I understand your argument and have given my counter-argument. If you do not have anything of value left to say then please omit yourself from the conversation.
You support a re-vamp of the Galaxy-class but want to shut down this conversation regarding cloaking device consoles. Please, refrain from the conversation unless you have something constructive to add.
Hate to break it to you this way, but you don't get to decide who does and who does not participate in the forum discussion. You may have deluded yourself into thinking you get the power of deciding who gets to participate in your little thread, but that is not the case.
If you only want to read agreeing and supportive comments on your ideas and can't stand a pinch of constructive criticism, may I suggest standing in front of the mirror and talking to yourself?
And your comment on me supporting the Galaxy class revamp bearing any relevance to the completely different discussion that goes on in this thread makes about sense as your claim that the ships designed to carry the cloak as a console for balancing reasons are ok to just have it integrated without any further balancing adjustments.
I have been more constructive in this discussion than you. While I tried to explain why the design of the game is the way it is and suggested adjustments if those ships are to have the cloak integrated, the only thing I keep hearing from your end is "gimme, gimme" and "I want".
the Path to 2409 explains why the Federation is still honoring the no cloak treaty and ehy the new Avenger can use an existing cloak console while it doesnt come with one itself.
frankly if you want a built in cloak on any fed cloaking vessel it should lose the exra console slot given it (after much fed asking for it) given to them that was to compensate for its use taking up a console slot.
This has been said over and over and over again and still Fed Heavy players do not want to accept it.
The Federation is not a cloaking faction and one of the 3 Federation ships that are in game that can cloak should not even exist due to it being from an unrealized alternate timeline.
The Cloaking device was originally placed on the Defiant was just an add on that was loaned to the Federation from the Romulan Star Empire and was only to be used in the Gama Quadrant and it even came with its own Romulan babysitter.
I cannot speak to how the 2nd Defiant cloaking device was dealt with in canon.
I might be willing to accept the Galaxy X having an integrated Cloaking Device seeing has in the timeline that it comes from the Klingons had completely wiped out the Romulan Star Empire and we do not know much about the X except that it was a retrofitted Enterprise D; however, even though I like the X and use it on one of my Fed Engineers, the ship should not exist in STO.
I would love to get a one off FE that explains how the Galaxy X came to exist in STO has a way to kick off the long awaited arrival of its Fleet variant.
Getting back on topic:
I say no to integrated cloaking devices for federation vessel but I'd be willing to make a deal.
If Cryptic decides to retcon STO to where the Romulan Star Empire becomes a subjugated (not allied) race under Klingon rule and there are no Romulans flying under any banner except the KDF then I'd be find with the Federation having a nine consoled Galaxy X with an integrated cloaking device
I cannot speak to how the 2nd Defiant cloaking device was dealt with in canon.
Short answer: the Sao Paolo was never shown to cloak onscreen, and was never mentioned to have been equipped with a second romulan cloaking device (since the first one placed on the Defiant was destroyed when said ship was lost at Chin'Toka).
As an owner of a Defiant Retrofit, a Fleet Avenger, a B'rel Retrofit, an Ar'Kif and other ships, I would be willing to allow the Federation to have integrated cloaking devices, not battle cloaks, in exchange for changes to the ship's basic stats.
In the Defiant's case, a simple lowering of the turn rate from 17 to 15, to put it in line with it's KDF equivalent, the Qin. Also, the centre axis should be changed to make it nearer the back of the ship to compensate for this advantage.
The Avenger, well, I would compensate for the advantage (talking about the fleet version here, as a counterpart to the Fleet Tor'Kaht) by lowering the shield mod to 1.0 and reducing stock hull from over 43k to 38k. Maybe also drop the Inertia Rating from 50 to 30. It already has an advantage with it's 5/3 weapons layout compared to the Tor'Kaht, and has the (subjectively) better BOff layout.
The Galaxy-X... well, I think its stats speak for itself. The ship's not really on par with most of the current T5 ships (particularly since the Avenger came in), so no real change in stats is required. If anything, a slight buff to bring it up to date (but there are other threads that deal with that).
If anything, I would advocate allowing the Federation ships an integrated cloak if all the KDF ships were brought into line to compensate, and all ships were brought into line with each other (including Romulan warbirds - the base power level decrease of the sing core is laughably easy to overcome).
But, that's my thoughts as a Fed, KDF, and Rom (both Fed-Rom and KDF-Rom) player.
As an owner of a Defiant Retrofit, a Fleet Avenger, a B'rel Retrofit, an Ar'Kif and other ships, I would be willing to allow the Federation to have integrated cloaking devices, not battle cloaks, in exchange for changes to the ship's basic stats.
In the Defiant's case, a simple lowering of the turn rate from 17 to 15, to put it in line with it's KDF equivalent, the Qin. Also, the centre axis should be changed to make it nearer the back of the ship to compensate for this advantage.
The Avenger, well, I would compensate for the advantage (talking about the fleet version here, as a counterpart to the Fleet Tor'Kaht) by lowering the shield mod to 1.0 and reducing stock hull from over 43k to 38k. Maybe also drop the Inertia Rating from 50 to 30. It already has an advantage with it's 5/3 weapons layout compared to the Tor'Kaht, and has the (subjectively) better BOff layout.
The Galaxy-X... well, I think its stats speak for itself. The ship's not really on par with most of the current T5 ships (particularly since the Avenger came in), so no real change in stats is required. If anything, a slight buff to bring it up to date (but there are other threads that deal with that).
If anything, I would advocate allowing the Federation ships an integrated cloak if all the KDF ships were brought into line to compensate, and all ships were brought into line with each other (including Romulan warbirds - the base power level decrease of the sing core is laughably easy to overcome).
But, that's my thoughts as a Fed, KDF, and Rom (both Fed-Rom and KDF-Rom) player.
Tim
Having an integrated cloaking device, and not a battle cloak, would not be an advantage at all. Therefore, lowering any statistics of these ships would not be a proper move, imo.
Since ships now have cloaking devices and all of these additional basic stats + 9-10 console slots, providing these few Federation ships with an integrated cloaking device would not be any sort of advantage.
... the only thing I keep hearing from your end is "gimme, gimme" and "I want".
That is quite interesting considering that fact that I have never even said, "I want," or, "Gimme." Perhaps you should reflect on why you are so adamant about this issue in such a negative way.
I have understood all of your points and I have provided counter-points, yet you only refer to your original point without contesting my counter-points... thus, any further statements from you are useless until you do so. I am sorry if that is offensive. I also asked that you please refrain from the conversation, note: the word please, unless you have something productive to add.
The reason that I brought up your eagerness to see the Galaxy-class revamped is because it equates to my eagerness to have a potential review of this issue regarding cloaking devices as consoles on Federation ships. You want a revamp of something and so do I. However, I do not try to derail your ideas. Carry on I suppose.
I disagree since this just feeds in to the unnecessary limitations on these ships just to give them the ability to cloak, when other factions have this ability and then some with their capabilities while maintaining all of their console slots.
To be fair, the Dready does get the Phaser Lance, so perhaps giving it a built-in cloak might not be fair.
The Tactical Escort Retrofit, on the other hand, does not have any other special abilities other than the cloaking device.
Well the tactical escort has speed handling lots of tac consoles and a wide assortment great builds for tactical also all of special consoles and universal consoles as well now , guess you need more of a crutch on an already great ship escort ,retrofit escort , fleet escort that right there is 3 ship upgrades for you , so you need more greedy
I remain empathetic to the concerns of my community, but do me a favor and lay off the god damn name calling and petty remarks. It will get you nowhere.
I must admit, respect points to Trendy for laying down the law like that.
I could. Doubt I could change your mind about any of this.
Besides, a good portion of the points I would've made have been mentioned by others already. So I'll just say this:
It's been this way for a long time, with a TON of threads that have gone over this topic. The 'dead horse' in regards to this has gone through the cycle of rebirth and death many times now.
I really doubt this will be the thread the changes the dev's minds. Anything brought up here has probably been said at least a couple times in previous threads.
I remain empathetic to the concerns of my community, but do me a favor and lay off the god damn name calling and petty remarks. It will get you nowhere.
I must admit, respect points to Trendy for laying down the law like that.
What the OP seems to be forgetting (or maybe they weren't here yet at the time) is that before the cloak was moved to a console, the ships that had it lost a console slot in order to get the innate cloak. When the cloak console was added, these ships all got an extra slot back. It was the same with all the powers on the VA ships, each of them sacrificed a console slot, in order to get their innate power, but the ships all got them back when the powers were made into consoles. You aren't really loosing anything by having the cloak on a console, in fact you gained the ability to swap it out for something else if you needed to. If they went back to innate cloaks all these ships would just end up loosing a console slot again.
What the OP seems to be forgetting (or maybe they weren't here yet at the time) is that before the cloak was moved to a console, the ships that had it lost a console slot in order to get the innate cloak. When the cloak console was added, these ships all got an extra slot back. You aren't really loosing anything by having the cloak on a console, in fact you gained the ability to swap it out for something else if you needed to. If they went back to innate cloaks all these ships would just end up loosing a console slot again.
I understand that point but that is no longer logical to believe since all ships are now released at the VA level with 9-10 console slots. That is why I think that these consoles should be reviewed given the current cadre of vessels.
It is wishful thinking, tbh, but I still think that a review is in order of several ships, and not just these to be fair.
At the time that these cloaking ships were released, it was a level 40 cap. Then, ships were not released in the fashion that they are now, and the balancing was quite different. A lot of time has passed and the vessels are much different, now. Also, there are many universal consoles that are in use, when at the time of these ships' release, there were not.
Hence, I think that having a cloaking device as a console is a disservice to these ships. In order to have a key feature of these ships, a console must be equipped whereas versions of this same type of cloaking ability persist on other ships as innate abilities. This means that those ships with innate cloaks have 1 extra free console slot in addition to their ability to cloak.
The Tactical Escort Retrofit does have fine base stats, yet, so do most other vessels AND they have innate cloaking abilities which gives them +1 free console slot to use over the Tactical Escort Retrofit.
The Ar'Kif Tactical Carrier Warbird Retrofit has the ability to innately cloak, while also having a hangar bay. If I equate having +1 turn rate on the Tactical Escort Retrofit to the Ar'Kif's hangar bay, then both of these ships have a special ability. The major difference is that the Ar'Kif has +1 additional console slot over the Tactical Escort Retrofit because it can innately cloak and the Tactical Escort Retrofit must sacrifice one console slot in order to cloak.
Similarly, for the Dready, the Phaser Lance is a fine weapon, and a nice feature to the ship, however, other ships have interesting abilities along with their abilities to cloak. This means that the Dready must sacrifice 1 console slot just to cloak, whereas other ships do not need to make that sacrifice.
For instance, the Scimitar has a Hangar Bay, and 5 fore weapons, while still being able to innately cloak. The Dready has 4 fore and 4 aft weapons, no hangar bays, and a Phaser Lance, but must use a console in order to cloak. I consider having a Hangar Bay to be an ability of the ship that equates to having a Phaser Lance. Therefore, the Dready has -1 console slot compared to the Scimitar that must be used just to be able to cloak. I don't believe that this is balanced but I do respect those who believe that it is.
When these two ships were released, the comparisons that I mentioned did not exist. Hence, this is why I believe the cloaking console should be reviewed given the current cadre of vessels.
the T4 Tactical Escort has 7 console slots and does not come with a cloak, so it loses nothing.
the T5 Tactical Escort retrofit has 9 console slots (a gain of two) and comes with a cloak console, so it loses nothing.
the Fleet Tactical Escort has 10 console slots with a cloak console and loses nothing.
there is no imbalance or injustice or sacrifice issue.
ALL Fleet ships get 10 console slots, AFAIK. So, if you could please read my logic above, you will understand why these cloaking Federation ships, imo, have basically -1 console slot just because they must equip a console to cloak.
and since I forgot. The Tactical Escort refit has 8 console slots and no cloak.
You posted while I was editing my previous post. Please read it and comment on the logic that I was using. I know how many console slots these ships have, and I disagree with your assertion that they, "Lose nothing."
You posted while I was editing my previous post. Please read it and comment on the logic that I was using. I know how many console slots these ships have, and I disagree with your assertion that they, "Lose nothing."
Every comparison you're making is against a Romulan C-store ship. Ships that were designed to be functionally superior to everything the KDF and Federation can field. Which means logic goes straight out the window.
Every comparison you're making is against a Romulan C-store ship. Ships that were designed to be functionally superior to everything the KDF and Federation can field. Which means logic goes straight out the window.
No, logic does not go straight out the window... I am comparing ship with ship.
No, logic does not go straight out the window... I am comparing ship with ship.
I can make the same comparisons to KDF vessels.
By all means, please demonstrate how ships with innate cloaks that have functionally lower stats are superior. Toss in another comparison between a non-fleet and a fleet ship while you're at it. And if you could be so kind as to point out where the KDFs escort carrier is hiding, that'd be great too.
You posted while I was editing my previous post. Please read it and comment on the logic that I was using. I know how many console slots these ships have, and I disagree with your assertion that they, "Lose nothing."
its not logical. The fleet versions only gain in the number of consoles so nothing is lost.
The ship had gained not lost. In fact the ships do nothing but gain slots as they progress.
in vomparison to KDF which have some losses in stats due yo cloaking and Romulans which have lower powetbase to offset their superior cloaking.
The Fed Defiant class does not loss anything. The AGT galaxy did not lose anything for its closk but does seem yo suffer in other unrelated areas according to the fanbasr.
Most of the OP's pro-integrated cloak arguments center around the fact that most VA-grade ships these days come with 9 consoles or more, and that cloaking consoles limit the maximum possible statistical/abulity bonuses achievable if all 9 consoles were available to use for whatever.
For the moment let's disregard the historical reasons for making cloaks a console on the Defiant-R and Gal-X, even though those reasons are significant enough to justify keeping cloaks console-bound on the relevant ships.
Now, has the OP considered the fact that for Fed ships, cloaking is intended as a tactical choice? You either max your possible stats by dropping the cloak, or keep it and gain the ability to do an alpha strike like a KDF battlecruiser. That's a choice.
Remember that most Fed cruisers and escorts have better base stats than their integrated-cloak-equipped Battle cruisers and raptors, who use the cloak to enable a unique set of tactics.
Now, we all know the Gal-X needs a revamp in the raw stats department to keep it competitive with similar-tiered ships, but the Avenger and Defiant-R are fine the way they are. The choice of either gaining access to KDF-like tactics or maximizing stats is working as intended.
Most of the OP's pro-integrated cloak arguments center around the fact that most VA-grade ships these days come with 9 consoles or more, and that cloaking consoles limit the maximum possible statistical/abulity bonuses achievable if all 9 consoles were available to use for whatever.
For the moment let's disregard the historical reasons for making cloaks a console on the Defiant-R and Gal-X, even though those reasons are significant enough to justify keeping cloaks console-bound on the relevant ships.
Now, has the OP considered the fact that for Fed ships, cloaking is intended as a tactical choice? You either max your possible stats by dropping the cloak, or keep it and gain the ability to do an alpha strike like a KDF battlecruiser. That's a choice.
Remember that most Fed cruisers and escorts have better base stats than their integrated-cloak-equipped Battle cruisers and raptors, who use the cloak to enable a unique set of tactics.
Now, we all know the Gal-X needs a revamp in the raw stats department to keep it competitive with similar-tiered ships, but the Avenger and Defiant-R are fine the way they are. The choice of either gaining access to KDF-like tactics or maximizing stats is working as intended.
I agree with all that you have said here, but I still think that given the current cadre of vessels, a console should not be required for these ships to cloak.
Ships in the KDF and Romulan factions will continue to be released that have integrated cloaking systems as well as useful additions such as hangar bays which makes the cloaking Federation ships, which I will hold the Avenger as an exception because it does have additional abilities, at a disadvantage.
Arguments about KDF ships and their lack of parity as compared to Romulan ships are also valid and that is a concern for another thread. My concern here is only regarding the Federation ships that are forced to use a cloaking device as a console slot.
If you want to ignore Star Trek canon - they could just remove the cloak from the Defiant completely, because the only reason the ship exists with a cloak is because of what is in the show.
Otherwise accept that the ship wasn't designed to use a cloak innately, so "costing" a console slot is logical, true to the IP, and a valid decision point in trade-offs.
I agree with all that you have said here, but I still think that given the current cadre of vessels, a console should not be required for these ships to cloak.
Then we have nothing more to say to each other, as you refuse to change your mind in the face of overwhelming evidence in favor of the contrary.
And once more, the STO forums have yet another "GEEF MY FED SHEEEPS AN CLOOAAAAK!" Thread.
the Path to 2409 explains why the Federation is still honoring the no cloak treaty and ehy the new Avenger can use an existing cloak console while it doesnt come with one itself.
frankly if you want a built in cloak on any fed cloaking vessel it should lose the exra console slot given it (after much fed asking for it) given to them that was to compensate for its use taking up a console slot.
The path to 2409 is history and explained why the federation did honor, but Empress Sela and the Romulan Star empire is no more... well she is with the iconians. That happened in 2409. So yes it WAS honored after the destruction of Romulus but tnow in 2409 there is no Romulan Star Empire to have a treaty with. nobody to have a treaty with and there is no treaty.
ALSO to further finish the path to 2409 argument, please look up the treaty and explain why the main part of the treaty is ignored? You know the Romulan nuetral zone any fed regardless of level can fly right across without permission from the federation or the Romulan Star empire. So there is a treaty but only because YOU want it to be to suit how YOU feel it should be but the treaty is ignored anyway?
*edit,
Also new ship built in 2409, the Avengar can use a cloak, and all defiant class ships in 2409 can use them. the single lone Defiant was allowed to use one not every ship of that class. Gal-X is alternate universe so we wont count it.
Join Date: Nobody cares.
"I'm drunk, whats your excuse for being an idiot?" - Unknown drunk man. :eek:
The cloak should be innate like for any other vessel. It's not a battlecloak, and Fed-allied Roms provide that element to any Federation team well enough. Requiring the Federation ships to sacrifice a slot, either slotted to cloak, or the inane, backwards thinking clamoring for it to lose a console slot outright, is absurd. Antiquated attempts to balance to a system that has long since been discarded. You can't demand it follows a rule that no other ship does anymore, as well. The rules have changed, these ships should adapt to meet the new rules. Look at the plethora of consoles that are now make-or-break. It's asinine to want Feds to suffer for the ability their vessel comes with, now that Blue-Roms have reset the standard game-play wise.
I am a lore buff myself. but in the end, these ships have the means to cloak anyways. They are the accepted and known exception to the 'Starfleet doesn't use cloaking devices' rule. Which makes it laughable that people run in like a screaming mimi over the suggestion the ability becomes integrated. What does it really matter, Lore-wise? These ships can already cloak. The console or innate, that doesn't change; if it really was a Lore issue, you'd be up in arms about them having the ability at all. Stop strawmanning with the Lore argument.
The opposition seems not at all interested in real balance, or preserving Lore. In reality, all it seems to be is people rushing in half-cocked, foaming in a rage over the premise of bringing only a few ships which already have the means to cloak, to par. Somehow to them it is an obscene injustice that these vessels aren't inferior to their counterparts.
As for the notion itself, and the possibly supplementing the removed console but not outright needed.
Defiant: Not sure, it's a good ship aside the redundant tact BOff slot. I actually would like to see a nod to the series of how tenacious the class was, not quite LRSV-R+ Ablative, but something.
Gal-X: Easy one here. It's an atrociously turning vessel for being able to sport cannons and phaser lance. A console that increases the turn-rate for a brief period fits in well.
Avenger: Still not sure it should cloak, I'll concede that. But as it has the VATA, nothing new needed.
The path to 2409 is history and explained why the federation did honor, but Empress Sela and the Romulan Star empire is no more... well she is with the iconians. That happened in 2409. So yes it WAS honored after the destruction of Romulus but tnow in 2409 there is no Romulan Star Empire to have a treaty with. nobody to have a treaty with and there is no treaty.
ALSO to further finish the path to 2409 argument, please look up the treaty and explain why the main part of the treaty is ignored? You know the Romulan nuetral zone any fed regardless of level can fly right across without permission from the federation or the Romulan Star empire. So there is a treaty but only because YOU want it to be to suit how YOU feel it should be but the treaty is ignored anyway?
*edit,
Also new ship built in 2409, the Avengar can use a cloak, and all defiant class ships in 2409 can use them. the single lone Defiant was allowed to use one not every ship of that class. Gal-X is alternate universe so we wont count it.
Read the PT2409 again. The current Noncloak treaty has nothing to do with the Romulans or Sela and is about the UFP getting caught doing something they where avowed they would not, and then reafirming they where wrong and reavowing to never do it again.
The Defiant Retro snd AGT are granfathered inyo game because of fan desire. The Avenger is a loophole in that it can use the console if the player already owns one.
The Romulan sector of space is open to fly through because you have missions there and in the early game the feds are both fighting for and against them.
Its ok if you wish to ignore game history and your own vows, honor is somethjng Ive long learned that any fedfan will gladly TRIBBLE upon to get their own srlfish ways accomplished.
Comments
Hate to break it to you this way, but you don't get to decide who does and who does not participate in the forum discussion. You may have deluded yourself into thinking you get the power of deciding who gets to participate in your little thread, but that is not the case.
If you only want to read agreeing and supportive comments on your ideas and can't stand a pinch of constructive criticism, may I suggest standing in front of the mirror and talking to yourself?
And your comment on me supporting the Galaxy class revamp bearing any relevance to the completely different discussion that goes on in this thread makes about sense as your claim that the ships designed to carry the cloak as a console for balancing reasons are ok to just have it integrated without any further balancing adjustments.
I have been more constructive in this discussion than you. While I tried to explain why the design of the game is the way it is and suggested adjustments if those ships are to have the cloak integrated, the only thing I keep hearing from your end is "gimme, gimme" and "I want".
This has been said over and over and over again and still Fed Heavy players do not want to accept it.
The Federation is not a cloaking faction and one of the 3 Federation ships that are in game that can cloak should not even exist due to it being from an unrealized alternate timeline.
The Cloaking device was originally placed on the Defiant was just an add on that was loaned to the Federation from the Romulan Star Empire and was only to be used in the Gama Quadrant and it even came with its own Romulan babysitter.
I cannot speak to how the 2nd Defiant cloaking device was dealt with in canon.
I might be willing to accept the Galaxy X having an integrated Cloaking Device seeing has in the timeline that it comes from the Klingons had completely wiped out the Romulan Star Empire and we do not know much about the X except that it was a retrofitted Enterprise D; however, even though I like the X and use it on one of my Fed Engineers, the ship should not exist in STO.
I would love to get a one off FE that explains how the Galaxy X came to exist in STO has a way to kick off the long awaited arrival of its Fleet variant.
Getting back on topic:
I say no to integrated cloaking devices for federation vessel but I'd be willing to make a deal.
If Cryptic decides to retcon STO to where the Romulan Star Empire becomes a subjugated (not allied) race under Klingon rule and there are no Romulans flying under any banner except the KDF then I'd be find with the Federation having a nine consoled Galaxy X with an integrated cloaking device
Short answer: the Sao Paolo was never shown to cloak onscreen, and was never mentioned to have been equipped with a second romulan cloaking device (since the first one placed on the Defiant was destroyed when said ship was lost at Chin'Toka).
In the Defiant's case, a simple lowering of the turn rate from 17 to 15, to put it in line with it's KDF equivalent, the Qin. Also, the centre axis should be changed to make it nearer the back of the ship to compensate for this advantage.
The Avenger, well, I would compensate for the advantage (talking about the fleet version here, as a counterpart to the Fleet Tor'Kaht) by lowering the shield mod to 1.0 and reducing stock hull from over 43k to 38k. Maybe also drop the Inertia Rating from 50 to 30. It already has an advantage with it's 5/3 weapons layout compared to the Tor'Kaht, and has the (subjectively) better BOff layout.
The Galaxy-X... well, I think its stats speak for itself. The ship's not really on par with most of the current T5 ships (particularly since the Avenger came in), so no real change in stats is required. If anything, a slight buff to bring it up to date (but there are other threads that deal with that).
If anything, I would advocate allowing the Federation ships an integrated cloak if all the KDF ships were brought into line to compensate, and all ships were brought into line with each other (including Romulan warbirds - the base power level decrease of the sing core is laughably easy to overcome).
But, that's my thoughts as a Fed, KDF, and Rom (both Fed-Rom and KDF-Rom) player.
Tim
Having an integrated cloaking device, and not a battle cloak, would not be an advantage at all. Therefore, lowering any statistics of these ships would not be a proper move, imo.
Since ships now have cloaking devices and all of these additional basic stats + 9-10 console slots, providing these few Federation ships with an integrated cloaking device would not be any sort of advantage.
That is quite interesting considering that fact that I have never even said, "I want," or, "Gimme." Perhaps you should reflect on why you are so adamant about this issue in such a negative way.
I have understood all of your points and I have provided counter-points, yet you only refer to your original point without contesting my counter-points... thus, any further statements from you are useless until you do so. I am sorry if that is offensive. I also asked that you please refrain from the conversation, note: the word please, unless you have something productive to add.
The reason that I brought up your eagerness to see the Galaxy-class revamped is because it equates to my eagerness to have a potential review of this issue regarding cloaking devices as consoles on Federation ships. You want a revamp of something and so do I. However, I do not try to derail your ideas. Carry on I suppose.
Well the tactical escort has speed handling lots of tac consoles and a wide assortment great builds for tactical also all of special consoles and universal consoles as well now , guess you need more of a crutch on an already great ship escort ,retrofit escort , fleet escort that right there is 3 ship upgrades for you , so you need more greedy
Care to weigh in or just here to sigh?
I could. Doubt I could change your mind about any of this.
Besides, a good portion of the points I would've made have been mentioned by others already. So I'll just say this:
It's been this way for a long time, with a TON of threads that have gone over this topic. The 'dead horse' in regards to this has gone through the cycle of rebirth and death many times now.
I really doubt this will be the thread the changes the dev's minds. Anything brought up here has probably been said at least a couple times in previous threads.
I understand that point but that is no longer logical to believe since all ships are now released at the VA level with 9-10 console slots. That is why I think that these consoles should be reviewed given the current cadre of vessels.
It is wishful thinking, tbh, but I still think that a review is in order of several ships, and not just these to be fair.
At the time that these cloaking ships were released, it was a level 40 cap. Then, ships were not released in the fashion that they are now, and the balancing was quite different. A lot of time has passed and the vessels are much different, now. Also, there are many universal consoles that are in use, when at the time of these ships' release, there were not.
Hence, I think that having a cloaking device as a console is a disservice to these ships. In order to have a key feature of these ships, a console must be equipped whereas versions of this same type of cloaking ability persist on other ships as innate abilities. This means that those ships with innate cloaks have 1 extra free console slot in addition to their ability to cloak.
The Tactical Escort Retrofit does have fine base stats, yet, so do most other vessels AND they have innate cloaking abilities which gives them +1 free console slot to use over the Tactical Escort Retrofit.
The Ar'Kif Tactical Carrier Warbird Retrofit has the ability to innately cloak, while also having a hangar bay. If I equate having +1 turn rate on the Tactical Escort Retrofit to the Ar'Kif's hangar bay, then both of these ships have a special ability. The major difference is that the Ar'Kif has +1 additional console slot over the Tactical Escort Retrofit because it can innately cloak and the Tactical Escort Retrofit must sacrifice one console slot in order to cloak.
Similarly, for the Dready, the Phaser Lance is a fine weapon, and a nice feature to the ship, however, other ships have interesting abilities along with their abilities to cloak. This means that the Dready must sacrifice 1 console slot just to cloak, whereas other ships do not need to make that sacrifice.
For instance, the Scimitar has a Hangar Bay, and 5 fore weapons, while still being able to innately cloak. The Dready has 4 fore and 4 aft weapons, no hangar bays, and a Phaser Lance, but must use a console in order to cloak. I consider having a Hangar Bay to be an ability of the ship that equates to having a Phaser Lance. Therefore, the Dready has -1 console slot compared to the Scimitar that must be used just to be able to cloak. I don't believe that this is balanced but I do respect those who believe that it is.
When these two ships were released, the comparisons that I mentioned did not exist. Hence, this is why I believe the cloaking console should be reviewed given the current cadre of vessels.
ALL Fleet ships get 10 console slots, AFAIK. So, if you could please read my logic above, you will understand why these cloaking Federation ships, imo, have basically -1 console slot just because they must equip a console to cloak.
the T4 Tactical Escort has 7 console slots and does not come with a cloak, so it loses nothing.
the T5 Tactical Escort retrofit has 9 console slots (a gain of two) and comes with a cloak console, so it loses nothing.
the Fleet Tactical Escort has 10 console slots with a cloak console and loses nothing.
there is no imbalance or injustice or sacrifice issue.
R.I.P
and since I forgot. The Tactical Escort refit has 8 console slots and no cloak.
R.I.P
You posted while I was editing my previous post. Please read it and comment on the logic that I was using. I know how many console slots these ships have, and I disagree with your assertion that they, "Lose nothing."
Every comparison you're making is against a Romulan C-store ship. Ships that were designed to be functionally superior to everything the KDF and Federation can field. Which means logic goes straight out the window.
No, logic does not go straight out the window... I am comparing ship with ship.
I can make the same comparisons to KDF vessels.
By all means, please demonstrate how ships with innate cloaks that have functionally lower stats are superior. Toss in another comparison between a non-fleet and a fleet ship while you're at it. And if you could be so kind as to point out where the KDFs escort carrier is hiding, that'd be great too.
its not logical. The fleet versions only gain in the number of consoles so nothing is lost.
The ship had gained not lost. In fact the ships do nothing but gain slots as they progress.
in vomparison to KDF which have some losses in stats due yo cloaking and Romulans which have lower powetbase to offset their superior cloaking.
The Fed Defiant class does not loss anything. The AGT galaxy did not lose anything for its closk but does seem yo suffer in other unrelated areas according to the fanbasr.
R.I.P
For the moment let's disregard the historical reasons for making cloaks a console on the Defiant-R and Gal-X, even though those reasons are significant enough to justify keeping cloaks console-bound on the relevant ships.
Now, has the OP considered the fact that for Fed ships, cloaking is intended as a tactical choice? You either max your possible stats by dropping the cloak, or keep it and gain the ability to do an alpha strike like a KDF battlecruiser. That's a choice.
Remember that most Fed cruisers and escorts have better base stats than their integrated-cloak-equipped Battle cruisers and raptors, who use the cloak to enable a unique set of tactics.
Now, we all know the Gal-X needs a revamp in the raw stats department to keep it competitive with similar-tiered ships, but the Avenger and Defiant-R are fine the way they are. The choice of either gaining access to KDF-like tactics or maximizing stats is working as intended.
Sorry not battle cloak, Alpha strike.
The Federation Romulin BOFF from the embassy, gives any basic cloak a BOFF version of Alpha strike.
Not sure if it stacks on the normal alpha strike. I'm guessing it does.
Kanharn's Memory Alpha.
I agree with all that you have said here, but I still think that given the current cadre of vessels, a console should not be required for these ships to cloak.
Ships in the KDF and Romulan factions will continue to be released that have integrated cloaking systems as well as useful additions such as hangar bays which makes the cloaking Federation ships, which I will hold the Avenger as an exception because it does have additional abilities, at a disadvantage.
Arguments about KDF ships and their lack of parity as compared to Romulan ships are also valid and that is a concern for another thread. My concern here is only regarding the Federation ships that are forced to use a cloaking device as a console slot.
It's not exactly like Alpha Strike but I see what you mean.
Yes, it stacks.
R.I.P
Also, two of our best end-game escort-level ships don't cloak, either. That being the Fleet Scourge and the Guramba.
Otherwise accept that the ship wasn't designed to use a cloak innately, so "costing" a console slot is logical, true to the IP, and a valid decision point in trade-offs.
And once more, the STO forums have yet another "GEEF MY FED SHEEEPS AN CLOOAAAAK!" Thread.
Congratulations.
The path to 2409 is history and explained why the federation did honor, but Empress Sela and the Romulan Star empire is no more... well she is with the iconians. That happened in 2409. So yes it WAS honored after the destruction of Romulus but tnow in 2409 there is no Romulan Star Empire to have a treaty with. nobody to have a treaty with and there is no treaty.
ALSO to further finish the path to 2409 argument, please look up the treaty and explain why the main part of the treaty is ignored? You know the Romulan nuetral zone any fed regardless of level can fly right across without permission from the federation or the Romulan Star empire. So there is a treaty but only because YOU want it to be to suit how YOU feel it should be but the treaty is ignored anyway?
*edit,
Also new ship built in 2409, the Avengar can use a cloak, and all defiant class ships in 2409 can use them. the single lone Defiant was allowed to use one not every ship of that class. Gal-X is alternate universe so we wont count it.
"I'm drunk, whats your excuse for being an idiot?" - Unknown drunk man. :eek:
Such demanding mistresses
I am a lore buff myself. but in the end, these ships have the means to cloak anyways. They are the accepted and known exception to the 'Starfleet doesn't use cloaking devices' rule. Which makes it laughable that people run in like a screaming mimi over the suggestion the ability becomes integrated. What does it really matter, Lore-wise? These ships can already cloak. The console or innate, that doesn't change; if it really was a Lore issue, you'd be up in arms about them having the ability at all. Stop strawmanning with the Lore argument.
The opposition seems not at all interested in real balance, or preserving Lore. In reality, all it seems to be is people rushing in half-cocked, foaming in a rage over the premise of bringing only a few ships which already have the means to cloak, to par. Somehow to them it is an obscene injustice that these vessels aren't inferior to their counterparts.
As for the notion itself, and the possibly supplementing the removed console but not outright needed.
Defiant: Not sure, it's a good ship aside the redundant tact BOff slot. I actually would like to see a nod to the series of how tenacious the class was, not quite LRSV-R+ Ablative, but something.
Gal-X: Easy one here. It's an atrociously turning vessel for being able to sport cannons and phaser lance. A console that increases the turn-rate for a brief period fits in well.
Avenger: Still not sure it should cloak, I'll concede that. But as it has the VATA, nothing new needed.
Read the PT2409 again. The current Noncloak treaty has nothing to do with the Romulans or Sela and is about the UFP getting caught doing something they where avowed they would not, and then reafirming they where wrong and reavowing to never do it again.
The Defiant Retro snd AGT are granfathered inyo game because of fan desire. The Avenger is a loophole in that it can use the console if the player already owns one.
The Romulan sector of space is open to fly through because you have missions there and in the early game the feds are both fighting for and against them.
Its ok if you wish to ignore game history and your own vows, honor is somethjng Ive long learned that any fedfan will gladly TRIBBLE upon to get their own srlfish ways accomplished.
R.I.P