im surprised the dev brought up the aquarius can of worms. it IS a raider, you just choose to call it something else.
Which types ships ultimately are classified as isn't determined by their attributes. It's in fact determined by whatever Cryptic wants them to be. Any element of fiction is determined by its author/creator, that's fiction 101. It is unfortunate that the poor Aquarius isn't getting any boosts, but claiming that it fits into a category that it doesn't really does not help the case.
First: Where the hell have ya been? You said you were just going out to get some cigarettes.
Second: Maybe I better do not tell you. It's about me and .. somone special from the CMs
First: Hey, I openly stated that I was gone all weekend! Not my fault the red-eye from 'Frisco was delayed...
Second: YOU DID NOT!!!!!!! Anyway, how could you...*GASP* OH, MY GOD!!!!! THAT'S why Trendy wanted that secret passage into her pleasure palace! You TRIBBLE!!!!!
HOW COULD YOU CHEAT ON ME, LADY TRENDY!?!!??!?!??!?!?one!?!??!1!!??!1!1!?11!?!??!!
Some of us are eternally grateful that Cryptic tends not to take action on the pathetic whinings of the pathetic masses with their pathetic understanding of mechanics and their pathetic ability to do the simplest things...
Not saying you're one of those pathetic people...just saying some of us are grateful that Cryptic doesn't take too much action based on the pathetic comments from that pathetic aspect of the community.
This hits home on why STO has been so lackluster to me over the last years and why I hardly play much less pvp anymore. Even after the added KDF content (which I still enjoy greatly) and other new shinnies, the constant cry for nerfing of practically everything has gotten beyond stupid.
Its no longer an issue of balance or powercreep or even grind. The constant Nerf requests sour the whole game.
Why bother to play when some yutz is going to complain rather than adapt or learn to get better and bring the whole system down?
Its a trend I see in lots of MMOs. Somebody has to die in pvp.
First: Hey, I openly stated that I was gone all weekend! Not my fault the red-eye from 'Frisco was delayed...
Second: YOU DID NOT!!!!!!! Anyway, how could you...*GASP* OH, MY GOD!!!!! THAT'S why Trendy wanted that secret passage into her pleasure palace! You TRIBBLE!!!!!
HOW COULD YOU CHEAT ON ME, LADY TRENDY!?!!??!?!??!?!?one!?!??!1!!??!1!1!?11!?!??!!
Hail Ba'al! :D:D
Well.. I must tell you that.
A few days ago, when you were still "buying cigarettes", Trendy and I went to a High-School Prom Night. We were the oldest..
Trendy was costumed as Princess Kenny from South Park, and when the band started to play
"I can't get enough of your love" from Barry White, and tears were running down her cheek, she said to me:
"mmmm mhmm mmm mmmhhh, mmhmm mhmm mm mmhmmhmm mmm mmmhhhhmmmm"
It was the most beautifull thing I have ever heard, and I said "Yes"
I look forward to the announcement about the increased basic stealth sight for federation vessels. Standard detection range 8 Km.
It'll be necessary to counter this "improvement" to the Klingon BoP.
This program, though reasonably normal at times, seems to have a strong affinity to classes belonging to the Cat 2.0 program. Questerius 2.7 will break down on occasion, resulting in garbage and nonsense messages whenever it occurs. Usually a hard reboot or pulling the plug solves the problem when that happens.
The Aquarius is not a Raider. I think we can all agree on that point. Would it be nice to have the flanking ability of Raiders? Sure, but Cryptic is never going to do that. As Raiding seems to not be a Federation thing in their mind.
However, the Aquarius is also not a Destroyer. Not with the current way Cryptic has Destroyers. Destroyers are able to switch from one means to the next and the Aquarius doesn't do that either. There's no modifications to it.
This leaves us with it being an Escort and be like the Defiant (Tactical Retrofit Escort). Yet, it has less weapons, inertia, turn rate, shields and hull. Its less than that. This wouldn't be a problem if it had something to compensate, but it doesn't.
So that leaves it being a ship without much of a purpose. Which means Cryptic probably never should've brought it out, even if a lot of people were wanting one. At least not until its purpose was thought out.
A few days ago, when you were still "buying cigarettes", Trendy and I went to a High-School Prom Night. We were the oldest..
Trendy was costumed as Princess Kenny from South Park, and when the band started to play
"I can't get enough of your love" from Barry White, and tears were running down her cheek, she said to me:
"mmmm mhmm mmm mmmhhh, mmhmm mhmm mm mmhmmhmm mmm mmmhhhhmmmm"
It was the most beautifull thing I have ever heard, and I said "Yes"
A few days ago, when you were still "buying cigarettes", Trendy and I went to a High-School Prom Night. We were the oldest..
Trendy was costumed as Princess Kenny from South Park, and when the band started to play
"I can't get enough of your love" from Barry White, and tears were running down her cheek, she said to me:
"mmmm mhmm mmm mmmhhh, mmhmm mhmm mm mmhmmhmm mmm mmmhhhhmmmm"
It was the most beautifull thing I have ever heard, and I said "Yes"
However, the Aquarius is also not a Destroyer. Not with the current way Cryptic has Destroyers. Destroyers are able to switch from one means to the next and the Aquarius doesn't do that either. There's no modifications to it.
Not all Destroyers have some form of transform. That's not what makes a Destroyer a Destroyer. The Aquarius does not match up with Destroyers in any fashion...that's why it should not be a Destroyer.
The closest type it matched was the Raider...but Raiders had cloaks...then the Plesh Brek...and cloak was no longer a defining aspect of what a Raider was.
The closest type of ship to the Aquarius is a Raider.
Not an Escort. Not a Destroyer. Not a Raptor. Not a Corvette. Not a Warship.
Not all Destroyers have some form of transform. That's not what makes a Destroyer a Destroyer. The Aquarius does not match up with Destroyers in any fashion...that's why it should not be a Destroyer.
The closest type it matched was the Raider...but Raiders had cloaks...then the Plesh Brek...and cloak was no longer a defining aspect of what a Raider was.
The closest type of ship to the Aquarius is a Raider.
Not an Escort. Not a Destroyer. Not a Raptor. Not a Corvette. Not a Warship.
A Raider.
Which types ships ultimately are classified as isn't determined by their attributes. It's in fact determined by whatever Cryptic wants them to be. Any element of fiction is determined by its author/creator, that's fiction 101. It is unfortunate that the poor Aquarius isn't getting any boosts, but claiming that it fits into a category that it doesn't really does not help the case.
The closest type of ship to the Aquarius is a Raider.
Not an Escort. Not a Destroyer. Not a Raptor. Not a Corvette. Not a Warship.
A Raider.
Raider is a functional type, not even tip-of-the-spear assault (although it can be used for that in fleet formation), but a simple hit-and-run craft for raiding a single target. Aquarius is not that ship at all, it doesnt have any of the stats for it, and Starfleet probably doesnt do those operations (publicly). Its a shallow-water frigate, a patrol boat for starbase security, a glorified shuttle for outings with more than 5 men. So on this point I agree with them.
Its also not a destroyer.
And for the record (again) I do not think BOPs needed a flanking bonus, or a decloaking bonus, all they needed was a little buff to hull and impulse speed.
Raider is a functional type, assault craft, not even tip of the spear but a simple hit-and-run craft for raiding a single target. Aquarius is not that ship at all, doesnt have any of the stats for it.
Its a shallow-water frigate, a river patrol boat.
You would not say this, if they had given it an other name from the Zodiac instead of Aquarium or so
Where were you with this reply when the Romulans came to town?
I'm pretty sure someone mentioned it back then. There was no need to repeat it.
Either way IMO the problem is not in the cloak nor the flanking bonus, but in the difficulties detecting cloaked vessels.
Even in my stealth hogs (Galaxy-X and adapted destroyer) i can almost run into most players before they even know i am around.
Sure there are dedicated stealth detect builds and some scary detection consoles, but a cruiser or science vessel should be able to detect cloaked vessels (assuming they have no investment in stealth) at 5-7 Km. Right now i can fly up to them and sit at about 1-2 Km and they won't know i'm there.
This program, though reasonably normal at times, seems to have a strong affinity to classes belonging to the Cat 2.0 program. Questerius 2.7 will break down on occasion, resulting in garbage and nonsense messages whenever it occurs. Usually a hard reboot or pulling the plug solves the problem when that happens.
What ships ultimately are isn't determined by their attributes. It's in fact determined by what Cryptic wants them to be. Any element of fiction is determined by its author/creator, that's fiction 101. It is unfortunate that the poor Aquarius isn't getting any boosts, but claiming that it fits into a category that it doesn't help the case.
You can look at almost any ship and tell what category it is in by its attributes. They've named most ships appropriately based on those stats. In choosing to call something X, Y, or Z - they decide based on the familiarity of the stats.
Currently, what separates Raiders from other Escort-like vessels is the 4/2. It's the only thing they have in common that other vessels do not...except the Aquarius. So one can look at what the Destroyers have in common...and see that's not the Aquarius. Of course, once S9 goes live and Raiders have Flanking but the Aquarius does not...Flanking will be the defining element for the Raider. So the argument can be made at that point if Flanking is not added to the Aquarius, then it is not a Raider. Still, it's not a Destroyer...which has nothing to do with transforms since that is not a common element amongst all Destroyers.
At which point, they should just call it an Escort...kind of like the Aquarius Escort that comes with the Tactical Odyssey. Perhaps they could call it a Crappy Escort, eh? :P
The closest type of ship to the Aquarius is a Raider.
Aquarius should never be associated with raiders, if they ever do any changes on that ship - it should be modified to be more like escort. Raiders and federation just don't feel right.
Aquarius should never be associated with raiders, if they ever do any changes on that ship - it should be modified to be more like escort. Raiders and federation just don't feel right.
As mentioned in another thread - they could make the Aquarius a Heavy Corvette.
Whether it lives up to this ship class expectations is a separate discussion. I think most of us can agree that it doesnt. However, there are no plans at this time to improve this particular starship.
I'm pretty sure someone mentioned it back then. There was no need to repeat it.
Either way IMO the problem is not in the cloak nor the flanking bonus, but in the difficulties detecting cloaked vessels.
Even in my stealth hogs (Galaxy-X and adapted destroyer) i can almost run into most players before they even know i am around.
Sure there are dedicated stealth detect builds and some scary detection consoles, but a cruiser or science vessel should be able to detect cloaked vessels (assuming they have no investment in stealth) at 5-7 Km. Right now i can fly up to them and sit at about 1-2 Km and they won't know i'm there.
And that's your problem right there. That's the root of all the complaints about cloakers in this game, imho. People want to detect cloaked ships without bothering to invest anything in stealth detection in any possible way.
It's a behavior that is deteriorating the quality of the game - why adapt, learn or sacrifice sth. when they could just come to the forum and say "X is OP, plz nerf!". (not adressing this at you personally questerius, just a general impression I've been getting from this forum lately)
Trendy was costumed as Princess Kenny from South Park, and when the band started to play
"I can't get enough of your love" from Barry White, and tears were running down her cheek, she said to me:
"mmmm mhmm mmm mmmhhh, mmhmm mhmm mm mmhmmhmm mmm mmmhhhhmmmm"
It was the most beautifull thing I have ever heard, and I said "Yes"
But I have no earthly idea what is a "Toy Boy"?
sorry to tell u and wolfen but trendy is staying with me for the month
and what was the sevs drinking when the made the aquarius
hey there are some raiders that where missed. Romulan ones, T'Lis, T'Varo and T'Varo retro. these are all raider class ships (though they get classed as warbirds just because they are rommy ships) canonically they are Romulan Birds of Prey and as such are raiders. they even have the cloak function so why are they getting missed out?
Comments
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
First: Hey, I openly stated that I was gone all weekend! Not my fault the red-eye from 'Frisco was delayed...
Second: YOU DID NOT!!!!!!! Anyway, how could you...*GASP* OH, MY GOD!!!!! THAT'S why Trendy wanted that secret passage into her pleasure palace! You TRIBBLE!!!!!
HOW COULD YOU CHEAT ON ME, LADY TRENDY!?!!??!?!??!?!?one!?!??!1!!??!1!1!?11!?!??!!
Hail Ba'al!
This hits home on why STO has been so lackluster to me over the last years and why I hardly play much less pvp anymore. Even after the added KDF content (which I still enjoy greatly) and other new shinnies, the constant cry for nerfing of practically everything has gotten beyond stupid.
Its no longer an issue of balance or powercreep or even grind. The constant Nerf requests sour the whole game.
Why bother to play when some yutz is going to complain rather than adapt or learn to get better and bring the whole system down?
Its a trend I see in lots of MMOs. Somebody has to die in pvp.
R.I.P
Well.. I must tell you that.
A few days ago, when you were still "buying cigarettes", Trendy and I went to a High-School Prom Night. We were the oldest..
Trendy was costumed as Princess Kenny from South Park, and when the band started to play
"I can't get enough of your love" from Barry White, and tears were running down her cheek, she said to me:
"mmmm mhmm mmm mmmhhh, mmhmm mhmm mm mmhmmhmm mmm mmmhhhhmmmm"
It was the most beautifull thing I have ever heard, and I said "Yes"
But I have no earthly idea what is a "Toy Boy"?
It'll be necessary to counter this "improvement" to the Klingon BoP.
I'm sorry to people who I, in the past, insulted, annoyed, etc.
Member since early 2011
ROFL!!
Where were you with this reply when the Romulans came to town?
However, the Aquarius is also not a Destroyer. Not with the current way Cryptic has Destroyers. Destroyers are able to switch from one means to the next and the Aquarius doesn't do that either. There's no modifications to it.
This leaves us with it being an Escort and be like the Defiant (Tactical Retrofit Escort). Yet, it has less weapons, inertia, turn rate, shields and hull. Its less than that. This wouldn't be a problem if it had something to compensate, but it doesn't.
So that leaves it being a ship without much of a purpose. Which means Cryptic probably never should've brought it out, even if a lot of people were wanting one. At least not until its purpose was thought out.
RRRRRRRRRRAAAAAGGGHHH!!!!!!
INARTICULATE RAGE!!!!!!!
I WILL HAVE MY REVENGE!!!!!!!
Hail Ba'al!
You people are starting to scare me.
1 down, 57 to go
Good.
Alright, I think that this particular instance of the running joke should be cut off until we get a CM's involvement. Just to be safe and polite.
You mean, I must go on-topic? whew.. havent done this for a while..
Where were we? Ah yes.
Yes to the Raider/Flanking buff. I never fly a Raider but I find it good for the ones who do.
Not all Destroyers have some form of transform. That's not what makes a Destroyer a Destroyer. The Aquarius does not match up with Destroyers in any fashion...that's why it should not be a Destroyer.
The closest type it matched was the Raider...but Raiders had cloaks...then the Plesh Brek...and cloak was no longer a defining aspect of what a Raider was.
The closest type of ship to the Aquarius is a Raider.
Not an Escort. Not a Destroyer. Not a Raptor. Not a Corvette. Not a Warship.
A Raider.
Possibly playing Rom and complaining that EPTA gave too much a buff to stealth detection?
R.I.P
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
Its also not a destroyer.
And for the record (again) I do not think BOPs needed a flanking bonus, or a decloaking bonus, all they needed was a little buff to hull and impulse speed.
You would not say this, if they had given it an other name from the Zodiac instead of Aquarium or so
I'm pretty sure someone mentioned it back then. There was no need to repeat it.
Either way IMO the problem is not in the cloak nor the flanking bonus, but in the difficulties detecting cloaked vessels.
Even in my stealth hogs (Galaxy-X and adapted destroyer) i can almost run into most players before they even know i am around.
Sure there are dedicated stealth detect builds and some scary detection consoles, but a cruiser or science vessel should be able to detect cloaked vessels (assuming they have no investment in stealth) at 5-7 Km. Right now i can fly up to them and sit at about 1-2 Km and they won't know i'm there.
You can look at almost any ship and tell what category it is in by its attributes. They've named most ships appropriately based on those stats. In choosing to call something X, Y, or Z - they decide based on the familiarity of the stats.
Currently, what separates Raiders from other Escort-like vessels is the 4/2. It's the only thing they have in common that other vessels do not...except the Aquarius. So one can look at what the Destroyers have in common...and see that's not the Aquarius. Of course, once S9 goes live and Raiders have Flanking but the Aquarius does not...Flanking will be the defining element for the Raider. So the argument can be made at that point if Flanking is not added to the Aquarius, then it is not a Raider. Still, it's not a Destroyer...which has nothing to do with transforms since that is not a common element amongst all Destroyers.
At which point, they should just call it an Escort...kind of like the Aquarius Escort that comes with the Tactical Odyssey. Perhaps they could call it a Crappy Escort, eh? :P
Aquarius should never be associated with raiders, if they ever do any changes on that ship - it should be modified to be more like escort. Raiders and federation just don't feel right.
As mentioned in another thread - they could make the Aquarius a Heavy Corvette.
Sigh Classic Cryptic
based on hull and shield: light Corvette :P
And that's your problem right there. That's the root of all the complaints about cloakers in this game, imho. People want to detect cloaked ships without bothering to invest anything in stealth detection in any possible way.
It's a behavior that is deteriorating the quality of the game - why adapt, learn or sacrifice sth. when they could just come to the forum and say "X is OP, plz nerf!". (not adressing this at you personally questerius, just a general impression I've been getting from this forum lately)
sorry to tell u and wolfen but trendy is staying with me for the month
and what was the sevs drinking when the made the aquarius
hail sela
You are mixing up Trendy with Vampirella or so
the sevs never drink while beeing at work. just before and after
well they were on something lol