test content
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc

2 TAC consoles on D'Deridex = NOT acceptable

12357

Comments

  • snoggymack22snoggymack22 Member Posts: 7,084 Arc User
    edited May 2013
    The bottom line is this: In this game, any ship which is designed purely to tank is not useful. You can give me a cruiser with a million hull and 10 engineering slots, and frankly it doesn't matter unless it does something else that makes it worth staying alive. There are basically only three ways in which ships are "active" in this game:

    1) Do lots of damage directly
    2) Do lots of space magic (science)
    3) Deploy frigate caliber hangar pets.

    If a ship has none of the above then it is fundamentally a bad ship.

    You skipped healing, unless that's counted in space magic?
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • sarek93sarek93 Member Posts: 274 Arc User
    edited May 2013
    You all should go listen to some of the devs' theory crafting (which means it is NOT going to be a change automatically to the game, just discussing what they would like to see in an ideal game). Some of them have talked about how they considered creating starship armor which would give cruisers/tank ships a big boost. alternatively, giving the cruisers an AoE passive boost to other ships (a sort of command ship which if you were within x km of you would get x boost to weapons power for example).

    They said they could never do it because all the tac/escort captains would whine about how cryptic was trying to nerf dps as the main indicator in game. So for all of you on here complaining, I would like to point out one thing: how many of you would complain more if they nerfed dps as the main trait in game? Pretty much all of you.

    The devs who engage in theory crafting have been consistently saying the dps ships and escorts are way to OP compared to the other types of ships. It's unbalanced and they wish they could fix it, but they know that there would be huge backlash if they buffed up cruisers and/or sci vessels without boosting escorts. Why? Because all the escort captains would complain that they didn't get anything despite the fact that their ships were already at the level they were supposed to be at. If you want to listen to a 4 hour podcast that spends about 30 minutes discussing this go listen to Podcast UGC episode 109 with captain geko.
    "Insufficient facts always invite danger." - Spock
  • aveimperatoraveimperator Member Posts: 319 Arc User
    edited May 2013
    sarek93 wrote: »
    You all should go listen to some of the devs' theory crafting (which means it is NOT going to be a change automatically to the game, just discussing what they would like to see in an ideal game). Some of them have talked about how they considered creating starship armor which would give cruisers/tank ships a big boost. alternatively, giving the cruisers an AoE passive boost to other ships (a sort of command ship which if you were within x km of you would get x boost to weapons power for example).

    They said they could never do it because all the tac/escort captains would whine about how cryptic was trying to nerf dps as the main indicator in game. So for all of you on here complaining, I would like to point out one thing: how many of you would complain more if they nerfed dps as the main trait in game? Pretty much all of you.

    The devs who engage in theory crafting have been consistently saying the dps ships and escorts are way to OP compared to the other types of ships. It's unbalanced and they wish they could fix it, but they know that there would be huge backlash if they buffed up cruisers and/or sci vessels without boosting escorts. Why? Because all the escort captains would complain that they didn't get anything despite the fact that their ships were already at the level they were supposed to be at. If you want to listen to a 4 hour podcast that spends about 30 minutes discussing this go listen to Podcast UGC episode 109 with captain geko.

    Good. Let them whine. They've gotten as bad as the KDF. They've been given everything and still want more. Let Tac/Escort take the backseat for a change.
  • sarek93sarek93 Member Posts: 274 Arc User
    edited May 2013
    Oh. And for the record, I am an engineer who flies the Chimera (cruiser/escort blend). I fly it with 2-3 mk xi purple phaser relays and a bevy of engineering consoles (DHC/turret build). I generally hold my own in PvE (2-3rd place on dps when I run with my fleetmates who are either tacs or engis with carrier pets). In PvP, where the Chimera is generally considered a bad ship (I'm just too lazy to change out ships), I generally rank top 3 dps in a fleetwide 14+ person pvp arena match. About 10% of the time I top the dps charts above all our tacs who run escorts with 4-5 purple mk xi tac consoles and our engineers with carrier pets.

    It's more about doff and boff skill layouts and player skill than sticking 5 tac consoles on your ship and going pew pew. Heck with a threat decreasing module on in most ESTF pugs I still pull aggro over all the tac captains in escort high dps builds. Oh and before anyone says I just use aux to bat builds... no, I do not. I use a standard PvE layout on my Chimera.
    "Insufficient facts always invite danger." - Spock
  • tsurutafan01tsurutafan01 Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited May 2013
    To be honest I don't think anything will really change until the designers drop this (really bad) theory that any character flying any ship should have access to any equipment. Until there are unique advantages to actually using a cruiser or science ship, the problem isn't really solvable.

    If you have all equipment useable by all classes, the one with the highest attack power will always be best. Period. That's unavoidable mathematics.


    "We are smart." - Grebnedlog

    Member of Alliance Central Command/boq botlhra'ghom
  • sarek93sarek93 Member Posts: 274 Arc User
    edited May 2013
    To be honest I don't think anything will really change until the designers drop this (really bad) theory that any character flying any ship should have access to any equipment. Until there are unique advantages to actually using a cruiser or science ship, the problem isn't really solvable.

    If you have all equipment useable by all classes, the one with the highest attack power will always be best. Period. That's unavoidable mathematics.

    This is what I was talking about with the theory crafting above. The devs have considered putting ship armor in the game that would only be usable on cruisers (kind of how cannons can pretty much only be used on escorts on the Fed side) and giving sci ships an extra deflector slot. They also suggested making cruiser more WoW paladin like with those AoE buffs.

    But as I stated above, the devs said it was an easy fix to balance the game, but that they couldn't really implement it because of all the backlash they would get from the tac captains who would complain that they didn't get any new unique items too (despite the fact that they already had one [cannons] and that the addition was to fix the existing disparity not make the same gap but with new options).
    "Insufficient facts always invite danger." - Spock
  • sarek93sarek93 Member Posts: 274 Arc User
    edited May 2013
    So to make a long story short (and to get back to the OP's comment). I don't think they need to add another tac console to make the big D a usable ship. I would much rather them say "TRIBBLE the whining tac captains" and add in armor or paladin like abilities which would give the big D a boost in a different direction. If they coupled this with a new system that rewards more than just DPS, I think that would be a better change/fix for LoR than adding another tac console to the big D.

    Just thought about something. Imagine the forum rage if the devs made warp core powers that could only be used on cruisers and deflector powers that could only be used on sci ships (attached to the item itself not a captain/boff power). Or if they had made singularity powers only usable on the cruiser/sci Rom ships... There would be so much outrage but it would make for a good balance. Big D gets to use singularity powers but only has 2 tac consoles. X Rom escort layout gets more tac slots, better weaps, but can't use singularity powers...
    "Insufficient facts always invite danger." - Spock
  • tsurutafan01tsurutafan01 Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited May 2013
    I think it's one of the things that can frustrate me about this game.

    The basis of a good game is here, though there are times it really falls short. But there's a ton of really basic things I'd absolutely love to get into the guts of and try tweaking. It's right there to be had, it is just a matter of putting the puzzle together.


    "We are smart." - Grebnedlog

    Member of Alliance Central Command/boq botlhra'ghom
  • aveimperatoraveimperator Member Posts: 319 Arc User
    edited May 2013
    The Devs need to learn that they will never succeed in pleasing everyone. In any game where one class/spec rises to dominate the game by a huge margin as Tac/Escorts have done, there is always a period of glory before their world comes crashing down. Either they are nerfed, or other classes/specs brought up to their level while they get no new toys. They don't get any new toys because they neither need nor deserve any new toys. They're already top of the food chain, it's time to share the glory, whether they like it or not.

    They'll rage, they'll whine, they'll threaten to quit, but in the end, they'll adapt and go on playing.
  • captsolcaptsol Member Posts: 921 Arc User
    edited May 2013
    I can't help wondering how many Romulan players are going to get to T4 ships and start playing Federation/Klingon ally ships until they get to T5 due to the lack of choice and the general bad press that the D'Deridex has been getting if it isn't fixed by release?
  • antoniosalieriantoniosalieri Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited May 2013
    There is only one Klingon "battle cruiser" that has more then 3 Tac consoles... and it has a ton of other draw backs in survivability.

    I'm sorry but people asking for 4 tac consoles on this are out to lunch.

    Yes 2 tac consoles are enough to achieve spike dmg, people are over estimating the bonus from one more tac console by a large margin.

    However yes 3 Tac consoles at the cost of one of the engi ones would be acceptable on the only real Rom Cruiser.
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    Dignity and an empty sack is worth the sack.
  • captsolcaptsol Member Posts: 921 Arc User
    edited May 2013
    There is only one Klingon "battle cruiser" that has more then 3 Tac consoles... and it has a ton of other draw backs in survivability.

    I'm sorry but people asking for 4 tac consoles on this are out to lunch.

    Yes 2 tac consoles are enough to achieve spike dmg, people are over estimating the bonus from one more tac console by a large margin.

    However yes 3 Tac consoles at the cost of one of the engi ones would be acceptable on the only real Rom Cruiser.

    Watch them be holding out for a C-Store T4 cruiser with a T5 retrofit that has what everyone wants.
  • dontdrunkimshootdontdrunkimshoot Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited May 2013
    There is only one Klingon "battle cruiser" that has more then 3 Tac consoles... and it has a ton of other draw backs in survivability.

    I'm sorry but people asking for 4 tac consoles on this are out to lunch.

    Yes 2 tac consoles are enough to achieve spike dmg, people are over estimating the bonus from one more tac console by a large margin.

    However yes 3 Tac consoles at the cost of one of the engi ones would be acceptable on the only real Rom Cruiser.

    its like you haven't seen all the other romulan ships that turn 3 times better, have up to 5 turn consoles, and can battle cloak.
  • sudoku7sudoku7 Member Posts: 2 Arc User
    edited May 2013
    Isn't more of the problem that excessive/extra Eng console slots aren't valued the same as tac?

    I personally think the better course of action [especially in the long term, and applying to othe ships] would be to look at improving the desirability of engineering console slots.

    Unfortunately, I think that with the Damage is king philosophy in play, it becomes difficult to do so, without doing something like the Threat Consoles.
  • captsolcaptsol Member Posts: 921 Arc User
    edited May 2013
    sudoku7 wrote: »
    Isn't more of the problem that excessive/extra Eng console slots aren't valued the same as tac?

    I personally think the better course of action [especially in the long term, and applying to othe ships] would be to look at improving the desirability of engineering console slots.

    Unfortunately, I think that with the Damage is king philosophy in play, it becomes difficult to do so, without doing something like the Threat Consoles.

    Well, if you're going to have a 'Battle' Cruiser, I'd think damage should be king. Engineering or Science fits more with something named just a 'Cruiser' or an 'Explorer' as far as Star Trek goes.
  • sudoku7sudoku7 Member Posts: 2 Arc User
    edited May 2013
    captsol wrote: »
    Well, if you're going to have a 'Battle' Cruiser, I'd think damage should be king. Engineering or Science fits more with something named just a 'Cruiser' or an 'Explorer' as far as Star Trek goes.

    Well, the problem being that Damage is considered better than other options for the majority of gameplay. You make a fair point about the name, but it doesn't seem that much different than the Negh'var where it appears to have just traded a Tac for an Engineering, which fits I do feel fits the tone of the Romulans being more Science oriented.

    Odd side observation. D'ridthau appears glitchy, tool tip shows a total of 9 (3/4/2) consoles [at cmdr level no less], while full text shows 2/4/2.
  • macroniusmacronius Member Posts: 2,526
    edited May 2013
    sudoku7 wrote: »
    Well, the problem being that Damage is considered better than other options for the majority of gameplay. You make a fair point about the name, but it doesn't seem that much different than the Negh'var where it appears to have just traded a Tac for an Engineering, which fits I do feel fits the tone of the Romulans being more Science oriented.

    Odd side observation. D'ridthau appears glitchy, tool tip shows a total of 9 (3/4/2) consoles [at cmdr level no less], while full text shows 2/4/2.

    2 Tac consoles is pretty pathetic for the Big D Warbird. Cryptic stop nerfing the most iconic ships in Star Trek. Or at least make the usable ones available as refits / fleet versions.
    "With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censored, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably."

    - Judge Aaron Satie
  • aveimperatoraveimperator Member Posts: 319 Arc User
    edited May 2013
    macronius wrote: »
    2 Tac consoles is pretty pathetic for the Big D Warbird. Cryptic stop nerfing the most iconic ships in Star Trek. Or at least make the usable ones available as refits / fleet versions.

    Sadly, I don't think that's ever going to happen for non-Escort iconic ships. As somebody in another thread posted, this is working as intended. By making iconic ships TRIBBLE, they can sell them to people who want to own the iconic ships. But then they can also sell people the *good* ships for actual gameplay.
  • mn03mn03 Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited May 2013
    I doubt giving feedback about this ship has any use. Has it ever led to changes? I mean, there has been a lot of feedback towards the Galaxy class, but nothing has changed.
    Join date: 5 Feb 2010
  • aveimperatoraveimperator Member Posts: 319 Arc User
    edited May 2013
    There's been a lot of feedback about cruisers in general, not just the Galaxy, but it's never led to any changes. Frankly, I'm surprised the Devs listened to the community about the EPTX issue, given their track record.
  • macroniusmacronius Member Posts: 2,526
    edited May 2013
    Sadly, I don't think that's ever going to happen for non-Escort iconic ships. As somebody in another thread posted, this is working as intended. By making iconic ships TRIBBLE, they can sell them to people who want to own the iconic ships. But then they can also sell people the *good* ships for actual gameplay.

    I am not sure if that logic holds. The fleet excelsior is pretty sweet and very powerful according to most. The fleet assault cruiser (Sovereign) is also pretty decent based on the stats I saw. It is only some ships, like Galaxy and D'Deridex, that are getting the short end of the stick.

    I also don't think there are many people who collect "ships". I am sure there are some but it is probably a very small number. I bought Tier 1 C-Store ships that I enjoyed leveling, despite the fact I could use them for 10 levels only, as well as fleet ships, like Defiant which I use all the time. However, I would never buy something like a Galaxy knowing it can't be used at all. I suspect most would agree with me.
    "With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censored, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably."

    - Judge Aaron Satie
  • snoggymack22snoggymack22 Member Posts: 7,084 Arc User
    edited May 2013
    Good. Let them whine. They've gotten as bad as the KDF. They've been given everything and still want more. Let Tac/Escort take the backseat for a change.

    Unlike the KDF, the people you're attacking in your comment there vastly outnumber you. They are a huge chunk of the player base and thus Cryptic can't just anger them willy nilly. There's money involved.
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • snoggymack22snoggymack22 Member Posts: 7,084 Arc User
    edited May 2013
    macronius wrote: »
    I am not sure if that logic holds. The fleet excelsior is pretty sweet and very powerful according to most.


    The D'Deridex is not intended to be the Romulan version of the Excelsior.
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • virusdancervirusdancer Member Posts: 18,687 Arc User
    edited May 2013
    The D'Deridex is not intended to be the Romulan version of the Excelsior.

    But it does point to some flaws in the game as far as...ship progression goes, in the eyes of many, eh?

    Odyssey - Bortasqu' - ?????
    Sovereign - Negh'Var - Scimitar?
    Galaxy - Vor'cha - D'Deridex
    Ambassador - Kamarag - The Mysterious Warbirds That Blew Up The Enterprise-C
    Excelsior - Koro't'inga?/K't'inga - ?????
    Constitution Refit - K't'inga - ?????
    Constitution - The D7 - The D7

    A few things should stand out, so to speak.

    First of all, even though the ships may have been "the ship" at the same time - the Mission Statement for the KDF and RSE wasn't the same. Both would have been more Tactical than their Fed counterparts during the Ambassador/Galaxy era. There shouldn't be a KDF/Rom Galaxy, etc, etc, etc. So the whole "version of" thing that Cryptic tries to do...really doesn't fit, eh? If they wanted to do additional ships that might have fit those roles, sure...but not cramming a ship that didn't have that role into that role.

    Then there's the whole Fleet thing - which because of the way the game's PvE is designed - well, the order gets all jacked up, eh?

    Etc, etc, etc - one can go around arguing until one is blue/red/green in the face about the various things...

    ...but in the end, shouldn't the D'Deridex be more like the Excelsior than the Galaxy or Ambassador? Kind of like the Sovereign is more like the Exceslior than the Galaxy or Ambassador? Different periods of peace/war/exploration for the Federation while it was often about war/conquering/expansion for the others.
  • snoggymack22snoggymack22 Member Posts: 7,084 Arc User
    edited May 2013
    ...but in the end, shouldn't the D'Deridex be more like the Excelsior than the Galaxy or Ambassador?

    No. In Cryptic terms, here's what the Excelsior is:

    A C-Store ship. That people pay money/resources for just to get step 1.

    A Fleet Ship. That people either pay a hefitier money/resource pricetag for to get (extra module than other fleet ships) or pay a second resource/money pricetag to get if they already spent the money/resources to get step 1.

    The D'Deridex is not step 1, c-store ship.

    So it's not an analog to the excelsior in cryptic terms. And not in Star Trek viewer terms (it first decloaked off the bow of the Enterprise-D).

    The push to make this thing into a Romulan Excelsior kind of disappoints me. That's just rabid fans being rabid.

    There are other ships that will be placed in the C-Store and they will be far more analogous to the Excelsior.

    They'll be green.

    They'll battlecloak.

    Everything is going to be a-OK for the Romulans.
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • virusdancervirusdancer Member Posts: 18,687 Arc User
    edited May 2013
    Um... just to let you know:

    T5 D'Deridex Retrofit...is a C-Store Ship.
    Fleet D'Deridex Retrofit...is a Fleet Ship.

    Heck, there's the T4 D'Deridex Refit...which is a C-Store Ship.

    Say somebody buys the T3 Excelsior, RA T5 Excelsior Retrofit, and Fleet T5 Excelsior Retrofit...
    ...they get the Transwarp Computer, the Advanced Transwarp Coil, and - well, that's it.

    Say somebody buys the T4 D'Deridex Refit, VA T5 D'Deridex Retrofit, and Fleet T5 D'Deridex Retrofit...
    ...they get the Molecular Phase Inverter, the Projected Singularity, and - well, according to one of the blogs a 2pc set bonus for running the Refit/Retrofit consoles.

    So let's see...more of a money-making opportunity, eh?

    Besides, that's not even what I was talking about. The Excelsior was more of a "battle" Cruiser than the Galaxy or Ambassador were... they were "diplomatic gunboats" - which would the D'Deridex be more like? It would be more like the Excelsior. That simple, eh?

    But since you wanted to bring in the rest - let's look at the rest.

    T3 Cost vs. T4 Cost. T4 costs more. Better ship.
    RA T5 Cost vs. VA T5 Cost. VA costs more. Better ship.
    T3 Shipyard vs. T4 Shipyard...costlier investment to reach T4 than T3...

    ...hrmmm, eh? :)
  • virusdancervirusdancer Member Posts: 18,687 Arc User
    edited May 2013
    Basically, something along these lines:

    Regent > D'Deridex > Excelsior
  • dontdrunkimshootdontdrunkimshoot Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited May 2013
    this is the true equivalence. i think as far as sto canon goes, 4 Dhelan were the ships that destroyed the Enterprise C

    Odyssey - Bortasqu' - Scimitar/Ha'apax
    Galaxy - Negh'Var - D'deridex
    Sovereign - Vor'cha - Mogai
    Ambassador - Kamarag - Dhelan
  • alopenalopen Member Posts: 1 Arc User
    edited May 2013
    Because Cryptic designs their games to reward high DPS. It's the only way to rack up a high score in most aspects of the game that track performance - the recent Crystalline Entity revival was an attempt by them to smooth some of that out, but the results seem to have been... mixed, at best. Regardless, having high DPS is a huge component of being rewarded in this game. Thus, people want their ships to be able to deal damage.

    They succeeded. I regularly got first place with an engineer in an ambassador beamboat by just healing everyone else and occassionally shooting at the CE. They need to modify some of the other group missions to model the CE 1st place determinations. Feds would do better in PvP vs. KDF if they encouraged players to cross heal early on in their skill development.
  • ouroboros99ouroboros99 Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited May 2013
    The comparisons to Federation ships are a bad idea in general. The Fed ships of the D'Deridex's era were all peacetime designs for the Federation, which at the time had no real serious enemy left.

    Not so with the D'Deridex. It was built as the ship that would be used to reestablish the Romulans as a major power in the alpha quadrant following their long isolation.

    In the only actual combat encounter between the two we ever see the D'Deridex hammers down the Enterprise D's shields by 70% in a matter of seconds and leaves Geordi scrambling to fix the damage to the ship for at least 10 minutes after that.

    The idea that the Galaxy and D'Deridex should be roughly comparable in firepower is a myth.

    The Galaxy class is a ship built to point itself at the unknown reaches and operate out there by itself for extended periods and in a variety of wildly different missions. It's role as a warship is secondary to it's role as an explorer.

    The D'Deridex on the other hand was designed as the most powerful and intimidating warship Romulan technology of the time could produce for the purpose of sending a message to the Klingons and Federation. It was meant to show the other powers that the Romulans were done with isolationism and were ready and capable of reasserting their strength and influence in the region.

    2 tac consoles.

    Nope.

    Now since the Romulans seemed to build nothing but D'Deridex all through TNG and the Dominion war I could definitely get behind some sort of 3 pack release backed by the idea that it was a highly modular and versatile design. The idea that though they might look similar on the outside, the internals and crews would actually be quite different depending on if the ship was outfitted for science, engineering or tactical operations.

    You could even expand the explanation to say that the Romulans went with this approach because they liked the idea of their warships, support cruisers and science vessels being indistinguishable from each other to their enemies. It helped to hide their intentions in any given scenario, as well as how many of each type of ship they had deployed to a given area or mission, and to generally keep their enemies guessing and doubting themselves in any potential encounter.
Sign In or Register to comment.