Just more "there was blatant power creep and I WANT MOAR!!!!"
Yeah how bout no and we reverse course on this?
Star Trek Battles member. Want to roll with a good group of people regardless of fleets and not have to worry about DPS while doing STFs? Come join the channel and join in the fun!
Just more "there was blatant power creep and I WANT MOAR!!!!"
Yeah how bout no and we reverse course on this?
Sadly it's really hard to undo power creep, especially one that has been ongoing for 5 years. Look at Mirror Invasion for a fine example. Last time it came around the first few T6 ships had just been released, we didn't have Command or Piloting abilities unlocked yet and the Terran ships put up a good fight. Now with all the new toys they just roll over and die... every time I've played it the team has finished closing the final rift and destroyed all the ships with 2-3 minutes to spare.
So if they all roll over and die anyway, why ask for "better ships"? The ones we have seem to be enough. So new ships could easily be the same level, even a bit below, and Terrans will still lose.
Power Creep is like inflation: a bit is necessary, but you have to control it somewhat.
My mother was an epohh and my father smelled of tulaberries
Just more "there was blatant power creep and I WANT MOAR!!!!"
Yeah how bout no and we reverse course on this?
That would be another solution. Balance would be somewhat restored. But giving 5/3 only to some ships is wrong imho.
Whenever I play around with a new setup, I come to the conclusion "works best on a 5/3 ship".
My KDF eng is an alien (Andorian template). So, after we got the new Tetryon set I thought how about trying something new, and combine the Krenim and Tholian sets.
Tholian set comes with a DBB, the Krenim one with an omni beam. Here we go again, best choice: a 5/3 ship to get the most out of it.
FFS I already have my Mogh fitted with bloody AP beams ! I want an alternative !
A 5/3 Kamarag would be perfect for this set combination. Lt Cmdr Sci+ at least 3 science consoles and a good turnrate.
But, no. Fit another Mogh or let that 4th wasted rear weapon slot annoy you forever !
Just more "there was blatant power creep and I WANT MOAR!!!!"
Yeah how bout no and we reverse course on this?
That would be another solution. Balance would be somewhat restored. But giving 5/3 only to some ships is wrong imho.
Well yes and no. I think it really takes away from the Avenger and Mogh if you ask me. But IMHO they should be the only ones, but they should have way weaker hulls, much like Battlecruisers of WWII. Heavy firepower, but no staying power.
My 2 cents on that.
Star Trek Battles member. Want to roll with a good group of people regardless of fleets and not have to worry about DPS while doing STFs? Come join the channel and join in the fun!
As I already wrote, my preference would be "give it to battlecruisers". Ships designed with forward firepower in mind. I'm completely happy with 4/4 on my T6 Galaxy, but the Klingon battlecruisers should allow for a different playstyle.
One can of course just keep using the old setup and upgrade to T5-U and mk XIV, but the resulting ship is considerably weaker than beam boats.
Well yes and no. I think it really takes away from the Avenger and Mogh if you ask me. But IMHO they should be the only ones, but they should have way weaker hulls, much like Battlecruisers of WWII. Heavy firepower, but no staying power.
My 2 cents on that.
Mogh and Avenger would still be fine. They have their boff layout and manouverability which makes them great ships. And why restrict it to those two ships, when it could be the standard for all battlecruisers ?
Is it just me or have I heard this same thing like 100 times already? I don't even get the point of this argument/discussion. Maybe because I fly a ship that doesn't pew? All my weapons are for 3 piece effects and my ship regularly pulls 25k to 30k dps on a pure science build ( the actual dps is much much higher but due to long cds the spikes and drops cause a lower overall dps).
If I get you right, then everything is fine because it doesn't effect you. Perfectly good reason, eh ?
Currently I feel restricted in my choices. In the early days of STO, things were imho better. Let's take the fed cruisers for example.
All of them had the same weapon hardpoints, but had differen boff seats. Sovereign had the tac ensign, Star Cruiser the sci ensign and Galaxy the universally hated eng ensing.
One had a choice. Same for the 3 fedscorts.
Unless you want to restrict yourself to 8 beams as armament, 5/3 is clearly superior to 4/4. But this is now available only with some ships, not all of them.
This narrows down the choices considerably. I would love to have a 5/3 Kamarag, to run a tetryon built with DBB's (you know, the Tholian set...) or a 5/3 Tor'kaht with disrupror cannons and bio torp.
I can do this with 4/4, but by doing so I would weaken my team. Not cool.
You feel restricted in your choices because You have more variety to choose from? lol
Anyway, 4/4 is here and stays. The reason for t6 d'd and Negh'Tev are 4/4 is that they can use skins of t5. So You want to half of Negh'Var had 5 weapons and half 4 in front?
Second, look at avenger/arbiter. Most plp use beam banks and faw, so there is only tiny difference with dps preformance.
I for example like 4/4 classical cruisers with broadcasting. But on Qib I use DHC and it is very cool to fly, despite 4/4 layout.
I fly Gal t6 and it is elite capable at least. What You guys are saying is that this game is too difficult for 4/4??? Or what?
That may be true when come to escorts, that have to kill before something hit their tiny hull, but not cruisers, or battlecruisers.
And IMHO Vor'cha should be 4/3 and destroyer/attack cruiser class.
I'm fatalistic about it all now by this point but after reading the original post I feel a bit foolish. Some part of me (possibly as a war gamer) simply accepted the notion of broadsiding ships of the line. It seems strange juxtaposing "normal" with the depiction of ships in Trek series typically engaging in frontal attacks. The only broadside that really stands out in my mind is the Khan Reliant drive by in WoK. Thanks for something to think about.
You feel restricted in your choices because You have more variety to choose from? lol
Anyway, 4/4 is here and stays. The reason for t6 d'd and Negh'Tev are 4/4 is that they can use skins of t5. So You want to half of Negh'Var had 5 weapons and half 4 in front?
Second, look at avenger/arbiter. Most plp use beam banks and faw, so there is only tiny difference with dps preformance.
I for example like 4/4 classical cruisers with broadcasting. But on Qib I use DHC and it is very cool to fly, despite 4/4 layout.
I fly Gal t6 and it is elite capable at least. What You guys are saying is that this game is too difficult for 4/4??? Or what?
That may be true when come to escorts, that have to kill before something hit their tiny hull, but not cruisers, or battlecruisers.
And IMHO Vor'cha should be 4/3 and destroyer/attack cruiser class.
Well, it may sound strange in the first place, but let me explain:
If I want to fit my battlecruiser with cannons, instead of beams like 12232354435 other ships, then 5/3 is a lot better than a bit turnrate or a different boff seat here and there.
When everything was 4/4, I had a selection of ships with different handling and boff layout to choose from. Now, I have only one choice: the Mogh.
And there is no restriction from the 3d models either. A certain weapon type will always fire from the same hardpoints. Regardless how many weapons of this type are fitted and in which slot.
Put one DBB on a ship of your choice and fire it. Repeat with 4 DBB's. You won't notice a difference.
Of course if you are happy to slap 8 beams on every ship and spam spacebar you won't notice a difference.
4/4 is TRIBBLE? So I guess that means Escorts are useless...you know because they're only 4/3.
Sounds your favorite ship isn't the best BC and you want it buffed...well you know what...they aren't forced into broadsiding.
I'm really getting tired of all of those spoiled self entitled people...well you know what...just because your favorite ship isn't the most powerful thing in game doesn't mean in sucks.
News flash for you...the king is still the Scimitar...should every ship be as powerful as the Scimitar?
If you can't compete with a 4/4 build it isn't the ship it's pilot error...
Folks, there have to be different ship layouts in order to *gasp* SELL MORE SHIPS. There are 5/3 cruisers available for Feds and KDF... though I am sad that the Romulans don't have a battlecruiser equivalent, the Aehal would have been a nice choice as it is the right size and has the right officer layout, but it got no lover and is stuck 4/4.
What really bothers me is the 4/3 Escorts. This is such a dated layout and we have so many better options out there. T6 Defiant certainly should have gotten 5/2.
Kinda the pot calling the kettle black here?
Can't have a honest conversation because of a white knight with power
You answered yourself, Dyson Science Destroyer. If you do that, you have to add one forward weapons to all sci ships.
Not necessarily. The dyson ships try to sell themselves as both an escort and a sci ship, but kind of suck at both.
Change nothing. If you add a fwd weapon slot to the Dyson it will be an 5/3 escort or a 4/3 sci ship, where all others sci ships are 3/3.
With only 3 tac console slots, it'll never be an escort. As a sci ship, it does try to present itself as a sci ship with greater firepower than normal, so 4/3 would technically make sense. Also, the annorax has 4/3 and a hangar bay.
I guess my main point is that the dysons really could use something to make them better ships. I've always kind of liked them despite their crappiness, and wished cryptic would make them worthwhile somehow.
The whole current set-up with weapons is all wrong anyway. Completely non-canon. It's wrong that ships have infinite power available to continuously fire weapons. This never happened in the shows ie 'Charge weapons....what's the status of weapons....weapons at 24%.....we have only enough power to fire once, and we will not do any significant damage'!! It's wrong that weapons banks fire at targets that are obscured by your own hull ie arcs. It's wrong that individual weapons cannot be damaged or taken offline. The game is now Beams Online where everything is suddenly obscured by huge bars of colour instead of blobs!
Im going to shut your argument down nice and quick. Game Function supersedes Canon. No one playing the game because its a game wants to see two ships play tag with lasers. Its a battle, youre going to fire off absolutely every weapon you can bring to bare. And if youre not running the correct set up you can absolutely run out of power.
Biggest issue of 5 forward weapons, they gave too much of a good thing. Either with 5/2 or 3. I mean the pilot ships are great examples of this. With the pilot abilities and commands, they should of been 4/3 setups.
Bigger issue is that ships like the Mogh and Avenger and their replacements, are almost just as tanky as the cruisers that are supposed to be the tanks, and have better firepower to boot forwards.
IMHO, too much of a good thing was given, now it's either power creep like made to compensate, or reign in the ability of these monster ships.
Star Trek Battles member. Want to roll with a good group of people regardless of fleets and not have to worry about DPS while doing STFs? Come join the channel and join in the fun!
I fully support more varied weapon layouts, the current predictable 4/4 and 4/3 layouts are getting immensely dull. The new T6's are an insignificant addition and it's time the options evolved more.
The game is 5 years old, in that time during WW2 the world went from canvas bi-planes to jet fighters yet in game despite being involved in never ending wars to the death with just about everyone the ST-universe ships have gone from 4/4 cruisers to 4/4 cruisers with a new console.
No, some militaries were just underdeveloped enough that they still had biplanes in service. The metal bodied prop planes started the and Jets were prototyped and barely operational by the end.
That said, your point stands to a degree that advancement is rapid.
However, that's not a direct parallel at all.
The standing thought that 4/4 is inferior is flawed. In this game the equipment is what matters.
This is more a holdover of the trinity idea the cruisers aren't designed to be the offensive monsters. That is a separate discussion.
Just more "there was blatant power creep and I WANT MOAR!!!!"
Yeah how bout no and we reverse course on this?
Sadly it's really hard to undo power creep, especially one that has been ongoing for 5 years. Look at Mirror Invasion for a fine example. Last time it came around the first few T6 ships had just been released, we didn't have Command or Piloting abilities unlocked yet and the Terran ships put up a good fight. Now with all the new toys they just roll over and die... every time I've played it the team has finished closing the final rift and destroyed all the ships with 2-3 minutes to spare.
Well I think that's as much a result of proper teamwork as superior firepower. Even in my weakest character's ship, as long as the team is focused on closing rifts and distract and seal, we'll get the job done with time to spare. Firepower is the difference between being done with two minutes to spare and five minutes to spare. At least on normal.
As I already wrote, my preference would be "give it to battlecruisers". Ships designed with forward firepower in mind. I'm completely happy with 4/4 on my T6 Galaxy, but the Klingon battlecruisers should allow for a different playstyle.
One can of course just keep using the old setup and upgrade to T5-U and mk XIV, but the resulting ship is considerably weaker than beam boats.
In that I agree. Battlecruisers as a general thing should receive the 5/3 setup.
Galaxy's are interesting since by all indications they're more battleships. I think a 5/5 setup (still no cannons) would truthfully be more appropriate (canon too since the Galaxy has 10 phaser banks stock).
On the other hand my 4/4 Regent kills just fine and fast too. Mind you she's "expensive" with MkXIII and XIV gear.
I'm fatalistic about it all now by this point but after reading the original post I feel a bit foolish. Some part of me (possibly as a war gamer) simply accepted the notion of broadsiding ships of the line. It seems strange juxtaposing "normal" with the depiction of ships in Trek series typically engaging in frontal attacks. The only broadside that really stands out in my mind is the Khan Reliant drive by in WoK. Thanks for something to think about.
Well it's interesting as by the 24th century Starfleet vessels were designed with as much arc covering as possible. In theory you could broadside easily if you wanted. You could also fire phasers up, down, diagonally, forward, and backwards.
In this game cruisers broadsiding while I guess by design, is generally one of those tactics that gamers come up with by natural evolution. If you're in a cruiser with beam arrays, then the easiest way to get the most firepower on target is by broadsiding.
Frankly as mentioned above, multiple beam arrays firing at once was a rarity in the series, instead focusing on sustained fire of one array and rapid fire of one array, or however many arrays were required to keep the target under fire.
"Rise like Lions after slumber, In unvanquishable number, Shake your chains to earth like dew, Which in sleep had fallen on you-Ye are many they are few"
I'm fatalistic about it all now by this point but after reading the original post I feel a bit foolish. Some part of me (possibly as a war gamer) simply accepted the notion of broadsiding ships of the line. It seems strange juxtaposing "normal" with the depiction of ships in Trek series typically engaging in frontal attacks. The only broadside that really stands out in my mind is the Khan Reliant drive by in WoK. Thanks for something to think about.
I really don't think the difference between having weapon layouts of 4/3, 4/4, 5/2, and 5/3 is as significant as some people make it out to be.
All of those layouts have been used to make 100k+ DPS ships, and all of those layouts have been used for highly effective tanking builds, and everything in-between. I really don't understand what people are trying to achieve here by asking for these changes.
You can hound and lobby and petition and complain to the devs as much as you want to get that weapon slot moved from the aft to fore location, but at the end of the day, the difference in performance for the ship for that single change is going to be so small you will probably not even notice, even if you do manage to convince them to overhaul the ships.
You answered yourself, Dyson Science Destroyer. If you do that, you have to add one forward weapons to all sci ships.
Not necessarily. The dyson ships try to sell themselves as both an escort and a sci ship, but kind of suck at both.
Change nothing. If you add a fwd weapon slot to the Dyson it will be an 5/3 escort or a 4/3 sci ship, where all others sci ships are 3/3.
With only 3 tac console slots, it'll never be an escort. As a sci ship, it does try to present itself as a sci ship with greater firepower than normal, so 4/3 would technically make sense. Also, the annorax has 4/3 and a hangar bay.
I guess my main point is that the dysons really could use something to make them better ships. I've always kind of liked them despite their crappiness, and wished cryptic would make them worthwhile somehow.
I kinda feel this way too! I really like the ships but they're kinda meh...especially like the Romulan once since it's kinda like a mini D'D with much superior handling.
Unfortunately they've come and gone and the odds of them getting any buff are slim to nil
Can't have a honest conversation because of a white knight with power
Well, it may sound strange in the first place, but let me explain:
If I want to fit my battlecruiser with cannons, instead of beams like 12232354435 other ships, then 5/3 is a lot better than a bit turnrate or a different boff seat here and there.
When everything was 4/4, I had a selection of ships with different handling and boff layout to choose from. Now, I have only one choice: the Mogh.
I see your point somewhat. However: before there were 20 breweries producing only lager. Now two are producing stout as well. Would you complain that your choices were limited because you can only choose between two stouts (and still 20 lagers, but you prefer stout)?
My mother was an epohh and my father smelled of tulaberries
Comments
Yeah how bout no and we reverse course on this?
Star Trek Battles member. Want to roll with a good group of people regardless of fleets and not have to worry about DPS while doing STFs? Come join the channel and join in the fun!
http://forum.arcgames.com/startrekonline/discussion/1145998/star-trek-battles-channel-got-canon/p1
Sadly it's really hard to undo power creep, especially one that has been ongoing for 5 years. Look at Mirror Invasion for a fine example. Last time it came around the first few T6 ships had just been released, we didn't have Command or Piloting abilities unlocked yet and the Terran ships put up a good fight. Now with all the new toys they just roll over and die... every time I've played it the team has finished closing the final rift and destroyed all the ships with 2-3 minutes to spare.
Power Creep is like inflation: a bit is necessary, but you have to control it somewhat.
That would be another solution. Balance would be somewhat restored. But giving 5/3 only to some ships is wrong imho.
Whenever I play around with a new setup, I come to the conclusion "works best on a 5/3 ship".
My KDF eng is an alien (Andorian template). So, after we got the new Tetryon set I thought how about trying something new, and combine the Krenim and Tholian sets.
Tholian set comes with a DBB, the Krenim one with an omni beam. Here we go again, best choice: a 5/3 ship to get the most out of it.
FFS I already have my Mogh fitted with bloody AP beams ! I want an alternative !
A 5/3 Kamarag would be perfect for this set combination. Lt Cmdr Sci+ at least 3 science consoles and a good turnrate.
But, no. Fit another Mogh or let that 4th wasted rear weapon slot annoy you forever !
Well yes and no. I think it really takes away from the Avenger and Mogh if you ask me. But IMHO they should be the only ones, but they should have way weaker hulls, much like Battlecruisers of WWII. Heavy firepower, but no staying power.
My 2 cents on that.
Star Trek Battles member. Want to roll with a good group of people regardless of fleets and not have to worry about DPS while doing STFs? Come join the channel and join in the fun!
http://forum.arcgames.com/startrekonline/discussion/1145998/star-trek-battles-channel-got-canon/p1
The alternative to "giving it to some" would be "giving it to all" or "giving it to none". Both would reduce player's choice.
One can of course just keep using the old setup and upgrade to T5-U and mk XIV, but the resulting ship is considerably weaker than beam boats.
Mogh and Avenger would still be fine. They have their boff layout and manouverability which makes them great ships. And why restrict it to those two ships, when it could be the standard for all battlecruisers ?
You feel restricted in your choices because You have more variety to choose from? lol
Anyway, 4/4 is here and stays. The reason for t6 d'd and Negh'Tev are 4/4 is that they can use skins of t5. So You want to half of Negh'Var had 5 weapons and half 4 in front?
Second, look at avenger/arbiter. Most plp use beam banks and faw, so there is only tiny difference with dps preformance.
I for example like 4/4 classical cruisers with broadcasting. But on Qib I use DHC and it is very cool to fly, despite 4/4 layout.
I fly Gal t6 and it is elite capable at least. What You guys are saying is that this game is too difficult for 4/4??? Or what?
That may be true when come to escorts, that have to kill before something hit their tiny hull, but not cruisers, or battlecruisers.
And IMHO Vor'cha should be 4/3 and destroyer/attack cruiser class.
Well, it may sound strange in the first place, but let me explain:
If I want to fit my battlecruiser with cannons, instead of beams like 12232354435 other ships, then 5/3 is a lot better than a bit turnrate or a different boff seat here and there.
When everything was 4/4, I had a selection of ships with different handling and boff layout to choose from. Now, I have only one choice: the Mogh.
And there is no restriction from the 3d models either. A certain weapon type will always fire from the same hardpoints. Regardless how many weapons of this type are fitted and in which slot.
Put one DBB on a ship of your choice and fire it. Repeat with 4 DBB's. You won't notice a difference.
Of course if you are happy to slap 8 beams on every ship and spam spacebar you won't notice a difference.
Sounds your favorite ship isn't the best BC and you want it buffed...well you know what...they aren't forced into broadsiding.
I'm really getting tired of all of those spoiled self entitled people...well you know what...just because your favorite ship isn't the most powerful thing in game doesn't mean in sucks.
News flash for you...the king is still the Scimitar...should every ship be as powerful as the Scimitar?
If you can't compete with a 4/4 build it isn't the ship it's pilot error...
Kinda the pot calling the kettle black here?
You answered yourself, Dyson Science Destroyer. If you do that, you have to add one forward weapons to all sci ships.
Change nothing. If you add a fwd weapon slot to the Dyson it will be an 5/3 escort or a 4/3 sci ship, where all others sci ships are 3/3.
I guess my main point is that the dysons really could use something to make them better ships. I've always kind of liked them despite their crappiness, and wished cryptic would make them worthwhile somehow.
Im going to shut your argument down nice and quick. Game Function supersedes Canon. No one playing the game because its a game wants to see two ships play tag with lasers. Its a battle, youre going to fire off absolutely every weapon you can bring to bare. And if youre not running the correct set up you can absolutely run out of power.
Bigger issue is that ships like the Mogh and Avenger and their replacements, are almost just as tanky as the cruisers that are supposed to be the tanks, and have better firepower to boot forwards.
IMHO, too much of a good thing was given, now it's either power creep like made to compensate, or reign in the ability of these monster ships.
Star Trek Battles member. Want to roll with a good group of people regardless of fleets and not have to worry about DPS while doing STFs? Come join the channel and join in the fun!
http://forum.arcgames.com/startrekonline/discussion/1145998/star-trek-battles-channel-got-canon/p1
No, some militaries were just underdeveloped enough that they still had biplanes in service. The metal bodied prop planes started the and Jets were prototyped and barely operational by the end.
That said, your point stands to a degree that advancement is rapid.
However, that's not a direct parallel at all.
The standing thought that 4/4 is inferior is flawed. In this game the equipment is what matters.
This is more a holdover of the trinity idea the cruisers aren't designed to be the offensive monsters. That is a separate discussion.
Well I think that's as much a result of proper teamwork as superior firepower. Even in my weakest character's ship, as long as the team is focused on closing rifts and distract and seal, we'll get the job done with time to spare. Firepower is the difference between being done with two minutes to spare and five minutes to spare. At least on normal.
In that I agree. Battlecruisers as a general thing should receive the 5/3 setup.
Galaxy's are interesting since by all indications they're more battleships. I think a 5/5 setup (still no cannons) would truthfully be more appropriate (canon too since the Galaxy has 10 phaser banks stock).
On the other hand my 4/4 Regent kills just fine and fast too. Mind you she's "expensive" with MkXIII and XIV gear.
Well it's interesting as by the 24th century Starfleet vessels were designed with as much arc covering as possible. In theory you could broadside easily if you wanted. You could also fire phasers up, down, diagonally, forward, and backwards.
In this game cruisers broadsiding while I guess by design, is generally one of those tactics that gamers come up with by natural evolution. If you're in a cruiser with beam arrays, then the easiest way to get the most firepower on target is by broadsiding.
Frankly as mentioned above, multiple beam arrays firing at once was a rarity in the series, instead focusing on sustained fire of one array and rapid fire of one array, or however many arrays were required to keep the target under fire.
My character Tsin'xing
All of those layouts have been used to make 100k+ DPS ships, and all of those layouts have been used for highly effective tanking builds, and everything in-between. I really don't understand what people are trying to achieve here by asking for these changes.
You can hound and lobby and petition and complain to the devs as much as you want to get that weapon slot moved from the aft to fore location, but at the end of the day, the difference in performance for the ship for that single change is going to be so small you will probably not even notice, even if you do manage to convince them to overhaul the ships.
7/0 ....That is TRIBBLE ! I want 8/0 Weapons layout !
Just make sure these are C store ships and charge 40k zen for each one, true P2W ships.
They didn't add a 4th forward slot to Sci ships when they released the Annorax...
I kinda feel this way too! I really like the ships but they're kinda meh...especially like the Romulan once since it's kinda like a mini D'D with much superior handling.
Unfortunately they've come and gone and the odds of them getting any buff are slim to nil
I see your point somewhat. However: before there were 20 breweries producing only lager. Now two are producing stout as well. Would you complain that your choices were limited because you can only choose between two stouts (and still 20 lagers, but you prefer stout)?