cruisers are underpowered...
View Single Post
Join Date: Aug 2012
02-04-2013, 10:19 AM
I've gone through and rewritten this post like three times. Dancing around in spreadsheets, breaking down the firing rate and all the rest - but what it inevitably comes back to is my thinking this is what is being said:
You can build the Cruiser to soak the Escort's Alpha - but in doing so, the Cruiser is not likely to be able to kill the Escort outside of an extended engagement through attrition. Certain Cruiserjocks do not like that. They want to be able to soak the Escort's Alpha and kill the Escort without the extended engagement.
It goes back to the Cruiser being Tank and DPS.
Still though, they could easily make the point in turn of the following:
You can build the Escort to soak the Cruiser's Alpha - but in doing so, the Escort is still likely to be able to kill the Cruiser in a quick engagement if the Cruiser is not built in turn to soak the Escort's Alpha.
If an Escort's built for +DPS, it should be built for -Tank.
If a Cruiser's built for +Tank, it should be built for -DPS.
If an Escort's built for +Tank, it should be built for -DPS.
If a Cruiser's built for +DPS, it should be built for -Tank.
The +Tank Cruiser can eventually kill the +DPS Escort.
The +DPS Cruiser...is pretty much going to die to the +DPS Escort or the +Tank Escort.
The +Tank Escort fighting the +Tank Cruiser...well, yeah...stalemate?
So that +DPS Cruiser looking to be able to kill either the +DPS Escort (faster than the +Tank Cruiser can) or the +Tank Escort (which the +Tank Cruiser can't)...would be behind the reasoning to change the firing rate on DHCs to be like DCs? So that less tanking/healing is needed..more damage could be done..swing the balance?
Swinging the balance is not balance though.
And all of this completely ignores Science Vessels as well as all the various hybrids out there and different careers in different ships...etc, etc, etc.
Okay, so the DHCs get "nerfed" to change their firing rate to that of a DC. How will the +Tank Cruiser be killed now? So it's a case of bringing in the Sci to kill the +Tank Cruiser? Won't the +DPS Cruiser just end up complaining then? Cause with what's required to kill that +Tank Cruiser, it's going to be that much more effective against the +DPS Cruiser. So how will Sci have to be changed to satisfy the +DPS Cruiser?
The Cruiser can already kill the Escort...eventually. Sure, if you slap a Healer on that Escort - the Cruiser's not going to be able to kill the Escort. But slap a Healer on the Cruiser, you know - the one the Escort couldn't beat without the Healer. How's that going to go?
That Cruiser that can already kill the Escort...eventually, the faster it's built to kill the Escort - the less likely it is to be able to kill the Escort and the more likely it's to be killed by that Escort.
It kind of goes into other games and discussions from there:
Should a DPS be able to kill a Tank or a Tank beat the DPS? Or should that be a stalemate unless it's decided by skill?
Should a DPS be able to kill a Healer or the Healer beat the DPS? Or should that be a stalemate unless it's decided by skill?
What about the Tank and Healer? Well, they usually just chuckle and go find something else to do...am I right?
One could say that STO's unbalanced, because the +Tank Cruiser can beat the +DPS Escort...eventually. That's not a case that a Cruiser is UP. That's a case that Healing is OP, eh? That a lack of healing can be overcome by a lack of damage. That doesn't quite work - cause if less damage can overcome less healing, more damage should be able to overcome more healing. But that's not the way it works out - the +Tank Cruiser should win that battle of attrition against the +DPS Escort...eventually. Cruisers are OP.
They may not be OP in the manner in which certain Cruiserjocks want them to be...they're definitely not OP in that sense. They're very UP in the way they want to fly them. That doesn't change that they're OP in the game...eh?
Willard the Rat & Crew
This isn't your father's Starfleet...welcome to Star Trek Online.