test content
Logo
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc
Decent klingon fleets versus equally decent fed fleets...
System
Member, NoReporting Posts: 178,019 Arc User
PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE TRY TO BE CIVILIZED AND KEEP FLAMING AND TROLLING TO A MINIMUM
8 times out of 10 the klingons win due to superior DPS coupled with pretty much the exact same defenses as federation.
no, this is not a "l2p" issue.
been talking alot with a mate that plays in a klingon set group and we are pretty much agreeing on this.
Klingons DPS is currently overpowered, the vast majority (if not all) their ships can and will mount cannons, load up with stacked rapid fire plus attack pattern beta = megapwn.
feds have 1 ship class that can do this, the rest are stuck with either dual beams, beam arrays or *cough* turrets.
dual beams works somewhat on the science ships, wich would have to dual spec cannons for the turrets, making them alot less effective then they should be. but are a complete waste on a cruiser due to its horrible turning so that leavs them with either said turrets or beam arrays.
a klingon with stacked RF can get up to 3000 DPS for what, 15 seconds:ish?
a fed with......... wait, feds doesent have any proper beam DPS skills
(dont say overload is a proper DPS skill fgs, and dont even think about fire at will). ok lets use emergency power to weapons insted, that bumps up the beam arrays to somewhere around 800 - 850 DPS give or take.now the supposed reasoning for klingons ability to use cannons on all their ships were the supposed defense penalty they get, but thats really only noticable in t1 and t2, in t3 and up its more then possible to be pretty much immune to damage to the shields for over a minute if you play it well, probably alot longer if your really good.
so all in all it doesent matter how effective a federation fleet is in pvp. if faced against a equally effective klingon fleet, just the fact that it wont have nearly the same DPS OR agility as a klingon fleet means they will lose.
klingons have, element of surprise, manouverability and DPS on their side. feds WERE supposed to have superior defenses to balance this but right now i cant see that.
so what could be done to balance this out?
give science ships the ability to use proper cannons (obviously cruisers are out of the question)? njeee, i dunno, it would just make klingons less unique.
gimp klingons defenses some more? that probably wouldn't be a good idea at all.
limmit the ability to mount cannons to BoP's only? it sure has potential but again it would just make klingons less unique and more a "alternate federation".
give beams some proper DPS skills? maybe, hard to do that with arrays having such huge arcs. maybe something thats limmited to dual beams only?
kill off the ability to stack different tiers of the same power (such as rapid fire)? now i like that idea more then anything, stacked rapid fire (or any skill different tiers) is whats breaking the balance in pvp more then anything so imo that needs to go.
its gone to the point where almost all the good klingon set groups play KvK only because theres just no challenge to play FvK anymore so something needs to be done if we want to have a healthy pvp community outside of KvK.
so what would your REASONABLE suggestions be to have the fleets be more balanced? try to also keep it with set group versus set group in mind, PUGS are utterly impossible to balance the game around and 1v1's arent meant to be in this game.
and again, PLEASE try to keep this thread as civil as possible. lets try to give Cryptic as little flaming/trolling as possible to wade through for once
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
I hope some "decent" players are going to plan on copying characters to the test server so we can try this stuff out.
Incidentally, I don't understand why more Feds don't use the Target Subsystem skills. They last for a good while, they reduce MAX power rather than acting as a drain (which means you cannot counter them with EPS consoles, like you can Tyken's Rift) and different ranks of the same power stack (e.g., Target Subsystem Weapons II stacks with III).
I also almost never see Feds using Aceton Field, which is quite effective for lowering DPS.
So I do still think there's a big "L2P" component here -- all the stuff you guys don't find useful in PvE because NPCs are stupid and weak is actually a big deal in PvP and you'd do well to think outside the PvE box on your skill selections. For example, I have seen Feds that stack Target Subsystem Shields so that your shields will simply turn off if you have them at less than about 60 power but that's rare. Doing it to engines or weapons would be good too, as would aux (0 aux = no science abilities and no turning).
It's easier just to demand nerfs than to take a few minutes to try and understand that people who play 100% of their levels in PvP are going to have an "exp factor" advantage. Taking a few minutes to sit back, see what those people are doing and come up with a counter isn't hard. Sadly like I said, "thinking of a counter" takes effort, but demanding the devs to fix what they don't understand, does not.
Better yet, post a screenshot of themselves in combat. I noticed that the Gamespot PvP screenshot, the guy had default controls and default energy levels -- he was running with 50 weapon power setting, which is TRIBBLE.
Quite frankly gear wise Feds have it all over us , but experience and time spent in PvP we have the advantage.
This is absolutely true, but as the OP explained, the Klingons ALSO have a big advantage in terms of superior ships.
Rather than nerfing Klingon defense even more, I think a buff to Federation defense to make it a more meaningful advantage would make more sense. Hell, everyone knows a simple linear increase in hitpoints will still easily be overcome with high sustained DPS and/or focus fire - but say a 30-40% advantage in hull/shield points (rather than the current 10% or so) would go a long way to giving the Federation a faction-distinct advantage to match the Klingon one and make escorts a more viable choice in PvP.
I would hardly say that Klingon ships are Superior they have less hull hps and the cannons limit their firing arc.. true the raptor and bop are fast and makes that less of an issue. the biggest problem here is the experience issue. Klingons use effective tactics that work over and over again.. We know they work over and over again because that is all we do. SO I have an idea Lets make the ships 100% identical to each other for a week and see who keeps winning. I know where I am going to put my money
LOL, those are the guys that I pray (or prey?) cross my sights. Can't do anything well with all evened out power settings
I am extremely disappointed with Cryptic after reading they are "normalizing" (which is code for they are doing what the feds want and nerfing them). If this keeps up and this game turns into a listen to the QQers and whiners like in SWG I dont think I want to stomach another one of those.
Now on to the problem with feds thinking cannons need a nerf. Cannons are meant to be a largly klink side gun given that we do not have the defenses the feds have, plain and simple. What this means is we have to have a higher damage output than a fed. One thing you do not see very much of is klinks whining about nerf beam overload or nerf the feds use of cannons. But, we see alot of feds QQing and whining about nerf klinks, and if this nerf to cannons goes through, and possibly a cloak nerf I have been hearing rumors of goes through as well, klinks will not be a very playable class in any sense of the thought let alone word.
Stop "adjusting" and nerfing the combat system people, it just screws up and screws over people who actually use it.
Some posters in here were right, people need to understand how to defeat an opponent instead of crying nerf... I use target weapon subsystem and aceton field which work very well, the only drawback to being a star cruiser that can take a serious beating is i pose no real threat. against either multiple ranks of RSP or FBP, the beam arrays on a cruiser or even a sci vessel dont really pose any threat against klingons.
Id say that making multiple ranks of rapid fire not able to stack is a good idea... Let the higher rank take precedence over a lesser rank, and when the higher rank expires, lesser rank can take effect, this would in turn give longer sustained dps but less burst... OR-- allow multiple ranks to stack, but there be a penalty of some sort, either power drain or something...
or maybe buff the damage capabilities of beam arrays? for as much power drain that they have, they dont kick very hard...
Some day I might get a Feddy to RA5.
If Romulans come out soon, you will find me there.
What are you stupid. Why are you giving vital information out to federation players? I don't appreciate a fellow KDF coaching the FEDERATION on skills to take and tactics to use against us.
I have a fed char that is highish captain atm and i have pvped a little bit with it. My word is the general attitude different with them. Even before the battle has properly started normally is there a couple of people whining about this or that.
Although saying that, i did get into a few battles alongside fellow klingon players that were levelling their characters as well as we properly pwned our opposition.
Anyone who withstands that through the endless and repepetive thing that is Klingon pvp is going to be damned good at pvp.
The ONLY thing superior about klingon ships is their turn rates at most tiers.
They have less shields, less hull and lack a complete ship class the feds can take advantage of...
And yet they still win..
It currently takes 2-3 players klingon side on a single well played fed cruiser to take it down same seems to hold true on fed side....
And PS ...some of the ship types DO have a 30-40% advantage federation to klingon, depending on class of ship...
So yes having a WHOLE CLASS OF SHIPS In 4 of the 5 tiers the other faction doesn't isn't enough of an advantage for you? SERIOUSLY?
While we are at it ..let's remove the caps on the maps so the zerglings can not limit their numbers and faceroll their way to victory some more!!!
Beating on people because they lack the skills and knowledge you have is only amusing for so long...
:rolleyes:
Exactly. I wrote that ground combat guide (see sig) precisely because I was actually getting bored of endlessly murdering Feds in 40-5 type matches.
I wish they would just get better at it.
Space isn't quite that bad but there are still plenty of bad Fed teams out there. Mostly it's:
No amount of guidance can ever fix stupid...
Which is why McDonald's opt'd to put little pictures on their cash registers so 'anyone' can find the fries to choose it...
I am still waiting for the blind guy that wants to work at mc d's to sue them for sighted descrimination...
Won't have much of a case as they have braille on there too, but seriously? Pictures, because people couldn't read? And you want these same people that can't read to count out change???
Really?
If you compare a Federation cruiser to a raptor or a bird-of-prey, yes, I was being honest in trying to compare like-for-like, however.
At best, the Federation escort has a 25% increase in hull points over the Bird, is there even a disparity in shield strength? Personally, I believe universal bridge slots and battle cloaking more than make up for that, but in the end I'm happy to call it a wash (although suggesting the escort is superior in some way is so disingenuous it hurts my brain).
However, I'm more concerned about the disparity between the Federation cruiser and the Klingon battlecruiser, where the hull difference is in fact less than 10%. If there's a huge difference in shield strength I'm not aware of - please educate me. In return, the battlecruiser gets all the advantages previously mentioned: cloaking, much better turning, and the ability to fit cannons - and the argument that cannons are somehow not an advantage because of the narrow firing arc is laughable. The battlecruiser turning rate is more than sufficient to use dual cannons, if you don't think so, use standard cannons, and if you don't like them you can still have the same beam loadout as a Federation cruiser.
I've explained this over and over, given sound reasoning, and all I get back is the constant refrain of 'Klingons are better because we PvP more', which is probably true and has nothing to do with what I'm saying.
Can someone please, referring to the actual ship statistics and abilities presently in-game, explain why the battlecruiser is not a vastly superior vessel to the Federation cruiser? Not just 'it has more shields and hull' - HOW much more, and why does that matter.
F4 pilots in WWII learned to do it to zeroes....(it was a more armored more lighly armed fighter than the zero)
Spitfire pilots somehow learned to do it in WWII versus the vastly more manueverable me109s
Going back to WWI Sopwith camel pilots learned to outmaneuver the germans too...despite them having more maneuverable craft...
I'll give you a hint here... it has to do with angles of ascent and decent and firing arcs ...and in the case of a fed cruiser using beams you should always be as close to their rear quarter as possible and at an up or down angle > 45 degrees... congrats you've overcome the cannon arcs.. commence winning instead of whining.
What does this mean? Learning when to 'run' Emergency power to engines to climb or descend rapidly to a position that favors you is your key and hey with extra engineering slots you COULD have that covered ...but RSP is more 'favorable' to you than actually maneuvering your ship right?
What does this have to do with anything I've said? I asked for cold, hard reasons why the battlecruiser is not a vastly superior ship to the Federation cruiser.
All you seem to be doing is trying to tell me how to work around that superiority by making totally inapplicable analogies to World War 2 fighter planes.
and it takes just as many feds to take down a well played BC/carrier.
that aside, you all seem to be comparing the sides from a PUG point of view, wich i wasn't aiming for.
i specifically said to try and keep it with set groups in mind because THATS where the game can be balanced around.
you can't balance a game around ppl that either dont care or are to stupid to learn to play properly.
and you also can't compare ship by ship either as this game doesent allow for 1v1's.
its a fleet versus fleet game and should be balanced around that. and right now set klingon fleets are having a field day versus set federation fleets because of feds inability to compete in DPS while feds despite their defense penalties (wich are still only really noticable in T1 and T2) can field just as much defenses as feds.
the point with this thread wasn't to try and gimp a ship or weapon, i was trying to adress the imbalance that stacking skills cause, especially offensive ones.
i'm perfectly fine with klingons having their agility advantage because they use tight arc weapons.
looking at the patchnotes they will hopefully not be able to sport 3000+ DPS much longer and might make FvK popular again for the klingon set groups. i just hope theres enough fed set groups around as alot of them FOTM rolled klingons.
now i DO realize that klingons are meant to sport good DPS to make up for their (not so much) lack of defenses, but right now they can get so much of it even RSP can't keep up when theres 5 klingons shooting you.
i dont think you klingons realize just how much 12000 - 15000 DPS hurts a cruiser, not to mention a escort or science ship
tired, heading to bed. sorry if i got something wrong i'm knackered :<
You are in the slower less maneuverable ship...and complaining about a more maneuverable ship...
Much like those fighter comparisons..
Put another way ... be where he doesn't expect you to be...
It is only vastly superior to fed cruiser because you aren't taking away the 'cannon' advantage by not being in the front arcs...
If you always fight MY fight...I will beat you every single time...
So first you need to figure out what YOUR fight is and then work to get there as often as is possible.
Your fight is running broadside to him behind him for as long as possible. Innately you have two skills that can put you there every captain gets them...adding in Two emergency power to engine abilities..(even rank I will do) and you can have an ability that is almost always available to maneuver behind them...
Stop playing to your weakness and start working on your strategy for engaging the more maneuverable ship at a disadvantage whenever possible.:rolleyes:
No, as I've stated multiple times: it's vastly superior because it's much more maneuverable, can cloak /and/ can fit cannons - including 180 degree ones that nullify this increasingly tired 'hide behind him' argument (as if that were even valid given equally skilled pilots considering the turn rate differences).
There seems to be a lot of die-hard Klingon players very quick to jump on the bandwagon of trotting out the 'learn to play' trope. This isn't about me in my Federation cruiser not being able to beat you in your Klingon battlecruiser - I don't even play a Federation cruiser, and I do play a Klingon battlecruiser.
It's about /you/ in a Federation cruiser, versus /you/ in a Klingon battlecruiser.
Give me a Negh'var, and give Bizarro-me a Sovereign, and I'll kick his TRIBBLE up and down the street every single day and twice on Sundays, and if you don't believe the same of yourself I really believe you're just lying to yourself.
And the OP is contending that the same would apply to a whole team of 'me' in Klingon ships versus one in Federation ships, and I - for one - believe him.
There is always someone better.. and a 70 degree difference is big in the array vs 180 cannon coverage..
And I hate to play this one on you too, but the fighter pilot comparison was intentional as the way that the US pilots and the british pilots beat their 'better' armed and armored opponents was through teamwork.
And yes god forbid you should use it..
Then name them, or stop avoiding the issue.
Are you saying you'd beat a copy of yourself in a Negh'var if you were in a Sovereign more than one in ten times? Go on, say that, I'd like to see it on the record.
On the other hand, most (but not all) klingons at least make effort to run before escorts. But you would be suprised how many run the "park and shoot" aproach, and are very vulnerable once you fly above them, because they arent used to enemies, which do that.
After like 100 pvp matches in T5 as FED, i can say, that most FED issues come from lack of experience, or game "features" like borked queues, which make games start with uneven numbers. The fact that some FEDs also think they know it best and dont follow orders/suiciding/leeching doesnt help it much also.
The only sucking stuff about pvp right now, is the flavour of the week = all klingons equiped with feedback pulse.
Fighting myself ??! You're going to stick to that weak arguement?
yes Fighting myself I bet I'd go 50-50 in this situation depending on who made the first error / got lucky first.
:rolleyes:
Your honor let the record show that Lugh and Dalnar are in agreement.
No doubt much to his horror.
Heh, well, I admire the courage of your convictions, as untenable as they might me.
The entire premise of the thread was 'opponents of equal skill'. Nothing would be more equal than an exact copy of yourself. If you find the premise to be 'weak', it may behoove you to find another thread to lecture people on their inferiority.
And the person who 'gets lucky first' will be - in almost every case - the person with the element of surprise, and of advance planning, the one who can choose when and where to strike. The person - in short - with stealth abilities.