Star Trek Online

Star Trek Online (http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/index.php)
-   Star Trek Online General Discussion (http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/forumdisplay.php?f=128)
-   -   Address contradiction between Star Trek show cruisers and STO cruisers (http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/showthread.php?t=532191)

knuhteb5 01-30-2013 09:27 AM

Address contradiction between Star Trek show cruisers and STO cruisers
 
http://bfinfobase.org/index.php?title=Phaser_(starship)

This is as much a game related discussion question as it a lore question. As of late, a lot of people have been complaining about the inadequacy of cruisers in PVP and STF's as compared to escorts. Now, what I'd like to know is why would a STO cruiser's beam hit's base damage against enemies/NPC's be the same as an escort when a cruiser's warp core is is larger and thus, capable of more energy output? Likewise, the beam arrays on flag ship cruisers were composed of more emitter segments than any small escorts beam arrays would have been. Therefore, assuming a Cruiser has a larger warpcore and has beam arrays composed of many more emitter segments than a escort's, then a cruiser's base damage should be greater than a escort.

On second thought, I don't think the warp core matters as much because it's more a question of the efficiency of the plasma distribution system in a starship which would be about the same for escorts and cruisers from the same period.

Edit: Anyways, the point of my question above is to get you to question the dev's decision to make base damage the same for all ships (or put another way, that escorts get innate ship bonuses to weapons when cruisers do not). This should be addressed in some way-for example, giving cruisers an innate +15, +20 power to weapons. It no longer makes sense, imo, that escorts should be dishing out more damage than a a cruiser that has beam arrays composed of many more emitter segments. This is further justified by how gimped cruisers have become because of their poor turn-rates.

I said it before, and I'll say it again. No tier 5 escort should be outclassing a Fleet Negh'var or Odyssey class cruiser. These are massive flagship cruisers with beam array emitter systems that could crush any Fed, Kling escort.

eulifdavis 01-30-2013 09:47 AM

Yet another in a long line of "nerf escorts, buff cruisers" threads. At least you didn't hide from the fact that you're asking for increased damage output without a corresponding decrease in defense, healing, or other measurable statistic that matters in combat. :rolleyes:

To you, I say "good try", but I won't actually ridicule you because you were at least open and honest with your "super cruiser" request.

sekritagent 01-30-2013 09:50 AM

Wow, and I thought I was something on these forums, you openly threadcrapped what was and is a valid concern about ship balance as if it's his fault the current space mechanics overwhelmingly favor escorts in space. It's a fact that's plain as day.

eulifdavis 01-30-2013 09:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sekritagent (Post 7748091)
current space mechanics overwhelmingly favor escorts in space. It's a fact that's plain as day.

Hah. Escorts kill, cruisers heal/tank, and science ships crowd-control. Each is just as important and valid as the others. It's not my fault (or his) that players focus too much on damage, solo-play, and being the perceived "hero" rather than working together as a group. :rolleyes:

lilchibiclari 01-30-2013 10:06 AM

A pulsed cannon shot is like whacking something with a hammer, while a continuous beam is like pressing the hammer against the object. For the same amount of energy, the pulsed shot has a higher peak.

One thing that I think we need is to have 360 degree beam turrets to match with the existing cannon turrets. The damage would be scaled such that running all-turrets would give you less damage than an all-beam-array broadside, but more damage than facing the enemy and hitting him with only the forward beam arrays. This would also make a setup with Dual Beam Banks forward and Beam Turrets aft viable as a beam counterpart to the Dual Cannons / Cannon Turrets setup--you would get less damage overall than the cannons setup except at long range, but you would have a 90 degree forward cone instead of 45 degree and could use beam BOFF abilities. This would go a long way towards addressing the main weakness of beam weapons--the fact that you can only use your fore and aft weapons together in a broadside attack where your torpedoes and other forward-facing abilities are facing AWAY from the enemy.

Another possibility would be a broadside-only torpedo launcher, for shooting torpedoes at an enemy during a broadside beam strike. Instead of firing only in the fore/aft 90 degree cone, it would fire in the broadside arc (e.g. anywhere that is more than 60 degrees away from your fore/aft). You would need to have a fore, aft, and broadside torpedo launcher mounted (i.e. 3 weapons) in order to obtain near-360-degree torpedo coverage, which in practice would mean that you would have to sacrifice one of your beams to mount it (e.g. 3 beams / 1 torp fore and 2 beams / 1 regular torp / 1 broadside torp aft).

dalnar83 01-30-2013 10:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eulifdavis (Post 7748271)
Hah. Escorts kill, cruisers heal/tank, and science ships crowd-control. Each is just as important and valid as the others. It's not my fault (or his) that players focus too much on damage, solo-play, and being the perceived "hero" rather than working together as a group. :rolleyes:

But you do not need heal/tank or crowd control in current PvE, 5 tac escorts can finish elite STF faster, than if they would have engineers in cruisers or science ships in team.

frontline2042 01-30-2013 10:13 AM

Cruisers get +10 to all systems because they have a bigger warp core, so your request has already been fulfilled.

dalnar83 01-30-2013 10:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by frontline2042 (Post 7748771)
Cruisers get +10 to all systems because they have a bigger warp core, so your request has already been fulfilled.

You mean +5 to each subsystem. Do your homework.

eulifdavis 01-30-2013 10:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lilchibiclari (Post 7748581)
A pulsed cannon shot is like whacking something with a hammer, while a continuous beam is like pressing the hammer against the object. For the same amount of energy, the pulsed shot has a higher peak.

One thing that I think we need is to have 360 degree beam turrets to match with the existing cannon turrets. The damage would be scaled such that running all-turrets would give you less damage than an all-beam-array broadside, but more damage than facing the enemy and hitting him with only the forward beam arrays. This would also make a setup with Dual Beam Banks forward and Beam Turrets aft viable as a beam counterpart to the Dual Cannons / Cannon Turrets setup--you would get less damage overall than the cannons setup except at long range, but you would have a 90 degree forward cone instead of 45 degree and could use beam BOFF abilities. This would go a long way towards addressing the main weakness of beam weapons--the fact that you can only use your fore and aft weapons together in a broadside attack where your torpedoes and other forward-facing abilities are facing AWAY from the enemy.

Another possibility would be a broadside-only torpedo launcher, for shooting torpedoes at an enemy during a broadside beam strike. Instead of firing only in the fore/aft 90 degree cone, it would fire in the broadside arc (e.g. anywhere that is more than 60 degrees away from your fore/aft). You would need to have a fore, aft, and broadside torpedo launcher mounted (i.e. 3 weapons) in order to obtain near-360-degree torpedo coverage, which in practice would mean that you would have to sacrifice one of your beams to mount it (e.g. 3 beams / 1 torp fore and 2 beams / 1 regular torp / 1 broadside torp aft).

Now see, this is a proposal that actually has merit. It doesn't attempt to (drastically) upset the existing *BALANCE* (yes, it is properly balanced) of the starship types, but does attempt to increase the general versatility of cruisers. I can support something like this.

syberghost 01-30-2013 11:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sekritagent (Post 7748091)
Wow, and I thought I was something on these forums, you openly threadcrapped what was and is a valid concern about ship balance as if it's his fault the current space mechanics overwhelmingly favor escorts in space. It's a fact that's plain as day.

It's a truism. You're acting like it's a fact that's being denied, when it's an INTENTIONAL DESIGN DECISION. It's not a bug to be fixed, it's on purpose. "Fixing" it would be deliberately imbalancing the game to make Cruisers better for all purposes than Escorts. What you should be asking for, instead, is for Escorts that are maximized for durability to be less durable, or Cruisers that are maximized for durability to be more durable.

Asking for Cruisers to do more damage is akin to asking that rock beat both paper and scissors, with no other changes to either paper or scissors. It doesn't matter what happened on screen, this is a GAME. It absolutely must have different design goals than a TV series, or it will completely fail as a game.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:55 PM.