I see the OP's point, that cruisers could use a little more punch in a way that wouldn't necessarily make them overpowered. I think an extra torp is a little too much punch, in my opinion.
Single torp is about the same damage as a burst of buffed energy weapon damage. And even that requires the shields to be down.
Spreads and high-yields can be damage amplifiers (when the target's shields are down) but most cruisers dont have BOFF seating to support THY3/TS3 and are limited to weaker varients.
And even then they still have to face the target which takes broadsiding and some BFaW benefits off the table.
I just dont see the OP. All it does is give an extra bit of punch in the forward arc, and you have to give up a lot of other benefits to get high damage consistently.
Did you even read before replying? The OP wasn't about managing the existing 8 weapon hard-points, its about adding an extra dedicated torp slot that would give Fed cruisers a 9th weapon hard-point to off-set their weakness relative to other ships
I just don't think it's necessary. Min-maxed cruiser FAW builds do more damage than min-maxed cannon builds (excluding the OP Scimitar) - not to mention putting Beta, disruptor and plasma procs on everything in the map. Working fine at the moment IMO. Since the fix to FAW there seems to be a good equilibrium between beams and cannons.
I've been flying Cruisers and Carriers for most of my play time, so this is coming from personal experience rather than 'what I heard'. They are ALWAYS beside me, NEVER in front.
Not so sure. A well timed evasive could bring a double beam and a ts3 or hyt3 to bear..
I think I heard a Dev interview where Geko talked about the possibility of putting hangar slots on more cruisers. Not all, necessarily... he was mainly talking about the C-Store variants I think.
While I get that more pet spam is not necessarily a good thing, it seems to me that having shuttlecraft/fighters could potentially balance out cruisers better than anything else (that Cryptic has not said 'no' to already).
The highly mobile units might at least partially compensate for the cruiser's manuverability issues as well as provide a little extra firepower to burn through shields and hull. The right small ship in a hangar slot could also be very effective in neutralizing some of the escorts' advantages.
I see the OP's point, that cruisers could use a little more punch in a way that wouldn't necessarily make them overpowered. I think an extra torp is a little too much punch, in my opinion. People would be likely to put an extra Transphasic in there... I know I would try it. For that matter, fighters might be too much of an advantage too.
This, id more likely fly a cruiser if most of them came with a hanger bay.
The first part is...extreme. However, the reference to the shows/movies does point out a mechanic that's missing from the game. Projectile bleed damage increases and projectile resistance decreases as shields are reduced.
Whether there's 15000 shield or 15 shield left, the game still imposes the 75% kinetic resist and the 5/10% bleed. It should scale, imho.
Course, that won't do anything about the OP's concerns about Cruisers - but not everybody shares the OP's view of Cruisers...
I agree, the first part is a little extreme. But that is an issue where numbers balancing come in. It was just to point out that a change in mechanic would work better than just throwing on a free weapon.
Player and forumite formerly known as FEELTHETHUNDER
I've been away from the game for a while. Is power drain on beam arrays still horribly broken? That's the only fix that was really needed for cruisers.
'Only' is too strong a word. Turn rate always sucked on cruisers, too.
Yes, because .. escorts need even more firepower.. i understand.:rolleyes:
Now wait a minute.
You obviously want something EXTRA for your favorite type of ship.
I don't fly cruisers, so there's nothing in this deal for me except good will.
Which you neutralized when you tried to belittle my post about something I actually want for my favorite ship type.
A Lance, while devastating on the TV show, is not really all the powerful in STO, especially with the CD. I used this as an illustration of what it feels like to have someone with a different favorite ship type ask for something extra.
cruisers should be firing arrays at 360 degrees anyway i distincley remember seeing galaxy class in the shows firing from the saucer to the rear and voyager too . beam banks doing it might be a tad OP , but then again be nice for cruisers to be king of the hill again , tachy escorts have had it good fora long time now
I found the patch note about fixing the power drain on FaW, but I'm still looking for the note about fixing beam power drain issues in general.
On the contrary, the Devs have pretty much said that beam power drain is working as intended and it doesn't look like they plan on touching that. Never say never, but close enough.
That leaves people proposing other things... hence this thread.
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
You obviously want something EXTRA for your favorite type of ship.
I don't fly cruisers, so there's nothing in this deal for me except good will.
Which you neutralized when you tried to belittle my post about something I actually want for my favorite ship type.
A Lance, while devastating on the TV show, is not really all the powerful in STO, especially with the CD. I used this as an illustration of what it feels like to have someone with a different favorite ship type ask for something extra.
Hardly the way to sway anybody to your cause.
No, my point was that Starfleet cruisers where to weak in the first place, they need a bit more punch, Escorts don't.
Starfleet Cruisers got too little by Cryptic from the Start, a bit more Hull HP and a lower turn rate is not a good compensation for a the ability to use DC and DHCs and a (battle) cloak, compared to their KDF and ROM counterparts, that's all. Thats all i wanted to say.
Now, if someone says "if you want this, then i want a Phaser Lance for my escort!" then this person is clearly missing the point.
Starfleet Escorts don't have so many disadvantages to their KDF or ROM counterparts as Starfleet Crusiers have.
So it's not a Cruiser vs. Escort question, it's more like a general faction balance thing, where Starfleet Cruisers draw the short straw IMO.
"...'With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured...the first thought forbidden...the first freedom denied--chains us all irrevocably.' ... The first time any man's freedom is trodden on, we're all damaged. I fear that today--"
- (TNG) Picard, quoting Judge Aaron Satie
On the contrary, the Devs have pretty much said that beam power drain is working as intended and it doesn't look like they plan on touching that. Never say never, but close enough.
That leaves people proposing other things... hence this thread.
Which only confirms, once again, that they were all pwned by maths.
No, my point was that Starfleet cruisers where to weak in the first place, they need a bit more punch, Escorts don't.
Starfleet Cruisers got too little by Cryptic from the Start, a bit more Hull HP and a lower turn rate is not a good compensation for a the ability to use DC and DHCs and a (battle) cloak, compared to their KDF and ROM counterparts, that's all. Thats all i wanted to say.
Now, if someone says "if you want this, then i want a Phaser Lance for my escort!" then this person is clearly missing the point.
Starfleet Escorts don't have so many disadvantages to their KDF or ROM counterparts as Starfleet Crusiers have.
So it's not a Cruiser vs. Escort question, it's more like a general faction balance thing, where Starfleet Cruisers draw the short straw IMO.
You really should take a look at how endgame cruisers builds work (well i suppose you do but it's not true for everyone). Then you will realize that Starfleet cruisers are in fact better than their KDF counterparts (can't really speak about rom ones but they don't look really dangerous).
A few clues : better inertia, much better hull, 4 tact consoles, access to APO I without sacrificing 2 sci slots.
And no DHCs are not good on a slow cruiser in pvp (outside of punching zombies). The tor'kaht is only okay (inferior to a fleet somraw) if you don't have access to aux2batt.
I don't think cruiser need more weapon slots though I do think they should have more than escort. What federation cruiser need to be coherent with the series is more shield and hull hit point. The Federation cruiser don't cloack and still win because they are more resilient than the D7 (and were more powerfull than the D6). To be balanced, the federation cruiser should wisthand the first sneak attack better than other ship. That would balance them.
An additional weapon for free on one type of a ship results in an arms race, and I am opposed to this concept. Look at it this way.
The Escort is up at the top of the hill for DPS right now. Cruisers get a free weapon slot to address this. Fixed! Awesome! Now... what about that Atrox? And other sci ships? The Atrox does ok, with the hangars, but it still doesnt do a ton of damage, compared to a comparably well built escort, and a comparably well built cruiser (+1 weapon, mind you!), so now it needs something too. Suddenly, the gap from top damage to bottom damage is too small, and escorts, which, rightly so, should be doing maximum damage (under the current system), now need a buff, starting the entire cycle over again.
Before giving out free weapon slots, I would suggest examining weapons themselves, and adjusting that way. At least then, every ship in the game benefits or suffers from it, allowing the dev's to adjust things to allow the ship types to maintain their position in the pyramid, without obvious advantages to one ship or ship type.
I don't think cruiser need more weapon slots though I do think they should have more than escort. What federation cruiser need to be coherent with the series is more shield and hull hit point. The Federation cruiser don't cloack and still win because they are more resilient than the D7 (and were more powerfull than the D6). To be balanced, the federation cruiser should wisthand the first sneak attack better than other ship. That would balance them.
They already can withstand a Alpha Strike, the problem comes after that. They don't have enough "bite" to pose a serious threat to the Attacker. If two equal good players (1 Starfleet/1 KDF Cruiser) are fighting, the question is not IF a Starfleet cruiser could win against a attacker, no it's just WHEN it is going to loose, because of the missing offensive power. Without the Firepower of DC or DHCs you won't be able to break through enemies shields in a reasonable amount of time.
I'm not saying Starfleet Cruisers should get acess to DC or DHCs, please not. DHCs are already the measure of all things. The're everywherea and everyone uses them, EXCEPT Starfleet Cruisers and science ships (which at least have their science magic tricks).
Starfleet Cruisers should at least get the suggested torpedo slot so they wouldn't have to be so passive and defensive anymore. (in my opinion Starfleet crusiers should get acess to a special type of Beam Array which would be roughly as strong as Dual beam Banks)
From the attackers point of view, where's the fun of fighting an enemy that doesn't have enough attack power to become dangerous in the first place?
In my opinion Starfleet cruisers are just big and passive flying Bricks that don't pose a real threat to an attacker. This has to change in order to make the Game exiting, fair and balanced (for eveyone, not just escort jockeys).
I think giving starfleet Cruisers a bit more offensive power would improve the game for everyone, not just cruiser captains.
"...'With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured...the first thought forbidden...the first freedom denied--chains us all irrevocably.' ... The first time any man's freedom is trodden on, we're all damaged. I fear that today--"
- (TNG) Picard, quoting Judge Aaron Satie
An additional weapon for free on one type of a ship results in an arms race, and I am opposed to this concept. Look at it this way.
So... if I have a broken leg and a broken arm, I should not do anything about the broken arm because the leg will still be broken? The existence of multiple problems is not an argument against addressing any of them
Before giving out free weapon slots, I would suggest examining weapons themselves, and adjusting that way. At least then, every ship in the game benefits or suffers from it, allowing the dev's to adjust things to allow the ship types to maintain their position in the pyramid, without obvious advantages to one ship or ship type.
Federation Cruisers with beam weapons are able to generate enormous amounts of damage in a several situations. I'm not interested in solutions that buff those scenarios even more. Torpedo on the front addresses a specific weakness, that is all.
In most of the 'alternate universes' in Star Trek, the federation is generally on the losing side of things, mostly portrayed through drawn out conflicts of attrition.
I propose it's canon that Starfleet vessels are just not as up to the task as the Empire's warships, and it certainly fits within their charter.
When the Defiant is introduced in DS9, Kira remarks about how the federation didn't believe in warships and Sisko says they'd even abandoned the project when the borg threat didn't seem 'imminent'.
The borg being the only spiecies encountered by the federation up to that point that could be classified as Varelse (and man were they better villains when they were).
Even at open war with the KDF, communication and camaraderie is possible, and the federation isn't resolved to destroying them, biding until peace is made.
So... if I have a broken leg and a broken arm, I should not do anything about the broken arm because the leg will still be broken? The existence of multiple problems is not an argument against addressing any of them
Federation Cruisers with beam weapons are able to generate enormous amounts of damage in a several situations. I'm not interested in solutions that buff those scenarios even more. Torpedo on the front addresses a specific weakness, that is all.
That isn't what I said at all. What I said was that it starts an arms race, the goal being to buff a specific class. What results is that other classes then need buffing to maintain the desired balance, which then starts the cycle over again. That gets nowhere.
You can see that mentality through many, many posts in this forum. The only types of ships consistently compared and discussed are cruisers and escorts, with the science vessels being completely ignored. These ships have the fewest number of weapons on any ship, not including small craft, and yet, are never addressed.
Without very specific details being given, this fix would cause more issues than it would resolve. For instance. Is this free weapon restricted to a free torpedo given with the ship, and locked to that slot? Or can the player switch it out for any other "torpedo" weapon? The difference is important. A cruiser with a free photon torp fore is bad enough, changing that to plasma, quantum, etc, can make that situation worse. Would the Bio-neural be allowed in this spot? Again, vast difference between a free photon and that. Or how about the Omega and Romulan plasma torpedoes? Not sure if they can be used together, but if they can, it could potentially cause some serious balance issues.
Addressing the issue via other methods can provide the needed buffs without the inclusion of free weapon slots for one class of ship. One simple fix that could address the concerns that have been listed would be to increase the torpedo angle to an angle that allows a small overlap between it and the aft beams. That would need to be... 95 degrees, if I'm not mistaken?
Again, the objective (increasing the cruiser DPS) would be met, without a free torpedo spot on one class. The buff to the torp would help out most where it is needed (The cruiser gets the most help, along with sci, and the escort the least), without the need to make immense changes that would likely require rebalancing many, many ships in the game, and MORE fixes down the road.
Without very specific details being given, this fix would cause more issues than it would resolve. For instance. Is this free weapon restricted to a free torpedo given with the ship, and locked to that slot? Or can the player switch it out for any other "torpedo" weapon? The difference is important.
Was it suggested somewhere that it would be limited to a specific type of torpedo? In fact it has been said to slot whatever torpedo you want, such as wide-angle or bio-neural if you want those characteristics.
One simple fix that could address the concerns that have been listed would be to increase the torpedo angle to an angle that allows a small overlap between it and the aft beams. That would need to be... 95 degrees, if I'm not mistaken?
That would also buff broadsiding and I'm not interested in buffing broadsides, I want to buff the forward arc. That has been stated multiple times.
Was it suggested somewhere that it would be limited to a specific type of torpedo? In fact it has been said to slot whatever torpedo you want, such as wide-angle or bio-neural if you want those characteristics.
That would also buff broadsiding and I'm not interested in buffing broadsides, I want to buff the forward arc. That has been stated multiple times.
And as it was stated earlier, you can
1. Remove a beam, and install a second torp, or
2. Utilize a kinetic cutting beam aft, which has a 360 degree firing arc, improving the foreward arc as well as the broadside.
I fly cruisers as well as other ship types myself, and I do not find that they need a 5th weapon slot fore. I, personally, feel that another torpedo slot fore would balance them too much, again, causing a disparity between them and other ship types in the game.
An additional weapon for free on one type of a ship results in an arms race, and I am opposed to this concept. Look at it this way.
The Escort is up at the top of the hill for DPS right now. Cruisers get a free weapon slot to address this. Fixed! Awesome! Now... what about that Atrox? And other sci ships? The Atrox does ok, with the hangars, but it still doesnt do a ton of damage, compared to a comparably well built escort, and a comparably well built cruiser (+1 weapon, mind you!), so now it needs something too. Suddenly, the gap from top damage to bottom damage is too small, and escorts, which, rightly so, should be doing maximum damage (under the current system), now need a buff, starting the entire cycle over again.
Before giving out free weapon slots, I would suggest examining weapons themselves, and adjusting that way. At least then, every ship in the game benefits or suffers from it, allowing the dev's to adjust things to allow the ship types to maintain their position in the pyramid, without obvious advantages to one ship or ship type.
First off, I agree with this. But here is my problem.
Is is logical or reasonable a Tactical Escort should survive the cloaked alpha strike of a Galaxy X?
Answer: Definitively No, were these ships existing in the real world.
Yet this is what we see in game in numerous videos and in game play.
Player and forumite formerly known as FEELTHETHUNDER
In most of the 'alternate universes' in Star Trek, the federation is generally on the losing side of things, mostly portrayed through drawn out conflicts of attrition.
I propose it's canon that Starfleet vessels are just not as up to the task as the Empire's warships, and it certainly fits within their charter.
When the Defiant is introduced in DS9, Kira remarks about how the federation didn't believe in warships and Sisko says they'd even abandoned the project when the borg threat didn't seem 'imminent'.
The borg being the only spiecies encountered by the federation up to that point that could be classified as Varelse (and man were they better villains when they were).
Even at open war with the KDF, communication and camaraderie is possible, and the federation isn't resolved to destroying them, biding until peace is made.
STO is an online game, not a scripted television series. Your examples are fail.
Comments
Spreads and high-yields can be damage amplifiers (when the target's shields are down) but most cruisers dont have BOFF seating to support THY3/TS3 and are limited to weaker varients.
And even then they still have to face the target which takes broadsiding and some BFaW benefits off the table.
I just dont see the OP. All it does is give an extra bit of punch in the forward arc, and you have to give up a lot of other benefits to get high damage consistently.
I just don't think it's necessary. Min-maxed cruiser FAW builds do more damage than min-maxed cannon builds (excluding the OP Scimitar) - not to mention putting Beta, disruptor and plasma procs on everything in the map. Working fine at the moment IMO. Since the fix to FAW there seems to be a good equilibrium between beams and cannons.
Kirk's Protege.
Not so sure. A well timed evasive could bring a double beam and a ts3 or hyt3 to bear..
This, id more likely fly a cruiser if most of them came with a hanger bay.
I agree, the first part is a little extreme. But that is an issue where numbers balancing come in. It was just to point out that a change in mechanic would work better than just throwing on a free weapon.
Player and forumite formerly known as FEELTHETHUNDER
Expatriot Might Characters in EXILE
'Only' is too strong a word. Turn rate always sucked on cruisers, too.
This isnt intended to be a "fix" rather something to give Fed cruisers a slight buff against targets in the forward arc
Now wait a minute.
You obviously want something EXTRA for your favorite type of ship.
I don't fly cruisers, so there's nothing in this deal for me except good will.
Which you neutralized when you tried to belittle my post about something I actually want for my favorite ship type.
A Lance, while devastating on the TV show, is not really all the powerful in STO, especially with the CD. I used this as an illustration of what it feels like to have someone with a different favorite ship type ask for something extra.
Hardly the way to sway anybody to your cause.
On the contrary, the Devs have pretty much said that beam power drain is working as intended and it doesn't look like they plan on touching that. Never say never, but close enough.
That leaves people proposing other things... hence this thread.
Link: How to PM - Twitter @STOMod_Bluegeek
Starfleet Cruisers got too little by Cryptic from the Start, a bit more Hull HP and a lower turn rate is not a good compensation for a the ability to use DC and DHCs and a (battle) cloak, compared to their KDF and ROM counterparts, that's all. Thats all i wanted to say.
Now, if someone says "if you want this, then i want a Phaser Lance for my escort!" then this person is clearly missing the point.
Starfleet Escorts don't have so many disadvantages to their KDF or ROM counterparts as Starfleet Crusiers have.
So it's not a Cruiser vs. Escort question, it's more like a general faction balance thing, where Starfleet Cruisers draw the short straw IMO.
You really should take a look at how endgame cruisers builds work (well i suppose you do but it's not true for everyone). Then you will realize that Starfleet cruisers are in fact better than their KDF counterparts (can't really speak about rom ones but they don't look really dangerous).
A few clues : better inertia, much better hull, 4 tact consoles, access to APO I without sacrificing 2 sci slots.
And no DHCs are not good on a slow cruiser in pvp (outside of punching zombies). The tor'kaht is only okay (inferior to a fleet somraw) if you don't have access to aux2batt.
Skanvak Drakken
http://lamaisondesdrakkens.clan-box.com/index.php
The Escort is up at the top of the hill for DPS right now. Cruisers get a free weapon slot to address this. Fixed! Awesome! Now... what about that Atrox? And other sci ships? The Atrox does ok, with the hangars, but it still doesnt do a ton of damage, compared to a comparably well built escort, and a comparably well built cruiser (+1 weapon, mind you!), so now it needs something too. Suddenly, the gap from top damage to bottom damage is too small, and escorts, which, rightly so, should be doing maximum damage (under the current system), now need a buff, starting the entire cycle over again.
Before giving out free weapon slots, I would suggest examining weapons themselves, and adjusting that way. At least then, every ship in the game benefits or suffers from it, allowing the dev's to adjust things to allow the ship types to maintain their position in the pyramid, without obvious advantages to one ship or ship type.
They already can withstand a Alpha Strike, the problem comes after that. They don't have enough "bite" to pose a serious threat to the Attacker. If two equal good players (1 Starfleet/1 KDF Cruiser) are fighting, the question is not IF a Starfleet cruiser could win against a attacker, no it's just WHEN it is going to loose, because of the missing offensive power. Without the Firepower of DC or DHCs you won't be able to break through enemies shields in a reasonable amount of time.
I'm not saying Starfleet Cruisers should get acess to DC or DHCs, please not. DHCs are already the measure of all things. The're everywherea and everyone uses them, EXCEPT Starfleet Cruisers and science ships (which at least have their science magic tricks).
Starfleet Cruisers should at least get the suggested torpedo slot so they wouldn't have to be so passive and defensive anymore.
(in my opinion Starfleet crusiers should get acess to a special type of Beam Array which would be roughly as strong as Dual beam Banks)
From the attackers point of view, where's the fun of fighting an enemy that doesn't have enough attack power to become dangerous in the first place?
In my opinion Starfleet cruisers are just big and passive flying Bricks that don't pose a real threat to an attacker. This has to change in order to make the Game exiting, fair and balanced (for eveyone, not just escort jockeys).
I think giving starfleet Cruisers a bit more offensive power would improve the game for everyone, not just cruiser captains.
Federation Cruisers with beam weapons are able to generate enormous amounts of damage in a several situations. I'm not interested in solutions that buff those scenarios even more. Torpedo on the front addresses a specific weakness, that is all.
I propose it's canon that Starfleet vessels are just not as up to the task as the Empire's warships, and it certainly fits within their charter.
When the Defiant is introduced in DS9, Kira remarks about how the federation didn't believe in warships and Sisko says they'd even abandoned the project when the borg threat didn't seem 'imminent'.
The borg being the only spiecies encountered by the federation up to that point that could be classified as Varelse (and man were they better villains when they were).
Even at open war with the KDF, communication and camaraderie is possible, and the federation isn't resolved to destroying them, biding until peace is made.
That isn't what I said at all. What I said was that it starts an arms race, the goal being to buff a specific class. What results is that other classes then need buffing to maintain the desired balance, which then starts the cycle over again. That gets nowhere.
You can see that mentality through many, many posts in this forum. The only types of ships consistently compared and discussed are cruisers and escorts, with the science vessels being completely ignored. These ships have the fewest number of weapons on any ship, not including small craft, and yet, are never addressed.
Without very specific details being given, this fix would cause more issues than it would resolve. For instance. Is this free weapon restricted to a free torpedo given with the ship, and locked to that slot? Or can the player switch it out for any other "torpedo" weapon? The difference is important. A cruiser with a free photon torp fore is bad enough, changing that to plasma, quantum, etc, can make that situation worse. Would the Bio-neural be allowed in this spot? Again, vast difference between a free photon and that. Or how about the Omega and Romulan plasma torpedoes? Not sure if they can be used together, but if they can, it could potentially cause some serious balance issues.
Addressing the issue via other methods can provide the needed buffs without the inclusion of free weapon slots for one class of ship. One simple fix that could address the concerns that have been listed would be to increase the torpedo angle to an angle that allows a small overlap between it and the aft beams. That would need to be... 95 degrees, if I'm not mistaken?
Again, the objective (increasing the cruiser DPS) would be met, without a free torpedo spot on one class. The buff to the torp would help out most where it is needed (The cruiser gets the most help, along with sci, and the escort the least), without the need to make immense changes that would likely require rebalancing many, many ships in the game, and MORE fixes down the road.
That would also buff broadsiding and I'm not interested in buffing broadsides, I want to buff the forward arc. That has been stated multiple times.
And as it was stated earlier, you can
1. Remove a beam, and install a second torp, or
2. Utilize a kinetic cutting beam aft, which has a 360 degree firing arc, improving the foreward arc as well as the broadside.
I fly cruisers as well as other ship types myself, and I do not find that they need a 5th weapon slot fore. I, personally, feel that another torpedo slot fore would balance them too much, again, causing a disparity between them and other ship types in the game.
First off, I agree with this. But here is my problem.
Is is logical or reasonable a Tactical Escort should survive the cloaked alpha strike of a Galaxy X?
Answer: Definitively No, were these ships existing in the real world.
Yet this is what we see in game in numerous videos and in game play.
Player and forumite formerly known as FEELTHETHUNDER
Expatriot Might Characters in EXILE
I agree with that, and I do agree that cruisers and science ships could use a boost to their damage; I just don't agree with the proposed fix.
And the Gal-X is an entirely different issue or selection of issues, but let's just say I agree there ^_^
You were pwned by maths.
Then let federation cruisers equip canons
and this is canon