test content
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc

proposed imporovment to the largest of cruisers

dontdrunkimshootdontdrunkimshoot Member Posts: 0 Arc User
edited May 2013 in PvP Gameplay
made this post on some tribble thread, got burred and unnoticed though. with large cruisers being so TRIBBLE in their current form, what do you guys think?


there should proboly be a new class of cruiser, between cruisers and carriers, call them all dreadnoughts or something. the difference is that ships get more consoles and a second LTC station in exchange for them being so large. they would all have the COM, LTC, LTC, LT setup, with between 10 to 11 consoles. their turn rates should range from 6 to 9, and they should have the lowest inertia. small cruisers should get a turn rate and inertia buff in exchange. also a +5 to defense score buff, wile these dreadnoughts get a -5 to defense score, and a -.2 to impulse modifier vs a normal cruiser. wile your at it, give sci ships a scaling + to defense score as their sensor analysis ranks increase, vs their target, up to +10. give escorts a +15 defense score, and a +5 acc bonus vs dreadnoughts too.

ships that should be in the dreadnoughts category are:

d'deridex
ha'apax
negvar
bortas
odyssey
galaxys

they should come stranded with 10 consoles, fleet versions coming with 11.

d'deridex
COM sci
LTC eng
LTC tac
LT uni
ENS sci

9 turn
42k hull
1.0 shield mod
consoles:
3 eng
4 sci
3 tac(+1 for fleet)


ha'apax
COM eng
LTC tac
LTC uni
LT sci
ENS uni

6 turn
46k hull
1.05 shield mod
consoles:
4 eng
3 sci
3 tac(+1 for fleet)


negvar
COM tac
LTC eng
LTC eng

LT uni
ENS sci

9 turn
45k hull
1.0 shield mod
consoles:
4 eng
2 sci
4 tac(+1 for fleet)


bortas
COM eng
LTC tac
LTC uni
LT tac
ENS uni

6 turn
47k hull
1.0 shield mod
consoles:
4 eng(+1 War Cruiser)
2 sci(+1 Command Cruiser)
4 tac(+1 Tactical Cruiser)


galaxyR
COM eng
LTC tac
LTC sci
LT uni
ENS sci

8 turn
48k hull
1.05 shield mod
consoles:
4 eng
3 sci(+1 for fleet)
3 tac


galaxyX
COM tac
LTC eng
LTC eng

LT uni
ENS sci

8 turn
48k hull
1.05 shield mod
consoles:
4 eng
2 sci(+1 for fleet)
4 tac


odyessy
COM eng
LTC sci
LTC uni
LT tac
ENS uni

7 turn
50k hull
1.15 shield mod
consoles:
4 eng(+1 for Operations Cruiser)
4 sci(+1 for Science Cruiser)
2 tac(+1 for Tactical Cruiser)

why would i propose something so seemingly OP? simple, the larger a ship is, the worse it performs, this is finally a balancing step to put these things in line. these ships move like carriers but have no hangers, and have inferior numbers of stations. buffing the level of stations they have to carrier level, and adding another console to them, and lifting the turn rate florr for them ever so is appropriate. you cant just make them turn better till they are good, that would crowd the smaller cruisers out at what should be their strength, a balance of maneuverability and sturdiness. why is the galaxy getting a turn rate of 8? well, compared to all these other ships in the category, its actually the smallest. so ya, 8 is appropriate vs the rest of these huge ships.

the sovereign, star cruiser, ambassador, excelsior, cheyenne, dkora, galor, vorcha, corsair, kamarang and ktinga should get increased inertia and turn rate in exchange for not being one of the stat bloated dreadnoughts, with a range of 12 to 9.

sovereign-9.5 turn, 40 inertia
star cruiser-9 turn, 35 inertia
ambassador-9 turn, 40 inertia
excelsior-10 turn, 50 inertia
cheyenne-10.5 turn, 50 inertia
dkora- 9.5 turn, 40 inertia
galor- 11 turn, 50 inertia
vorcha- 10.5 turn, 40 inertia
corsair- 9.5 turn, 40 inertia
kamarang- 11 turn, 45 inertia
ktinga- 11.5 turn, 50 inertia
Post edited by dontdrunkimshoot on

Comments

  • praxi5praxi5 Member Posts: 1,562 Arc User
    edited May 2013
    Unfortunately, I can't see them changing BO loadouts of ships that have already been released.

    To do so would change something people have already purchased and there would be an outrage from those who don't like it (see: Andorian Phasers).

    Precedent being the SNB DOff - they weren't willing to change the entire nature of the proc, only the proc rate, since people had already heavily invested in it.
  • dalnar83dalnar83 Member Posts: 2,420 Arc User
    edited May 2013
    But Geko said in one of his last podcast that they want to improve galaxy and nebula. Now I cannot imagine selling another Galaxy.

    venture
    Galaxy-R
    Fleet galaxy

    That's already almost worth oddy pack. Releasing another Gal with "proper" layout and then charge another 2500 Zen for it...would be well...bad PR.

    I can imagine changing the Galaxy-R, because those who bought it, can requsition it again. And buy new fleet version for one module. And I do not know anyone who bought T4 Galaxy for 4 modules anyway.
    "Cryptic Studio’s Jack Emmert (2010): Microtransactions are the biggest bunch of nonsense. I like paying one fee and not worrying about it – like my cellphone. The world’s biggest MMO isn’t item based, even though the black market item GDP is bigger than Russia … microtransactions make me want to die.”
  • marc8219marc8219 Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited May 2013
    I like some of the idea but would be worried about taking a defense penalty. You also give up having a 5th boff trait if this were to happen, so that's another big hit to crit chance or def bonus. Having 2 Lt Cmdr stations like a carrier or Fleet Norgh or soon to be D'Deridex retrofit is pretty powerful though.

    Also that bortasqu layout would mess up a lot of my builds if that were to happen. I use it on a tac and eng captains and usually use a lt Cmdr uni as tac on my tac captain, but on my eng captain it sometimes is used as sci or eng. The ensign uni gets moved around to all 3 positions also. If the Lt Cmdr tac were to be universal and the Lt Cmdr Uni be made to sci I could probably transfer all my builds to that layout though, if not the Lt Cmdr uni wouldn't be very universal since it would have to be sci.
    Tala -KDF Tac- House of Beautiful Orions
  • bitemepwebitemepwe Member Posts: 6,760 Arc User
    edited May 2013
    I like the idea of an armor modifier based off of vessel size that effects the armor console stats similiar to shield modifier effects shields.
    In addition to DDIS idea. Especially if the KDF is included in said idea.
    Leonard Nimoy, Spock.....:(

    R.I.P
  • gurriknakgurriknak Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited May 2013
    Those are pretty dramatic changes. An easier way to improve cruisers may be to simply create a "fast cruiser variant" that traded hull for better manuverability and engine performance.

    One other idea may be to give all cruisers a bonus vs weapon power drain associated with firing multiple weapons (basically a built-in, always-on Nadion Beam).

    Before Engineers start to grab their pitchforks, I'd change both Nadion Beam and EPS to point-blank AoE fields and make Miracle Worker useable on others.
  • dalnar83dalnar83 Member Posts: 2,420 Arc User
    edited May 2013
    I would be just happy with

    Lt.cmd
    Cmd.
    Lt.
    Lt.cmd

    Layout for Galaxy-R.The poor turn rate is enough to offset such layout. And I wouldn't even mind the curent 5/3/2 console layout, with a better offensive saucer sep stats.
    "Cryptic Studio’s Jack Emmert (2010): Microtransactions are the biggest bunch of nonsense. I like paying one fee and not worrying about it – like my cellphone. The world’s biggest MMO isn’t item based, even though the black market item GDP is bigger than Russia … microtransactions make me want to die.”
  • drkfrontiersdrkfrontiers Member Posts: 2,477 Arc User
    edited May 2013
    I think that this is an interesting idea.

    Cruisers / Battlecruisers

    Furthermore, perhaps the largest of cruisers etc, could have their warp cores increase their power threshold to 135.

    In line with how the escorts dish out more dmg the closer they are to target, cruisers should get additional bonus based on distance e.g.

    10 - 12 - boosted damage.
    5 -10 - standard damage.
    0 - 5 - boosted damage.

    This greatly increases their offensive defense, which means that escorts will have to "get-in-&-get-the-job-done-or-die".

    Science

    Science vessels should have their sensor analysis increased to a max. stacking of 12, and perhaps buffed by aux. bonus modifiers.

    What I would really like to see down the line is the scale of these ships to be slightly increased.
  • drkfrontiersdrkfrontiers Member Posts: 2,477 Arc User
    edited May 2013
    gurriknak wrote: »
    Those are pretty dramatic changes. An easier way to improve cruisers may be to simply create a "fast cruiser variant" that traded hull for better manuverability and engine performance.

    One other idea may be to give all cruisers a bonus vs weapon power drain associated with firing multiple weapons (basically a built-in, always-on Nadion Beam).

    Before Engineers start to grab their pitchforks, I'd change both Nadion Beam and EPS to point-blank AoE fields and make Miracle Worker useable on others.

    By and large cruisers are currently in dire need of something significant.
  • praxi5praxi5 Member Posts: 1,562 Arc User
    edited May 2013
    By and large cruisers are currently in dire need of something significant.

    Eh, I'm not so sure... there are some pretty damn effective Tac/Cruisers out there, especially with Aux 2 Batt. Even Sci/Cruisers aren't so bad.
  • dontdrunkimshootdontdrunkimshoot Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited May 2013
    By and large cruisers are currently in dire need of something significant.

    indeed. i think the best way to help them is to expand thier stats beyond what smaller ships can have, due to their size. ever since yoda said size maters not 33 years ago, people have lost their damn minds. size maters most, is whats actually correct regarding a starship in a scifi setting, not a sci fantasy setting.

    its absurd that a defiant or bug ship can have as much extra power, stations, consoles, and hitpoints as ships 100 times their size, wile at the same time having the advantages of best turn rate and access to the only weapons that deal damage.

    marc8219 wrote: »
    I like some of the idea but would be worried about taking a defense penalty. You also give up having a 5th boff trait if this were to happen, so that's another big hit to crit chance or def bonus. Having 2 Lt Cmdr stations like a carrier or Fleet Norgh or soon to be D'Deridex retrofit is pretty powerful though.

    Also that bortasqu layout would mess up a lot of my builds if that were to happen. I use it on a tac and eng captains and usually use a lt Cmdr uni as tac on my tac captain, but on my eng captain it sometimes is used as sci or eng. The ensign uni gets moved around to all 3 positions also. If the Lt Cmdr tac were to be universal and the Lt Cmdr Uni be made to sci I could probably transfer all my builds to that layout though, if not the Lt Cmdr uni wouldn't be very universal since it would have to be sci.

    you know, i dont think it would be to further a stretch to give therm all an ENS station too. maybe not universal on the non flagships though, just the bort, ody and hap.
  • snoge00fsnoge00f Member Posts: 1,812 Arc User
    edited May 2013
    Get it done already, Cryptic.

    We already have more powercreep coming, so why not give the cruisers some more love?
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • drkfrontiersdrkfrontiers Member Posts: 2,477 Arc User
    edited May 2013
    indeed. i think the best way to help them is to expand thier stats beyond what smaller ships can have, due to their size. ever since yoda said size maters not 33 years ago, people have lost their damn minds. size maters most, is whats actually correct regarding a starship in a scifi setting, not a sci fantasy setting.

    its absurd that a defiant or bug ship can have as much extra power, stations, consoles, and hitpoints as ships 100 times their size, wile at the same time having the advantages of best turn rate and access to the only weapons that deal damage.




    you know, i dont think it would be to further a stretch to give therm all an ENS station too. maybe not universal on the non flagships though, just the bort, ody and hap.

    Perhaps the solution could come from a rather simply source?

    Doffs. Since cruisers are the largest ships around, perhaps they could slop more doffs.

    Perhaps cruisers could have, just as an example:

    cruisers 7 slots (+2 operations/ eng)
    battlecruisers/ heavy cruisers (+1 operations + 1 tactical)
    sci 6 slots (+1 science)
    escorts 5 slots

    Just throwing it out there.
  • edited May 2013
    This content has been removed.
  • drkfrontiersdrkfrontiers Member Posts: 2,477 Arc User
    edited May 2013
    the best way to help them is to expand thier stats beyond what smaller ships can have, due to their size.

    You have summed it up perfectly. Perfectly.

    The current ratio of the % dmg/ time for an escort vs. the % healing/ time of a cruiser completely negates the narrow margin for cruisers to inflict sufficient % dmg/ time to cause death by natural means.
  • cha0s1428cha0s1428 Member Posts: 416 Arc User
    edited May 2013
    Drunk, I honestly think you are being a little conservative in the hull stats. As it is right now, there is very little significant difference in the hull values between cruisers and escorts. Hell, some science ships have worse hull than escorts.

    Once a facing shield goes down and you cannot turn, you pop like a balloon. I personally wouldn't mind seeing a even bigger boost to hull stats. 1 or 2 thousand here or there is basically just one more volley of rapid fire.

    Overall though, I really think your ideas are great. A lot of my ships would come out of retirement with those stats, and in fact, I would buy those I don't have, as they would all have separate roles. Even without the hull tweaks I mentioned, I would still buy these, and play the ones I already have.
  • dontdrunkimshootdontdrunkimshoot Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited May 2013
    cha0s1428 wrote: »
    Drunk, I honestly think you are being a little conservative in the hull stats. As it is right now, there is very little significant difference in the hull values between cruisers and escorts. Hell, some science ships have worse hull than escorts.

    Once a facing shield goes down and you cannot turn, you pop like a balloon. I personally wouldn't mind seeing a even bigger boost to hull stats. 1 or 2 thousand here or there is basically just one more volley of rapid fire.

    Overall though, I really think your ideas are great. A lot of my ships would come out of retirement with those stats, and in fact, I would buy those I don't have, as they would all have separate roles. Even without the hull tweaks I mentioned, I would still buy these, and play the ones I already have.

    i purposely made the romulan ships a bit more lightly hulled, due to their battleclaok. the galaxy and odyssey have the most, with the kdf ships in between due to their normal cloak. each of them having 5k more health would proboly be appropriate, just so they have a noticeable amount more damage soak.

    but, i dont want to leave the smaller cruisers to far behind. at least the fed ones still arent that great, and are basically just a -1 with no way to really use that turn rate to their advantage, other then the quality of life factor. this change, along with a change to beam arrays and single cannons so they fire like DHCs would go a long way to help them, and the fed dreadnoughts. kdf cruisers are fine though, LoR will be a golden age for them, turn consoles and EPtE will make them terrifying!

    pressure is dead, it cant live under these conditions, no mater how strong it is. to much regeneration, resistance and proc heals. shields losing the built in 75% resistance to knetic would help too, throwing HY down range at any target with shields up would be closer to as dangerous as getting hit with BO, and a way all cruisers, but especially maneuverable ones, could deal better damage.

    so, all beam arrays and single cannons would be 2 shots per cycle, torps would be viable on everything, and id make 1 more change too. on JUST these fed type cruisers, i would have beam arrays mounted fore fire 1 shot per cycle, with the same DPS as always. all this would be a transformative change to enhancing cruisers worth, without helping out escorts that much
  • sparhawksparhawk Member Posts: 796 Arc User
    edited May 2013
    I normally don't spend much time in this section of the forums, but I like this proposal and some of the other suggestions in this thread. :cool:
  • marc8219marc8219 Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited May 2013
    cha0s1428 wrote: »
    Drunk, I honestly think you are being a little conservative in the hull stats. As it is right now, there is very little significant difference in the hull values between cruisers and escorts. Hell, some science ships have worse hull than escorts.

    Once a facing shield goes down and you cannot turn, you pop like a balloon. I personally wouldn't mind seeing a even bigger boost to hull stats. 1 or 2 thousand here or there is basically just one more volley of rapid fire.

    Overall though, I really think your ideas are great. A lot of my ships would come out of retirement with those stats, and in fact, I would buy those I don't have, as they would all have separate roles. Even without the hull tweaks I mentioned, I would still buy these, and play the ones I already have.

    Hull has been on my mind for awhile, I big think changes to hull need to be made to make big ships more worthwhile. Stacking penalty for hull resistance should be less, and cruisers could get some innate hull resists and more total hull strength. Things need to be weighted much more towards making hull tanking viable vs shield tanking to help cruisers out some.
    Tala -KDF Tac- House of Beautiful Orions
  • dalnar83reborndalnar83reborn Member Posts: 2 Arc User
    edited May 2013
    Just a little idea that occured to me. What if doff slots were scaled with ship crew. The more crew you have, the more doffs you can use at the same time.
    --- sarcasm is a dish best served hot ---
  • thegrimcorsairthegrimcorsair Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited May 2013
    Just a little idea that occured to me. What if doff slots were scaled with ship crew. The more crew you have, the more doffs you can use at the same time.

    Short answer: It'd probably break the DOff system so hard it'd be completely unfeasible to add.

    Longer Answer: DOff's typically have exponential returns in their investment, provided they have synergy with your ship. It's like expanding or contracting the rosters on Crew-size would lead to all kinds of really weird problems, with anything less than 3 DOff's leaving most any ship critically starved for slots, and more than maybe 8 or so leaving ships struggling to fill out their roster with truly useful DOff's.

    [Edit]

    Also, do I know you, or did you just randomly pop-up out of the ether?
    If you feel Keel'el's effect is well designed, please, for your own safety, be very careful around shallow pools of water.
  • dalnar83reborndalnar83reborn Member Posts: 2 Arc User
    edited May 2013
    You certainly do not know me. :) But to the doffs. Well was just a brain TRIBBLE idea. I did not mean to reduce amount of some ship, bur rather to give +1 or even +2 slots to some large ships to offset their drawbacks. I do not know about you, but I would have no trouble using even 10 doffs :D
    --- sarcasm is a dish best served hot ---
  • lascaillelascaille Member Posts: 78 Arc User
    edited May 2013
    and once again i've got the feeling, that some people here are on the holy search for the "eierlegende wollmilchsau", when they want "some" improvements for cruisers / heavy ships

    google translator says the translation for the "eierlegende wollmilchsau" is "jack of all trades"... booooooooooring
    http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-nFdHOyO6eDE/Tdy2vavo7PI/AAAAAAAAArY/oDwAUGXGMOs/s1600/eier-legende-wollmilchsau1.jpg
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • dontdrunkimshootdontdrunkimshoot Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited May 2013
    battleship bump! for great justice!
  • aetam1aetam1 Member Posts: 228 Arc User
    edited May 2013
    I would probably start with improving their weapons. Beams look rather cool so why not make them more viable for cruisers. Maybe start with a weapon drain reduction, like half the drain of beams.
    Or give cruisers a passive buff for beam weapons, or just introduce a new kind of beam for cruisers only. Like 360? beams with single beam damage and only the weapon drain of a turret.

    My stomach is clear and my mind is full of bacon!
  • stardestroyer001stardestroyer001 Member Posts: 2,615 Arc User
    edited May 2013
    Going to try suggesting this again...

    I like the builds in drunk's first post: however, there should be the implementation of a "Universal" console slot - as in any console can go in there.
    stardestroyer001, Admiral, Explorers Fury PvE/PvP Fleet | Retired PvP Player
    Missing the good ol' days of PvP: Legacy of Romulus to Season 9
    My List of Useful Links, Recently Updated November 25 2017!
  • gralerongraleron Member Posts: 221 Arc User
    edited May 2013
    dalnar83 wrote: »
    Now I cannot imagine selling another Galaxy.
    Why not? I can.
    Vice Admiral Elaron, USS Hard Light
Sign In or Register to comment.