Feedback: Fleet AC Stats
I'm not going to rehash the entire Fed vs. KDF cruiser thread I did once, but I'll toss up a link for anyone interested in seeing it.
Fleet Cruiser Retrofit Comparison (KDF & Fed)
I'm sure that this thread will have zero impact of any kind, but I need to bring this up anyway as I'm a big fan of the Sovy and even with 15% bonus zen and a 20% discount I was unable to bring myself to buy the C-store AC-R and by extension the Fleet Version if I ever have the option presented to me.
I want to know what the design goal is with a Fed Cruiser like the Fleet AC-R is.
The Fleet Assault Cruiser has less hull than theFleet Negh'var - and yet the Fleet Negh'var has 2 more points of base turn rate.
The Fleet AC has the exact same shield modifier as the Fleet Negh'var and Fleet Vor'cha - and yet the Fleet Vor'cha and Negh'var both also get built in Cloaking Devices and can mount Dual (Heavy) Cannons.
Why is this ship basically a pale imitation of these two KDF Battle Cruisers?
Aside from a few extra Tactical Boff slots that you can use on your weak beam arrays with a base 7 turn rate, this ship is just a cruiser - there's no "assault" in there at all.
Nothing will change I'm sure, and this ship will go live as is.
I just needed to get this off my chest, since this is easily of my favorite Fed cannon ships.
54 views and 0 replies.
I will accept this silence as complete agreement. :rolleyes:
I don't find this surprising at all .
Compare the free T5 Negh'Var to the c-store Galaxy-R. Same hull, same shields, same boff stations, same console slots. Only the Negh'Var can equip dual heavy cannons, has a far superior turnrate and a cloaking device.
Basically cruiser wise the KDF have always had a massive advantage.
I understand that the KDF BCs are overall superior (I fly a few of them, including the Fleet Vor'cha).
What I want to know is why this is the design goal?
There have been lots of good threads for improving the ship system in general over the years (such as Suricata's ship tier revamp). If you go the last couple of pages of the thread you'll see what Cryptic's response was if you're not familiar with the subject.
I've been barking up the 'cruiser is underpowered' tree since F2P launch mate. The ship class is flawed and this ship is build upon that flawed foundation what did you expect? Junk.
I'm hoping someone like Bort might take pity on me and at least give me the rationale for why Fed cruisers seem purposefully designed to be substandard.
I'm not asking for a revamp.
I'm not even under the illusion that the Fleet AC might actually get changed to become the ship it should be.
I just want to understand the design intent.
the whole history of STO has proven one fact:
Devs love cannons. They dig those things.
How are they favoring cannons?
- Dual [heavy] cannons have no equal among beam arrays (which by the way got nerfed waaaay back and never were brought up again to compensate for everyones increased survival). One would think there'd be heavy beam arrays but there are not, shafting not only crusiers and science shisp but also escorts who want to fly something else but a cannon boat. No, dual beam banks are not the equivalent (that would be single cannons and dual beam banks). The dual heavy cannon is a variant of the dual cannon - less shots but more damage per shot incidentaly also less energy probelematic despite having a higer drain. Becasuse of the effed up energy mechanics (that make no sense)
- Beam weapons have worse attack buffs than escorts.
1.) Beam overload cripples an already power murdering weapon system (yes, on top having crippled damage, the weapon in question (beam array) also inflicts further debuffs to your ship by simply being used.) by inflicting a massive power drain. And its not even like at the very beginning of the game where there was a bug that made this whole drain acceptable: having all arrays give a BO shot. Man, back then ships wielding arrays could still be scary, able to hit you with up to 8 BO's in rapid succession (with proper use of power to weps to up the power mid volley).
Bugged? yes but it was awesome and made bo worth the drain. + BO1-3 were useful for everybody - now its either use BO3 or dont use BO at all.
2.) then we have Fire at will - the rotten bastard child born from a beam array, rapid fire and scatter volley having an effed up threesome.
It targets several targets like scatter volley, it increases the rate of fire (instead not really since it bugs out regularly so that arrays simpyl stop firing, wasting the volley) but does horrible damage due to inconsistent targeting in a target rich environment.
What it deos not is bundle up several shots worth of firepower into a short burst, like rapid fire does. What it also does not do is focus a stream of heavy damage into a target area like scatter volley.
No, its fumlbing around like the star wars kid.
- We have a weapon system that has gotten its damage nerfed in the past, but never got that nerf undone when the tanking and flat hp of EVERYTHING shot up.
- Said weapon system does not have an energy friendly variant of itself (see dual cannon/heavy dual cannon)
- The weapon has massive powerdrain over a long time (those 4 cycles take like forever) which further cripples its damage - something cannons don't do.
- The buff powers are basically crap. Beam overload cripples the weapon meant for cruisers and is essentialy only useful to escorts who can combine it with a hammer blow of cannon fire. + bo1-2 does nothing for the powerdrain and as such is not an option for cruisers in the frist place. BO3 is only available to the tactically tinted cruisers like the ody, excel and regent. Who basciaslly trade their tanking potential for this.
- Fire at will is an unfocused mess on buggy behavior and inconsistent targeting. Anathema ot its name, it requires you to mash the fire button so the bugged out weapons start firing again.
Fixes! easy ones!
1.) Heavy arrays please. double base damage, halve amount of pulses. (meaning halve the cycle time). -12 power/weapon
2.) BO goes back to affecting all arrays, giving all arrays a BO shot, which means the power gets a huge payoff. Its heavy damage that will quickly cripply itself on charachters and ships that can not be qeuipped to handle the power requirements. This will mostly benefit cruisers as ships and engineers as chars. Workable on escorts on sci but suboptimal.
3.) We get another beam power! Beam rapid fire since why not be cheap.
Will increase the number of pulses onto a single target. works for every ship class and every char class.
Rapid fire for beams! yay!
4.) FAW remains as is for anti spam (but hey, how about fixing those bugs.)
aaaaand stage set for the naysayers and escort pimps.
While I agree with everything the post above says, he forgot one detail. Cannons are ONLY effective if you facing the enemy. A cruiser with beams will usually out DPS a NPC thats doing the normal stupid AI move of orbiting .5 km from your ship. Beam weapons can just sit there and plug away while a cannon cruiser HAS to try to turn (usually not being able to keep up), hence making beam weapons far superior in that regard. Cannon users have to try to maximize damage potential to kill those ships before they start their Stupid AI script.
On the seemingly unfairness of kdf cruisers compared to fed cruisers:
you need to take the two cruisers, equal in all consoles/weapons and play them. you will very quickly find out the kdf cruisers hull have some invisible 10% nerf to their hull resists. Even if the two ships have identical resists, teh fed cuiser will take 10% plus less damage from hazard/bleedthrough.
this is radically evident on the odyssey ops and the bortasqu' war cruiser. Best way to see it on these two supposedly equal matched ships is to not use ANY of their specialty consoles. Equip each with the exact same white quality consoles and weapons, white quality boffs with identical skill sets, and player characters with identical skill training (maxed Threat Control is essential for the test, but if your an engineer in a cruiser and DON'T have maxed TC your doing it wrong, imo). Take each into a stf. (I did this comparison in ISE, but you can do a normal to get same results). what your going to find is this. The Odyssey ops will normally survive most if not all engagements with relative ease, being able to keep up with the hazards and non insta-kill torps, while the bortasqu' will have a hell of a time and constantly be fighting to keep its hull above 30%-50%, if not out right blowing up multiple times.
Both ships are essentially the same, Odyssey having slightly more shields and Bortasqu' having slightly more hull. Damage wise, yes the bortasqu' does more as its got mot tac consoles, but for the test I only used 2 and only used one science console on the odyssey so both ships would be identical in resists/regens.
I repeated this test 5 times each and found that if I were to change the odysseys consoles to a lower level to give it roughly 10% LESS resists then the bortasqu', both finally preformed identically.
Hence with regaurds of these two supposed "equal" ships, the KDF gets, at the very best, a invisible 10% nerf to its hull.
I have since tried this out on the assault cruiser and Vor'cha retrofit ( about 13% difference), and the Star Cruiser and negh'var ( 15% difference ). The KDF has NO ship equal to the better C-store fed retrofits so equal comparisons don't apply. I haven't had a change to test the fleet variants of each as of yet.
I had a few friends who could replicate my experiments on this and they all came up with the same numbers, so I'm sure any of you can also.
|All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:35 PM.|