test content
Logo
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc
When will the KDF get a 5 fore-weapon ship? *Today, 12/12/13*
krodh
Member Posts: 45 Arc User
The feds have the Kumari, and the roms have the Scimitar. Will the KDF get something like that? If so, when? I love my fleet Ho'Sus, but the 25% damage increase of a 5th fore weapon would be quite an awesome upgrade. Also, I would really like a BoP that could have 5 BOffs, instead of the 4 that my Ho'Sus currently has.
Post edited by krodh on
0
Comments
http://sto.perfectworld.com/news/?p=1061881
Ship Details
Minimum Rank: Lieutenant General (50)
Faction: Klingon Defense Force
Availability: C-Store
Hull Strength: 37,500
Shield Modifier: 1
Crew: 2,000
Weapons: 5 Fore, 3 Aft
Device Slots: 3
Base Turn Rate: 9 degrees per second
Impulse Modifier: 0.15
Bridge Officer Stations: 1 Ensign Tactical, 1 Lieutenant Commander Tactical, 1 Commander Engineering, 1 Lieutenant Science, 1 Lieutenant Universal
Console Modifications: 4 Engineering, 4 Tactical, 1 Science
+10 Power to Weapons
+10 Power to Engines
Can Equip Dual Cannons
Matter-Antimatter Warp Core
Innate Cloaking Device
Cruiser Communication Array Abilities:
Command ? Weapon System Efficiency
Command ? Shield Frequency Modulation
Command ? Strategic Maneuvering
Console ? Universal ? Dynamic Defense Deployment System
Who knows?
1) Take the "announced" freebie BoP they plan to make available soon and make a retrofit and fleet version of it.
2) Take an existing BoP ... for example Heghta ... and make a retrofit and/or fleet version
3) Make a new BoP for endgame
I see #1 and #2 as not requiring a lot effort and being decently profitable since KDF is still starved for new ships. For the Heghta, they would literally have to add 1 console (either tac or engineer in my opinion) and up stats by 10% or so.
If they really wanted to make it special then they should move 1 weapon up front for a 5-1 layout which is unique and hard hitting. Come on Cryptic ... monetize this sucker!
- Judge Aaron Satie
Okay, if it's meant to be a raider or escortish ship how about'a K'vort?
I mean if there's ever a ship that screams "wing cannons" it's this one.:D
I am huge fan of the K'vort and have started numerous threads about it. Sadly, a certain lead developer, *cough*Geko*cough*, whom I abhor, has decided it is never going to happen. His argument is that it looks too much like B'rel.
We ain't going win this one folks and at this point I would rather have something rather than nothing.
- Judge Aaron Satie
I remember that guy.
He once said that he will not make a T5 Ambassador in this game because the ship was too old but that doing a T5 Excelsior was okay because the ship was so cool.
http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/showpost.php?p=4073785&postcount=1
Well I did an ESTF in my Fleet Ambassador yesterday.;)
If that is his problem, then they can make an alternate skin to go with the K'Vort. Maybe that alternate skin would NOT have the feathered pattern.
I agree that the K'Vort would be the ideal ship to have 5 fore and 3 aft as an escort-ish ship. Make it a nice blend of Cruiser, Escort, and Raider characteristics, but balanced.
Thanks for the info. However, macronius is correct; I was hoping for a raider or raptor with 5 fore-weapons.
I would really like to see a Kumari equivalent for the KDF. I'm somewhat surprised that the feds got the Andorian pack, while the KDF didn't get anything like that. I mean, I understand the dreadnought pack, with the rommies being the new faction and all, but the Andorian pack for the fed and no equivalent for the KDF?
He's also under the impression that the K'vort is "Negh'Var sized", though if you actually look at the scaling of the ship in the shows it is ~350m. The only reason that people think its something like 700m is because some random person that worked on TNG said that he though it was 700m. (I remember reading this on one of the wikis, but I could never find it again.)
Honestly, the reason I want the K'vort is for the wings and the cannons at the end of them. If they were to design a new BoP with wings that stayed in the "flying position" I would buy it and call it the new K'vort. I also like how BoPs have cannons at the ends of their wings instead of nacelles.
Support 90 degree arc limitation on BFaW! Save our ships from looking like flying disco balls of dumb!
Have my eye on the Fleet Peghqu' Heavy Destroyer, but in order to do so I would have to become a lifer. Don't think I can make that leap when the difference is not overwhelmingly significant to my eye, so I am sticking with my Mirror Qin Raptor as my end game ship...
... unless there was a 5 fore Tac Klingon ship to covet - Raptor, Destroyer or BoP [rubs hands together, makes evil face thinking about the destruction I could cause] Bwah ha ha ha
Addicted: January 2012
batlh QIH 'ej!
But the top five adders on my short list for Raptors is:
1. Battle cloak
2. Something stronger than Pirate to counter Superior Operative.
3. Something like infiltrator for the decloaking alpha strikes.
4. Turn rate of 17
5. A bit of flanking couldn't be a bad thing either. Just a couple of percentages to when attacking the right area.
Heck, just doing that with a destroyer would be nice. Give the KDF some more options to work with in the escort-range. The Somraw, Scourge, and Guramba are all nice, but it's only three C-store/Fleet ships. A Fleet Guramba would be glorious, especially if it increased the shield mod from .90 to .95 or something.
Come on Cryptic ... give us some fast ships to keep up with Roms.
- Judge Aaron Satie
Hull: 31,000
Standard Shields (MK 10): 4807
Shield Mod: 1
Crew: 150
Turn Rate: 17
Impulse: 0.20
Inertia: 70
Tac Bird:
+10 Weapons, +10 Engines
Consoles: 5 tac, 3 eng, 2 sci
Cruiser Bird:
+10 Weapons, +10 Shields
Consoles: 3 tac, 5 eng, 2 sci
Sci Bird:
+10 Weapons, +10 Auxiliary
Consoles: 3 tac, 3 eng, 4 sci
Sensor Analysis
Any thoughts?
It's like the fleet hoshus -- NOT worth all that money for a single console. Console slots aren't as important as the boff skills, hull points, shield modifier, turn rate, and weapons slots. THOSE are what distinguish a ship.
So if you want to differentiate them, maybe do this:
TAC:
Weapons: 5/1
Devices: 2
Hull: 26,000
shield modifier: 0.8
turn rate: 22
Consoles: eng/sci/tac: 3/3/4
ENG:
Weapons: 4/2
Devices: 3
Hull: 28,000
shield modifier: 0.8
turn rate: 19
Consoles: 4/3/3
SCI:
Weapons: 4/2
Devices: 3
Hull: 27,000
shield modifier: 0.92
turn rate: 22
Consoles: 3/4/3
OR..... since these all have battlecloak, it would be interesting to make the sci more sci oriented, with:
SCI:
Weapons: 3/3
Devices: 3
Hull: 27,000
shield modifier: 0.92
turn rate: 22
Consoles: 3/5/2
This is more of a sci setup, with 3/3, but mostly that sci console setup gives a little teeth to the super weak sci focus this ship has. A 5th console is not needed for the tac variant, as tacs are already DPS masters. The eng doesn't need it, frankly as eng consoles are already quite strong and 5th would most likely be used for universal consoles (which can simply be placed elsewhere, there doesn't need to be a 5th eng console slot).
Now something like THAT might make for a BoP 3-pack. Those are the determining factors which differentiate ships. Not just consoles and a bit of energy.
And the Odyssey, Bortasqu', Scimitar, Vesta, Kumari are not? I did a little checking late last night. Each of the varients within a class ALL HAVE THE SAME hull, shield, crew, weapons layout, turn rate, impulse, and inertia.
Odyssey, Multi-Mission (Vesta), Bortasqu', and Scimitar between each of the named variants is only different due to changes in consoles and the bonus to subsystem power. The Sci variant of the Odyssey and Bortasqu' also gets sensor analysis, though I don't know why the Tulwar doesn't.
Kumari changes BOFF layout and consoles, but the subsystem power bonus is the same as are all of the other stats.
Only the Kumari changes the BOFF layout between each of variants. At least with my suggestion, I was being consistent with what has gone before. I PURPOSELY left the BOFF layout out because I wanted feedback on whether the ship should have the BOP battlecloak or not. THAT feature would dictate the number of BOFF power the player could use(12 vs. 11 for most BOPs).
THAT is what makes those ships, the universal slots. That's what makes a difference in any 3-pack, really.
You can't make that claim with BoPs. All the boffs are universal. You must make BoPs stand out in other areas or you cannot really (in any honesty) claim one is a "science" or one is a "eng" or one is a "tac".
EDIT: And if you want to do otherwise, just create a new standalone ship. There's no need for a 3-pack, ever. A 3-pack is just a gimmick for Cryptic to charge more money for useless console sets that go on decent ships. The ships are worth it, but not the consoles.
I think you defeated your own argument. If the universal slots are what allow the ship to play a tac, eng, or sci focus, then why have a 3-pack at all? If the BOFF slots are what make the ship, then why have 3-packs at all? It is more than just the kind of BOFF you can slot. The kind of console and the power bonus to subsystems also play a factor.
The conceit I MIGHT give you is that the BOFF slots could be that the Commander slot be Tactical on all, and the ensign slot on each of the variants would be either tac, eng, or sci with the LTCDR and two LT slots universal. it still leaves up in the air whether the ship should have a battlecloak as a ship with even that layout would make the ship overpowered compared to the fleet BOPs.
I personaly would love a nice huge fancy looking Raptor as i know i would buy it.
They can always just take a look at D9 class and evolve from that.
As a sidenote i dislike the Mogh as its more of a engie ship and it looks practicaly the same as the veteran ship.
Not at all. What makes an ENG cruiser? Boff slots. What make a SCI cruiser? boff slots. What makes a TAC? boff slots.
The other stuff helps, but it's about the orientation of your boff setup. When the boffs are fixed, you can instantly say "that's a sci-oriented cruiser" or whatever the case may be. So they made universal slots so that you COULD make the same ship a sci, eng, or tac as you like. That's the only reason they have a universal slot. The other way to do it would be to make the boff slots fixed with each variant of the oddy and bortas. For example the tac bortas had the LtCDR slot as fixed TAC, the command cruiser bortas fixed as ENG, etc. Up-shot of it is the universal boffs ON A FIXED BOFF TYPE OF SHIP make the difference. They make it possible to do a 3-pack like that.
ON A BOP RAIDER you just can't do this. They are completely customizable as it is. You want a 3-pack BoP? You have it already. It's in one ship.
Anyways, the issue is rather moot currently. BoPs are dying out because of massive power creep and NPC spike damage being able to 1-shot most of them. I'm rather sad I moved away from my Hegh'Ta, but it really was a chore. It was like flying a tier2 ship around in elite STFs against massively OP enemy NPCs.
Until they fix game balance, more BoPs are useless. They show no signs of fixing the balance, therefore BoPs show no signs of becoming useful. If/when the time comes I'll take up the soapbox again on how we don't need 3-packs of all-uni-boff BoPs, but for now I'm just going to drop it. The more I think about it hte more jaded and depressed I become about STO.
The KDF Battle Cruiser is primarily a Engineer vessel with a strong Engineering boff choice as well as a strong Tatical Boff choice followed by weak science boffs.
The Mogh is a prime example of a KDF battle cruiser with strong Engineering and strong Tactical boff slots.
R.I.P
The trinity went the way of the dodo, regardless. I like flexibility to a certain extent, but Cryptic have killed it off almost entirely these days. The massive Sci nerfage of days gone past, the massive reliance on DPS to solve all problems, then the massive GIVING of DPS to everything (NPC and player alike) devolved the game into a random dice-rolling "bam, you're dead in 1 shot" nonsense fest. Then add in the super OP roms.
Besides, there's such as thing as a tac cruiser, or an eng cruiser, or a sci cruiser. They all have ENG classification because the CMDR slots are ENG, but that LtCDR makes a massive difference in what direction you lean after that. I've tried my oddy out in all 3 flavors. I've played the bortas in a couple also. A Negh'var or a mirror vorcha would be a ENG cruiser. An Assault Cruiser Refit or the AHCR are TAC cruisers. The support cruiser retro or the fleet kamarag are SCI cruisers (okay, battle cruiser on the last one, but wanted to give both factions an example).
All of the above will play very differently. More so if you start mixing an matching player class with different tilted boff setups. Yet all are still ENG-class cruisers because of that CMDR slot.
Thanks bitemepwe for trying to back me up and explain it in another way. This guy is clearly a dilettante. He has not yet grasp the full understanding of ships, play style, and what does and does not male a ship either a cruiser, escort, or raider the way experienced veterans such as you and I have. And some people choose not to understand.
And to prove my point, try tanking in a BOP. You will quickly see why it is NOT the same as a cruiser, even with most of the BOFF slots set to Engineers.
Well this for the most part.
Hence why i myself thought they may release the "avenger" counterpart on the Klingon side as a good tactical ship with battle cloak instead of this.
Then i saw the Mogh, all in all a great ship but not what i thought the KDF lack severely.
Which D9 do you mean? The one from FASA?
The interesting thing is that only the Fleet version with its horizontal wings looks somewhat like a mix between the Borty and the Vet destroyer...at least to me.
The non-fleet look actually makes the ship look like a mix between the Borty and the Vor'cha.;)
I ment this one
http://d6holocron.com/wiki/images/thumb/5/57/Klingon_D9_Class.jpg/500px-Klingon_D9_Class.jpg
But it should be rather easy. Make them with a special tac console and that would be awesome.
Klingon ships are all extra squishy anyway.
Yep, that's the one from FASA's 1980's tabletop and RPG.
It's actually a science vessel.:)
And on top of that FASA's material is copyrighted and Cryptic can't use it.
Which is too bad since I love FASA's D10.:(
http://jgray-sfb.com/Miniatures/Klingons/klingonmini_files/image069.jpg
But emh. Unless I'm mistaken (not feeling too well atm), all ship packs except the Kumari have the same boff layout, don't they? Just different console layouts?