Federation Cruisers. Again. Enough already!

hereticknight085 · February 2013

I noticed that for the past two weeks, we've been missing our weekly cruiser buff thread! This is unacceptable and is being rectified right now.

So let's look back at what most of the other threads have covered (god there have been so many...):

- Cruisers as is, are not very useful in PvE (which makes up a HUGE portion of the game) short of being pure and dedicated tanks.
- Cruisers are capable of dealing substantial damage, but in order to do so MUST sacrifice a good portion of their survivability, thus gimping their strength and barely adding on to a weakness.
- Cruisers are acceptable healers and support ships, and excellent tanks (ironically tanks are useless in PvP, where they'd actually be GREAT at their job. Anyone who has tried to kill a well-built cruiser can attest to this).
- Cruisers can't turn or move for beans, with the exception of two (Advanced Heavy Cruiser Retrofit, and Heavy Cruiser Retrofit), and even then, it's not very impressive.
- The remaining Cruisers are practically rail-roaded into using weapons that are horrendously inefficient, but are the only ones that are really viable for them considering their terrible turn rates/move speed.
- Anything a Cruiser can do, an Escort can do better (with the exception of hull tanking, which courtesy of how massive torpedo damage capability has become... is a null point).
- KDF Battlecruisers are vastly superior to Federation Cruisers in almost every aspect. And that which they don't surpass them in, they come close enough it doesn't really matter.

Proposed solutions (again from cruiser threads, not necessarily what I want):
- Buff Cruiser turn rates by 2 (minimum 1)
- Decrease BA power drain
- Add in Heavy BAs AND reduce power drains
- Nerf Escorts
- Nerf DHCs AND Escorts

So far, not horribly productive. The only negative part is that a lot of these threads just turn into flaming fests and pointless arguments. And to be completely honest, with the level of chaos and lack of consensus, if I were a dev, I would put the cruiser threads up for a good laugh during lunch hour, and not actually consider ANYTHING being said. Wouldn't you guys? I mean, seriously. Read a lot of the threads from start to finish. They become jokes and chaotic. Complete wastes.

However that should NOT be the case. Our feedback shouldn't be a joke, something to laugh at, nothing more than entertainment.

So I would ask you guys this. Enough with the petty TRIBBLE, enough with all the flame fests. We need to agree as a community (even if our voices don't seem to count for TRIBBLE). Who knows, maybe if we all agreed on something, it might change.

Anyways, let's get started.

captainbmoney · February 2013

Tweeting this to Branflakes.

emacsheadroom · February 2013

The ultimate problem with this issue is that there is too much division around it. For every two people saying cruisers need a buff, there's an escort fanboy ready to weigh in the opposite opinion because he's terrified of having his supremacy challenged.

The devs won't touch this subject with a thirtynine and a half foot pole because the community is not of one mind and one voice about it.

starlanced · February 2013

I don't understand this 'escorts are OP thing' my cruiser can do just as much dps as my escort in something like ISE. Heck I regularly come in 1st place in fleet events over escorts. I just fly my escort more because it's more fun to me, but that's my playstyle.

pokersmith1 · February 2013

I have a fed engi cruiser that does a very decent job of healing in PvP. Sadly I have retired her from space STFs since she can now barely scratch borg (~3k-ish dps). I have seen cruiser builds out there that can do 15k+ dps in STFs. But then they had tac captains riding them. They would also be worthless in PvP. I mean, clearly - a cruiser can heal, and a cruiser can dps. The problem here seems to be captain class riding it. If I'm not mistaken, cruiser class were meant to be flown by engineering captain, however since an engineer cannot take full advantage of the craft, there must be something wrong with that career as well.

jadensecura · February 2013

Oh come on, cruisers aren't that weak, it's science ships that suffer. Cruisers can be highly effective healers and/or tanks while putting out 4k DPS or more. Those two high turn rate retrofits are even better damage dealers and sacrifice little in healing and tanking. Sci ships can scarcely manage 4k DPS when fully dedicated to damage dealing, their CC is negligible, and their healing is far weaker than a cruiser's. The Vesta and possibly the Wells are exceptions to this, but saying those fix the problem is like saying the D'Kora proves that the Assault Cruiser and Star Cruiser are in great shape. Fix sci ships first, then we can think about whether cruisers need a buff.

eraserfish · February 2013

Huh, my Tac console thread didn't make it on the list?

I'm not going to argue the points made by OP, even though I disagree with them in part. However, I want to add on to what has been mentioned:

Cruisers are not nearly useful in PvE because their tanking capability isn't that critical. I've been in Elite STFs where a handful of escorts could bring down cubes before a cruiser's ability to resist damage really factors in.
Trying to spec cruiser for damage won't it make it any better an escort at the task, while unreasonably sacrificing survivability. Basically, it becomes so much worse at everything.
You've forgotten to include the Galor, but I suppose that also goes to show how much better Tactical orientation is than Engineering. It also goes to show how even a marginal improvement in some qualities could make cruisers viable combat vehicles.
In PvP, cruiser weapons just seem like they only exist for the purpose of having something to shoot with, and not to actually deal damage. I've managed to use BOIII to knock down a section of shielding on a number of occasions, but I've never actually managed to follow up on that opening.
Escorts cannot quite match well-made cruiser builds in terms of sheer damage resilience, but their qualities are such that they can be very survivable and still make a useful contribution to a fight.
KDF Battlecruisers are simply better, and no two ways about it.

To further expand on the subject of tanking...

In PvE, cruisers can tank fairly well because of how AI works and how Threat Control can force AI to target cruisers over other members of your team. However, it doesn't mean a whole lot if cubes and the lot cannot withstand or retaliate the assault of multiple escorts.

In PvP, you either tank or you heal, but tanking means nothing if you cannot pose enough of a threat to draw players' attention or force it on you. Likewise, it also means nothing if your shields aren't all that much stronger because once one quadrant falls, you're toast: unlike escorts, you can't manoeuvre to cover your weak spots. Healing seems to just about the only role that cruisers can safely provide, but some cruisers are made to heal better than others.

As for the OP's suggested improvements, I think that cruisers lack in variety compared to other ships, and are also incapable of tanking adequately, as I have explained above. If cruisers can't fulfil their tanking role well, then why must they be stuck with a turn rate that appears to be actually slower than that of a Borg Cube?

I won't deign to comment on nerfing either escorts, dhcs, or both, since those are separate issues, and involving them in the topic would only lead to unnecessary antagonism. What we ought to discuss should specifically pertain to why cruisers are underperforming, or otherwise undesirable, compared to other choices.

~

Personally, I think that a few cruisers could use a boost in their turn rate, which is to say that every single cruiser with the exception of the Star Cruiser, Support Cruiser, and the Odysseys. Moreover, while the characteristics of cruisers are not identical, they are ultimately oriented towards roughly the same capabilities of healing/support/tanking, when it might be better to distinguish within these rough categorical outlines. Some cruisers may be built for pure tanking, while others qualify as offensive tanks or the more esoteric role of "point defenders" (cruisers that can exercise both mobility and tanking qualities).

Beam Array power drain is excessive and causes a massive decrease in the effective DPS of a cruiser, which is already inferior to escorts under most circumstances. Beam abilities are hobbled by disadvantages that are not present or otherwise negligible for Torpedo and Cannon abilities. While I don't have any particular qualms about the scattering nature of Fire At Will, Beam Overload comes into mind for the exceptional number of faults it has, namely in terms of its reliance on power for damage, delay and interruption of firing cycles and its disconcerting tendency to miss and do no damage at all.

Cruisers would also be more viable if they could make effective use of kinetic weapons such as torpedoes, but the ship class as a whole would be far more effective if they either had conditional mobility capabilities or the ability to enforce zoning (i.e., cripple enemy mobility or force them into a situation where they must engage the cruiser).

hereticknight085 · February 2013

Just to clarify: the proposed solutions are not solutions I necessarily want. I am just saying that those were the solutions proposed in a lot of the cruiser threads.

melisande77 · February 2013

I think a problem is that half of the people want to adhere to the MMO trinity of Tank/Heal/DPS and half of us want to go a separate but equal route. Currently we have a soft trinity, that doesn't do anything for either player. Hardcore trinity fans are sad because DPS is the only role we have, and sbe players are sad because Escorts outperform everything so much its a moot point.

I am definitely in the later camp, so I want to see a cruiser's broadside be as devastating as an alpha strike. Mostly this as I am entirely a new player to the game, but my perception of Star Trek is that cruisers rule space, which is opposite of this game. For example people in these types of threads use 'Kirking' as a pejorative, but in a Star Trek game, shouldn't making 'Kirking' both fun and a decent way to play be an objective?

Personally ensuring each ship can deal damage, in their own way, and survive, again in their own way, should be an end goal. Moving up Cruiser damage should be a good thing, as long as its accomplished in a way unique to cruisers. For example if EPtW, or any other LT+ Engi power was strong for cruisers, they could be built to better utilize in ways that Sci or Tac ships can't, much the same way the others get more mileage out of their respective high level BOFFs. I would also like to see Beam Arrays be as useful as Cannons, if for no other reason than only the Defiant Fed side made use of cannons.

As for throwing out useful suggestions, buffing Cruiser turn by even 1 would be pretty noticeable, after all I saw a huge boon going from the Galaxy to the Sovvy. I really liked the idea of giving Cruisers an additional passive resistance to energy drain, representing their massive warp cores. Beyond that I would if Beam Overload did not kill energy, or if there was a single target version of Fire at Will, Cruiser Cannon Rapid Fire ie. Preferably I think changing BO to something more usable in practice would be better, as it keeps the ships from overlapping, but CRF works for escorts with 0 downsides, so going with what works is not bad either.

Edit: Also on the though of making all ships more rounded, I think getting rid of large enemies just targeting one player would be the thing to do. Punish a ship for being pure dps, by either having to disengage or slot some survival. Afterall, Cubes are shown to have far, far, far more arrays than any other starship, and constantly shoot anything nearby.

red01999 · February 2013

melisande77 wrote: »

I am definitely in the later camp, so I want to see a cruiser's broadside be as devastating as an alpha strike. Mostly this as I am entirely a new player to the game, but my perception of Star Trek is that cruisers rule space, which is opposite of this game. For example people in these types of threads use 'Kirking' as a pejorative, but in a Star Trek game, shouldn't making 'Kirking' both fun and a decent way to play be an objective?

I come here to Kirk. People who come here should be here to Kirk, or at least should expect that's what a lot of people are going to be here for. Kirking is, IMO, why you play a Star Trek game, unless you're looking for click-through diplomacy or Sim City in space. People who want the Trinity and nothing but should play a conventional MMO.

Accordingly you ought to be able to Kirk in the type of ship Kirk used, really.

I think a lot of things could/should be improved about cruisers - perhaps some inherent advantage to damage taking, e.g. built in resistance to hull hits to represent heavy armor built-in. I dunno. I do know however that a 1-2 deg/sec buff to cruiser turn rate would make a world of difference in terms of PATIENCE and likely not have that much of an impact on actual practical applications - it's still slower than a Klingon cruiser's turn rate, but it's easier on the patience.

Anyway, if I think of anything direct to add to this I'll toss in my hat, but not everyone thinks Kirking is bad, and I am more than a little surprised at those who do. Star Trek Online is not going to be like every other MMO out there - the thing's got two MMO's layered on top of one another, that's a basic mechanics difference right there.

vesolc · February 2013

- Decrease BA power drain

Just this and we are cool.

red01999 · February 2013

On further reflection, part of me is wondering if this is a futile gesture, and not for the reasons one might expect. Aside from the fact that such threads, if they are even looked at by the devs, are apparently disregarded, I cannot help but wonder if any "solutions" will require buying an entirely new line of cruisers.

While I appreciate the necessity of the game to make money, I am not enthused at the prospect of improved turn rates and other bonuses require throwing $30-40 at a single-character unlock ship produced only at a T8 Starbase that makes all the other cruisers obsolete. If this goes in, I think the caveat has to be that the devs are going to need to have to have another look at all current end-game cruisers in general, as a general improvement to the ship type, not simply put it on the list as a potential selling point for the next generation of pay cruisers.

alexindcobra · February 2013

emacsheadroom wrote: »

The ultimate problem with this issue is that there is too much division around it. For every two people saying cruisers need a buff, there's an escort fanboy ready to weigh in the opposite opinion because he's terrified of having his supremacy challenged.

The devs won't touch this subject with a thirtynine and a half foot pole because the community is not of one mind and one voice about it.

You are so right.

nikephorus · February 2013

hereticknight085 wrote: »

- Buff Cruiser turn rates by 2 (minimum 1)
- Decrease BA power drain

I support these two solutions. I've not played this game that long...maybe a year or so, but I have flown all types of ships in that time; mostly escort and cruisers since my main is a tactical officer. The ships that cannot mount dual heavy cannons are at a significant disadvantage already, but then add in the low turn rate on cruisers and the heavy energy drain of BA and the disparity becomes even more apparent. Flying a ship with a turn rate below 7 is just painfully annoying.

A buff to cruiser turn rates of 1 or 2 would not step on escorts..they would still be able to run circles around cruisers, but it would make flying said cruisers a lot less painful. Decreasing the BA power drain by say half would also help to keep cruiser damage more consistent. I know personally, I have an all saurian crew (which boosts energy levels) and I have skill points in the appropriate skills to try and counter this drain and while I have succeeded somewhat my weapon energy will still dip into the low 80's when I use a broadside (and that's only with 6 beams - imagine 8). I never have that problem in my escort. I can fire 4 DHC and 3 turrets all day and my weapon energy will never dip below 100. If an escort can fire all its weapons at once without falling below 100 energy a cruiser should be able to so as well.

emacsheadroom · February 2013

Everyone who says cruisers would turn too fast if they had a turn rate buff of 1 or 2 should go fly the Galor and come back and say whether they think it turns too fast.

Sometimes I think escort captains have never even tried a cruiser so they don't realise how bad many cruisers are to fly. Or they have indeed tried cruisers and want them to remain the buttmonkey of space combat.

Buff all fed cruiser turn rates a little, make beam energy drain less awful and release a c-store bundle for the Exploration Cruiser with at least universal ensigns and more tac consoles and all will be A-okay.

alexindcobra · February 2013

If you build your cruiser right, you can get some kills. You can be a tank and do damage but you have to add torpedoes to the mix. The opposing team will hate you because they can't kill you one on one and you are taking them out. They well try to tripple team you because they are soar loosers. I get that attention all the time in my Dread and in my Fleet Ambassador. I found a way to use Photon torpedoes to my advantage, it rips shild better than any other type torpedo. Also, I am not a Eng Captain, I am a Tac, so I do not put concentration on being a healer. I build for self-resiliancy, and damage. You can be a tank and not a healer. This is the first MMO where the tank is expected to do the healing. In other MMO games the tank does the fighting and absorbing. Only a dedicated healer heals other people, and they don't fight or take hits. I believe cruisers are to be self-reliant and not have to depend on others to make kills for you. Its ok to need help if you are getting jumped by two or more ships but you should be able to handle yourself in a one versus one situation.

If opposing teams hate you, then you must be doing something right.

adamkafei · February 2013

So we're here again are we?

Its safe to say that beam arrays would be very close to fine actually if escorts were forced into hit and runs, I say close to fine as the drain does need to be looked at but we all know that.

I recently took some time away from my eng cruiser and am a little out of sync with it right now (there is also the aspect of some of my skills not activating in the first place, I should not have to ask for a heal 5 times and die because it refused to activate, but thats another thread)

I must also agree that the difference between the escort's ability to tank and the cruiser's ability to do damage is far too great but the drain issue with beams should be fixed before any more action is taken on that front.

kiloace · February 2013

- Decrease BA power drain

- Add in new Beam Arrays exclusive on cruisers (and sci?)

- Add a new passive for all cruisers: Structural Hardening
While being fired on by enemy ships, receive a stacking bonus of +2.9 Hull Damage Resistance every 6 seconds. Stacks up to 10 times.

alexindcobra · February 2013

adamkafei wrote: »

So we're here again are we?

Its safe to say that beam arrays would be very close to fine actually if escorts were forced into hit and runs, I say close to fine as the drain does need to be looked at but we all know that.

I recently took some time away from my eng cruiser and am a little out of sync with it right now (there is also the aspect of some of my skills not activating in the first place, I should not have to ask for a heal 5 times and die because it refused to activate, but thats another thread)

I must also agree that the difference between the escort's ability to tank and the cruiser's ability to do damage is far too great but the drain issue with beams should be fixed before any more action is taken on that front.

You are so telling the truth.

Oh yeah, that dashboard is kind of TRIBBLE because it doesn't respond to the the first two clicks. I even made complaints about it in the past but more people need to speak out about the BOFF power buttons being delayed. I'm running out of keys to bind on the keyboard, so they do need to fix the HUD buttons.

joshl7889 · February 2013

emacsheadroom wrote: »

Everyone who says cruisers would turn too fast if they had a turn rate buff of 1 or 2 should go fly the Galor and come back and say whether they think it turns too fast.

Sometimes I think escort captains have never even tried a cruiser so they don't realise how bad many cruisers are to fly. Or they have indeed tried cruisers and want them to remain the buttmonkey of space combat.

Buff all fed cruiser turn rates a little, make beam energy drain less awful and release a c-store bundle for the Exploration Cruiser with at least universal ensigns and more tac consoles and all will be A-okay.

I am a Tact Captain, but i am well aware of how difficult flying a cruiser is. I own the worst of em all, the Gal-X. The turn rate of that ship is horendous. I do agree that they could use a bit of a turn rate buff yes.

whamhammer1 · February 2013

vesolc wrote: »

- Decrease BA power drain

Just this and we are cool.

I'd argue they also need to revisit the way single cannons do damage as well. But BA drain is a must-fix.

yreodred · February 2013

hereticknight085 wrote: »

So I would ask you guys this. Enough with the petty TRIBBLE, enough with all the flame fests. We need to agree as a community (even if our voices don't seem to count for TRIBBLE). Who knows, maybe if we all agreed on something, it might change.

Anyways, let's get started.

Well said.

As i already said numerous times, i think the whole concept of pressing Star Trek ships into a Stone/Paper/Scissor game mechanic is just basicly wrong. Other games did a much better job, like the Starfleet Command series or Bridge Commander.

In Star Trek, Cruisers are NOT supporters, they are the main ships. Other ships, more specialised ships like Escorts or Science ships are just "specialists" but they aren't nearly as powerful as the big cruisers.

STO on the other hand just gave Star trek ships completely different "roles", this alienates at least me very much.

It wouldn't bother me if this where not a Star Trek game. Other Sci Fi universes can much easier get away with such a game mechanic, but Cryptic either deliberately or out of incompetence completely ignores the uniqueness of Star Trek ships.

Since this game is already running for three years now (who would have thought that three years ago? :P) i think it is highly unlikely they will correct their errors. So what's to be done?

I think Cryptic should overthink the role of Cruisers in their game completely. They already made all ships being able to keep themselves alive, thats a good beginning IMO.
The next step would be to give Cruisers a bigger damage potential, by either increasing cruisers energy output, enhancing Beam weapons or by introducing heavy Beam arrays. Their role could be to deliver big amounts of AOE damage, so they need some (engineering power) which is more like Scatter Volley. Different than FAW it should focus fire on a smaller area, maybe 120 degrees.

The other problem is the cruisers low turn rate. This is something i just don't understand. I don't see any reason why they made cruisers so slow in the first place. It just makes them passive and boring. Originally cryptic was hoping poeple would like having cruisers being equal to Star Wars - ish capital ships. But that just shows the ignorance of cryptics desingers, they obviously completely ignored StarTrek in favour of their own little Star Wars / BSG or whatever fantasy.

Personally i see no point in making Cruisers artificially boring, by giving them such a low turnrate.
In my opinion they should get a +2 or +3 buff in their basic turn rate, i don't hink that would be too much to ask IMO.

nicha0 · February 2013

Honestly, its a nice dream but its not going to happen.

There are far far too many bad cruiser captains out there either wanting to Kirk (yes, it is a bad thing) or out dps cruisers or plain don't want to be in the role a cruiser is supposed to fill. Most of them don't even know how to spec a cruiser right, so they come here and complain, because complaining is easier than fixing your problems, right?

Fact is, the defiant was said to be the most heavily armed ship in the quadrant, your imaginary galaxy class doesn't compare. In battle, like sacrifice of angels, the cruisers fanned out to the side, took the hits while the more agile ships flew through the centre and attacked.

S7 destroyed any semblance of balance that existed. Escorts took all passive heals, cruisers took all passive heals, the weapons buffs were terribly balanced. You can't give the most fragile class a bunch of heals and the tankiest class terrible offense options.

A small decrease in BA power drain and a fix to some beam based abilities and we should be ok. If BFaW worked like CSV, and BO more like CRF we'd be in business.

legendarylycan · February 2013

kiloace wrote: »

- Decrease BA power drain[/I]

it's not so much the power drain needs to be decreased, but the ROF needs to be increased; that would bring its DPS values in line with other weapons that drain the same amount of power

also, consider the addition of an intrinsic accuracy boost, similar to dual heavy cannon's intrinsic critical severity boost, since beams are pinpoint weapons, after all

dalnar83 · February 2013

nicha0 wrote: »

Fact is, the defiant was said to be the most heavily armed ship in the quadrant, your imaginary galaxy class doesn't compare. In battle, like sacrifice of angels, the cruisers fanned out to the side, took the hits while the more agile ships flew through the centre and attacked.

Not sure where you get that. It was said,that the Defiant had the firepower almost like a Galaxy but was much more smaller. You should realize, the dmg output of Star Trek ship is determined A) their warp core

torpedo barrages. Warp core gives energy to phasers. Doesnt matter how many emmiters or banks you have if you do not have energy for them.

If you look at Sacrifice of Angles actually, the Defiant attacks small ships only, while the Galaxy wings takes on the Galors.

There should either be heavy beams implemented, or existing beam arrays changed to 1-2 hits per volley. Same dps, just in less hits with greater burst.

stirling191 · February 2013

Random thoughts, in no particular order and not necessarily linked to one another

1) Completely revamp power drain mechanic: firing doesn't reduce weapon power but instead adds a flat stacking percentage penalty per weapon (different per weapon type) to outgoing damage. Current power boosting abilities (EPtW, EPS Transfer, Nadion etc) would all be reworked to counter said drain as part of their normal function.

2) Reduce Fed cruiser weapon slotting to 2/2 or 2/1 (bear with me here). Add a new, 360 degree Fed-cruiser only beam weapon with damage equivalent to multiple beam arrays, but proportionally less drain. (This will likely necessitate a rework of how BO works with said uber-arrays to prevent hilarious one-shottage). Additionally, make all torpedoes wide-angle (180 degree) for Fed-cruisers.

3) Give cruisers a base bonus to manual shield transfer capability

thratch1 · February 2013

vesolc wrote: »

Fact is, the defiant was said to be the most heavily armed ship in the quadrant, your imaginary galaxy class doesn't compare. In battle, like sacrifice of angels, the cruisers fanned out to the side, took the hits while the more agile ships flew through the centre and attacked.

dalnar83 wrote: »

Not sure where you get that. It was said,that the Defiant had the firepower almost like a Galaxy but was much more smaller. You should realize, the dmg output of Star Trek ship is determined A) their warp core torpedo barrages. Warp core gives energy to phasers. Doesnt matter how many emmiters or banks you have if you do not have energy for them.

If you look at Sacrifice of Angles actually, the Defiant attacks small ships only, while the Galaxy wings takes on the Galors.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: on-screen evidence in Star Trek is dubious at best, as the capabilities of any starship are subject to change based on plot demands and the whims of the writer. They should just be disregarded when talking about game balance.

If Cryptic is going to stick to its (currently horribly supported) heal-tank-DPS trinity, then cruisers need better aggro management tools. Right now, Escorts play the role of tank and DPS, since the only way to draw aggro is to do a lot of damage.

If cruisers could reliably take aggro off of me without requiring me to intentionally cut my DPS in half, then I'd be okay with shaving off some escort durability. As it is, though, you can't nerf escort survivability without hurting the game -- escorts would either just not fight as hard, or would spend a lot of time staring at 30- and 60-second respawn counters.

stirling191 · February 2013

dalnar83 wrote: »

If you look at Sacrifice of Angles actually, the Defiant attacks small ships only, while the Galaxy wings takes on the Galors.

More accurately, the Galaxy wings interposed themselves between the "ambushing" Galors and the rest of the assault fleet, taking the damage the fleet's smaller ships couldn't necessarily handle.

Tactical deployment doesn't necessarily equal tactical capability.

orondis · February 2013

I've flew escorts as a main for almost two years, so I have this to add.

Cruisers don't need a buff, it's escorts that need a nerf.

When the Andorian ship was released it had an issue whereby it's shield mod was much lower and all it's healing was about 1/3 effective. It was still possible to tank, but for the first time an escort was what it should be, a glass cannon.

This is pretty much how every escort should be like at T5. This way you actually have a real choice, since at the moment flying an escort is to have your cake and eat it. An escort at the moment can tank pretty much anything yet deal uber damage at the same time.

A nerf to it's shield and healing abilities would mean cruisers will have a fighting chance of keeping up with them.

Also they need to bring back the old weapon drain mechanics. The present weapon drain mechanics is one of the things that's causing escorts to have such crazy damage.

capnmanx · February 2013

stirling191 wrote: »

More accurately, the Galaxy wings interposed themselves between the "ambushing" Galors and the rest of the assault fleet, taking the damage the fleet's smaller ships couldn't necessarily handle.

Tactical deployment doesn't necessarily equal tactical capability.

You don't see them taking any damage at all. What you see is them beating a Galor out of the way; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VoIFUJxJwcQ; you see it at around 1:00, the Galor is shooting up the little ships, then the Galaxys move in at set it listing away in just a few shots.

Combat footage from the shows is an unreliable indicator; but the implication here is that the Galaxys were sent in because they were powerful enough to take them, not just tough enough to withstand them.

legendarylycan · February 2013

orondis wrote: »

Also they need to bring back the old weapon drain mechanics. The present weapon drain mechanics is one of the things that's causing escorts to have such crazy damage.

how exactly did the old drain mechanics work? i came to the game a few weeks over a year ago, so i've only seen the current drain mechanics

Federation Cruisers. Again. Enough already!

Comments