This thread is about a new kind of tactical ship besides escorts. There are big fat science ships, there are big fat engineering ships. I just propose to add a big fat tactical ship.
There are no light agile ENG ships.
There are no fat Science Ships, there are Fat Carriers (they have similarities, they are not the same).
That could work too, but I'd worry about balance. A transform mode that people can switch back and forth from minimizes the balancing effects of any trade-offs."
There's always a cool down effect to balance the OP effects. Like on the D'kora it's something like a minute or two before you can switch from the battle mode to the defense mode. And a cool down on the swarm missile in battle and the defensive's EMP burst.
Not claimed, but proven. Haikenshin Dreadnought build being the best example of a tactical Cruiser idea that works very well but doesnt overlap into the role of the Escort.
The Heavy Cruiser, Fleet Heavy Assualt Cruiser as well can be built to be a tactical heavy format without encroaching into the are of teh escort.
I am not against it.
Even though it has no LCT tactical BOff slot?
So this is, for you, essentially about feeling threatened that no one would want to command the hyperactive space planes anymore just because there would be an on-par alternative that is a true battleship?
I hardly fly escorts so I do not feel threatened by a battleship. If I did I would not support bluegeeks idea for one.
I merely wish to keep the roles of the vessels inline so they all have merit in combat.
The battleship would not, and is not intended to, take away anything from escort captains. It'd just open another way of playing tactical ships.
As you claim, then I look forward to the threads on more defended Escorts. Say something like;
Oh, you can build a "hard hitting" cruiser, sure. But it will still be a cruiser, and not a battleship. Which means damage per volley and damage per second hit lower maximum values.
How so? battleships are not meant to be a Burst Attacking vessel. Heavy damage over time would be thier role in STO as a tactical heavy Cruiser.
So you maintain your claim that some shield and hull hitpoints constitute a cruiser's "tankiness"?
The escort has lower shields and hull so they are the glass-cannon by design. A handicap that fits thier ability to do high burst damage.
You idea of a Cruiser similiarly built takes away that glass cannon handicap, even if the vessel is slower in concept.
Other than that it has almost no engineering boff slots. Uhm, seriously. Please explain how that ship would be as tanky as a cruiser?
The same way the the Escort Retrofit (the BOff set-up you copy) is made tanky in STO.
First run ApO1 (x2) for the defense buffs, speed buffs, turn buffs, and the movement protection. Coupled with the right skilling and this will bring the turnrate well above 7 and make your speeds very good for combat. Essientally the "poor mans escort" in fucntion.
Why play an escort if your idea does it just as good?
Second run EPTS1 and A2EB1 in your LT Engineering slot. Place 3 CONN DOffs (purple is best) on your build so that you get the best CD reduction on all abilities thus increasing the up time on your ApO1's as well as your EPTS1's
Use your Ensign Uslot as a EPTS1 as well.
Lastly use the LT Science BOff for TSS1 and HE2. You can use the TSS1 with TT1 for quick in combat shield healing and the HE2 for hull heal and damage resist. Though you would have to offset thier use against the usage of A2EB1 so as to not use them under a zero Aux condition.
Throw in two Warp Core Engineers (purple) and you run the chance of having a +25 point boost to all energy levels.
Throw in Maco shields with the 3 Borg set for maximum healing help.
Take TT1, ApD1, ApO1, CRF3 on the Commander and TT1, THY2, APO1 on the LTC and you have fast recovering, only slightly slower than an escort, Attack Cruiser that can burst with the best of them.
Or go beam and run TT1, ApD1, BFAW3, Apo3 and TT1, BFAW2, ApO1 and have a fast Cruiser that can take more punishment that and escort and crank out the same damage.
Of course these are my own sorry designs and many Escort Retrofit players will make a much better build thats just as tanky as the escort BOff layout you copied for your Battleship.
Escorts lose validity as a choice becuase your battleship can function just as well and has the higher shields and hull to boot.
Frankly, go for it as you will not see the imbalance that a Cruiser (even a Battleship) is not meant to have the quick damage output of an escort for balance reasons.
This is why many siad your own a persoanl quest to have Escort damage on a Cruiser frame.
I imagine any of the high-end PvPers, like Hilbert, MT, Mavario,etc will make a build from it that more than proves the point.
I look forward to seeing what the KDF can do with it as well.
There are no fat Science Ships, there are Fat Carriers (they have similarities, they are not the same).
Valid points.
Carriers are a new class of ship, compared to the Escorts, SV's, and Cruisers. The Armitage is a hybrid. So it seems Cryptic is open to breaking out of the classic ship classes to some degree.
My concept of a "Battleship" or "Dreadnought" is a Tactically-focused capital ship with a role in engaging other capital ships while being able to survive heavy damage. It's not meant to be able to blow everything out of space; it would have a strong disadvantage against more manuverable ships. It would also be very weak in Science, generally less adaptable as it is a specialized ship design, and would need to rely on other ships in that area.
It could also be the platform for a concept I'm calling "Capital Weapons" that would reflect existing weapons such as the Spinal Phaser Lance and the Energy Javelin, but possibly allow for some degree of modularity. Basically very powerful weapons intended to be mounted on very large and powerful ships and intended to be used against stationary targets and other capital ships.
As far as other kinds of ships go, there could be room for other kinds of support vessels.
I'm not sure what role a light, agile Engineering-focused ship would have, though. A small, "squishy" Engineering ship doesn't seem to have a niche in the game that I see.
I would like to see small, agile, stealthy Scoutships with powerful Electronic Warfare capabilities. They wouldn't be damage-dealers; they would support other ships -- especially escorts -- using sensors and countermeasures that help allied ships. Basically something like a Science/Tactical hybrid with a special kind of Sensor Analysis that applies to a whole taskforce (team). (But that's a different topic...)
My views may not represent those of Cryptic Studios or Perfect World Entertainment. You can file a "forums and website" support ticket here Link: How to PM - Twitter @STOMod_Bluegeek
There is the option to play as that with a Bird of Prey. No such option exists for a big tactical ship.
And such designs on a BoP end up not being very tactical. They lack the Burst damage needed to function as an escort. They even make poor Healers as thier low hull and shields crumble quickly under pressure, faster than they can heal themselves.
DPS will be dictated more by the weapons you're able to slot and the discipline of your Captain than whether you can slot CRF 2 vs. CRF3.
Comparisons have to be under the situation of all else being equal or they don't mean much.
The Sci Ody and Sci Bortas do better DPS than both of those ships respectively.
And yet science vessels and captains are typically derided.
APO 3 is primarily a mitigation and maneuverability tool, the Damage boost is secondary.
1) How does additional mitigation not fit the existing concept of a cruiser?
2) Secondary or not, a damage boost is a damage boost.
CRF 3 on a ship with a base 7 turn rate is largely a waste outside of STFs where enemies don't move much (assuming dual or dual heavy cannons)
I mostly agree with you on that... it might be of some use on a Gal-X though to work with the cloak and alphas. Has anyone experimented with single canon in the Gal-X though?
There are no light agile ENG ships.
There are no fat Science Ships, there are Fat Carriers (they have similarities, they are not the same).
1) Those are red herrings. Their existence of lack thereof is independent of this discussion.
2) Independent or not, your comment assumes those combinations should not exist either. Why shouldn't they? You can stick an engineer in a shuttle and might want to, so why couldn't there be small agile engineering vessels?
Or larger science ships? (although, frankly, whether you admit it or not carriers are 'larger science ships.' They certainly are not engineering or tactical. If you can say 'they don't count (and are therefor ok) because they are carriers and not science ships, then the counter is that tactical capital ships wouldn't count because they are not escorts.
And such designs on a BoP end up not being very tactical. They lack the Burst damage needed to function as an escort. They even make poor Healers as thier low hull and shields crumble quickly under pressure, faster than they can heal themselves.
So if you rig a BoP as a science vessel (or engineering vessel) it will be noticeably less tactical than if you man it tactically?
Isn't that obvious? And more importantly, completely beside the point that it can be an eng or sci vessel?
I agree that it would not make a particularly good engineering vessel, but it does ok as fitted for science.
And sometimes it isn't a matter of 'best in the role' anyway.... sometimes it is a matter or 'more interesting.'
How so? battleships are not meant to be a Burst Attacking vessel. Heavy damage over time would be thier role in STO as a tactical heavy Cruiser.
The escort has lower shields and hull so they are the glass-cannon by design. A handicap that fits thier ability to do high burst damage.
You idea of a Cruiser similiarly built takes away that glass cannon handicap, even if the vessel is slower in concept.
I have to agree with this. A Battleship's role is sustained heavy fire (particularly against large or stationary targets) while being able to survive the same.
I think of an escort's use of burst damage (realized through Tactical abilities) as being a result of high manuverability and the ability to target attacks to do optimal damage. Their defenses, such as they are, are based on that same manuverability.
The Battleship, in contrast, would follow the sledgehammer approach. The damage they would do would result from powerful weaponry, not finesse. They should have difficulty engaging targets that are smaller and more manuverable than they are (where escorts can successfully attack anything). Their only real defense is a well-armored hull and limited Engineering capacity; they wouldn't have the manuverability to avoid damage or present undamaged shield facings. As a specialized combat vessel, crew would be limited to essential crew and this affects damage control. They're bigger than escorts, so they would have more crew and should be better at damage control. But not nearly as versatile and "tanky" as a heavy cruiser class.
Frankly, IMO the only thing that could make flying a Battleship interesting, or even bearable, would be a longer effective range than normal starships or some kind of "siege" weapons. Otherwise, the game has existing "capital" cruisers that could fill this role better.
My views may not represent those of Cryptic Studios or Perfect World Entertainment. You can file a "forums and website" support ticket here Link: How to PM - Twitter @STOMod_Bluegeek
So if you rig a BoP as a science vessel (or engineering vessel) it will be noticeably less tactical than if you man it tactically?
Not the point I was commenting towards. Soph stated the BoP can make a light fast Engineer vessel. I stated that it does not do it well due to its low hull, low shields amke it too squishy to be effective.
The less tactical outcome is a byproduct of having it more engineering based. So it ends up being poor performing in more than one area. Not much damage suport in combat and poor healing as it dies to quickly (i've only ever seen one healBoP in PvP that worked. It did so by not being a damage dealing ship) in combat.
A Science/Engineering hybrid may work though.
I agree that it would not make a particularly good engineering vessel, but it does ok as fitted for science.
We were talking about a small fast engineering ship there.
As was I. Once again a BoP tailored to Engineering focus will perform poorly as a healer do to its squishiness and bring no tactical support to combat.
The BoP is versatile but it does not do all things with the same level of effeciency which is why you very rarely ever see a Engineered focused BoP.
That is mathematically impossible. Yes, there are build possible where you can get the most DPS out of an engineering ship. But it will still be vastly inferior to an escort in terms of DPS.
Someone needs to tell Haikenshen, as he does quite well with his build.
An Engineering ship is not suppossed to rival a Tactical ship in direct applied damage.
So do I. The battleship does not threaten any other ship's role, it just adds a new one.
No, it does not provide a new role under your concept. You merely copied the Escort retrofit BOff set-up and slapped it on the remaining stats of a Cruiser.
The battleships from post #1 and from bluegeek's proposal clearly are.
Post number #1 is an Escort BOff layout and bluegeeks is not a burst design.
You are mistaken. The lower shield and hull hitpoints are the tradeoff for the high maneuverability, not for their Boff slots.
You are mistaken. The lower hull and shields is to offset the Tac skills availible to an escort so it is a glass cannon. Big gun- little defense.
The high turn and speed is what an escort needs to bring its primary designed weapons to bear on target, cannons.
Cannons have a small firing arc to offset thier higher damage.
Its all part of the overall design to balance escorts to be glass cannons, leaving its survival up to the ingenuity of the player more than its BOff set-up.
And they would do slightly less effective dps over the length of a battle, because they either have to equip less focus-firing weapons or do not fire that often due to reduced maneuverability. The balance is still there.
No its not as the Battleship you designed would still have Cruiser hull and shields to help mitigate damage it takes in combat.
The Gal-X dreadnought has low turn and speed yet some make it work very much in combat without the need for high end Escort level tactical abilities.
Your idea would be the same with better abilities and no downside for them.
Are you saying that people must be forced to play a style they don't like, so their must not be an equally viable alternative that suports a different style?
You asked how I could make it tanky and remain effective as a Cruiser.
Your question to me;
Other than that it has almost no engineering boff slots. Uhm, seriously. Please explain how that ship would be as tanky as a cruiser?
I have shown you one way to do it.
You could also use A2D to achieve a similair effect and increase the speed and turn of your battleship to near escort levels, thus making the claim that the cannons would not come to bear as often untrue.
And the lower Defense value, and the lower turn rate for bringing dual heavy cannons to bear that often.
It would have a lower Bonus Defense for speed (max 60-70%) but its turn rate would not suffer under a smart build and proper skilling.
Your idea of a Battleship basically loses nothing for being a harder to kill escort than an escort.
Could you please not include that in your posts anymore? It is really annoying.
So ignore it.
Actually... its battle cloak might make it quite ideal in that support role - and with an engineer captain, it could be quite durable, while being able to follow escorts on very fast hit-and-run courses. It would be a specialized role, different from that of a cruiser, but for those tasks, vastly superior to a cruiser.
No, it wouldn't.
It would offer no tactical support and when focused upon it would be quickly over whelmed and destroyed. All it would truelly be in a PvP match is target # 1.
Brainstorming here, so bear with me. What if the "Behemoth" had a series of buffs & debuffs to turn rate, hull and or shields in different modes? In flank speed or pursuit mode it runs like a cruiser or carrier better maneuverability but less weapons or defensive power. Then when the time comes she stands & lets loose with the transformation to standoff or siege mode. Maneuverability drops to that of a brick, but weapons, shields and hull plating go up exponentially.
Still the question of the broadside effect? Something like a universal "switching" console like "Broadside Volley Port/Starboard" that drops all but minimal power to the fore & aft weapons AND the shields on the opposite side but sets off a quick torrent attack like a steady cannon rapid or beam fire-at-will.
Nerf or buff whichever modifier ideas seem wrong, throw in whatever console or Boff arrangements seem to fit. Hell maybe even a single hangar bay that can only launch in pursuit mode so she has some defense in siege mode?
Sound's like the Naussican siege destroyer, only sideways. That might work.
Actually... its battle cloak might make it quite ideal in that support role - and with an engineer captain, it could be quite durable, while being able to follow escorts on very fast hit-and-run courses. It would be a specialized role, different from that of a cruiser, but for those tasks, vastly superior to a cruiser.
I don't know that I'd use the words "vastly superior" in terms of a support role.
BoP's are even squishier than a regular escort. A durable BoP is still not going to take a lot of punishment.
Given that escorts should generally practice hit-and-run tactics, the best plan is to end their attack runs pointed at a friendly support craft rather than having them tag along during the run.
Also, Engineering ships are for mitigating damage, not preventing it. So I think I'd rather see a Science vessel pacing those escorts, to increase their defense against getting hit in the first place. They'd be a lot more effective.
Besides all that, we're off-topic again. If we want to talk about support craft, maybe a separate thread is called for.
My views may not represent those of Cryptic Studios or Perfect World Entertainment. You can file a "forums and website" support ticket here Link: How to PM - Twitter @STOMod_Bluegeek
The battle cloak would serve superbly for not making it possible to focus the BoP healer for long, or at all. A torpedo B'rel with a primary healer function should be really annoying to the other side.
A B'rel would be a bit better but still suffers the same problem, Once focused upon it dies.
Its way to easy to pop a BoP out of cloak with CPB or PSW, detect a claoked vessel or otherwise nullify the claoking advantage. Once thats accomplished the BoP is dead or rendered useless as a healer as it is now more focused on its on survival over healing its team mates.
What I can not understand is why you do not go with Bluegeeks idea.
Rank: VA/LG
Tier: 5
Type: Dreadnought (new type)
Hull: 42,000
Shields: 5000 (-ish)
Weapons: 4 Fore, 2 Aft (can equip dual cannons, quad cannons, and 1 Capital Weapon)
Crew: 750 (no non-essential personnel)
but the developer time for those might be much higher than required for a ship set up as simply as the one in post #1.
You keep referring back to this post, but you have not edited it in any way to suggest that you'd support a compromise for the specific objections that this thread has raised or to propose a different idea.
You asked what people thought about it. The general consensus 29 pages later is that it's not reasonably balanced. Even I agree with that, and I'm not nearly as qualified to judge as some of the others who have put in their opinion.
Commander and Lt. Commander Tactical on a ship like this simply isn't going to happen, if I am able to extrapolate anything from what the Devs have demonstrated about their design philosophy.
Very likely even the setup I proposed wouldn't, but you're proposing a ship that turns better than a Galaxy despite having nearly as much hull strength as the Gal-X, still retains most of the advantages of a cruiser, and has the tactical stations of an escort.
Knock down the turn rate, get rid of that LTC Tactical station in favor of a different BOFF layout, and lose one of either a device slot, an aft weapon slot, or a console slot and we can start calling it reasonable. You could even justify a slight increase in hull with those compromises.
I think you're going to have to do something along those lines to get more people to support it.
My views may not represent those of Cryptic Studios or Perfect World Entertainment. You can file a "forums and website" support ticket here Link: How to PM - Twitter @STOMod_Bluegeek
Becuase he is not looking for debate or compromise
He wants us to look at what his idea is, agree whole heartedly with it and congradulate him on his brilliance without question or debate.
Basically he is merely posting, I want I want I want I want I want and refuses to listen to anyones opinion on the matter unless it supports his idea.
Everytime you corner him verbally he obfiscates the question or out right dismisses the notion that he is acting otherwise to how he is acting.
I have made very explicit, down to the stats, what I am asking for. If that is too much against your preconceptions of what "certain people want", then I suggest you adjust your preconceptions.
I t goes on and on, If you corner him he insults, claims your trolling or otherwise shifts focus and proceeds on his merry way.
Debate, yes. New ideas, yes. Different looks on the problem, yes.
Except you have shot them all down as "not what you want", regardless of how many posters disagree with your concept and offered balanced alternatives.
Hence " not what I want" means you are not open to debate unless it goes back directly to "what you want".
Regarding your claim that I would insult when I was "cornered", I would like to have a link for that.
Here you go. Or do find asking someone "what the F " as non-insulting and an opening to honest debate?
For example, this thread could have (theoretically) brought up how an engineer cruiser can be a battleship, meaning strong on the offensive at the cost of defense within the existing engineer powers. Of course, within the current power system, that is rather not doable. But I could have been wrong about that.
Many showed exactly how a Cruiser can be rigged to run tactical. It wasn't " what you wanted" so you ignored or otherwise dismissed them as wrong becuase it was " not what I want" as you seem to keep saying.
You want to look up what an insult is. "What the f" is none. It is not even offensive, unless you don't like the federation.
Please leave your home and find the nearest Police authority figure and ask them, " What the "F" they are doing?" and let us know how it all turned out for you.
And you haven't actually made any point with your replies to people not agreeing with you. When confronted you claim the #1posts design is the only method that works. Thats not a point. thats an opinion.
sophlogimo, I am only pointing out that you asked for feedback, you got feedback, but I don't see anywhere that you accept any of it.
You have every right to do that, but it makes people feel that there's no point in offering any feedback or ideas at all.
I like the basic idea of introducing a new kind of ship that fills a niche in the game better than any existing ships do. I'm not opposed to a tanky Tactical ship in general. But the devil's in the details. I'm not dead set on anything I've suggested up to this point; I'm just throwing out interesting ideas.
Is the original proposal overpowered or underpowered? I suppose it depends on the build and who's flying it. What is clear, though, is that it departs from existing design principles in a way that seems to tend toward being unbalanced.
I can't say that the Devs will never, ever design a cruiser-type vessel with Cmdr and LTC Tactical slots. But what the Devs have said in the past leads me to strongly believe that they aren't going to. This is the main sticking point that people have an issue with.
So, from my point of view there's nothing left to talk about in regard to the original post. I feel that the tone of this thread has nowhere to go but down. I don't want to argue, so I'm done here. I hope everyone else will realize that it's counter-productive at this stage.
My views may not represent those of Cryptic Studios or Perfect World Entertainment. You can file a "forums and website" support ticket here Link: How to PM - Twitter @STOMod_Bluegeek
1) No they cannot. APB3 is a commander level ability. Check again as to what your tac can train.
2) You cannot train Boffs for someone else regardless. You have to assign them to a ship to train them, at which point they become bound and can be dismissed but cannot be moved back to the trading pool
ok i admit i was wrong on some of the skill levels but you can trade and train i had some one train my jem boff in APO3 as i am an eng not a tac
Comments
Nope.
Apparently other players have the same opinion as I do then.
DPS will be dictated more by the weapons you're able to slot and the discipline of your Captain than whether you can slot CRF 2 vs. CRF3.
The Sci Ody and Sci Bortas do better DPS than both of those ships respectively.
APO 3 is primarily a mitigation and maneuverability tool, the Damage boost is secondary.
CRF 3 on a ship with a base 7 turn rate is largely a waste outside of STFs where enemies don't move much (assuming dual or dual heavy cannons)
There are no light agile ENG ships.
There are no fat Science Ships, there are Fat Carriers (they have similarities, they are not the same).
"
There's always a cool down effect to balance the OP effects. Like on the D'kora it's something like a minute or two before you can switch from the battle mode to the defense mode. And a cool down on the swarm missile in battle and the defensive's EMP burst.
-OJD
R.I.P
Valid points.
Carriers are a new class of ship, compared to the Escorts, SV's, and Cruisers. The Armitage is a hybrid. So it seems Cryptic is open to breaking out of the classic ship classes to some degree.
My concept of a "Battleship" or "Dreadnought" is a Tactically-focused capital ship with a role in engaging other capital ships while being able to survive heavy damage. It's not meant to be able to blow everything out of space; it would have a strong disadvantage against more manuverable ships. It would also be very weak in Science, generally less adaptable as it is a specialized ship design, and would need to rely on other ships in that area.
It could also be the platform for a concept I'm calling "Capital Weapons" that would reflect existing weapons such as the Spinal Phaser Lance and the Energy Javelin, but possibly allow for some degree of modularity. Basically very powerful weapons intended to be mounted on very large and powerful ships and intended to be used against stationary targets and other capital ships.
As far as other kinds of ships go, there could be room for other kinds of support vessels.
I'm not sure what role a light, agile Engineering-focused ship would have, though. A small, "squishy" Engineering ship doesn't seem to have a niche in the game that I see.
I would like to see small, agile, stealthy Scoutships with powerful Electronic Warfare capabilities. They wouldn't be damage-dealers; they would support other ships -- especially escorts -- using sensors and countermeasures that help allied ships. Basically something like a Science/Tactical hybrid with a special kind of Sensor Analysis that applies to a whole taskforce (team). (But that's a different topic...)
Link: How to PM - Twitter @STOMod_Bluegeek
R.I.P
It would be the cleanest option and would make the most sense.
Comparisons have to be under the situation of all else being equal or they don't mean much.
And yet science vessels and captains are typically derided.
1) How does additional mitigation not fit the existing concept of a cruiser?
2) Secondary or not, a damage boost is a damage boost.
I mostly agree with you on that... it might be of some use on a Gal-X though to work with the cloak and alphas. Has anyone experimented with single canon in the Gal-X though?
1) Those are red herrings. Their existence of lack thereof is independent of this discussion.
2) Independent or not, your comment assumes those combinations should not exist either. Why shouldn't they? You can stick an engineer in a shuttle and might want to, so why couldn't there be small agile engineering vessels?
Or larger science ships? (although, frankly, whether you admit it or not carriers are 'larger science ships.' They certainly are not engineering or tactical. If you can say 'they don't count (and are therefor ok) because they are carriers and not science ships, then the counter is that tactical capital ships wouldn't count because they are not escorts.
Link: How to PM - Twitter @STOMod_Bluegeek
R.I.P
R.I.P
No, it wouldn't.
It would offer no tactical support and when focused upon it would be quickly over whelmed and destroyed. All it would truelly be in a PvP match is target # 1.
R.I.P
Sound's like the Naussican siege destroyer, only sideways. That might work.
I don't know that I'd use the words "vastly superior" in terms of a support role.
BoP's are even squishier than a regular escort. A durable BoP is still not going to take a lot of punishment.
Given that escorts should generally practice hit-and-run tactics, the best plan is to end their attack runs pointed at a friendly support craft rather than having them tag along during the run.
Also, Engineering ships are for mitigating damage, not preventing it. So I think I'd rather see a Science vessel pacing those escorts, to increase their defense against getting hit in the first place. They'd be a lot more effective.
Besides all that, we're off-topic again. If we want to talk about support craft, maybe a separate thread is called for.
Link: How to PM - Twitter @STOMod_Bluegeek
R.I.P
You keep referring back to this post, but you have not edited it in any way to suggest that you'd support a compromise for the specific objections that this thread has raised or to propose a different idea.
You asked what people thought about it. The general consensus 29 pages later is that it's not reasonably balanced. Even I agree with that, and I'm not nearly as qualified to judge as some of the others who have put in their opinion.
Commander and Lt. Commander Tactical on a ship like this simply isn't going to happen, if I am able to extrapolate anything from what the Devs have demonstrated about their design philosophy.
Very likely even the setup I proposed wouldn't, but you're proposing a ship that turns better than a Galaxy despite having nearly as much hull strength as the Gal-X, still retains most of the advantages of a cruiser, and has the tactical stations of an escort.
Knock down the turn rate, get rid of that LTC Tactical station in favor of a different BOFF layout, and lose one of either a device slot, an aft weapon slot, or a console slot and we can start calling it reasonable. You could even justify a slight increase in hull with those compromises.
I think you're going to have to do something along those lines to get more people to support it.
Link: How to PM - Twitter @STOMod_Bluegeek
R.I.P
R.I.P
R.I.P
It is not my intent to prolong an argument.
sophlogimo, I am only pointing out that you asked for feedback, you got feedback, but I don't see anywhere that you accept any of it.
You have every right to do that, but it makes people feel that there's no point in offering any feedback or ideas at all.
I like the basic idea of introducing a new kind of ship that fills a niche in the game better than any existing ships do. I'm not opposed to a tanky Tactical ship in general. But the devil's in the details. I'm not dead set on anything I've suggested up to this point; I'm just throwing out interesting ideas.
Is the original proposal overpowered or underpowered? I suppose it depends on the build and who's flying it. What is clear, though, is that it departs from existing design principles in a way that seems to tend toward being unbalanced.
I can't say that the Devs will never, ever design a cruiser-type vessel with Cmdr and LTC Tactical slots. But what the Devs have said in the past leads me to strongly believe that they aren't going to. This is the main sticking point that people have an issue with.
So, from my point of view there's nothing left to talk about in regard to the original post. I feel that the tone of this thread has nowhere to go but down. I don't want to argue, so I'm done here. I hope everyone else will realize that it's counter-productive at this stage.
Link: How to PM - Twitter @STOMod_Bluegeek
ok i admit i was wrong on some of the skill levels but you can trade and train i had some one train my jem boff in APO3 as i am an eng not a tac
Rear Admiral , Engineering Division
U.S.S. Sheffield N.C.C. 92016