What about option three. if ever ship gets three armor slots.
The difference is for ever armor you slot you lose turn rate and speed.
A cruiser would be able to slot 2 armor slot with no penalty while a science ship could mount One.
An escort can mount zero with out a penalty.
If cruiser mount none or one armor slot they would get turn rate and speed bonus. Since they less then normal amount.
after there got to be pros and cons.
Examples Let say each armor effect turn rate by 2 and speed by 5.
Crusier with no armor has +4 to turn rate and +10 speed.
Cruiser with one armor has +2 to turn rate and +5 to speed.
Cruiser with two armor has 0 and 0 effect it turn rate
Cruiser with three armor has -2 turn rate and - 5 speed
Science ship with no armor has +2 to turn rate and +5 speed
Science ship with one armor has 0 and 0
Science ship with Two armor has -2 turn rate and - 5 speed
Science ship with three armor has -4 turn rate and -10 speed.
Escort with no armor has 0 to turn rate and 0 to speed
Escort one armor has -2 to turn rate and -5 speed
escort with two armor has -4 to turn rate and -10 to speed
escort with three armor has -6 to turn rate and -15 to speed
* 2 to turn rate and 5 to speed where just random number pull from know where.
I suggested this earlier but immediatly found it would make it extremely easy for escorts in an STF, they could just stack that hull armor and hull tank and shield tank the whole time pushing cruisers and sci ships even more out of the picture for STF.
I suggested this earlier but immediatly found it would make it extremely easy for escorts in an STF, they could just stack that hull armor and hull tank and shield tank the whole time pushing cruisers and sci ships even more out of the picture for STF.
This post is endemic of what's wrong. Don't wait to be GIVEN a role. Carve one out for yourself. Figure out how to not be "irrelevant", if you can't maybe sci vessels and cruisers aren't for you?
This would only ever work IF You change the game entirely, around how threat is generated.
You would have to make it so DPS is not the main threat generation as it is now.
Even with Embassy Sci consoles that lower threat by 68% each, I still gain threat over nearly every Cruiser I have teamed up with in PVE.
The only times that changes, is when the Cruiser pilot focuses solely on DPS alone, which then makes them squishy and defeats the purpose of what a cruiser is meant to do. Tank damage.
This is a game wide problem created by muddying the lines between Tank, Damage and Healing.
It cannot be solved by putting a plaster over the problem....
This post is endemic of what's wrong. Don't wait to be GIVEN a role. Carve one out for yourself. Figure out how to not be "irrelevant", if you can't maybe sci vessels and cruisers aren't for you?
usually I do not post these but, did you even read the post I quoted?
Im trying to say that even though the escort turn rate would be heavily reduced it wouldnt matter for STF because you dont have to turn really. a bunch of scorts could just sit there and tank all day with 3 more armor slots
The only times that changes, is when the Cruiser pilot focuses solely on DPS alone, which then makes them squishy and defeats the purpose of what a cruiser is meant to do. Tank damage.
This is a game wide problem created by muddying the lines between Tank, Damage and Healing.
? We want to add a ship armor slot. Having more itemization is good[/quote] I don't agree, We're getting to the point where we have to much now. Never mind the way this translates to me is (we need more things to put on the LOBI/DIL/CSTORE)
So bottom line, would you be willing to loose Engineering Damage Resistance consoles for an armor slot that gives you about the same resistance, but also offers you more options.
It depends, If its not for sale, is a drop, and doesn't cost me more than what it would to craft, yes. If its going into the CSTORE, LOBI or Dilithium Markets, then more than likely no. Unless you're willing to have them valued at no more than 5.00 worth of ZEN, and be account bound
I tweeted this earlier, but I want to expand a bit.
Armor = x% CritD resistance
Heavy Armor = X% CritH resistance and x% CritD resistance
Then apply a small global CritH and CritD buff to all appropriately enhanced weapons in the game (e.g. CritD x 1 = 25% critical severity up from the current 20% and CritH x 1 = 2.5% critical hit up from current 2%)
We don't want to raise the survivability of every ship in the game.
See the global buff on the CritH and CritD stats. These weapon modifiers are currently underutilized and unappreciated. See any sale of weapons on the exchange. The CritH and CritD weapons are always cheaper. Acc modifiers command a premium price - mostly because of the inherent CritH bonus.
We feel Cruisers could use an increase in survivability.
Gotcha covered. While every other ship in the game gets a touch squishier (I'm looking at you, escorts... and to a lesser extent the sci ships, but see below), cruisers will not be as susceptible to the CritH buff due to their Heavy Armor.
This is dangerous b/c it potentially raises the survivability of every ship in the game. To do this, Armor consoles would have to be changed. They would have to be something that is not related to damage mitigation (so not damage resistance, or bonus HP, or defense). The consoles would have to change to something new, or existing.
Not necessarily. Make the new thing do something new. And fix the imbalance in the weapon bonus types.
Basic Armor could have lots of options and types, but in general, the damage resistance bonus would be equivalent to about 2 to 3 engineering consoles (for white quality - higher qualities could be better). Heavy armor would be worth much more.
Again, this conflicts with the design goal mentioned above. By transferring hull resistance from console slots to armor, every ship gets AT LEAST 2-3 white consoles worth of hull buff. This is regardless of whether or not the player currently chooses to equip an armor console. Focusing on the tail end of the DPS curve - high spike damage - cuts down a major vulnerability of cruisers but doesn't affect the other two classes. In fact, it makes them a little bit squishier.
So bottom line, would you be willing to loose Engineering Damage Resistance consoles for an armor slot that gives you about the same resistance, but also offers you more options.
I got your options right here. This is the "below" part I was talking about when I said "see below" all those times.
Make the Armor part of a 4 piece set including a Warp Core, Computer Core, and Targeting System.
Warp Core = power bonus. Bonus shield power for everyone (your warp field generators are shut down). Tactical warp cores get bonus weapon power, Engineering cores get bonus engine power, Science warp cores get bonus auxiliary power.
Computer Core = Team CritH buff/CritD resist. Advanced Computer Cores for science ships get CritD buff/CritH resist as well.
Targeting System = CritD buff for either beams, cannons or projectiles. Advanced Targeting Systems for escorts get a CritH buff as well.
Go crazy with the set bonuses. But make those underused weapon modifiers worth something again.
Consider this is your personal invitation to come on Priority One to debate this idea. How's tomorrow look for you? James always has a comfy chair waiting for you, Ironass Rivera.
I don't agree, We're getting to the point where we have to much now. Never mind the way this translates to me is (we need more things to put on the LOBI/DIL/CSTORE)
MADNESS!! You can never have too much stuff! NEVER!!
Well if we have to have "Heavy Armor"... Then let it be for cruisers only.
Science ships (generally) got Sensor Analysis when the masses claimed that they didn't do enough damage.
Escorts (generally) got Dual Heavy Cannons to pew with extreme prejudice.
Cruisers got....? crippling energy drain from beam weapons
Yes I realize that "Armor" is one of those things that can be put on anything (Wisest armored tribble anyone?). Yet in the end, not counting the eventual hybrid ships, there has to be a draw to cruisers other than nostalgia and "It's more canon."
It is worth mentioning however we have piles of "useless" consoles that don't even get used much. Why would a player stack +4 mk XII power consoles?
I suggested this earlier but immediatly found it would make it extremely easy for escorts in an STF, they could just stack that hull armor and hull tank and shield tank the whole time pushing cruisers and sci ships even more out of the picture for STF.
Which is why the armor has speed and turn rate attached to it. An escort with three armor should have a very bad turn rate. The 2 number used in the example where just pull out as examples.
If armor hurts your turn rate...by a PERCENTAGE, it would be extremely bad for Escorts, because if a cruiser loses a percentage of its nonexistent turn rate...meh. But for an Escort, losing a huge percentage of its turn rate is AWFUL.
Here is the bottom line we are discussing internally:
? We want to add a ship armor slot. Having more itemization is good
? Armor means Damage Resistance (to be consistent with ground Armor). Other enhancement bonuses can be available
? We don?t want to raise the survivability of every ship in the game.
? We feel Cruisers could use an increase in survivability.
? Armor could be added as a set piece.
? Armor could offer a ship material change.
So two options we are discussing: Option 1:
? Only Cruisers Get Armor.
? No other changes needed (simple).
? We couldn't integrate armor as set piece for everyone, but it could possibly become part of a set only usable by cruisers.
Option 2:
? Everyone gets an Armor slot, but Cruisers can equip Heavy Armor.
? This is dangerous b/c it potentially raises the survivability of every ship in the game. To do this, Armor consoles would have to be changed. They would have to be something that is not related to damage mitigation (so not damage resistance, or bonus HP, or defense). The consoles would have to change to something new, or existing.
? Basic Armor could have lots of options and types, but in general, the damage resistance bonus would be equivalent to about 2 to 3 engineering consoles (for white quality - higher qualities could be better). Heavy armor would be worth much more.
Alright! Something I can sink my teeth into.
Disagree with this point. Cruisers already stay alive pretty darned well. Maybe there are many cruiser captains who aren't very good at flying cruisers so they drag the stats down? When you say "cruisers need more survivability", I hear "cruiser survivability isn't intuitive to the players" . And that is pretty much directly attributable to the fact that there's no tutorial on ship configuration nor any sandbox mode to try stuff out on the spot. If you had a tutorial of some kind that said basically that big ships which can't rely on defense from movement should use tactical teams to balance their shields and emergency power to shields to increase their hardness, then cruiser survivability in your stats would go up.
Not a fan. Basic damage mitigation should be available to every ship, especially because you don't have nice clear cut lines. Is the Jem'hadar heavy escort carrier an escort or a cruiser? It doesn't have the turn rate or tactical abilities of the first, nor does it have the hull strength and engineering abilities of the second. Same with the dreadnaught carrier, is it an escort or a cruiser? Simply dividing everything into "armored" and "not armored" forces you into the position of making extremely binary distinctions between ships, and as should be clear by now some of the most popular ships in the game are genre benders that have a bit of everything.
Not a fan of this either. Having a dedicated "heavy armor" item class is just going to cheese people off, because they'll find something really good and realize that it's the wrong kind of armor for their ship. Also, having only 1 slot for armor limits the variety that players can express. Right now players can choose a type of armor and also how much of it to carry, having to balance damage mitigation against "other". Carrying 4 layers of armor does great things for your ability to absorb damage but now you can't have an assimilated console or a Romulan ZPM without cutting into your shield strength or tactical boosts. There's tradeoff. If you have only 1 slot, then people are going to fill that 1 slot and that's the end of it.
If you really want to increase cruiser survivability via damage mitigation, and only specifically cruisers, then leave armor alone and add cruiser-exclusive engineering consoles that increase the performance of the armor they can already choose to carry. This leaves every ship at their current level of tank except for cruisers, who gain the option to harden up further by installing their exclusive consoles. As random brainstorms:
* Redundant hull bonding: Reduces the chance to be hit critically, and the hitpoint severerity of critical hits, based on your damage resistance.
* Powered plating: Multiplies your damage resistance by a factor based on your Aux power level.
* Nano-active systems: Automatic hull repair rate is increased.
* Regenerative couplngs: Energy weapon damage to the hull will increase your ship's power levels.
* Microstabilizers: Shield hardness and regeneration rate is multiplied by a factor based on your armor's resistance.
* Sensor-stealthed surfacing: Adds a passive Defense value based on your armor's resistance
If armor hurts your turn rate...by a PERCENTAGE, it would be extremely bad for Escorts, because if a cruiser loses a percentage of its nonexistent turn rate...meh. But for an Escort, losing a huge percentage of its turn rate is AWFUL.
the idea. Our have to chose between extra survivability at the cost of speed and turn. like wise a curiser captain that chose to for go armor would gain speed and turn rate.
I am all for more options, customization, and set slots. That said, I feel the only fair way to proceed is including everyship type for the inclusion of an armor slot.
Now couldn't it be possible that these armor items could have passive stats on them much like the Romulan Reputation consoles, only in this case the bonuses would be tailored toward a much broader, gameplay changing design.
By having tough choices attached to each type, the player would have to decide what the best advantage and subsequently lest dis-advantage when equiping the armor.
Heavy armor could drastically increase survival, but light armor makes your ship faster and turn better. Photonic armor reduces recharge times on all science abilities. Just some examples off the top of my head.
I really don't understand wanting to increase cruiser survivability. Cruisers are already tough enough that I fly them with tactical captains without any trouble. With an engineer captain they are practically indestructible. Survivability is their only real strength, besides shield healing.
If you want to make cruisers more attractive, as others have already said, you need to look at the areas in which they are lacking, like damage output. A power bonus, like a heavier class of Warp Core, would help. Just making beam arrays better, or having more wide angle torpedo launchers would go a long way.
I just really don't understand why anyone would want to take the most ineffectual ship class and make them better at the only thing they already do extremely well, instead of addressing their flaws.
Someone else mentioned that it likely had to do with statistics and how often cruisers actually get blown up in game. But that person hit the nail on the head when they said that most players don't know HOW to fly a cruiser, what abilities to use and so on, because the game doesn't actually tell you. Personally, I had to learn from forums, the sto wiki and a lot of trail and error.
I just really don't understand why anyone would want to take the most ineffectual ship class and make them better at the only thing they already do extremely well, instead of addressing their flaws.
As you mentioned in your post, most players have no idea how to play or how to get anything worthwhile out of their ships. These players gravitate towards cruisers because their ridiculous durability allows them to play the game. For them, the idea of making a cruiser even tougher sounds like a FANTASTIC idea. Cryptic knows that by making cruisers tougher they will sell more of them if nothing else. How often do people talk about the amazing great tac capability of the Ody, and how often to people rave about how durable it is? Clearly, the average player wants more and more indestructible ships above all else.
If armor hurts your turn rate...by a PERCENTAGE, it would be extremely bad for Escorts, because if a cruiser loses a percentage of its nonexistent turn rate...meh. But for an Escort, losing a huge percentage of its turn rate is AWFUL.
If we can get flat rate based RCS console in return, you can have flat rate based armor turn rate penalty
This thread is so sad. People bending over backwards in the small hope geckos reads this AND acts on it.
To me personally its hard to determine whether gecko is just a bad game designer or simply cornered by cryptics limited understanding of how to make money off of us.
Carrying 4 layers of armor does great things for your ability to absorb damage but now you can't have an assimilated console or a Romulan ZPM without cutting into your shield strength or tactical boosts.
A normie goes "Oh, what's this?"
An otaku goes "UwU, what's this?"
A furry goes "OwO, what's this?"
A werewolf goes "Awoo, what's this?"
"It's nothing personal, I just don't feel like I've gotten to know a person until I've sniffed their crotch." "We said 'no' to Mr. Curiosity. We're not home. Curiosity is not welcome, it is not to be invited in. Curiosity...is bad. It gets you in trouble, it gets you killed, and more importantly...it makes you poor!"
Passion and Serenity are one.
I gain power by understanding both.
In the chaos of their battle, I bring order.
I am a shadow, darkness born from light.
The Force is united within me.
ZPM, ZPEC, it hardly matters; cryptic stole the idea for the name from stargate, and now we have zero-point energy generators
Considering the console is described as functioning fundamentally differently than a ZPM (ZPM = giant mega space-magic battery, Zero Point Energy Console = power conversion unit), it does matter.
Grow up you two, it was a mistake in naming it and it hardly matters we know what console he was on about.
Back on topic I would much rather not see an armour slot on cruisers as it will limit what the designers can get away with in terms of buffs. Make it a warp core and you can have it not only alter power levels, drains and other things but you could even say it diverts extra power to the hull increasing resistance or structural integrity. You will find it will have a longer use than armour and will not shoe horn cruisers into the tank role and promote more diversity in builds.
Why do you expect a dev to reply again when theres so much off topic random nonsense going on. let;s get back on topic with more great suggestions. thanks.
So I've been thinking it over, and now I find myself thinking about how this would actually help cruisers...
It could free up Engineering consoles for other uses, and allow otherwise underused consoles to see the light of day. However, I wonder how this would help with other issues such as BOff powers or the inefficiency of beam arrays (which Capt***** insists are working as designed), as well as the overall role of cruisers in gameplay.
First, let?s take Warp Cores out of the discussion. If STO gets a Warp Core, it will have little to do with armor.
Here is the bottom line we are discussing internally:
? We want to add a ship armor slot. Having more itemization is good
? Armor means Damage Resistance (to be consistent with ground Armor). Other enhancement bonuses can be available
? We don?t want to raise the survivability of every ship in the game.
? We feel Cruisers could use an increase in survivability.
? Armor could be added as a set piece.
? Armor could offer a ship material change.
So two options we are discussing:
Option 1:
? Only Cruisers Get Armor.
? No other changes needed (simple).
? We couldn't integrate armor as set piece for everyone, but it could possibly become part of a set only usable by cruisers.
Option 2:
? Everyone gets an Armor slot, but Cruisers can equip Heavy Armor.
? This is dangerous b/c it potentially raises the survivability of every ship in the game. To do this, Armor consoles would have to be changed. They would have to be something that is not related to damage mitigation (so not damage resistance, or bonus HP, or defense). The consoles would have to change to something new, or existing.
? Basic Armor could have lots of options and types, but in general, the damage resistance bonus would be equivalent to about 2 to 3 engineering consoles (for white quality - higher qualities could be better). Heavy armor would be worth much more.
So bottom line, would you be willing to loose Engineering Damage Resistance consoles for an armor slot that gives you about the same resistance, but also offers you more options.
Ok didn't see this. If you're not dismissing the idea of warp cores, good.
As for the armour slots. I think adding a dedicated slot to all ships (so option 2) is the better idea as you can then restrict classes of ship in which armour they can equip. Escorts light armout, science medium and cruisers heavy which will help set them all to a certain base level of survivability. You can also allow for different sets with a large variety of pieces and it means everyone can slot more universal consoles -_-
Either way I hope this means that engineering consoles will get another look at because at the moment I see no reason to slot anything but armour over a universal console.
Comments
I suggested this earlier but immediatly found it would make it extremely easy for escorts in an STF, they could just stack that hull armor and hull tank and shield tank the whole time pushing cruisers and sci ships even more out of the picture for STF.
This post is endemic of what's wrong. Don't wait to be GIVEN a role. Carve one out for yourself. Figure out how to not be "irrelevant", if you can't maybe sci vessels and cruisers aren't for you?
You would have to make it so DPS is not the main threat generation as it is now.
Even with Embassy Sci consoles that lower threat by 68% each, I still gain threat over nearly every Cruiser I have teamed up with in PVE.
The only times that changes, is when the Cruiser pilot focuses solely on DPS alone, which then makes them squishy and defeats the purpose of what a cruiser is meant to do. Tank damage.
This is a game wide problem created by muddying the lines between Tank, Damage and Healing.
It cannot be solved by putting a plaster over the problem....
usually I do not post these but, did you even read the post I quoted?
Im trying to say that even though the escort turn rate would be heavily reduced it wouldnt matter for STF because you dont have to turn really. a bunch of scorts could just sit there and tank all day with 3 more armor slots
That is always a problem iddinit.
I don't agree, We're getting to the point where we have to much now. Never mind the way this translates to me is (we need more things to put on the LOBI/DIL/CSTORE)
Then Don't do it. Then buff the cruisers in question. Problem solved.
It depends, If its not for sale, is a drop, and doesn't cost me more than what it would to craft, yes. If its going into the CSTORE, LOBI or Dilithium Markets, then more than likely no. Unless you're willing to have them valued at no more than 5.00 worth of ZEN, and be account bound
Armor = x% CritD resistance
Heavy Armor = X% CritH resistance and x% CritD resistance
Then apply a small global CritH and CritD buff to all appropriately enhanced weapons in the game (e.g. CritD x 1 = 25% critical severity up from the current 20% and CritH x 1 = 2.5% critical hit up from current 2%)
My reasoning. Let me show you it.
For the moment, OK. But see below.
Meh. Consistency is overrated. You have bunches of perfectly fine engineering consoles out there already.
See the global buff on the CritH and CritD stats. These weapon modifiers are currently underutilized and unappreciated. See any sale of weapons on the exchange. The CritH and CritD weapons are always cheaper. Acc modifiers command a premium price - mostly because of the inherent CritH bonus.
Gotcha covered. While every other ship in the game gets a touch squishier (I'm looking at you, escorts... and to a lesser extent the sci ships, but see below), cruisers will not be as susceptible to the CritH buff due to their Heavy Armor.
Absolutely. See below.
Bring it. More customization for ships.
Yes.
Not necessarily. Make the new thing do something new. And fix the imbalance in the weapon bonus types.
Again, this conflicts with the design goal mentioned above. By transferring hull resistance from console slots to armor, every ship gets AT LEAST 2-3 white consoles worth of hull buff. This is regardless of whether or not the player currently chooses to equip an armor console. Focusing on the tail end of the DPS curve - high spike damage - cuts down a major vulnerability of cruisers but doesn't affect the other two classes. In fact, it makes them a little bit squishier.
I got your options right here. This is the "below" part I was talking about when I said "see below" all those times.
Make the Armor part of a 4 piece set including a Warp Core, Computer Core, and Targeting System.
Warp Core = power bonus. Bonus shield power for everyone (your warp field generators are shut down). Tactical warp cores get bonus weapon power, Engineering cores get bonus engine power, Science warp cores get bonus auxiliary power.
Computer Core = Team CritH buff/CritD resist. Advanced Computer Cores for science ships get CritD buff/CritH resist as well.
Targeting System = CritD buff for either beams, cannons or projectiles. Advanced Targeting Systems for escorts get a CritH buff as well.
Go crazy with the set bonuses. But make those underused weapon modifiers worth something again.
Consider this is your personal invitation to come on Priority One to debate this idea. How's tomorrow look for you? James always has a comfy chair waiting for you, Ironass Rivera.
Tony
MADNESS!! You can never have too much stuff! NEVER!!
Science ships (generally) got Sensor Analysis when the masses claimed that they didn't do enough damage.
Escorts (generally) got Dual Heavy Cannons to pew with extreme prejudice.
Cruisers got....? crippling energy drain from beam weapons
Yes I realize that "Armor" is one of those things that can be put on anything (Wisest armored tribble anyone?). Yet in the end, not counting the eventual hybrid ships, there has to be a draw to cruisers other than nostalgia and "It's more canon."
It is worth mentioning however we have piles of "useless" consoles that don't even get used much. Why would a player stack +4 mk XII power consoles?
Which is why the armor has speed and turn rate attached to it. An escort with three armor should have a very bad turn rate. The 2 number used in the example where just pull out as examples.
Alright! Something I can sink my teeth into.
Disagree with this point. Cruisers already stay alive pretty darned well. Maybe there are many cruiser captains who aren't very good at flying cruisers so they drag the stats down? When you say "cruisers need more survivability", I hear "cruiser survivability isn't intuitive to the players" . And that is pretty much directly attributable to the fact that there's no tutorial on ship configuration nor any sandbox mode to try stuff out on the spot. If you had a tutorial of some kind that said basically that big ships which can't rely on defense from movement should use tactical teams to balance their shields and emergency power to shields to increase their hardness, then cruiser survivability in your stats would go up.
Not a fan. Basic damage mitigation should be available to every ship, especially because you don't have nice clear cut lines. Is the Jem'hadar heavy escort carrier an escort or a cruiser? It doesn't have the turn rate or tactical abilities of the first, nor does it have the hull strength and engineering abilities of the second. Same with the dreadnaught carrier, is it an escort or a cruiser? Simply dividing everything into "armored" and "not armored" forces you into the position of making extremely binary distinctions between ships, and as should be clear by now some of the most popular ships in the game are genre benders that have a bit of everything.
Not a fan of this either. Having a dedicated "heavy armor" item class is just going to cheese people off, because they'll find something really good and realize that it's the wrong kind of armor for their ship. Also, having only 1 slot for armor limits the variety that players can express. Right now players can choose a type of armor and also how much of it to carry, having to balance damage mitigation against "other". Carrying 4 layers of armor does great things for your ability to absorb damage but now you can't have an assimilated console or a Romulan ZPM without cutting into your shield strength or tactical boosts. There's tradeoff. If you have only 1 slot, then people are going to fill that 1 slot and that's the end of it.
If you really want to increase cruiser survivability via damage mitigation, and only specifically cruisers, then leave armor alone and add cruiser-exclusive engineering consoles that increase the performance of the armor they can already choose to carry. This leaves every ship at their current level of tank except for cruisers, who gain the option to harden up further by installing their exclusive consoles. As random brainstorms:
* Redundant hull bonding: Reduces the chance to be hit critically, and the hitpoint severerity of critical hits, based on your damage resistance.
* Powered plating: Multiplies your damage resistance by a factor based on your Aux power level.
* Nano-active systems: Automatic hull repair rate is increased.
* Regenerative couplngs: Energy weapon damage to the hull will increase your ship's power levels.
* Microstabilizers: Shield hardness and regeneration rate is multiplied by a factor based on your armor's resistance.
* Sensor-stealthed surfacing: Adds a passive Defense value based on your armor's resistance
the idea. Our have to chose between extra survivability at the cost of speed and turn. like wise a curiser captain that chose to for go armor would gain speed and turn rate.
Now couldn't it be possible that these armor items could have passive stats on them much like the Romulan Reputation consoles, only in this case the bonuses would be tailored toward a much broader, gameplay changing design.
By having tough choices attached to each type, the player would have to decide what the best advantage and subsequently lest dis-advantage when equiping the armor.
Heavy armor could drastically increase survival, but light armor makes your ship faster and turn better. Photonic armor reduces recharge times on all science abilities. Just some examples off the top of my head.
And the Vesta, and dreadnought and battle cruisers all which are not escorts.
If you want to make cruisers more attractive, as others have already said, you need to look at the areas in which they are lacking, like damage output. A power bonus, like a heavier class of Warp Core, would help. Just making beam arrays better, or having more wide angle torpedo launchers would go a long way.
I just really don't understand why anyone would want to take the most ineffectual ship class and make them better at the only thing they already do extremely well, instead of addressing their flaws.
Someone else mentioned that it likely had to do with statistics and how often cruisers actually get blown up in game. But that person hit the nail on the head when they said that most players don't know HOW to fly a cruiser, what abilities to use and so on, because the game doesn't actually tell you. Personally, I had to learn from forums, the sto wiki and a lot of trail and error.
As you mentioned in your post, most players have no idea how to play or how to get anything worthwhile out of their ships. These players gravitate towards cruisers because their ridiculous durability allows them to play the game. For them, the idea of making a cruiser even tougher sounds like a FANTASTIC idea. Cryptic knows that by making cruisers tougher they will sell more of them if nothing else. How often do people talk about the amazing great tac capability of the Ody, and how often to people rave about how durable it is? Clearly, the average player wants more and more indestructible ships above all else.
If we can get flat rate based RCS console in return, you can have flat rate based armor turn rate penalty
It wasn't here before (while you were still slotting armor) , so why now ?
To me personally its hard to determine whether gecko is just a bad game designer or simply cornered by cryptics limited understanding of how to make money off of us.
Sidebar: It's not a ZPM
ZPM, ZPEC, it hardly matters; cryptic stole the idea for the name from stargate, and now we have zero-point energy generators
#LegalizeAwoo
A normie goes "Oh, what's this?"
An otaku goes "UwU, what's this?"
A furry goes "OwO, what's this?"
A werewolf goes "Awoo, what's this?"
"It's nothing personal, I just don't feel like I've gotten to know a person until I've sniffed their crotch."
"We said 'no' to Mr. Curiosity. We're not home. Curiosity is not welcome, it is not to be invited in. Curiosity...is bad. It gets you in trouble, it gets you killed, and more importantly...it makes you poor!"
Considering the console is described as functioning fundamentally differently than a ZPM (ZPM = giant mega space-magic battery, Zero Point Energy Console = power conversion unit), it does matter.
Back on topic I would much rather not see an armour slot on cruisers as it will limit what the designers can get away with in terms of buffs. Make it a warp core and you can have it not only alter power levels, drains and other things but you could even say it diverts extra power to the hull increasing resistance or structural integrity. You will find it will have a longer use than armour and will not shoe horn cruisers into the tank role and promote more diversity in builds.
It is through repetition that we learn our weakness.
A master with a stone is better than a novice with a sword.
Has damage got out of control?
This is the last thing I will post.
Congratulations on completely missing the point. There never was any doubt as to which console was being discussed.
This post
http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/showpost.php?p=8679511&postcount=211
It could free up Engineering consoles for other uses, and allow otherwise underused consoles to see the light of day. However, I wonder how this would help with other issues such as BOff powers or the inefficiency of beam arrays (which Capt***** insists are working as designed), as well as the overall role of cruisers in gameplay.
Ok didn't see this. If you're not dismissing the idea of warp cores, good.
As for the armour slots. I think adding a dedicated slot to all ships (so option 2) is the better idea as you can then restrict classes of ship in which armour they can equip. Escorts light armout, science medium and cruisers heavy which will help set them all to a certain base level of survivability. You can also allow for different sets with a large variety of pieces and it means everyone can slot more universal consoles -_-
Either way I hope this means that engineering consoles will get another look at because at the moment I see no reason to slot anything but armour over a universal console.
It is through repetition that we learn our weakness.
A master with a stone is better than a novice with a sword.
Has damage got out of control?
This is the last thing I will post.