test content
Logo
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc
Fleet Heavy Cruiser needs some changes
telbasta7386
Member Posts: 761 Arc User
I got this ship a few days ago, and so far I'm entirely disappointed in it. I'm referring to the fleet version of the cheyenne/dakota/stargazer - the four-nacelled heavy cruiser from t3.
The ship's size and turn rate are disproportionate - it's half the size of a star cruiser or assault cruiser, yet only gains a 1 turnrate increase. It's smaller than even the avenger, but still several points of turn rate slower. It has less hull than any of those, as well.
The boff layout, typical for an engineering-focused cruiser, means it lacks any damage potential whatsoever due to limited tactical abilities. However, it doesnt have the hull of even more tactical-focused cruisers, preventing it from functioning as a proper tank.
The current issues with engineering abilities compound the problem - there's nothing defensive worth using for higher rank engineer abilities, and you're forced to use emergency power to X in your first two ensign slots because of the necessity of tactical team.
The heavy cruiser needs a buff, preferrably to turn rate. A boff layout change wouldnt hurt either. Also, while I'm at it, why not give the option to select 'none' for the upper/lower nacelles and pylons (obviously only one or the other), so that you can customize the ship to look like it only has two nacelles?
The ship's size and turn rate are disproportionate - it's half the size of a star cruiser or assault cruiser, yet only gains a 1 turnrate increase. It's smaller than even the avenger, but still several points of turn rate slower. It has less hull than any of those, as well.
The boff layout, typical for an engineering-focused cruiser, means it lacks any damage potential whatsoever due to limited tactical abilities. However, it doesnt have the hull of even more tactical-focused cruisers, preventing it from functioning as a proper tank.
The current issues with engineering abilities compound the problem - there's nothing defensive worth using for higher rank engineer abilities, and you're forced to use emergency power to X in your first two ensign slots because of the necessity of tactical team.
The heavy cruiser needs a buff, preferrably to turn rate. A boff layout change wouldnt hurt either. Also, while I'm at it, why not give the option to select 'none' for the upper/lower nacelles and pylons (obviously only one or the other), so that you can customize the ship to look like it only has two nacelles?
Post edited by telbasta7386 on
0
Comments
As with any eng-boff heavy cruisers, you can always turn it into a decent aux2bat ship...
Go to B'Tran.
It's also adorable that you think STO's stats care about model size at all.
As Stirling mentioned, B'tran. Ferra has 2 as well.
Even if you're buying them off of the exchange: whoever has the funds to aquire almsot 30 million EC worth of fleet modules to buy the Fleet Heavy Cruiser shouldn't have too much trouble coming up with ~5 million for 3 rare Techs either...
My PvE/PvP hybrid skill tree
What techs "in particular" am i looking for? I know marion is crazy expensive....
Commander Engineer: Emergency Power to Weapons I , Auxiliary to Battery I , Reverse Shield Polarity II , Directed Energy Modulation III
Lt. Commander Engineer: Emergency Power to Shields I , Auxiliary to Battery I , Eject Warp Plasma I or Aceton Beam I
Lieutenant Science: Hazard Emmiters I , Transfer Shield Strength II
Lieutenant Tactical: Tactical Team I , Attack Pattern Beta I
Ensign Tactical: Fire at Will I
Note: In the Future the ship with gain Cruiser Commands
I personally find the Heavy Cruiser to be the ugliest ship in the game.
If you like it and love it than I'm happy for you, but IMO the default Assault Cruiser is a better ship. It's cheaper, it looks better and if you upgrade it you get a better BOFF layout.
If I ask you a question it is not an insult but a genuine attempt to understand why.
When I insult you I won't be discreet about it, I will be precise and to the point stupid.
I admit I haven't flown every ship in the game. But I could find a ship design I liked for every other Tier of Crusier and yes that meant at T4 I used a stock Galaxy.
If I ask you a question it is not an insult but a genuine attempt to understand why.
When I insult you I won't be discreet about it, I will be precise and to the point stupid.
EDIT I'm not a huge fan of the Imperial skin for the Fleet Sovvie either.
I don't mind the Cheyenne though, but I wish its skins had more symetrical nacelle placement. I like the Stargazer and Dakota classes more, but their nacelle placement just looks naff to me.
The Cheyenne looked a bit too kit bashy for me and I agree totally on the Stargazer and Dakota. I did try for nearly 3 hours to get a design I liked, for me I just couldn't do it.
For me to call a ship tier ugly it has to have no redeemable skins. The Heavy Cruiser is one of those, they made the Excelsior it's T3.5 version. One of the few times a .5 ship shares no parts with it's Free version.
This being said I couldn't find anything but the Galaxy skin Useable same for the Sovereign. The refit skins where good but.
If I ask you a question it is not an insult but a genuine attempt to understand why.
When I insult you I won't be discreet about it, I will be precise and to the point stupid.
But all the information about it's dubious performance was there.
It's a Star Cruiser Console layout, +1 turn and the Assault Cruiser (Not the Fleet or refit) BOFF layout. Also for the Heavy Cruiser it has a pretty weak hull.
There are IMO many ships that need a rework to be fair/competitive and this goes on the list with the Galaxy R, Fleet and X.
If I ask you a question it is not an insult but a genuine attempt to understand why.
When I insult you I won't be discreet about it, I will be precise and to the point stupid.
I think the ship would look much better if Dakota and Stargazer Variants hadn't that upper/lower pylon offset.
Just some symetric Engineering Hull that make upper and lower Pylons/nacelles different in distance. (Like the cheyenne Class Engineering Hull but different in height)
Apart from that, i would have preferred it if the Fleet version of that ship would have had at least a uni Lt (or Better a Lt.Cmdr uni) to make it a bit more unique. But just putting a Assault Cruiser BOFF Layout on it is just Lazy IMO.
Btw. I think Cryptic should have made it much bigger, so it fits more in line with the GCS and Nebula.
Seriously it is just a bit bigger than a miranda, i think it would be much more appropriate if it had the dimensions of a Galaxy Class.
The Cheyenne is a Wolf 359 kitbash, and we assume it is of the same scale as the Constellation class, as is the case in-game. Why should it be as big as a Galaxy?
The constellation was a patrol and reconnaissance cruiser and I think that mission profile fits the size. I think even the assault cruiser layout is feasible since the Sovy has pretty much the same mission specs although probably meant as a general replacement for all "heavy cruiser" type vessels.
The biggest problem with the in-game Cheyenne is that it is unreasonably expensive. The fleet variant will always cost 4 ship modules, the Retrofit is entirely obsolete and 200,000 FC aren't that easy to come by either (again, command cruiser arrays for 2-tac-console ships would have been great...).
The fleet versions of non c-store ships should always cost only 1 fleet module. There's no reason why that is not the case. Likewise, fleet versions of c-store ships should be a bit better (I'm looking at the fleet galaxy
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
It was the only ship I was generally sorry to leave while levelling up.
Having said that, it does the job for me. I can make the Thing dance with strategic manoeuvring and EPTE. I can absorb damage like nobodies business with Shield Frequency Modulation and EPTS. I can also bring the damage with Weapon system efficiency and EPTW.
It does everything I ask of it and is almost impossible to kill coupled with my Eng captain abilities.
As much as if have understood, the Stargazer was a new ship constucted in the 25th century. So i think it has only little to do with the Constellation Class you are refering to.
And for a cruiser it is almost pathethic small IMO, some Escorts which have a much better turnrate are almost just as big (Akira, Elachi escort to name a few).
So in my opinion it would make much more sense if that ship would be much bigger.
A shame really, it's a decent looking boat.
Though that is a problem with STOs nonsense classifications. The Prometheus for example IS a light cruiser, the Akira Class IS a heavy cruiser. It would be great if we could ditch the classes altogether and introduce classes that are based on size/mission profiles. A cruiser means simply that a ship is a multi-mission vessel like all of Starfleets ships are with two maybe three exceptions. Those have minor "sub-classes" like patrol cruiser, deep space vessel etc. which could reflect their overall BOFF/console layout.
That's why I think it should cost only 1 fleet module or no fleet module at all. All fleet ships that are derivates of free ships (non c-store) should not be more expensive/equal in cost but be a sensible alternative to those.
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
One of the best suggestions I've ever heard for this game.
If I ask you a question it is not an insult but a genuine attempt to understand why.
When I insult you I won't be discreet about it, I will be precise and to the point stupid.