I feel like the most important issue here is that cruisers need at least the level of protection they have (30-40% damage reduction typically), to perform well.
I guess I don't see what problem Geko is trying to solve. What exactly is the goal here? Are we trying to make cruisers tougher, or everything else less tough? Or just trying to get armor out of the engineering slots so that engineering slots are more exciting? The answer to that will have a big influence on the mechanics of an armor slot... Adding a special armor slot can't cost cruisers protection without badly impacting their gameplay, but at the same time giving all ships the ability to mount equivalent armor protection with a single slot is madness. Would ships have an "armor multiplier" to go with their shield multiplier? Could we still fine tune the thickness and type of our ship's armor?
*frustration* So many ideas, so many questions, so little voice.
An armour slot would be nice either way. The two slots currently being taken up by armour consoles on my cruiser can then be devoted to SIF Generators instead. The only problem is whether or not this would actually be good for cruisers in particular, since making every ship only carry one armour console would actually make cruisers much much worse than they are now. Inversely, this would actually benefit escorts a lot more...
Then there's the issue with Engineering consoles not being particularly useful or not working as well as they should. It would also be nice if EPS Transfer really had an impact on weapon energy recharge rates, but it doesn't seem to do anything useful. Likewise, it seems that Emergency Force Fields is worse than useless; at least Biofunction Monitor has a noticeable impact on the survivability of your crew.
Then there's the issue with Engineering consoles not being particularly useful or not working as well as they should. It would also be nice if EPS Transfer really had an impact on weapon energy recharge rates, but it doesn't seem to do anything useful. Likewise, it seems that Emergency Force Fields is worse than useless; at least Biofunction Monitor has a noticeable impact on the survivability of your crew.
Engineer console choice is terrible at present. RCS consoles especially are a trap for cruiser captains, as the percentage modifier benefits science and escort type vessels far more.
Dedicated slots for armor is a pretty big no-brainer but I still find it really misses the point.
Shields are supposed to be the first line of defense and thus it would be more sensible for the tanking ships to have dedicated slots for shields and armor.
Currently Tactical slots are dedicated towards enhancing damage - that makes sense
Science Slots are dedicated towards enhancing space magic AND shields
Engineering Slots are dedicated towards enhancing power AND armor / resistance
It would seem that Science and Engineering have had way too much crammed into them as a sort of catch all for various console functions.
If you make dedicated slots for shields and armor, science ships can actually fit consoles that boost their science magic effects.
Cruisers can actually fit consoles that boost their power levels to fire those energy hungry beams.
Not to mention that making new slots might actually allow for much bigger and complete sets.
However, it is abundantly obvious that Cryptic severely lack the competence to make such alterations.
Afterall, this is the same fools that thought adding environmental suits into the game would require people to take their existing armor off.
A smart individual would have thought - hey, why not make a specific slot for envirosuits to begin with ?
Engineer console choice is terrible at present. RCS consoles especially are a trap for cruiser captains, as the percentage modifier benefits science and escort type vessels far more.
The consoles that boost engine, aux, shield or weapons power directly have always been moderately useful.
RCS consoles do what they're supposed to do well enough. (Yeah escorts get a bigger boost from them, but escorts also don't really need to use them at all).
Engi consoles are far more flexible than tactical consoels, for instance, which only do one thing. Just one thing.
And science consoles have been tweaked so many times, their usefulness is still all over the map.
Engineer console choice is terrible at present. RCS consoles especially are a trap for cruiser captains, as the percentage modifier benefits science and escort type vessels far more.
Boosting power to one subsystem can be useful, but I feel that they're overshadowed by armour consoles. Two slots that would originally go to armour consoles can then be replaced by two Field Emitters, which would mean up to an additional +8 Shield power. This is one reason why I would support separating armour consoles from Engineering, because then these moderately useful consoles would be somewhat viable choices. It would also allow cruisers to actually have a noticeable advantage in power levels over other ships, which I feel is lacking at the moment. That being said, I do wonder if a buff to power consoles is necessary as well...
Furthermore, the slots then freed up would actually make SIF and RCS viable options, since they're not competing with the infinitely better and more essential armour consoles. So what if RCS is more effective on escorts and science vessels; if you find the RCS helps your turnrate by a measurable amount, then why not go for it? Again, the only caveat is whether or not cruisers do actually get a measurable benefit out of moving armour consoles to a separate slot, as opposed to simply benefiting escorts more. If the latter is the case, then we're pretty much going back to square one.
RCS consoles do what they're supposed to do well enough. (Yeah escorts get a bigger boost from them, but escorts also don't really need to use them at all).
Engi consoles are far more flexible than tactical consoels, for instance, which only do one thing. Just one thing.
I can't say I agree that RCS consoles do what they are supposed to do when the ships that most desperately need the agility gain next to not benefit from having them, and the ships that have the greatest benefit have the least need for them.
And since this game is all about DPSing everything into scrap before it overwhelms you, the "just one thing" that tactical consoles do is insanely valuable. As somebody said earlier, they throw their universal consoles into engineering because +damage and +shields are just too essential.
I can't say I agree that RCS consoles do what they are supposed to do when the ships that most desperately need the agility gain next to not benefit from having them, and the ships that have the greatest benefit have the least need for them.
And since this game is all about DPSing everything into scrap before it overwhelms you, the "just one thing" that tactical consoles do is insanely valuable. As somebody said earlier, they throw their universal consoles into engineering because +damage and +shields are just too essential.
...unless you're a beam cruiser captain, in which case Tactical Console slots do nothing for you!
I really like the idea, but i thinking of it as something not just for Cruiser but all ships. I've felt the idea that a Warp Core to separate out the Warp/Impulse effects for ships was much needed, and I see this as a similar opportunity.
I see two alternate options to just a purely Light, Medium, Heavy Armour.
Armour Slot: All ships get a Hull Armour slot in balance with the original goal of a ships classification. Escorts can Slot light armour (Which may provide a boost to weapon systems in addition to the small armour bonus), Science vessels can slot up to Medium Armour (which has a moderate boost to Aux or something) and Cruisers can slot up to Heavy Armour (Pure armourness). This would allow Cruisers to use their Eng slots for other things, but similarly give a player the option of slotting a less heavy armour for a different secondary benefit.
Hull Slot: Rather than call it armour make it a "Hull Hardpoint" and allow the various categories to gain appropriate items, Heavy Armour for cruisers, 2nd Deflector for Sci, RCS Overthrusters or [insert other item here] for escorts (something which adds to a escorts ability to dodge fire, not just more turn). You could similarly allow hybrid items to go in this slot.
As for the existing armours, they could become crew damage mitigation consoles or simply a percentage multiplier to the new Hull Armour Slot. I would though love to see all the Engineering consoles especially the +Power consoles to be re-examined so they provide benefits which aren't capped or which feel less pointless over RCS, Universals and Neutroniums.
I really like the idea, but i thinking of it as something not just for Cruiser but all ships. I've felt the idea that a Warp Core to separate out the Warp/Impulse effects for ships was much needed, and I see this as a similar opportunity.
I see two alternate options to just a purely Light, Medium, Heavy Armour.
Armour Slot: All ships get a Hull Armour slot in balance with the original goal of a ships classification. Escorts can Slot light armour (Which may provide a boost to weapon systems in addition to the small armour bonus), Science vessels can slot up to Medium Armour (which has a moderate boost to Aux or something) and Cruisers can slot up to Heavy Armour (Pure armourness). This would allow Cruisers to use their Eng slots for other things, but similarly give a player the option of slotting a less heavy armour for a different secondary benefit.
Hull Slot: Rather than call it armour make it a "Hull Hardpoint" and allow the various categories to gain appropriate items, Heavy Armour for cruisers, 2nd Deflector for Sci, RCS Overthrusters or [insert other item here] for escorts (something which adds to a escorts ability to dodge fire, not just more turn). You could similarly allow hybrid items to go in this slot.
As for the existing armours, they could become crew damage mitigation consoles or simply a percentage multiplier to the new Hull Armour Slot. I would though love to see all the Engineering consoles especially the +Power consoles to be re-examined so they provide benefits which aren't capped or which feel less pointless over RCS, Universals and Neutroniums.
- Raith
Overcomplicating things; keep it simple.
Move armour consoles to their own dedicated slot. Birds of Prey, Escorts and Science Vessels have one (maybe two) slots, while Cruisers have two (maybe three) slots. Hybrid vessels receive armour console slots depending on their primary boff emphasis, or whichever number of slots at the developer's discretion. Shuttlecraft get one slot.
Alternative to consider is implementing a multiplier or tiered system, whereby ship classification will determine how much of a benefit that an armour console provides. If a cruiser gets a bonus of 25% from a console, then an escort and science vessel might get a bonus of 20%. As for talk of "heavy" armour consoles, I would like to know what would differentiate them from regular consoles, and why people would consider putting them in.
I really like the idea, but i thinking of it as something not just for Cruiser but all ships. I've felt the idea that a Warp Core to separate out the Warp/Impulse effects for ships was much needed, and I see this as a similar opportunity.
I see two alternate options to just a purely Light, Medium, Heavy Armour.
Armour Slot: All ships get a Hull Armour slot in balance with the original goal of a ships classification. Escorts can Slot light armour (Which may provide a boost to weapon systems in addition to the small armour bonus), Science vessels can slot up to Medium Armour (which has a moderate boost to Aux or something) and Cruisers can slot up to Heavy Armour (Pure armourness). This would allow Cruisers to use their Eng slots for other things, but similarly give a player the option of slotting a less heavy armour for a different secondary benefit.
Hull Slot: Rather than call it armour make it a "Hull Hardpoint" and allow the various categories to gain appropriate items, Heavy Armour for cruisers, 2nd Deflector for Sci, RCS Overthrusters or [insert other item here] for escorts (something which adds to a escorts ability to dodge fire, not just more turn). You could similarly allow hybrid items to go in this slot.
As for the existing armours, they could become crew damage mitigation consoles or simply a percentage multiplier to the new Hull Armour Slot. I would though love to see all the Engineering consoles especially the +Power consoles to be re-examined so they provide benefits which aren't capped or which feel less pointless over RCS, Universals and Neutroniums.
- Raith
I like this idea a lot. Only thing I disagree is making the stuff for escorts be more defense or more dps. Let them have much better turn and accuracy instead. I LOVE the idea of science ships receiving a second deflector. Auxiliary Deflector Arrays..these arrays available with only 2 deflector stats which they boost significantly. (+50 and up). Who knows, maybe science might be functional then?
A normie goes "Oh, what's this?"
An otaku goes "UwU, what's this?"
A furry goes "OwO, what's this?"
A werewolf goes "Awoo, what's this?"
"It's nothing personal, I just don't feel like I've gotten to know a person until I've sniffed their crotch." "We said 'no' to Mr. Curiosity. We're not home. Curiosity is not welcome, it is not to be invited in. Curiosity...is bad. It gets you in trouble, it gets you killed, and more importantly...it makes you poor!"
Passion and Serenity are one.
I gain power by understanding both.
In the chaos of their battle, I bring order.
I am a shadow, darkness born from light.
The Force is united within me.
Balance what you already have in the game. Maybe if cruiser beams were not so suck tastic for the average player your regent would have sold a bit better. Or if the fleet version wasn't tier 5 SB.
I mean it really is just a mirror of the KDF Fleet cruiser (tier 2 btw) boff layout and stats minus DHCs. One ship is highly praised the other didn't sell very well.
Doesn't exactly take a rocket scientist or a doctorate in physiology to figure this one out. But no instead we get the...
Cruisers are unpopular because their beam damage is low so I know we'll make them even more tanky that'll fix it!
Bah.
(PS) Second Sci Deflector is a really good idea tho aside from the obvious double two set piece advantage I doubt they could code around or take into account with balance. Perhaps just let Sci vessels double the bonuses from the deflector would be a better idea.
This was the only really on point posting in this whole thread if you ask me. Cruisers habe no problem tanking so why should anything get better for them if you make them ehen better tanks than they already are? My engi captain and his oddy can basically tank almost everything from taccubes gates borg-neghvars whatever.
Escorts where OP at some point in the past so people started buying more escorts up go the point where cryptic now thinks they have to make more and more escorts because they sell better. Make a cruiser with beams that use engine power and the dmg of single cannons or whatever something like that and im quite sure it will sell as well as any escort.
In one interview stahl said there where klingon ships where they lost money... Well im quite sure its one of those useless T1-T3 ships or something else useless. Its outright funny to think they wonder why all those totally useless ships dont sell.. Only very few people pay 2500 zen for a wide angle torpedo launcher ...
And well lets be honest.. Cruisers NEED a torpedo launcher like that otherwise its just plain useless because you have to usw broadsides.. Or well just switch to single cannons or something. So they basically criple every ship class other than escorts. Like with the vesta and the aux cannons where there is basically nothing out there making sence for the aft slots ecept ofc the cutting beam. Before the nerf to the tricobalt mines one at least could use those but now its just plain and simple stupi to usw the aux cannons in there.
I've spent the past week running my Mirror Universe Star Cruiser (so it LOOKS like an Imperial but plays like a Nomad) through elite STFs.
I have 6 ranks in threat.
But since it's a star cruiser I have only 2 tac BOFF powers and 2 tactical consoles.
I'm not that good at damage.
But good lord this thing can take a beating. It's an Engineer captain flying it so there's even more defense abilities at the character's disposal, but sheesh, I only need that when fighting off like two 3-man squads of raptors, or 3 spheres and some probes or whatever.
I've spent about 5 solid days keeping the IKS Kang alive. The ship does its job. It tanks. It supports.
Makes me wonder what Armor consoles really bring to the table? I don't know. Depends on what else happens. Like will it be stacked on top of the armor I already equip? Or will it remove armor to that new console, and let me run like +shield or +weapons power consoles?
But yeah, tanking? Cruisers already have a good handle on that. At this point I think Borg-Donatra, the Assimilated Carrier, and the Queen must hate my ship. Heh.
EDIT: I'm not saying Cruisers are fine. I'm not saying beams are fine. I'm only saying "tanking" is fine. I've also been running another character through elite STFs with my Intrepid Retrofit, to get a handle on what Science can bring to the table. That's been an interesting experience. But still the most relaxed and easy time I have in STFs is still my tactical character in his Charal. Pew Pew Pew is easy on the brain.
I've spent the past week running my Mirror Universe Star Cruiser (so it LOOKS like an Imperial but plays like a Nomad) through elite STFs.
I have 6 ranks in threat.
But since it's a star cruiser I have only 2 tac BOFF powers and 2 tactical consoles.
I'm not that good at damage.
But good lord this thing can take a beating. It's an Engineer captain flying it so there's even more defense abilities at the character's disposal, but sheesh, I only need that when fighting off like two 3-man squads of raptors, or 3 spheres and some probes or whatever.
I've spent about 5 solid days keeping the IKS Kang alive. The ship does its job. It tanks. It supports.
Makes me wonder what Armor consoles really bring to the table? I don't know. Depends on what else happens. Like will it be stacked on top of the armor I already equip? Or will it remove armor to that new console, and let me run like +shield or +weapons power consoles?
But yeah, tanking? Cruisers already have a good handle on that. At this point I think Borg-Donatra, the Assimilated Carrier, and the Queen must hate my ship. Heh.
EDIT: I'm not saying Cruisers are fine. I'm not saying beams are fine. I'm only saying "tanking" is fine. I've also been running another character through elite STFs with my Intrepid Retrofit, to get a handle on what Science can bring to the table. That's been an interesting experience. But still the most relaxed and easy time I have in STFs is still my tactical character in his Charal. Pew Pew Pew is easy on the brain.
Cruisers are amazing at tanking and wonderful support ships. Even the tactically oriented ones are like that. The only catch here is that in most cases, tanking and support are generally unnecessary in almost all end-game PvE content. There are escorts that can do both of those roles well enough that the little bit more that cruisers have isn't needed.
On a semi-related note, does anyone remember the reasoning why the + x power to subsystem consoles were nerfed to uselessness?
Too powerful. They used to give +8 at mk XII purple I believe, someone will have to confirm/deny this, and as you can imagine, it was considered too much and subsequently nerfed.
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.
I guess what we really need is enemys shooting at more than one target. Then while my ceuiser is still tanking most of the dmg the escorts and every other ship would get dmg as well and then the armor slot thing to have escorts take more dmg from that.
I feel the goal should be that without a cruiser to tank the main dmg escorts should be limited to hit and run tactics. And if a cruiser is present the escorts still geht enough hurt to force them away if no cruiser/sci is supporting them with heals/enemy debuffs/asf..
That would be at least in my point of view be an optimal situation where no class is really needed but if present can function in a vital role. As long as escorts can tank enough themselves cruisers are just useless. And just to be honest, when i fly my escort and the best thing to do is just park my ship like 1km away directly in front of my enemy is the best tactic for me I really find it boring as hell.
Maybe if defence would be more important for escorts to be able to do their dmg it would force them to move around constantly and thus limit their dmg potential.
If they moved hull resists to the "new" armor slots while turning existing resist consoles into some sort of new defensive console set (shield resists, additional defense, etc.) things could get very interesting.
RCS consoles do what they're supposed to do well enough. (Yeah escorts get a bigger boost from them, but escorts also don't really need to use them at all).
I know we're having a PvE focused "Ultimate DPS Cruiser Tank that needs no one" thread, but seriously in PvP RCS consoles are very important to Escort performance.
Fix #1
NPCs should.... actually move...at something more than the pace of a comatose snail.
Less completely stationary gigantic HP meatsacks, more nimble and fast NPCs and suddenly wider arc weapons make a bit more sense, and narrow arc weapons have to work a bit harder to stay on target.
Fix #2
NPC should have higher average damage, and lower spikes.
Right now NPCs have two damage modes "tickle" and "mega one-shot". (credit goes to poster inktomi19)
Both of these make healing and tanking unneeded because one of them you don't need to tank, and the other one you can't tank.
Two massive issues with the design of the PvE environment that are at the root cause of 80% of all Cruiser complaints.
I can't say I agree that RCS consoles do what they are supposed to do when the ships that most desperately need the agility gain next to not benefit from having them, and the ships that have the greatest benefit have the least need for them.
Unfortunately poorly designed PvE combat has taught many players that Escorts don't need more turn rate and Cruisers with 250 degree arc weapons do.
If that torp was a C-store only unlock you'd better believe almost every player that has a cruiser would get it, provided it wasn't a cash gouge like the 180 missiles in the lobi store are.
You'd better believe it! I'd consider paying as much as 500 Zen for the wide-arc torp launcher -- per launcher, as long as the thing was account bound and not character bound.
Harder to justify a $25 purchase for a cruiser I really don't need or want just for the weapon.
My views may not represent those of Cryptic Studios or Perfect World Entertainment. You can file a "forums and website" support ticket here Link: How to PM - Twitter @STOMod_Bluegeek
You'd better believe it! I'd consider paying as much as 500 Zen for the wide-arc torp launcher -- per launcher, as long as the thing was account bound and not character bound.
Harder to justify a $25 purchase for a cruiser I really don't need or want just for the weapon.
The reason a lot of people I know got the Regent was not for the wide-angle quantum, but for the BOff & console layout and added power to weapons (and a few for the looks). I got it for the wide-angle and the subsequent discount on the Fleet version.
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 reason a lot of people I know got the Regent was not for the wide-angle quantum, but for the BOff & console layout and added power to weapons (and a few for the looks). I got it for the wide-angle and the subsequent discount on the Fleet version.
Not to mention an account-wide RA level cruiser that's infinitely claimable, as opposed to a one shot dilith purchase that's valued at nearly half (at present exchange rates) of the value of said c-store ship.
Too powerful. They used to give +8 at mk XII purple I believe, someone will have to confirm/deny this, and as you can imagine, it was considered too much and subsequently nerfed.
A) Few people had the mk xii Purps
They over-nerfed.
C) Is +8 (when with a mk xii Purp, which wassn't common at the time) really that much of a game changer?
A) Few people had the mk xii Purps Mk XII purples are rare as hell to begin with XD.
They over-nerfed. Typical of Cryptic.
C) Is +8 (when with a mk xii Purp, which wasn't common at the time) really that much of a game changer? That's enough to nullify an entire BA. And at the time power drain worked differently, with recharges being over time, not instant. So basically a combination of the power boosters plus an EPS allowed certain ships with lots of engi slots to basically have their weapons power consistently high. Even in current game setup, an extra +8 power would be enough to keep even an 8 BA ship above 100 pretty easily.
Answers in red.
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.
I got the Regent because I thought it would be a better offensive cruiser than the Sovereign, that it would handle in a similar way, and because I thought the Wide-Angle Quantum would be useful.
Turns out it is a completely different bag of bones from the regular Sovereign, that the offensive capability is in some ways harder to build, and that the Wide-Angle Quantum doesn't work out as well as I thought it would. I get the impression that in some respects, I would have been better off keeping my old Sovereign or going for an Excelsior instead. That being said, I do appreciate that the Lt Cmdr Tactical opens up a lot of opportunities to boost damage.
I've been thinking about this myself since the first time I heard about it in that four hour interview and I think an armor slot would be great, but would look at doing a little more than armor/heavy armor. I would instead do something like this:
- Light Armor
- Medium Armor
- Heavy Armor
Each armor "weight" is designed for a specific ship type - Escort, Science, and Cruiser respectively - but there is no restriction as to what ship can equip what kind of armor...there are, however, bonuses and penalties depending on what type you equip.
Initial thought is an integer buff/debuff to base turn rate depending on the ship. My initial thoughts were something +3 for each weight down you go from your ship's designated armor type and a -3 for each weight up. So an escort could equip a Heavy Armor, but would suffer a -6 penalty to base turn rate while, conversely a cruiser equipping light armor would gain a +6 to base turn rate. The values may be a bit too large for gameplay balance, but it's an initial thought only - I haven't given much thought to how the KDF would be handled but my initial thought is that battlecruisers are set as Medium Armor types with BoPs and Raptors being Light Armors (though maybe an "ultra-light" variant that is unique to BoPs?)
Additionally instead of the complex equation that is currently used, armor equips and the skills from the skill tree should be converted to percentages so that they're much more intuitive to use.
I also liked Geko's offhand comment about turning current resist consoles into +HP consoles for hull in the same interview.
I got the Regent because I thought it would be a better offensive cruiser than the Sovereign, that it would handle in a similar way, and because I thought the Wide-Angle Quantum would be useful.
Turns out it is a completely different bag of bones from the regular Sovereign, that the offensive capability is in some ways harder to build, and that the Wide-Angle Quantum doesn't work out as well as I thought it would. I get the impression that in some respects, I would have been better off keeping my old Sovereign or going for an Excelsior instead. That being said, I do appreciate that the Lt Cmdr Tactical opens up a lot of opportunities to boost damage.
The Sovvy and Regent are exactly the same bar these differences:
Regent has +10 power to weapons, shields, and Aux. Sovereign has +5 power to all subsystems. Regent has a different BOff layout. Regent turns slightly slower (sprite image is larger, and it doesn't have that other 5 power to engines the Sovvy has, and as such, moves a little more slowly).
The Regent is not as tanky as the Sovereign, but hits quite a bit harder. However, other than that small trade-off, they are identical in ability.
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.
First, let?s take Warp Cores out of the discussion. If STO gets a Warp Core, it will have little to do with armor.
Here is the bottom line we are discussing internally:
? We want to add a ship armor slot. Having more itemization is good
? Armor means Damage Resistance (to be consistent with ground Armor). Other enhancement bonuses can be available
? We don?t want to raise the survivability of every ship in the game.
? We feel Cruisers could use an increase in survivability.
? Armor could be added as a set piece.
? Armor could offer a ship material change.
So two options we are discussing:
Option 1:
? Only Cruisers Get Armor.
? No other changes needed (simple).
? We couldn't integrate armor as set piece for everyone, but it could possibly become part of a set only usable by cruisers.
Option 2:
? Everyone gets an Armor slot, but Cruisers can equip Heavy Armor.
? This is dangerous b/c it potentially raises the survivability of every ship in the game. To do this, Armor consoles would have to be changed. They would have to be something that is not related to damage mitigation (so not damage resistance, or bonus HP, or defense). The consoles would have to change to something new, or existing.
? Basic Armor could have lots of options and types, but in general, the damage resistance bonus would be equivalent to about 2 to 3 engineering consoles (for white quality - higher qualities could be better). Heavy armor would be worth much more.
So bottom line, would you be willing to loose Engineering Damage Resistance consoles for an armor slot that gives you about the same resistance, but also offers you more options.
First, let?s take Warp Cores out of the discussion. If STO gets a Warp Core, it will have little to do with armor.
Here is the bottom line we are discussing internally:
? We want to add a ship armor slot. Having more itemization is good
? Armor means Damage Resistance (to be consistent with ground Armor). Other enhancement bonuses can be available
? We don?t want to raise the survivability of every ship in the game.
? We feel Cruisers could use an increase in survivability.
? Armor could be added as a set piece.
? Armor could offer a ship material change.
So two options we are discussing:
Option 1:
? Only Cruisers Get Armor.
? No other changes needed (simple).
? We couldn't integrate armor as set piece for everyone, but it could possibly become part of a set only usable by cruisers.
Option 2:
? Everyone gets an Armor slot, but Cruisers can equip Heavy Armor.
? This is dangerous b/c it potentially raises the survivability of every ship in the game. To do this, Armor consoles would have to be changed. They would have to be something that is not related to damage mitigation (so not damage resistance, or bonus HP, or defense). The consoles would have to change to something new, or existing.
? Basic Armor could have lots of options and types, but in general, the damage resistance bonus would be equivalent to about 2 to 3 engineering consoles (for white quality - higher qualities could be better). Heavy armor would be worth much more.
So bottom line, would you be willing to loose Engineering Damage Resistance consoles for an armor slot that gives you about the same resistance, but also offers you more options.
So what would the difference be between regular armor consoles and heavy armor? Because as is, regular armor consoles already give you more than enough survivability in PvE regardless of ship class.
In order to really put cruisers apart, you'd need to have some huge differences.
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.
So two options we are discussing:
Option 1:
? Only Cruisers Get Armor.
? No other changes needed (simple).
? We couldn't integrate armor as set piece for everyone, but it could possibly become part of a set only usable by cruisers.
Option 2:
? Everyone gets an Armor slot, but Cruisers can equip Heavy Armor.
? This is dangerous b/c it potentially raises the survivability of every ship in the game. To do this, Armor consoles would have to be changed. They would have to be something that is not related to damage mitigation (so not damage resistance, or bonus HP, or defense). The consoles would have to change to something new, or existing.
? Basic Armor could have lots of options and types, but in general, the damage resistance bonus would be equivalent to about 2 to 3 engineering consoles (for white quality - higher qualities could be better). Heavy armor would be worth much more.
So bottom line, would you be willing to loose Engineering Damage Resistance consoles for an armor slot that gives you about the same resistance, but also offers you more options.
While it is a more drastic change, I personally would rather see Option 2. Since there are canon reasons where class-specific non-cruisers had exotic armor available that should be usable only on that type. (Defiant had its special Ablative armor, Intrepid had the replicated armor)
I also like the notion of having another way to alter the appearance of a ship.
I would also like to see new Engineering consoles that have more to do with improving other systems than damage mitigation. I would gladly let my Neutronium armor turn into something else generally usable or turned into a generic prototype that can be cashed in for something else (marks, EC, etc).
Comments
An armour slot would be nice either way. The two slots currently being taken up by armour consoles on my cruiser can then be devoted to SIF Generators instead. The only problem is whether or not this would actually be good for cruisers in particular, since making every ship only carry one armour console would actually make cruisers much much worse than they are now. Inversely, this would actually benefit escorts a lot more...
Then there's the issue with Engineering consoles not being particularly useful or not working as well as they should. It would also be nice if EPS Transfer really had an impact on weapon energy recharge rates, but it doesn't seem to do anything useful. Likewise, it seems that Emergency Force Fields is worse than useless; at least Biofunction Monitor has a noticeable impact on the survivability of your crew.
Engineer console choice is terrible at present. RCS consoles especially are a trap for cruiser captains, as the percentage modifier benefits science and escort type vessels far more.
Shields are supposed to be the first line of defense and thus it would be more sensible for the tanking ships to have dedicated slots for shields and armor.
Currently Tactical slots are dedicated towards enhancing damage - that makes sense
Science Slots are dedicated towards enhancing space magic AND shields
Engineering Slots are dedicated towards enhancing power AND armor / resistance
It would seem that Science and Engineering have had way too much crammed into them as a sort of catch all for various console functions.
If you make dedicated slots for shields and armor, science ships can actually fit consoles that boost their science magic effects.
Cruisers can actually fit consoles that boost their power levels to fire those energy hungry beams.
Not to mention that making new slots might actually allow for much bigger and complete sets.
However, it is abundantly obvious that Cryptic severely lack the competence to make such alterations.
Afterall, this is the same fools that thought adding environmental suits into the game would require people to take their existing armor off.
A smart individual would have thought - hey, why not make a specific slot for envirosuits to begin with ?
RCS consoles do what they're supposed to do well enough. (Yeah escorts get a bigger boost from them, but escorts also don't really need to use them at all).
Engi consoles are far more flexible than tactical consoels, for instance, which only do one thing. Just one thing.
And science consoles have been tweaked so many times, their usefulness is still all over the map.
Boosting power to one subsystem can be useful, but I feel that they're overshadowed by armour consoles. Two slots that would originally go to armour consoles can then be replaced by two Field Emitters, which would mean up to an additional +8 Shield power. This is one reason why I would support separating armour consoles from Engineering, because then these moderately useful consoles would be somewhat viable choices. It would also allow cruisers to actually have a noticeable advantage in power levels over other ships, which I feel is lacking at the moment. That being said, I do wonder if a buff to power consoles is necessary as well...
Furthermore, the slots then freed up would actually make SIF and RCS viable options, since they're not competing with the infinitely better and more essential armour consoles. So what if RCS is more effective on escorts and science vessels; if you find the RCS helps your turnrate by a measurable amount, then why not go for it? Again, the only caveat is whether or not cruisers do actually get a measurable benefit out of moving armour consoles to a separate slot, as opposed to simply benefiting escorts more. If the latter is the case, then we're pretty much going back to square one.
I can't say I agree that RCS consoles do what they are supposed to do when the ships that most desperately need the agility gain next to not benefit from having them, and the ships that have the greatest benefit have the least need for them.
And since this game is all about DPSing everything into scrap before it overwhelms you, the "just one thing" that tactical consoles do is insanely valuable. As somebody said earlier, they throw their universal consoles into engineering because +damage and +shields are just too essential.
...unless you're a beam cruiser captain, in which case Tactical Console slots do nothing for you!
I see two alternate options to just a purely Light, Medium, Heavy Armour.
Armour Slot: All ships get a Hull Armour slot in balance with the original goal of a ships classification. Escorts can Slot light armour (Which may provide a boost to weapon systems in addition to the small armour bonus), Science vessels can slot up to Medium Armour (which has a moderate boost to Aux or something) and Cruisers can slot up to Heavy Armour (Pure armourness). This would allow Cruisers to use their Eng slots for other things, but similarly give a player the option of slotting a less heavy armour for a different secondary benefit.
Hull Slot: Rather than call it armour make it a "Hull Hardpoint" and allow the various categories to gain appropriate items, Heavy Armour for cruisers, 2nd Deflector for Sci, RCS Overthrusters or [insert other item here] for escorts (something which adds to a escorts ability to dodge fire, not just more turn). You could similarly allow hybrid items to go in this slot.
As for the existing armours, they could become crew damage mitigation consoles or simply a percentage multiplier to the new Hull Armour Slot. I would though love to see all the Engineering consoles especially the +Power consoles to be re-examined so they provide benefits which aren't capped or which feel less pointless over RCS, Universals and Neutroniums.
- Raith
Overcomplicating things; keep it simple.
Move armour consoles to their own dedicated slot. Birds of Prey, Escorts and Science Vessels have one (maybe two) slots, while Cruisers have two (maybe three) slots. Hybrid vessels receive armour console slots depending on their primary boff emphasis, or whichever number of slots at the developer's discretion. Shuttlecraft get one slot.
Alternative to consider is implementing a multiplier or tiered system, whereby ship classification will determine how much of a benefit that an armour console provides. If a cruiser gets a bonus of 25% from a console, then an escort and science vessel might get a bonus of 20%. As for talk of "heavy" armour consoles, I would like to know what would differentiate them from regular consoles, and why people would consider putting them in.
I like this idea a lot. Only thing I disagree is making the stuff for escorts be more defense or more dps. Let them have much better turn and accuracy instead. I LOVE the idea of science ships receiving a second deflector. Auxiliary Deflector Arrays..these arrays available with only 2 deflector stats which they boost significantly. (+50 and up). Who knows, maybe science might be functional then?
uh, no...escorts already have ridiculous amounts of defense as it is, making them nearly impossible to hit; they don't need more
#LegalizeAwoo
A normie goes "Oh, what's this?"
An otaku goes "UwU, what's this?"
A furry goes "OwO, what's this?"
A werewolf goes "Awoo, what's this?"
"It's nothing personal, I just don't feel like I've gotten to know a person until I've sniffed their crotch."
"We said 'no' to Mr. Curiosity. We're not home. Curiosity is not welcome, it is not to be invited in. Curiosity...is bad. It gets you in trouble, it gets you killed, and more importantly...it makes you poor!"
This was the only really on point posting in this whole thread if you ask me. Cruisers habe no problem tanking so why should anything get better for them if you make them ehen better tanks than they already are? My engi captain and his oddy can basically tank almost everything from taccubes gates borg-neghvars whatever.
Escorts where OP at some point in the past so people started buying more escorts up go the point where cryptic now thinks they have to make more and more escorts because they sell better. Make a cruiser with beams that use engine power and the dmg of single cannons or whatever something like that and im quite sure it will sell as well as any escort.
In one interview stahl said there where klingon ships where they lost money... Well im quite sure its one of those useless T1-T3 ships or something else useless. Its outright funny to think they wonder why all those totally useless ships dont sell.. Only very few people pay 2500 zen for a wide angle torpedo launcher ...
And well lets be honest.. Cruisers NEED a torpedo launcher like that otherwise its just plain useless because you have to usw broadsides.. Or well just switch to single cannons or something. So they basically criple every ship class other than escorts. Like with the vesta and the aux cannons where there is basically nothing out there making sence for the aft slots ecept ofc the cutting beam. Before the nerf to the tricobalt mines one at least could use those but now its just plain and simple stupi to usw the aux cannons in there.
Well just my opinion but thats how i see it..
I have 6 ranks in threat.
But since it's a star cruiser I have only 2 tac BOFF powers and 2 tactical consoles.
I'm not that good at damage.
But good lord this thing can take a beating. It's an Engineer captain flying it so there's even more defense abilities at the character's disposal, but sheesh, I only need that when fighting off like two 3-man squads of raptors, or 3 spheres and some probes or whatever.
I've spent about 5 solid days keeping the IKS Kang alive. The ship does its job. It tanks. It supports.
Makes me wonder what Armor consoles really bring to the table? I don't know. Depends on what else happens. Like will it be stacked on top of the armor I already equip? Or will it remove armor to that new console, and let me run like +shield or +weapons power consoles?
But yeah, tanking? Cruisers already have a good handle on that. At this point I think Borg-Donatra, the Assimilated Carrier, and the Queen must hate my ship. Heh.
EDIT: I'm not saying Cruisers are fine. I'm not saying beams are fine. I'm only saying "tanking" is fine. I've also been running another character through elite STFs with my Intrepid Retrofit, to get a handle on what Science can bring to the table. That's been an interesting experience. But still the most relaxed and easy time I have in STFs is still my tactical character in his Charal. Pew Pew Pew is easy on the brain.
Cruisers are amazing at tanking and wonderful support ships. Even the tactically oriented ones are like that. The only catch here is that in most cases, tanking and support are generally unnecessary in almost all end-game PvE content. There are escorts that can do both of those roles well enough that the little bit more that cruisers have isn't needed.
Too powerful. They used to give +8 at mk XII purple I believe, someone will have to confirm/deny this, and as you can imagine, it was considered too much and subsequently nerfed.
I feel the goal should be that without a cruiser to tank the main dmg escorts should be limited to hit and run tactics. And if a cruiser is present the escorts still geht enough hurt to force them away if no cruiser/sci is supporting them with heals/enemy debuffs/asf..
That would be at least in my point of view be an optimal situation where no class is really needed but if present can function in a vital role. As long as escorts can tank enough themselves cruisers are just useless. And just to be honest, when i fly my escort and the best thing to do is just park my ship like 1km away directly in front of my enemy is the best tactic for me I really find it boring as hell.
Maybe if defence would be more important for escorts to be able to do their dmg it would force them to move around constantly and thus limit their dmg potential.
I know we're having a PvE focused "Ultimate DPS Cruiser Tank that needs no one" thread, but seriously in PvP RCS consoles are very important to Escort performance.
Fix #1
NPCs should.... actually move...at something more than the pace of a comatose snail.
Less completely stationary gigantic HP meatsacks, more nimble and fast NPCs and suddenly wider arc weapons make a bit more sense, and narrow arc weapons have to work a bit harder to stay on target.
Fix #2
NPC should have higher average damage, and lower spikes.
Right now NPCs have two damage modes "tickle" and "mega one-shot". (credit goes to poster inktomi19)
Both of these make healing and tanking unneeded because one of them you don't need to tank, and the other one you can't tank.
Two massive issues with the design of the PvE environment that are at the root cause of 80% of all Cruiser complaints.
Unfortunately poorly designed PvE combat has taught many players that Escorts don't need more turn rate and Cruisers with 250 degree arc weapons do.
You'd better believe it! I'd consider paying as much as 500 Zen for the wide-arc torp launcher -- per launcher, as long as the thing was account bound and not character bound.
Harder to justify a $25 purchase for a cruiser I really don't need or want just for the weapon.
Link: How to PM - Twitter @STOMod_Bluegeek
The reason a lot of people I know got the Regent was not for the wide-angle quantum, but for the BOff & console layout and added power to weapons (and a few for the looks). I got it for the wide-angle and the subsequent discount on the Fleet version.
Not to mention an account-wide RA level cruiser that's infinitely claimable, as opposed to a one shot dilith purchase that's valued at nearly half (at present exchange rates) of the value of said c-store ship.
A) Few people had the mk xii Purps
C) Is +8 (when with a mk xii Purp, which wassn't common at the time) really that much of a game changer?
Answers in red.
Turns out it is a completely different bag of bones from the regular Sovereign, that the offensive capability is in some ways harder to build, and that the Wide-Angle Quantum doesn't work out as well as I thought it would. I get the impression that in some respects, I would have been better off keeping my old Sovereign or going for an Excelsior instead. That being said, I do appreciate that the Lt Cmdr Tactical opens up a lot of opportunities to boost damage.
- Light Armor
- Medium Armor
- Heavy Armor
Each armor "weight" is designed for a specific ship type - Escort, Science, and Cruiser respectively - but there is no restriction as to what ship can equip what kind of armor...there are, however, bonuses and penalties depending on what type you equip.
Initial thought is an integer buff/debuff to base turn rate depending on the ship. My initial thoughts were something +3 for each weight down you go from your ship's designated armor type and a -3 for each weight up. So an escort could equip a Heavy Armor, but would suffer a -6 penalty to base turn rate while, conversely a cruiser equipping light armor would gain a +6 to base turn rate. The values may be a bit too large for gameplay balance, but it's an initial thought only - I haven't given much thought to how the KDF would be handled but my initial thought is that battlecruisers are set as Medium Armor types with BoPs and Raptors being Light Armors (though maybe an "ultra-light" variant that is unique to BoPs?)
Additionally instead of the complex equation that is currently used, armor equips and the skills from the skill tree should be converted to percentages so that they're much more intuitive to use.
I also liked Geko's offhand comment about turning current resist consoles into +HP consoles for hull in the same interview.
The Sovvy and Regent are exactly the same bar these differences:
Regent has +10 power to weapons, shields, and Aux. Sovereign has +5 power to all subsystems. Regent has a different BOff layout. Regent turns slightly slower (sprite image is larger, and it doesn't have that other 5 power to engines the Sovvy has, and as such, moves a little more slowly).
The Regent is not as tanky as the Sovereign, but hits quite a bit harder. However, other than that small trade-off, they are identical in ability.
First, let?s take Warp Cores out of the discussion. If STO gets a Warp Core, it will have little to do with armor.
Here is the bottom line we are discussing internally:
? We want to add a ship armor slot. Having more itemization is good
? Armor means Damage Resistance (to be consistent with ground Armor). Other enhancement bonuses can be available
? We don?t want to raise the survivability of every ship in the game.
? We feel Cruisers could use an increase in survivability.
? Armor could be added as a set piece.
? Armor could offer a ship material change.
So two options we are discussing:
Option 1:
? Only Cruisers Get Armor.
? No other changes needed (simple).
? We couldn't integrate armor as set piece for everyone, but it could possibly become part of a set only usable by cruisers.
Option 2:
? Everyone gets an Armor slot, but Cruisers can equip Heavy Armor.
? This is dangerous b/c it potentially raises the survivability of every ship in the game. To do this, Armor consoles would have to be changed. They would have to be something that is not related to damage mitigation (so not damage resistance, or bonus HP, or defense). The consoles would have to change to something new, or existing.
? Basic Armor could have lots of options and types, but in general, the damage resistance bonus would be equivalent to about 2 to 3 engineering consoles (for white quality - higher qualities could be better). Heavy armor would be worth much more.
So bottom line, would you be willing to loose Engineering Damage Resistance consoles for an armor slot that gives you about the same resistance, but also offers you more options.
So what would the difference be between regular armor consoles and heavy armor? Because as is, regular armor consoles already give you more than enough survivability in PvE regardless of ship class.
In order to really put cruisers apart, you'd need to have some huge differences.
While it is a more drastic change, I personally would rather see Option 2. Since there are canon reasons where class-specific non-cruisers had exotic armor available that should be usable only on that type. (Defiant had its special Ablative armor, Intrepid had the replicated armor)
I also like the notion of having another way to alter the appearance of a ship.
I would also like to see new Engineering consoles that have more to do with improving other systems than damage mitigation. I would gladly let my Neutronium armor turn into something else generally usable or turned into a generic prototype that can be cashed in for something else (marks, EC, etc).