Question for a Dev. Ship stats "Disclaimer" The voice of the people?

hyefather

Whenever a blog about a new ship is about to be released at the bottom of the page it always has a "DISCLAIMER" All information in this blog is subject to change". My question is " what would it take to get you guys "the devs" to change something about the ship" that is if the STO community is in unison with one another about the change. I understand that even if everyone agrees that a ship should have a certain feature/stat/ability changed it must still be in accordance to its Tier. For example even if everyone agrees the Tier 6 scimitar should have 10 Tactical consoles it just can't happen. What if though the STO playerbase had a very reasonable request for a change. Would/could it be implemented into the final build or by the time we get the blog with ship stats is it to late.

I would very much appreciate if a dev would way in on the subject. Thank you for your time.

P.S. The changes I would make are this. I would change the Lt Science to a Ensign and the Lt universal to a Lt. Comm. Universal/Command. Then on the Fleet version of the ship I would remove the 4th Engineering console and give it to either Science or Tactical. Either one of those console layouts could benifit from a extra console but not engineering. Then maybe a 4/3. I don't have a problem with the 3/3. Its just that all the newer T6 ships that are carriers "All of them have a 4/3 weapons layout" (The only exception being Q's Winter Wonderland Grand Prize, The "Breen Sarr Theln Carrier). So why did the Jupiter get the shaft (vasaline not included). I mean fairs, fair right? Give it a 4/3. Other than that I'm tickled pink with the way it looks. I'm just not sure yet if I like this ship good enough to buy it.

EDIT: Change those Boff seats and I'll bust open the piggy bank right now (wink wink).

EDIT: WTF, What just happened. You guys are the sneakiest, most insidious little shats I have ever seen. My post had nothing to do with the New Jupiter class ship yet, somehow through some type of Jedi mind twick you have turned it into that very discussion but thats not what amazes me. I even feel for it. I ended up posting what I felt needed changed with the ship also. I'm still dumbfounded. I could catch my hair on fire and run through the house screaming. I applaud you fellow sto'ers. Well Done.

leemwatson

The problem is that the changes must make sense first, not just because of a small or large group of people's opinion.

The new Carrier is massive, yet people are saying it should move like an Escort Carrier. One poster said it's size doesn't matter and should be able to turn on a dime! Physics would argue that point. What the poster equates to is 1 person being able to manually deflect and turn an asteroid by himself. The turn rate, and inertia of the ship does reflect it's size. This also dictates that the ship couldn't possibly have Pilot seating.

Which is where we come to the specialized seat. I agree it could be used as a Command ship, as it can sit back and fire from afar, but doesn't that mean that it couldn't be effective with it's command seating due to that very same distance. Intel covers this distance quite well, so I'm not too bothered by it. I believe the intention of the ship itself, is as a Long Range Vessel, whether as a exploration vessel, colonial mission or a command post, so Intel would be far more beneficial.

I do agree that an extra forward weapon slot should be applied, in part due to it's size, just like the Kar'Fi. I can't see a relevant reason for there not to be.

The danger of allowing too much player influence over design changes is, inherently, that they will want more and more say. You only need to look at the obscene number of Polls created by a small number of players that believe they can force changes. What people need to remember is CBS can most likely block and even remove changes that they see as not in-line with their canon. CBS doesn't care for other people's opinion of what should be canon or not.

At the end of the day, this ship was voted as the winner by the community, and it's the ones that didn't get what they wanted causing the biggest noise!

asuran14

Myself i like the intel seating, but would not have minded if they took a page from the herald ships and maybe put a command second seat on the ship, or even a dual spec seat that you could use either command or intel on such a station. Now that could mean being able to train a officer in both specs or just having the ability of two officers that use either of these.

I also do not so much mind the 3/3 weapon layout, though would not have minded a way of increasing the firing arc of cannons such as via a trait that would increase the firing arc based on the size of the ship. The Idea behind this is not that the ship can turn on a dime, but that it has such a huge area it can slot weapons across the firing arc area would be larger, but would sacrifice some of the cannon's rate of fire or damage output for the increased firing arc (i would cap it at about 200 degrees with single cannons). Though i could also see this ship using a form of siege style mode mechanic that it can enter a mode in which it diverts power from it's engine systems to weapons to improve their rate of fire as well as their firing arcs, but would alot of mobility an even turn rate (keep in mind the increased firing arc would minimize the turn rate penalty for the weapon usage.). I think both of these actually scream carrier functions, even if you had it that in siege mode your other abilities had increased ranges as well like science an engineering.

kontarnus

A Carrier with Intel seating is fine. In Modern Navies, a carrier is the heart of a fleet, and the home of the fleet commander. It is fitting that it should have intel seating.

The intel specialization is also the most general and wide ranging spec; easily used with science, almost as easily used with tactical. Pilot spec has no place on a large ship unless it is extremely maneuverable. A 'standard' carrier (and this is what this is, really) is not highly maneuverable.

The weapon slots: 3/3
Considering that the standard loadout for a Federation ship is phaser beam arrays and photon torpedo launchers, are you surprised? It's got the turn rate and inertia rating of a Galaxy class, it needs as much all-around weapon coverage as possible.
4/3 is what you see on more maneuverable Escort carriers, lockbox ships, and Lobi ships.

Dual spec?
This is not a lockbox ship or Lobi ship, lockbox ships and Lobi ships are always better, in some way.

Lockbox ships, and Lobi ships are meant to be extra special, to make you spend money (and feel like it was worth it). In most cases, much more money than you would spend on a ship sold in the store.

asuran14

kontarnus wrote: »

A Carrier with Intel seating is fine. In Modern Navies, a carrier is the heart of a fleet, and the home of the fleet commander. It is fitting that it should have intel seating.

The intel specialization is also the most general and wide ranging spec; easily used with science, almost as easily used with tactical. Pilot spec has no place on a large ship unless it is extremely maneuverable. A 'standard' carrier (and this is what this is, really) is not highly maneuverable.

The weapon slots: 3/3
Considering that the standard loadout for a Federation ship is phaser beam arrays and photon torpedo launchers, are you surprised? It's got the turn rate and inertia rating of a Galaxy class, it needs as much all-around weapon coverage as possible.
4/3 is what you see on more maneuverable Escort carriers, lockbox ships, and Lobi ships.

Dual spec?
This is not a lockbox ship or Lobi ship, lockbox ships and Lobi ships are always better, in some way.

Lockbox ships, and Lobi ships are meant to be extra special, to make you spend money (and feel like it was worth it). In most cases, much more money than you would spend on a ship sold in the store.

I agree that intel is a fine fit with the ship, and that even command would have worked great, though i kinda wish they would have done a new specialization an used it on this ship that might be more hanger-pet/boarding-party oriented. Though not that worried it is still really good for what it is. Things like dual specs either as having two different spec seats, or as a fact of having a seat you can use either of two spec in should not be part of that lobi-exclusivity, as there are alot more interesting things you can use in lobi/lock-boxes that would not limit the play-styles of the playerbase.

I agree a 4/3 layout is abit much, which is why i thought the idea of a system for the carrier that would sacrifice some of the ship's turn-rate an mobility to increase it's weapon's range an firing arc would be a good trade off. An would make the fact it can load dual cannons more viable an option as the increased firing arc an range would be nice for them, maybe also make it in this siege-mode it also had the drop off for cannons it had equipped reduced yet only in this mode. In this way it would feel like a carrier using weapons from long range an also relying on the hanger-pets to pester or gain info.

hyefather

reyan01 wrote: »

They've proven that they will listen to feedback within reason - the change made to the Hestia's Ensign seat being a recent example.

You did indeed answer my question but I would like a answer with just a little more depth to it. Ty very much for weighing in on the subject.

mustrumridcully0

leemwatson wrote: »

The problem is that the changes must make sense first, not just because of a small or large group of people's opinion.

The new Carrier is massive, yet people are saying it should move like an Escort Carrier. One poster said it's size doesn't matter and should be able to turn on a dime! Physics would argue that point. What the poster equates to is 1 person being able to manually deflect and turn an asteroid by himself. The turn rate, and inertia of the ship does reflect it's size. This also dictates that the ship couldn't possibly have Pilot seating.

Which is where we come to the specialized seat. I agree it could be used as a Command ship, as it can sit back and fire from afar, but doesn't that mean that it couldn't be effective with it's command seating due to that very same distance. Intel covers this distance quite well, so I'm not too bothered by it. I believe the intention of the ship itself, is as a Long Range Vessel, whether as a exploration vessel, colonial mission or a command post, so Intel would be far more beneficial.

I do agree that an extra forward weapon slot should be applied, in part due to it's size, just like the Kar'Fi. I can't see a relevant reason for there not to be.

The danger of allowing too much player influence over design changes is, inherently, that they will want more and more say. You only need to look at the obscene number of Polls created by a small number of players that believe they can force changes. What people need to remember is CBS can most likely block and even remove changes that they see as not in-line with their canon. CBS doesn't care for other people's opinion of what should be canon or not.

At the end of the day, this ship was voted as the winner by the community, and it's the ones that didn't get what they wanted causing the biggest noise!

I think the specifics of stats are outside of CBS interest - the stats already don't fit canon. But the designers are not going to make one ship overpowered just because it has to. They have certain design guidelines they want to fit.

And if they did indeed make ships overpowered just because mplayers demand it - well, the community would have given them carte blanche to sell obvious power creep.
Next month, the new ultra Deluxe Carrier will have 5/4 weapon slots, and 7 tactical consoles! THe month after, 5/5 and 8 tactical consoles!

Except that at some point people would realize how foolsih and damaging this is, and stop buying stuff. And then Cryptic would n't sell things anymore.

SO they will make ships within certain design limits, so they can always have something new that perhaps fits the player's preferences more, without making all the old stuff obsolete immediately.

hyefather

leemwatson wrote: »

The problem is that the changes must make sense first, not just because of a small or large group of people's opinion.

The new Carrier is massive, yet people are saying it should move like an Escort Carrier. One poster said it's size doesn't matter and should be able to turn on a dime! Physics would argue that point. What the poster equates to is 1 person being able to manually deflect and turn an asteroid by himself. The turn rate, and inertia of the ship does reflect it's size. This also dictates that the ship couldn't possibly have Pilot seating.

Which is where we come to the specialized seat. I agree it could be used as a Command ship, as it can sit back and fire from afar, but doesn't that mean that it couldn't be effective with it's command seating due to that very same distance. Intel covers this distance quite well, so I'm not too bothered by it. I believe the intention of the ship itself, is as a Long Range Vessel, whether as a exploration vessel, colonial mission or a command post, so Intel would be far more beneficial.

I do agree that an extra forward weapon slot should be applied, in part due to it's size, just like the Kar'Fi. I can't see a relevant reason for there not to be.

The danger of allowing too much player influence over design changes is, inherently, that they will want more and more say. You only need to look at the obscene number of Polls created by a small number of players that believe they can force changes. What people need to remember is CBS can most likely block and even remove changes that they see as not in-line with their canon. CBS doesn't care for other people's opinion of what should be canon or not.

At the end of the day, this ship was voted as the winner by the community, and it's the ones that didn't get what they wanted causing the biggest noise!

Heres the problem I see with the contest. We voted on the skin but not the guts witch IMO is the most important aspect of the ship. I understand it may be a little harder to vote on the guts but we could do it in sections the same way we did the skin. One week the boff layout the next the consoles and so forth. I kinda feel in a way the we all fell for a dirty trick. I'm hoping not but theres just something off the way this thing played out. Again, I hope I'm wrong.

P.s. If CBS was to remove what "they see as not in-line with their canon". I believe the local Pawn Shop would have a nice big Server that had PWI/Cryptic/STO stamped at the top of it. Lucky for us we could probably buy it for 10 bucks. Them thinking it was a old Floppy disc PC or something or worse, cassette deck.

warpangel

Some lawyer made them put that line at the end of posts, to make it unambiguously clear that the company is not bound by any statements within.

Its a disclaimer, not an invitation to democracy. They'll change things if and when they want to.

orangeitis

hyefather wrote: »

Its just that all the newer T6 ships that are carriers "ALL of them have a 4/3 weapons layout".

Missed the Sarr Theln? It's actually the closest to the Jupiter in comparison to other T6 Carriers in that it not only is a 3/3 Carrier as well, but it's also a Science-heavy Carrier.

warmaker001b

All the T6 Carriers are 4/3? Before the Jupiter's release, there are only 2 true T6 carriers in the game:

Winter Event Breen Sarr Theln - 3/3 layout
The recent Herald Vonph - 4/3 - Which is also out of the price range of 99% of this player base.

Hell, let's even dive back into the T5 Carriers.

KDF Vo'Quv - 3/3 - The very first and only carrier in the game for a very long time.
KDF Kar'Fi - 4/3 - The 2nd carrier put into the game
Fed Atrox - 3/3 - The 3rd carrier put into the game
Recluse - 3/3 - Please tell me people think this carrier sucks
JHDC - 4/3
Obelisk - 3/3
Narcine - 4/3

So, excluding Jupiter, of the 9 possible Carriers playable at endgame:
5 are 3/3
4 are 4/3
At T6 it's a split excluding Jupiter.

Oh wait... I get it now... This is another thread wanting this Science heavy ship turned into a Cmdr TAC ship, right? If so, can I put the demand in to have Pilot Maneuvers and Battle Cloaks in also as part of the TAC conversion? Pretty please???

moyuthemedic

I honestly would have accepted it 1:1 lifted from the atrox without frigates aslong as it had a ensign univ and SA or 2 more hanger bays
I figured the fact that sci is such disadvantageous compared to eng or tac the SA would make up for it in some little way at least for single targets
or the hangerbays would have made sence for it being a mobile starbase that is t6 break the mold a little

gulberat

warmaker001b wrote: »

Oh wait... I get it now... This is another thread wanting this Science heavy ship turned into a Cmdr TAC ship, right? If so, can I put the demand in to have Pilot Maneuvers and Battle Cloaks in also as part of the TAC conversion? Pretty please???

The closest you can get to that feel, I think--a light, maneuverable sci carrier capable of damage in its own right--is probably the Vesta. The true Swiss Army knife of ships and the one I'll be sticking with.