test content
Logo
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc
Options
Ships that should be 5/3
aurigas7
Member Posts: 488 Arc User
The title already gives it away. 5/3 is the new gold standard for combat cruisers in STO. Many of the older assault or battelcruisers are now left behind. And, for some strange reason even new ships were released with the old 4/4 layout.
It makes no difference if a DBB setup or cannons are prefered, 4/4 just doesn't cut it anymore.
And here the problems begin. I really love canon ships. And all of them, without exception are 4/4. Ships like the D'Deridex, Galor or all the Klingon battlecruisers. They were not broadsiders in the show, but had an emphasis on forward firepower.
The first T6 versions of our old warhorses have already been released. D'D, Negh'var, Galaxy. All of them 4/4. Ok for the Galaxy, but seriously, the Negh'var and the D'D shoudn't be forced into the broadsider role.
The Negh'var got this beautiful new model with those underslung cannon pods, but fails as cannon platform. The D'D could potentially be a nice alpha striker, but 4/4.
Of course one can pick a Mogh for Klingons, and err, what exactly for Romulans ? Aehlal is 4/4 too. That stopped me from buying this beauty. And I can't remember when I saw one last time in a STF.
My conclusion: 4/4 is TRIBBLE, people don't buy TRIBBLE. Me neither.
Therefore the T6 versions of our assault/battlecruisers should get a 5/3 layout.
DBB fired from the Galor are displayed as one fat beam. That's great. But it should be possible to have a setup somewhat resembling canon. That means 5/3 and DBB fired from the crystal thingy at the front.
Same for T6 Tor'kaht/Vor'cha. 5/3, and it will be a viable alternative to the Mogh/Kurak (worth buying !)
It makes no difference if a DBB setup or cannons are prefered, 4/4 just doesn't cut it anymore.
And here the problems begin. I really love canon ships. And all of them, without exception are 4/4. Ships like the D'Deridex, Galor or all the Klingon battlecruisers. They were not broadsiders in the show, but had an emphasis on forward firepower.
The first T6 versions of our old warhorses have already been released. D'D, Negh'var, Galaxy. All of them 4/4. Ok for the Galaxy, but seriously, the Negh'var and the D'D shoudn't be forced into the broadsider role.
The Negh'var got this beautiful new model with those underslung cannon pods, but fails as cannon platform. The D'D could potentially be a nice alpha striker, but 4/4.
Of course one can pick a Mogh for Klingons, and err, what exactly for Romulans ? Aehlal is 4/4 too. That stopped me from buying this beauty. And I can't remember when I saw one last time in a STF.
My conclusion: 4/4 is TRIBBLE, people don't buy TRIBBLE. Me neither.
Therefore the T6 versions of our assault/battlecruisers should get a 5/3 layout.
DBB fired from the Galor are displayed as one fat beam. That's great. But it should be possible to have a setup somewhat resembling canon. That means 5/3 and DBB fired from the crystal thingy at the front.
Same for T6 Tor'kaht/Vor'cha. 5/3, and it will be a viable alternative to the Mogh/Kurak (worth buying !)
0
Comments
Explain what you mean by this.
What ships are being 'left behind' exactly?
I'm assuming you're only talking about Battle Cruisers and not all cruisers. If that's the case, then the only ships I can think of that fit your description are the Command 'Battle Cruisers' which are simply mis-named. Those ships, while more agile then some cruisers are still too slow for a front facing build. Changing something like the Presidio or even the Eclipse from 4/4 to 5/3 would make absolutely no difference at all since you're still going to broadside with it. If you're using single beam arrays (which you should be in a command battle cruiser) then there is no functional difference between 5/3 and 4/4.
Cruisers are 4/4 as they should be, that layout is optimal for those ships. 5/3 is currently only available on a handful of larger ships, and some of them can't even take advantage of it. I'm not sure how exactly you feel that these small number of ships are the standard and everything else is obsolete. It works on a ship like the Arbiter, but it's hardly the new 'gold standard.'
Which ships do you think should be converted from 4/4 to 5/3?
not completely unless your running antiproton in which case you can get 2 in the back (like I have, and I'm sure many more have as well)
I don't really understand the limiting of one Omni beam or one wide arc cannon, if it can fit on the ship, let people do it however they want...not like there is powercreep issues or anything anyway.
But it would be funny yet somewhat reasonable if the Yamato and its Romulan equivalent got 5/3; neither of them have the necessary turn rates without separating.
Battle Cruisers and destroyers are hybrids and are treated as such.
No, I don't want to change the command cruisers. They have a hangar on top of their 8 weapons.
As a rule of thumb I would prefer a 5/3 layout for every battlecruiser (ability to mount dual heavy cannons).
The 5/3 is superior for DBB and cannon builts, while the broadside remains exactly the same for beam builts.
For cannon builts this is self-explaining. DHC's are better for shooting stuff in front of your ship than turrets.
AP dual beams + ancient omni + crafted omni + KCB and all weapons can be on target (even the optional torp).
Tetryon builts with 2x omnis are possible, too.
But it's not only about practicable layouts, it's about canon, too. Turning a Klingon battlecruiser, Galor or the DD into a broadsider feels soo wrong.
Look at the Galor. In the shows they never fired anything except the front mounted beam. DBB's on a Galor are animated as single beam fired from that thing a the front. That's totally cool. Unfortunately there are no spiral wave disruptor DBB's or omnis and the 4/4 layout isn't good for a DBB built.
To model the ingame Galor as close as possible to the version from the shows and remain competitive 5/3 would therefore be better.
The ships I would like to see with 5/3 layout: Galor, D'Kora, Apex, Sovereign, D'Deridex, Ha'feh, Aehlal and all Klingon Battlecruisers.
The game is 5 years old, in that time during WW2 the world went from canvas bi-planes to jet fighters yet in game despite being involved in never ending wars to the death with just about everyone the ST-universe ships have gone from 4/4 cruisers to 4/4 cruisers with a new console.
All the other canon designs currently get the short end of the stick. This totally sucks. If the boff layout I enjoy the most is by chance found on a canon design, I don't have to expect a competitive weapons layout. Wonderfull !
Hey, Hey, Hey! Are we forgetting about the slow as molasses, can't turn unless you buy the set Scimi- nevermind.
I don't mind some ships being 4/4 but you are right, others including the Aehlal could so easily be a 5/3 beauty. That one may even get away with some cannons with a base turn of 10. OK maybe not the Aehlal itself, as that ship has sailed, but a new ship much like it.
Whatever can be said of how reasonable or not the 4/3 is in that Valiant debate, from here on out, I wouldn't mind more attack ships being 5/2 instead. And more cruisers being 5/3.
If I get you right, then everything is fine because it doesn't effect you. Perfectly good reason, eh ?
Currently I feel restricted in my choices. In the early days of STO, things were imho better. Let's take the fed cruisers for example.
All of them had the same weapon hardpoints, but had differen boff seats. Sovereign had the tac ensign, Star Cruiser the sci ensign and Galaxy the universally hated eng ensing.
One had a choice. Same for the 3 fedscorts.
Unless you want to restrict yourself to 8 beams as armament, 5/3 is clearly superior to 4/4. But this is now available only with some ships, not all of them.
This narrows down the choices considerably. I would love to have a 5/3 Kamarag, to run a tetryon built with DBB's (you know, the Tholian set...) or a 5/3 Tor'kaht with disrupror cannons and bio torp.
I can do this with 4/4, but by doing so I would weaken my team. Not cool.
Because that is so... Uninspiring.
STO players. LOL, really...
I'd personally like more destroyers with 4/4, most broadsiding ships are eng or sci.
The moment something that is not 100% the best is described as "TRIBBLE" is the moment I stop taking the argument seriously. "Underperforming when compared to 5/3" is something I can discuss, "TRIBBLE" just reads as an "I want everything on my ship because I cannot care to compensate for weaknesses".
Do you really think a measureable amount of content cannot be beat with a 4/4 when compared to a 5/3 with otherwise same setup (and I do include PvP here)? Yes, 5/3 may be better (okay, *is* better) but does it "wipe the floor" (quote from another thread) with the other ships? Nope.
I would also like to see more destroyers with 4/4. The Nicor is currently my favorite ship. I wish there were more like it, but with different BOff layouts and specs.
I don't. I want 6/2 :P
I think I shouldn't be forced to fly certain ships if I
-want to compete in competitive PvE (CCE for example)
-don't want to gimp my team in cooperative PvE (most STF's)
Some ships just get the superior 5/3. An there is no tradeoff for it. Let's compare Mogh and Tor'kaht.
Mogh: more HP, beam spam optimized boff layout and 5/3.
Tor'kaht: nice boff layout for cannons, but 4/4. Handling is worse on paper, but I really like the inertia for keeping the nose pointed on target.
Both ships could be fairly balanced, with some strenghts and weaknesses. If not for the superior weapon layout of the Mogh.
The Tor'kaht is more or less the epitome of cannon battlecruisers, but get's outclassed by the beam boat Mogh in forward firepower. And that's wrong imho and should get corrected.
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
I see neither. Even if there is an objective difference in ships of potential damage - and if we are looking at your build there always will be - it will not be make or break on CCE, it will not be a gimp on your team. Unless you call everything below absolutre maximum a "gimp", but then there will probably be exactly one build on one ship with one loadout that is maximum and everything else is not (although we wouldn't know for sure which one that would be). And yes, depending on playstyle and loadout and abilities (not meant as a "better or worse player", but some handle positioning better, some handle cooldown management better) there may be a best ship for you (and another best ship for somebody else), but that doesn't mean that everything else becomes an insta-fail. So you may be doing 5% less damage on the Tor'kath? That's 1% across the team. That's easily overshadowed by random elements like pressing a button a second earlier or later (not a single one but the multitude of them across an STF). And it will certainly not turn a successful strong run into a slaughter of you and your team.
What really bothers me is the 4/3 Escorts. This is such a dated layout and we have so many better options out there. T6 Defiant certainly should have gotten 5/2.