View Single Post
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,500
# 11
02-02-2013, 11:24 AM
Originally Posted by borgresearcher View Post
compare a cruiser to a carrier. seems fair ? cruisers should have something to compensate that something they dont have.

yes noob, on the game you say "failaxy" and "failoddy" but here you say that cruisers are ok, you are just another escort handler affraid of getting kicked by a bigger ship, give me a cruiser that is as good to engys as the jem bug is to tacs, oh sorry, you cant =/

cruisers have 8 weap slots, but thats not energy efficient as you can see here

# Weapons--- Total Drain / Resulting Power--- Damage per Weapon--- Total damage
1---> -0 / 100--- 200%--- 200%
2---> -10 / 90--- 180%--- 360%
3---> -20 / 80--- 160%--- 480%
4---> -30 / 70--- 140%--- 560%
5---> -40 / 60--- 120%--- 600%
6---> -50 / 50--- 100%--- 600%
7---> -60 / 40--- 80%--- 560%
8---> -70 / 30--- 60%--- 480%
, thats why the default set ever comes with 1 torpedo fore and aft, cruisers resilliency is not compensated by its lack of maneuverability

all ships have some unique extras

escorts = dual heavy cannons cappable
sci vessles = sensor analisys
carrier = 2 hangar bays and some of them with more hull than cruisers
bop = fully universal stations, crazy turn rate and battle cloak
cruisers ... huh ? what ? not capable of dhc, no sensor analisys, no hangar bays, no universal stations, no crazy turn rate AT ALL, and you guys say its ok ? please

and the ships who benefit from 2 of those benefits, will loose something, as the vesta do with dhc and hangar, but 27800 hull and 1.35 shield mod

so what the cruisers gain ?
how can everybody not ride a cruiser and say its underpowered, but when its time to call that to the forum you say its ok ? obvious, escort users are affraid of the time when cruisers get what they deserve and finally show its pottencial

carriers dont loose nothing on its gain of 2 hangar slots, so my idea was to add something to the rest of the cruisers, making them balanced compared to carriers and not underpowered, which people think it is On the game
Part of this gets back to initial faction design. I mentioned in another thread in another sub-forum, but I'll paraphrase here:

KDF = Hit&Run, think literal Birds of Prey dive bombing for food.

Fed = Wolf pack, not the fastest, but have highest endurance and use teamwork for a kill.

Along those lines KDF Battle Cruisers were designed for movement, where Fed Cruisers were designed for lumbering support platforms. The KDF BCs are not weak, but some of the strongest options in the game for high pressure damage w/survivability.

Fyi, there's an Oddy varient w/sensor analysis, and another w/Saucer Sep for increased movement.

Back the inital Fed/KDF design, Cryptic changed its revenue stream to include ship sales. This led to hybrid sales and buffs to lotto/pay items. So things changed:

All revenue ships got better shields and hulls and boff layouts. Many got turnrate boosts as well.

Hybrids like Destroyers got rolled out with "Kirk" like Boff/defense mods, meaning they can put out DPS while self sustaining defenses and/or some CC/Debuffs.

Sci Shield Stripping Boffs were nerfed, so the applied pressure damage from BAs weakened. Various abilities over time via Doff/Rep system also contributed to all ships ability to sustain themselves.

BAs attributes w/FaW and FaW fixes/changes are also an issue.

Further, APO extending defensive bonus past initial 5 seconds and cooldown based Doffs have boosted Escort defensive capabilities.

But, there have been some boosts to Fed Cruisers repair capabilities, including but not limited to ES doffs.

Imo, the APO defense should be fixed to 5 second duration and the BAs procs need to be fixed. Sci shield stripping Boff powers need a boost. Then see how things are. The cat is out of the bag as far as hybrid ships blurring Faction Uniqueness, I'd just like to see them blurred less.

Lastly, Raiders have been the least boosted ships imo. Better to compare base Fed Cruiser design model to $KDF BCs, $Sci and $Escort and $Hybrid ships.