Let me ask you this. How long do you think we're going to wait until these changes take place? I seriously doubt we would see any change anytime soon.
Then there is the rebalancing that has to be done for PvP and PvE, which is going to take a month to properly iron out. So we are looking at the changes no earlier than the First Year Anniversary.
Of course I'm angry about those too, becasue the Star Cruiser wasn't no better than the Sovereign until Cryptic messed with the abilities and made Aux Heal abillities superior, in which the Science Abilities like Hazzard Emitters and TSS, and made it the most powerful tank in the game.
The Galaxy-R, well Ensign Engineering slot > Tactical Ensign slot.
But unlike those two, they didn't replace the Sovereign as a warship, but the Excelsior DID! Better Tactical, better Ensign slot, better manuverability, same HPs. Can you blame me for being mad? The Ship I worked hard to master has gotten replaced overnight for the sake of greed.
As for the HPs, I don't know how much you PvP, but to a PvPer, 700 HPs difference isn't that much of a difference. And it's funny the Excelsior-Refit has just as much HPs as a ship that's 1/3 larger. :rolleyes:
All in all, I'm tired of treating the players baddly and not even compensating. Instead we other players telling the Sovereign Captains, "TS! Deal with it!"
Yeah, until they get the same treatment, and then they are the one up in arms.
I haven't had a lot of play time lately, but yeah I PvP quite a bit. I leveled my main toon almost completely with PvP.
How many times have you gotten an escort into low single digit health just to have him healed back up. There have been quite a few times that hps have saved me too. I've been down to 2% just to have someone throw me heals or for mine to come off cool down. So to me, a pvper, 700 hps can make all the difference. If you can't understand why I see it this way then respectfully we will have to agree to disagree. Regardless you are upset, as you have said, and your assertions are biased because of it. You are trying to get something nerfed soley because you feel your ship has been deminished. Your right, the SC tanks better than the AC... I mostly fly the AC because I like how it looks better than the SC. I recommend that you fly whatever vessel you like the best and be happy with your choice.
Let me ask you this. How long do you think we're going to wait until these changes take place?
The one comment I read used the word "months."
And since I know other stuff will crop up in the next few months, I'd say longer than that.
Which means the unbalancing extra powerfulness of C-Store ships like the Excelsior ... added to the forthcoming Nebula, Ent-J and TOS Ent Refit ... will likely create more havoc with this problem (especially since they're ALLLLLLLL cruisers! hahahahahahahahah).
Your primary complaint here seems to be that the Ensign Engineer is superior to the Ensign Tactical.
If so then this is not an issue with the Excelsior versus Sovereign, but Engineering abilities versus Tactical Abilities.
Compare the ships side by side, they have the same weapons loadouts, same number of bridge officer abilities, the Excelsior turns a bit better but has less hull and crew. On paper, pretty balanced.
But for for whatever reason, Cryotic seems to have perhaps overvalued the strength of Tactical Officer abilities as you see less crew and/or less maneuverability with the Tier 5 ships with additional Tactical Officer slots. I think with all of the adjustments to how Engineering and Science officer abilities operate, the Tactical abilities need a similar re-evaluation.
If the Tactical Ensign abilities were to be brought in line with the Science and Engineering abilities, wouldn't that be a means to resolve your complaints with the Excelsior?
I'm not a pvper so that's not really a worry to me. I am concerned about the high price for the ship though... It costs just as much as 1 month subscription fee. :-s
Let's stick to the Ensign slots, okay. The Engineering Ensign is far superior to the Ensign Tactical and everyone knows it.
Right now, the Sovereign has like 46300 HPs fully Speced, while the Excelsior Refit has 45600 Hps. And relaly 700hps in PvP isn't that much of a difference.
If the problem is that tactical ensign slot, you know what the real solution is - fix tactical ensign slots.
Otherwise, it doesn't matter if it happens to be the Excelsior Retrofit that is superior or that it is the Fleet Escort that is superior to another ship. Ships that are superior at their role than other ships of their role is bad for the game. That it happens to be that it's no longer jus the Star Cruiser that outperforms the Assault Cruiser but also the Advanced heavy Cruiser retrofit that outperforms it is not that relevant anymore.
BUt just because you saw an Assault Cruiser drop faster than an Excelsior doesn't mean jack. I've seen Cruisers drop faster than Escorts. Player skill, tactics and luck can just be that different.
i dunno guys... but i feel that the retrofits are actually more of a teir 6.. i mean they are meant for VAs and the original teir 5s are meant for RAs hence its not surprising that they are more powerful then the originals.. I mean if they were on par with the originals people will complain about it.
Further more Excelsior refit maybe powerful now but wait till they come out with the Sovereign refit or the prometheus refit.
there are no plans doesn't mean they will not appear.
and i don't mean they are Teir 6 more like a teir 5 1/2 . Imagine they let you become a VA and you get something that is on par with the older ships you have, i am sure alot of you will complain.
I am not saying they are right in making the excelsior more powerful that the sovereign , Man i love the sovereign! But i believe that if you fit the AC properly and maybe change your fighting style the AC still can beat the Excelsior refit!
Wha??? you starting this bs in another place? The one you started in the cruiser folder that you got shot down in fairly fast is not good enough for you? In the cruiser section folks handing you your backside cause you give no proof of your claim, its just your "feeling" and here you start another one?
Oh Good grief... :mad:
I'll read this one too, and if no data to back your claim then get your seat belt on. :rolleyes:
Cryptic, you said you wouldn't put any game changing things in the C-Store and the T5 Excelsior is already doing just that. It's easily dominating in PvP.
And at the same time, you completely made a mockery of the Sovereign and all the players who Captain her.
Conjecture, no facts, no data, and playing FvF adn FvK, guess what? excelsior ISNT making any diff. actually, its tanking could use some improvement. It is not holding its own vs a AC, and no where near tanking of a SC. I'll run a data cruncher over the next few days to get some data.
Ignore anything Cryptic lies to us about in the C-Store. It is there solely to create a place to sell the best ships they design now. Best we can do about the T5 Excelsior being a bit over-powered is refuse to PvP against them I guess?
I'll be honest, right now I'm regretting being a Lifetime Subscriber. But it angers me more is the Excelsior Refit completely makes my Sovereign a completely useless PoS.
Bad enough the Star Cruiser and the Galaxy-R has more survivability, but the Excelsior-Refit has superior Tactical abilities, better manuverability, and better survival.
So all in all, Sovereign Captains got the middle finger. :mad:
again, no facts, no data, no proof of this claim. AGAIN personal opinion/conjecture. (notice this repeating alot? So far only fact I seen is alot of QQ with no data. provide some DATA to back it up, or pretty much have folks ignore ya or show you the holes in your arguements)
The problem is ... the ship with the better stats is the one sold for RL dollars on the C-Store.
better stats? Chum, from you I expected better. Guildie who is a dern fine cruiser captain, his turn radius he got on the Excel 12.7, i run a 13.4 on my AC. I have better HP's by 6500+, both have 4/4 weapons. only diff is BO skills, and with its hull having less hp, that extra Ltc TAC ISNT doing alot for it, that LT eng is hurting its survival a good mount.
Big deal he could hit me with BO3, and he tried a myriad of other skills. I simply out healed him, did the proper defenses vs his attack patterns and he won 0 out of 3.
Azurian has a valid point here. This ship is extremely powerful. Much stronger than the so called assault cruiser.
And so yes I also bought it. Shame on me I was curious.
But I tell ya what Cryptic. Those were the last points I had to spend. No more money from this player.
What you´re doing with the c-store is insane. Stop this madness.
Go create new ships and they better NOT be in the c-store.
no proof, no data to back up your claim, personal opinion/conjecture...
People -
Instead of whining and crying about this, man up (or woman up if it's fitting) and start thinking about suggestions and solutions to rectify this.
The past two days, one of the biggest threads on this forum featured conversation and dialouge with both Jack and dStahl. Obviously they want to hear what we have to say and want to try and overcome their stigma.
So....
Let's help them do that. Come up with ideas and solutions. Not more gripes.
My idea: Boost up the VA ships. all of them, across the board. I've always felt they were a little weak anyway, so let's get a boost going on, that will bring them into line with the Excelsior refit, or slightly above it. Stop crying for nerfs and start thinking proactively.
gee, a proactive person, now that IS scary, *thumbs up!*
What are you talking about its not dominating pvp, i have being pvping in mine and its not dominating, and give the sovereign will be usless thing a break the soverign is a skin thats all call irt by its name asult cruiser, and what are you goin to do when the T6 come out and its not the sovereign skin have kittens?
gee... like the G(x) finding out it has its flaws to and its not a (IWIN) button. Its just a tool, and some folks do well in it, some dont. its all about its setup.
Jeez. Overreact much? I see you complain alot on the forums and I always hold back to responding directly. I just can't do it this time. I doubt there's an aspect of the game you haven't whined about. Seriously, the amount of QQ over this ship is setting new records. The Excelsior has better burst potential... and less survivability. So I'm not sure how this renders your assault cruiser or mine a POS. I've already seen a number of posts that counter your claims that the Ex is OP in PvP. How many threads are you gonna spam this propaganda in? All the whining already got the LTC Sci station removed (at the very last minute... hasty) because, "oh noes, they can PSW and BO3 me... OP!" It also got all the refits nerfed too. Good lord... when the klinks finally get there refits the servers will probably crash with all the outcries of how OP they are. Bottom line; One round of PvP dailies and getting owned by players better than youor who got lucky doesn't mean anything except maybe you need to play more and QQ less on the forums.
Same old same old from him Victory, he started this on the Crusier thread and the majority demanded proof, we still havent seen any.
No Data = QQ'ing, plain and simple.
I have had enough of the whining naysaying. SHOW SOME DAMN PROOF before making claims of this nature.
There are tons of quotes about Cryptic and their original anti-microtransaction stance. Stop saying conjecture/no data, etc when there's actually quiet a bit.
Sure, they've already made the argument that they changed their minds and that was before Beat. However this is a HUGE issue that has nothing to do with how the game plays and is more about a controversial business practice. One that they were very much against in the beginning but switched to despite the fact that so many people hate it.
Also going against the general idea of what "game changing" is isn't that good either. Cryptic has always been vague and defined things against the general definition. They say MMO, a lot say it's not. They say "game changing" and stuff like that then release what many or most people consider to be that very definition. We say "Toe-May-Toe", some say "Toe-Mah-Toe", Cryptic says the rare but still arguably as legit "T'May-Tah".
Cryptic makes a practice of going against common thinking. This isn't ideal because basically when they say one thing it can often be taken many different ways, and very often is largely assumed to be the most common way.
Cryptic feels like a lawyer (no offense, my grandpa was a DA!). A confusing contract.
P.S. if someone wants to dig up all that old TRIBBLE then do it. I'm not wasting my time.
There are tons of quotes about Cryptic and their original anti-microtransaction stance. Stop saying conjecture/no data, etc when there's actually quiet a bit.
Sure, they've already made the argument that they changed their minds and that was before Beat. However this is a HUGE issue that has nothing to do with how the game plays and is more about a controversial business practice. One that they were very much against in the beginning but switched to despite the fact that so many people hate it.
Also going against the general idea of what "game changing" is isn't that good either. Cryptic has always been vague and defined things against the general definition. They say MMO, a lot say it's not. They say "game changing" and stuff like that then release what many or most people consider to be that very definition. We say "Toe-May-Toe", some say "Toe-Mah-Toe", Cryptic says the rare but still arguably as legit "T'May-Tah".
Cryptic makes a practice of going against common thinking. This isn't ideal because basically when they say one thing it can often be taken many different ways, and very often is largely assumed to be the most common way.
Cryptic feels like a lawyer (no offense, my grandpa was a DA!). A confusing contract.
P.S. if someone wants to dig up all that old TRIBBLE then do it. I'm not wasting my time.
Your last sentence give your argument no credence. the fact you not willing to provide concrete evidence of your statement leads to conjecture/hearsay. I been around since closed beta myself and before them much like many of you. People read what they WANT to read into somethings, that is human nature.
However, a lot of things can be measures, looked at, tested. The claims, QQ, and other things going on?
I have just had my fill of the badmouthing with no evidence and slandering. you dont like the game, get out. that simple, I for one have grown tired of it, and now I will be more then happy to let those that carelessly start TRIBBLE with no evidence displeasure of it. I had to listen to it long enough, time for the other side to point some things out. :mad: You dont like it, fine dont read it. No more of this negative doomsay QQ BS though, myself and many others it seems from seeing the post had had enough of it.
One thing to Discuss something, what is posted here isnt a discussion, its trash talking. no more of that. You bring facts that we can verify, then I be first one supporting you. Cryptic itslef has changed things when presented good data. Quote GOOD unbias data, not the small picture some want them to see. the WHOLE picture.
If cryptic feel slike talking to lawyers, hell can you blame then after all the misquotinga nd out of context they have had to contend with? and we wonder why?!? :rolleyes:
The op is just getting annoying now he has no proof to any of his claims and like you said he has started several of these threads and get shut down every time.
Your last sentence give your argument no credence. the fact you not willing to provide concrete evidence of your statement leads to conjecture/hearsay. I been around since closed beta myself and before them much like many of you. People read what they WANT to read into somethings, that is human nature.
However, a lot of things can be measures, looked at, tested. The claims, QQ, and other things going on?
I have just had my fill of the badmouthing with no evidence and slandering. you dont like the game, get out. that simple, I for one have grown tired of it, and now I will be more then happy to let those that carelessly start TRIBBLE with no evidence displeasure of it. I had to listen to it long enough, time for the other side to point some things out. :mad: You dont like it, fine dont read it. No more of this negative doomsay QQ BS though, myself and many others it seems from seeing the post had had enough of it.
One thing to Discuss something, what is posted here isnt a discussion, its trash talking. no more of that. You bring facts that we can verify, then I be first one supporting you. Cryptic itslef has changed things when presented good data. Quote GOOD unbias data, not the small picture some want them to see. the WHOLE picture.
If cryptic feel slike talking to lawyers, hell can you blame then after all the misquotinga nd out of context they have had to contend with? and we wonder why?!? :rolleyes:
Your last sentence give your argument no credence. the fact you not willing to provide concrete evidence of your statement leads to conjecture/hearsay. I been around since closed beta myself and before them much like many of you. People read what they WANT to read into somethings, that is human nature.
However, a lot of things can be measures, looked at, tested. The claims, QQ, and other things going on?
I have just had my fill of the badmouthing with no evidence and slandering. you dont like the game, get out. that simple, I for one have grown tired of it, and now I will be more then happy to let those that carelessly start TRIBBLE with no evidence displeasure of it. I had to listen to it long enough, time for the other side to point some things out. :mad: You dont like it, fine dont read it. No more of this negative doomsay QQ BS though, myself and many others it seems from seeing the post had had enough of it.
One thing to Discuss something, what is posted here isnt a discussion, its trash talking. no more of that. You bring facts that we can verify, then I be first one supporting you. Cryptic itslef has changed things when presented good data. Quote GOOD unbias data, not the small picture some want them to see. the WHOLE picture.
If cryptic feel slike talking to lawyers, hell can you blame then after all the misquotinga nd out of context they have had to contend with? and we wonder why?!? :rolleyes:
First off, as paying customers we have every right to post our opinions on the forums. And if you are so tired of hearing people complain, why are you still in this thread, if you don't like it, leave. I'm sick and tired off that every time someone has a problem or someone has an issue, it automatically gets filled with people like you screaming "Leave!" I have no problem with people posting their issues and anger over this game. They put money into this product and are allowed to speak of it as they feel, as long as it doesn't violate the forum rules.
And for someone, who keeps spouting about unbiased proof and peoples opinions, you sure do think yours is fact. The difference between discussion and trash talking is solely based on who is defining it, it is a personal opinion on your part.
As for evidence, though I am quite sure they did mention they would only put cosmetic items in game originally they did say this :
Bill and I have both posted over on the Champions boards to respond to questions raised by microtransactions. I'll just reiterate what's already been copied and pasted from Bill's State of the Game address on Champions:
The vast majority are aesthetic items, such as costume pieces, action figures, emblems, etc.
A very few are account-level management tools, such as being able to rename a character
Micro-transactions should never limit your ability to enjoy the game or reach the level cap
Any micro-transaction that has a game effect can also be earned in the game through play
Which is why I have mostly been upset about the C-Store.
Same old same old from him Victory, he started this on the Crusier thread and the majority demanded proof, we still havent seen any.
No Data = QQ'ing, plain and simple.
I have had enough of the whining naysaying. SHOW SOME DAMN PROOF before making claims of this nature.
He's already getting data. There's posts of people winning Fleet Actions in this thing. And doing great in PVP. And so on and so forth.
Two of the most vocal pro-excelsior T5 posters, after having drawn out discussions, have both admitted that one of the reasons they state this ship is not OP it's just "different" is because they bought it. Most likely they don't want it nerfed or whatever. But that won't happen. It's a c-store ship. No nerfs once money is paid.
Thing is ... this ship is better at being an assault cruiser than an assault cruiser. And the data in-game right now shows this.
Telling AC captains that they can tank a little better ... is illogical. Neither ship is designed to tank. They're both the offense end of the cruiser pool. And the one you pay money for is superior.
The play in-game reflects this. And Azurian has a point. The assault cruiser is now marginalized by something people can pay real life money for.
better stats? Chum, from you I expected better. Guildie who is a dern fine cruiser captain, his turn radius he got on the Excel 12.7, i run a 13.4 on my AC. I have better HP's by 6500+, both have 4/4 weapons. only diff is BO skills, and with its hull having less hp, that extra Ltc TAC ISNT doing alot for it, that LT eng is hurting its survival a good mount.
Big deal he could hit me with BO3, and he tried a myriad of other skills. I simply out healed him, did the proper defenses vs his attack patterns and he won 0 out of 3.
Both of those are because of your skill point allocation. The Excelsior has the exact same BASE HULL as any other T5 cruiser. So if you have more hull, it's because your fleetmate didn't put points into an admiral level skill to boost its hull.
And the turn radius again ... is because of skill points or equipment layout.
The base stats are better on the excelsior. It turns better. And has the exact same hull. And has better DPS potential.
I'm a little disconcerted that you'd bring up hull, since it's already been widely shown that the T5 Excelsior has 39k base hull like every other cruiser.
Has any of you that are hear complaining about this ship bought it and flown it If you have not then you have no right saying that it is over powered because you haven't tested it so how can you comment on it?
You all are baseing this on hearsay not on fact I have bought it and flown it and can tell yea it not over powerd. but because you have a problem with the c store you have a problem with the ship.
Has any of you that are hear complaining about this ship bought it and flown it If you have not then you have no right saying that it is over powered because you haven't tested it so how can you comment on it?
You all are baseing this on hearsay not on fact I have bought it and flown it and can tell yea it not over powerd. but because you have a problem with the c store you have a problem with the ship.
I also find the people against it are against the c store and so anything coming out of it needs to be nerfed. it works both ways. I have flown against kdf and fed and lose as much as win as i did in my souv, and have flown against it and the same result if you compare the stats on paper they isn't much difference in plus and minus columns the excel is set up different but its a different ship
I also find the people against it are against the c store and so anything coming out of it needs to be nerfed. it works both ways. I have flown against kdf and fed and lose as much as win as i did in my souv, and have flown against it and the same result if you compare the stats on paper they isn't much difference in plus and minus columns the excel is set up different but its a different ship
I'm not against the C-Store but do think the Excelsior is overpowered
I think what the problem is is that you have a ship that is about 40 years old and then you have a ship that is at least 120 years old but has more crew, a better turn rate, a different Boff setup, a higher inertia, and a special ability.
I think if they just reduced the crew and turn rate, it wouldn't be a problem.
However I will admit, I'm still not exactly sure what inertia means.
I'm not against the C-Store but do think the Excelsior is overpowered
I think what the problem is is that you have a ship that is about 40 years old and then you have a ship that is at least 120 years old but has more crew, a better turn rate, a different Boff setup, a higher inertia, and a special ability.
I think if they just reduced the crew and turn rate, it wouldn't be a problem.
However I will admit, I'm still not exactly sure what inertia means.
first off the special ability ???? ohh transwarp ok has nada to do with combat.
120 years old the hull design( not ship) yes with upgraded parts .
yes a differant boff set up not better just differant.
turn rate yes lets call that the ability
Inertia - newtons first law Proportiona to mass. It is measure of the resistance to changes in velocity.
He's already getting data. There's posts of people winning Fleet Actions in this thing. And doing great in PVP. And so on and so forth.
Two of the most vocal pro-excelsior T5 posters, after having drawn out discussions, have both admitted that one of the reasons they state this ship is not OP it's just "different" is because they bought it. Most likely they don't want it nerfed or whatever. But that won't happen. It's a c-store ship. No nerfs once money is paid.
First he isn't getting data before posting. He posted after a single PvP match. I mean the thing was barely out before he started several threads shouting that the Ex is OP. An then another guy agreed and says its OP because he got the second highest DPS in a single match with the Ex. That does not equal "doing great in PvP. I can do great in my Gal-R and AC as can so many others. Winning fleet actions, pft, I've done that countless times in my AC, largely because I never died and as a tac had some decent offensive powers. He also said something about seeing a BOP get one-shot'd by an Ex... I one shot'd a player BOP last week with BO2. I can win in Kerrat too even with 5 defiant refits in there with me. All this to say so what... other can and have been doing it in other crafts.
Secondly if you are referencing me in your post, let it be known I posted before I bought it and because this guy was spamming OP TRIBBLE all over the forums after a single match. I'm not biased... as I said before I bought the Ex because she is a beautiful ship. His assessments have been biased at best. I posted because I thought what he was doing was wrong and unfair to the Ex captains, the game, and Cryptic. This guy has a record of crying for nerfs and whining in general, and cries for nerfs have a proven track record here. I have been getting very frustrated with all the cries for nerfs in this game.
Also, I was honest and said I bought one... on Friday. You say "admitted they bought it" like it's a bad thing. I also said I always planned on flying this ship too, long before the layout was released. But I never said or eluded that part of my reasoning it isn't OP is because I bought it. I think all my posts stand for themselves that I have been fair and balanced on this entire issue. The fact that it is C-Store only item sucks. But that's just how it is right now. I try to look at it like it's money helping this game through its development at this early stage.
I'm not against the C-Store but do think the Excelsior is overpowered
I think what the problem is is that you have a ship that is about 40 years old and then you have a ship that is at least 120 years old but has more crew, a better turn rate, a different Boff setup, a higher inertia, and a special ability.
I think if they just reduced the crew and turn rate, it wouldn't be a problem.
However I will admit, I'm still not exactly sure what inertia means.
FYI the AC has more crew unless i looked at the wrong tooltip.
The Gal-R and Gal-X both have a special combat ability, the Ex has an out of combat ability.
Turn rate is 7vs8 ... the Ex is a smaller ship.
The BO setup traded the Eng LTC for a Tac LTC... a fair trade.
And don't forget how technology advancement slows down so there wouldn't be a huge issue with having 120 yr old refit ship, it would be pretty smart actually. It's like restoring an old car, like a 1970 Chevelle (yeah, baby!) and putting in a new LS1 fuel injected engine and new suspension... it all fits and the car performs much better and is essentially better than new.
So I guess I'm just missing the crux of the matter... other than it being a C-Store exclusive which does suck.
I've got most of the high end cruisers Galaxy retro Star Cruiser,the much maligned Sov, and the new one...but I think the reactions are a bit overblown.
The Sov is still a good ship but if it is to be the main battle cruiser for Feds it would have been better to switch certain specs i.e. let the Sov have the ltc tac and the new retro ship have the extra ensign.
I personally am a Star cruiser man myself preferring the extra sci station to anything eng or tactical related. But I do think something should be done about making piloting all high end cruisers easier as opposed to respecing everytime they release a new ship if you'd rather switch.
I personally think the weakest is the Galaxy retro but I digress.
Comments
I haven't had a lot of play time lately, but yeah I PvP quite a bit. I leveled my main toon almost completely with PvP.
How many times have you gotten an escort into low single digit health just to have him healed back up. There have been quite a few times that hps have saved me too. I've been down to 2% just to have someone throw me heals or for mine to come off cool down. So to me, a pvper, 700 hps can make all the difference. If you can't understand why I see it this way then respectfully we will have to agree to disagree. Regardless you are upset, as you have said, and your assertions are biased because of it. You are trying to get something nerfed soley because you feel your ship has been deminished. Your right, the SC tanks better than the AC... I mostly fly the AC because I like how it looks better than the SC. I recommend that you fly whatever vessel you like the best and be happy with your choice.
The one comment I read used the word "months."
And since I know other stuff will crop up in the next few months, I'd say longer than that.
Which means the unbalancing extra powerfulness of C-Store ships like the Excelsior ... added to the forthcoming Nebula, Ent-J and TOS Ent Refit ... will likely create more havoc with this problem (especially since they're ALLLLLLLL cruisers! hahahahahahahahah).
It's truly becoming a comedy of errors here.
With the TOS Enterprise refit? Why? Last I checked, the TMP Consitution was the refit of the TOS Enterprise. :rolleyes:
And are people sure the Enterprise-J is playable and not being just part of a time travel mission? Because it makes no sense with it being playable.
If so then this is not an issue with the Excelsior versus Sovereign, but Engineering abilities versus Tactical Abilities.
Compare the ships side by side, they have the same weapons loadouts, same number of bridge officer abilities, the Excelsior turns a bit better but has less hull and crew. On paper, pretty balanced.
But for for whatever reason, Cryotic seems to have perhaps overvalued the strength of Tactical Officer abilities as you see less crew and/or less maneuverability with the Tier 5 ships with additional Tactical Officer slots. I think with all of the adjustments to how Engineering and Science officer abilities operate, the Tactical abilities need a similar re-evaluation.
If the Tactical Ensign abilities were to be brought in line with the Science and Engineering abilities, wouldn't that be a means to resolve your complaints with the Excelsior?
Otherwise, it doesn't matter if it happens to be the Excelsior Retrofit that is superior or that it is the Fleet Escort that is superior to another ship. Ships that are superior at their role than other ships of their role is bad for the game. That it happens to be that it's no longer jus the Star Cruiser that outperforms the Assault Cruiser but also the Advanced heavy Cruiser retrofit that outperforms it is not that relevant anymore.
BUt just because you saw an Assault Cruiser drop faster than an Excelsior doesn't mean jack. I've seen Cruisers drop faster than Escorts. Player skill, tactics and luck can just be that different.
Further more Excelsior refit maybe powerful now but wait till they come out with the Sovereign refit or the prometheus refit.
They're not. The Devs haven't even figured out where or how T6 will fit into the game yet. The refits and retrofits are all T5.
There are no plans for either of those to be refit.
and i don't mean they are Teir 6 more like a teir 5 1/2 . Imagine they let you become a VA and you get something that is on par with the older ships you have, i am sure alot of you will complain.
I am not saying they are right in making the excelsior more powerful that the sovereign , Man i love the sovereign! But i believe that if you fit the AC properly and maybe change your fighting style the AC still can beat the Excelsior refit!
Oh Good grief... :mad:
I'll read this one too, and if no data to back your claim then get your seat belt on. :rolleyes:
Big deal he could hit me with BO3, and he tried a myriad of other skills. I simply out healed him, did the proper defenses vs his attack patterns and he won 0 out of 3. *nods* most pvp, pretty much boild down to folks skill. no proof, no data to back up your claim, personal opinion/conjecture... gee, a proactive person, now that IS scary, *thumbs up!* gee... like the G(x) finding out it has its flaws to and its not a (IWIN) button. Its just a tool, and some folks do well in it, some dont. its all about its setup. Same old same old from him Victory, he started this on the Crusier thread and the majority demanded proof, we still havent seen any.
No Data = QQ'ing, plain and simple.
I have had enough of the whining naysaying. SHOW SOME DAMN PROOF before making claims of this nature.
Sure, they've already made the argument that they changed their minds and that was before Beat. However this is a HUGE issue that has nothing to do with how the game plays and is more about a controversial business practice. One that they were very much against in the beginning but switched to despite the fact that so many people hate it.
Also going against the general idea of what "game changing" is isn't that good either. Cryptic has always been vague and defined things against the general definition. They say MMO, a lot say it's not. They say "game changing" and stuff like that then release what many or most people consider to be that very definition. We say "Toe-May-Toe", some say "Toe-Mah-Toe", Cryptic says the rare but still arguably as legit "T'May-Tah".
Cryptic makes a practice of going against common thinking. This isn't ideal because basically when they say one thing it can often be taken many different ways, and very often is largely assumed to be the most common way.
Cryptic feels like a lawyer (no offense, my grandpa was a DA!). A confusing contract.
P.S. if someone wants to dig up all that old TRIBBLE then do it. I'm not wasting my time.
Your last sentence give your argument no credence. the fact you not willing to provide concrete evidence of your statement leads to conjecture/hearsay. I been around since closed beta myself and before them much like many of you. People read what they WANT to read into somethings, that is human nature.
However, a lot of things can be measures, looked at, tested. The claims, QQ, and other things going on?
I have just had my fill of the badmouthing with no evidence and slandering. you dont like the game, get out. that simple, I for one have grown tired of it, and now I will be more then happy to let those that carelessly start TRIBBLE with no evidence displeasure of it. I had to listen to it long enough, time for the other side to point some things out. :mad: You dont like it, fine dont read it. No more of this negative doomsay QQ BS though, myself and many others it seems from seeing the post had had enough of it.
One thing to Discuss something, what is posted here isnt a discussion, its trash talking. no more of that. You bring facts that we can verify, then I be first one supporting you. Cryptic itslef has changed things when presented good data. Quote GOOD unbias data, not the small picture some want them to see. the WHOLE picture.
If cryptic feel slike talking to lawyers, hell can you blame then after all the misquotinga nd out of context they have had to contend with? and we wonder why?!? :rolleyes:
Well said!!!
First off, as paying customers we have every right to post our opinions on the forums. And if you are so tired of hearing people complain, why are you still in this thread, if you don't like it, leave. I'm sick and tired off that every time someone has a problem or someone has an issue, it automatically gets filled with people like you screaming "Leave!" I have no problem with people posting their issues and anger over this game. They put money into this product and are allowed to speak of it as they feel, as long as it doesn't violate the forum rules.
And for someone, who keeps spouting about unbiased proof and peoples opinions, you sure do think yours is fact. The difference between discussion and trash talking is solely based on who is defining it, it is a personal opinion on your part.
As for evidence, though I am quite sure they did mention they would only put cosmetic items in game originally they did say this :
http://forums.startrekonline.com/showthread.php?t=23174
Which is why I have mostly been upset about the C-Store.
He's already getting data. There's posts of people winning Fleet Actions in this thing. And doing great in PVP. And so on and so forth.
Two of the most vocal pro-excelsior T5 posters, after having drawn out discussions, have both admitted that one of the reasons they state this ship is not OP it's just "different" is because they bought it. Most likely they don't want it nerfed or whatever. But that won't happen. It's a c-store ship. No nerfs once money is paid.
Thing is ... this ship is better at being an assault cruiser than an assault cruiser. And the data in-game right now shows this.
Telling AC captains that they can tank a little better ... is illogical. Neither ship is designed to tank. They're both the offense end of the cruiser pool. And the one you pay money for is superior.
The play in-game reflects this. And Azurian has a point. The assault cruiser is now marginalized by something people can pay real life money for.
Both of those are because of your skill point allocation. The Excelsior has the exact same BASE HULL as any other T5 cruiser. So if you have more hull, it's because your fleetmate didn't put points into an admiral level skill to boost its hull.
And the turn radius again ... is because of skill points or equipment layout.
The base stats are better on the excelsior. It turns better. And has the exact same hull. And has better DPS potential.
I'm a little disconcerted that you'd bring up hull, since it's already been widely shown that the T5 Excelsior has 39k base hull like every other cruiser.
You all are baseing this on hearsay not on fact I have bought it and flown it and can tell yea it not over powerd. but because you have a problem with the c store you have a problem with the ship.
I'm guessing you have bought it, yes?
So you took the base stats of the game and then compared it to the AC?
No offense, but I suspected that because it seems that most of the people who don't find it overpowered are those who bought it, so, somewhat biased.
I'm not against the C-Store but do think the Excelsior is overpowered
I think what the problem is is that you have a ship that is about 40 years old and then you have a ship that is at least 120 years old but has more crew, a better turn rate, a different Boff setup, a higher inertia, and a special ability.
I think if they just reduced the crew and turn rate, it wouldn't be a problem.
However I will admit, I'm still not exactly sure what inertia means.
first off the special ability ???? ohh transwarp ok has nada to do with combat.
120 years old the hull design( not ship) yes with upgraded parts .
yes a differant boff set up not better just differant.
turn rate yes lets call that the ability
Inertia - newtons first law Proportiona to mass. It is measure of the resistance to changes in velocity.
First he isn't getting data before posting. He posted after a single PvP match. I mean the thing was barely out before he started several threads shouting that the Ex is OP. An then another guy agreed and says its OP because he got the second highest DPS in a single match with the Ex. That does not equal "doing great in PvP. I can do great in my Gal-R and AC as can so many others. Winning fleet actions, pft, I've done that countless times in my AC, largely because I never died and as a tac had some decent offensive powers. He also said something about seeing a BOP get one-shot'd by an Ex... I one shot'd a player BOP last week with BO2. I can win in Kerrat too even with 5 defiant refits in there with me. All this to say so what... other can and have been doing it in other crafts.
Secondly if you are referencing me in your post, let it be known I posted before I bought it and because this guy was spamming OP TRIBBLE all over the forums after a single match. I'm not biased... as I said before I bought the Ex because she is a beautiful ship. His assessments have been biased at best. I posted because I thought what he was doing was wrong and unfair to the Ex captains, the game, and Cryptic. This guy has a record of crying for nerfs and whining in general, and cries for nerfs have a proven track record here. I have been getting very frustrated with all the cries for nerfs in this game.
Also, I was honest and said I bought one... on Friday. You say "admitted they bought it" like it's a bad thing. I also said I always planned on flying this ship too, long before the layout was released. But I never said or eluded that part of my reasoning it isn't OP is because I bought it. I think all my posts stand for themselves that I have been fair and balanced on this entire issue. The fact that it is C-Store only item sucks. But that's just how it is right now. I try to look at it like it's money helping this game through its development at this early stage.
FYI the AC has more crew unless i looked at the wrong tooltip.
The Gal-R and Gal-X both have a special combat ability, the Ex has an out of combat ability.
Turn rate is 7vs8 ... the Ex is a smaller ship.
The BO setup traded the Eng LTC for a Tac LTC... a fair trade.
And don't forget how technology advancement slows down so there wouldn't be a huge issue with having 120 yr old refit ship, it would be pretty smart actually. It's like restoring an old car, like a 1970 Chevelle (yeah, baby!) and putting in a new LS1 fuel injected engine and new suspension... it all fits and the car performs much better and is essentially better than new.
So I guess I'm just missing the crux of the matter... other than it being a C-Store exclusive which does suck.
The Sov is still a good ship but if it is to be the main battle cruiser for Feds it would have been better to switch certain specs i.e. let the Sov have the ltc tac and the new retro ship have the extra ensign.
I personally am a Star cruiser man myself preferring the extra sci station to anything eng or tactical related. But I do think something should be done about making piloting all high end cruisers easier as opposed to respecing everytime they release a new ship if you'd rather switch.
I personally think the weakest is the Galaxy retro but I digress.