Suggested Change for RCS Consoles
View Single Post
Join Date: Jul 2012
09-01-2012, 10:50 AM
Originally Posted by
I'm not going to answer your last question, simply because you're asking me why I'm trying to do something that I'm not.
You, like some other posters, are either ignoring or missing something: in order to 'break the game' by creating a 'super maneuverable' cruiser, we'd have to give up all our tanking modules, which would make the ship a slow, soft version of an escort that does a lot less damage. In other words, that's not what we're suggesting, so stop blowing things out of proportion.
You also don't seem to understand the consequences of inertia; a cruiser with an excessively high turn rate will lose most of its defense rating when using that maneuverability, because it will be sliding around, instead of actually maneuvering quickly. Turning and maneuvering are two totally different things, as any Negh'Var player can tell you.
Another fallacy I have to point out: cruisers will never be able to 'deal damage as an escort', because escorts still FAR outpace cruisers, even battlecruisers, in terms of damage output. They have WAY more maneuverability than cruisers (if you're going to compare them, compare apples to apples...compare them when they are BOTH using powers, not just one), and they still have more damage output powers and consoles.
Furthermore, escorts would still be king in PVE; I've yet to hear a solid reason that increasing the cruisers' turn rate somehow would really, truly hurt anything or break the game.
So, yeah...please stop putting words in my mouth. I never said I wanted to make cruisers these overpowered, super-maneuverable DPS-monsters you seem to have nightmares about, and the fact that I'm not just asking for a FREE turn rate increase (as is requested in most cruiser threads) should have told you as much. It's pretty simple: I'm suggesting a turn rate increase in exchange for a weaker tank, with damage output remaining unchanged. It's a trade-off, not a free handout.
Okay, let's compare apples to apples.
Tor'Kaht vs any Escort/Raptor.
Put two of your +3 turnrate consoles in a Tor'kaht, you get the same base turnrate as an Escort/Raptor, while still having two eng consoles left. Most Escorts/Raptors only have two Eng console slots. And even those that have 3: No Escort/Raptor has two Lt or higher Eng BOff slots, so as soon as you throw in Aux2Damp, the Tor'Kaht will be have a higher turnrate than any Escort/Raptor.
- Tor'Kaht has four Tac consoles, same as most Escorts/Raptors. Even compared to a Defiant, the fifth extra console adds about 7% dps. Which is pretty much equalized by having an extra turret.
- Tor'Kaht has LCdr and Lt Tac BOffs, compared to Cmdr and LCdr BOffs on most Escorts/Raptors. Still, enough to run two copies of TT and CRF each, with one copy of APO for the Tor'Kaht and two copies for the Raptors/Escorts, for 50% APO uptime on Raptors/Escorts, and 25% uptime on the Tor'Kaht. Also, Raptors/Escort can one CRF at one level higher.
Result: ~5% more dps from APO, and ~3% more dps from CRF.
But: the Tor'Kaht can run at least one copy of EptW instead, while still being able to use dual EPtS.
Result: the Tor'Kaht actually deals MORE damage than an Escort/Raptor already, at least if piloted by the same character.
And is a lot more tanky, thanks to better base hull and shield values and a Cmdr Eng slot we haven't used yet.
Yes, it is THAT good. Every KDF player salivates at the stats of that ship. The only, really the ONLY thing that keeps it anywhere near balanced is the slower turnrate - which your idea would "fix".
Next: Carrier vs Sci
Not even a challenge. Carriers can mount Dual Cannons, the only reason they usually don't is ... you guessed it: Slow turnrate.
"Fix" that ... and you've made all Sci ships useless.
Not to mention: The Galaxy refit and the Ody already have saucer seperation, and the Galaxy-X will get it. Add those consoles to them, and they can suddenly win turn-fights against Escorts/Raptors.
Full broadside into an Escort's back, while the Escort can answer with ... what, three turrets?
If PvP wasn't already dead, you'd kill it.
And Escorts/Raptors wouldn't even have a chance to cope. They can't run Aux2Damp, since they lack the Eng slots. APO only has a limited uptime, which would still leave them in the dirt for half the time, even compared to ships that can't run even a single APO. They don't have many Eng consoles, either. And you actually heavily nerfed any benefit they'd get from running an RCS console anyway.
As for inertia: true to some degree. But pretty much meaningless, since cruisers have all the abilities they need to tank through any such slide. And once you give them the ability to achieve better turnrates than anything else in the game, they will inevitably end up in the enemies' weak arcs, and at that point things turn into pure LOL. Yes, it takes longer to get there if you keep sliding - but in the end, the higher turnrate always wins out, if only for the ability to keep your cannons on target while the enemy's are ouf of arc.
Also: sliding is not necessarily bad. It can be used to your advantage, in fact: just make a powerslide that carries you away from your opponent, or past him, and turn to face him - perfect drive-by shooting, while Escorts actually have to move in the direction they're shooting.
Not that I'd not like more mobile cruisers and carriers, would be a lot more fun to fly around with ... but if you can't see that the lack of mobility is a balancing issue ...