Well cryptic can do whatever the hell they want with the lockboxes as long as its approved by CBS or whoever approves it so yes there can be more than one ship per box.
You have some funny ideas about what constitutes "balance" then. Adding a special power to an already good system isn't 'balancing' it, it's giving a no-work Advantage.
It's a power they already have, the requirement of a console slot to enable it is the problem.
as it is, Romulans don't get cruiser commands, KDF doesn't get all of them-only the Federation gets all four.
Warbirds have Singularity powers, which no one gets. KDF has battlecruisers that are ment for the offense, thus no tanking aura; which is true of the Avenger.
as it is, KDF doesn't have a viable stand-and-fight escort, effective Sci ship design, nor do they get bridge officer abilities like "Leadership", and they get to see their best counters handed to the Federation already.
You speak for diversity but complain about lack of homogenization in ship lines? As for Leadership, KDF readily has access to Pirate which is now working as intended; which Starfleet doesn't get. Those counters I presume you mean as consoles, which were two-way trades. Some of the best non-ship specific consoles went to KDF as well, such as AMS and ICC, and hey, PDT for destructible torp and fighter spam.
saw it with carriers (the upside being that long-term issues with carriers were finally fixed-at the demand of Federation-only players.)
Conjecture on the fix. And KDF still gets the superior carrier and carrier pets, being the frigates. :rolleyes:
Seeing it now with Battlecruisers. The situation with the Avenger/Mogh is identical-but-reversed to the Gorn sci ships vs. free FED ships. (iow I can pay $20 for a Varanus and have less Science ship than you can get by leveling to Rear Admiral) Only, of course, they gave you a payship in someone else's specialty that was materially better than it's original faction were permitted.
The Atrox is the comparable to the Varanus here, as pointed out before. The Avenger/Mogh is a new scenario, Cryptic has never given us near-perfect clones before; which ultimately was the mistake because one is better outright. The prior generations avoided this by them being asymmetrically designed even if one was better.
and you're big ***** about that is that the paystore equivalent is better?
seriously?
and the only ways it's 'better' is that it has the same faction abilities that said faction's had since creation, in that classification.
Insofar as I know, minus the T1 Miranda, Federation didn't have a cruiser that turned at 9, or a cruiser that could mount DHC's.
Now, you have both, in one package, with a 5/3 layout...
and you're ******** because KDF players got one that can use a cloak without a console....
You're letting emotion and personal bias colour your post too much at this point. The filters having to come into play should be a warning sign.
The Avenger and Mogh cost the same, except where cloaking in involved. With the Avenger, that requires another 20-25 dollar investment and giving up an additional console slot, if you use the VATA as well. That's a terrible way to provide two ships which are otherwise identical.
talk about an entitlement attitude. You deserve it because you want it, because you want it, it's unbalanced that you don't have it.
Yet not wanting these ships to be brought up to new cloaking standards, and thus resisting bringing them to balance is not? Desperately shouting and crying that no, it's fine, no, it will ruin things. All it would risk ruining is the advantage held in PvP, a dying aspect of this game, by KDF spaceframes of similar profiles. 'It's mine! You can't have it!' summarizes this post.
How is the Advanced Obelisk related to the Voth Lockbox? The Advanced Obelisk was added to the Lobi Store on October 31 and the Palisade was added to the Lobi Store on November 12. So two completely different Lobi Store ships that were added at completely different times and have absolutely no connection. The Bastion is the Lockbox ship for the Voth Lockbox and the Palisade is the Lobi Store ship for the Voth Lockbox. The Advanced Obelisk has no connection to the Voth Lockbox.
Well cryptic can do whatever the hell they want with the lockboxes as long as its approved by CBS or whoever approves it so yes there can be more than one ship per box.
True, but the information about the Bulwark was leaked this week and the Tier 5 Dyson Reputation mission is being released tomorrow with a special reward. These two events are too close to be a mere coincidence. The last tribble patch was released on Monday so it is very likely that if Cryptic is releasing the Bulwark tomorrow as a reward for completing the Tier 5 Reputation mission and it has a console that is part of the Voth Cloak Technologies set, then players that already have at least one of the Voth Lockbox ships would be able to see the changes on Tribble.
The Federation dont need a cloaking Device. Defaint only! Please more Cannon stuff in STO please, Cryptic.
You just contradicted yourself there and whip there should be a certain amount of canon stuff canon should not take precedence over game play. If it did each of our fed ships would basically vape all ships we came in contact with and be unkillable.
What exactly is the relevance of the Voth Ships/Sets to the Starfleet cloaking ships? I'm not following you guys here, lockbox ships aren't balanced to any faction as they are universally available. Amusingly I don't see much use of a Battlecloak on any of the Voth ships though, myself.
The Federation dont need a cloaking Device. Defaint only! Please more Cannon stuff in STO please, Cryptic.
You just contradicted yourself there and whip there should be a certain amount of canon stuff canon should not take precedence over game play. If it did each of our fed ships would basically vape all ships we came in contact with and be unkillable.
Seconding this response. Additionally, the ships already cloak, it's in the game. The game mechanics enabling it are the problem.
what problem? Install the cloak, engage teh cloak, disengage the cloak. Unlike the canon version which had a variety of leaks and failures all through the series, the console cloaks work as advertised.
and can be removed to open a console slot for something else. it works as advertised, I suspect your problem is, what's advertised isn't what you want.
There have been plenty of times where people weren't satified with what was advertised in the game such as when the KDF was advertised as a pvp only faction. Although admitedly that's a more significant thing.
What exactly is the relevance of the Voth Ships/Sets to the Starfleet cloaking ships? I'm not following you guys here, lockbox ships aren't balanced to any faction as they are universally available. Amusingly I don't see much use of a Battlecloak on any of the Voth ships though, myself.
Some of the posters in this thread have been complaining about Feds not getting a Battle Cloak and the devs are changing the Voth console set to have a Battle Cloak. So it is obvious that this is the dev's response for Federation Captains to get a Battle Cloak. We will give you a Battle Cloak, but it won't be on a Starfleet ship and it requires at least two lockbox ships. It looks like any future Starfleet ship capable of cloaking will follow the Avenger where you need to purchase the C-Store Defiant or Galaxy-X. Instead of the usual roll a Federation Romulan response, it is now roll a Federation Romulan or get the Voth ships.
considerably more significant, since the game initially advertised two FULL factions-but console cloak was a sop to players who wanted more versatility on their twenty-dollar ships.
In other words, the two with the console were already changed once to accomodate changes in player demand, at some point it's kind of rude to demand MORE when you already got what you asked for as a community.
Adaptation to keep up with the evolution of the game, which has radically changed since then. You'll find it in every MMO. Devs have changed their minds on the worth of standard cloaking, to the tune of it being 'of no value' to the nature of ship balance. These ships have standard cloaking, thus it's time for another change in turn. By their decisions in the past month this is now a pressing issue once again. It could possibly be rude if they didn't sell these ships; instead it is catering to the demands of the consumer.
It HAD, then you folks asked for that to change, and they changed it. Now you want it changed back. seems pretty unreasonable, really. and like ALL console abilities, you don't HAVE to use it. The slot's only wasted if you use the console...which fits a LOT of the uni consoles both before, and after this release.
Originally: Defiant-R came with eight console slots and an inbuilt cloak, Fed players demanded another console slot...and got one, and the cloak was made optional.
Now, you want the cloak in-built, and you want to keep the console slot.
This has already been answered, which you seem to ignore. Some earlier reponses.
But what we are basically being told is, yes, we need to pay, despite the dynamic shifts in power with the fleet system, despite paying just as much, if not more for our ships. Basically being told that we must spend more logistically, sacrifice flexibility or durability, and shell out the money to the store; to get what is considered 'of no cost' to another faction. Ironically the very things KDF have argued that they have had to do for a cloak, which is now apparently 'no cost'.
Reflect on how amazing Fleet consoles are compared to the fair we've had for years. Now consider how much it would suck if you had a slot you just couldn't use at all for passive boost consoles like Jimmy can. Because of that one little slot, he can fly circles around you, or has better resistance than you, or whatnot.
The whole basis of this thread is that power-creep has rendered the cloak console something that costs more than it provides by far. And as most of the proposals to upgrade it to a battlecloak or similar are terrible and/or hard to balance, the better option is to make it innate.
Adaptation to keep up with the evolution of the game, which has radically changed since then. You'll find it in every MMO. Devs have changed their minds on the worth of standard cloaking, to the tune of it being 'of no value' to the nature of ship balance. These ships have standard cloaking, thus it's time for another change in turn. By their decisions in the past month this is now a pressing issue once again. It could possibly be rude if they didn't sell these ships; instead it is catering to the demands of the consumer.
Those are just a few, take your pick.
Edit to respond to the edit:
From this side of the line, it's like someone demanding that all the Raptors be given a turn rate boost, inertial of 80, and five forward weapons because "The conditions of balance have changed" and "They're not competitive anymore".
KDF have been asking for a 5-slot super-raptor and more since the Kumari was debuted. Furthermore you'll find that most of us here agree the Qin should be included in this evolution to keep up with cloak standards.
But once again, over-generalization. This isn't about all escorts, all cruisers, or anything in mass. It is three (3) ships in the entire shipyard, which have this flaw in common, and all are C-Store ships. Which the improvement of apparently is a massive a threat to your enjoyment of the game you preach against it here. Can't risk losing that edge in PvP hmm?
and conditions HAVE changed, and Raptors are NOT competitive anymore-but they never were, and making those demands is unreasonable, especially on existing designs.
As stated before, the Qin is still a good ship. I personally do fine in it, and the Fleet version could make for a nimble or tenacious thing. Though the KDF would benefit a new Advanced Raptor set to answer the Kumari line. But again, don't expect buyers to be penalized for another free ship's flaws.
Meanwhile, the Defiant AND Avenger are both VERY competitive designs already, they don't NEED a "fix" to be competitive or effective, so if it's unreasonable for such demands on behalf of the Raptor class (an entire CLASS of ships) it's also unreasonable on perfectly effective ships that are still competitive.
See above on the paradigm shift on the matter of cloaking, and the extreme benefits of Fleet Consoles. To maintain the tactical flexibility, these ships sacrifice just as much if not more than the KDF counterparts in passive bonuses, even with diminishing returns. Mounting the cloak console reduces effectiveness; when we are apparently now in an era of 'Standard Cloak not carrying a price'.
Yeah, I decided NOT to bring up my ship of choice-which comes with less hull, shields, seating, and weapons than any ship short of a fighter.
I know ALL ABOUT how life is, keeping up with power creep, I've been doing it for years now.
As have all of us, and it's to the point things need an adjustment, per the state of the game and the Dev's stance on basic cloaking.
Thing is, c-store ships get nine slots. Fleet ships get ten. Not all C-store consoles are worth slotting, but you can't sit there and realistically expect me to believe that your Defiant, or Avenger is worthless without a cloak.
(sniped for below)
Because in terms of getting the damage ON THE TARGET they're still better than Kumari, or any other escort, and eras beyond Raptors of any type.
You still won't see it?
A Fleet Qin can slot an additional Fleet MK XII RCS console, two if the Defiant puts the cloak console in an engi slot. Yes the Defiant will hit harder, but the raptor will then out-manuever the tactical escort. You can be deadly, but if you can't aim, all that damage is useless.
Meanwhile, the Defiant AND Avenger are both VERY competitive designs already, they don't NEED a "fix" to be competitive or effective, so if it's unreasonable for such demands on behalf of the Raptor class (an entire CLASS of ships) it's also unreasonable on perfectly effective ships that are still competitive.
They are not "Non Competitive", they're not "Crippled" unless you slot the cloak...in which case, you're making a tactical decision and sacrificing OTHER tactical choices you could have made instead, in exchange for a decloak-alpha that is significantly better than anything the KDF can pull off (if you are in the Fleet Defiant running that cloak console), or better than 90% of the non-lockbox, non Battlecruisers KDF can field even WITH only eight additional console slots open.
So you admit the cloak console reliance does in fact cripple and reduce the competitiveness of these vessels to enable an ability that should be innate, but you oppose improvement of it. But ah-ha, the earlier clip answers as to why.
I know better, I PvP. Defiants are still the go-to build for people who don't have or couldn't get Bugships.
It all boils down to your desperate need to retain the cloaking edge in PvP. It doesn't matter what any of us say, because losing this advantage you feel you have is too dire. You have no interest in balance, just preserving whatever imbalance in KDF's favor you can. Even the notion of improving the Qin won't sway your bias.
By the way, every PvPer I seem to know believes the Starfleet JHAS next-best-thing is the Streamrunner. :rolleyes:
Steamrunner counts as a lockbox-it's not a C-store or fleet ship. We're still only discussing those, right?
because if we're not, then you REALLY start seeing the holes in the KDF lineup compared to what's available Fedside.
It's part of a Starter-pack anyone can get off of Steam. That puts it comparable to standard C-Store ships.
I have a stupid question-several times now you harp on the "Decloak advantage" as if it's some magickal cure-all.
why do you need it?
You already outdamage your opposition in a Defiant (assuming we don't bring in lockbox or special offers not available to everyone on the same level), so why do you NEED it?
It boils down to balance in game mechanics and equating investment and purchase. Why should one person's cloak be inferior to another's when they invested money for the ability to do so? Again, Gorngonzola came out and said Standard Cloak is not worth a penalty. So why are we still using consoles? The shining example is why is the money I spent to acquire an Avenger and support the game and Devs, not worth the same as the guy's whom purchased a Mogh? And then why must the two ships I fly with cloaking on Blue be forced to give up more in the end than the ones I fly on Red, when supposedly basic cloaking is a freebie?
see, I can TELL you why the Bird of Prey needs it, I can show it in solid numbers. I can show why the cRAPtors need it-neither class is competitive or effective without it. (to be honest, cRaptors are ineffective even with it...but they're effective ONCE before being crippled also-rans).
BoPs of course need it, they were designed from the get-go around battlecloaking hit-and-run attacks. Which leads into what follow.
run a Bop without cloak, and you see the respawn screen a LOT-and far more often. Run a raptor without it, and you're usually respawning BEFORE you could engage.
Say hello to the Aquarius. A Fleet Version still costs 20 dollars, and you're still a underpowered BoP with no cloak. But that's another discussion.
Also, your logic on the engineering consoles? bollocks, have you NOT heard of the diminishing returns on Engineering consoles? for a similar commitment in the base numbers of engineering slots (fewer, true) on the Defiant-R, and it's back to base relations-the Defiant still outturns your Qin, and still outguns it-because the Tac consoles don't suffer from diminishing returns, but engineering consoles DO.
Additional consoles are still additional bonuses even with reduced values. At fleet level, that's still more than enough to overcome the base turn rate difference of two. Let reflect that the Gal-X's Lance can one-shot a BoP even through shields. Yet we don't see threads crying foul and OP, as the event is such a rare occurrence due to BoP being far more nimble.
But again, this just highlights your only interest is preserving PvP advantages, which is a minimal and dying aspect of the game. You aren't worried about true balance, and insist on not compromising, even when those here have acknowledged the need to improve things such as the Qin as well.
You have not contributed anything to this discussion in some time, and you don't even bring constructive critique at this point. All you are doing is standing in pure opposition without a shred of willingness to truly discuss the matter and figure out a way to address it. All you want is for it to go away so your status-qua is maintained indefinitely.
Um...NO...see, new players have to use ARC or Steam-but some of us still have the standalone launcher and aren't into either signing our hard-drives over to PWE, or the fees to join STEAM on a monthly basis.
Just to point out, Steam doesn't have a monthly fee, it's just a purchase and delivery system. No different to buying a game in a shop (in fact, some games in shops are just dummy packages now with a Steam code in them).
The other thing, you can actually buy the Steam runner on Steam, and then run STO from it's own launcher and use it just fine. It's just like buying something in a shop, you don't have to stay in the shop to use it.
The Steam Runnder is neiether a C-Store or Lockbox ship. It's unique in how it is obtained.
As to fed cloaks, don't want one thanks. KDF have them on ships with weaker shields etc, Roms have them on ships with gimped power levels. I don't really want my fed ships nerfing in exchange for a cloak. If I want to play with a cloak, I log in on a Romulan or KDF character.
As to the Defiant, I prefer my Kumari (I own the fleet Defiant...). As to the Aquarius, there are a few people who like it, if you don't like it don't buy it though.
So much for the T5 reward ... sorry but the cost of a Federation Battle Cloak would be about the same as a JHAS, I take the JHAS.
Had a thought that it might be through the Duty Officer Pack system, but was hoping for it being the Tier 5 Reputation Reward. The devs have spoken, "We will give the Federation a Battle Cloak, but you have to sell your soul for it."
And the Federation Battle Cloak will cost more than the JHAS since it costs about 200 million for the two Voth Lockbox ships and over 200 million for the Bulwark since it will have the same rarity as the JHAS. The Tier 5 Dyson reward is a Voth Science Bridge Officer which makes sense.
Oh never mind the Defiant had a build-in cloak at one point (at release) but hey, lets not get facts in the way off your rants right?
Serious ... you keep sidetracking this conversation, this is about a console SLOT at this point that is wasted on what the Developers have stated being a "worthless ability" in relation to balance, you keep trying to avoid that by going on a tangent about pretty much anything else.
How funny that when I brought up the two fed cloakers as having started with innate cloak I was called a liar and being unuseful because that was so long ago. I even tagged the two release notes on when it happened and when it was changed so the ships got an additional console slot to compensate.
Why are these facts now relevant but not then?
As to the "worthless ability" title, you are wrong. Only standard cloaking fed ships and KDF battle cruisers are involved in the balance.
Raptors have standard cloaking and gave handicaps for it in stats. Something neither the Dreadnought or Defiant suffer.
The Devs have only stated that KDF battle cruisers get innate cloaking without handicaps.
Comments
*cough*AdvancedObelisk*cough*cough*Palisade*cough*
It's a power they already have, the requirement of a console slot to enable it is the problem.
Warbirds have Singularity powers, which no one gets. KDF has battlecruisers that are ment for the offense, thus no tanking aura; which is true of the Avenger.
You speak for diversity but complain about lack of homogenization in ship lines? As for Leadership, KDF readily has access to Pirate which is now working as intended; which Starfleet doesn't get. Those counters I presume you mean as consoles, which were two-way trades. Some of the best non-ship specific consoles went to KDF as well, such as AMS and ICC, and hey, PDT for destructible torp and fighter spam.
Conjecture on the fix. And KDF still gets the superior carrier and carrier pets, being the frigates. :rolleyes:
The Atrox is the comparable to the Varanus here, as pointed out before. The Avenger/Mogh is a new scenario, Cryptic has never given us near-perfect clones before; which ultimately was the mistake because one is better outright. The prior generations avoided this by them being asymmetrically designed even if one was better.
You're letting emotion and personal bias colour your post too much at this point. The filters having to come into play should be a warning sign.
The Avenger and Mogh cost the same, except where cloaking in involved. With the Avenger, that requires another 20-25 dollar investment and giving up an additional console slot, if you use the VATA as well. That's a terrible way to provide two ships which are otherwise identical.
Yet not wanting these ships to be brought up to new cloaking standards, and thus resisting bringing them to balance is not? Desperately shouting and crying that no, it's fine, no, it will ruin things. All it would risk ruining is the advantage held in PvP, a dying aspect of this game, by KDF spaceframes of similar profiles. 'It's mine! You can't have it!' summarizes this post.
So who is acting entitled?
How is the Advanced Obelisk related to the Voth Lockbox? The Advanced Obelisk was added to the Lobi Store on October 31 and the Palisade was added to the Lobi Store on November 12. So two completely different Lobi Store ships that were added at completely different times and have absolutely no connection. The Bastion is the Lockbox ship for the Voth Lockbox and the Palisade is the Lobi Store ship for the Voth Lockbox. The Advanced Obelisk has no connection to the Voth Lockbox.
True, but the information about the Bulwark was leaked this week and the Tier 5 Dyson Reputation mission is being released tomorrow with a special reward. These two events are too close to be a mere coincidence. The last tribble patch was released on Monday so it is very likely that if Cryptic is releasing the Bulwark tomorrow as a reward for completing the Tier 5 Reputation mission and it has a console that is part of the Voth Cloak Technologies set, then players that already have at least one of the Voth Lockbox ships would be able to see the changes on Tribble.
You just contradicted yourself there and whip there should be a certain amount of canon stuff canon should not take precedence over game play. If it did each of our fed ships would basically vape all ships we came in contact with and be unkillable.
It only applies to ships that have [Console - Universal - Plot Armor Mk XII].
Seconding this response. Additionally, the ships already cloak, it's in the game. The game mechanics enabling it are the problem.
There have been plenty of times where people weren't satified with what was advertised in the game such as when the KDF was advertised as a pvp only faction. Although admitedly that's a more significant thing.
Some of the posters in this thread have been complaining about Feds not getting a Battle Cloak and the devs are changing the Voth console set to have a Battle Cloak. So it is obvious that this is the dev's response for Federation Captains to get a Battle Cloak. We will give you a Battle Cloak, but it won't be on a Starfleet ship and it requires at least two lockbox ships. It looks like any future Starfleet ship capable of cloaking will follow the Avenger where you need to purchase the C-Store Defiant or Galaxy-X. Instead of the usual roll a Federation Romulan response, it is now roll a Federation Romulan or get the Voth ships.
Adaptation to keep up with the evolution of the game, which has radically changed since then. You'll find it in every MMO. Devs have changed their minds on the worth of standard cloaking, to the tune of it being 'of no value' to the nature of ship balance. These ships have standard cloaking, thus it's time for another change in turn. By their decisions in the past month this is now a pressing issue once again. It could possibly be rude if they didn't sell these ships; instead it is catering to the demands of the consumer.
This has already been answered, which you seem to ignore. Some earlier reponses.
Those are just a few, take your pick.
Edit to respond to the edit:
KDF have been asking for a 5-slot super-raptor and more since the Kumari was debuted. Furthermore you'll find that most of us here agree the Qin should be included in this evolution to keep up with cloak standards.
But once again, over-generalization. This isn't about all escorts, all cruisers, or anything in mass. It is three (3) ships in the entire shipyard, which have this flaw in common, and all are C-Store ships. Which the improvement of apparently is a massive a threat to your enjoyment of the game you preach against it here. Can't risk losing that edge in PvP hmm?
As stated before, the Qin is still a good ship. I personally do fine in it, and the Fleet version could make for a nimble or tenacious thing. Though the KDF would benefit a new Advanced Raptor set to answer the Kumari line. But again, don't expect buyers to be penalized for another free ship's flaws.
See above on the paradigm shift on the matter of cloaking, and the extreme benefits of Fleet Consoles. To maintain the tactical flexibility, these ships sacrifice just as much if not more than the KDF counterparts in passive bonuses, even with diminishing returns. Mounting the cloak console reduces effectiveness; when we are apparently now in an era of 'Standard Cloak not carrying a price'.
As have all of us, and it's to the point things need an adjustment, per the state of the game and the Dev's stance on basic cloaking.
You still won't see it?
A Fleet Qin can slot an additional Fleet MK XII RCS console, two if the Defiant puts the cloak console in an engi slot. Yes the Defiant will hit harder, but the raptor will then out-manuever the tactical escort. You can be deadly, but if you can't aim, all that damage is useless.
So you admit the cloak console reliance does in fact cripple and reduce the competitiveness of these vessels to enable an ability that should be innate, but you oppose improvement of it. But ah-ha, the earlier clip answers as to why.
It all boils down to your desperate need to retain the cloaking edge in PvP. It doesn't matter what any of us say, because losing this advantage you feel you have is too dire. You have no interest in balance, just preserving whatever imbalance in KDF's favor you can. Even the notion of improving the Qin won't sway your bias.
By the way, every PvPer I seem to know believes the Starfleet JHAS next-best-thing is the Streamrunner. :rolleyes:
It's part of a Starter-pack anyone can get off of Steam. That puts it comparable to standard C-Store ships.
It boils down to balance in game mechanics and equating investment and purchase. Why should one person's cloak be inferior to another's when they invested money for the ability to do so? Again, Gorngonzola came out and said Standard Cloak is not worth a penalty. So why are we still using consoles? The shining example is why is the money I spent to acquire an Avenger and support the game and Devs, not worth the same as the guy's whom purchased a Mogh? And then why must the two ships I fly with cloaking on Blue be forced to give up more in the end than the ones I fly on Red, when supposedly basic cloaking is a freebie?
BoPs of course need it, they were designed from the get-go around battlecloaking hit-and-run attacks. Which leads into what follow.
Say hello to the Aquarius. A Fleet Version still costs 20 dollars, and you're still a underpowered BoP with no cloak. But that's another discussion.
Additional consoles are still additional bonuses even with reduced values. At fleet level, that's still more than enough to overcome the base turn rate difference of two. Let reflect that the Gal-X's Lance can one-shot a BoP even through shields. Yet we don't see threads crying foul and OP, as the event is such a rare occurrence due to BoP being far more nimble.
But again, this just highlights your only interest is preserving PvP advantages, which is a minimal and dying aspect of the game. You aren't worried about true balance, and insist on not compromising, even when those here have acknowledged the need to improve things such as the Qin as well.
You have not contributed anything to this discussion in some time, and you don't even bring constructive critique at this point. All you are doing is standing in pure opposition without a shred of willingness to truly discuss the matter and figure out a way to address it. All you want is for it to go away so your status-qua is maintained indefinitely.
Just to point out, Steam doesn't have a monthly fee, it's just a purchase and delivery system. No different to buying a game in a shop (in fact, some games in shops are just dummy packages now with a Steam code in them).
The other thing, you can actually buy the Steam runner on Steam, and then run STO from it's own launcher and use it just fine. It's just like buying something in a shop, you don't have to stay in the shop to use it.
The Steam Runnder is neiether a C-Store or Lockbox ship. It's unique in how it is obtained.
As to fed cloaks, don't want one thanks. KDF have them on ships with weaker shields etc, Roms have them on ships with gimped power levels. I don't really want my fed ships nerfing in exchange for a cloak. If I want to play with a cloak, I log in on a Romulan or KDF character.
As to the Defiant, I prefer my Kumari (I own the fleet Defiant...). As to the Aquarius, there are a few people who like it, if you don't like it don't buy it though.
Had a thought that it might be through the Duty Officer Pack system, but was hoping for it being the Tier 5 Reputation Reward. The devs have spoken, "We will give the Federation a Battle Cloak, but you have to sell your soul for it."
And the Federation Battle Cloak will cost more than the JHAS since it costs about 200 million for the two Voth Lockbox ships and over 200 million for the Bulwark since it will have the same rarity as the JHAS. The Tier 5 Dyson reward is a Voth Science Bridge Officer which makes sense.
How funny that when I brought up the two fed cloakers as having started with innate cloak I was called a liar and being unuseful because that was so long ago. I even tagged the two release notes on when it happened and when it was changed so the ships got an additional console slot to compensate.
Why are these facts now relevant but not then?
As to the "worthless ability" title, you are wrong. Only standard cloaking fed ships and KDF battle cruisers are involved in the balance.
Raptors have standard cloaking and gave handicaps for it in stats. Something neither the Dreadnought or Defiant suffer.
The Devs have only stated that KDF battle cruisers get innate cloaking without handicaps.
R.I.P