As shown in the TV series and movies the bigger the ship the more firepower, How about a built in ability for all cruisers, which really should have the best and largest torpedo tubes on a starship, a ability for torpedo high yield 4 or torpedo spread 4. Not a console but a built in ability. Or even a FAW/EPTW similar to the lotus on the Chimera which when used gives a 10% increase of firepower spread over a 30-45 sec period with a 1 min cool down. Basically giving the cruiser a punch but not over powering it too much. Basically spike damage.
If I wanted to destroy NPCs super quickly I would play a tac. My game play fits best to the cruiser as I like to support dps in a team, offer a fair amount of aggro to aid a tank (but understand when not to steal aggro), I can heal, I can buff, and I can solo (just takes a bit longer ). I look at the situation such as this... I complete my objective, I stay alive, and I help my friends stay alive so mission accomplished in my books.
As shown in the TV series and movies the bigger the ship the more firepower....
Which show was this ? The only "Big Ship" that was shown to be an absolute damage dealing beast was the Galaxy-X in the last episode of TNG. Otherwise when the Federation wanted to "diplomatically" show off what it had in firepower they'd send the Defiant to patrol a system near an unfriendly or rival power.
That said, actual cruiser and even ship power is pretty much impossible to gauge based on the show, since half or more of the "alien ships of the week" seemed to able to incapacitate or otherwise negate the enterprise's combat abilities.
As shown in the TV series and movies the bigger the ship the more firepower, How about a built in ability for all cruisers, which really should have the best and largest torpedo tubes on a starship, a ability for torpedo high yield 4 or torpedo spread 4. Not a console but a built in ability. Or even a FAW/EPTW similar to the lotus on the Chimera which when used gives a 10% increase of firepower spread over a 30-45 sec period with a 1 min cool down. Basically giving the cruiser a punch but not over powering it too much. Basically spike damage.
Um... Um... What?
Torpedo Spread 3 and Torpedo High Yield 3 are devastating. You time them correctly, you can whip out an entire creep wave in one hit, or even leave a Tac Cube reeling... And you want cruisers to have a built in Torpedo Spread 4/Torpedo High Yield 4!?!?!?!?!?! Explain how that's even remotely balanced and not overpowered? Add on to that, you lose NOTHING for having it? And having your second ability, with 50-75% up-time? Maybe if it was 25-33% up-time it wouldn't be OP, but 50-75!?!?!?!
I am trying to decide if this is a troll post, in which case, well played... Or if it's serious, in which case... *facepalm
It is said the best weapon is one that is never fired. I disagree. The best weapon is one you only have to fire... once.
KDF battlecruisers are in a whole other category compared to Federation cruisers. A turn rate buff may not seem that significant, but agility is the difference between engaging with some of your weapons from 8km and engaging with all of them from 1km. If you have two cruisers with equal loadout, skills, and abilities, and one has a turn rate of 10 and the other has a turn rate of 6, the more agile cruiser will do more damage on average. A lot more.
Your first sentence explains the reason for sumation in the last sentence.
A BattleCruiser is not Cruiser and mobility has always been one of the key factors in any combat.
As shown in the TV series and movies the bigger the ship the more firepower, How about a built in ability for all cruisers, which really should have the best and largest torpedo tubes on a starship, a ability for torpedo high yield 4 or torpedo spread 4. Not a console but a built in ability. Or even a FAW/EPTW similar to the lotus on the Chimera which when used gives a 10% increase of firepower spread over a 30-45 sec period with a 1 min cool down. Basically giving the cruiser a punch but not over powering it too much. Basically spike damage.
Size does not equate to firepower. A single flea infected with a microscopic bacteria can kill millions
In a futuristic settong like startrek where high energy sources abound size is not neccassarily an issue iether.
The Defiant for example used that high energy power source to pack as much firepower as the Enterprise in a small heavily armed package
Energy density doesn't have much to do with it. Defiant has a lot of firepower for its size because unlike a cruiser it DOESN'T have: extensive scientific and medical facilities; large-scale replicators; comfortable passenger capacity in the hundreds; significant cargo bays; significant spare parts and self repair capability.
Defiant is basically the power core of a cruiser strapped to a couple guns and engines and wrapped in a layer of armor. It fights well because that's all it can do. The fundamental inequality of the game's design is that it completely ignores anything that isn't fighting. If the game were more sensibly designed with non-combat gameplay which only cruisers and science ships could do really well at, people wouldn't be so annoyed. You take a fighting ship into a war zone; that's just common sense. But you take a science ship on a research mission, and you take a cruiser when you need the capacity to move, make, or modify a mission payload. If a science ship could outperform anything else on a particle-gathering mission to the same degree that escorts outperform everything else on combat missions, then every ship role should have happy captains.
But combat is a lot easier to design and program. So we are forced into the role of making every ship type perform equally well in a combat environment. Which is absurd but necessary.
Size does not equate to firepower. A single flea infected with a microscopic bacteria can kill millions
In a futuristic settong like startrek where high energy sources abound size is not neccassarily an issue iether.
The Defiant for example used that high energy power source to pack as much firepower as the Enterprise in a small heavily armed package
Should i start worrying about the mayan apocalypse, your avatar has a whole new meaning all of a sudden
Should i start worrying about the mayan apocalypse, your avatar has a whole new meaning all of a sudden
I would think its only important if you are a Mayan, as thier end came a long time ago and what was left was absorbed by those that came later.
Besides, the mayans did not have a leap year so is thier calender acurate to the modern roman based calender? I thought the day of apocalypse came and went for them already.
Energy density doesn't have much to do with it. Defiant has a lot of firepower for its size because unlike a cruiser it DOESN'T have: extensive scientific and medical facilities; large-scale replicators; comfortable passenger capacity in the hundreds; significant cargo bays; significant spare parts and self repair capability.
Defiant is basically the power core of a cruiser strapped to a couple guns and engines and wrapped in a layer of armor. It fights well because that's all it can do. The fundamental inequality of the game's design is that it completely ignores anything that isn't fighting. If the game were more sensibly designed with non-combat gameplay which only cruisers and science ships could do really well at, people wouldn't be so annoyed. You take a fighting ship into a war zone; that's just common sense. But you take a science ship on a research mission, and you take a cruiser when you need the capacity to move, make, or modify a mission payload. If a science ship could outperform anything else on a particle-gathering mission to the same degree that escorts outperform everything else on combat missions, then every ship role should have happy captains.
But combat is a lot easier to design and program. So we are forced into the role of making every ship type perform equally well in a combat environment. Which is absurd but necessary.
Hence the size of a vessel doesn't denote more power but its more important for what purpose the vessel was designed for to begin with that point towards how much power they may have at thier disposal.
That the game is faulty in that the players vessel needs to be good at almost all things to perform was outside the point I was trying to make.
That's exactly why I use an Excelsior hull, and she has definite advantages in combat over her Vorcha counterpart.
Hey Whammy,
I assume you mean the standard RA Vor'cha, because outside of the hull (which is fairly minimal overall) the Fleet Vor'cha is quite possibly the best tactical focused cruiser style ship in the game.
The size of a ship doesn't necessarily denote how powerful it is, but there are other advantages. The shear mass of Cruisers, and to a lesser extent science vessels, mean they have the ability to seal off massive sections when there are hull breaches and there's room for backup crew for essential positions. Most escorts, on the other hand, suffer crippling damage and losses much easier due to their compact form.
Unfortunately crew is rather worthless right now, practically a forgotten system, and the hull strength of ships has been adjusted for balance (Over adjusted IMO)
Perhaps, instead of resistance or HP buffs, the defense on Cruisers could be adjusted. I'm not talking higher bonuses, but perhaps their defense could drop to 0 when not moving instead of -15 (I think that's the number anyways). This would represent the extra mass of these vessels, relying on their bulk for defense not speed.
If the spread was kept the same, it wouldn't be game breaking but it would increase the survivability when being held or at lower speeds.
I would think its only important if you are a Mayan, as thier end came a long time ago and what was left was absorbed by those that came later.
Besides, the mayans did not have a leap year so is thier calender acurate to the modern roman based calender? I thought the day of apocalypse came and went for them already.
i ll make sure my eppohh wear flea bands nontheless
The size of a ship doesn't necessarily denote how powerful it is, but there are other advantages. The shear mass of Cruisers, and to a lesser extent science vessels, mean they have the ability to seal off massive sections when there are hull breaches and there's room for backup crew for essential positions. Most escorts, on the other hand, suffer crippling damage and losses much easier due to their compact form.
Have you ever parked an escort next to other ships? Last I did my Armitage was aslmost as massive as an Excelsior, my patrol escort and the Prometheus aren't far behind.... Even the Mobius is actually pretty massive as well. Only the Defiant can be said truly be tiny in comparison. Sadly, not ALL Fed warships can be designed by the Emissary....
I assume you mean the standard RA Vor'cha, because outside of the hull (which is fairly minimal overall) the Fleet Vor'cha is quite possibly the best tactical focused cruiser style ship in the game.
(It's also really fun to fly )
Hows it going? Long to no see
I was talking Tier 5's to Tier 5's , not the "Fleet" versions. From what I can tell with the Fleet versions, the Excel is tankier because of more hull, while the Vor'cha goes more on the offense with a universal Lt. to be used as tactical (giving up survivability with the sacrifice of a science officer). The maneuverability should be roughly equivalent because the while the Vor'cha has a higher base turn rate, the Excel' has a better inertial rating. It could be pretty much a tossup and down to the players at that point.
I think one of the problems, well I see it as a problem. STF's that gain Dilith/Gear rewards only seem to reward those top 3 slots to whomever did the most dmg. I think they need to rework it into subcategories and tally up everything. Would be something like this.
1. Dmg done to enemies +points
2. Dmg received/tanked +points
3. Dmg Healed +points
4. Survival time +points
5. how many deaths incurred -points
Tally up the points he who has the most is 1 respectively
that would let the cruisers have a chance to actually see that leaderboard and not have to give up their favorite ship so they can rank.
I think one of the problems, well I see it as a problem. STF's that gain Dilith/Gear rewards only seem to reward those top 3 slots to whomever did the most dmg. I think they need to rework it into subcategories and tally up everything. Would be something like this.
1. Dmg done to enemies +points
2. Dmg received/tanked +points
3. Dmg Healed +points
4. Survival time +points
5. how many deaths incurred -points
Tally up the points he who has the most is 1 respectively
that would let the cruisers have a chance to actually see that leaderboard and not have to give up their favorite ship so they can rank.
Just an idea, thank you for your time.
I think you have fleet actions and Special Task Force missions mixed up. STFs don't increase reward based on performance. Fleet Actions do. But I will just say it now. I have gotten first place on all of the fleet actions that reward dil and gear with my CRUISER. It's all about knowing what to do and when to do it. And copious usage of torpedo spread and beam fire at will.
It is said the best weapon is one that is never fired. I disagree. The best weapon is one you only have to fire... once.
The size of a ship doesn't necessarily denote how powerful it is, but there are other advantages. The shear mass of Cruisers, and to a lesser extent science vessels, mean they have the ability to seal off massive sections when there are hull breaches and there's room for backup crew for essential positions. Most escorts, on the other hand, suffer crippling damage and losses much easier due to their compact form.
I agree, hull is worthless in STO due to how easy it is to destroy it, reheal it and it offers nothing really unless one is hull tanking (which is less effective than shield tanking, imo)
Unfortunately the Cruiser gains nothing from thier mass as far as hull is concerned.
If I had the ability to "Q" things over, I would say give Cruisers way more hull but make Hull BOff Abilities heal both HoT for lower amounts than they do now and increase the damage resistances for Hull instead. Hopefully such would make a Cruiser a vessel you must chew through in pieces until a point of structual integrity is lost and it dies.
An example:
Federation DreadNought Cruiser has 40,000 hull ingame now as a base. I say increase that by 20,000 to make it 60K before the player skills come into effect. Giving Cruisers a high amount of hull that must be chewed through.
At the same time adjust the Hull heals to heal slowly overtime (as adjusted by crew) but offer better resistances to damage.
I feel such would express the sheer mass of the Cruiser well, but it probally just cuase more problems.
Unfortunately crew is rather worthless right now, practically a forgotten system, and the hull strength of ships has been adjusted for balance (Over adjusted IMO)
True, crew seems to do nothing really of consequence.
make heals percentage based this would produce the following: Aux2SIF
!00% Hull = X
Calculate Y% of X
Heal Y% + aux power formula
Add +15% resist all
(Not a direct quote but as it's my own...)
This would make Aux2SIF equally effective on all ships (With the exception of science due to high aux power) however what it would do is make escort pilots have to think a little more about what they are doing and give more or less hull more meaning in the game, the same would obviously apply to shields meaning ships with less defensive stats would be less defensive.
I agree, hull is worthless in STO due to how easy it is to destroy it, reheal it and it offers nothing really unless one is hull tanking (which is less effective than shield tanking, imo)
The simple solution is to make energy based weapon less effective against hull in the same way like torps are less effective against shields. This would lower the overall damage a little bit but make torps essential.
The simple solution is to make energy based weapon less effective against hull in the same way like torps are less effective against shields. This would lower the overall damage a little bit but make torps essential.
Sounds good to me, but also make crew more useful.
The simple solution is to make energy based weapon less effective against hull in the same way like torps are less effective against shields. This would lower the overall damage a little bit but make torps essential.
Actually I agree. As a game mechanic this would work.
The simple solution is to make energy based weapon less effective against hull in the same way like torps are less effective against shields. This would lower the overall damage a little bit but make torps essential.
Except that it doesn't entirely make sense that energy weapons should have a disadvantage against hull. Hull is physical structure, with no special ability to dissipate energy other than physical properties of the material. I think hull points are an adequate representation of those physical properties, and that if you want to have more resistance to energy than the hull represents you can equip an armor "console".
Further, I've never ever seen any Trek episode where it was stated that phasers or disruptors or any other weapon was less effective against an unshielded target.
Energy weapons are not just for stripping shields, IMO.
What I'd like to see better represented in STO is the inertial damage that torps represent. When a starship gets hit by any torpedo, the ship gets shaken up. Sparks fly. Crew gets damaged. Even full shielding doesn't seem to completely negate the impact of a torpedo. And that's the way it ought to be in STO.
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
What I'd like to see better represented in STO is the inertial damage that torps represent. When a starship gets hit by any torpedo, the ship gets shaken up. Sparks fly. Crew gets damaged. Even full shielding doesn't seem to completely negate the impact of a torpedo. And that's the way it ought to be in STO.
Completely agree with the above. Kinetic damage should have inherent shield penetration or increased bleed-through damage without any automatic damage reduction due to shields. One possibility is to only minimize damage blocked by shields, but not its bleed-through effect.
Actually I think the guys have something here. Crew loss on a Cruiser is stupid. And I mean STUPID. My FPE can go head to head with a Borg Sphere and lose maybe 30 crew over the duration of the fight. My Odyssey will do the same thing... and lose over 1500 crew over the duration of that fight. Granted the fight is longer, but only by about 50%. If my FPE took that long, it would only lose about 40% of it's crew, whereas my Odyssey loses 60%. Granted they are mostly incapacitated, and only about 20% are dead, but still.
And what really irks me is that not only does crew loss affect hull regen rate, but it also affects most if not all team abilities, i.e. Tactical Team, Engineering Team, Science Team. Their effectiveness is greatly reduced by a weakened crew. And I mean greatly.
But here is the kicker. Say my FPE and Oddy went into a hellish battle, and both came out with just 1% crew alive. Basically the end result of a SB24 run. My FPE will restore it's full crew in about 2 minutes. Tops. My Odyssey? 5 minutes. Minimum. If I am lucky. Um... WHAT??? And what really irks me is how hull regen is related to % crew alive, which means that inside and out of combat, escorts will always have better hull regen, simply because their crews get restored so much faster due to smaller size. If anything, cruisers get shafted out of their intended role simply because they can't restore crew fast enough to allow their hull regen to stay high.
If anything, I would propose that crew either 1) Not affect the ship as much, if at all, become a null value, 2) actually be restored % wise, not numbers, or 3) Have ways to restore them faster that aren't costly or hurt your ship.
I am leaning more towards #2. But that's just me.
*Note: Ironically I don't have this problem with my Tor'Kaht. She's got a nice big-TRIBBLE crew of 1500, and for starters, she doesn't lose nearly as many as my Odyssey (above situation she loses maybe 200 tops, and the SB24 hell fight equivalent she only loses maybe 750), and she restores them faster. Gotta love them Klingons and their... what was it, 7 redundant internal organ systems? So this whole argument is kind of a moot point for KDF battlecruisers XD.
It is said the best weapon is one that is never fired. I disagree. The best weapon is one you only have to fire... once.
*Note: Ironically I don't have this problem with my Tor'Kaht. She's got a nice big-TRIBBLE crew of 1500, and for starters, she doesn't lose nearly as many as my Odyssey (above situation she loses maybe 200 tops, and the SB24 hell fight equivalent she only loses maybe 750), and she restores them faster. Gotta love them Klingons and their... what was it, 7 redundant internal organ systems? So this whole argument is kind of a moot point for KDF battlecruisers XD.
Further, I've never ever seen any Trek episode where it was stated that phasers or disruptors or any other weapon was less effective against an unshielded target.
The NX class from Enterprise doesn't have shields, and it seems to be quite a tough little ship. Their only defensive measure is to polarize their hull in anticipation of combat.
Except that it doesn't entirely make sense that energy weapons should have a disadvantage against hull. Hull is physical structure, with no special ability to dissipate energy other than physical properties of the material. I think hull points are an adequate representation of those physical properties, and that if you want to have more resistance to energy than the hull represents you can equip an armor "console".
Further, I've never ever seen any Trek episode where it was stated that phasers or disruptors or any other weapon was less effective against an unshielded target.
Energy weapons are not just for stripping shields, IMO.
What I'd like to see better represented in STO is the inertial damage that torps represent. When a starship gets hit by any torpedo, the ship gets shaken up. Sparks fly. Crew gets damaged. Even full shielding doesn't seem to completely negate the impact of a torpedo. And that's the way it ought to be in STO.
Not to mention that torps have a limited function in PvP for a good reason. Shield tanking is far too effective in this game, there's often not enough time to sink a torp through a gap in the shield tank, because the torps take a leisurely 3-4 seconds to reach the target (assuming the target doesn't hit a massive engine buff and literally match speed with the torp, giving them time to snap on yet another shield buff/TT).
IMO, they should make torps faster. More people might use 'em in PvP, then :P
My PvP toon is Krov, of The House of Snoo. Beware of my Hegh'ta of doom.
hull is like hitpoints in Ad&D. it represents the sum of damage a vessel can take before it is destroyed not the actual physicality of the vessel itself.
when we shoot a ship we are not striking the entire ship but just the section our beams or cannon fire hit. Therefore the idea that hull has a level of inherent damage resistance to energy weapon fire is not far fetched.
How many times did the Enterprise return to ESD with holes punched in her, heavily damaged but not destroyed becuase of her mass having survived the attacks. How many ships have died to the explosions of just few torpedoes though?
just watching the IP itself sets the president that hull in its sheer mas makes energy weapons a little less effective.
Comments
Which show was this
That said, actual cruiser and even ship power is pretty much impossible to gauge based on the show, since half or more of the "alien ships of the week" seemed to able to incapacitate or otherwise negate the enterprise's combat abilities.
Um... Um... What?
Torpedo Spread 3 and Torpedo High Yield 3 are devastating. You time them correctly, you can whip out an entire creep wave in one hit, or even leave a Tac Cube reeling... And you want cruisers to have a built in Torpedo Spread 4/Torpedo High Yield 4!?!?!?!?!?! Explain how that's even remotely balanced and not overpowered? Add on to that, you lose NOTHING for having it? And having your second ability, with 50-75% up-time? Maybe if it was 25-33% up-time it wouldn't be OP, but 50-75!?!?!?!
I am trying to decide if this is a troll post, in which case, well played... Or if it's serious, in which case... *facepalm
Your first sentence explains the reason for sumation in the last sentence.
A BattleCruiser is not Cruiser and mobility has always been one of the key factors in any combat.
R.I.P
Size does not equate to firepower. A single flea infected with a microscopic bacteria can kill millions
In a futuristic settong like startrek where high energy sources abound size is not neccassarily an issue iether.
The Defiant for example used that high energy power source to pack as much firepower as the Enterprise in a small heavily armed package
R.I.P
Defiant is basically the power core of a cruiser strapped to a couple guns and engines and wrapped in a layer of armor. It fights well because that's all it can do. The fundamental inequality of the game's design is that it completely ignores anything that isn't fighting. If the game were more sensibly designed with non-combat gameplay which only cruisers and science ships could do really well at, people wouldn't be so annoyed. You take a fighting ship into a war zone; that's just common sense. But you take a science ship on a research mission, and you take a cruiser when you need the capacity to move, make, or modify a mission payload. If a science ship could outperform anything else on a particle-gathering mission to the same degree that escorts outperform everything else on combat missions, then every ship role should have happy captains.
But combat is a lot easier to design and program. So we are forced into the role of making every ship type perform equally well in a combat environment. Which is absurd but necessary.
Should i start worrying about the mayan apocalypse, your avatar has a whole new meaning all of a sudden
a history of sto pvp: 2010 - 2011
a history of sto pvp: 2012 - 2013
I would think its only important if you are a Mayan, as thier end came a long time ago and what was left was absorbed by those that came later.
Besides, the mayans did not have a leap year so is thier calender acurate to the modern roman based calender? I thought the day of apocalypse came and went for them already.
R.I.P
Hence the size of a vessel doesn't denote more power but its more important for what purpose the vessel was designed for to begin with that point towards how much power they may have at thier disposal.
That the game is faulty in that the players vessel needs to be good at almost all things to perform was outside the point I was trying to make.
R.I.P
Hey Whammy,
I assume you mean the standard RA Vor'cha, because outside of the hull (which is fairly minimal overall) the Fleet Vor'cha is quite possibly the best tactical focused cruiser style ship in the game.
(It's also really fun to fly
Unfortunately crew is rather worthless right now, practically a forgotten system, and the hull strength of ships has been adjusted for balance (Over adjusted IMO)
Perhaps, instead of resistance or HP buffs, the defense on Cruisers could be adjusted. I'm not talking higher bonuses, but perhaps their defense could drop to 0 when not moving instead of -15 (I think that's the number anyways). This would represent the extra mass of these vessels, relying on their bulk for defense not speed.
If the spread was kept the same, it wouldn't be game breaking but it would increase the survivability when being held or at lower speeds.
i ll make sure my eppohh wear flea bands nontheless
a history of sto pvp: 2010 - 2011
a history of sto pvp: 2012 - 2013
Have you ever parked an escort next to other ships? Last I did my Armitage was aslmost as massive as an Excelsior, my patrol escort and the Prometheus aren't far behind.... Even the Mobius is actually pretty massive as well. Only the Defiant can be said truly be tiny in comparison. Sadly, not ALL Fed warships can be designed by the Emissary....
Hows it going? Long to no see
I was talking Tier 5's to Tier 5's , not the "Fleet" versions. From what I can tell with the Fleet versions, the Excel is tankier because of more hull, while the Vor'cha goes more on the offense with a universal Lt. to be used as tactical (giving up survivability with the sacrifice of a science officer). The maneuverability should be roughly equivalent because the while the Vor'cha has a higher base turn rate, the Excel' has a better inertial rating. It could be pretty much a tossup and down to the players at that point.
1. Dmg done to enemies +points
2. Dmg received/tanked +points
3. Dmg Healed +points
4. Survival time +points
5. how many deaths incurred -points
Tally up the points he who has the most is 1 respectively
that would let the cruisers have a chance to actually see that leaderboard and not have to give up their favorite ship so they can rank.
Just an idea, thank you for your time.
I think you have fleet actions and Special Task Force missions mixed up. STFs don't increase reward based on performance. Fleet Actions do. But I will just say it now. I have gotten first place on all of the fleet actions that reward dil and gear with my CRUISER. It's all about knowing what to do and when to do it. And copious usage of torpedo spread and beam fire at will.
R.I.P
(Not a direct quote but as it's my own...)
This would make Aux2SIF equally effective on all ships (With the exception of science due to high aux power) however what it would do is make escort pilots have to think a little more about what they are doing and give more or less hull more meaning in the game, the same would obviously apply to shields meaning ships with less defensive stats would be less defensive.
The simple solution is to make energy based weapon less effective against hull in the same way like torps are less effective against shields. This would lower the overall damage a little bit but make torps essential.
Sounds good to me, but also make crew more useful.
Actually I agree. As a game mechanic this would work.
R.I.P
Except that it doesn't entirely make sense that energy weapons should have a disadvantage against hull. Hull is physical structure, with no special ability to dissipate energy other than physical properties of the material. I think hull points are an adequate representation of those physical properties, and that if you want to have more resistance to energy than the hull represents you can equip an armor "console".
Further, I've never ever seen any Trek episode where it was stated that phasers or disruptors or any other weapon was less effective against an unshielded target.
Energy weapons are not just for stripping shields, IMO.
What I'd like to see better represented in STO is the inertial damage that torps represent. When a starship gets hit by any torpedo, the ship gets shaken up. Sparks fly. Crew gets damaged. Even full shielding doesn't seem to completely negate the impact of a torpedo. And that's the way it ought to be in STO.
Link: How to PM - Twitter @STOMod_Bluegeek
Completely agree with the above. Kinetic damage should have inherent shield penetration or increased bleed-through damage without any automatic damage reduction due to shields. One possibility is to only minimize damage blocked by shields, but not its bleed-through effect.
And what really irks me is that not only does crew loss affect hull regen rate, but it also affects most if not all team abilities, i.e. Tactical Team, Engineering Team, Science Team. Their effectiveness is greatly reduced by a weakened crew. And I mean greatly.
But here is the kicker. Say my FPE and Oddy went into a hellish battle, and both came out with just 1% crew alive. Basically the end result of a SB24 run. My FPE will restore it's full crew in about 2 minutes. Tops. My Odyssey? 5 minutes. Minimum. If I am lucky. Um... WHAT??? And what really irks me is how hull regen is related to % crew alive, which means that inside and out of combat, escorts will always have better hull regen, simply because their crews get restored so much faster due to smaller size. If anything, cruisers get shafted out of their intended role simply because they can't restore crew fast enough to allow their hull regen to stay high.
If anything, I would propose that crew either 1) Not affect the ship as much, if at all, become a null value, 2) actually be restored % wise, not numbers, or 3) Have ways to restore them faster that aren't costly or hurt your ship.
I am leaning more towards #2. But that's just me.
*Note: Ironically I don't have this problem with my Tor'Kaht. She's got a nice big-TRIBBLE crew of 1500, and for starters, she doesn't lose nearly as many as my Odyssey (above situation she loses maybe 200 tops, and the SB24 hell fight equivalent she only loses maybe 750), and she restores them faster. Gotta love them Klingons and their... what was it, 7 redundant internal organ systems? So this whole argument is kind of a moot point for KDF battlecruisers XD.
That would be Tactical Readiness;)
The NX class from Enterprise doesn't have shields, and it seems to be quite a tough little ship. Their only defensive measure is to polarize their hull in anticipation of combat.
Not to mention that torps have a limited function in PvP for a good reason. Shield tanking is far too effective in this game, there's often not enough time to sink a torp through a gap in the shield tank, because the torps take a leisurely 3-4 seconds to reach the target (assuming the target doesn't hit a massive engine buff and literally match speed with the torp, giving them time to snap on yet another shield buff/TT).
IMO, they should make torps faster. More people might use 'em in PvP, then :P
when we shoot a ship we are not striking the entire ship but just the section our beams or cannon fire hit. Therefore the idea that hull has a level of inherent damage resistance to energy weapon fire is not far fetched.
How many times did the Enterprise return to ESD with holes punched in her, heavily damaged but not destroyed becuase of her mass having survived the attacks. How many ships have died to the explosions of just few torpedoes though?
just watching the IP itself sets the president that hull in its sheer mas makes energy weapons a little less effective.
At least thats the gist I get and why I agreed.
R.I.P