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.
If it would be up to me, I would go even further.
I would separate the systems that make up the ship,
chassis/hull, warp engine, impulse engine, weapons etc
And then give each system its own set of console slots.
That would a) allow for a much more refined detailing of the ships
abilities while b) adds more items to work for and c) allow fine grained balancing.
The tankiness you claim escorts have over sci's and cruisers is the escorts firepower that rips thru shields and hull better than the other 2.
AMAZING how almost everyone confuses the escort/TAC captains hull melting guns with the sci/cruisers inability to return fire at the same magnitude. It has NOTHING to do with escorts having LESS shield and heals than SCI's/cruisers. (LESS armor slots as well)
So, and what do you consider enough tanking for an escort?
Able to tank Donatra head one for the entire duration while she keeps her fire focused on you? While standing still.
Or a tac cube?
Or a normal cube?
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.
Well, Geko, Cryptic can start this (if under option 2) by refunding my zen for the new Andy then. You designed that ship to have 4 eng consoles and I run all 4 with Mk XII armor. YES it is OP, Yes it is pay to win, YES the ship "tanks" better than my fleet excel (due to not needing an eng power console slot), but THAT is the way YOU designed it and sold it under. You have no1 to blame here but yourself and Cryptic's P2W attitudes. Baseing your new "armor" slot on 3 whites (and even up to 3 purples) is nothing more than a NERF to ships you have designed and SOLD that include provisions for 4 armor console slots now. I didn't do this, you did, and now with you looking at systems to NERF your own designs, this is going to do nothing but get you further into trouble here.
I'm currently (in a ship that is thought of as the "glass cannon" escort) run around in your PVE 20 mans at 1/4 engine power, tank just about everything (other than the borg invisible 1-hit torp), and take everything out in my path extreemly fast (with 5 cannons that you also designed). The part where I actualy need those 4 armor consoles is PVP and all that does basicly there, is give me a couple more seconds in which to react with the "get-the-flock-outta-Dodge" buttons. That's where your 4 armor escort console design comes into play and being one that has been here since closed beta, I'm just about tired of your NERFs to fix problems you, yourself, started.
You bet, Crusiers need more survivability. They have since you NERFed these system(s) at the NGE for F2P/skill box revamps. I believe I stated you would be doing exactly this when you did it. It seems Cryptic loves to sell "more power" but then when players get it, you see what you really did, and you turn around and NERF it all to he$$ and back. This time your doing this with "paid for" designs that can and will have you in problems.
I'd love armor slots for every ship, it's basic good design. But your NERFs along with it makes me want to vote for option 1. Give the good design to the crusiers.
To keep escorts from getting OP'd and too tanky then you make the number of plating slots be relative to the amount of overall hull. That way an escort could actually put less plating than before, making them less tanky overall, which is something that is needed in this game. There are far too many tanky escorts right now.
But also you make the cruisers require more plating items to fill their slots so that way it costs more to plate them fully. It would not make them any more tanky than they are now but it would free up their Engineering consoles for things that are relevant like EPS consoles or SIF generators etc.
It's not fair to Engineers that hull plating goes in the Engineering console slots. After all we don't make weapons go in the Tac console slots.
Anyway read the original thread on this topic (link is above) for more of my thoughts.
I like how people took my idea then totally didn't even post it in the same thread.
That "escort" tankiness has very little to do with Armour slots and really involves a whole bunch of little things working in concert, none of which are exploitive but are very effective when timed and used properly together.
Your strip an escort of this and they die quick.
Thier tankiness is not near as simple as you make it appear.
And on proof reading I have realized that hit the wrong quote tab on this new smart phone. My apoligies
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.
.
I kinda like option 2 but there are some problems. basic/light armor being equivilent to 2-3 is way, way too good and I kinda think you might want to look at a "medium" armor for destroyers/flight deck cruisers.
Say for instance:
Heavy = 3 armor consoles (or 2 and a clicky effect)
Medium = 2 armor consoles (or 1 and a clicky)
Light = 1 armor console (or a clicky effect)
C-store ship consoles with armor like effects or that belong to tougher ships then others of that class would then be changed into armor that will be effectivly a tier higher.
For instance, Ablative Generator would be a light armor instead of a console, but equivilent to a medium (1 armor console + clicky ablative generator effect). Both cloak consoles could probably be moved to the armor slot as well, the defiant (1 armor + Cloak) is said to be more heavily armored then other ships of its size and it would give the Dreadnought Cruiser effectivly Extra Heavy armor (3 armor + Cloak).
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.
Option 3: Combine 1 and 2
Make a specific armor that can only be fit on cruisers
Remove all resistance consoles from the game and then translate them into a single armor piece.
You know, the same thing you do with ground armor pieces.
It seems abundantly obvious you have made a system way more complex than it needs to be.
Here is a simple solution:
Remove all the consoles from the game
Put in an armor slot then make three versions of item equipment
Light, Medium, Heavy
Stat wise:
The armor only needs to give an all round stat bonus against all damage types I.E What you do on ground
X% Resist against All Kinetic Damage
Y% Resist against All Energy Damage
Z% Resist against (Insert all other random damage)
Naturally, you can go crazy with adding additional modifiers for special effects like procs or set bonuses.
If you do it properly then survivability will actually become a lot more uniform because you will have narrowed it down to a specific slot rather than having to account for people loading XYZ engineering slots with resistances.
Now... do the same thing for science powers via specialised deflector slots for science ships.
Thoughts:
If only Cruisers got Armor then what would be special about Science/Escorts? Science get a second Deflector slot that offers half that deflectors buffage on top of the "Primary" Deflector? Escorts get a Maneuvering Thruster slot for added agility?
The idea I'd asume is that the cruisers "heavy armor" is in direct relation to escorts Dual heavt cannons; though the Galaxy Dreadnought can equip those too, so I'd imagine a buff based on the type of ship they are equipped on would be needed to off set that somewhat. Perhaps a stacking armor and shield penetration buff similar to how sensor analysis works.
In terms of science vessels, well they're the ships with the best shields, so maybe a deflector enhancement slot that could help increase shield resistance, sort of like a lesser version of the beta-tachyon pulse method used by Voyager.
Here is the bottom line we are discussing internally:
? We want to add a ship armor slot. Having more itemization is good Agreed
? Armor means Damage Resistance (to be consistent with ground Armor). Other enhancement bonuses can be available Cool
? We don?t want to raise the survivability of every ship in the game. Are you however adverse to lowering the survivability of non cruisers? If yes then good.
? We feel Cruisers could use an increase in survivability. PvE is probably about right atm, but in PvP, yes. If lowering survivability of other 2 classes to make it so, then this will be achieveable per above statement in orange.
? Armor could be added as a set piece.Love it
? Armor could offer a ship material change.Love it
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. Whilst easier I don't think it's the way to go. Intrepid is an obvious outlier. Plus no potential for non cruiser console C-Store type situations.
Making cruiser specific sets whilst nice excludes the 2 other classes and so you'd then have to go and make class specific sets just for them. DHC set just for escort, deflector set just for sci. Each one you're neglecting 2/3 of your class types from getting and using them (read less money for you)
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. I think this is the better way. Yes more work but everyone will be kept happy in the end.
- I wouldn't raise everyone's survivability. Make heavy armor same as what max we can achieve now. Then, non heavy armor (perhaps light for escorts and medium for sci variants) give less resistances. I'm tired of escorts sitting still or crawling along, make them use their movement defence bonuses more to survive, its what you wanted them to do initially and is more canon.
- Regarding current engy consoles, definitely needs a rework and balance pass. I haven't used anything other than alloy consoles for a reason, every other engy console doesn't do much.
Some ideas for you
- - Power bonus consoles, as well as supplying their current extra power levels should also include an x% subsystem drain resistance component allowing cruisers to mitigate 8-beam drain issues and aux2batt drains. Allows the vesta to have an aux drain resist for aux cannons. etc etc
- - As someone suggested, make the alloys change into energy proc negators. eg, one to weaken plasma's DoT burn, one to weaken, disruptors hull debuff, one to weaken phaser disable etc One that does all to a lesser extent (ala neutronium replacement)
- - Perhaps have other consoles (plating/armors replacements) to weaken [Acc] [CrtD] & [CritH] etc. For example stealth plating to lessen [Acc]?
- - RCS need to become a flate rate bonus. So maybe +4 turn for purple MKXII. Cruisers would find that hugely nice, escorts yes but not as much. Currently this engy console helps tacs more than engys.
- - Emergency force fields need buff to KHG 2 piece set bonus type levels. Crew also needs to be made more relevant cause seriously I can have 0 crew on my cruiser or escort and not care in a battle.
- - EPS flow regulator, needs inclusion of sub-system energy drain resistance to become useful again To clarify, sub-system drain resist would only apply to your own abilities that drain your own power. Like firing weapons, using aux2batt etc, NOT drains from external sources such as other players siphons etc.
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.YES!
Regarding Klink battlecruisers and escorts and DHCs. Simple solution...
Escorts ONLY can equip DHCs, battle cruisers/destroyers etc can equip regular dual/quad cannons, everything else only single cannons. Solved.
I actually like option 1 myself. Cruisers get armor and not other ships. As long as Science ships get secondary deflectors I would be happy with no armor.
This would make escorts true glass cannons, with poor hull resistance and weak shields. Even science ships would have more tank with their higher shield modifier.
I think it would make things a little more balanced. Of course it will also be the most unpopular option, seeing as escorts are the most popular ship...
Ugh, when you guys can finally produce a steady stream of storyline missions and group content, then you can worry about your endless tinkering with existing systems. Until then, quit wasting everyone's time...
You don't want your ticklebeam equipped healboat to have more damage resistance ?
You can use all those unused ENG slots for more field generators and SIF consoles.
Here is the bottom line we are discussing internally:
It certainly is a more drastic change, but I would prefer to have option two. Like the guy who said it before, things like the Ablative Generator could be turned into an exotic armor type rather than a console. I think more consoles, not being consoles would really make the game interesting, and besides, I don't think that survivability is something that we should be afraid of, after all, most battles in Star Trek were long 1v1 slugfests. Since so many MMO's go in the the direction of slaughtering hords upon hords of enemies, I could literally go anywhere to crush armies beneath my heel. Having STO go the other direction would really set it apart from everything else, and uniqueness is something we really need.
Ugh, when you guys can finally produce a steady stream of storyline missions and group content, then you can worry about your endless tinkering with existing systems. Until then, quit wasting everyone's time...
But isn't story writing just tweaking an already existing system? A thousand year old existing system? :rolleyes:
after all, most battles in Star Trek were long 1v1 slugfests. Since so many MMO's go in the the direction of slaughtering hords upon hords of enemies, I could literally go anywhere to crush armies beneath my heel. Having STO go the other direction would really set it apart from everything else, and uniqueness is something we really need.
Very much in agreement. Would rather see fights take a bit longer than they currently do. Just look at Star Trek Nemesis for example. A rather long fight 1 vs 1, between the Enterprise and the Scimitar. Despite the fact that the Scimitar vastly outgunned the Enterprise.
The bottom line that Geko pointed in a recent 4 hour interview he did is that ship skins and character costumes do not sell well. The things that are selling well are complete ships with a something extra and the ship packages. If simple ship skins sold as well then Cryptic would still be selling them.
Its a matter of value. I do not think many people felt that the EV suit was a good "value". To make ship skins sell they need to have a good selection and make an honest effort of making them interesting and nice looking. Before they removed them from the store their ship skin selection was paltry and not really very interesting at all, nevermind the very high price they were sold at. If they wanted ship skins to sell they would need to be 1000 Zen at most. Of course, its not as profitable as their current model, but the current model isn't really sustainable is it? At least not without them simply giving up and admitting that all future ships will instantly make obsolete all existing ships.
But, sustainability isn't a problem they're facing; we're about to enter the next monetization phase sooner rather than later anyway. they'll put "gem" slots in items like they do in Champions Online, so now you won't only have to grind and grind for a purple MK12, you'll have to grind and grind for the little "gems" that go into them too. If they follow the CO model low tier gems will drop almost as often as lockboxes used to, with higher tier gems being sold in random packs from the C-store. These gems can be upgraded but it'll usually be at a considerable cost. In STO i'd expect a Dil cost and/or an upgrind. 5 MK3 gems for a "chance" to get a MK4. Naturally if it fails some or all the MK3 gems will be consumed anyway.
As to how many would buy ground costumes with more interesting designs than the usual starfleet "pajamas", is a matter of more discussion. I would guess the most sold costumes are the MU sets .
Edit: this whole idea of adding more equipment slots is simply about finding more ways to monetize the game. Notice how the possibility of a cosmetic option was linked to it?
To me buffing cruiser defenses sounds like them using buzz words that will make most non-knowledgeable cruiser pilots fall in line with them right away. Why is it that buffing cruiser turning and/or DPS wasn't mentioned? Most of us agree that is where the real problem lies!
But, lets say I'm completely wrong and indeed just a bitter long time player. Consider this: If they really wanted to increase cruiser survivability they could simply add some extra hull HP and shield mod. No need for yet another rework of an existing system, no need to create new items, no need for any of that. So then why complicate things if their goal can be so easy to achieve?
Ugh, when you guys can finally produce a steady stream of storyline missions and group content, then you can worry about your endless tinkering with existing systems. Until then, quit wasting everyone's time...
On the fed side, the story is kind of bloated, and I would prefer fixing that which is broke before going on to make more potential messes.
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.
option 1 cause science vessels are more reliant on their shields than hull. would rather u give science another deflector than hull plating.
I absolutely love the idea. With all the new great universal consoles out there, more and more players are finding themselves short on console slots. Freeing up those two that are now reserved for armour consoles without exception would be great.
Please also give us a way to convert our armour consoles into the new armour.
Finally, I'm in favour of armour for all and heavier armour for cruisers, but please be careful about this. It's already possible to tank anything and do decent dps in pve with a tank cruiser build. Maybe have armours give additional benefits based on the captain's Threat Control skill? Then if you want to spec as a tank you would gain additional resistances, but if you want to build a dps cruiser, you would gain as much benefit from armour as an escort or science vessel captain.
I'm sorry, but no, I still don't think this is a good idea. Itemization is good, but redundant itemization is redundant, and we already have resistance consoles which work fine.
At the risk of repeating myself, I still think the solution is to turn most of the special universal consoles into devices.
Here's why this will help.
Right now, I am forced to use engineering slots as a dumping ground for any special consoles I'd like to use (currently, the Tachyokinetic and Assimilated Module). I can't put them in the tactical or science console slots.
I fly a cruiser with aspirations of tanking and support, so I must use my two science console slots for [+Th] embassy consoles (By the way, Geko, I've yet to hear a dev justify why there are no Field Generators for sale at the embassy; yes, we'd all buy them, but it's not your place to judge). And I have to use my tactical slots for tactical consoles; a sacrifice there cuts into my already inferior damage.
So engineering gets to be the dumping ground for specials. Those are the consoles that need their own slot, not armor. Freeing engineering from the universal tyranny would allow us to use more armor, in a way that would naturally favor cruisers, with more eng slots. I use two resistance consoles now- I'd certainly add a third if I didn't have to put the specials there, and probably experiment with other engineering consoles, too.
You could still make "heavy" versions of the current resistance consoles that only work on certain ship classes, and you're free to attach visual effects to consoles (like the aforementioned Assimilated Module).
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.
I do like this idea, so make a console in the game where you can combine three of the current armor consoles into your new version, and this newly created console should give you the same amount of resistance the original three console gave you.
I'm sorry, but no, I still don't think this is a good idea. Itemization is good, but redundant itemization is redundant, and we already have resistance consoles which work fine.
At the risk of repeating myself, I still think the solution is to turn most of the special universal consoles into devices.
Here's why this will help.
Right now, I am forced to use engineering slots as a dumping ground for any special consoles I'd like to use (currently, the Tachyokinetic and Assimilated Module). I can't put them in the tactical or science console slots.
I fly a cruiser with aspirations of tanking and support, so I must use my two science console slots for [+Th] embassy consoles (By the way, Geko, I've yet to hear a dev justify why there are no Field Generators for sale at the embassy; yes, we'd all buy them, but it's not your place to judge). And I have to use my tactical slots for tactical consoles; a sacrifice there cuts into my already inferior damage.
So engineering gets to be the dumping ground for specials. Those are the consoles that need their own slot, not armor. Freeing engineering from the universal tyranny would allow us to use more armor, in a way that would naturally favor cruisers, with more eng slots. I use two resistance consoles now- I'd certainly add a third if I didn't have to put the specials there, and probably experiment with other engineering consoles, too.
You could still make "heavy" versions of the current resistance consoles that only work on certain ship classes, and you're free to attach visual effects to consoles (like the aforementioned Assimilated Module).
You're making the case for a revamp of engineering consoles (which is something that I agree with), not a case against the addition of a standalone armor slot fyi. If done in concert (adding the armor slot at the same time engineering consoles are tweaked) it could be beneficial for all methinks.
from a game play and visual perspective. i love the idea of slotting a neutronium armour plate and getting a nice tinted hull visual along with the appropriate stat resistance.
having one armour slot versus 4 eng slots also helps to level the playing field in PVP which i think will help there.
So, and what do you consider enough tanking for an escort?
Able to tank Donatra head one for the entire duration while she keeps her fire focused on you? While standing still.
Or a tac cube?
Or a normal cube?
I die magnificently almost everytime Donatra (and Borg cap ships) spam torpedoes at me and I forget to pop my highly buffed BFI and shield battery. If Donatra chooses to focus on me, my first reaction is to GTFO and get Donatra to focus on someone else. It IS rather a drag having to slow or completely stop (thus losing my maneuvering defense bonus) when I attack cruisers and cubes but when I can kill them almost as fast as I can keep my hull above 1k makes it a worthwhile tradeoff. Thankfully there's a few emergency skills/items I use to keep the hull intact as well as my super expensive shield and consoles. I routinely have a hull value near 40% is heavy combat but luckily I've done my homework and let my Captains engineering skills as well as luck keep me alive long enough to let my blazing guns melt whatever chooses to attack me. I'm thankful most others have MUCH higher threat control than I, as well as heal me when needed.
:P
...and I'm only an average PvP'er.
Escorts have far greater durability through the usage of attack patterns omega and delta and their innate defense bonus along with similar (2-3) armor slots as cruisers. We are not talking about damage ability at all.
My guess is that you are not a competitive PVP player. Check out the forums there for some great discussions about why escorts tank so well.
I try to be competitive but going head-to-head with cruisers and sci ships usually gets me killed. Stealth and being opportunistic is what I strive to exploit and when all else fails I have omega as well as situational awareness to help me escape and repair.
But I'm curious why sci's and cruisers don't try to buff their innate ship characteristics like escorts do, they try too hard to be something they're not (escort), and comparing the two to escorts is comparing apples to oranges. The game demands orange juice, so why do people continue to deliver apple juice and cry ?
Also consider most 'expert' PvP'ers have purchased ships/items that give them a 15% defense bonus that apparently stacks (according to the P2W thread I just read), so when/if any armour stripping to escorts is done by Geko and Co those guys will still be better off than peeps like me who don't use anything but free ingame items, so we'll most likely join the rest of the guys that make to move to cannon wielding cruisers as we laugh at those still crying about their beam cruisers still being garbage, and the freebee escort drivers who are stuck with ships that explode on sight.
There's a 15% bonus on your stats on store items. If you add fleet level equipment the gap can be huge. And fleet stuff is also pay to win, considering the amount of resources you need to level up the SB. I wouldn't call that insignificant.
There is pay to win in this game, that's a fact. Like it, hate it, that's how they encourage people to buy new stuff at the expense of the game's life expectancy.
Seems to me that if cruiser drivers were as serious about winning as they are about role playing they would buy an escort and learn to use it, but since they saw Enterprise destroy entire fleets singlehandedly on T.V. they think it should do the same in STO. I can hardly wait for the backlash from the c-store escort purchasers when/if their purchases get crippled by some half-baked idea of fairness and equality.
Freeing engineering from the universal tyranny would allow us to use more armor, in a way that would naturally favor cruisers, with more eng slots.
It would also naturally favor the bugship, the Fleet Patrol Escort, the Charal, and the JH HEC, all of which are Escorts with 4 Engineering Consoles, the same number as most Cruisers.
Bird of Prey is a Marauder. It not analogous to an Escort.
For some reason I want to say the BoP was referred to as a Raider, but that's probably wrong. Anyways, the analogous ship type for Feds would be the Aquarius.
Comments
If it would be up to me, I would go even further.
I would separate the systems that make up the ship,
chassis/hull, warp engine, impulse engine, weapons etc
And then give each system its own set of console slots.
That would a) allow for a much more refined detailing of the ships
abilities while b) adds more items to work for and c) allow fine grained balancing.
So, and what do you consider enough tanking for an escort?
Able to tank Donatra head one for the entire duration while she keeps her fire focused on you? While standing still.
Or a tac cube?
Or a normal cube?
Well, Geko, Cryptic can start this (if under option 2) by refunding my zen for the new Andy then. You designed that ship to have 4 eng consoles and I run all 4 with Mk XII armor. YES it is OP, Yes it is pay to win, YES the ship "tanks" better than my fleet excel (due to not needing an eng power console slot), but THAT is the way YOU designed it and sold it under. You have no1 to blame here but yourself and Cryptic's P2W attitudes. Baseing your new "armor" slot on 3 whites (and even up to 3 purples) is nothing more than a NERF to ships you have designed and SOLD that include provisions for 4 armor console slots now. I didn't do this, you did, and now with you looking at systems to NERF your own designs, this is going to do nothing but get you further into trouble here.
I'm currently (in a ship that is thought of as the "glass cannon" escort) run around in your PVE 20 mans at 1/4 engine power, tank just about everything (other than the borg invisible 1-hit torp), and take everything out in my path extreemly fast (with 5 cannons that you also designed). The part where I actualy need those 4 armor consoles is PVP and all that does basicly there, is give me a couple more seconds in which to react with the "get-the-flock-outta-Dodge" buttons. That's where your 4 armor escort console design comes into play and being one that has been here since closed beta, I'm just about tired of your NERFs to fix problems you, yourself, started.
You bet, Crusiers need more survivability. They have since you NERFed these system(s) at the NGE for F2P/skill box revamps. I believe I stated you would be doing exactly this when you did it. It seems Cryptic loves to sell "more power" but then when players get it, you see what you really did, and you turn around and NERF it all to he$$ and back. This time your doing this with "paid for" designs that can and will have you in problems.
I'd love armor slots for every ship, it's basic good design. But your NERFs along with it makes me want to vote for option 1. Give the good design to the crusiers.
That "escort" tankiness has very little to do with Armour slots and really involves a whole bunch of little things working in concert, none of which are exploitive but are very effective when timed and used properly together.
Your strip an escort of this and they die quick.
Thier tankiness is not near as simple as you make it appear.
And on proof reading I have realized that hit the wrong quote tab on this new smart phone. My apoligies
R.I.P
I kinda like option 2 but there are some problems. basic/light armor being equivilent to 2-3 is way, way too good and I kinda think you might want to look at a "medium" armor for destroyers/flight deck cruisers.
Say for instance:
Heavy = 3 armor consoles (or 2 and a clicky effect)
Medium = 2 armor consoles (or 1 and a clicky)
Light = 1 armor console (or a clicky effect)
C-store ship consoles with armor like effects or that belong to tougher ships then others of that class would then be changed into armor that will be effectivly a tier higher.
For instance, Ablative Generator would be a light armor instead of a console, but equivilent to a medium (1 armor console + clicky ablative generator effect). Both cloak consoles could probably be moved to the armor slot as well, the defiant (1 armor + Cloak) is said to be more heavily armored then other ships of its size and it would give the Dreadnought Cruiser effectivly Extra Heavy armor (3 armor + Cloak).
Option 3: Combine 1 and 2
Make a specific armor that can only be fit on cruisers
Remove all resistance consoles from the game and then translate them into a single armor piece.
You know, the same thing you do with ground armor pieces.
It seems abundantly obvious you have made a system way more complex than it needs to be.
Here is a simple solution:
Remove all the consoles from the game
Put in an armor slot then make three versions of item equipment
Light, Medium, Heavy
Stat wise:
The armor only needs to give an all round stat bonus against all damage types I.E What you do on ground
X% Resist against All Kinetic Damage
Y% Resist against All Energy Damage
Z% Resist against (Insert all other random damage)
Naturally, you can go crazy with adding additional modifiers for special effects like procs or set bonuses.
If you do it properly then survivability will actually become a lot more uniform because you will have narrowed it down to a specific slot rather than having to account for people loading XYZ engineering slots with resistances.
Now... do the same thing for science powers via specialised deflector slots for science ships.
The idea I'd asume is that the cruisers "heavy armor" is in direct relation to escorts Dual heavt cannons; though the Galaxy Dreadnought can equip those too, so I'd imagine a buff based on the type of ship they are equipped on would be needed to off set that somewhat. Perhaps a stacking armor and shield penetration buff similar to how sensor analysis works.
In terms of science vessels, well they're the ships with the best shields, so maybe a deflector enhancement slot that could help increase shield resistance, sort of like a lesser version of the beta-tachyon pulse method used by Voyager.
Commanding Officer: Captain Pyotr Ramonovich Amosov
Dedication Plaque: "Nil Intentatum Reliquit"
My thoughts in coloured text.
Regarding Klink battlecruisers and escorts and DHCs. Simple solution...
Escorts ONLY can equip DHCs, battle cruisers/destroyers etc can equip regular dual/quad cannons, everything else only single cannons. Solved.
This would make escorts true glass cannons, with poor hull resistance and weak shields. Even science ships would have more tank with their higher shield modifier.
I think it would make things a little more balanced. Of course it will also be the most unpopular option, seeing as escorts are the most popular ship...
It certainly is a more drastic change, but I would prefer to have option two. Like the guy who said it before, things like the Ablative Generator could be turned into an exotic armor type rather than a console. I think more consoles, not being consoles would really make the game interesting, and besides, I don't think that survivability is something that we should be afraid of, after all, most battles in Star Trek were long 1v1 slugfests. Since so many MMO's go in the the direction of slaughtering hords upon hords of enemies, I could literally go anywhere to crush armies beneath my heel. Having STO go the other direction would really set it apart from everything else, and uniqueness is something we really need.
But isn't story writing just tweaking an already existing system? A thousand year old existing system?
Very much in agreement. Would rather see fights take a bit longer than they currently do. Just look at Star Trek Nemesis for example. A rather long fight 1 vs 1, between the Enterprise and the Scimitar. Despite the fact that the Scimitar vastly outgunned the Enterprise.
Its a matter of value. I do not think many people felt that the EV suit was a good "value". To make ship skins sell they need to have a good selection and make an honest effort of making them interesting and nice looking. Before they removed them from the store their ship skin selection was paltry and not really very interesting at all, nevermind the very high price they were sold at. If they wanted ship skins to sell they would need to be 1000 Zen at most. Of course, its not as profitable as their current model, but the current model isn't really sustainable is it? At least not without them simply giving up and admitting that all future ships will instantly make obsolete all existing ships.
But, sustainability isn't a problem they're facing; we're about to enter the next monetization phase sooner rather than later anyway. they'll put "gem" slots in items like they do in Champions Online, so now you won't only have to grind and grind for a purple MK12, you'll have to grind and grind for the little "gems" that go into them too. If they follow the CO model low tier gems will drop almost as often as lockboxes used to, with higher tier gems being sold in random packs from the C-store. These gems can be upgraded but it'll usually be at a considerable cost. In STO i'd expect a Dil cost and/or an upgrind. 5 MK3 gems for a "chance" to get a MK4. Naturally if it fails some or all the MK3 gems will be consumed anyway.
As to how many would buy ground costumes with more interesting designs than the usual starfleet "pajamas", is a matter of more discussion. I would guess the most sold costumes are the MU sets
Edit: this whole idea of adding more equipment slots is simply about finding more ways to monetize the game. Notice how the possibility of a cosmetic option was linked to it?
To me buffing cruiser defenses sounds like them using buzz words that will make most non-knowledgeable cruiser pilots fall in line with them right away. Why is it that buffing cruiser turning and/or DPS wasn't mentioned? Most of us agree that is where the real problem lies!
But, lets say I'm completely wrong and indeed just a bitter long time player. Consider this: If they really wanted to increase cruiser survivability they could simply add some extra hull HP and shield mod. No need for yet another rework of an existing system, no need to create new items, no need for any of that. So then why complicate things if their goal can be so easy to achieve?
1-Flat damage reduction, before applying damage reduction consoles. This gives cruisers more tankyness.
2-Flat critical chance reduction, same reason listed above.
3-Flat, percentage based threat modifier.
On the fed side, the story is kind of bloated, and I would prefer fixing that which is broke before going on to make more potential messes.
do cruisers have a problem with survivability and if not why are hull slots needed for cruisers?
the main complaint i've been hearing from cruiser captains are more weapons related than survivability.
Please also give us a way to convert our armour consoles into the new armour.
Finally, I'm in favour of armour for all and heavier armour for cruisers, but please be careful about this. It's already possible to tank anything and do decent dps in pve with a tank cruiser build. Maybe have armours give additional benefits based on the captain's Threat Control skill? Then if you want to spec as a tank you would gain additional resistances, but if you want to build a dps cruiser, you would gain as much benefit from armour as an escort or science vessel captain.
At the risk of repeating myself, I still think the solution is to turn most of the special universal consoles into devices.
Here's why this will help.
Right now, I am forced to use engineering slots as a dumping ground for any special consoles I'd like to use (currently, the Tachyokinetic and Assimilated Module). I can't put them in the tactical or science console slots.
I fly a cruiser with aspirations of tanking and support, so I must use my two science console slots for [+Th] embassy consoles (By the way, Geko, I've yet to hear a dev justify why there are no Field Generators for sale at the embassy; yes, we'd all buy them, but it's not your place to judge). And I have to use my tactical slots for tactical consoles; a sacrifice there cuts into my already inferior damage.
So engineering gets to be the dumping ground for specials. Those are the consoles that need their own slot, not armor. Freeing engineering from the universal tyranny would allow us to use more armor, in a way that would naturally favor cruisers, with more eng slots. I use two resistance consoles now- I'd certainly add a third if I didn't have to put the specials there, and probably experiment with other engineering consoles, too.
You could still make "heavy" versions of the current resistance consoles that only work on certain ship classes, and you're free to attach visual effects to consoles (like the aforementioned Assimilated Module).
I do like this idea, so make a console in the game where you can combine three of the current armor consoles into your new version, and this newly created console should give you the same amount of resistance the original three console gave you.
You're making the case for a revamp of engineering consoles (which is something that I agree with), not a case against the addition of a standalone armor slot fyi. If done in concert (adding the armor slot at the same time engineering consoles are tweaked) it could be beneficial for all methinks.
from a game play and visual perspective. i love the idea of slotting a neutronium armour plate and getting a nice tinted hull visual along with the appropriate stat resistance.
having one armour slot versus 4 eng slots also helps to level the playing field in PVP which i think will help there.
----Lt Cmdr @Thorley - Jupiter Force----
I die magnificently almost everytime Donatra (and Borg cap ships) spam torpedoes at me and I forget to pop my highly buffed BFI and shield battery. If Donatra chooses to focus on me, my first reaction is to GTFO and get Donatra to focus on someone else.
:P
...and I'm only an average PvP'er.
Awoken Dead
Now shaddup about the queues, it's a BUG
I try to be competitive but going head-to-head with cruisers and sci ships usually gets me killed. Stealth and being opportunistic is what I strive to exploit and when all else fails I have omega as well as situational awareness to help me escape and repair.
But I'm curious why sci's and cruisers don't try to buff their innate ship characteristics like escorts do, they try too hard to be something they're not (escort), and comparing the two to escorts is comparing apples to oranges. The game demands orange juice, so why do people continue to deliver apple juice and cry ?
Also consider most 'expert' PvP'ers have purchased ships/items that give them a 15% defense bonus that apparently stacks (according to the P2W thread I just read), so when/if any armour stripping to escorts is done by Geko and Co those guys will still be better off than peeps like me who don't use anything but free ingame items, so we'll most likely join the rest of the guys that make to move to cannon wielding cruisers as we laugh at those still crying about their beam cruisers still being garbage, and the freebee escort drivers who are stuck with ships that explode on sight.
Seems to me that if cruiser drivers were as serious about winning as they are about role playing they would buy an escort and learn to use it, but since they saw Enterprise destroy entire fleets singlehandedly on T.V. they think it should do the same in STO. I can hardly wait for the backlash from the c-store escort purchasers when/if their purchases get crippled by some half-baked idea of fairness and equality.
Awoken Dead
Now shaddup about the queues, it's a BUG
For some reason I want to say the BoP was referred to as a Raider, but that's probably wrong. Anyways, the analogous ship type for Feds would be the Aquarius.