View Single Post
Career Officer
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 5,521
# 47
02-12-2013, 06:32 PM
Originally Posted by borticuscryptic View Post
I'm surprised to see this crowd dwelling on the price instead of the specs. But even so, here's an update I just posted to the original announcement thread:

Totally my bad.

Any feedback on the potential performance of this vessel?
I think something that should seriously be looked at are special abilities that are comparable to cannon usage. The KDF ship outclasses the Fed ship by far in large part because of the added utility of DPS over survivability but also because cannon usage and better turnrates are so much more dramatic in terms of their influence on playstyle.

My overall feedback is this:

I get wrist cramps and have trouble turning as a "mouse steerer" with ships that have a turnrate below 10 in extended play sessions. It just isn't as fun. I would totally support something like upping base turnrate on all ships while implementing a lower hardcap. Slow turning doesn't feel majestic. It feels irritating and it isn't how my favorite vintage Trek games (Judgment Rites, Starfleet Academy) handled ship maneuverability. I'm not going to tell you any one solution is right. (There could be any number of solutions, including possibly having keybinds for a tray-based "pull a 180" so I don't have to commit a hand to a slow turn.) But this pigeonholes me into playing escorts. I don't feel alone in this regard.

If the KDF ship gets cannons and a higher turnrate, the Fed ship needs something meaningful. The amount of survivability you offer in exchange for DPS isn't enough to sway me generally. And I'm not sure offering dramatically more is the best option either because that much survivability is seldom called for and passive survivability is less kinetic and less fun.

My personal feeling is to look at offering:
- Subsystem targeting, at a minimum, when a comparable KDF ship has cannons. Either way, it goes beyond standard cruiser configuration.
- Add flight deck cruiser capability to the Ambassador and the Galaxy Fleet ships. Possibly two hangar slots for the Galaxy. It can't be any more imbalanced than the Armitage and provides these ships with utility they currently lack, making them feel inferior to the Excelsior without any added perk.

In general, my feeling is that science leaning cruisers need subsystem targeting. (This could also make them more viable for Science Captains who want tankiness over the turnrate of sci-vessels.) And cruisers with a strong engineering/support focus in either faction probably need hangar bays added.

And if you can add one hangar bay to an escort, you can add 1 hangar/subsystem targeting to the Ambassador and 2 hangars to the Fleet Galaxy.