It doesn't matter what WAS the case. Federation ships are NOW at one less console slot than their kdf counterparts in order to enjoy the same functionality that the kdf has built in.
The kdf pays for their cloak in stats, not consoles. Let the Federation pay an equal price. The same price for the same functionality. That's balance.
Look, in all seriousness, give it a bit. Based on leaked stats, the (New) Avenger is being reskinned and released to the KDF, which means either:
KDF-only players can now experience the complaint Federation-only players have with the Cloak console, and you might get less opposition.
or:
The Cloak will be integrated, which gives you a better argument to integrating the Cloak on Federation ships.
Our glimpse of the M-BC showed no sacrifices on the surface, the few differences were actually improvements over the Avenger. If this is so on launch, and is going to be the new standard for making KDF vessels... Updates to old ships and cloaking methods will need to be addressed.
Tac Escort Retrofit (3 eng/2sci/4tac) Note this is not the FLEET tac escort refit, which comes with 3 eng/2sci/5tac.
now...let's see...5 tac console KDF ships...
where are they...
But the kdf ships still have 10 consoles, same as the Defiant. They might not have 5 tactical, but that allows them to put consoles in another area. Maybe another fleet neutronium so your raptors aren't made out of paper mache and gasoline like the Defiant is, maybe another RCS so you can outturn it, maybe a cool universal you have room for now that half your console capacity isn't spent on pure dps. The Defiant is a pure offense ship and the consoles reflect that, as does the performance of the Defiant reflect the consoles when it has to do anything but fire at a target without fear of reprisal.
Though I do agree that science consoles are a mite underpowered at this point, the relative utility of different schools of console isn't the discussion here.
I thought I'd clarify. I'm not dismissing the notion that the kdf doesn't have 5 tac console ships. That's a niche they don't have filled and if you want to call it specialization or an unfinished shipyard, both opinions are pretty valid. The point I'm trying to make is that having 5 tac consoles doesn't make a ship straight-up better; it's simply a different pattern of allocating the same resources.
Though to be honest, I'd fly a 5/0/5 ship. It'd be pretty rockin'.
Tac Escort Retrofit (3 eng/2sci/4tac) Note this is not the FLEET tac escort refit, which comes with 3 eng/2sci/5tac.
now...let's see...5 tac console KDF ships...
where are they...
Oh, right, we don't have those. (except for th craptastic Bortasque, but we're comparing like-to-like right?)
Nearest equivalent is the Qin. Anyone who's flown both a Defiant and a Qin can tell you-the Qin is inferior enough to be a good target for mockery.
Not seeing the forest from the trees, here. A Fleet Qin still has the same count total as a Fleet Defiant, the consoles are placed differently, which is apparently part of this bitter vendetta's source, but 10 for each.
I've flown both, I don't find it as night and day as people make it out to be. The Qin tends to be tougher for me as I have that 'extra console' slot for more armor or shield strength, for instance. As I have noted in another thread, KDF have, and have been given good tools to work with; the response just seems to be to spit on it and call foul on anything not 'Godly Good'.
Oh, and a side-note, that 'craptastic' Bortas'qu is actually pretty damn brutal when built up like a (gasp) Federation-style tanking beam cruiser. It's an ironic reflection of Federation players being unfamiliar with Battle Cruiser piloting.
Release notes 07-27-2007 The Defiant retrofit with integrated cloaking is introduced to the game as a C-store ship. It has the following console set-up;
2 Engineering
4 Tactical
2 Science
The Dreadnought with integrated cloaking which was introduced into the game earlier has the following console set-up;
4 Engineering
2 Tactical
2 science
There was much complaining that the lack of consoles on these ships due to integrated cloaking was unfair and that same complaining was followed up with statement that since it was regular cloaking and that cloaking was pointless in PvE it was a handicap to these ships to have less consoles.
The Devs responded roughly a year later in this patch, Release notes 12-01-2011
where they made this change to C-store ships (of which the KDF had very few);
" 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. "
of those ships the following received updates;
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.
Both of your precious ships HAVE received console slots due to their cloaking devices.
The standard Qin and Neghvar where not and are not C-store ships
BiteMe, we're not saying that there were never console slots added.
We're saying that the point is moot because a fed ship using a cloak does not have the same number of console slots available as an equivalent klingon ship also using a cloak. I think the disconnect is that the fed supporters thought you were saying that, say, a fleet Defiant got 11 consoles so it had room for the cloak.
If in the past the Defiant had 8 console slots and a cloak and the Qin had 9 console slots and a cloak, making the Defiant 9 console slots and having the cloak in one of them doesn't change the imbalance, it just shuffles the numbers around and calls it a day. That's what Fed players are angry about.
It doesn't matter what WAS the case. Federation ships are NOW at one less console slot than their kdf counterparts in order to enjoy the same functionality that the kdf has built in.
The kdf pays for their cloak in stats, not consoles. Let the Federation pay an equal price. The same price for the same functionality. That's balance.
Because Klingon ships are built from the ground up with cloaking technology and have been designed so for a very long time.
The Defiant in cannon always had a bolt on Cloaking device so its remaining a console makes sense. The same holds true for the Avenger.
The Dreadnought I would have no problem having cloaking made integrated again.
And I agree, the Rihan b/c IS over-powered compared to what any other cloaking vessels. Heck, when any Rihan ship enters a cloaked state, it enhances their flight characteristics (at least it did in my Ha'apex) Seeing as I've never used the "end-game" BoP's, I don't know if theirs' does the same, but I've never heard anyone mention that it does. But to me, the fact that a ship is in b/xc should NOT have anything to do with flight performance. Actually, having higher engine/flight performance would likely make more emissions of various kinds, thus, should actually make the cloak weaker, in that case.
The Romulan battlecloak gets a few improvements over the Klingon one. Both battlecloaks improve flight characteristics, but the Romulan one does so a little more than the Klingon one.
TL;DR - Romulan battlecloaks have slightly higher stealth rating, higher turn rate boost, and a 10% increase in the decloak damage boost. This is on top of them being able to slot boffs that all have battlecloak-improving traits, including that crit-boosting one.
Read and weep.
(snip)
SO bitemeterongray, I know of what I speak.
All you've done is continue to prove how out of touch you really are with what is being discussed, or even what is in the game at this moment in time. As has been pointed out, over and over with you.
Old content of an old balance system, no longer in play. All T5 ships have 9 consoles, at 5.5 have 10. Thus this ancient, 6 year old clipping is irrelevant; and if you continue to try to argue against it instead of the real topic, you're nothing more than a strawman debater.
Get caught up to current facts, and then try to keep up with the debate correctly.
Because Klingon ships are built from the ground up with cloaking technology and have been designed so for a very long time.
The Defiant in cannon always had a bolt on Cloaking device so its remaining a console makes sense. The same holds true for the Avenger.
The Dreadnought I would have no problem having cloaking made integrated again.
Regardless of how Klingon ships are built, either from a series canon standpoint or an early-game mechanics standpoint, what we have here is a fundamental imbalance in the quality of ship pairs that needs to be addressed. I understand that the Defiant wasn't built around its cloak and making its cloak a console makes sense from a lore perspective. But it doesn't from a gameplay and balance perspective, which is the perspective that needs to win out when you're making a game and not a TV show. Gameplay trumps series canon, this is why we don't have single phaser shots in a given arc, this is why ships don't run out of torpedoes, and this is why you can't step on the gas and go to full impulse, or even warp in combat.
I'm interested to see the Mogh stats hit the table, it could very well set yet another new standard.
All you've done is continue to prove how out of touch you really are with what is being discussed, or even what is in the game at this moment in time. As has been pointed out, over and over with you.
Old content of an old balance system, no longer in play. All T5 ships have 9 consoles, at 5.5 have 10. Thus this ancient, 6 year old clipping is irrelevant; and if you continue to try to argue against it instead of the real topic, you're nothing more than a strawman debater.
Get caught up to current facts, and then try to keep up with the debate correctly.
The truth is the feds got what they wanted to compensate for somethng they found u fair and now they want to go back to integrated cloaking but keep the compensation as well. Especially in the Defiants case since its later variants introduced into the game only gained more console slots in the 5 tac version.
You wish to have you cake and eat it too.
Not balance.
Regardless of how Klingon ships are built, either from a series canon standpoint or an early-game mechanics standpoint, what we have here is a fundamental imbalance in the quality of ship pairs that needs to be addressed. I understand that the Defiant wasn't built around its cloak and making its cloak a console makes sense from a lore perspective. But it doesn't from a gameplay and balance perspective, which is the perspective that needs to win out when you're making a game and not a TV show. Gameplay trumps series canon, this is why we don't have single phaser shots in a given arc, this is why ships don't run out of torpedoes, and this is why you can't step on the gas and go to full impulse in combat.
The Defiant doesnt hurt in gameplay. Neither doesnthe Avenger. The Dreadnought , possibly. You not looking for balance.
Go through the posts up to this point. Never once have I said that the cloak should just be integrated and that be the end of that. If federation cloaking is going to be a thing it should be balanced the same way that klingon ships are balanced: with the aforementioned hull, turn, etc, etc. If the same payment that klingon ships made for the integrated cloaking device and still left them as fair and balanced ships is applied to the federation ships receiving integrated cloaks, then it would stand that the federation ships would remain fair and balanced. In this case, it would not be a buff, nor would it be a nerf, but rather a sidegrade that fully embraces the cloak as part of the ship.
Unless perhaps the payment that klingon ships made was not, in fact, worth as much as the cloak they got.
Go through the posts up to this point. Never once have I said that the cloak should just be integrated and that be the end of that. If federation cloaking is going to be a thing it should be balanced the same way that klingon ships are balanced: with the aforementioned hull, turn, etc, etc. If the same payment that klingon ships made for the integrated cloaking device and still left them as fair and balanced ships is applied to the federation ships receiving integrated cloaks, then it would stand that the federation ships would remain fair and balanced. In this case, it would not be a buff, nor would it be a nerf, but rather a sidegrade that fully embraces the cloak as part of the ship.
Unless perhaps the payment that klingon ships made was not, in fact, worth as much as the cloak they got.
fine, then drop the Defiant retrofit down to 15 turn rate and a 83 shield modifer. Equally change the Five tac fleet version to match the Fleet Qin in stats.
Or bring both Qins up to match the Defiants stats.
Then the Devs can integrate the cloaking on the Defiant variants.
As well give the Neghvar a big gun to match the Dreadnought and the equalize its stats to match.
Viola. balance.
The truth is the feds got what they wanted to compensate for somethng they found u fair and now they want to go back to integrated cloaking but keep the compensation as well. Especially in the Defiants case since its later variants introduced into the game only gained more console slots in the 5 tac version.
You wish to have you cake and eat it too.
Not balance.
You are wrong yet again. The Federation ships with cloaking have no more consoles than their respective counterparts; Red, Blue, or Green. Research helps you not look like a fool, my friend. Yes, at one point, KDF ships had less consoles due to innate cloaking, and yes the Fed ships were switched to the console-based cloak system and got a slot back; which is what you seem to be stuck on. This was 6 years ago. The game has been completely rebalanced since then, and the current system means the Fed Cloak Console is archaic and out of touch. KDF ships got their console slot added as well, but their cloak is still innate.
The only ones who want 'To have their cake and eat it too' are the delusional zealots like yourself trying to prevent any form of balancing in the realm of cloaking; KDF diehards' apparent Alamo. You scream against homogenization, scream for preserving KDF's 'uniqueness' but then hypocritically turn around and demand KDF and Startfleet ships be made identical. Make up your mind, please.
You are wrong yet again. The Federation ships with cloaking have no more consoles than their respective counterparts; Red, Blue, or Green. Research helps you not look like a fool, my friend. Yes, at one point, KDF ships had less consoles due to innate cloaking, and yes the Fed ships were switched to the console-based cloak system and got a slot back; which is what you seem to be stuck on. This was 6 years ago. The game has been completely rebalanced since then, and the current system means the Fed Cloak Console is archaic and out of touch. KDF ships got their console slot added as well, but their cloak is still innate.
The only ones who want 'To have their cake and eat it too' are the delusional zealots like yourself trying to prevent any form of balancing in the realm of cloaking; KDF diehards' apparent Alamo.
I ddnt say they had more or less. I said they got compensated with a additonal console slots for having a cloaking device. The two release notes show this as true.
Which also proves I was not lying.
Actually no. KDF vessels do not have less consoles for having regular cloaks. Lower stats in one fashion or another for regular cloaking. Yes.
No. KDF ships have not gotten any aditional consoles added at anytime to keep us abreast to the fed cloakers.
The Qin has always had those console numbers.
The games mechanics may have been changed since those release notes went live but that has no way affected how these ships perform today. Feds still do not suffer for having a cloak console. Most Fed cloaking ships still have better scores in stats over KDF counterparts. Just look at the Defiant-R versuscthe Qin, Fleet versus Fleet or the Dreadnought which has one more special power over the Neghvar.
So yes, you are looking to have your cake and eat it too.
Other wise make the Defiant in all its variants exactly the same as the Qin and all its variants. Stat for Stat, Console for console and turn rate for turn rate. Do the same for the Dreadnought and Neghvar. The Same can happen for the Avenger and Mogh.
Balance achieved.
I bet you wont agree though. Why? Because you do not wish for balance. You merely want what you think is an advantage for the KDF without losing what you already have as your own.
I love my kdf, and I love his cloak. And as I love my Fleet B'Rel, I do feel the need to point out that a battlecloak on a bird of prey is something entirely tangent to this conversation. We're talking about the vanilla one-and-done cloak here. And yes, the battlecloak is absolutely essential to the raider playstyle: one of the reasons I'm not concerning myself with the new heavy raider (again, a different conversation).
But a raptor has the capacity to consistently outperform a defiant running a cloak. Now a Defiant that opts out of the cloak is a perfectly valid ship on its own, but the moment it puts the cloak on, it becomes a sub-par Qin. It's a slap in the face of the federation playerbase to dangle that console out there and have it chop their ship off at the knees when they put it on.
And yes, consoles ARE that important. With one fleet console put in the slot the Defiant loses, the Qin can now out-turn the cloak-capable Defiant, while picking up some other valuable stats. Or it can spit subspace vomit all over the arena, given how much we all love that.
While it may be splitting hairs, I feel like we're getting away from the topic talking about testing cloaking ships versus cloakless ships. What we all came here for is the federation cloaking device and why it doesn't compare to the klingon one even though they do the same thing, as well as possible solutions.
I know that you can't look at the cloak console in a vaccuum. You DO have to look at the ships it goes on. The stat nerf for the integrated cloak is just one way to go.
Other wise make the Defiant in all its variants exactly the same as the Qin and all its variants. Stat for Stat, Console for console and turn rate for turn rate. Do the same for the Dreadnought and Neghvar. The Same can happen for the Avenger and Mogh.
Balance achieved.
This is OK. While exactly stat-for-stat hurts differentiation, maybe move a console from one place to another or make one beefier with worse turn, the idea as-presented is just fine with one exception:
The Dreadnought would have to be made identical to the Fleet Negh'var as it is a 2500 zen ship. Maybe make the Spinal Lance a console like the vesta and give the Negh'var a murderbeam of its own or something comparable like the bortasqu autocannon.
EDIT: Know what? That was dumb. Fleet Sovvie is better than the Regent and the Regent is 2500 zen. I'm leaving it in though. I'll own up to it.
I bet you wont agree though. Why? Because you do not wish for balance. You merely want what you think is an advantage for the KDF without losing what you already have as your own.
Go back, and do that thing you've been told to do. Read. I've said buff the Qin. People have compared numbers and determined the BCs aren't that bad off. Add in the fact they are free, versus the money-costing Fed ships. But you won't acknowledge it because it blows a hole in your argument.
You are a fool, and a liar, and not a person worth further replying to; lest risking a thread-lock for trying to deal with you. Which is probably your true intent.
Ok guys. Can we tone down the hostility a little bit? We're all on the same side trying to figure out how to make this game better. I know it's easy to get worked up when the side you see as your primary appears to be getting ripped off. I was spitting mad myself when I saw the Mogh screenshots, but snapping at each other doesn't help anything. This is a topic that deserves to live on and be legitimately addressed rather than be filed away as just another Fed vs KDF vitriol pit.
Gotta have a little faith here, so far Cryptic hasn't done anything like release a 9-weapon ship or an 11-console, or anything like that and I don't believe that they're going to release "The Avenger But Numerically Better."
The Fed cloak is so overpowered yes it should be a device
LOL
Jellico....Engineer ground.....Da'val Romulan space Sci
Saphire.. Science ground......Ko'el Romulan space Tac
Leva........Tactical ground.....Koj Romulan space Eng
JJ-Verse will never be Canon or considered Lore...It will always be JJ-Verse
Should they ever decide to go T6, we may see one or the other. I'm expecting the new KDF BC to hit the store soon, and once the specs are in blog print we can compare easier. That has been part of the confusion though, I think; lack of real comparables bigger than escorts/raptors. Starfleet and KDF cruisers are differing designs for different tactics, cloak or not. Ships-Of-The-Line versus heavy assault platforms; even many on the consoles reflect the defensive vs. offensive format. Which again feels to be an out of date, underlying problem and was why we saw the trades in lockboxes, to me at least.
A bit of sidenote humor. Why is it we install bridge consoles to add to combat performance, when all consoles added to was the causalities list in combat in the shows?
I'm no game-expert, and I don't know what the stats are for most of the KDF ships. What I do know is that on my C-Store Avenger (as in non fleet) if I use my GalX cloaking device, the mediocre overall damage boost I will get will be vastly outweighed by the massive damage resistance loss of a fleet/rep console or damage loss from a tactical console.
IMHO the Galaxy X should have an innate cloak regardless of the rest of the Federation cloakers. So far as I'm aware, there was only one GalX 'built' which was Riker's Enterprise. We know for a fact that the ship had a built in cloaking device, so it stands to reason (in my head) it should reflect that in game.
As far as this cloak being made into a Battle Cloak.. again IMHO, all cloaking devices should be Battle Cloak. That said, in the games present state that would cause more problems than it would solve. I would be more than happy with my Galaxy and Avenger having built in cloaking devices, and would be 'OK' with them being normal cloak.
If it's a discussion of KDF uniqueness.. I'm sorry but this argument is lost on me. I understand keeping the factions unique, and I support it fully. However, restricting the Federation from something that they blatantly already have isn't the way to do this in my opinion.
*Side note; I don't play KDF anymore due to some personal conflicts and lack of friends/friendly people that play it.. but I loved my Orion Eng while I did still play her.
This post brought to you by the one known as Kay.
DISCLAIMER!
This post is not meant to flame, judge, insult, accuse, bash, or an any form offend any who may or may not read it. Unless it is, in which case this disclaimer is invalidated. Cheers!
Perhaps with the addition of the flanking damage system, the Federation could have a retooling of the cloaking system as I suggested at the start of this thread?
KDF and Roms both have ships that can fire while cloaked. Both KDF and Roms have access to Battle Cloak. Both KDF and Roms have innate cloaking.
And now this little addition comes along. Don't get me wrong, its interesting, but it kinda seems out of place. It was hammered into the series that shields have no weak points, not without being hammered opposed to other shield facings.
Now a KDF exclusive console that grants their ships Flank effect would be a sensible balance. Like with the Defiant, which had a Cloaking Device crammed into it, we now have a new game mechanic that's being added exclusively to a single hip.
Fair is fair I say.
"Why all the sales"?
And a merry freaking Christmas to you too, Ebenezer.
-jonsills, 'Cryptic Why the sales..instead of Fixing XP leveling and this game?'
A bit of sidenote humor. Why is it we install bridge consoles to add to combat performance, when all consoles added to was the causalities list in combat in the shows?
Well all combat capabilities were mandated by the Federation to have a manual control device after the Kinect 8 caused the NX-02 to fly around in circles and explode in orbit when it left drydock.
Perhaps with the addition of the flanking damage system, the Federation could have a retooling of the cloaking system as I suggested at the start of this thread?
KDF and Roms both have ships that can fire while cloaked. Both KDF and Roms have access to Battle Cloak. Both KDF and Roms have innate cloaking.
And now this little addition comes along. Don't get me wrong, its interesting, but it kinda seems out of place. It was hammered into the series that shields have no weak points, not without being hammered opposed to other shield facings.
Now a KDF exclusive console that grants their ships Flank effect would be a sensible balance. Like with the Defiant, which had a Cloaking Device crammed into it, we now have a new game mechanic that's being added exclusively to a single hip.
Fair is fair I say.
That's not fair, that's removing exclusivity. Not the same.
Comments
I'd dare say this is a 'Fath in humanity restored' quality post. Thank you for processing and restating it nice and clear.
Look at bitemepwe's wording. He implies it is the game's current state. Let's try to minimize the comprehension fail.
Our glimpse of the M-BC showed no sacrifices on the surface, the few differences were actually improvements over the Avenger. If this is so on launch, and is going to be the new standard for making KDF vessels... Updates to old ships and cloaking methods will need to be addressed.
But the kdf ships still have 10 consoles, same as the Defiant. They might not have 5 tactical, but that allows them to put consoles in another area. Maybe another fleet neutronium so your raptors aren't made out of paper mache and gasoline like the Defiant is, maybe another RCS so you can outturn it, maybe a cool universal you have room for now that half your console capacity isn't spent on pure dps. The Defiant is a pure offense ship and the consoles reflect that, as does the performance of the Defiant reflect the consoles when it has to do anything but fire at a target without fear of reprisal.
Though I do agree that science consoles are a mite underpowered at this point, the relative utility of different schools of console isn't the discussion here.
Though to be honest, I'd fly a 5/0/5 ship. It'd be pretty rockin'.
Not seeing the forest from the trees, here. A Fleet Qin still has the same count total as a Fleet Defiant, the consoles are placed differently, which is apparently part of this bitter vendetta's source, but 10 for each.
I've flown both, I don't find it as night and day as people make it out to be. The Qin tends to be tougher for me as I have that 'extra console' slot for more armor or shield strength, for instance. As I have noted in another thread, KDF have, and have been given good tools to work with; the response just seems to be to spit on it and call foul on anything not 'Godly Good'.
Oh, and a side-note, that 'craptastic' Bortas'qu is actually pretty damn brutal when built up like a (gasp) Federation-style tanking beam cruiser. It's an ironic reflection of Federation players being unfamiliar with Battle Cruiser piloting.
Read and weep.
Release notes 07-27-2007 The Defiant retrofit with integrated cloaking is introduced to the game as a C-store ship. It has the following console set-up;
2 Engineering
4 Tactical
2 Science
The Dreadnought with integrated cloaking which was introduced into the game earlier has the following console set-up;
4 Engineering
2 Tactical
2 science
There was much complaining that the lack of consoles on these ships due to integrated cloaking was unfair and that same complaining was followed up with statement that since it was regular cloaking and that cloaking was pointless in PvE it was a handicap to these ships to have less consoles.
The Devs responded roughly a year later in this patch, Release notes 12-01-2011
where they made this change to C-store ships (of which the KDF had very few);
" 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. "
of those ships the following received updates;
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.
Both of your precious ships HAVE received console slots due to their cloaking devices.
The standard Qin and Neghvar where not and are not C-store ships
SO bitemeterongray, I know of what I speak.
R.I.P
We're saying that the point is moot because a fed ship using a cloak does not have the same number of console slots available as an equivalent klingon ship also using a cloak. I think the disconnect is that the fed supporters thought you were saying that, say, a fleet Defiant got 11 consoles so it had room for the cloak.
If in the past the Defiant had 8 console slots and a cloak and the Qin had 9 console slots and a cloak, making the Defiant 9 console slots and having the cloak in one of them doesn't change the imbalance, it just shuffles the numbers around and calls it a day. That's what Fed players are angry about.
Because Klingon ships are built from the ground up with cloaking technology and have been designed so for a very long time.
The Defiant in cannon always had a bolt on Cloaking device so its remaining a console makes sense. The same holds true for the Avenger.
The Dreadnought I would have no problem having cloaking made integrated again.
R.I.P
The Romulan battlecloak gets a few improvements over the Klingon one. Both battlecloaks improve flight characteristics, but the Romulan one does so a little more than the Klingon one.
Specifically. . .http://sto.gamepedia.com/Ability:_Battle_Cloak vs http://sto.gamepedia.com/Ability:_Romulan_Battle_Cloak
TL;DR - Romulan battlecloaks have slightly higher stealth rating, higher turn rate boost, and a 10% increase in the decloak damage boost. This is on top of them being able to slot boffs that all have battlecloak-improving traits, including that crit-boosting one.
All you've done is continue to prove how out of touch you really are with what is being discussed, or even what is in the game at this moment in time. As has been pointed out, over and over with you.
Old content of an old balance system, no longer in play. All T5 ships have 9 consoles, at 5.5 have 10. Thus this ancient, 6 year old clipping is irrelevant; and if you continue to try to argue against it instead of the real topic, you're nothing more than a strawman debater.
Get caught up to current facts, and then try to keep up with the debate correctly.
Regardless of how Klingon ships are built, either from a series canon standpoint or an early-game mechanics standpoint, what we have here is a fundamental imbalance in the quality of ship pairs that needs to be addressed. I understand that the Defiant wasn't built around its cloak and making its cloak a console makes sense from a lore perspective. But it doesn't from a gameplay and balance perspective, which is the perspective that needs to win out when you're making a game and not a TV show. Gameplay trumps series canon, this is why we don't have single phaser shots in a given arc, this is why ships don't run out of torpedoes, and this is why you can't step on the gas and go to full impulse, or even warp in combat.
The truth is the feds got what they wanted to compensate for somethng they found u fair and now they want to go back to integrated cloaking but keep the compensation as well. Especially in the Defiants case since its later variants introduced into the game only gained more console slots in the 5 tac version.
You wish to have you cake and eat it too.
Not balance.
R.I.P
The Defiant doesnt hurt in gameplay. Neither doesnthe Avenger. The Dreadnought , possibly. You not looking for balance.
R.I.P
Unless perhaps the payment that klingon ships made was not, in fact, worth as much as the cloak they got.
fine, then drop the Defiant retrofit down to 15 turn rate and a 83 shield modifer. Equally change the Five tac fleet version to match the Fleet Qin in stats.
Or bring both Qins up to match the Defiants stats.
Then the Devs can integrate the cloaking on the Defiant variants.
As well give the Neghvar a big gun to match the Dreadnought and the equalize its stats to match.
Viola. balance.
R.I.P
You are wrong yet again. The Federation ships with cloaking have no more consoles than their respective counterparts; Red, Blue, or Green. Research helps you not look like a fool, my friend. Yes, at one point, KDF ships had less consoles due to innate cloaking, and yes the Fed ships were switched to the console-based cloak system and got a slot back; which is what you seem to be stuck on. This was 6 years ago. The game has been completely rebalanced since then, and the current system means the Fed Cloak Console is archaic and out of touch. KDF ships got their console slot added as well, but their cloak is still innate.
The only ones who want 'To have their cake and eat it too' are the delusional zealots like yourself trying to prevent any form of balancing in the realm of cloaking; KDF diehards' apparent Alamo. You scream against homogenization, scream for preserving KDF's 'uniqueness' but then hypocritically turn around and demand KDF and Startfleet ships be made identical. Make up your mind, please.
I ddnt say they had more or less. I said they got compensated with a additonal console slots for having a cloaking device. The two release notes show this as true.
Which also proves I was not lying.
Actually no. KDF vessels do not have less consoles for having regular cloaks. Lower stats in one fashion or another for regular cloaking. Yes.
No. KDF ships have not gotten any aditional consoles added at anytime to keep us abreast to the fed cloakers.
The Qin has always had those console numbers.
The games mechanics may have been changed since those release notes went live but that has no way affected how these ships perform today. Feds still do not suffer for having a cloak console. Most Fed cloaking ships still have better scores in stats over KDF counterparts. Just look at the Defiant-R versuscthe Qin, Fleet versus Fleet or the Dreadnought which has one more special power over the Neghvar.
So yes, you are looking to have your cake and eat it too.
Other wise make the Defiant in all its variants exactly the same as the Qin and all its variants. Stat for Stat, Console for console and turn rate for turn rate. Do the same for the Dreadnought and Neghvar. The Same can happen for the Avenger and Mogh.
Balance achieved.
I bet you wont agree though. Why? Because you do not wish for balance. You merely want what you think is an advantage for the KDF without losing what you already have as your own.
btw. It wasnt six years ago.
R.I.P
But a raptor has the capacity to consistently outperform a defiant running a cloak. Now a Defiant that opts out of the cloak is a perfectly valid ship on its own, but the moment it puts the cloak on, it becomes a sub-par Qin. It's a slap in the face of the federation playerbase to dangle that console out there and have it chop their ship off at the knees when they put it on.
And yes, consoles ARE that important. With one fleet console put in the slot the Defiant loses, the Qin can now out-turn the cloak-capable Defiant, while picking up some other valuable stats. Or it can spit subspace vomit all over the arena, given how much we all love that.
While it may be splitting hairs, I feel like we're getting away from the topic talking about testing cloaking ships versus cloakless ships. What we all came here for is the federation cloaking device and why it doesn't compare to the klingon one even though they do the same thing, as well as possible solutions.
I know that you can't look at the cloak console in a vaccuum. You DO have to look at the ships it goes on. The stat nerf for the integrated cloak is just one way to go.
This is OK. While exactly stat-for-stat hurts differentiation, maybe move a console from one place to another or make one beefier with worse turn, the idea as-presented is just fine with one exception:
The Dreadnought would have to be made identical to the Fleet Negh'var as it is a 2500 zen ship. Maybe make the Spinal Lance a console like the vesta and give the Negh'var a murderbeam of its own or something comparable like the bortasqu autocannon.
EDIT: Know what? That was dumb. Fleet Sovvie is better than the Regent and the Regent is 2500 zen. I'm leaving it in though. I'll own up to it.
Go back, and do that thing you've been told to do. Read. I've said buff the Qin. People have compared numbers and determined the BCs aren't that bad off. Add in the fact they are free, versus the money-costing Fed ships. But you won't acknowledge it because it blows a hole in your argument.
You are a fool, and a liar, and not a person worth further replying to; lest risking a thread-lock for trying to deal with you. Which is probably your true intent.
Good day.
Gotta have a little faith here, so far Cryptic hasn't done anything like release a 9-weapon ship or an 11-console, or anything like that and I don't believe that they're going to release "The Avenger But Numerically Better."
LOL
Saphire.. Science ground......Ko'el Romulan space Tac
Leva........Tactical ground.....Koj Romulan space Eng
JJ-Verse will never be Canon or considered Lore...It will always be JJ-Verse
A bit of sidenote humor. Why is it we install bridge consoles to add to combat performance, when all consoles added to was the causalities list in combat in the shows?
I'm no game-expert, and I don't know what the stats are for most of the KDF ships. What I do know is that on my C-Store Avenger (as in non fleet) if I use my GalX cloaking device, the mediocre overall damage boost I will get will be vastly outweighed by the massive damage resistance loss of a fleet/rep console or damage loss from a tactical console.
IMHO the Galaxy X should have an innate cloak regardless of the rest of the Federation cloakers. So far as I'm aware, there was only one GalX 'built' which was Riker's Enterprise. We know for a fact that the ship had a built in cloaking device, so it stands to reason (in my head) it should reflect that in game.
As far as this cloak being made into a Battle Cloak.. again IMHO, all cloaking devices should be Battle Cloak. That said, in the games present state that would cause more problems than it would solve. I would be more than happy with my Galaxy and Avenger having built in cloaking devices, and would be 'OK' with them being normal cloak.
If it's a discussion of KDF uniqueness.. I'm sorry but this argument is lost on me. I understand keeping the factions unique, and I support it fully. However, restricting the Federation from something that they blatantly already have isn't the way to do this in my opinion.
*Side note; I don't play KDF anymore due to some personal conflicts and lack of friends/friendly people that play it.. but I loved my Orion Eng while I did still play her.
DISCLAIMER!
This post is not meant to flame, judge, insult, accuse, bash, or an any form offend any who may or may not read it. Unless it is, in which case this disclaimer is invalidated. Cheers!
KDF and Roms both have ships that can fire while cloaked. Both KDF and Roms have access to Battle Cloak. Both KDF and Roms have innate cloaking.
And now this little addition comes along. Don't get me wrong, its interesting, but it kinda seems out of place. It was hammered into the series that shields have no weak points, not without being hammered opposed to other shield facings.
Now a KDF exclusive console that grants their ships Flank effect would be a sensible balance. Like with the Defiant, which had a Cloaking Device crammed into it, we now have a new game mechanic that's being added exclusively to a single hip.
Fair is fair I say.
And a merry freaking Christmas to you too, Ebenezer.
-jonsills, 'Cryptic Why the sales..instead of Fixing XP leveling and this game?'
Well all combat capabilities were mandated by the Federation to have a manual control device after the Kinect 8 caused the NX-02 to fly around in circles and explode in orbit when it left drydock.
butcher suspect, "What'd you hit me with?"
Temperance Brennan, "A building"
That's not fair, that's removing exclusivity. Not the same.
free jkname
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
And when cryptic does stuff for feds the KDF QQ. So what's your point?