Mmm, multi-quote won't accept your post Patrickngo, rather amusing. What you presented is just a case of Ignoratio Elenchi, all that boils down to is making a proposition with a bias towards your intended outcome with no real attempt to address the issue. There is no accounting to the overarching meta, the fact that there is more factoring in than direct comparisons. Fleet consoles are a major factor, you get a superior base bonus with another bonus on top of it as well, basically one and a half for the slot. Recent words and releases have shown the Devs don't see basic cloak as worth penalizing a ship for, for KDF; yet Starfleet's are store only and still penalized notably due to prior note of available console strength.
One could conversely argue that the coming flanking bonus is unneeded as it would be a +1 without any real counterbalance, so surely you should be up in arms over it as well. After all; a visit to warzones and similar (which you concern seems to be purely PvP centered) shows KDF BoPs still having devastating damage potential, coming in right behind the vaunted Rom Warbirds. So one could surmise that they are balanced as is, and don't need Flanking, that it would break balance in the method you just proposed.
Failing making Starfleet cloaking innate, some other bonus would be needed to make the console valid and no longer a component of a double-standard. Flat damage resistance in cloak or out emulating the Defiant family's innate ablative plating perhaps, maybe enhancing the cloak so you can not activate it in red alert, but having your ship put into red alert while under cloak, doesn't rip you out of it.
Its not a falsehood. Go back several pages or go tos STOwiki for the link to the update where the Devs converted the innate powers of Cstore ships into consoles and then go to the update where they added extra console slots to those same vessels to compensate yhe players for having to slot said powers.
Its concrete hard truth this has happened. Just because you dont like it does not mean its not true.
So as it turns out your ignoring truth and spouting fedwhine for no reason what so ever because the Devs compensated the feds for their cloaking in 2010/2011.
Your falsehood is in how you portray this event. These ships were lacking a console slot on release, due to the nature of the game's balance at that point in time. When the innate ability was moved to a console, the -1 slot penalty was removed, bringing them to the same 9 consoles as other VA ships to again keep with the balance of the day.
Thus, no 'extra' console slots exist, just the correct number.
Ah, a response of pure Psychological Projection. The strawmen have been yours. I've provided numerous facts you ignore because they fail to suit your agenda. Let's review.
Ship statistics of basic cloaking vessels are not penalized, per word of Devs and visible in game; aside the cost of the console slot for Starfleet. Battlecruisers are balanced to the standard of battlecruisers and contrast to line cruisers, there is no expense for cloaking as highlighted with the Mogh and Avenger comparison. The Qin and the Defiant are a mismatch at stock, at fleet it is a case of ships having stats distributed adversely for one. If neither had cloaking, the Tact Escort would still be seen as better, which we've concluded is a symptom of poor development there. Yet in with the Raptor, it's poor Dev design, yet not with the Tact Esort?
Powercreep due to Fleet grade assets is undeniable. A Fleet Console gives you one and a half high quality console bonuses, a vessel running such will those which do not. This ties into the prior, as the cost of needing a console slot to enable an ability which has been stated to not be important enough to warrant a stats penalty, incurs a sever one in today's balance of power. This I've tested with fleet-mates, two incidental ships with the exception of a Mk XII Fleet armor console versus cloak console; the Fleet console vessel innately had the upper hand, even the decloak alpha struggled to equalize things.
Then comes the issue of additional financial investment. The Avenger, and any Fleet upgrade of the three, require the additional expense of another vessel. There is the cost reduction for the direct upgrade, but this doesn't help should someone be seeking a Fleet Avenger that can cloak. This then compounds with the second issue, there is a logistical cost imposed at the loss of a console slot for bonuses. To put a spin on a play others have tried, the Fleet Varanus comes with the innate bonuses of science vessels without needing another purchase, nor without costing a console slot; yet it's been stated 'Science Ships' as Starfleet's thing in a similar manner to how cloaking is said to be KDF's.
This is what builds up into the sense of a double-standard. It's okay for KDF to get basic cloak for free in every sense, but for Starfleet's limited range of ships which have it, it's a substantial cost in multiple ways. The arguments presented by yourself and several others against it regularly fail to account for the meta, and seem rooted squarely in preservation of a sense of PvP 'X to Y' balance. There is no accounting for interaction balance, or the state of power with gear that conflicts with the system as it stands. We just have an obsolete, archaic reliance on a console despite the cloaking balance being at a radically different state from when it was introduced.
If innate standard cloaking is not the answer, the only course to correct this is to either enhance the cloak provided in some form, or add passive bonuses alongside enabling use of the ability.
Something additionally to note, I am not a user of Fed Cloaking myself, my vessel of choice is the MVAE; so your spinning this off as me wanting an advantage over balance is a pure ad-hominem.
Also, KDF have just as regular 'wild' topics as you play this out to be, I suppose you just don't see them.
Ship statistics of basic cloaking vessels are not penalized, per word of Devs and visible in game; aside the cost of the console slot for Starfleet. Battlecruisers are balanced to the standard of battlecruisers and contrast to line cruisers, there is no expense for cloaking as highlighted with the Mogh and Avenger comparison. The Qin and the Defiant are a mismatch at stock, at fleet it is a case of ships having stats distributed adversely for one. If neither had cloaking, the Tact Escort would still be seen as better, which we've concluded is a symptom of poor development there. Yet in with the Raptor, it's poor Dev design, yet not with the Tact Esort?
Except only the KDF battle cruiser gets standard cloaking without handicap. The Dev flat out said that the KDF raptor pays in stats for its standard cloak as the Defiant pays with the penalty of having to use the cloak device in a console slot.
As has already been stated most KDF players would be fine with the Defiant having innate cloaking again without a loss of a console slot if, and only if, the raptor is given a equivalent buff in stats to make it equal to the defiant which would be the better vessel with no handicap after such a change.
Powercreep due to Fleet grade assets is undeniable. A Fleet Console gives you one and a half high quality console bonuses, a vessel running such will those which do not. This ties into the prior, as the cost of needing a console slot to enable an ability which has been stated to not be important enough to warrant a stats penalty, incurs a sever one in today's balance of power. This I've tested with fleet-mates, two incidental ships with the exception of a Mk XII Fleet armor console versus cloak console; the Fleet console vessel innately had the upper hand, even the decloak alpha struggled to equalize things.
Currently that is the handicap of playing the Defiant with the ability to cloak. You have to choose if you wish to cloak or fore go it and use the now open console slot for something else.
Why? Because the cloak on the Defiant is an after market bolt on ability and its Cloak device represents that design.
Then comes the issue of additional financial investment. The Avenger, and any Fleet upgrade of the three, require the additional expense of another vessel. There is the cost reduction for the direct upgrade, but this doesn't help should someone be seeking a Fleet Avenger that can cloak. This then compounds with the second issue, there is a logistical cost imposed at the loss of a console slot for bonuses. To put a spin on a play others have tried, the Fleet Varanus comes with the innate bonuses of science vessels without needing another purchase, nor without costing a console slot; yet it's been stated 'Science Ships' as Starfleet's thing in a similar manner to how cloaking is said to be KDF's.
The fact that a fed player must buy another ship in order to put cloaking on the new Avenger Battle cruiser is a nod back to the Devs who wrote the backstory that the feds will not create any more ships with cloaking, ever.
They gave the fed players a loophole in that the Avenger can use a cloaking device but in itself does not come with said device, and they set themselves up to make a little money if the player is willing to buy two ships to use the cloak ability on the Avenger. Too bad it sucks sometimes to be the majority.
Or the Devs could have just flat out pissed on the KDF fans and made the Avenger with a cloaking device. They evidently chose not to be dicks and do so.
As to the "Science is the fed thing" it is since the feds have 28 science ships choices starting at LT rank all the way up to endgame and fleet level while the KDF has 5 science ship choices that start at commander all the way up to only one fleet choice.
Science ships are very much the Starfleet thing.
This is what builds up into the sense of a double-standard. It's okay for KDF to get basic cloak for free in every sense, but for Starfleet's limited range of ships which have it, it's a substantial cost in multiple ways. The arguments presented by yourself and several others against it regularly fail to account for the meta, and seem rooted squarely in preservation of a sense of PvP 'X to Y' balance. There is no accounting for interaction balance, or the state of power with gear that conflicts with the system as it stands. We just have an obsolete, archaic reliance on a console despite the cloaking balance being at a radically different state from when it was introduced.
There is no double standard. The federation does not delve into or research cloaking any longer and as such their ships have a device to attain it.
The KDF battle cruisers have innate cloaking because they use cloaking as a matter of fact. In order to make it fair the Devs chose to handicap the Raptor class, which is the only other standard cloaking KDF line of ships, with lesser shield modifier stats and turn rate. That is the balancer, You feds have a durable heavy hitting escort that can cloak if it wishes and we KDF have a heavy hitting raptor that is slightly less durable but has innate standard cloak.
Both vessels have the same advantage that standard cloak gives, the first strike attack. Both pay for it in slightly different ways.
If innate standard cloaking is not the answer, the only course to correct this is to either enhance the cloak provided in some form, or add passive bonuses alongside enabling use of the ability.
Which is where the fed greed comes in as far as KDF fans are concerned. If you cant get your way with innate cloaking then you want a way to make your cloak into a battle cloak which is completely unbalanced as it turns the best alpha striking escort in the game into a KDF BoP equivalent with no handicap what so ever for an ability that the BoP is severly handicapped for possessing.
As Patrickngo has brought up several times, the whole idea put forth by this thread is the feds want a buff without having to pay for it. No matter how you try to rationalize things it is a greed move and nothing more or less and shows how some feds want the rules changed to suit them when they disagree with how things are ingame.
Except only the KDF battle cruiser gets standard cloaking without handicap. The Dev flat out said that the KDF raptor pays in stats for its standard cloak as the Defiant pays with the penalty of having to use the cloak device in a console slot.
As has already been stated most KDF players would be fine with the Defiant having innate cloaking again without a loss of a console slot if, and only if, the raptor is given a equivalent buff in stats to make it equal to the defiant which would be the better vessel with no handicap after such a change.
Currently that is the handicap of playing the Defiant with the ability to cloak. You have to choose if you wish to cloak or fore go it and use the now open console slot for something else.
Why? Because the cloak on the Defiant is an after market bolt on ability and its Cloak device represents that design.
The fact that a fed player must buy another ship in order to put cloaking on the new Avenger Battle cruiser is a nod back to the Devs who wrote the backstory that the feds will not create any more ships with cloaking, ever.
They gave the fed players a loophole in that the Avenger can use a cloaking device but in itself does not come with said device, and they set themselves up to make a little money if the player is willing to buy two ships to use the cloak ability on the Avenger. Too bad it sucks sometimes to be the majority.
Or the Devs could have just flat out pissed on the KDF fans and made the Avenger with a cloaking device. They evidently chose not to be dicks and do so.
As to the "Science is the fed thing" it is since the feds have 28 science ships choices starting at LT rank all the way up to endgame and fleet level while the KDF has 5 science ship choices that start at commander all the way up to only one fleet choice.
Science ships are very much the Starfleet thing.
There is no double standard. The federation does not delve into or research cloaking any longer and as such their ships have a device to attain it.
The KDF battle cruisers have innate cloaking because they use cloaking as a matter of fact. In order to make it fair the Devs chose to handicap the Raptor class, which is the only other standard cloaking KDF line of ships, with lesser shield modifier stats and turn rate. That is the balancer, You feds have a durable heavy hitting escort that can cloak if it wishes and we KDF have a heavy hitting raptor that is slightly less durable but has innate standard cloak.
Both vessels have the same advantage that standard cloak gives, the first strike attack. Both pay for it in slightly different ways.
Which is where the fed greed comes in as far as KDF fans are concerned. If you cant get your way with innate cloaking then you want a way to make your cloak into a battle cloak which is completely unbalanced as it turns the best alpha striking escort in the game into a KDF BoP equivalent with no handicap what so ever for an ability that the BoP is severly handicapped for possessing.
As Patrickngo has brought up several times, the whole idea put forth by this thread is the feds want a buff without having to pay for it. No matter how you try to rationalize things it is a greed move and nothing more or less and shows how some feds want the rules changed to suit them when they disagree with how things are ingame.
So your statement is saying greed, how is this any different from the Klinks thread 'Disenchanted'? Ahhh but touche, just make sure to state Klinks are just as greedy. Personally, most Feds, myself included, I could care less if innate cloak is ingame or not. By all rights, Cryptic could of removed innate cloak and not said spit to anyone under the TOS. But that's not the point. The point here is this, we all pay for this game, greedy or not can we possibly come to some type of agreement of balance, instead of automatically saying greed against someone. We all like the shineys and gimme's, so before a moderator has to step in and close this thread, how about some constructive ideas. Out of the box would be nice. We know both ships can be modified, they've (Cryptic) proven that. Let's just take it from there.... before the hair pulling has to continue.:D
So your statement is saying greed, how is this any different from the Klinks thread 'Disenchanted'? Ahhh but touche, just make sure to state Klinks are just as greedy. Personally, most Feds, myself included, I could care less if innate cloak is ingame or not. By all rights, Cryptic could of removed innate cloak and not said spit to anyone under the TOS. But that's not the point. The point here is this, we all pay for this game, greedy or not can we possibly come to some type of agreement of balance, instead of automatically saying greed against someone. We all like the shineys and gimme's, so before a moderator has to step in and close this thread, how about some constructive ideas. Out of the box would be nice. We know both ships can be modified, they've (Cryptic) proven that. Let's just take it from there.... before the hair pulling has to continue.:D
...and not just a little less either. a lot less!
so you all better come to an agreement on what the kdf are willing to give up in order to get the defiant into a battlecloak before the mods are forced to close this thread.
Except only the KDF battle cruiser gets standard cloaking without handicap. The Dev flat out said that the KDF raptor pays in stats for its standard cloak as the Defiant pays with the penalty of having to use the cloak device in a console slot.
Crunch the numbers, the QIn comes out fairly par to the two RA escorts. It's just a bad design.
As has already been stated most KDF players would be fine with the Defiant having innate cloaking again without a loss of a console slot if, and only if, the raptor is given a equivalent buff in stats to make it equal to the defiant which would be the better vessel with no handicap after such a change.
Willful ignorance of how many times stated new Raptors are needed?
Currently that is the handicap of playing the Defiant with the ability to cloak. You have to choose if you wish to cloak or fore go it and use the now open console slot for something else.
Why? Because the cloak on the Defiant is an after market bolt on ability and its Cloak device represents that design.
Your personal opinion on the nature of the cloak, no where is it stated as being as such.
The fact that a fed player must buy another ship in order to put cloaking on the new Avenger Battle cruiser is a nod back to the Devs who wrote the backstory that the feds will not create any more ships with cloaking, ever.
They gave the fed players a loophole in that the Avenger can use a cloaking device but in itself does not come with said device, and they set themselves up to make a little money if the player is willing to buy two ships to use the cloak ability on the Avenger. Too bad it sucks sometimes to be the majority.
Or the Devs could have just flat out pissed on the KDF fans and made the Avenger with a cloaking device. They evidently chose not to be dicks and do so.
It's the most glaring facet of the double-standard, when one faction which only has limited cloaking access and thus are store only purchases, can be required to spend twice as much as well. But your wording belies the argument made, in your mind it is better to TRIBBLE on any other player base but your own.
As to the "Science is the fed thing" it is since the feds have 28 science ships choices starting at LT rank all the way up to endgame and fleet level while the KDF has 5 science ship choices that start at commander all the way up to only one fleet choice.
Science ships are very much the Starfleet thing.
You've missed the point there, both ships which splash the other sides 'special' are limited, and cost money to acquire; yet the Starfleet ones have further restriction. Thus the relevance and perpetuation to the ongoing double-standard situation.
There is no double standard. The federation does not delve into or research cloaking any longer and as such their ships have a device to attain it.
The KDF battle cruisers have innate cloaking because they use cloaking as a matter of fact. In order to make it fair the Devs chose to handicap the Raptor class, which is the only other standard cloaking KDF line of ships, with lesser shield modifier stats and turn rate. That is the balancer, You feds have a durable heavy hitting escort that can cloak if it wishes and we KDF have a heavy hitting raptor that is slightly less durable but has innate standard cloak.
Both vessels have the same advantage that standard cloak gives, the first strike attack. Both pay for it in slightly different ways.
This has been rebutted prior, not going to bother repeating myself here.
Which is where the fed greed comes in as far as KDF fans are concerned. If you cant get your way with innate cloaking then you want a way to make your cloak into a battle cloak which is completely unbalanced as it turns the best alpha striking escort in the game into a KDF BoP equivalent with no handicap what so ever for an ability that the BoP is severly handicapped for possessing.
I never once was for or proposed battlecloak of Starfleet. However compromise is needed, if the basic cloaking can not be innate, then other enhancements are needed to validate the console. At this point you are once again leaning towards a Strawman.
As Patrickngo has brought up several times, the whole idea put forth by this thread is the feds want a buff without having to pay for it. No matter how you try to rationalize things it is a greed move and nothing more or less and shows how some feds want the rules changed to suit them when they disagree with how things are ingame.
It's a request for an equal, just, balance and a set of standards that applies to all factions and players equally. Nothing to do with greed; which ironically seems to be exactly your intent. As with Patrick; this is demonstration of psychological projection, accusing others of your own fault, in this case greed and personal bias towards one's favored faction.
So your statement is saying greed, how is this any different from the Klinks thread 'Disenchanted'? Ahhh but touche, just make sure to state Klinks are just as greedy. Personally, most Feds, myself included, I could care less if innate cloak is ingame or not. By all rights, Cryptic could of removed innate cloak and not said spit to anyone under the TOS. But that's not the point. The point here is this, we all pay for this game, greedy or not can we possibly come to some type of agreement of balance, instead of automatically saying greed against someone. We all like the shineys and gimme's, so before a moderator has to step in and close this thread, how about some constructive ideas. Out of the box would be nice. We know both ships can be modified, they've (Cryptic) proven that. Let's just take it from there.... before the hair pulling has to continue.:D
Welcome to the perpetual hypocrisy that is any discussion that certain die-hard KDF Mains see as negatively impacting them. :rolleyes: Their overarching goal here is to get the thread locked. They claim the next step from innate basic cloak would be innate battle cloak; but we could turn around and claim if Starfleet lost their cloaking devices, they would then want our Escorts removed next because warships are KDF.
Romulans are the poisoned blade striking from the shadows.
Starfleet is the shield that withstands all
Each faction has place in STO and me along with others think no faction. Starfleet, Republic, or Starfleet should be so clearly better then the others in everything. What you are asking for is for Starfleet to gain a Battle cruiser and Raptor then the KDF. Think about if this thread was about the KDF and buffing their own sci ship to the level of the vesta.
This is what it sounds like you are asking for.
Now there is better people here to cover this then I have so I will go at it and just drink my muddled vortaberry wine.
Any ship that has a special power will have that power adjusted to a console, and that ship will be given an extra console slot to accommodate it.These consoles have restrictions on which ships they can go on. During the conversion, your new item will go into your new ship console slot. If your ship is not getting a new ship slot, the item will try to go into an existing console slot, and any item in that slot will get moved into your backpack. No items will be deleted in the conversion.
Tier 5 Defiant Retrofit Cloak is a Cloaking Device Console item.
Added Engineering Console Slot. Dreadnought Cruiser Cloak is a Cloaking Device Console item.
Added Tactical Console Slot.
So if i'm understanding the DDDS, it fires a warhead that drops what is basically an armed mine every few seconds, which itself fires a certain type of beam and then chases the target like a normal mine?
That is correct. The general gameplay flow is like this:
1) Warhead is fired at target
2) Warhead drops a pair of Defense Pods every few seconds
2) Defense pods fire a beam at a random target within 10km every few seconds that deals minor damage
3) Warhead impacts with target and explodes
4) Defense Pods continue to fire for a short time and will track and detonate like a standard mine if one of the two conditions are true:
-An enemy is within 2.5 km
-Time passes and the defense pods haven't exploded yet
Quote:
wrote:
I have a question about the stats: What's a Tachyon beam array?
It mentions that one of the modes fires tachyon beams that function the same as a "tachyon beam array"...
Good question! A Tachyon Beam Array isn't a standard weapon, so I understand the confusion. This weapon will fire a Tachyon beam at its target every few seconds that damage shields. That description could have been made a little more clear.
Quote:
wrote:
What is the inertia?
50.
Quote:
wrote:
Klingons cloak. We as a faction get innate cloaking on most of our ships and battle cloaking on our Raiders. Its been the norm since before the game went live.
Correct. Standard Cloak isn't enough to warrant reducing the effectiveness of this ship or improving the Avenger in my opinion. The massive advantage that the Avenger has is that it gives fed players the ability to fly a faction specific battlecruiser, which is a ship class previously unavailable to them.
To give you a bit of insight into both how the Avenger and Mogh were created. When we make new ships we want to make them attractive and as balanced as possible. When creating the Avenger Battlecruiser I initially tried balancing it around Starfleet cruisers. This led me to a dead end, as a battlecruiser it would end being way too similar to existing fed cruisers and not be comparable to kdf battlecruisers and that was ultimately my goal.
So, I began listing out all the tier 5 kdf battlecruiser stats side by side (along with a few choice fed cruisers) and found a niche that hadn't been hit by either faction. That's where the Avenger's stats came from, and ultimately the Mogh. It was always the plan to release a kdf equivalent of the Avenger.
Ultimately though, some concessions had to be made for the Avenger, which in my opinion is a super rock solid ship. It's starfleet, so it shouldn't have cloak without some cost. This precedence has been set with both the Galaxy X and the Tactical Escort Retrofit. It would be a slippery slope to start giving fed ships free cloaking devices.
Quote:
wrote:
Except when the Vet ships were released KDF Vet ship (and Rom Vet ship) both got battle cloaks with a cost - lower shield mod.
Or rather the Fed ship had a higher shield mod.
Except that is tossed out the window here, and the KDF gets a 100% exact clone of the Fed ship, but also gets a cloak out of the deal - no loss of shield mod, no compromises.
The example you're giving is true for Fed Escorts and KDF Raptors, but KDF Battlecruisers do not have this drawback. Had I reduced the shield mod on the Mogh, it would be an inferior ship to the Avenger and players would be making different suggestions now.
Had we reduced the Mogh's shield modifier it would have the lowest shield modifier of any Tier 5 KDF battlecruiser making it less desirable.
Had we given the Avenger Cloak, we'd embark on a slippery slope where similar fed ships would be expected to have cloak.
Had we given the Mogh less crew, it would be inconsistent with KDF battlecruisers as they have large crews:
-Vor'cha has 1500
-Negh'Var has 2500
-Tor'Kaht has 1500
-Kamarag has 700
Regards,
Phil "Gorngonzolla" Zeleski
Just the information for your perusal, Good Hunting all.
It seems you don't realize the definition of a double-standard. Let's consult Merriam-Webster's Dictionary for a moment:
double standard noun
: a set of principles that applies differently and usually more rigorously to one group of people or circumstances than to another
In STO, basic cloaking is free to one faction, in both an general monetary sense, and a evolving game balance sense. We have both Dev statements that if it isn't battle cloak, it isn't worth penalizing stats for such a small advantage; which the Mogh then reflects those statements as the trend. At the same time, it is stated and imposed that the other faction's few, limited basic cloak ships have to sacrifice, on top of being store only. Some people have tried to counterpoint the similar cross-over of science oriented vessels; but the innate abilities of said types are not tied into console requirement for use like basic cloaking is.
This is true to the definition of a double-standard.
Now, moving on from here, you analogy with the automotive industry is flawed irregardless of the imposed perspective of the context. This issue deals with live code and systems, the standards that govern them changing over time, and content along with it. A car will never be updated from the collective manufacturers with a patch to be better or worse, nor are cars meant to be in any semblance of balance and equality to each-other.
As this is a game industry problem, a better analogy is drawing from other ends of said industry. Imagine if in any of the major MMOs, Rogues were almost universally Red exclusive, with Blue only getting access to them via micro-transaction, and on top of that, their rogues did not get stealth innately and they needed a piece of otherwise stat-less gear to enable it. The outcry would be indisputably extreme.
Compare it to the Blizz's approach to a trade over of faction classes, which gives a small range of race/class options to utilize the other side's 'Theme Class'. This was done without making either counterpart inferior. Cryptic failed with this similar trade of alternative play for the factions.
With the 'Experiment' conducted, of course the Fleet Defiant will beat out the Mirror Qin, it's a Tier 5 vessel being put up against a Tier 5.5. This was nothing more than stacking the deck to get the result you wanted to try to validate your stance. From your wording it seems you did not even try both fleet grade vessels, and just extrapolated a unconfirmed result. This does highlight the fact that raptors need work and expansion, however, it does not in-turn mean the cloak double-standard is not a legitimate issue.
The Devs have stated basic cloak isn't enough of a tactical asset to warrant reducing stats. Said cloak is easily thwarted by numerous abilities, and unlike battle cloak where you get an option to reset in combat, it's a one-shot deal per engagement. If something glances you into Red Alert, or a CPB or what have you goes off, your advantage is lost, and Starfleet's case, that now effectively empty slot is a loss KDF never really have.
In the world of PvP as a cloaking Starfleet ship, the real kicker is a B'rel retro built in anti-cloak methods while remaining cloaked itself supporting other 'Vaper' builds; you won't stand a chance. Even if the ability becomes innate, with the addition of flanking to Raiders, and likely further improvements to KDF, your feared inferiority will never come to pass. BoPs even at this moment can tear through shields and hull right up there with Romulans; in strike and run attacks that even an innate cloak Defiant never could with the basic cloaking it has.
Compare the stats of the Tact Escort its brethren. It has a weaker hull and weaker shields than them, which ironically is a supposed signature of KDF sacrifice for cloaking. The Fleet Advanced also has the vaunted 5 tactical consoles, while also possessing superior hull and shields with a comparable turn rate; and the incredibly useful Lt.C Sci station. It has the same raw damage potential before special abilities come into play, on a more forgiving frame. The innate basic cloak would make it more balanced to this and other kin.
On the note of recursive logic, that is simply both an ad-hominem and faulty generalization. Your own posts could be claimed as recursive: "It's balanced because it is the way it is because it is the way it is because it is balanced." This manner of thinking is merely fearing change and progression that might upset the status-quo which one is comfortable with and complacent in. If such thinking was always held true, we would not see any improvements; such as the Flanking bonus coming to Raiders. Though I suspect most of those KDF 'defenders' here, had no such qualms with flanking.
In the end, what is sought is a true balance in standards and a just equality. Note that the stance has never been 'Give us the best ever' or 'BATTLECLOAK OR BUST', discussions have included the acknowledgement and additional statements that Raptors need alot of work. This has never been 'TRIBBLE the other guy' as implied, it is not wanting best, it is wanting equality. Patrick specifically, seems hung up solely over PvP concerns that are rooted firmly in a disparity between the Tact Escort, and the Raptor line, irregardless of the full scope of STO's meta-balance and evolution of the game.
Addendum to address the Post that slipped in:
The Gal-X and Defiant-R were released with one less console than everything else. It was later decided to have been a terrible idea and the change was made; the extra console slots were actually just adding the missing slots back into the ships, bringing them up to the universal total of nine. This was years ago, when basic cloaking was seen as being worth a price; that has since changed.
As to the second quote, it has been linked and quoted times before, and is in-fact a critical part of the issue. Gorngonzolla himself has stated there is a double-standard in place, which is an immoral move by any person or organization, and supporting such lacks integrity. This this call for Cryptic to show it does have some integrity still left, and to show this is not becoming just a perpetual cash-grab by ending the double-standard.
The Devs have stated basic cloak isn't enough of a tactical asset to warrant reducing stats. Said cloak is easily thwarted by numerous abilities, and unlike battle cloak where you get an option to reset in combat, it's a one-shot deal per engagement. If something glances you into Red Alert, or a CPB or what have you goes off, your advantage is lost, and Starfleet's case, that now effectively empty slot is a loss KDF never really have.
Addendum to address the Post that slipped in:
The Gal-X and Defiant-R were released with one less console than everything else. It was later decided to have been a terrible idea and the change was made; the extra console slots were actually just adding the missing slots back into the ships, bringing them up to the universal total of nine. This was years ago, when basic cloaking was seen as being worth a price; that has since changed.
Not really see quote below from F2P patch notes, most of the T5 lineup at the time was given a 9th console slot not just the 2 Federation cloaking ships making all the ships involved 8-console ships with an innate power. which was changed to the current standard now of T5 ship = 9 console.
As to the second quote, it has been linked and quoted times before, and is in-fact a critical part of the issue. Gorngonzolla himself has stated there is a double-standard in place, which is an immoral move by any person or organization, and supporting such lacks integrity. This this call for Cryptic to show it does have some integrity still left, and to show this is not becoming just a perpetual cash-grab by ending the double-standard.
Dev comment was: Ultimately though, some concessions had to be made for the Avenger, which in my opinion is a super rock solid ship. It's starfleet, so it shouldn't have cloak without some cost. This precedence has been set with both the Galaxy X and the Tactical Escort Retrofit. It would be a slippery slope to start giving fed ships free cloaking devices.
So the Federation have access to a faction specific ability of inate cloak at the cost of a console slot, but they are not forced to use it thus negating the cost.
Any ship that has a special power will have that power adjusted to a console, and that ship will be given an extra console slot to accommodate it.
These consoles have restrictions on which ships they can go on.
During the conversion, your new item will go into your new ship console slot.
If your ship is not getting a new ship slot, the item will try to go into an existing console slot, and any item in that slot will get moved into your backpack.
No items will be deleted in the conversion.
NX Class
Grappler is now an Item. (No new console slot)
Advanced Heavy Cruiser ? Excelsior
Transwarp is now a Transwarp Drive Coil Console.
Console grants Transwarp plus a passive bonus to Weapon, Shield, Engine, and Auxiliary Efficiency Stat. Added Tactical Console Slot.
Upgraded Ensign Engineering Bridge Officer slot to a Lt Engineering Bridge Officer Slot.
Tier 3 Nebula
Tachyon Field is now a Console Item.
Console grants Tachyon Field plus a passive bonus to Starship Sensors stat. Added Science Console Slot.
Added Ensign Science Bridge Officer Slot.
Tier 5 Excelsior Retrofit
Now comes with an Advanced Transwarp Drive Coil console mod.
Console grants Transwarp (but no longer to Sirius, Regulus, or Pi Canis), but also grants a passive bonus to Weapon, Shield, Engine, and Aux Performance Stat.
No console slots added.
Tier 5 Nebula Retrofit
Tachyon Detection Grid is now a Console Item.
Console grants Tachyon Field plus a passive bonus to Starship Sensors Array stat. Added Science Console Slot.
Vulcan D?kyr
Added Engineering Console slot (No item added).
Tier 5 Galaxy Retrofit
Saucer Separation is a Console item. Added Science Console slot.
Tier 5 Defiant Retrofit
Cloak is a Cloaking Device Console item. Added Engineering Console Slot.
Tier 5 Intrepid Retrofit
Ablative Generator is now a Console item. Added Engineering Console Slot.
Dreadnought Cruiser
Cloak is a Cloaking Device Console item. Added Tactical Console Slot.
Kar?Fi Battle Carrier
New Phase Shift Item.
Added Hangar Slot (No console slot added).
T5 B?rel Retrofit
Added Science Console Slot (No item added).
Varanus Fleet Support Vessel
Deploy Repair Platforms is not a Console Item. Added Engineering Slot. Repair Drones greatly Improved and Platforms now have a PBAoE Mask Energy Signature.
Varanus is not accessible at Brigadier General.
Improved ship healing drone healing powers.
Added mask energy signature PBAoE component to drone platform.
Marauder Patrol Cruiser
Marauder is now a Flight Deck Cruiser Class and comes with 1 hangar slot.
Interceptor power has been removed.
Ship now comes with Marauding Force Hangar Item (effectively an AoE Boarding Party).
As a Flight Deck Cruiser, the Marauder can now also equip all small hangar items including the To?Doj Fighters, S?kul Fighters, Nausicaan Siphons and Shield Repair Drones.
Marauder is not accessible at Brigadier General.
Guramba Siege Destroyer
Guramba is now a Destroyer Class. Added Engineer Console slot.
No console Item added.
Reduced Guramba Ship Lance charge time from 3s to 1s.
Ships
All Carriers and Flight Deck Cruisers can now equip the To?Doj Fighters, S?kul Fighters, Nausicaan Siphon Pods, and Shield Repair Drones.
Bird-of-Prey and Fer?Jai Frigate hangar pets remain exclusive to the Vo?quv Carrier and Kar?Fi Battle Carrier respectively.
All Carriers and Flight Deck Cruisers will now come with 4 Pet AI command powers to give orders to your pets ? Attack, Escort, Intercept and Recall.
There are no longer Port and Starboard carrier hangar pets. All hangar pet items fit in any slot.
Might be better to link those patch notes to avoid stretching; but note that all those console slot re-tweaks;) with to meet a change in standards within the game of that point in time; numerous ships which gained a console slot, didn't have a universal console added too. Again there is an issue of changing standards and tweaks again being needed to bring back proper balance. If you'd review the thread, you'd find this has been gone over multiple times in various forms, often having people then bringing it back around to the start by not paying attention to various posts.
Further more, if this console is supposed to provide a factional version of cloaking, then in order for it to logically continue to exist, the cloak offered should be enhanced in some way to make it stand out from the otherwise innate ability found on dozens of other ships. No other console slot in that list consists of a combat ability that is innate to other ships; which furthers the anomaly and issue, making it seem less valid as console based power.
In STO, basic cloaking is free to one faction, in both an general monetary sense, and a evolving game balance sense. We have both Dev statements that if it isn't battle cloak, it isn't worth penalizing stats for such a small advantage; which the Mogh then reflects those statements as the trend. At the same time, it is stated and imposed that the other faction's few, limited basic cloak ships have to sacrifice, on top of being store only. Some people have tried to counterpoint the similar cross-over of science oriented vessels; but the innate abilities of said types are not tied into console requirement for use like basic cloaking is.
Once again you overlook that the only KDF ships to get innate cloaking without a cost are the Battle Cruisers.
Raptors pay for their Cloak in Shield Modifier and Turn rate.
Defiant pays for its cloak in that it takes a console slot to use it. This is actually correct for it since the only cloaking Defiant had to have its Romulan cloaking device bolted on and integrated into its systems after its construction.
Then go play a Blizzard game if you dislike the Devs decision on how they balanced cloaking in STO.
With the 'Experiment' conducted, of course the Fleet Defiant will beat out the Mirror Qin, it's a Tier 5 vessel being put up against a Tier 5.5. This was nothing more than stacking the deck to get the result you wanted to try to validate your stance. From your wording it seems you did not even try both fleet grade vessels, and just extrapolated a unconfirmed result. This does highlight the fact that raptors need work and expansion, however, it does not in-turn mean the cloak double-standard is not a legitimate issue.
There is no cloaking double standard.
The Fleet Defiant has one more Tactical slot that increases its punch, better shield modifier and better hull than its Cstore counter part and even though the Fleet Raptors also have been given an additional slot in the form of engineering, higher shield modifier and hull the Defiant still kicks them in the teeth in any test when flown by equally skilled pilots.
The Defiant is not suffering in any way in its current form. It is still the defacto best fed alpha striker in the game.
The Devs have stated basic cloak isn't enough of a tactical asset to warrant reducing stats.
The Devs said that only Battle Cruisers do not have a drawback for cloaking. Escorts and Raptors both pay for their cloak though in different ways.
The Defiant pays only by having to slot its cloaking device in any of its existing console slots or in the extra science slot it was given to take it. Otherwise the Defiant suffers no handicap what so ever in stats or handling or even hull.
The Raptor class is handicapped in Shield Modifier and Handling for its innate cloaking, plus they are not given any option for a five tactical console version.
Said cloak is easily thwarted by numerous abilities, and unlike battle cloak where you get an option to reset in combat, it's a one-shot deal per engagement. If something glances you into Red Alert, or a CPB or what have you goes off, your advantage is lost, and Starfleet's case, that now effectively empty slot is a loss KDF never really have.
This is a drawback suffered by any ship that uses standard cloaking.
Its equal among all of the standard cloakers and is not evidence of the feds being under a double standard.
In the world of PvP as a cloaking Starfleet ship, the real kicker is a B'rel retro built in anti-cloak methods while remaining cloaked itself supporting other 'Vaper' builds; you won't stand a chance. Even if the ability becomes innate, with the addition of flanking to Raiders, and likely further improvements to KDF, your feared inferiority will never come to pass. BoPs even at this moment can tear through shields and hull right up there with Romulans; in strike and run attacks that even an innate cloak Defiant never could with the basic cloaking it has.
LoL- the B'rel is unfair now?
I find this a weak argument with no merit.
We KDF have no Cloak detection net ability and only have the standard abilities ingame available to every faction to force a cloaker out of hiding.
True a Bop can tear through a unprepared target caught unawares but thanks to the end of double taps and the poor tactical support given by three tactical consoles, even with the upcoming Flanking, the BoP is hard pressed to "vape" a target in one shot.
The Defiant on the other hand is down right made for the decloak alpha strike "vape" of a target and with its much higher durability to remain in combat after decloaking its miles above the BoP in the respect. The Defiant is not made for Hit-n-Run attacks. It has the luxury of being a well defended bruiser that can loiter in combat until it kills its foe. Give it a dedicated healer on a team and it will pile up bodies faster than any bop could keep up.
Compare the stats of the Tact Escort its brethren. It has a weaker hull an weaker shields than them, which ironically is a supposed signature of KDF sacrifice for cloaking. The Fleet Advanced also has the vaunted 5 tactical consoles, while also possessing superior hull and shields with a comparable turn rate; and the incredibly useful Lt.C Sci station. It has the same raw damage potential before special abilities come into play, on a more forgiving frame. The innate basic cloak would make it more balanced to this and other kin.
Untrue and very biased. You seem to be stretching the facts to make a point.
The Defiant-retrofit (tactical escort retrofit) Has a lot of brethren at Vice Admiral but none of them have a higher Shield Modifier than .9 of the Defiant though some do have more hull and all of them but the very weak Aquarius have a much lower turnrate stat.
When you look at the Fleet level Defiant the same holds true as the only the Blockade Escort has a .1 higher Shield Modifier and outside the once again weak Aquarius none of the other fed escorts out shine the Fleet Defiant in the one thing it is best attack Decloak alpha strikes followed by the ability to loiter in combat.
On the note of recursive logic, that is simply both an ad-hominem and faulty generalization. Your own posts could be claimed as recursive: "It's balanced because it is the way it is because it is the way it is because it is balanced." This manner of thinking is merely fearing change and progression that might upset the status-quo which one is comfortable with and complacent in. If such thinking was always held true, we would not see any improvements; such as the Flanking bonus coming to Raiders. Though I suspect most of those KDF 'defenders' here, had no such qualms with flanking.
The Defiant doesn't suffer at its purpose even after the many nerfs to decloak alpha strikes. It is still the best at the job.
BoPs though being the tissue paper Non-escort that they are have suffered in survivability even before the current power creep. This is why you never saw teams of BoPs ruling in PvP and only really see them in Kerrat where they can do what they do, ambush.
I've seen plenty of Defiants in PvP over the years and still see them to this day on occasion.
In the end, what is sought is a true balance in standards and a just equality. Note that the stance has never been 'Give us the best ever' or 'BATTLECLOAK OR BUST', discussions have included the acknowledgement and additional statements that Raptors need alot of work. This has never been 'TRIBBLE the other guy' as implied, it is not wanting best, it is wanting equality. Patrick specifically, seems hung up solely over PvP concerns that are rooted firmly in a disparity between the Tact Escort, and the Raptor line, irregardless of the full scope of STO's meta-balance and evolution of the game.
Cloak has no use in PvE and the Defiant has no use for cloak in PvE. It can be just an Escort and perform that role very well.
That lack of need for cloak is actually the original argument on why so many feds wanted an extra console added to the Defiant, so they could remove cloak and add a console that helped their PvE build more since the NPCs do not care or react to cloak like a player.
So as far as PvE is concerned the Defiant is more than balanced, hence why Patrick is more concerned about the PvP balance being upset.
Addendum to address the Post that slipped in:
The Gal-X and Defiant-R were released with one less console than everything else. It was later decided to have been a terrible idea and the change was made; the extra console slots were actually just adding the missing slots back into the ships, bringing them up to the universal total of nine. This was years ago, when basic cloaking was seen as being worth a price; that has since changed.
LOL- As I stating above the cloak in PvE was seen as useless by many feds and that uselessness was the core for their complaint that the innate cloaking of the Defiant and AGT galaxy be removable.
The Devs did one better and made it a console and added the extra console slot as a balancer so those feds could play PvE without something they saw as useless.
As stated that change is the cost of feds having cloaks while the Raptors pay for their innate (as non-Cstore ships) in Shield Modifier and Turnrate even though at BG they are the same level as the VA Defiant.
As to the second quote, it has been linked and quoted times before, and is in-fact a critical part of the issue. Gorngonzolla himself has stated there is a double-standard in place, which is an immoral move by any person or organization, and supporting such lacks integrity.
Gorngonzolla made no such claim in his post. He stated exactly why the payoffs for cloak for both factions exist.
This this call for Cryptic to show it does have some integrity still left, and to show this is not becoming just a perpetual cash-grab by ending the double-standard.
I shall use the line most often stated to us KDF in the past three years, Cryptic is a business so of course they are in it to make money.
Don't be pissed off now that they turned their eyes to the feds and decided to make it on the Avenger.
By all rights and in accordance to their own backstory the Avenger should not have a Cloak at all but they made a loophole so you feds would have both a true battle Cruiser with cloak and be able to play a ship you never had access before.
By all rights they could have just made the Avenger without cloak at all.
I dare say that if they did and then made the Mogh with lesser stats to pay for innate, you all would still be ********.
The fact you feds can not accept the gift they have given you just shows the levels of entitlement you hold in your character. It is a flaw and one that does not show anyone is STO your best qualities.
Urgh! This is painful. What really gets me is that all of the FEDs who want a cloak on this thread probably have next to no experience playing with one. Of course this has changed somewhat with the Romulan expansion. So again, why not just be happy with a Fed/Romulan? To me, that is the avenue where you FEDs actually GOT what you wanted.
Might be better to link those patch notes to avoid stretching; but note that all those console slot re-tweaks;) with to meet a change in standards within the game of that point in time; numerous ships which gained a console slot, didn't have a universal console added too. Again there is an issue of changing standards and tweaks again being needed to bring back proper balance. If you'd review the thread, you'd find this has been gone over multiple times in various forms, often having people then bringing it back around to the start by not paying attention to various posts.
Further more, if this console is supposed to provide a factional version of cloaking, then in order for it to logically continue to exist, the cloak offered should be enhanced in some way to make it stand out from the otherwise innate ability found on dozens of other ships. No other console slot in that list consists of a combat ability that is innate to other ships; which furthers the anomaly and issue, making it seem less valid as console based power.
Not sure about the "change in standards" as this was the F2P conversion of the game having the consoles as universal allowed for the monetization of later additions such as Fleet ships. T5 consoles are always ship specific, but this would make sense if they had been planning to release Fleet level ships, which they later did, allowing the player to migrate his ship specific console to the new Fleet level ship. thus promoting the idea that while your C-store ship was a good purchase you can make it better by upgrading it to the next level. It already exists and is "working as designed/intentioned which is "Give Federation players a way to use another Factions cloaking ability they would not otherwise have access to at the cost of a console slot" (No other console slot in that list consists of a combat ability that is innate to other ships hence the reason it has a cost associated with using it) thus allowing players the option to try out cloaking on a select few ships or slot a more useful console at the players discretion. My personal reason for buying the Defiant was not the cloak but the fact it was an impressive ship I had enjoyed from the TNG series and it seemed a great way to explore the STO universe combating the Borg threat.
]C-Store Ships Any ship that has a special power will have that power adjusted to a console, and that ship will be given an extra console slot to accommodate it.
These consoles have restrictions on which ships they can go on.
During the conversion, your new item will go into your new ship console slot.
If your ship is not getting a new ship slot, the item will try to go into an existing console slot, and any item in that slot will get moved into your backpack.
No items will be deleted in the conversion.
NX Class Grappler is now an Item. (No new console slot)
Advanced Heavy Cruiser Excelsior Transwarp is now a Transwarp Drive Coil Console.
Console grants Transwarp plus a passive bonus to Weapon, Shield, Engine, and Auxiliary Efficiency Stat. Added Tactical Console Slot.
Upgraded Ensign Engineering Bridge Officer slot to a Lt Engineering Bridge Officer Slot.
Tier 3 Nebula Tachyon Field is now a Console Item.
Console grants Tachyon Field plus a passive bonus to Starship Sensors stat. Added Science Console Slot.
Added Ensign Science Bridge Officer Slot.
Tier 5 Excelsior Retrofit Now comes with an Advanced Transwarp Drive Coil console mod.
Console grants Transwarp (but no longer to Sirius, Regulus, or Pi Canis), but also grants a passive bonus to Weapon, Shield, Engine, and Aux Performance Stat.
No console slots added.
Tier 5 Nebula Retrofit Tachyon Detection Grid is now a Console Item.
Console grants Tachyon Field plus a passive bonus to Starship Sensors Array stat. Added Science Console Slot.
Vulcan D'kyr Added Engineering Console slot (No item added).
Tier 5 Galaxy Retrofit Saucer Separation is a Console item. Added Science Console slot.
Tier 5 Defiant Retrofit Cloak is a Cloaking Device Console item. Added Engineering Console Slot.
Tier 5 Intrepid Retrofit Ablative Generator is now a Console item. Added Engineering Console Slot.
Dreadnought Cruiser Cloak is a Cloaking Device Console item. Added Tactical Console Slot.
Kar'Fi Battle Carrier New Phase Shift Item.
Added Hangar Slot (No console slot added).
T5 B'rel Retrofit Added Science Console Slot (No item added).
Varanus Fleet Support Vessel
Deploy Repair Platforms is not a Console Item. Added Engineering Slot. Repair Drones greatly Improved and Platforms now have a PBAoE Mask Energy Signature.
Varanus is not accessible at Brigadier General.
Improved ship healing drone healing powers.
Added mask energy signature PBAoE component to drone platform.
Marauder Patrol Cruiser
Marauder is now a Flight Deck Cruiser Class and comes with 1 hangar slot.
Interceptor power has been removed.
Ship now comes with Marauding Force Hangar Item (effectively an AoE Boarding Party).
As a Flight Deck Cruiser, the Marauder can now also equip all small hangar items including the To?Doj Fighters, S?kul Fighters, Nausicaan Siphons and Shield Repair Drones.
Marauder is not accessible at Brigadier General.
Guramba Siege Destroyer
Guramba is now a Destroyer Class. Added Engineer Console slot.
No console Item added.
Reduced Guramba Ship Lance charge time from 3s to 1s.
Ships
All Carriers and Flight Deck Cruisers can now equip the To?Doj Fighters, S?kul Fighters, Nausicaan Siphon Pods, and Shield Repair Drones.
Bird-of-Prey and Fer?Jai Frigate hangar pets remain exclusive to the Vo?quv Carrier and Kar?Fi Battle Carrier respectively.
All Carriers and Flight Deck Cruisers will now come with 4 Pet AI command powers to give orders to your pets ? Attack, Escort, Intercept and Recall.
There are no longer Port and Starboard carrier hangar pets. All hangar pet items fit in any slot.
After all the walls of text posts and 65 pages the fundamentally unbalanced and grossly unjust developer action has not been addressed, commented on, or rectified by the development staff WHY ON EARTH are:
Epohhs on a 24hr cooldown vs a 20hr cooldown I believe this was done to penalize players and makes a mockery of all standards of decency, as such I now DEMAND:
AEpohhpony. :P
Lets the walls of rage text continue about this trivial cloaking decision made long ago as I unfortunately have to play another MMO for the rest of the day while my Epohh timers reset, drats :eek:
Edit: "Also, you don't need to requote the same material over again on the same page, that's rather unnecessary. And the Defiant was from DS9."
So is the fact its not gonna be changed despite how many walls of texts ppl post, then the real Epohh injustice can be rectified, never watched DS9 more than a few minutes at a time and it was in ST:First contact which featured the TNG cast.
The dictionary seems to disagree with your personal perspective on double-standard, BMpwe. Unless you imply the world-wide accepted source of definition is wrong. :rolleyes: Additionally, the given statement does not explicitly state 'battlecuisers', it referenced the Mogh at the moment but not exclusivity. The only real definitive statement that was have is 'Innate cloaking KDF good, innate cloaking Fed bad' and the fact that Starfleet players are being made to pay through the nose to get a ship to a level of tactical flexibility par to it's direct counterpart. Tangible proof of a double-standard, weather or not those such as yourself refuse to see it.
Deviating to a side topic element of the Avenger/Mogh fiasco is the pretense for future releases being similar. Give one side something good, wait a few months to milk that camp, and then rerelease to the other in a new skin with a +1 to make more sales. That in of itself can and will destroy STO in the end.
The Heavy Raptor's numbers when you compare add up near par to the Tact Escort's, and ultimately seems to be a case of poor design, not balancing it around the cloaking devices. We're have an accord on the fact the Raptor line suffers from poor thought into its design and lack of diversity and utility. Looking as opponents present it, even if the Defiant family never could cloak it would be superior, so thus the issue isn't the cloak but pure failure to produce a useful vessel to accommodate their needs. But again, this is just a part of the matter, and is oft naught but a diversionary effort.
Indeed basic cloak is fragile and unreliable at times, but you passed over the key point; when the decloak alpha is prevented, all benefit gained from using the console goes with it. KDF ships would continue to receive the +42% Turn, +11 or so energy and kinetic resist from a Fleet MK XII RCS console if they were disrupted from cloak, for example.
At no point was it implied the B'rel or other BoPs are overpowered. Again you failed to see the true point being made; KDF's Raiders are being underestimated and presented incorrectly as a counterpoint. A Raider is just that, a Raider, not an Escort nor Raptor; they are built around the fact they can utilize battle cloaking; which can be devastating in competent hands.
The Defiant is only as durable as an escort can be, which pales in comparison to cruisers, or any other escort which slot more engi BOff seating. It's layout is very much designed for attacking; which it seems you presume it thus should be compared to BoPs. It is not a BoP, and if a Tact Escort comes focused under fire no amount of counter-measures will save it, where as a BoP can disrupted the attackers (often after getting the kill), flee, and recloak to start over. Which is their strength you again chose to omit.
The statements on the Fed Escorts is not fully truthful once again, a moment's research sets that strait. Fleet Advanced Escort: Shield Modifier of .99 Fleet Tactical Escort: Shield Modifier of .9
Additionally there is this item:
Unlike all other Fleet ships, the Fleet Tactical Escort Retrofit does not receive a 10% bonus to its Shield Modifier.
Unlike every other Fleet ship, it doesn't receive the +10% shield strength. A sacrifice that isn't made clear as to why, other than one could argue due to the potential means to cloak. Yet innate cloaking for it would be unfair because it doesn't pay anything. :rolleyes: Looking at the Fleet Advanced Escort, it has the same offensive potential sans cloak, almost the same turn rate, and more hull and shield strength. Which is possibly why now you see more Fleet Prometheus types than Fleet Defiant types, or atleast I do.
Cloak is more useful in PvE than being given credit. Being able to slip past to tag something needing to be hit, is incredibly beneficial to the team. A decloak alpha on a gate or other boss brings it down a little bit quicker. And honestly, if cloak really was as useless as you implied, you wouldn't care about Fed's being innate or not; it's just a smoke-screen.
Many, many innate abilities became consoles, not just cloaking. That shift was not solely due to the Fed 8 console slot cloaking ships; it was merely a response to Cryptic trying to balance specials in a flawed method. At this time, the cloak console is again becoming flawed as the oddball it is.
The claim of payoff is skewed. It's the same logic that would dictate the advantage of KDF is cloaking so they don't need any additional ships added, ever. What is in the shipyard can never equally match up to how things balance out in combat. Ironic this is played, as it's something KDF have been loathing for how many years?
Kapla, yes, obviously, the standards did change; additionally the reasoning presented there is then countered by a similar exchange, with the support (science) vessels. Yet their get sensor analysis and subsystem targeting innate; this is an element of a supposedly different playstyle unique to another faction that they are being granted a sample of. There was also no account for the fact that it is the awkward situation of what is an innate ability for dozens of other ships, is console based for a few others. Therefore, the console cloak needs to be changed to make it stand out, or replaced with innate to preserve a balance and equal standard in cloaking.
Also, you don't need to requote the same material over again on the same page, that's rather unnecessary. And the Defiant was from DS9. :P
Saw the typical "XX pages of text, no dev reply = status quo will be maintained"...
Not necessarily.
Onto the matter at hand:
My experience with other "P2W" games has been that "power creep" is a necessary evil in order to drive further cash shop sales. However, at the same time, I've also noticed that rarely, if ever, does the "old generation" stuff get readjusted, instead, what happens is "newer generation" stuff gets nerfed to "hairs above" the questioned generation when room is needed at the higher end of the power scale...
For example, take the typical P2W FPS:
Initial guns are released, taking 6 hits to kill a player. Next generation needs 5. Third generation needs 4. 6th generation would be "OHK" territory. At this point, generations 2-5 are "compressed" via nerf-bat to being equivalently Generation 2 weapons, and the process begins again. Eventually, those 5th generation 2-hit kills wind up being like 5.9, while the original second generation guns are 5.95...
Well, the Defiant and Gal-X are STO's "second generation" ships...
Detecting big-time "anti-old-school" bias here. NX? Lobi. TOS/TMP Connie? Super-promotion-box. (aka the two hardest ways to get ships) Excelsior & all 3 TNG "big hero" ships? C-Store. Please Equalize...
To rob a line: [quote: Mariemaia Kushrenada] Forum Posting is much like an endless waltz. The three beats of war, peace and revolution continue on forever. However, opinions will change upon the reading of my post.[/quote]
Yelling "WHY WON'T YOU DIE!" at this unholy beast of a thread would be silly but come on. Someone tell me I'm not the only one who feels this way.
Agreed it should have died about 55 pages ago, but ya know we have to be distracted from the more crucial issues of the day like why the fundamentally unbalanced and grossly unjust developer action has not been addressed, commented on, or rectified by the development staff WHY ON EARTH are Epohhs on a 24hr cooldown vs a 20hr cooldown I believe this was done to penalize players and makes a mockery of all standards of decency, as such I now DEMAND:
AEpohhpony. :P:P
I'm also frankly confused what the message in quoted sig post is supposed to be honestly, "CBS restrictions on the TOS Connie at T5 have fallen by the wayside due to freebie breen" is I believe the thought behind it but I fail to see how they are related oh well another of lifes great mysteries. Enjoy your travels aboard the starship insert name here for soon an old empire will re-arise from the shadows where they have been quietly infiltrating your societies for decades prepare to kneel before the Tribble Empire (aka who the Iconians evolved into)
50: S'Leth/Eurthyr/S. Dareau/Ardrian/Krudge/Annlova Not: Jadja
Still at it. CBS "restrictions" fell by wayside with freebie Breen. Time to re-examine ENT and ToS at tier 5, repurpose the Connie into Sci and rebuild an Akira escort into the "NX". 6 "eras", spread evenly over all the classes...
Every response that the KDF gives to any of these suggestions is always becried as red anger regardless of how soft spoken and patiently it may be phrased that they do not agree with the suggestion.
It does not matter how we disagree, we are always accussed of being unreasonable and unyielding in our disagreement.
The fed cloakers are not unbalanced as far as cloaking is concerned. They have been given compensation of extra console slots to accomidate the cloaking device.
Pretty much yeah, BiteMe?you've a hole in one there. But teron here is your classic liberal fed fanboy. He's like the fed's Al Sharpton and the KDF is the U.S. Caucasian population. We say we want the equivalent not the same as the Feds. And how can you rally say that the Mogh is more powerful than the avenger? The cloak is literally only good for the initial strike. If the cloak is that big a deal to you, then why do you bother with pvp. That's the only valid reason idiots like you, teron, talk up the fed cloak. How is it unfair that your teammate in an stf can cloak and you can't??it really isn't. If you want that cloak, go play his fashion. You can't have no job and expect people to take you seriously when you say "I deserve the same income as that accomplished neurosurgeon". That's how welfare works. So stop acting like the KDF is down on you and that your fed buddies don't think that the kdf is already more powerful than the Feds and has more than enough options of vessels and customizability.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC] "The Borg - party-poopers of the galaxy"~ The Doctor
lol.................... how did this get so long....
but anyway
I'd give the Defiant a battle cloak simply because it's canon. You can see it cloaking mid-fight in DS9 and the cloak is supplied by Romulans. Would also help the ship as it has lost its standing over the years.
Avenger and Gal-X are fine the way they are. At least as far as the cloak is concerned. The lance accuracy of the Gal-X is rather sad on the other hand.
^^^i don't pvp. at all. in fact maybe 3% of the visitors to this thread pvp. pvpers use cloak. I can't even remember to cloak in pve. or ever.
Cloaking in PvE is useful for only Romulans, due to their BOFFs.
You can reduce the cloaking CD by using Subterfuge BOFFs, while increasing the length of the Ambush bonus from decloaking by using a Reman with Infiltrator. This allows you to 'blip' your cloak to constantly, or almost constantly refresh the Ambush bonus, allowing for an almost constant uptime if you get good at it and have the BOFFs for it.
You can do it with a non-Romulan with battlecloak (like BoPs or the Bulwark), but without the BOFFs of a Romulan character, it's not as effective.
And of course, you can't really do this at all with a normal cloak, because you have to wait until you are out of combat to recloak. Which is nice if you are going from A to B or something, but not so much if you are shooting at something like a Tac Cube.
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.
It seems rationality and sensibility has gone out the window.
Patrick, this will be brief, as what you posted is barely more than a personal attack of 'Noob PvE'er can't PvP' which is quite unbecoming and degrading to the debate as a whole.
The Fleet Defiant shield mod has no stated reason to not receive the 10% increase. It would not bring it to cruiser strength, .99 is the same as the majority of Fleet-grade escorts; cruisers also receive the 10%, putting them at 1.1 on their shield modifier. The Bugship would still be better by far, nothing has the perfect storm of bonuses like it. All you've done is presented your personal loathing and bias for the Defiant as fact when we can only speculate until we get an official statement. :rolleyes: Though the a constant 'cost' we've had for innate cloaking, on raptors per nigh all KDF posters here, is a lower shield mod; which can imply similar.
The rest is nothing but a personal attack I won't dignify with addressing as it is irrational accusation and not truly relevant to the topic and I don't need to defend myself here, I do so on the battlefield quite well.
mwhitaker, as above, I'd advocate restraining yourself from the petty personal attacks, false allegations and wild analogies, posts such as that contribute little. The element you neglected in all that is the statements and evidence of the Mogh cloak making it a '+1' on the Avenger, just more value for the same amount of money. This has been a spot-light shown on the double-standard that has come to exist in regards to cloaking; when you account for other factors presented earlier in the thread as well.
Resorting to wild political-themed insults does amuse me though, especially the decrying a conservative to be a liberal. :P
The desire of people to see this thread die or be locked baffles me.
Comments
Good options are nice, innert cloak on feds, not at this time.
One could conversely argue that the coming flanking bonus is unneeded as it would be a +1 without any real counterbalance, so surely you should be up in arms over it as well. After all; a visit to warzones and similar (which you concern seems to be purely PvP centered) shows KDF BoPs still having devastating damage potential, coming in right behind the vaunted Rom Warbirds. So one could surmise that they are balanced as is, and don't need Flanking, that it would break balance in the method you just proposed.
Failing making Starfleet cloaking innate, some other bonus would be needed to make the console valid and no longer a component of a double-standard. Flat damage resistance in cloak or out emulating the Defiant family's innate ablative plating perhaps, maybe enhancing the cloak so you can not activate it in red alert, but having your ship put into red alert while under cloak, doesn't rip you out of it.
Your falsehood is in how you portray this event. These ships were lacking a console slot on release, due to the nature of the game's balance at that point in time. When the innate ability was moved to a console, the -1 slot penalty was removed, bringing them to the same 9 consoles as other VA ships to again keep with the balance of the day.
Thus, no 'extra' console slots exist, just the correct number.
Ship statistics of basic cloaking vessels are not penalized, per word of Devs and visible in game; aside the cost of the console slot for Starfleet. Battlecruisers are balanced to the standard of battlecruisers and contrast to line cruisers, there is no expense for cloaking as highlighted with the Mogh and Avenger comparison. The Qin and the Defiant are a mismatch at stock, at fleet it is a case of ships having stats distributed adversely for one. If neither had cloaking, the Tact Escort would still be seen as better, which we've concluded is a symptom of poor development there. Yet in with the Raptor, it's poor Dev design, yet not with the Tact Esort?
Powercreep due to Fleet grade assets is undeniable. A Fleet Console gives you one and a half high quality console bonuses, a vessel running such will those which do not. This ties into the prior, as the cost of needing a console slot to enable an ability which has been stated to not be important enough to warrant a stats penalty, incurs a sever one in today's balance of power. This I've tested with fleet-mates, two incidental ships with the exception of a Mk XII Fleet armor console versus cloak console; the Fleet console vessel innately had the upper hand, even the decloak alpha struggled to equalize things.
Then comes the issue of additional financial investment. The Avenger, and any Fleet upgrade of the three, require the additional expense of another vessel. There is the cost reduction for the direct upgrade, but this doesn't help should someone be seeking a Fleet Avenger that can cloak. This then compounds with the second issue, there is a logistical cost imposed at the loss of a console slot for bonuses. To put a spin on a play others have tried, the Fleet Varanus comes with the innate bonuses of science vessels without needing another purchase, nor without costing a console slot; yet it's been stated 'Science Ships' as Starfleet's thing in a similar manner to how cloaking is said to be KDF's.
This is what builds up into the sense of a double-standard. It's okay for KDF to get basic cloak for free in every sense, but for Starfleet's limited range of ships which have it, it's a substantial cost in multiple ways. The arguments presented by yourself and several others against it regularly fail to account for the meta, and seem rooted squarely in preservation of a sense of PvP 'X to Y' balance. There is no accounting for interaction balance, or the state of power with gear that conflicts with the system as it stands. We just have an obsolete, archaic reliance on a console despite the cloaking balance being at a radically different state from when it was introduced.
If innate standard cloaking is not the answer, the only course to correct this is to either enhance the cloak provided in some form, or add passive bonuses alongside enabling use of the ability.
Something additionally to note, I am not a user of Fed Cloaking myself, my vessel of choice is the MVAE; so your spinning this off as me wanting an advantage over balance is a pure ad-hominem.
Also, KDF have just as regular 'wild' topics as you play this out to be, I suppose you just don't see them.
R.I.P
...and not just a little less either. a lot less!
so you all better come to an agreement on what the kdf are willing to give up in order to get the defiant into a battlecloak before the mods are forced to close this thread.
free jkname
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/showthread.php?t=967811
Back to the topic on hand.
Klingons are the axe bursting from behind a door.
Romulans are the poisoned blade striking from the shadows.
Starfleet is the shield that withstands all
Each faction has place in STO and me along with others think no faction. Starfleet, Republic, or Starfleet should be so clearly better then the others in everything. What you are asking for is for Starfleet to gain a Battle cruiser and Raptor then the KDF. Think about if this thread was about the KDF and buffing their own sci ship to the level of the vesta.
This is what it sounds like you are asking for.
Now there is better people here to cover this then I have so I will go at it and just drink my muddled vortaberry wine.
excerpts:
12-11-2013, 01:53 PM Gorngonzolla's complete post about Mogh vs Avenger (highlighted sections regarding the cloaking cost)
Just the information for your perusal, Good Hunting all.
In STO, basic cloaking is free to one faction, in both an general monetary sense, and a evolving game balance sense. We have both Dev statements that if it isn't battle cloak, it isn't worth penalizing stats for such a small advantage; which the Mogh then reflects those statements as the trend. At the same time, it is stated and imposed that the other faction's few, limited basic cloak ships have to sacrifice, on top of being store only. Some people have tried to counterpoint the similar cross-over of science oriented vessels; but the innate abilities of said types are not tied into console requirement for use like basic cloaking is.
This is true to the definition of a double-standard.
Now, moving on from here, you analogy with the automotive industry is flawed irregardless of the imposed perspective of the context. This issue deals with live code and systems, the standards that govern them changing over time, and content along with it. A car will never be updated from the collective manufacturers with a patch to be better or worse, nor are cars meant to be in any semblance of balance and equality to each-other.
As this is a game industry problem, a better analogy is drawing from other ends of said industry. Imagine if in any of the major MMOs, Rogues were almost universally Red exclusive, with Blue only getting access to them via micro-transaction, and on top of that, their rogues did not get stealth innately and they needed a piece of otherwise stat-less gear to enable it. The outcry would be indisputably extreme.
Compare it to the Blizz's approach to a trade over of faction classes, which gives a small range of race/class options to utilize the other side's 'Theme Class'. This was done without making either counterpart inferior. Cryptic failed with this similar trade of alternative play for the factions.
With the 'Experiment' conducted, of course the Fleet Defiant will beat out the Mirror Qin, it's a Tier 5 vessel being put up against a Tier 5.5. This was nothing more than stacking the deck to get the result you wanted to try to validate your stance. From your wording it seems you did not even try both fleet grade vessels, and just extrapolated a unconfirmed result. This does highlight the fact that raptors need work and expansion, however, it does not in-turn mean the cloak double-standard is not a legitimate issue.
The Devs have stated basic cloak isn't enough of a tactical asset to warrant reducing stats. Said cloak is easily thwarted by numerous abilities, and unlike battle cloak where you get an option to reset in combat, it's a one-shot deal per engagement. If something glances you into Red Alert, or a CPB or what have you goes off, your advantage is lost, and Starfleet's case, that now effectively empty slot is a loss KDF never really have.
In the world of PvP as a cloaking Starfleet ship, the real kicker is a B'rel retro built in anti-cloak methods while remaining cloaked itself supporting other 'Vaper' builds; you won't stand a chance. Even if the ability becomes innate, with the addition of flanking to Raiders, and likely further improvements to KDF, your feared inferiority will never come to pass. BoPs even at this moment can tear through shields and hull right up there with Romulans; in strike and run attacks that even an innate cloak Defiant never could with the basic cloaking it has.
Compare the stats of the Tact Escort its brethren. It has a weaker hull and weaker shields than them, which ironically is a supposed signature of KDF sacrifice for cloaking. The Fleet Advanced also has the vaunted 5 tactical consoles, while also possessing superior hull and shields with a comparable turn rate; and the incredibly useful Lt.C Sci station. It has the same raw damage potential before special abilities come into play, on a more forgiving frame. The innate basic cloak would make it more balanced to this and other kin.
On the note of recursive logic, that is simply both an ad-hominem and faulty generalization. Your own posts could be claimed as recursive: "It's balanced because it is the way it is because it is the way it is because it is balanced." This manner of thinking is merely fearing change and progression that might upset the status-quo which one is comfortable with and complacent in. If such thinking was always held true, we would not see any improvements; such as the Flanking bonus coming to Raiders. Though I suspect most of those KDF 'defenders' here, had no such qualms with flanking.
In the end, what is sought is a true balance in standards and a just equality. Note that the stance has never been 'Give us the best ever' or 'BATTLECLOAK OR BUST', discussions have included the acknowledgement and additional statements that Raptors need alot of work. This has never been 'TRIBBLE the other guy' as implied, it is not wanting best, it is wanting equality. Patrick specifically, seems hung up solely over PvP concerns that are rooted firmly in a disparity between the Tact Escort, and the Raptor line, irregardless of the full scope of STO's meta-balance and evolution of the game.
Addendum to address the Post that slipped in:
The Gal-X and Defiant-R were released with one less console than everything else. It was later decided to have been a terrible idea and the change was made; the extra console slots were actually just adding the missing slots back into the ships, bringing them up to the universal total of nine. This was years ago, when basic cloaking was seen as being worth a price; that has since changed.
As to the second quote, it has been linked and quoted times before, and is in-fact a critical part of the issue. Gorngonzolla himself has stated there is a double-standard in place, which is an immoral move by any person or organization, and supporting such lacks integrity. This this call for Cryptic to show it does have some integrity still left, and to show this is not becoming just a perpetual cash-grab by ending the double-standard.
Dev comment was: Ultimately though, some concessions had to be made for the Avenger, which in my opinion is a super rock solid ship. It's starfleet, so it shouldn't have cloak without some cost. This precedence has been set with both the Galaxy X and the Tactical Escort Retrofit. It would be a slippery slope to start giving fed ships free cloaking devices.
So the Federation have access to a faction specific ability of inate cloak at the cost of a console slot, but they are not forced to use it thus negating the cost.
Further more, if this console is supposed to provide a factional version of cloaking, then in order for it to logically continue to exist, the cloak offered should be enhanced in some way to make it stand out from the otherwise innate ability found on dozens of other ships. No other console slot in that list consists of a combat ability that is innate to other ships; which furthers the anomaly and issue, making it seem less valid as console based power.
Once again you overlook that the only KDF ships to get innate cloaking without a cost are the Battle Cruisers.
Raptors pay for their Cloak in Shield Modifier and Turn rate.
Defiant pays for its cloak in that it takes a console slot to use it. This is actually correct for it since the only cloaking Defiant had to have its Romulan cloaking device bolted on and integrated into its systems after its construction.
Then go play a Blizzard game if you dislike the Devs decision on how they balanced cloaking in STO.
There is no cloaking double standard.
The Fleet Defiant has one more Tactical slot that increases its punch, better shield modifier and better hull than its Cstore counter part and even though the Fleet Raptors also have been given an additional slot in the form of engineering, higher shield modifier and hull the Defiant still kicks them in the teeth in any test when flown by equally skilled pilots.
The Defiant is not suffering in any way in its current form. It is still the defacto best fed alpha striker in the game.
The Devs said that only Battle Cruisers do not have a drawback for cloaking. Escorts and Raptors both pay for their cloak though in different ways.
The Defiant pays only by having to slot its cloaking device in any of its existing console slots or in the extra science slot it was given to take it. Otherwise the Defiant suffers no handicap what so ever in stats or handling or even hull.
The Raptor class is handicapped in Shield Modifier and Handling for its innate cloaking, plus they are not given any option for a five tactical console version.
This is a drawback suffered by any ship that uses standard cloaking.
Its equal among all of the standard cloakers and is not evidence of the feds being under a double standard.
LoL- the B'rel is unfair now?
I find this a weak argument with no merit.
We KDF have no Cloak detection net ability and only have the standard abilities ingame available to every faction to force a cloaker out of hiding.
True a Bop can tear through a unprepared target caught unawares but thanks to the end of double taps and the poor tactical support given by three tactical consoles, even with the upcoming Flanking, the BoP is hard pressed to "vape" a target in one shot.
The Defiant on the other hand is down right made for the decloak alpha strike "vape" of a target and with its much higher durability to remain in combat after decloaking its miles above the BoP in the respect. The Defiant is not made for Hit-n-Run attacks. It has the luxury of being a well defended bruiser that can loiter in combat until it kills its foe. Give it a dedicated healer on a team and it will pile up bodies faster than any bop could keep up.
Untrue and very biased. You seem to be stretching the facts to make a point.
The Defiant-retrofit (tactical escort retrofit) Has a lot of brethren at Vice Admiral but none of them have a higher Shield Modifier than .9 of the Defiant though some do have more hull and all of them but the very weak Aquarius have a much lower turnrate stat.
When you look at the Fleet level Defiant the same holds true as the only the Blockade Escort has a .1 higher Shield Modifier and outside the once again weak Aquarius none of the other fed escorts out shine the Fleet Defiant in the one thing it is best attack Decloak alpha strikes followed by the ability to loiter in combat.
The Defiant doesn't suffer at its purpose even after the many nerfs to decloak alpha strikes. It is still the best at the job.
BoPs though being the tissue paper Non-escort that they are have suffered in survivability even before the current power creep. This is why you never saw teams of BoPs ruling in PvP and only really see them in Kerrat where they can do what they do, ambush.
I've seen plenty of Defiants in PvP over the years and still see them to this day on occasion.
Cloak has no use in PvE and the Defiant has no use for cloak in PvE. It can be just an Escort and perform that role very well.
That lack of need for cloak is actually the original argument on why so many feds wanted an extra console added to the Defiant, so they could remove cloak and add a console that helped their PvE build more since the NPCs do not care or react to cloak like a player.
So as far as PvE is concerned the Defiant is more than balanced, hence why Patrick is more concerned about the PvP balance being upset.
LOL- As I stating above the cloak in PvE was seen as useless by many feds and that uselessness was the core for their complaint that the innate cloaking of the Defiant and AGT galaxy be removable.
The Devs did one better and made it a console and added the extra console slot as a balancer so those feds could play PvE without something they saw as useless.
As stated that change is the cost of feds having cloaks while the Raptors pay for their innate (as non-Cstore ships) in Shield Modifier and Turnrate even though at BG they are the same level as the VA Defiant.
Gorngonzolla made no such claim in his post. He stated exactly why the payoffs for cloak for both factions exist.
I shall use the line most often stated to us KDF in the past three years, Cryptic is a business so of course they are in it to make money.
Don't be pissed off now that they turned their eyes to the feds and decided to make it on the Avenger.
By all rights and in accordance to their own backstory the Avenger should not have a Cloak at all but they made a loophole so you feds would have both a true battle Cruiser with cloak and be able to play a ship you never had access before.
By all rights they could have just made the Avenger without cloak at all.
I dare say that if they did and then made the Mogh with lesser stats to pay for innate, you all would still be ********.
The fact you feds can not accept the gift they have given you just shows the levels of entitlement you hold in your character. It is a flaw and one that does not show anyone is STO your best qualities.
R.I.P
Not sure about the "change in standards" as this was the F2P conversion of the game having the consoles as universal allowed for the monetization of later additions such as Fleet ships. T5 consoles are always ship specific, but this would make sense if they had been planning to release Fleet level ships, which they later did, allowing the player to migrate his ship specific console to the new Fleet level ship. thus promoting the idea that while your C-store ship was a good purchase you can make it better by upgrading it to the next level. It already exists and is "working as designed/intentioned which is "Give Federation players a way to use another Factions cloaking ability they would not otherwise have access to at the cost of a console slot" (No other console slot in that list consists of a combat ability that is innate to other ships hence the reason it has a cost associated with using it) thus allowing players the option to try out cloaking on a select few ships or slot a more useful console at the players discretion. My personal reason for buying the Defiant was not the cloak but the fact it was an impressive ship I had enjoyed from the TNG series and it seemed a great way to explore the STO universe combating the Borg threat.
After all the walls of text posts and 65 pages the fundamentally unbalanced and grossly unjust developer action has not been addressed, commented on, or rectified by the development staff WHY ON EARTH are:
Epohhs on a 24hr cooldown vs a 20hr cooldown I believe this was done to penalize players and makes a mockery of all standards of decency, as such I now DEMAND:
A Epohh pony. :P
Lets the walls of rage text continue about this trivial cloaking decision made long ago as I unfortunately have to play another MMO for the rest of the day while my Epohh timers reset, drats :eek:
Edit: "Also, you don't need to requote the same material over again on the same page, that's rather unnecessary. And the Defiant was from DS9."
So is the fact its not gonna be changed despite how many walls of texts ppl post, then the real Epohh injustice can be rectified, never watched DS9 more than a few minutes at a time and it was in ST:First contact which featured the TNG cast.
Deviating to a side topic element of the Avenger/Mogh fiasco is the pretense for future releases being similar. Give one side something good, wait a few months to milk that camp, and then rerelease to the other in a new skin with a +1 to make more sales. That in of itself can and will destroy STO in the end.
The Heavy Raptor's numbers when you compare add up near par to the Tact Escort's, and ultimately seems to be a case of poor design, not balancing it around the cloaking devices. We're have an accord on the fact the Raptor line suffers from poor thought into its design and lack of diversity and utility. Looking as opponents present it, even if the Defiant family never could cloak it would be superior, so thus the issue isn't the cloak but pure failure to produce a useful vessel to accommodate their needs. But again, this is just a part of the matter, and is oft naught but a diversionary effort.
Indeed basic cloak is fragile and unreliable at times, but you passed over the key point; when the decloak alpha is prevented, all benefit gained from using the console goes with it. KDF ships would continue to receive the +42% Turn, +11 or so energy and kinetic resist from a Fleet MK XII RCS console if they were disrupted from cloak, for example.
At no point was it implied the B'rel or other BoPs are overpowered. Again you failed to see the true point being made; KDF's Raiders are being underestimated and presented incorrectly as a counterpoint. A Raider is just that, a Raider, not an Escort nor Raptor; they are built around the fact they can utilize battle cloaking; which can be devastating in competent hands.
The Defiant is only as durable as an escort can be, which pales in comparison to cruisers, or any other escort which slot more engi BOff seating. It's layout is very much designed for attacking; which it seems you presume it thus should be compared to BoPs. It is not a BoP, and if a Tact Escort comes focused under fire no amount of counter-measures will save it, where as a BoP can disrupted the attackers (often after getting the kill), flee, and recloak to start over. Which is their strength you again chose to omit.
The statements on the Fed Escorts is not fully truthful once again, a moment's research sets that strait.
Fleet Advanced Escort: Shield Modifier of .99
Fleet Tactical Escort: Shield Modifier of .9
Additionally there is this item: Unlike every other Fleet ship, it doesn't receive the +10% shield strength. A sacrifice that isn't made clear as to why, other than one could argue due to the potential means to cloak. Yet innate cloaking for it would be unfair because it doesn't pay anything. :rolleyes: Looking at the Fleet Advanced Escort, it has the same offensive potential sans cloak, almost the same turn rate, and more hull and shield strength. Which is possibly why now you see more Fleet Prometheus types than Fleet Defiant types, or atleast I do.
Cloak is more useful in PvE than being given credit. Being able to slip past to tag something needing to be hit, is incredibly beneficial to the team. A decloak alpha on a gate or other boss brings it down a little bit quicker. And honestly, if cloak really was as useless as you implied, you wouldn't care about Fed's being innate or not; it's just a smoke-screen.
Many, many innate abilities became consoles, not just cloaking. That shift was not solely due to the Fed 8 console slot cloaking ships; it was merely a response to Cryptic trying to balance specials in a flawed method. At this time, the cloak console is again becoming flawed as the oddball it is.
The claim of payoff is skewed. It's the same logic that would dictate the advantage of KDF is cloaking so they don't need any additional ships added, ever. What is in the shipyard can never equally match up to how things balance out in combat. Ironic this is played, as it's something KDF have been loathing for how many years?
Kapla, yes, obviously, the standards did change; additionally the reasoning presented there is then countered by a similar exchange, with the support (science) vessels. Yet their get sensor analysis and subsystem targeting innate; this is an element of a supposedly different playstyle unique to another faction that they are being granted a sample of. There was also no account for the fact that it is the awkward situation of what is an innate ability for dozens of other ships, is console based for a few others. Therefore, the console cloak needs to be changed to make it stand out, or replaced with innate to preserve a balance and equal standard in cloaking.
Also, you don't need to requote the same material over again on the same page, that's rather unnecessary. And the Defiant was from DS9. :P
Not necessarily.
Onto the matter at hand:
My experience with other "P2W" games has been that "power creep" is a necessary evil in order to drive further cash shop sales. However, at the same time, I've also noticed that rarely, if ever, does the "old generation" stuff get readjusted, instead, what happens is "newer generation" stuff gets nerfed to "hairs above" the questioned generation when room is needed at the higher end of the power scale...
For example, take the typical P2W FPS:
Initial guns are released, taking 6 hits to kill a player. Next generation needs 5. Third generation needs 4. 6th generation would be "OHK" territory. At this point, generations 2-5 are "compressed" via nerf-bat to being equivalently Generation 2 weapons, and the process begins again. Eventually, those 5th generation 2-hit kills wind up being like 5.9, while the original second generation guns are 5.95...
Well, the Defiant and Gal-X are STO's "second generation" ships...
To rob a line: [quote: Mariemaia Kushrenada] Forum Posting is much like an endless waltz. The three beats of war, peace and revolution continue on forever. However, opinions will change upon the reading of my post.[/quote]
Its ok. I find it helps if you just rock back and forth while singing Data's "Lifeforms" song.
LOL This thread IS kind of turning into a car accident. You're horrified . . . but you just can't stop looking.
Agreed it should have died about 55 pages ago, but ya know we have to be distracted from the more crucial issues of the day like why the fundamentally unbalanced and grossly unjust developer action has not been addressed, commented on, or rectified by the development staff WHY ON EARTH are Epohhs on a 24hr cooldown vs a 20hr cooldown I believe this was done to penalize players and makes a mockery of all standards of decency, as such I now DEMAND:
A Epohh pony. :P:P
I'm also frankly confused what the message in quoted sig post is supposed to be honestly, "CBS restrictions on the TOS Connie at T5 have fallen by the wayside due to freebie breen" is I believe the thought behind it but I fail to see how they are related oh well another of lifes great mysteries. Enjoy your travels aboard the starship insert name here for soon an old empire will re-arise from the shadows where they have been quietly infiltrating your societies for decades prepare to kneel before the Tribble Empire (aka who the Iconians evolved into)
Pretty much yeah, BiteMe?you've a hole in one there. But teron here is your classic liberal fed fanboy. He's like the fed's Al Sharpton and the KDF is the U.S. Caucasian population. We say we want the equivalent not the same as the Feds. And how can you rally say that the Mogh is more powerful than the avenger? The cloak is literally only good for the initial strike. If the cloak is that big a deal to you, then why do you bother with pvp. That's the only valid reason idiots like you, teron, talk up the fed cloak. How is it unfair that your teammate in an stf can cloak and you can't??it really isn't. If you want that cloak, go play his fashion. You can't have no job and expect people to take you seriously when you say "I deserve the same income as that accomplished neurosurgeon". That's how welfare works. So stop acting like the KDF is down on you and that your fed buddies don't think that the kdf is already more powerful than the Feds and has more than enough options of vessels and customizability.
"The Borg - party-poopers of the galaxy" ~ The Doctor
but anyway
I'd give the Defiant a battle cloak simply because it's canon. You can see it cloaking mid-fight in DS9 and the cloak is supplied by Romulans. Would also help the ship as it has lost its standing over the years.
Avenger and Gal-X are fine the way they are. At least as far as the cloak is concerned. The lance accuracy of the Gal-X is rather sad on the other hand.
USS WARRIOR NCC 1720 Commanding Officer
Star Trek Gamers
^^^i don't pvp. at all. in fact maybe 3% of the visitors to this thread pvp. pvpers use cloak. I can't even remember to cloak in pve. or ever.
"The Borg - party-poopers of the galaxy" ~ The Doctor
Cloaking in PvE is useful for only Romulans, due to their BOFFs.
You can reduce the cloaking CD by using Subterfuge BOFFs, while increasing the length of the Ambush bonus from decloaking by using a Reman with Infiltrator. This allows you to 'blip' your cloak to constantly, or almost constantly refresh the Ambush bonus, allowing for an almost constant uptime if you get good at it and have the BOFFs for it.
You can do it with a non-Romulan with battlecloak (like BoPs or the Bulwark), but without the BOFFs of a Romulan character, it's not as effective.
And of course, you can't really do this at all with a normal cloak, because you have to wait until you are out of combat to recloak. Which is nice if you are going from A to B or something, but not so much if you are shooting at something like a Tac Cube.
Patrick, this will be brief, as what you posted is barely more than a personal attack of 'Noob PvE'er can't PvP' which is quite unbecoming and degrading to the debate as a whole.
The Fleet Defiant shield mod has no stated reason to not receive the 10% increase. It would not bring it to cruiser strength, .99 is the same as the majority of Fleet-grade escorts; cruisers also receive the 10%, putting them at 1.1 on their shield modifier. The Bugship would still be better by far, nothing has the perfect storm of bonuses like it. All you've done is presented your personal loathing and bias for the Defiant as fact when we can only speculate until we get an official statement. :rolleyes: Though the a constant 'cost' we've had for innate cloaking, on raptors per nigh all KDF posters here, is a lower shield mod; which can imply similar.
The rest is nothing but a personal attack I won't dignify with addressing as it is irrational accusation and not truly relevant to the topic and I don't need to defend myself here, I do so on the battlefield quite well.
mwhitaker, as above, I'd advocate restraining yourself from the petty personal attacks, false allegations and wild analogies, posts such as that contribute little. The element you neglected in all that is the statements and evidence of the Mogh cloak making it a '+1' on the Avenger, just more value for the same amount of money. This has been a spot-light shown on the double-standard that has come to exist in regards to cloaking; when you account for other factors presented earlier in the thread as well.
Resorting to wild political-themed insults does amuse me though, especially the decrying a conservative to be a liberal. :P
The desire of people to see this thread die or be locked baffles me.