May be klingon ship have too much hit point or shield. In most game the constituion class can fight several D6 or D7. Giving a malus to klingon rear shield and side shield hit point can be more interesting. Of course this will up every one against them.
May be klingon ship have too much hit point or shield. In most game the constituion class can fight several D6 or D7. Giving a malus to klingon rear shield and side shield hit point can be more interesting. Of course this will up every one against them.
The sad truth is, STO is a MMO where everything has to be "balanced".
But even this balance is flawed, if you give one side a wide array of tactical possibilities (Cloak, DHCs) and the other side only the ability to wait and see how long are you going to survive (only Cruisers here).
In my opinion KDF and Rom Cruisers should get a bit more Hull and Starfleet cruisers a special torpedo slot. Since they still couldn't use DHCs, balance would be improved 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
Maybe cruisers should get an inherent tractor ability beyond science powers.
Another thought is to swap weapon slots with escorts and sci ships. I suspect the math of three dhcs and three turrets would be a closer balance, and the sci ships certainly use all the help they can get.
I see the way it should be it sci owning at long range. Cruisers dominate mid range and escorts being the knife fighters.. Perhaps a defense boost inside 2k.. Remember the negvar could not target defint in the mirror universe just like the dominion dreadnought could not target valiant close in
The sad truth is, STO is a MMO where everything has to be "balanced".
Yes, this one one of most MMO developpers' thinking flaw. They see that everything has to be balanced at the player level. There are other way to balance things. My experience is that balance is not important as long as there is a challenge (ie that the imbalance is not too much.) Most real battle are not balanced but some are interesting to play for both side (ex : most of WWII is imbalanced but fun to play. Even Dien Bien Phu is interesting to play as a wargame despite it is a desperate battle.)
Normally the balance between stronger ship and weaker ship will be the building cost so that the side with weaker ship can have more ship. But in a MMO we don't have a building economy. Though this could be compensate by giving point value so that stroger ship mean less ship in combat and weaker ship mean more ships.
Weaker ship could respawn faster. Stronger ship could respawn slower (or not at all for the scimitar). The repair cost can be higher on stronger ship and so on.
There is other way to balance than to make every one equal.
May be klingon ship have too much hit point or shield. In most game the constituion class can fight several D6 or D7. Giving a malus to klingon rear shield and side shield hit point can be more interesting. Of course this will up every one against them.
Yes, because your play experience in single player games where you single-handedly destroy the Klingon, Romulan fleets and the Borg Collective by yourself should make an oustanding reference point as "balance" between the factions.
Sorry kiddies, the KDF players you face are, believe it or not, not the NPCs you farm in Starbase 24.
Would you guys also like a Plot Armor Slot to go along with your ships? Especially the Defiants?
Yes, because your play experience in single player games where you single-handedly destroy the Klingon, Romulan fleets and the Borg Collective by yourself should make an oustanding reference point as "balance" between the factions.
Sorry kiddies, the KDF players you face are, believe it or not, the NPCs you farm in Starbase 24.
Would you guys also like a Plot Armor Slot to go along with your ships? Especially the Defiants?
No, you miss the point. I was refering to other and oldr games (I remind 2 on the Atari ST) and to some extend the movies where the constitution is describe are more powerful than D7 or the Romulan Warbird.
In Starfleet Command/Battle the Klingon's ship does have less rear/side shield. Though dues to some missreading from technical manual the Klingon ship (D7) end up somewhat on par with the federation CA but it still have less shield and hull point (but no cloaking).
I have to find evidence in the series as I have seen them long time ago, but my feeling is that the Federation cruiser is more powerfull than most ennemy ship (excluding D'deridex, borg cube or Scimitar and other monstruosity). The Galaxy class should be on part with the klingon dreadnough not the klingon cruiser.
If the other side need a cloacking device to be on part with the federation ships, it is an sign that they are weaker than the federation ship (except latest Romulan ship).
All this point to say that I am not refering to the single player game.
PS : avoid caling a 40 year old veteran "kiddies", this might not be taken as light talk.
Yes, this one one of most MMO developpers' thinking flaw. They see that everything has to be balanced at the player level. There are other way to balance things. My experience is that balance is not important as long as there is a challenge (ie that the imbalance is not too much.) Most real battle are not balanced but some are interesting to play for both side (ex : most of WWII is imbalanced but fun to play. Even Dien Bien Phu is interesting to play as a wargame despite it is a desperate battle.)
Normally the balance between stronger ship and weaker ship will be the building cost so that the side with weaker ship can have more ship. But in a MMO we don't have a building economy. Though this could be compensate by giving point value so that stroger ship mean less ship in combat and weaker ship mean more ships.
Weaker ship could respawn faster. Stronger ship could respawn slower (or not at all for the scimitar). The repair cost can be higher on stronger ship and so on.
There is other way to balance than to make every one equal.
I'm all for it, but the average MMO player will defiantly oppose a system like this.
I have been thinking about a system where better ships could be earned through a combination of accolade points and some currency like Omega Marks, depending on the ship you want.
With such a system even a Star Trek MMO could be made much more like a Star Trek game is supposed to be. For most ships: bigger = better.
But thats just my subjective opinion, most naysayers will love to disagree, lol.
"...'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
I dont like cost-based balance, because once you buy one the balance is gone. Besides its what we already have now with fleet grind, rep grind, lobi, ec, zen, etc, and there is no balance.
honestly i would be happy if cryptic changed how cruisers worked so that you have to use both beams and torpedoes, like cruisers did on the actual show, its pretty ridiculous that the best build is nothing but beams.
how about slotting beam arrays as if they where actually power packs and give cruisers and science ships a single beam powered by the packs with an appropiate cool down between each sot so that it would not be overpowered . same goes with torps .
I don't agree with the balance reasoning discussed early in the thread, but I think it would be a good idea to make torpedo slots a seperate thing from energy weapon slots. It would allow for more ship uniqueness and the game is in desperate need of that.
I don't agree with the balance reasoning discussed early in the thread, but I think it would be a good idea to make torpedo slots a seperate thing from energy weapon slots. It would allow for more ship uniqueness and the game is in desperate need of that.
Than the question remains...how many separate torpedo slots do you allow a ship? 1,2,3 or 4? While 3 and 4 would just be overkill do to your proposal of all other weapons slots being energy weapons 1-2 would be an adequate amount, unless you are one of those who like torpedo boats in which case it would affect them badly. So in general we are left with the debate of what can you live with vs what can be lived without to design such a change?
Why not give Federation Cruisers one special Beam Array, instead of a torpedo slot?
Something that resembles the phaser strip from the shows, low fireing cycle but high energy output. The dmg output could be directly related to the ships phaser strip length or the ships mass/turnrate. So slow turning and heavier ships had a stronger main Beam array than faster lighter ships.
"...'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
Why not give Federation Cruisers one special Beam Array, instead of a torpedo slot?
I thought about that too but there are c-store ships with lances that would be diminished if a similar weapon were put on all cruisers.
I agree with everybody else that all cruisers should have a single firing beam, amplitude determined by the number of arrays in the arc. Special lance weapons could add additional damage to that, or stay as separate.
The overall problem is still that beam cruisers are mostly just irrelevant.
Did you completely miss the Auxilliary to Battery bandwagon?
I think the problem is not that cruisers are completely useless in general. In my opinion Starfleet crusiers should get something unique, something that puts them apart from other ships in STO.
As they are now Starfleet Crusiers can only equip weapons everyone else can, i would want them to get either something like the phaser strips like in the shows or to have their Weapon layouts being rearranged.
Maybe something like 2-4 fore, 2-3 on each sides and 2 rear weapon slots. (Just a quick thought, don't tear me apart if there's something wrong with it.)
As it is now STO is all about carriers and getting more and more fighter-like pets.
I think Starfleet Cruisers should counter that trend and become more like 18/19th century tall ships.
Instead of slapping fighter hangars on them, Starfleet Cruisers should become broadside monsters, slow but very dangerous. Something like a counterpart to fast nimble Escorts.
"...'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
Bring in Heavy Beam Arrays (no power clash with regular beams). Base damage of DBBs, arc of single canons, forward only, Half the RoF and double base damage. Only fitted on ships with turn lower than 6.5. Do not work with BFAW. Special proc for all HBAs could be Lancer, a chance for the beam to overwhelm that shield facing (putting it offline) and do direct hull damage.
The biggest problem with buffing cruisers atm is a2b, proper fleet beam boats running a a2b build are putting out as much damage as a proper built escort.
What about changing or adding a beam array to 360 degree and then using a cruiser with DBB (which atm are useless besides using 1 in pvp for beam overload) in the front thus allowing to use your frontal arc while still using your rear weapons.
The dps would still be lower then an escort but would be higher then current numbers while also giving you 20 degrees more arc (90 on a dbb vs 70 on broadside) while also allowing you to use your frontal torpedo.
Bah 2 of them aldrealy have the most optimal boff layout for pvp. Roms and Klings have nothing similar.
Sure, they just have acess to DHCs, (battle) cloak and most of them a higher turnrate but that's about it. Lol.
What i was talking about was that all other factions cruisers can do the same as a Starfleet Crusiers, they just don't do it because they have better options.
So i think that Starfleet Crusiers should get something no other Ship in STO can do.
This particular thing does not have to make them better ort Stronger than other factions cruisers, but different.
Cryptic made them Broadsiders, it could be worse they could have made them carriers (choke). Since they cannot equip DHCs, it's the only alternative they got. So why not make the best out of it and change their Weapons layout according to their benefit?
Starfleet Crusiers could get a radical different Weapons layout than any other ship in STO.
Instead of adding a special Torpedo Weapons slot, i think Starfleet Cruisers should get additional weapons slots for each side, while reducing their forward/aft weapons slots to balance that out.
Depending on emphasis (Defense vs. Speed) the according ship could get something between 2-4 forward facing, 2-3 side and 3 aft Weapons slots.
Since Starfleet Crusiers aren't allowed to equip Dual or Dual Heavy cannons i don't think that would be such a big problem.
Cryptic could even sell Consoles that change the Weapons Layout of a ship at the C-Store, so the ships didn't have to be changed at all. Everyone who is fine as it is wouldn't be forced to fly a different ship suddenly.
Such a Console could also decrease the Turn rate of the ship noticeable.
"...'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
What i was talking about was that all other factions cruisers can do the same as a Starfleet Crusiers, they just don't do it because they have better options.
I just told you they cant...
And no, beams are better on the long run because they benefit from power overcap and they have less damage decrease at range. I switched back to my beam cruiser and it is ridiculously op and easy to use in pvp (at least in pug).
Feds have 2 extremely good aux2batt beam cruisers and they certainly don't need a buff. If you really want something special why not but it should not improve their performance (or only for underperforming ships like the galaxy).
PS : i don't see cryptic doing major overhaul of actual ships.
I think we talk past each other.
I was refereing to the fact that Starfleet cruisers can only equip BA/DBB/Single cannons or turrets but not DCs or DHCs like KDF or Rom Cruisers.
This gives ROM and KDF Crusier captains more options to adapt their ship to their specific playstile.
Starfleet cruisers on the other hand have basicly only one option, to broadside.
And no, beams are better on the long run because they benefit from power overcap and they have less damage decrease at range. I switched back to my beam cruiser and it is ridiculously op and easy to use in pvp (at least in pug).
Feds have 2 extremely good aux2batt beam cruisers and they certainly don't need a buff. If you really want something special why not but it should not improve their performance (or only for underperforming ships like the galaxy).
PS : i don't see cryptic doing major overhaul of actual ships.
I wasn't talking about buffing starfleet Cruisers, i was talking about making them more unique, because i think they are just the basic STO standard spaceship with no speciality whatsoever.
I'm not talking about BOFF or Console Layouts but the concept of Starfleet cuisers itself in STO, which is just a boring ship.
Btw. i agree with you, Cryptic won't put a lot of work into Starfleet cruisers since they didn't put much mork into them when designing STOs game concept itself. I think that's because they obviously are not very interested in Crusiers, maybe they just find them boring or prefer some other faster and more action oriented playstyles for themselves.
But i think that's no reason to make all Starfleet Cruisers in STO just the most standard and unattractive ships in STO.
Thats why i was suggesting a special console that would change a Starfleet Cruisers weapon layout and turnrate if installed.
Those consoles or unlocks could only be acessible for certain ships like the GCS, AC or SC for example to provide an alternative.
"...'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
Thats why i was suggesting a special console that would change a Starfleet Cruisers weapon layout and turnrate if installed.
Those consoles or unlocks could only be acessible for certain ships like the GCS, AC or SC for example to provide an alternative.
Which is a bit complicated...
Why not something like your suggestion about heavy beams but simpler?
If they ever make the galaxy 3 pack, the ship could use special weapons like the vesta or kumari.
Heavy phaser beam arrays : shorter cycles, double cd, double damage, +10% crtD and +2 power drain just like heavy cannons.
I keep seeing this thread pop up and have to say my main is an engi flying a cruiser on fed side and i think having a special torp slot is not needed just on fed cruisers. Best beam boat setup is 7 beams and 1 other weapon because of the power drain. A torp in fore or aft fills the 8th slot or the rom rep beam/KCB/mines. Now if you swap out a beam for the Rom rep one that doesnt drain power and another for the KCB you can go all 8 beams and lose kinetic aside from the weak KCB.
What would be better is everyone gets a torp or mine slot. Torp can be fore or aft and mines aft only, but only 1 can be equipped. But then this also adds an imbalance in PvP with fed ships with 5 fore weapon slots already. 5 DHC and 1 torp would be a bit much when the 5 DHC strips shields followed by a torp that does the final kill. Go to rom or KDF and the cloak alpha strike damage increase will make those just as OP with an extra torp slot. make it cruiser only and its unfair to everyone else with them having 9 weapon slots and everyone else with 6 or 7.
Just build the beam boat properly as thats the fed cruiser capt's specialty, leave the spike damage to tacs in escorts because they cant take the preasure damage you should give out.
Join Date: Nobody cares.
"I'm drunk, whats your excuse for being an idiot?" - Unknown drunk man. :eek:
Comments
Skanvak Drakken
http://lamaisondesdrakkens.clan-box.com/index.php
But even this balance is flawed, if you give one side a wide array of tactical possibilities (Cloak, DHCs) and the other side only the ability to wait and see how long are you going to survive (only Cruisers here).
In my opinion KDF and Rom Cruisers should get a bit more Hull and Starfleet cruisers a special torpedo slot. Since they still couldn't use DHCs, balance would be improved IMO.
Another thought is to swap weapon slots with escorts and sci ships. I suspect the math of three dhcs and three turrets would be a closer balance, and the sci ships certainly use all the help they can get.
I see the way it should be it sci owning at long range. Cruisers dominate mid range and escorts being the knife fighters.. Perhaps a defense boost inside 2k.. Remember the negvar could not target defint in the mirror universe just like the dominion dreadnought could not target valiant close in
Yes, this one one of most MMO developpers' thinking flaw. They see that everything has to be balanced at the player level. There are other way to balance things. My experience is that balance is not important as long as there is a challenge (ie that the imbalance is not too much.) Most real battle are not balanced but some are interesting to play for both side (ex : most of WWII is imbalanced but fun to play. Even Dien Bien Phu is interesting to play as a wargame despite it is a desperate battle.)
Normally the balance between stronger ship and weaker ship will be the building cost so that the side with weaker ship can have more ship. But in a MMO we don't have a building economy. Though this could be compensate by giving point value so that stroger ship mean less ship in combat and weaker ship mean more ships.
Weaker ship could respawn faster. Stronger ship could respawn slower (or not at all for the scimitar). The repair cost can be higher on stronger ship and so on.
There is other way to balance than to make every one equal.
Skanvak Drakken
http://lamaisondesdrakkens.clan-box.com/index.php
Yes, because your play experience in single player games where you single-handedly destroy the Klingon, Romulan fleets and the Borg Collective by yourself should make an oustanding reference point as "balance" between the factions.
Sorry kiddies, the KDF players you face are, believe it or not, not the NPCs you farm in Starbase 24.
Would you guys also like a Plot Armor Slot to go along with your ships? Especially the Defiants?
No, you miss the point. I was refering to other and oldr games (I remind 2 on the Atari ST) and to some extend the movies where the constitution is describe are more powerful than D7 or the Romulan Warbird.
In Starfleet Command/Battle the Klingon's ship does have less rear/side shield. Though dues to some missreading from technical manual the Klingon ship (D7) end up somewhat on par with the federation CA but it still have less shield and hull point (but no cloaking).
I have to find evidence in the series as I have seen them long time ago, but my feeling is that the Federation cruiser is more powerfull than most ennemy ship (excluding D'deridex, borg cube or Scimitar and other monstruosity). The Galaxy class should be on part with the klingon dreadnough not the klingon cruiser.
If the other side need a cloacking device to be on part with the federation ships, it is an sign that they are weaker than the federation ship (except latest Romulan ship).
All this point to say that I am not refering to the single player game.
PS : avoid caling a 40 year old veteran "kiddies", this might not be taken as light talk.
Skanvak Drakken
http://lamaisondesdrakkens.clan-box.com/index.php
I'm all for it, but the average MMO player will defiantly oppose a system like this.
I have been thinking about a system where better ships could be earned through a combination of accolade points and some currency like Omega Marks, depending on the ship you want.
With such a system even a Star Trek MMO could be made much more like a Star Trek game is supposed to be. For most ships: bigger = better.
But thats just my subjective opinion, most naysayers will love to disagree, lol.
Than the question remains...how many separate torpedo slots do you allow a ship? 1,2,3 or 4? While 3 and 4 would just be overkill do to your proposal of all other weapons slots being energy weapons 1-2 would be an adequate amount, unless you are one of those who like torpedo boats in which case it would affect them badly. So in general we are left with the debate of what can you live with vs what can be lived without to design such a change?
Praetor of the -RTS- Romulan Tal Shiar fleet!
Something that resembles the phaser strip from the shows, low fireing cycle but high energy output. The dmg output could be directly related to the ships phaser strip length or the ships mass/turnrate. So slow turning and heavier ships had a stronger main Beam array than faster lighter ships.
I agree with everybody else that all cruisers should have a single firing beam, amplitude determined by the number of arrays in the arc. Special lance weapons could add additional damage to that, or stay as separate.
The overall problem is still that beam cruisers are mostly just irrelevant.
Did you completely miss the Auxilliary to Battery bandwagon?
I think the problem is not that cruisers are completely useless in general. In my opinion Starfleet crusiers should get something unique, something that puts them apart from other ships in STO.
As they are now Starfleet Crusiers can only equip weapons everyone else can, i would want them to get either something like the phaser strips like in the shows or to have their Weapon layouts being rearranged.
Maybe something like 2-4 fore, 2-3 on each sides and 2 rear weapon slots.
(Just a quick thought, don't tear me apart if there's something wrong with it.)
As it is now STO is all about carriers and getting more and more fighter-like pets.
I think Starfleet Cruisers should counter that trend and become more like 18/19th century tall ships.
Instead of slapping fighter hangars on them, Starfleet Cruisers should become broadside monsters, slow but very dangerous. Something like a counterpart to fast nimble Escorts.
Bah 2 of them aldrealy have the most optimal boff layout for pvp. Roms and Klings have nothing similar.
What about changing or adding a beam array to 360 degree and then using a cruiser with DBB (which atm are useless besides using 1 in pvp for beam overload) in the front thus allowing to use your frontal arc while still using your rear weapons.
The dps would still be lower then an escort but would be higher then current numbers while also giving you 20 degrees more arc (90 on a dbb vs 70 on broadside) while also allowing you to use your frontal torpedo.
What i was talking about was that all other factions cruisers can do the same as a Starfleet Crusiers, they just don't do it because they have better options.
So i think that Starfleet Crusiers should get something no other Ship in STO can do.
This particular thing does not have to make them better ort Stronger than other factions cruisers, but different.
Cryptic made them Broadsiders, it could be worse they could have made them carriers (choke). Since they cannot equip DHCs, it's the only alternative they got. So why not make the best out of it and change their Weapons layout according to their benefit?
Starfleet Crusiers could get a radical different Weapons layout than any other ship in STO.
Instead of adding a special Torpedo Weapons slot, i think Starfleet Cruisers should get additional weapons slots for each side, while reducing their forward/aft weapons slots to balance that out.
Depending on emphasis (Defense vs. Speed) the according ship could get something between 2-4 forward facing, 2-3 side and 3 aft Weapons slots.
Since Starfleet Crusiers aren't allowed to equip Dual or Dual Heavy cannons i don't think that would be such a big problem.
Cryptic could even sell Consoles that change the Weapons Layout of a ship at the C-Store, so the ships didn't have to be changed at all. Everyone who is fine as it is wouldn't be forced to fly a different ship suddenly.
Such a Console could also decrease the Turn rate of the ship noticeable.
I just told you they cant...
And no, beams are better on the long run because they benefit from power overcap and they have less damage decrease at range. I switched back to my beam cruiser and it is ridiculously op and easy to use in pvp (at least in pug).
Feds have 2 extremely good aux2batt beam cruisers and they certainly don't need a buff. If you really want something special why not but it should not improve their performance (or only for underperforming ships like the galaxy).
PS : i don't see cryptic doing major overhaul of actual ships.
How many ships in ST lacked either energy weapons or torpedoes?
I was refereing to the fact that Starfleet cruisers can only equip BA/DBB/Single cannons or turrets but not DCs or DHCs like KDF or Rom Cruisers.
This gives ROM and KDF Crusier captains more options to adapt their ship to their specific playstile.
Starfleet cruisers on the other hand have basicly only one option, to broadside.
True.
I wasn't talking about buffing starfleet Cruisers, i was talking about making them more unique, because i think they are just the basic STO standard spaceship with no speciality whatsoever.
I'm not talking about BOFF or Console Layouts but the concept of Starfleet cuisers itself in STO, which is just a boring ship.
Btw. i agree with you, Cryptic won't put a lot of work into Starfleet cruisers since they didn't put much mork into them when designing STOs game concept itself. I think that's because they obviously are not very interested in Crusiers, maybe they just find them boring or prefer some other faster and more action oriented playstyles for themselves.
But i think that's no reason to make all Starfleet Cruisers in STO just the most standard and unattractive ships in STO.
Thats why i was suggesting a special console that would change a Starfleet Cruisers weapon layout and turnrate if installed.
Those consoles or unlocks could only be acessible for certain ships like the GCS, AC or SC for example to provide an alternative.
Which is a bit complicated...
Why not something like your suggestion about heavy beams but simpler?
If they ever make the galaxy 3 pack, the ship could use special weapons like the vesta or kumari.
Heavy phaser beam arrays : shorter cycles, double cd, double damage, +10% crtD and +2 power drain just like heavy cannons.
What would be better is everyone gets a torp or mine slot. Torp can be fore or aft and mines aft only, but only 1 can be equipped. But then this also adds an imbalance in PvP with fed ships with 5 fore weapon slots already. 5 DHC and 1 torp would be a bit much when the 5 DHC strips shields followed by a torp that does the final kill. Go to rom or KDF and the cloak alpha strike damage increase will make those just as OP with an extra torp slot. make it cruiser only and its unfair to everyone else with them having 9 weapon slots and everyone else with 6 or 7.
Just build the beam boat properly as thats the fed cruiser capt's specialty, leave the spike damage to tacs in escorts because they cant take the preasure damage you should give out.
"I'm drunk, whats your excuse for being an idiot?" - Unknown drunk man. :eek: