have no such in-universe information makes sense to you?
Simply provide the information you yourself are claiming is necessary, yet for some reason are incapable or unwilling to provide, and the concept won't be nonsensical.
Comments
A ship functioning in-game as it was designed to is now using a crutch?
You do realize that your solution to said "arbitrary decision" (which in fact all forms of game balance are) is to substitute a different arbitrary decision; this time to use a piece of data that, in most cases, doesn't even exist as the basis for your vision of ship balance?
Congratulations on completely ignoring defensive capability and healing potential in your omniscient analysis of game balance.
You and Gecko been drinking the same Kool-Aid?
You can't change the game's core classification system of ships since its built into every weapon, unique item, captain type and other equipment.
Weight of a ship is not indicative of its class either. A ship through its design can be really heavy and still be fast or turn very well.
For simplicity leave the current ship classification as it is. its not based on weight but on boff station layout and weapon slot layout. Aka cmdr tactical slot ships = escorts.
It balances damage output with the ship's flight performance and boff station buff capability. An escort takes a penalty for equipping the biggest, heaviest weapons in the game if they choose to BUT they do have a means of counter-acting that penalty..not completely but there are ways. Cruisers and larger ships receive the benefit of their size and larger power systems... the 'lighter' weapons get boosts while they only have one weapon that is bigger than them they will take a penalty to (DHCs).
The point is to make ships have their role as close to canon as possible. The Defiant and Jemhadar bug ships never one-shotted cruisers...they one-shotted each other. To take out a galaxy class three or four bug ships hit it at once for some time and ended up ramming it to take it out. The defiant in the Sacrifice of Angels episode was not one-shotting galor class cruisers or jemhadar carriers..nor breen cruisers...it was flying around popping enemy escort size ships. In fact the one ship the defiant took out that was cruiser sized was one breen ship they were engaging...and it took them several passes and friendly firepower support from a couple of galaxy class ships to do it.
The balance these changes would bring are quite simply a step towards bringing ships more into focus with their role and ship type. An escort is fast and nimble.. and very small. To give it 100% performance with the heaviest weapon in the game is simply unbalancing. It is why today escorts have such a ridiculous damage output. Dual Cannons oth do just fine ..they still put out a high amount of damage...higher than a cruiser with beams... but it should not be able to put out more damage than a battlecruiser/dread with a facefull of DHC's.
Smaller ships get shafted when it comes to using heavier weapons yes. Larger ships get bonuses from lighter weapons and have no-penalty access to heavier weapons. Balance? Speed, turn rate, boff station damage stacking capability. The escort will remain the premier damage dealer its just that cruisers and heavier ships now present a clear danger to the escort.
I read that. problem with it is too many changes to the core code (ship classification, AI issues, etc).
Thats the idea except without adding weapons for specific ship sizes, we merely use the existing ones and give them ship-size based pros and cons.
His ideas on Escorts are way off and do not even take into consideration the skills, equipment choices and build designs of BOff abilities that accent Escort mobility.
He just harps on the subject without evidence.
All Escorts and Escort hybrids have a higher turn rate than cruisers with an enertia rating to match to show that that these vessels are more nimble than Cruisers as part of thier design.
He player can further enhance this aspect with high skills that effect turn rate, BOffs powers like EvM (with a DOff to lower its CD), cycling ApO to increase turn and speed, A2B to increase Engine power and ApO cool down, A2D for its movement buff or even RCS consoles to increase the vessels turn rate score.
Thier are no magic boots, just already existing game mechanics that smarter players have learned how to use.
The only change I can see that is needed that will effwct Escorts mobility is removing the Movement protection buff from ApO. Then Escorts would suffer the downside again of being Tractored, covered in Warp plasma and other movement debuffs that where once thier weakness.
R.I.P
You are blind to the actual issue.
R.I.P
Nice of you not to answer the question that was asked. How is a ship functioning in-game the exact way it was designed to using a crutch?
You're predicating your entire argument on somehow applying mass, tonnage and dimensions to STO ships. Please provide for me those exact specifications on every in-game ship. You can't, because for a majority of STOs ships that data doesn't exist.
I'm sorry, whose the one that jumped straight to personal insults instead of actually trying to defend their position with facts and information?
I see things like energy efficiency, cycle time, dpv, BOFF skills and drop off aren't concepts you've factored in.
See above. I've provided counterpoints for your positions, and you respond with nothing but personal insults. Either back up your claims and assertions with information, or stop spewing your venom at people who disagree with you.
For the second time now, you've not answered the question:
How is a ship that is functioning in-game as it was designed somehow using a crutch?
Either stop dancing around a question that you know is going to make you look like foolish, or simply admit that your premise was inherently flawed.
I suppose you have source documentation to back up that those aren't 100% made up figures? I see zero citations on any of those links.
I also see you've left out the Centaur, Shi'Kar, Oberth, NX, Nova, Aurora, Quasar, Saber, Rapier, Ushuan, Gladius, Excalibur, Vesper, Exeter, Cheyenne, Dakota, Stargazer, Akira, Oslo, Zephyr, Thunderchild, Olympic, Hope, Horizon, Ambassador, Celestial, Envoy, Venture, Vigilant, Gallant, Sau Paulo, Intrepid, Cochrane, Discover, Bellerophon, Sovereign, Majestic, Noble, Imperial, Regent, Cerberus, Phoenix, Hephaestus, Destiny, Oracle, Trident, Nimbus, Polaris, Sol, Comet, Dervish, Gryphon, Hermes, Maelstrom, Avenger, Vanguard, Emissary, Nomad, Odyssey, Gal-X, Armitage, Chimera, Steamrunner, Vesta, Atrox, Kumari, Charal, and Kyzon classes.
How about the entire Klingon fleet? Do you have dimensions and masses for every one of them?
I'll save you the trouble, you don't. Because the vast majority of the above named classes do not exist outside of STO, and many of those that do have either no official data, or contradictory data as to their mass and dimensions. How exactly do you plan on implementing a system linchpinned by size and tonnage when you can't provide accurate size and tonnage information?
No, you've done nothing but incoherently rage at people who have expressed serious concerns at a radical proposal that would do far more harm to the "balance" that you claim to champion.
R.I.P
And yet you still haven't answered the question, despite repeating the assertion later in the same post. You don't get it both ways.
Translation: I don't have the facts requested, and will therefore refuse to talk about my lack of facts.
Secondly, you need a hell of a lot more than a relative size to a known object to accurately calculate things like mass. Or had you not realized that different objects are made from different things and in different internal configurations?
And we're back to personal attacks. If you don't have the information you're basing your entire position on, just admit it instead of jumping straight at people with insults. Admitting a flawed argument is flawed is a lot more acceptable than continuing to TRIBBLE and moan when people call you out on the gaping holes in your proposal.
I'll also leave you with this little nugget as an example of how relative size calculations based on a single observation are hilariously vague.
So you're now arguing that you don't need mass and dimensional data to balance ships based on mass and dimensional data? Gotta love that logic.
You were slinging mud at people who disagreed with you long before I entered the conversation. Don't try to pin your vitriol on those who have done little more than identify the massive logical flaws in your argument.
Because it was designed to. The Prometheus is a bleeding edge warship that far outsrips the two classes you're comparing it to.
Coherent enough for you?
So now DHCs are unbalanced by their narrow firing arcs? Werent you making the argument a few posts ago that the exact opposite was true?
I don't think so. Despite being at times misguided, Soph at least sticks to a single premise most of the time. This guy is just all over the place.
Ok back to OP idea, what if the "warp core module" will be based on ship class?
Cruiser core - bonus power, + various bonuses based on subtype kinda like the differing shields, deflectors,etc... ex( you could select "x" type of cruiser core that would boost your base turn,engineering stats, and negates "x" amount of weapon energy drain)
but only cores for your ship class could be outfitted.
So we could have Science cores, Escort cores, Cruiser cores each with several subtypes the player could then select the best fit for their current needs. This would seem easier since it would essentially grant a special console bonus to the base ship stats, and we know the first go round of whatever it ends up being will be bugged
Good Hunting
You made an argument, specifically that an Advanced Escort functioning as it does in-game is using a crutch. I have asked you repeatedly how something operating as it was designed to is using a crutch. You have repeatedly refused to answer that question.
Who's moving the goalposts?
You've made an argument that in-universe mass and dimensions should dictate, at least in part, in-game stats. You've also refused to adequately provide an accurate means for determining those in-universe mass and dimensions, especially on ships for which said information was never created.
Whose the one being obtuse?
You want asinine comments?
And those are just from your last two or three posts. You've done nothing beyond insult and attack anyone who challenges your assumptions, mostly because you seem to have absolutely nothing to back them up with.
I must have missed the part where the Akira, Thunderchild and Armitage classes had their stats based on their in-universe dimensions. Oh wait, I didn't, because it didn't happen.
.
You're the one refusing to use, create or provide canon data, after making a huge deal out of needing canon data, and I'm the one being disingenuous?
See above. I'm not the one basing my argument on a premise that I can't provide facts for, nor am I the one who has contradicted their own argument. In addition, I'm not the one punctuating every other sentence with a personal attack.
The Saber was designed and constructed after the Defiant class was. It post-dates both ship's you're comparing it to, and consequently was also designed to be a small, punchy and agile warship.
Incorrect. The Luna was conceived of in the early 2370s and built only a few years after the end of the Dominion Wars. Not only is it not a warship, it was meant for extended long-range exploration and scientific pursuits. Comparing a research vessel to a warship, which the Akira class absolutely is, and expecting the research ship to function in exactly the same manner is ridiculous.
As for the Excelsior, you're expecting a ship class over a century out of date to outperform a modern warship? Be realistic.
So it's balanced when you say it's balanced, but it really isn't balanced. Good to know.
I'm sorry, whose the one that has vaccilated between wanting mass and dimensional data, then not wanting it, and arguing that dhcs and beams are balanced, except they're not.
Does that sound consistent to you?
Word of advice, in a conversation based on facts and information, declaring "I win" does absolutely nothing.
Secondly, it's interesting to see that suddenly dhcs and beams are out of balance, since only a few sentences ago they were apparently balanced.
Thirdly, fixing a power, weapon, ability or mechanic that is not performing as well as it should is not an example of power creep. Which apparently you know since you followed with...
And for once you actually got something correct.
No, you haven't. You've dodged the issue every single time, either because you don't actually know the answer, or you know the answer will undermine your argument. So for the fourth time: How is a ship functioning in-game exactly as it was designed to using a crutch?
You had stats for a tiny fraction of ships. Stats by the way that you cannot provide documentation for. And when asked to provide both said documentation, and stats for other ships, you've completely refused. How intellectually dishonest is flat out fabrication of data?
I'm sorry, do you actually have anything to add, or are you going to continue to go back to a single quote from a post multiple pages ago and use that as an excuse to continually insult me?
So when a situation arises that completely contradicts your argument, suddenly it's magically a strawman? I don't think so.
I'm sorry, did you provide documentation that random numbers in a wiki article are accurate when there are no citations on said wiki? Did you provide dimensions and masses for the other ship classes?
No you did not. Guess who just lied. That's right, you.
Coming from the person who can't make up his mind as to whether DHCs are balanced against beams, that's cute.
Which makes zero difference in it being a fast, maneuverable, and powerful gunship.
Every ship ingame isn't a bleeding edge warship. I've never made that argument. You continue to put warships, advanced and otherwise, up against ships absolutely not designed for speed, maneuverability and offensive power. Of course the warships are going to come out in front in those categories.
You don't actually know what that word means, do you?
And we're back to "it's balanced when I say it's balanced, but not balanced when I want to use it to strengthen my argument".
If you would actually post in a coherent, understandable fashion, and stop shifting your positions at the drop of a hat, folks wouldn't be surprised at the occasions where you actually get something right.
Finally, the heart of the issue. You don't like escorts being nimble. You could have saved a TRIBBLE ton of time and aggravation by simply stating that, as opposed to trying to fundamentally rewrite the game's mechanics in a completely nonsensical manner based on information that you cannot, or will not, provide.
So basing an entire balance paradigm around in-universe information, when the overwhelming majority of in-game ships have no such in-universe information makes sense to you?
Simply provide the information you yourself are claiming is necessary, yet for some reason are incapable or unwilling to provide, and the concept won't be nonsensical.