Yes, we're looking into it. Accuracy Overflow won't currently work for any power that "ignores accuracy" - powers that have any autohit stage.
Acc Overflow is a really arcane mechanic that doesn't message well at all. Fixing it will be a widespread change to the mechanic as a whole, not just a change to a flag on Fire at Will. It will take a little while, but it's in the pipeline to be adjusted to work.
well, with so much crtH and crtD going around it might not be a bad thing.
I hope they take a look at other weird mechanics like over capping. If something is a mechanic, it should always be a mechanic. Not just sometimes when you build a certain way with a certain weapon.
DHC's with 360 arc
DBB's with 360 arc
360 arc weaps with 720 arc
720 arc weapons with 20km range
30% acc with 100% acc bonus
100% acc bonus with super integrated targetting computers dealing double the damage per hit
super integrated targetting computers dealing double the damage per hit, increasing crit overflow by 100%
extreme computer subspace positronic tactical deflector with passive, if CritH base is 30% or higher, increase Crit severity by 200%
If CritD is equal or higher then 400% FaW has a 99.9% chance to hit 4 additional targets, stacks up to 5 times.
When FaW is active, all DHC's and other weapons that target you will be disabled by 10 seconds.
hahahahahahhaa
Amazing!
I was going to make a snarky quote about all this happening and defense staying completely ignored and unchanged. And then I saw VD's post and started to weep with joy.
Evasion-y speed tanking might actually be a viable playstyle someday.
What if they made it a new type of console limited to escorts/raptors? After all, a computer that assists with targeting functions certainly sounds more like a console than a new specific item slot, and the Hirogen escort's flipturn console shows that someone at Cryptic has considered the idea of class-specific consoles.
Here's a bit of random speculation, since I was in the area over in that stealth thread...
What if an Escort's Targeting Computer helped offset some of the Perception differences between it an a Sci Vessel? What if it was not just about hitting the target, but being able to see the target?
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.
I have something that may make your head explode.... Destroyers? Also escorts, they just tend to have a fancy non-tac Lt. CMDR station.
Go lay down for a while, I know this is all very hard to comprehend.
Yes, claims that are not grounded in reality tend to be very hard to comprehend.
There are several types of tactical ships, but "Escort" is not synonymous. Escorts are just one type of tactical ship. This has been confirmed by members of the dev team, as seen in shadowfang240's quote, as well as in my sig.
What counts as an "Escort"? Seems to be ships that actually have "Escort" in their ship names (example, "Heavy Escort Carrier"). Anything else apparently doesn't count as an Escort until we're told otherwise by a dev or a game's patch. I believe that even the Ferengi Marauder was once called an Escort by insistent players until it got a set of cruiser commands...
Yes, claims that are not grounded in reality tend to be very hard to comprehend.
There are several types of tactical ships, but "Escort" is not synonymous. Escorts are just one type of tactical ship. This has been confirmed by members of the dev team, as seen in shadowfang240's quote, as well as in my sig.
What counts as an "Escort"? Seems to be ships that actually have "Escort" in their ship names (example, "Heavy Escort Carrier"). Anything else apparently doesn't count as an Escort until we're told otherwise by a dev or a game's patch. I believe that even the Ferengi Marauder was once called an Escort by insistent players until it got a set of cruiser commands...
Semantics aside, I think its extremely unlikely that every niche slice of the Escort pie - whether it is called a Raptor or a Destroyer, or anything else that falls somewhere on this very narrow spectrum - are each going to get their own unique mechanics.
What is more likely is a one size fits all targeting computer for all of these classes of ships, because regardless of their ship class name they are generally within a few K hull of each other and a few points of turn.
Or maybe the hybrid destroyer types won't get anything at all, since their special uniqueness is the fact that they are "not escorts" and tend to have unique/customizable BOFF layouts.
Semantics aside, I think its extremely unlikely that every niche slice of the Escort pie - whether it is called a Raptor or a Destroyer, or anything else that falls somewhere on this very narrow spectrum - are each going to get their own unique mechanics.
Sometimes, semantics are important. No Escort is called a "Raptor" nor a "Destroyer"(nor a Corvette for that matter)... those ship types are on equal grounds with Escorts. The context of where you're saying "Escorts" better fits "tactical ships", as all Escorts are tactical ships, but not all tactical ships are Escorts.
And there is only a "narrow spectrum" because there isn't a distinguishing gameplay mechanic to differentiate most types of tactical ship - which is actually all the more reason that they would get different mechanics. Why? Well the very names of the ship types imply different functions. Corvettes are fast, average-sized ships that compliment larger ships in firepower, Escorts are small bodyguard ships that ferry lightly-armored ships, and Destroyers are more heavily-armored stand-alone ships. Raptors however are seemingly KDF-exclusive, and it's unclear what their specific uniqueness is.
Sometimes, semantics are important. No Escort is called a "Raptor" nor a "Destroyer"(not a Corvette for that matter)... those ship types are on equal grounds with Escorts. The context of where you're saying "Escorts" better fits "tactical ships", as all Escorts are tactical ships, but not all tactical ships are Escorts.
And there is only a "narrow spectrum" because there isn't a distinguishing gameplay mechanic to differentiate most types of tactical ship - which is actually all the more reason that they would get different mechanics.
OK well this rumor will most likely affect Fed Escorts and KDF Raptors.
Though it is common knowledge the Raptor is the KDF's answer to Fed Escorts, stat wise the raptor is higher hull but I think this was done since the KDF had BoPs which were lower hull and shields of all non small ship class far less then fed escorts so to give the kdf something close but not quite is the Raptor which probably is closer to a frigate since it is smaller than cruisers and destroyers. Remeber the stats on the raptor were pretty much made up because the shows never really showed a raptor in relations to other ships.
Hey I Used to be Captain Data, well I guess I still am in game but the account link really screwed everything up :rolleyes:
And there is only a "narrow spectrum" because there isn't a distinguishing gameplay mechanic to differentiate most types of tactical ship - which is actually all the more reason that they would get different mechanics.
It's a narrow spectrum because their naming conventions are semantics.
Destroyers, Raptors and Escorts all exist within the same design space. They all have a range of about 14 to 18 BTR, with a few outliers like the JHAS and Risa Corvette.
They all have 4/3 weapon loads, and Tac CMD.
What is more likely?
The devs getting the most bang for their buck by creating one new mechanic they can apply broadly across this entire spectrum of similar ships and sell that to everyone maximizing ROI - just like they did with Cruisers, Battle cruisers, Dreadnoughts, etc.
Or...
They spend time trying to devise uniqueness for ships that are basically in the same category in all but name, and create more work for themselves while simultaneously guaranteeing that less players buy-in to any 1 mechanic.
I'm guessing it's the first one, or it's Escorts and the others get nothing since they already have uniqueness (Raptors have innate cloaks, Destroyers are hybrids that straddle Escort and Cruiser space).
OK well this rumor will most likely affect Fed Escorts and KDF Raptors.
Though it is common knowledge the Raptor is the KDF's answer to Fed Escorts, stat wise the raptor is higher hull but I think this was done since the KDF had BoPs which were lower hull and shields of all non small ship class far less then fed escorts so to give the kdf something close but not quite is the Raptor which probably is closer to a frigate since it is smaller than cruisers and destroyers. Remeber the stats on the raptor were pretty much made up because the shows never really showed a raptor in relations to other ships.
I'm not denying any of that. I'm just trying to clarify how ship types work based on available evidence from the game and what the devs say.
It's a narrow spectrum because their naming conventions are semantics.
Destroyers, Raptors and Escorts all exist within the same design space. They all have a range of about 14 to 18 BTR, with a few outliers like the JHAS and Risa Corvette.
They all have 4/3 weapon loads, and Tac CMD.
Can you demonstrate that it's only semantics? Sure, the ship types don't have any distinguishing features, but that's no reason to assume that because they have no distinguishing features is only because of semantics.
The devs getting the most bang for their buck by creating one new mechanic they can apply broadly across this entire spectrum of similar ships and sell that to everyone maximizing ROI - just like they did with Cruisers, Battle cruisers, Dreadnoughts, etc.
Or...
They spend time trying to devise uniqueness for ships that are basically in the same category in all but name, and create more work for themselves while simultaneously guaranteeing that less players buy-in to any 1 mechanic.
I'm guessing it's the first one, or it's Escorts and the others get nothing since they already have uniqueness (Raptors have innate cloaks, Destroyers are hybrids that straddle Escort and Cruiser space).
It depends on what they want to do, plain and simple. They could have given every ship advanced comm array commands, but they didn't. They could be giving every science ship a secondary deflector, but they are not.
They also could have given every ship that gained advanced comm array commands all 4, but they didn't. Why? Because there are different types of cruisers. Therefore, it is not more likely that every kind tac ship will get the same thing, even if they gain the same mechanic.
Also, Dreadnoughts didn't get any new mechanic, Dreadnought Cruisers did, because they are Cruisers. The only ship that gained advanced comm array commands that was never called a Cruiser, as far as I know, is the Ferengi Marauder.
Edit: Actually, because of the implications made in the Science Destroyer blog, KDF innate cloaking devices(aside from battle cloaks) are apparently not looked on as a big enough advantage. So if Escorts get something, I think that either Raptors will gain the mechanic as well, or a similar/equivalent one.
As it turns out some destroyers don't have the 10% defense bonus escorts do. Yet some do. So whatever borticus may say, and whatever you may term semantics, in practice there is NO difference. At best I suspect there will be a differentiation similar to what you see between battlecruiser and cruiser in their auras. Or maybe the existence of a cloak will be considered the Raptor's "special thing" and be left alone?
If you want to really classify ships the differentiation lines are easy to see, if not a warbird, the ship type is determined by the commander boff station. Some exceptions exist but as a general rule, the CMDR station will tell you what kind of ship it is.
As it turns out some destroyers don't have the 10% defense bonus escorts do. Yet some do. So whatever borticus may say, and whatever you may term semantics, in practice there is NO difference. At best I suspect there will be a differentiation similar to what you see between battlecruiser and cruiser in their auras. Or maybe the existence of a cloak will be considered the Raptor's "special thing" and be left alone?
Read my last post, I've addressed all of those points in it.
Just because Destroyers, Raptors, and Escorts function almost identically to each other currently is completely and utterly irrelevant to what they actually are. They can be separate ship types merely because they are called separate things.
If you want to really classify ships the differentiation lines are easy to see, if not a warbird, the ship type is determined by the commander boff station. Some exceptions exist but as a general rule, the CMDR station will tell you what kind of ship it is.
If by "classifying ships" you mean tactical ships, engineering ships, and science ships, then yes, the ship types are determined by commander BOFF position. But that is irrelevant to the information I'm trying to convey. The Vo'Quv isn't a Science Vessel(as a ship type), but it is a science ship and a Carrier. The same could be said for, say, a Chimera-class Destroyer. In the "Escort" tab at ESD's ship vendor? It doesn't matter, since Borticuscryptic's word overrides mere shop tabs, and was likely stuck in the Escort tab because the devs didn't want just two or three ships alone in their own tab. The Chimera is a tactical ship and a Destroyer, but isn't an Escort.
You're just repeating things that I have already refuted. I have no idea why this is so hard to comprehend.
Can you demonstrate that it's only semantics? Sure, the ship types don't have any distinguishing features, but that's no reason to assume that because they have no distinguishing features is only because of semantics.
If you take a look at this space, base hull ranges can be anywhere from 34.5k at the low end (Fleet K't'inga) to 45k at the high end (Voth Bastion). BTR can range from 5.5 to as high as 11 (IIRC, I think K'tinga has the highest BTR).
Some can slot DHCs, some can't. A niche few have a hangar bay.
This is an example of as much or more variation than there is between Escorts & "Destroyers".
This grouping of sub-classes all recieved the same overarching mechanic but have different access to different portions of it.
It depends on what they want to do, plain and simple. They could have given every ship advanced comm array commands, but they didn't. They could be giving every science ship a secondary deflector, but they are not.
It's odd that you are so insistent on separating Destroyers and Escorts when you are willing to lump all Cruisers together as a category when Battle Cruisers and Standard Cruisers can have extremely different playstyles due to BOFF emphasis and the ability or inability to slot dual cannons and where nearly every escort or destroyer have playstyles that are much, much closer in design.
We have standard Sci ships, we have the unique outlier that is the Vesta (hangar bay), we have another unique outlier that are the DSDs and yet all of these are getting secondary deflectors. Hell the Ha'nom might even get a secondary deflector even though it's not called a "Science Warbird". It's just a warbird, but it also has built in TSubsys abilities and Sensor analysis.
They also could have given every ship that gained advanced comm array commands all 4, but they didn't. Why? Because there are different types of cruisers.
Yes, but they all gained slices of the base new mechanic. They didn't invent several completely different mechanics.
So sure, we might see a special destroyer or escort or raptor only Targeting Computer - the point I've been making though is that they will all either just get access to Targeting computers (more likely IMO) or it's possible just Escorts (unlikely but possible).
So even if a sub-class gets its own unique Targeting computer it still is getting a slice of the same mechanic as the other sub-classes.
If they go ahead with something like this... and it seems they are planing to.
It will be the same for all escorts regardless of subclass.
As USS says they are going to almost 100% do just like they did with cruisers... there will be 4 settings (could be 3 could be 5 but won't be less or more)... and each sub class will get access to different ones.
My guess the Raptors and Fed escorts (Standards launch ones... Raptor / Patrol / Advanced (without the lt sci)... and perhaps the fleet escort and somrow) will likely get all 4.
The Sci class escorts (Lt. Cmd Sci) will likely have 3 skills, with the most sci type special being dropped.
The Engi class escorts (Lt. Cmd Engi) will again likely have 3 with the most "Tank" version being omitted.
I would think having a hanger would also mean one skill would be dropped... so something like the armitage may only get 2 commands... which would be similer to cruisers where the flight decks only have 2 auras.
The other escorts lockbox and lifetime ships steam runners and the what have yous.... who knows. They could do like some of the cruisers and only have 2 specials or something.
Lets just hope they don't get silly and throw all 4 on every lockbox escort.
I wonder if F2P games are now in the state that pen & paper roleplaying and table top games were back about 30-40 years ago, when designers thought hte only way to sell more stuff was to add power creep in every rules supplement? This wonderful concept gave D&D Psionics, Battletech Clan Tech...
MAybe in 20-30 years, the designers of F2P games know how to milk money without blatant power creep? But maybe we'll just have other problems, like no game living longer than 5 years...
Star Trek Online Advancement: You start with lowbie gear, you end with Lobi gear.
if singularity core rom sci ships get a secondary deflector, warbird cruisers need to get command auras. a warbird with a commander ENG is nearly as funky as putting a tac in a sci ship, they need a bone thrown to them
If you take a look at this space, base hull ranges can be anywhere from 34.5k at the low end (Fleet K't'inga) to 45k at the high end (Voth Bastion). BTR can range from 5.5 to as high as 11 (IIRC, I think K'tinga has the highest BTR).
Some can slot DHCs, some can't. A niche few have a hangar bay.
This is an example of as much or more variation than there is between Escorts & "Destroyers".
This grouping of sub-classes all recieved the same overarching mechanic but have different access to different portions of it.
Here's the thing though. It doesn't matter how much variation there is. At all. The only thing that matters is what official designations the ship types have. My point is that Escorts, Raptors, Destroyers, and possibly Corvettes are all different types of ship, merely because of their official designations. It's a fact, and it's currently completely independent from their ship functions.
Also, the fact is, grouping all tactical ships under a sub-class of "Escort" spawns only from fan classifications. That's all. That means it's okay to refer to non-Escorts as Escorts casually, but when you're discussing what the devs will do, then it gets unreasonable because in truth, not all tactical ships are Escorts.
It's odd that you are so insistent on separating Destroyers and Escorts when you are willing to lump all Cruisers together as a category when Battle Cruisers and Standard Cruisers can have extremely different playstyles due to BOFF emphasis and the ability or inability to slot dual cannons and where nearly every escort or destroyer have playstyles that are much, much closer in design.
We have standard Sci ships, we have the unique outlier that is the Vesta (hangar bay), we have another unique outlier that are the DSDs and yet all of these are getting secondary deflectors. Hell the Ha'nom might even get a secondary deflector even though it's not called a "Science Warbird". It's just a warbird, but it also has built in TSubsys abilities and Sensor analysis.
I'm not insistent on anything like that. I'm always ready to admit that as of right now, Escorts, Destroyers, Raptors, and the one playable Corvette all have almost identical playstyles. I only "lump all Cruisers together" because they all have the word "Cruiser" in their ship type names.
The Ha'nom might get a secondary deflector? Hmmm... it's definitely possible, but the D'deridex didn't get the Battle Cruiser comm array command set, despite it explicitly being classified as both a Warbird and a Battle Cruiser. I'd think it would be a tad unfair. =p
Yes, but they all gained slices of the base new mechanic. They didn't invent several completely different mechanics.
So sure, we might see a special destroyer or escort or raptor only Targeting Computer - the point I've been making though is that they will all either just get access to Targeting computers (more likely IMO) or it's possible just Escorts (unlikely but possible).
So even if a sub-class gets its own unique Targeting computer it still is getting a slice of the same mechanic as the other sub-classes.
To be fair, I also think it's possible, yet unlikely that the new Escort mechanic, whether it be "Targeting Computers" or not will be excluded from being implimented on another tactical ship type. The most reasonable possibility IMO is that Raptors will share it, because of the whole "The KDF's answer to the newest Fed tech" story excuse. There's only one playable Corvette, no reason for it to get anything in the way of a new ability yet. But Destroyers... it's possible for them to get the same mechanic, but unlikely. If they do, I'd expect it to be modified to be unique to Destroyers.
The Ha'nom might get a secondary deflector? Hmmm... it's definitely possible, but the D'deridex didn't get the Battle Cruiser comm array command set, despite it explicitly being classified as both a Warbird and a Battle Cruiser. I'd think it would be a tad unfair. =p
if the romulan science destroyer got it, it wouldn't make much sense to not give it to the only other science ship they currently possess
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.
Here's the thing though. It doesn't matter how much variation there is. At all. The only thing that matters is what official designations the ship types have. My point is that Escorts, Raptors, Destroyers, and possibly Corvettes are all different types of ship, merely because of their official designations. It's a fact, and it's currently completely independent from their ship functions.
Well what also matters is how much work and how much bang for their buck the devs are going to get out of something.
That's why I think the "official designations" are irrelevant. It's not going to be called "Escort Computer" it's just (tentatively) a "Targeting Computer".
Gecko said "escorts" but he could have been casually referring to the whole group in the way you mention players often do.
Also, the fact is, grouping all tactical ships under a sub-class of "Escort" spawns only from fan classifications. That's all. That means it's okay to refer to non-Escorts as Escorts casually, but when you're discussing what the devs will do, then it gets unreasonable because in truth, not all tactical ships are Escorts.
The Ha'nom might get a secondary deflector? Hmmm... it's definitely possible, but the D'deridex didn't get the Battle Cruiser comm array command set, despite it explicitly being classified as both a Warbird and a Battle Cruiser. I'd think it would be a tad unfair. =p
That is the logical assumption, but then we have the Aves DSD. :P
But Destroyers... it's possible for them to get the same mechanic, but unlikely. If they do, I'd expect it to be modified to be unique to Destroyers.
I'm going with probably the same or nothing, but I think we can just agree to disagree since it's all speculation anyway.
Does the guramba (one of, if not the first "destroyer" classified ship in game) really deserve a different mechanic than the Patrol Escort with which it shares nearly identical stats and BOFF layout? (aside from the +1 ability it came with for being a C-store ship that is)
Then there is the Mobius Temporal destroyer, which is basically an Escort with the word "Destroyer" tossed in to sound cool. :P
Comments
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.
well, with so much crtH and crtD going around it might not be a bad thing.
I hope they take a look at other weird mechanics like over capping. If something is a mechanic, it should always be a mechanic. Not just sometimes when you build a certain way with a certain weapon.
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.
I was going to make a snarky quote about all this happening and defense staying completely ignored and unchanged. And then I saw VD's post and started to weep with joy.
Evasion-y speed tanking might actually be a viable playstyle someday.
No I didn't, I'll take a look for that thread later.
To be honest with you, if it's Hawk taking a look into it I have faith.
His approach so far seems measured and careful.
I have something that may make your head explode.... Destroyers? Also escorts, they just tend to have a fancy non-tac Lt. CMDR station.
Go lay down for a while, I know this is all very hard to comprehend.
What if an Escort's Targeting Computer helped offset some of the Perception differences between it an a Sci Vessel? What if it was not just about hitting the target, but being able to see the target?
you were saying?
#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!"
There are several types of tactical ships, but "Escort" is not synonymous. Escorts are just one type of tactical ship. This has been confirmed by members of the dev team, as seen in shadowfang240's quote, as well as in my sig.
What counts as an "Escort"? Seems to be ships that actually have "Escort" in their ship names (example, "Heavy Escort Carrier"). Anything else apparently doesn't count as an Escort until we're told otherwise by a dev or a game's patch. I believe that even the Ferengi Marauder was once called an Escort by insistent players until it got a set of cruiser commands...
Helpful Tools: Dictionary.com - Logical fallacies - Random generator - Word generator - Color tool - Extra Credits - List of common English language errors - New T6 Big booty tutorial
Semantics aside, I think its extremely unlikely that every niche slice of the Escort pie - whether it is called a Raptor or a Destroyer, or anything else that falls somewhere on this very narrow spectrum - are each going to get their own unique mechanics.
What is more likely is a one size fits all targeting computer for all of these classes of ships, because regardless of their ship class name they are generally within a few K hull of each other and a few points of turn.
Or maybe the hybrid destroyer types won't get anything at all, since their special uniqueness is the fact that they are "not escorts" and tend to have unique/customizable BOFF layouts.
And there is only a "narrow spectrum" because there isn't a distinguishing gameplay mechanic to differentiate most types of tactical ship - which is actually all the more reason that they would get different mechanics. Why? Well the very names of the ship types imply different functions. Corvettes are fast, average-sized ships that compliment larger ships in firepower, Escorts are small bodyguard ships that ferry lightly-armored ships, and Destroyers are more heavily-armored stand-alone ships. Raptors however are seemingly KDF-exclusive, and it's unclear what their specific uniqueness is.
Helpful Tools: Dictionary.com - Logical fallacies - Random generator - Word generator - Color tool - Extra Credits - List of common English language errors - New T6 Big booty tutorial
OK well this rumor will most likely affect Fed Escorts and KDF Raptors.
Though it is common knowledge the Raptor is the KDF's answer to Fed Escorts, stat wise the raptor is higher hull but I think this was done since the KDF had BoPs which were lower hull and shields of all non small ship class far less then fed escorts so to give the kdf something close but not quite is the Raptor which probably is closer to a frigate since it is smaller than cruisers and destroyers. Remeber the stats on the raptor were pretty much made up because the shows never really showed a raptor in relations to other ships.
It's a narrow spectrum because their naming conventions are semantics.
Destroyers, Raptors and Escorts all exist within the same design space. They all have a range of about 14 to 18 BTR, with a few outliers like the JHAS and Risa Corvette.
They all have 4/3 weapon loads, and Tac CMD.
What is more likely?
The devs getting the most bang for their buck by creating one new mechanic they can apply broadly across this entire spectrum of similar ships and sell that to everyone maximizing ROI - just like they did with Cruisers, Battle cruisers, Dreadnoughts, etc.
Or...
They spend time trying to devise uniqueness for ships that are basically in the same category in all but name, and create more work for themselves while simultaneously guaranteeing that less players buy-in to any 1 mechanic.
I'm guessing it's the first one, or it's Escorts and the others get nothing since they already have uniqueness (Raptors have innate cloaks, Destroyers are hybrids that straddle Escort and Cruiser space).
Can you demonstrate that it's only semantics? Sure, the ship types don't have any distinguishing features, but that's no reason to assume that because they have no distinguishing features is only because of semantics.
It depends on what they want to do, plain and simple. They could have given every ship advanced comm array commands, but they didn't. They could be giving every science ship a secondary deflector, but they are not.
They also could have given every ship that gained advanced comm array commands all 4, but they didn't. Why? Because there are different types of cruisers. Therefore, it is not more likely that every kind tac ship will get the same thing, even if they gain the same mechanic.
Also, Dreadnoughts didn't get any new mechanic, Dreadnought Cruisers did, because they are Cruisers. The only ship that gained advanced comm array commands that was never called a Cruiser, as far as I know, is the Ferengi Marauder.
Edit: Actually, because of the implications made in the Science Destroyer blog, KDF innate cloaking devices(aside from battle cloaks) are apparently not looked on as a big enough advantage. So if Escorts get something, I think that either Raptors will gain the mechanic as well, or a similar/equivalent one.
Helpful Tools: Dictionary.com - Logical fallacies - Random generator - Word generator - Color tool - Extra Credits - List of common English language errors - New T6 Big booty tutorial
As it turns out some destroyers don't have the 10% defense bonus escorts do. Yet some do. So whatever borticus may say, and whatever you may term semantics, in practice there is NO difference. At best I suspect there will be a differentiation similar to what you see between battlecruiser and cruiser in their auras. Or maybe the existence of a cloak will be considered the Raptor's "special thing" and be left alone?
If you want to really classify ships the differentiation lines are easy to see, if not a warbird, the ship type is determined by the commander boff station. Some exceptions exist but as a general rule, the CMDR station will tell you what kind of ship it is.
Just because Destroyers, Raptors, and Escorts function almost identically to each other currently is completely and utterly irrelevant to what they actually are. They can be separate ship types merely because they are called separate things.
If by "classifying ships" you mean tactical ships, engineering ships, and science ships, then yes, the ship types are determined by commander BOFF position. But that is irrelevant to the information I'm trying to convey. The Vo'Quv isn't a Science Vessel(as a ship type), but it is a science ship and a Carrier. The same could be said for, say, a Chimera-class Destroyer. In the "Escort" tab at ESD's ship vendor? It doesn't matter, since Borticuscryptic's word overrides mere shop tabs, and was likely stuck in the Escort tab because the devs didn't want just two or three ships alone in their own tab. The Chimera is a tactical ship and a Destroyer, but isn't an Escort.
You're just repeating things that I have already refuted. I have no idea why this is so hard to comprehend.
Helpful Tools: Dictionary.com - Logical fallacies - Random generator - Word generator - Color tool - Extra Credits - List of common English language errors - New T6 Big booty tutorial
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.
Well, I provided an example previously.
Which would be Cruiser variants.
Cruisers, Battle Cruisers, Flight Deck Cruiser, Warbird Battle Cruiser, Dreadnought Cruiser.
If you take a look at this space, base hull ranges can be anywhere from 34.5k at the low end (Fleet K't'inga) to 45k at the high end (Voth Bastion). BTR can range from 5.5 to as high as 11 (IIRC, I think K'tinga has the highest BTR).
Some can slot DHCs, some can't. A niche few have a hangar bay.
This is an example of as much or more variation than there is between Escorts & "Destroyers".
This grouping of sub-classes all recieved the same overarching mechanic but have different access to different portions of it.
It's odd that you are so insistent on separating Destroyers and Escorts when you are willing to lump all Cruisers together as a category when Battle Cruisers and Standard Cruisers can have extremely different playstyles due to BOFF emphasis and the ability or inability to slot dual cannons and where nearly every escort or destroyer have playstyles that are much, much closer in design.
We have standard Sci ships, we have the unique outlier that is the Vesta (hangar bay), we have another unique outlier that are the DSDs and yet all of these are getting secondary deflectors. Hell the Ha'nom might even get a secondary deflector even though it's not called a "Science Warbird". It's just a warbird, but it also has built in TSubsys abilities and Sensor analysis.
Yes, but they all gained slices of the base new mechanic. They didn't invent several completely different mechanics.
So sure, we might see a special destroyer or escort or raptor only Targeting Computer - the point I've been making though is that they will all either just get access to Targeting computers (more likely IMO) or it's possible just Escorts (unlikely but possible).
So even if a sub-class gets its own unique Targeting computer it still is getting a slice of the same mechanic as the other sub-classes.
It will be the same for all escorts regardless of subclass.
As USS says they are going to almost 100% do just like they did with cruisers... there will be 4 settings (could be 3 could be 5 but won't be less or more)... and each sub class will get access to different ones.
My guess the Raptors and Fed escorts (Standards launch ones... Raptor / Patrol / Advanced (without the lt sci)... and perhaps the fleet escort and somrow) will likely get all 4.
The Sci class escorts (Lt. Cmd Sci) will likely have 3 skills, with the most sci type special being dropped.
The Engi class escorts (Lt. Cmd Engi) will again likely have 3 with the most "Tank" version being omitted.
I would think having a hanger would also mean one skill would be dropped... so something like the armitage may only get 2 commands... which would be similer to cruisers where the flight decks only have 2 auras.
The other escorts lockbox and lifetime ships steam runners and the what have yous.... who knows. They could do like some of the cruisers and only have 2 specials or something.
Lets just hope they don't get silly and throw all 4 on every lockbox escort.
I wonder if F2P games are now in the state that pen & paper roleplaying and table top games were back about 30-40 years ago, when designers thought hte only way to sell more stuff was to add power creep in every rules supplement? This wonderful concept gave D&D Psionics, Battletech Clan Tech...
MAybe in 20-30 years, the designers of F2P games know how to milk money without blatant power creep? But maybe we'll just have other problems, like no game living longer than 5 years...
Also, the fact is, grouping all tactical ships under a sub-class of "Escort" spawns only from fan classifications. That's all. That means it's okay to refer to non-Escorts as Escorts casually, but when you're discussing what the devs will do, then it gets unreasonable because in truth, not all tactical ships are Escorts.
I'm not insistent on anything like that. I'm always ready to admit that as of right now, Escorts, Destroyers, Raptors, and the one playable Corvette all have almost identical playstyles. I only "lump all Cruisers together" because they all have the word "Cruiser" in their ship type names.
The Ha'nom might get a secondary deflector? Hmmm... it's definitely possible, but the D'deridex didn't get the Battle Cruiser comm array command set, despite it explicitly being classified as both a Warbird and a Battle Cruiser. I'd think it would be a tad unfair. =p
To be fair, I also think it's possible, yet unlikely that the new Escort mechanic, whether it be "Targeting Computers" or not will be excluded from being implimented on another tactical ship type. The most reasonable possibility IMO is that Raptors will share it, because of the whole "The KDF's answer to the newest Fed tech" story excuse. There's only one playable Corvette, no reason for it to get anything in the way of a new ability yet. But Destroyers... it's possible for them to get the same mechanic, but unlikely. If they do, I'd expect it to be modified to be unique to Destroyers.
Helpful Tools: Dictionary.com - Logical fallacies - Random generator - Word generator - Color tool - Extra Credits - List of common English language errors - New T6 Big booty tutorial
#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!"
That whole...
Sensor Analysis? Check!
Subsystem Targeting? Check!
Secondary Deflector, go, go, go!
...thing from one of their posts, no?
Btw what about the JHAS?
I mean it's an attack ship and all...
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.
Well what also matters is how much work and how much bang for their buck the devs are going to get out of something.
That's why I think the "official designations" are irrelevant. It's not going to be called "Escort Computer" it's just (tentatively) a "Targeting Computer".
Gecko said "escorts" but he could have been casually referring to the whole group in the way you mention players often do.
Covered above.
That is the logical assumption, but then we have the Aves DSD. :P
I'm going with probably the same or nothing, but I think we can just agree to disagree since it's all speculation anyway.
Does the guramba (one of, if not the first "destroyer" classified ship in game) really deserve a different mechanic than the Patrol Escort with which it shares nearly identical stats and BOFF layout? (aside from the +1 ability it came with for being a C-store ship that is)
Then there is the Mobius Temporal destroyer, which is basically an Escort with the word "Destroyer" tossed in to sound cool. :P