Cryptic might sell future ships in that format in the future. However, CHANGING it...don't think they would ever do that. It cuts too much from their pocket but future boxed ships or C store might be better way to ask.
If you are trying to make a front firing ship with a 4/4 layout you'll end with 9 max weapons firing forward (arc beam X2 - antiproton or tetryon, nothing else - and cutting beam).
And here in lies the problem your having lamyrs... your trying to build a forward firing ship, with ships build to broadside. 4/4 ships are designed for the Broadside style of play, where you coast around the enemy keeping them in the shared arc of your beams from fore and aft. You only bring the 45 degree angle of your front or rear arc to bear, if you have dropped shields on the enemy and need to lay that high yield torpedo, or Dual beam bank beam overload into the hole in their shields.
Your operating under a flawed view that you must run every ship in the game the same way you fly escorts (fore facing the enemy at all times). This is in fact a game of positioning and movement, and as such you can build truly devastating beam boats with the broadsiding technique that will meet and exceed in some cases a forward firing only pilot. You don't NEED 4 dual beam banks on fore, when you can bring 8 Beam Arrays to bear off the Port or Starboard flank of the ship...
I can't beleive that. 4/4 designed for broadside? And the 5/3 that have less manoeuvrability are designed for what? Also if they are designed for broadside why most of them can mount dual canons? Did the devs were joking like : ok folks we are designing broadsides ships but it is a suprise so let's hide it behind good manoeuvrability, not a broadside standard equipment, the ability to mount dual canons, a console with a 45° firing cone and a starship trait that boost canons. I think none of the ship that was made is this game was intended to be a broadside ship.
You should believe that.
You're making the assumption that ship design decisions are (or should be) based purely on whether or not they are effective at maximizing DPS. It's the mistake that everyone who only thinks of DPS makes. You find cruisers and science ships with low turn rates which are allowed to mount dual cannons because it fits their 'RP-story' design, not because they are or were poorly designed for DPS. Just because a ship is allowed to mount a certain type of weapon doesn't mean it MUST mount that weapon, or that it NEEDS to mount that weapon. No ship MUST mount all beams to be effective, it's just convenient if you're trying to get that extra amount of DPS to post in the DPS league.
Since an all beam build is the current, most effective, DPS build, the type of ship you fly is really not relevant. For everyone else, a 4/4 layout with a mix of beams and torpedoes, built properly, and flown properly, delivers more than enough DPS to easily handle anything the game throws at us (and I'm not talking about minimal 10k, I'm talking a 20-50k+ range, depending on build)
Cruisers and Sci ships have low turn rate? Sorry but the fact that you can't play cruisers with dual canons is not true. I have a Bortasqu' fitted with dual cannons and with a proper build you can turn very fast with it. I also have the same Bortasqu' with broadside setup but when I take it and I see how far my dps is from my canon Bortasqu' I just go back on first one.
But to be clear, I don't say that broadside ships don't do dps, I say that 5/3 ships do more dps. Take the same ship, the same tac consoles, one with 5/3 layout and one with 4/4 layout (for exemple the Kurak and the Qib). There is no way that the 4/4 will do more dps than the 5/3 and this is where I say there is balance problem.
If players like broadside fine, they can still do it with a 5/3 layout, where is the problem?
I don't know if you really understand this, but, for many Star Trek fans the science and exploration aspects are very important. It's only those who are younger who think Trek is all like the later seasons of DS9.
You're thinking of DPS only, instead of the whole spectrum of players. In other words, your reasoning is too narrow.
Still it is a mmorpg and for me a game must be balanced, and while I can understand there are trek fans here (I like Star Trek but can't tell that I am fan) I prefer play with players that have optimised their builds than the one playing with the Enterprise because he likes the series.
I give up, thank you for your explanations.
It IS relatively balanced actually, at least, it is FAR more balanced then it has been for a long time, Not Cryptics fault you are trying to use a ship BUILT for Bfaw and beam arrays and trying to use something else. You are trying to do the equivalent of using a sniper rifle when the enemy is right in front of you.
Come on, everyone that have a Scimatar or a Annorax know that the game in unbalanced.
I am from Belgium and english isn't my main language, sorry if I make mistakes.
If you are trying to make a front firing ship with a 4/4 layout you'll end with 9 max weapons firing forward (arc beam X2 - antiproton or tetryon, nothing else - and cutting beam).
And here in lies the problem your having lamyrs... your trying to build a forward firing ship, with ships build to broadside. 4/4 ships are designed for the Broadside style of play, where you coast around the enemy keeping them in the shared arc of your beams from fore and aft. You only bring the 45 degree angle of your front or rear arc to bear, if you have dropped shields on the enemy and need to lay that high yield torpedo, or Dual beam bank beam overload into the hole in their shields.
Your operating under a flawed view that you must run every ship in the game the same way you fly escorts (fore facing the enemy at all times). This is in fact a game of positioning and movement, and as such you can build truly devastating beam boats with the broadsiding technique that will meet and exceed in some cases a forward firing only pilot. You don't NEED 4 dual beam banks on fore, when you can bring 8 Beam Arrays to bear off the Port or Starboard flank of the ship...
I can't beleive that. 4/4 designed for broadside? And the 5/3 that have less manoeuvrability are designed for what? Also if they are designed for broadside why most of them can mount dual canons? Did the devs were joking like : ok folks we are designing broadsides ships but it is a suprise so let's hide it behind good manoeuvrability, not a broadside standard equipment, the ability to mount dual canons, a console with a 45° firing cone and a starship trait that boost canons. I think none of the ship that was made is this game was intended to be a broadside ship.
You should believe that.
You're making the assumption that ship design decisions are (or should be) based purely on whether or not they are effective at maximizing DPS. It's the mistake that everyone who only thinks of DPS makes. You find cruisers and science ships with low turn rates which are allowed to mount dual cannons because it fits their 'RP-story' design, not because they are or were poorly designed for DPS. Just because a ship is allowed to mount a certain type of weapon doesn't mean it MUST mount that weapon, or that it NEEDS to mount that weapon. No ship MUST mount all beams to be effective, it's just convenient if you're trying to get that extra amount of DPS to post in the DPS league.
Since an all beam build is the current, most effective, DPS build, the type of ship you fly is really not relevant. For everyone else, a 4/4 layout with a mix of beams and torpedoes, built properly, and flown properly, delivers more than enough DPS to easily handle anything the game throws at us (and I'm not talking about minimal 10k, I'm talking a 20-50k+ range, depending on build)
Cruisers and Sci ships have low turn rate? Sorry but the fact that you can't play cruisers with dual canons is not true. I have a Bortasqu' fitted with dual cannons and with a proper build you can turn very fast with it. I also have the same Bortasqu' with broadside setup but when I take it and I see how far my dps is from my canon Bortasqu' I just go back on first one.
But to be clear, I don't say that broadside ships don't do dps, I say that 5/3 ships do more dps. Take the same ship, the same tac consoles, one with 5/3 layout and one with 4/4 layout (for exemple the Kurak and the Qib). There is no way that the 4/4 will do more dps than the 5/3 and this is where I say there is balance problem.
If players like broadside fine, they can still do it with a 5/3 layout, where is the problem?
I don't know if you really understand this, but, for many Star Trek fans the science and exploration aspects are very important. It's only those who are younger who think Trek is all like the later seasons of DS9.
You're thinking of DPS only, instead of the whole spectrum of players. In other words, your reasoning is too narrow.
Still it is a mmorpg and for me a game must be balanced, and while I can understand there are trek fans here (I like Star Trek but can't tell that I am fan) I prefer play with players that have optimised their builds than the one playing with the Enterprise because he likes the series.
I give up, thank you for your explanations.
It IS relatively balanced actually, at least, it is FAR more balanced then it has been for a long time, Not Cryptics fault you are trying to use a ship BUILT for Bfaw and beam arrays and trying to use something else. You are trying to do the equivalent of using a sniper rifle when the enemy is right in front of you.
Come on, everyone that have a Scimatar or a Annorax know that the game in unbalanced.
for a long time, you used a escort or you did not bother playing in endgame PVE and expected to win, you used cannons, or did not bother expecting to do as well, so yes, i would say that the ability to use any ship type and do just as much DPS if not more as an escort IS balanced in comparison.
Those ships being overpowered have little to do with their weapon layout, and actually, you bringing up the Annorax completely kills your own argument, as it is 4/3, so not even 8 weapons AND it has a turn rate of 6 thus making using anything other then beam arrays pointless. Even the scimitar is a beam array-boat most of the time, and it could have 4/4 and it would likely make little difference.
If you are trying to make a front firing ship with a 4/4 layout you'll end with 9 max weapons firing forward (arc beam X2 - antiproton or tetryon, nothing else - and cutting beam).
And here in lies the problem your having lamyrs... your trying to build a forward firing ship, with ships build to broadside. 4/4 ships are designed for the Broadside style of play, where you coast around the enemy keeping them in the shared arc of your beams from fore and aft. You only bring the 45 degree angle of your front or rear arc to bear, if you have dropped shields on the enemy and need to lay that high yield torpedo, or Dual beam bank beam overload into the hole in their shields.
Your operating under a flawed view that you must run every ship in the game the same way you fly escorts (fore facing the enemy at all times). This is in fact a game of positioning and movement, and as such you can build truly devastating beam boats with the broadsiding technique that will meet and exceed in some cases a forward firing only pilot. You don't NEED 4 dual beam banks on fore, when you can bring 8 Beam Arrays to bear off the Port or Starboard flank of the ship...
I can't beleive that. 4/4 designed for broadside? And the 5/3 that have less manoeuvrability are designed for what? Also if they are designed for broadside why most of them can mount dual canons? Did the devs were joking like : ok folks we are designing broadsides ships but it is a suprise so let's hide it behind good manoeuvrability, not a broadside standard equipment, the ability to mount dual canons, a console with a 45° firing cone and a starship trait that boost canons. I think none of the ship that was made is this game was intended to be a broadside ship.
You should believe that.
You're making the assumption that ship design decisions are (or should be) based purely on whether or not they are effective at maximizing DPS. It's the mistake that everyone who only thinks of DPS makes. You find cruisers and science ships with low turn rates which are allowed to mount dual cannons because it fits their 'RP-story' design, not because they are or were poorly designed for DPS. Just because a ship is allowed to mount a certain type of weapon doesn't mean it MUST mount that weapon, or that it NEEDS to mount that weapon. No ship MUST mount all beams to be effective, it's just convenient if you're trying to get that extra amount of DPS to post in the DPS league.
Since an all beam build is the current, most effective, DPS build, the type of ship you fly is really not relevant. For everyone else, a 4/4 layout with a mix of beams and torpedoes, built properly, and flown properly, delivers more than enough DPS to easily handle anything the game throws at us (and I'm not talking about minimal 10k, I'm talking a 20-50k+ range, depending on build)
Cruisers and Sci ships have low turn rate? Sorry but the fact that you can't play cruisers with dual canons is not true. I have a Bortasqu' fitted with dual cannons and with a proper build you can turn very fast with it. I also have the same Bortasqu' with broadside setup but when I take it and I see how far my dps is from my canon Bortasqu' I just go back on first one.
But to be clear, I don't say that broadside ships don't do dps, I say that 5/3 ships do more dps. Take the same ship, the same tac consoles, one with 5/3 layout and one with 4/4 layout (for exemple the Kurak and the Qib). There is no way that the 4/4 will do more dps than the 5/3 and this is where I say there is balance problem.
If players like broadside fine, they can still do it with a 5/3 layout, where is the problem?
I don't know if you really understand this, but, for many Star Trek fans the science and exploration aspects are very important. It's only those who are younger who think Trek is all like the later seasons of DS9.
You're thinking of DPS only, instead of the whole spectrum of players. In other words, your reasoning is too narrow.
Still it is a mmorpg and for me a game must be balanced, and while I can understand there are trek fans here (I like Star Trek but can't tell that I am fan) I prefer play with players that have optimised their builds than the one playing with the Enterprise because he likes the series.
I give up, thank you for your explanations.
It IS relatively balanced actually, at least, it is FAR more balanced then it has been for a long time, Not Cryptics fault you are trying to use a ship BUILT for Bfaw and beam arrays and trying to use something else. You are trying to do the equivalent of using a sniper rifle when the enemy is right in front of you.
Come on, everyone that have a Scimatar or a Annorax know that the game in unbalanced.
for a long time, you used a escort or you did not bother playing in endgame PVE and expected to win, you used cannons, or did not bother expecting to do as well, so yes, i would say that the ability to use any ship type and do just as much DPS if not more as an escort IS balanced in comparison.
Those ships being overpowered have little to do with their weapon layout, and actually, you bringing up the Annorax completely kills your own argument, as it is 4/3, so not even 8 weapons AND it has a turn rate of 6 thus making using anything other then beam arrays pointless. Even the scimitar is a beam array-boat most of the time, and it could have 4/4 and it would likely make little difference.
Ok so Annorax is a sci ship nothing to do with the cruisers. For the balance, Annorax is the only 4/3 sci ship, have a frigate hangar bay, a very op trait (time to kill), the best hull among all the sci ships as well as an awsome shield modifier. The only downside is the turn rate but like I said before, with a proper build, you can spin as you want.
Scimatar with beam arrays?... Lol till the day I bought, using beam arrays on it never came in my mind.
I am from Belgium and english isn't my main language, sorry if I make mistakes.
If you are trying to make a front firing ship with a 4/4 layout you'll end with 9 max weapons firing forward (arc beam X2 - antiproton or tetryon, nothing else - and cutting beam).
And here in lies the problem your having lamyrs... your trying to build a forward firing ship, with ships build to broadside. 4/4 ships are designed for the Broadside style of play, where you coast around the enemy keeping them in the shared arc of your beams from fore and aft. You only bring the 45 degree angle of your front or rear arc to bear, if you have dropped shields on the enemy and need to lay that high yield torpedo, or Dual beam bank beam overload into the hole in their shields.
Your operating under a flawed view that you must run every ship in the game the same way you fly escorts (fore facing the enemy at all times). This is in fact a game of positioning and movement, and as such you can build truly devastating beam boats with the broadsiding technique that will meet and exceed in some cases a forward firing only pilot. You don't NEED 4 dual beam banks on fore, when you can bring 8 Beam Arrays to bear off the Port or Starboard flank of the ship...
I can't beleive that. 4/4 designed for broadside? And the 5/3 that have less manoeuvrability are designed for what? Also if they are designed for broadside why most of them can mount dual canons? Did the devs were joking like : ok folks we are designing broadsides ships but it is a suprise so let's hide it behind good manoeuvrability, not a broadside standard equipment, the ability to mount dual canons, a console with a 45° firing cone and a starship trait that boost canons. I think none of the ship that was made is this game was intended to be a broadside ship.
You should believe that.
You're making the assumption that ship design decisions are (or should be) based purely on whether or not they are effective at maximizing DPS. It's the mistake that everyone who only thinks of DPS makes. You find cruisers and science ships with low turn rates which are allowed to mount dual cannons because it fits their 'RP-story' design, not because they are or were poorly designed for DPS. Just because a ship is allowed to mount a certain type of weapon doesn't mean it MUST mount that weapon, or that it NEEDS to mount that weapon. No ship MUST mount all beams to be effective, it's just convenient if you're trying to get that extra amount of DPS to post in the DPS league.
Since an all beam build is the current, most effective, DPS build, the type of ship you fly is really not relevant. For everyone else, a 4/4 layout with a mix of beams and torpedoes, built properly, and flown properly, delivers more than enough DPS to easily handle anything the game throws at us (and I'm not talking about minimal 10k, I'm talking a 20-50k+ range, depending on build)
Cruisers and Sci ships have low turn rate? Sorry but the fact that you can't play cruisers with dual canons is not true. I have a Bortasqu' fitted with dual cannons and with a proper build you can turn very fast with it. I also have the same Bortasqu' with broadside setup but when I take it and I see how far my dps is from my canon Bortasqu' I just go back on first one.
But to be clear, I don't say that broadside ships don't do dps, I say that 5/3 ships do more dps. Take the same ship, the same tac consoles, one with 5/3 layout and one with 4/4 layout (for exemple the Kurak and the Qib). There is no way that the 4/4 will do more dps than the 5/3 and this is where I say there is balance problem.
If players like broadside fine, they can still do it with a 5/3 layout, where is the problem?
I don't know if you really understand this, but, for many Star Trek fans the science and exploration aspects are very important. It's only those who are younger who think Trek is all like the later seasons of DS9.
You're thinking of DPS only, instead of the whole spectrum of players. In other words, your reasoning is too narrow.
Still it is a mmorpg and for me a game must be balanced, and while I can understand there are trek fans here (I like Star Trek but can't tell that I am fan) I prefer play with players that have optimised their builds than the one playing with the Enterprise because he likes the series.
I give up, thank you for your explanations.
It IS relatively balanced actually, at least, it is FAR more balanced then it has been for a long time, Not Cryptics fault you are trying to use a ship BUILT for Bfaw and beam arrays and trying to use something else. You are trying to do the equivalent of using a sniper rifle when the enemy is right in front of you.
Come on, everyone that have a Scimatar or a Annorax know that the game in unbalanced.
for a long time, you used a escort or you did not bother playing in endgame PVE and expected to win, you used cannons, or did not bother expecting to do as well, so yes, i would say that the ability to use any ship type and do just as much DPS if not more as an escort IS balanced in comparison.
Those ships being overpowered have little to do with their weapon layout, and actually, you bringing up the Annorax completely kills your own argument, as it is 4/3, so not even 8 weapons AND it has a turn rate of 6 thus making using anything other then beam arrays pointless. Even the scimitar is a beam array-boat most of the time, and it could have 4/4 and it would likely make little difference.
Ok so Annorax is a sci ship nothing to do with the cruisers. For the balance, Annorax is the only 4/3 sci ship, have a frigate hangar bay, a very op trait (time to kill), the best hull among all the sci ships as well as an awsome shield modifier. The only downside is the turn rate but like I said before, with a proper build, you can spin as you want.
Scimatar with beam arrays?...
so, you agree then, your posts have been totally wrong and have nothing to do with the weapon layout and everythign to do with the fact you are comparing 2 of the best ships in the game with everything else.
how long have you played this game? because if have played much and know about what is good and not, you would know that yes, Scim + beam arrays are generally the way to go for a build and that attempting to make a ship with 6 turn rate into a user of frontal weapons is the exact opposite of optimal and common sense, and that you are FAR better off with using Armor engi console.
If I were to have started this game, I'd have split the 4/4s and the 5/3s a bit more evenly. But as far as having any real complaints, I don't have them. It would be nice to have a few more new cruisers, or at the very least a single 5/3 warbird much like the Aehlal otherwise. But as far as changing all the 4/4s, I don't see it as that pressing a concern.
Well, to be fair, the notion that most large ships in Star Trek carry equal levels of armament fore and aft and thus are best fighting broadside is completely unsupported by any and all on-screen evidence and is essentially utter bollocks: Pretty much every ship fights head-on, with being sideways at best being something not-overly-detrimental as opposed to a desirable fighting position.
It is, however, far too late to make such a radical change in the design of the game at this point. Combat would certainly have been a lot more interesting if ships really did have a strong forward bias such that they had weak to no armament to the rear and broadsiding wasn't a thing, just like the show, though.
then I guess its a good thing that the game does not have to be a slave to canon dynamics.
I'm laughing that the FAW haters felt the need to come dump some of their salt here in a completely different topic.
It's not that I hate FAW, good ability, just completely pisses on everything else.
Star Trek Battles member. Want to roll with a good group of people regardless of fleets and not have to worry about DPS while doing STFs? Come join the channel and join in the fun!
Well, to be fair, the notion that most large ships in Star Trek carry equal levels of armament fore and aft and thus are best fighting broadside is completely unsupported by any and all on-screen evidence and is essentially utter bollocks.
Yes, like the Enterprise-D which had 250 Photon Torpedoes and 10 Phaser Beam arrays as stated in the episode: "Conundrum"
0
Options
rattler2Member, Star Trek Online ModeratorPosts: 58,117Community Moderator
Ok so Annorax is a sci ship nothing to do with the cruisers. For the balance, Annorax is the only 4/3 sci ship, have a frigate hangar bay, a very op trait (time to kill), the best hull among all the sci ships as well as an awsome shield modifier.
I believe the Annorax could be classified in its own category, as she is a Science DREADNOUGHT. Not a strait up sci ship.
Anyways... Every ship has a role to fill. Trying to force everyone into the same weapons loadout just so the OP can have "a little bit more DPS" is... frankly... lame. Its not a "balance pass" its a "I want more DEEPS so make everyone fly the same ship so I can have more DEEPS." That's kinda how it comes across.
Yes, like the Enterprise-D which had 250 Photon Torpedoes and 10 Phaser Beam arrays as stated in the episode: "Conundrum"
I believe that torpedo number was the number of actual torpedoes stored aboard the Ent-D, since Torpedoes are actual, physical projectiles. The reason the Ent-D never ran out of torpedoes is because she was always able to resupply at a starbase. Voyager, on the other hand... I headcanon it as they traded for the resources to fabricate their own out of necessity, thus giving a plausible reason why they used so many torpedoes when they were cut off in the Delta Quadrant.
I agree but everything in this game is about dps. Now what do we do? Tanks and healers are worthless. I'm not being sarcastic I really do want a game thats not all about dps but as far along as the game is I just don't see a alternative solution.
I agree with everyone else. You want a 5/3 ship, get one that is already 5/3 and stop asking the devs to change 4/4 ships.
Or rather, like someone else already stated, ask for more new 5/3 ships. Either as lockbox, promo or c-store ships. Stop trying to get them to make all ships 5/3.
And I don't fly any 5/3 ships. Most of mine are actually T5 or T5-U with 4/4 or 4/3. Love my Nandi, actually.
Now a LTS and loving it.
Just because you spend money on this game, it does not entitle you to be a jerk if things don't go your way.
I have come to the conclusion that I have a memory like Etch-A-Sketch. I shake my head and forget everything.
No matter how hard I try (just spent another 800k dilit and 40m EC on a build) the 4/4 ships are far behind the 5/3 ones. The only way to get a 4/4 effective is to set up a beam boat with FAW, but still, there is no way a 4/4 can beat a 5/3 or even a 5/2 in dps. If you are trying to make a front firing ship with a 4/4 layout you'll end with 9 max weapons firing forward (arc beam X2 - antiproton or tetryon, nothing else - and cutting beam). Turret? Deal 3x less dmg than fwd weapons.
You also gonna argue me than 4/4 ships don't have enought turn rate to be effective. That's not true. With a good setup you can have a nice turn rate in any ship and most of the 5/3 ships have similar turn rate than the 4/4 ones.
Also, sci ships should get a 4/3 setup like the Annorax but that's another story.
The ships in this game are fine. Its the game that needs reworked. The real problem is that every Space and Ground mission in this game rely on how effective your dps is. Tanks and healers are straight up worthless. Escorts can soak up just as much dps as the biggest ship around and as long as your ship has a few science and engineering stations (witch is everyone of them) your just as good as a healer that anyone needs. The ships = good the game enviroment=Bad. I'm not arguing with anyone. I want a game where I can tank and heal. Dpsing gets old after awhile. I say tear down the STO logo and tape up Star Trek ship collector online and now we got a game. Anything more than that is just lying to the people.
Tanks are not useless. If your team is dead they aren't causing dps so, being a tank is rather decent. I actually fly a tank, and usually take around 60% damage in and up, on most queues. Other ships don't need a 5/3 or more fore slots to do more dps. Geez, just fly the ship you'd like to fly. Rather than looking at how many fore weapons it has.
Someone did mention that all you see are 5/2, 5/3 ships around. Well, I beg to differ. There are plenty 4/4, 4/3 and whatever configurations around.
^This. I also fly a tank or two and they are not unnecessary. A friend of mine calls them flying whales because she likes her ships to have more maneuverability, so she flies sci ships because she's good at sci. There is a place for all ships, none are useless, it's just a matter of personal preference.
In my personal preference, I like flying whales. They get the job done, even if they take longer than others to do it. The name of the game is blow them up before they blow you up. In stories there is no time limit on it. I survive and I blow them up. End of story.
I could say that those glass cannon escorts are the useless ones. They may out-dps me, but they also blow up more often than I do.
However, I don't actually believe that any ship in the game is totally useless, that's insulting to the people who fly those other ships and make them work.
Now a LTS and loving it.
Just because you spend money on this game, it does not entitle you to be a jerk if things don't go your way.
I have come to the conclusion that I have a memory like Etch-A-Sketch. I shake my head and forget everything.
Everyone is already flying the same ship : Scimatar, pilots ships, Arbiter, Kurak, everything that have a 5 fwd weapons... Go to space and look around you. All you find are 5/3 or 5/2 ships (or carriers). If someone play something else it is because they play beam boat with the op FAW or because they don't care to be useless.
I'm not really sure what game you're playing, but I'll just say that my experience is VERY different. The most common ships I see are the Command Cruisers, Yamato Dread, and probably the Samsar. All of which are 4/4 ships. The only ship I see a lot of that's 5/3 is the Romulan Scimitar.
Sorry but I can't beleive that ships like the Qib or the Nandi are not made for front weaponry.
Well, I'm sorry if you can't believe it, but that doesn't make it less true. You can definitely fly either of those ships with a front facing build, but neither is optimal for it. The Qib has a native turn rate of 11, the Nandi is 12, both are... acceptable for front facing but hardly optimal. They're alright for DBB but honestly, both are a little slow for front cannons. Their turn rate is optimal for keeping 8x 250 degree beam arrays on target at all times. Not saying this is all they can do, both ships have the flexibility to be run either way, and can be effective in either scenario. But neither are 'made for front weaponry.'
I have a Bortasqu' fitted with dual cannons and with a proper build you can turn very fast with it. I also have the same Bortasqu' with broadside setup but when I take it and I see how far my dps is from my canon Bortasqu' I just go back on first one.
See, here is where you lose me. The point of the thread is that 4/4 ships should be 5/3 because they can't compete. Yet you are saying you get better results using cannons on the slowest turning 4/4 ship in the game (5.5.) According to your own words you're doing fine with 4/4 so why demand such a sweeping change?
I'm just going to be honest here, and I hope you don't take this as offensive but there is really no way to sugar coat it. From reading through all your posts in this thread, the honest fact is that you simply don't have a good understanding of basic ship buidling in STO. Your problems are because of your lack of knowledge on how to build a ship not with actual game mechanics. For example, as @lianthelia pointed out, you're using so many consoles and abilities on your Bort to try to force it to be something it's not. The Bort is not a ship for Cannons, just because a ship CAN do something, doesn't mean it should. You also can mix every weapon and energy type in the game and slap it all on one ship if you wish, doesn't mean you should.
You're obsessed with forcing ships to perform jobs that they are simply not built for and that is the real root of your issue. You should decide how you want to play, what type of build you want to use and what's fun for you. After you make those decisions, pick the ship that's best designed to fit that template. Picking a ship and then trying to force a non-optimal build is going to get you diminished results. In most cases, the ship will still be viable, it just won't be 'optimal.'
With all do respect, you have a great deal to learn about ship building in STO and a lot of people on this forum are more then qualified to help you. And no, I don't mean me necessarily, I'm not an expert by any means, but once I opened my mind and started listening to people who knew the game better then me, my performance increased dramatically. Instead of trying to force a sweeping global change that's simply not needed, your time and effort would be better spent learning the basics of ship building and optimization. There are many people here that would be more then happy to help you learn.
I too would like a tank that can out-damage the DPS ships. And space dragons in the hanger bays. And a Genesis weapon, because, you know, it's canon and stuff. And a Crystalline Entity combat pet. And the game is virtually unplayable without horta cannons. I mean, geez, c'mon. We've got hortas, we've got cannons, don't tell me you can't put the two together. And where's my "Beam Tribbles into Enemy Engine Room" DOFF power?
That's just crazy....
Why ?
All for a little more DPS ?
Why change everything to 5/3 or 5/2 ?
So then everyone can fly the "Best" 5/3 or 5/2 ships...
You'd see the same "best" ships being flown everywhere by nearly everyone (except RP'ers)
So much for IDIC, there would be no infinite diversity, or infinite combinations. Everyone would fly the same thing !
BOOOOOOOORING !
How very communist of you Comrade !
Everyone is already flying the same ship : Scimatar, pilots ships, Arbiter, Kurak, everything that have a 5 fwd weapons... Go to space and look around you. All you find are 5/3 or 5/2 ships (or carriers). If someone play something else it is because they play beam boat with the op FAW or because they don't care to be useless.
If you are trying to make a front firing ship with a 4/4 layout..
... you're doing it wrong.
4/4 Ships are not built for this. You're asking Cryptic to make a sweeping change to the entire game based on the fact that you're trying to stuff a square peg into a round hole.
The more sensible alternative is for you to use a ship that's more accommodating of your build.
The problem here is 100% yours. If you think 4/4 ships can't compete in this game then I honestly don't know what to tell you because you couldn't be more wrong.
Sorry but I can't beleive that ships like the Qib or the Nandi are not made for front weaponry.
I see the beem spammer squad is out in full force. 5/3 is what makes sense for all cruisers. At least, if you want a game which somehow mirrors what was seen on screen.
5/3 would make a lot more ships viable again, whithout turning them into broadsiding abominations. Klingon battlecruisers, D'Deridex, Galor.. just to name a few.
That's not fixing the broken bone, that's just putting a bandage on it. What we IMHO should do is instead make aft weaponry just as useful as fore weaponry.
Everyone is already flying the same ship : Scimatar, pilots ships, Arbiter, Kurak, everything that have a 5 fwd weapons... Go to space and look around you. All you find are 5/3 or 5/2 ships (or carriers). If someone play something else it is because they play beam boat with the op FAW or because they don't care to be useless.
I'm not really sure what game you're playing, but I'll just say that my experience is VERY different. The most common ships I see are the Command Cruisers, Yamato Dread, and probably the Samsar. All of which are 4/4 ships. The only ship I see a lot of that's 5/3 is the Romulan Scimitar.
Sorry but I can't beleive that ships like the Qib or the Nandi are not made for front weaponry.
Well, I'm sorry if you can't believe it, but that doesn't make it less true. You can definitely fly either of those ships with a front facing build, but neither is optimal for it. The Qib has a native turn rate of 11, the Nandi is 12, both are... acceptable for front facing but hardly optimal. They're alright for DBB but honestly, both are a little slow for front cannons. Their turn rate is optimal for keeping 8x 250 degree beam arrays on target at all times. Not saying this is all they can do, both ships have the flexibility to be run either way, and can be effective in either scenario. But neither are 'made for front weaponry.'
I have a Bortasqu' fitted with dual cannons and with a proper build you can turn very fast with it. I also have the same Bortasqu' with broadside setup but when I take it and I see how far my dps is from my canon Bortasqu' I just go back on first one.
See, here is where you lose me. The point of the thread is that 4/4 ships should be 5/3 because they can't compete. Yet you are saying you get better results using cannons on the slowest turning 4/4 ship in the game (5.5.) According to your own words you're doing fine with 4/4 so why demand such a sweeping change?
I'm just going to be honest here, and I hope you don't take this as offensive but there is really no way to sugar coat it. From reading through all your posts in this thread, the honest fact is that you simply don't have a good understanding of basic ship buidling in STO. Your problems are because of your lack of knowledge on how to build a ship not with actual game mechanics. For example, as @lianthelia pointed out, you're using so many consoles and abilities on your Bort to try to force it to be something it's not. The Bort is not a ship for Cannons, just because a ship CAN do something, doesn't mean it should. You also can mix every weapon and energy type in the game and slap it all on one ship if you wish, doesn't mean you should.
You're obsessed with forcing ships to perform jobs that they are simply not built for and that is the real root of your issue. You should decide how you want to play, what type of build you want to use and what's fun for you. After you make those decisions, pick the ship that's best designed to fit that template. Picking a ship and then trying to force a non-optimal build is going to get you diminished results. In most cases, the ship will still be viable, it just won't be 'optimal.'
With all do respect, you have a great deal to learn about ship building in STO and a lot of people on this forum are more then qualified to help you. And no, I don't mean me necessarily, I'm not an expert by any means, but once I opened my mind and started listening to people who knew the game better then me, my performance increased dramatically. Instead of trying to force a sweeping global change that's simply not needed, your time and effort would be better spent learning the basics of ship building and optimization. There are many people here that would be more then happy to help you learn.
Good luck to you.
I gotta agree...
This just feels like another player entitlement post...your favorite ship isn't perfect and the most powerful at its job OP, so you think it needs to be buffed.
This week it's the Bortasqu', last week it was the Vorcha, and week before that it was the Defiant.
Well not every ship is meant to perform everything...meant to be the best at everything.
I like the Gal-X...in fact have a character in one right now...does that mean I think it should have a better boff layout, 5/3 weapons, and a frigate pet just like the Sheshar? No...because they're different ships. (Though if anything I think the Exploration Cruiser should have gotten a Lt Cmdr Sci...to set it apart from the DN)
If your Bortasqu' is performing as well as you claim then I don't see why it needs a buff...if it's doing so well then why does it need more power?
I see the beem spammer squad is out in full force. 5/3 is what makes sense for all cruisers. At least, if you want a game which somehow mirrors what was seen on screen.
5/3 would make a lot more ships viable again, whithout turning them into broadsiding abominations. Klingon battlecruisers, D'Deridex, Galor.. just to name a few.
no, it makes no sense, those ships were MADE for broadsiding in-game, they are great at EXACTLY what they were built for in-game. Besides that, the 5/3 is not going to change that they have garbage turn rate, it would not change the fact they would still be basically useless for anything BUT beam arrays.
All you and the OP have proven is that you have no idea how shipbuilding works.
Comments
Come on, everyone that have a Scimatar or a Annorax know that the game in unbalanced.
for a long time, you used a escort or you did not bother playing in endgame PVE and expected to win, you used cannons, or did not bother expecting to do as well, so yes, i would say that the ability to use any ship type and do just as much DPS if not more as an escort IS balanced in comparison.
Those ships being overpowered have little to do with their weapon layout, and actually, you bringing up the Annorax completely kills your own argument, as it is 4/3, so not even 8 weapons AND it has a turn rate of 6 thus making using anything other then beam arrays pointless. Even the scimitar is a beam array-boat most of the time, and it could have 4/4 and it would likely make little difference.
Ok so Annorax is a sci ship nothing to do with the cruisers. For the balance, Annorax is the only 4/3 sci ship, have a frigate hangar bay, a very op trait (time to kill), the best hull among all the sci ships as well as an awsome shield modifier. The only downside is the turn rate but like I said before, with a proper build, you can spin as you want.
Scimatar with beam arrays?... Lol till the day I bought, using beam arrays on it never came in my mind.
so, you agree then, your posts have been totally wrong and have nothing to do with the weapon layout and everythign to do with the fact you are comparing 2 of the best ships in the game with everything else.
how long have you played this game? because if have played much and know about what is good and not, you would know that yes, Scim + beam arrays are generally the way to go for a build and that attempting to make a ship with 6 turn rate into a user of frontal weapons is the exact opposite of optimal and common sense, and that you are FAR better off with using Armor engi console.
I'll give you a better reason than just...reasons. Because we want to turn this into some sort of gonzo-game
then I guess its a good thing that the game does not have to be a slave to canon dynamics.
It's not that I hate FAW, good ability, just completely pisses on everything else.
Star Trek Battles member. Want to roll with a good group of people regardless of fleets and not have to worry about DPS while doing STFs? Come join the channel and join in the fun!
http://forum.arcgames.com/startrekonline/discussion/1145998/star-trek-battles-channel-got-canon/p1
Yes, like the Enterprise-D which had 250 Photon Torpedoes and 10 Phaser Beam arrays as stated in the episode: "Conundrum"
I believe the Annorax could be classified in its own category, as she is a Science DREADNOUGHT. Not a strait up sci ship.
Anyways... Every ship has a role to fill. Trying to force everyone into the same weapons loadout just so the OP can have "a little bit more DPS" is... frankly... lame. Its not a "balance pass" its a "I want more DEEPS so make everyone fly the same ship so I can have more DEEPS." That's kinda how it comes across.
I believe that torpedo number was the number of actual torpedoes stored aboard the Ent-D, since Torpedoes are actual, physical projectiles. The reason the Ent-D never ran out of torpedoes is because she was always able to resupply at a starbase. Voyager, on the other hand... I headcanon it as they traded for the resources to fabricate their own out of necessity, thus giving a plausible reason why they used so many torpedoes when they were cut off in the Delta Quadrant.
I had a pipe dream that the new T6 BOP could be 6/0, just a pipe dream of course but damn that would have been fun.
lol... no
dont like game mechanics? Door is over there, go pollute some MOBA or other pvpeen crapfest that will appreciate your BS
I agree but everything in this game is about dps. Now what do we do? Tanks and healers are worthless. I'm not being sarcastic I really do want a game thats not all about dps but as far along as the game is I just don't see a alternative solution.
Or rather, like someone else already stated, ask for more new 5/3 ships. Either as lockbox, promo or c-store ships. Stop trying to get them to make all ships 5/3.
And I don't fly any 5/3 ships. Most of mine are actually T5 or T5-U with 4/4 or 4/3. Love my Nandi, actually.
The ships in this game are fine. Its the game that needs reworked. The real problem is that every Space and Ground mission in this game rely on how effective your dps is. Tanks and healers are straight up worthless. Escorts can soak up just as much dps as the biggest ship around and as long as your ship has a few science and engineering stations (witch is everyone of them) your just as good as a healer that anyone needs. The ships = good the game enviroment=Bad. I'm not arguing with anyone. I want a game where I can tank and heal. Dpsing gets old after awhile. I say tear down the STO logo and tape up Star Trek ship collector online and now we got a game. Anything more than that is just lying to the people.
Someone did mention that all you see are 5/2, 5/3 ships around. Well, I beg to differ. There are plenty 4/4, 4/3 and whatever configurations around.
In my personal preference, I like flying whales. They get the job done, even if they take longer than others to do it. The name of the game is blow them up before they blow you up. In stories there is no time limit on it. I survive and I blow them up. End of story.
I could say that those glass cannon escorts are the useless ones. They may out-dps me, but they also blow up more often than I do.
However, I don't actually believe that any ship in the game is totally useless, that's insulting to the people who fly those other ships and make them work.
I'm not really sure what game you're playing, but I'll just say that my experience is VERY different. The most common ships I see are the Command Cruisers, Yamato Dread, and probably the Samsar. All of which are 4/4 ships. The only ship I see a lot of that's 5/3 is the Romulan Scimitar.
Well, I'm sorry if you can't believe it, but that doesn't make it less true. You can definitely fly either of those ships with a front facing build, but neither is optimal for it. The Qib has a native turn rate of 11, the Nandi is 12, both are... acceptable for front facing but hardly optimal. They're alright for DBB but honestly, both are a little slow for front cannons. Their turn rate is optimal for keeping 8x 250 degree beam arrays on target at all times. Not saying this is all they can do, both ships have the flexibility to be run either way, and can be effective in either scenario. But neither are 'made for front weaponry.'
See, here is where you lose me. The point of the thread is that 4/4 ships should be 5/3 because they can't compete. Yet you are saying you get better results using cannons on the slowest turning 4/4 ship in the game (5.5.) According to your own words you're doing fine with 4/4 so why demand such a sweeping change?
I'm just going to be honest here, and I hope you don't take this as offensive but there is really no way to sugar coat it. From reading through all your posts in this thread, the honest fact is that you simply don't have a good understanding of basic ship buidling in STO. Your problems are because of your lack of knowledge on how to build a ship not with actual game mechanics. For example, as @lianthelia pointed out, you're using so many consoles and abilities on your Bort to try to force it to be something it's not. The Bort is not a ship for Cannons, just because a ship CAN do something, doesn't mean it should. You also can mix every weapon and energy type in the game and slap it all on one ship if you wish, doesn't mean you should.
You're obsessed with forcing ships to perform jobs that they are simply not built for and that is the real root of your issue. You should decide how you want to play, what type of build you want to use and what's fun for you. After you make those decisions, pick the ship that's best designed to fit that template. Picking a ship and then trying to force a non-optimal build is going to get you diminished results. In most cases, the ship will still be viable, it just won't be 'optimal.'
With all do respect, you have a great deal to learn about ship building in STO and a lot of people on this forum are more then qualified to help you. And no, I don't mean me necessarily, I'm not an expert by any means, but once I opened my mind and started listening to people who knew the game better then me, my performance increased dramatically. Instead of trying to force a sweeping global change that's simply not needed, your time and effort would be better spent learning the basics of ship building and optimization. There are many people here that would be more then happy to help you learn.
Good luck to you.
This! I want this!
Here here, 24/24 with na extra + 3/3 dedicated for torpedoes!
Praetor of the -RTS- Romulan Tal Shiar fleet!
I find your ideas intriguing and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
"don't care being useless"
Well, stopped reading there.
5/3 would make a lot more ships viable again, whithout turning them into broadsiding abominations. Klingon battlecruisers, D'Deridex, Galor.. just to name a few.
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 gotta agree...
This just feels like another player entitlement post...your favorite ship isn't perfect and the most powerful at its job OP, so you think it needs to be buffed.
This week it's the Bortasqu', last week it was the Vorcha, and week before that it was the Defiant.
Well not every ship is meant to perform everything...meant to be the best at everything.
I like the Gal-X...in fact have a character in one right now...does that mean I think it should have a better boff layout, 5/3 weapons, and a frigate pet just like the Sheshar? No...because they're different ships. (Though if anything I think the Exploration Cruiser should have gotten a Lt Cmdr Sci...to set it apart from the DN)
If your Bortasqu' is performing as well as you claim then I don't see why it needs a buff...if it's doing so well then why does it need more power?
no, it makes no sense, those ships were MADE for broadsiding in-game, they are great at EXACTLY what they were built for in-game. Besides that, the 5/3 is not going to change that they have garbage turn rate, it would not change the fact they would still be basically useless for anything BUT beam arrays.
All you and the OP have proven is that you have no idea how shipbuilding works.