Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
i need to get my mind off this free to play economy insanity on tribble, so here's something more productive. a ship tier overhaul, something they should be working on instead of thinking of more ways to take away from what we have now and make us work 2 to 100 times harder to get it.


if it were up to me, the current tier system would be thrown out and ships would get more canon accurate placement. also this cruiser, science ship, and escort crap relating to traditional mmo classes would be out. every ship's station setup would be an approximation of its actual canon abilities.

my system would have a designation based on ship volume in cubic meters, and a tier designation based on how powerful or advanced each class of ship is

Volume, m³
3,000,001+ Capital Ship
3,000,000 - 1,000,001 Heavy Cruiser
1,000,000 - 500,001 Light Cruiser
500,000 - Destroyer, frigates, corvettes

*cryptic designs

capital ships- *avenger, *odyssey, nebula, galaxy, galaxy X

heavy cruisers- ambassador,*stargazer, *oracle, luna, akira, sovereign

light cruisers- excelsior, *olympic, steamrunner, intrepid, prometheus

destroyers- nova, saber, norway, defiant, *hermes


every ship can be upgraded 2 tiers. you could take a tier 1 ship all the way to tier 3, and tier 2 ship all the way to tier 4 and a tier 3 ship you can take to tier 5. you can move on to a new ship at rank up or upgrade your current one. ether choice results in different layouts and powers, but are balanced against each other-

availability as you level

tier 1 nova, saber, excelsior

tier 2 norway, steamrunner, *olympic

tier 3 defiant, , intrepid, ambassador, *stargazer

tier 4 *hermes, prometheus, *oracle, luna, akira, *avenger, nebula

tier 5 sovereign, *odyssey, galaxy, galaxy X

as far as all the variants to these ships go, they are just custom exterior options, not a separate class of thier own. the size based designations will come with their advantages and disadvantages.

capital ships will be limited to torpedoes and beam arrays but they will do much more damage then your used too. they will deal the highest damage with a somewhat slow rate of fire, launch the largest amount of torpedoes at a time, and have the most hitpoints and shields. but they turn poorly, have an evasion score of 0 or less, so no shot ever misses them, have an accuracy penalty against light cruisers and destroyers on top of that low rate of fire, receive lower affects from buffs and debuffs and have a high vulnerability to CC. their large size means they have a lot of engineering stations to keep them in the fight over a long period. capital ship will be strong against heavy cruisers, regular against light cruisers, and weak against Destroyers

heavy cruisers will be a lot like scaled down capital ships, they will deal less damage and launch less torpedoes but have a higher rate of fire, larger weapon selection and a higher turn rate then cruisers do now. they will have low evasion scores, no accuracy penalty, high hitpoints and shields, receive normal affects from buffs and debuffs, and have a normal vulnerability to CC. their station powers are generally well balanced, but each individual class might lean toward 1 end of the spectrum or the other.
heavy cruisers will be strong against light cruisers, regular against Destroyers, and weak against capital ships


light cruisers deal the least spike damage and damage over time, but have innate accuracy, critical chance and critical severity modifiers, chock that up to advanced targeting subsystem sensors. these ships have lower hitpoints and shields but generally have high maneuverability. evasion is high, only about half of the shots fired should hit them, as long as they're moving, and they receive normal affects from buffs and debuffs. they have an innate defense against CC abilities and will have reduced effect or no effect some times, they have a bonus for using them too. these ships generally have alot of science station powers. light cruisers will be strong against Destroyers, regular against capital ship, and weak against heavy cruisers

Destroyers, frigates, and corvettes are small ships with small hitpoints and huge evasion scores as long as they are moving fast. only about 20% of the shots fired at them should hit. they have the capability to inflict the highest spike damage, rivaling the capital ships, but only for short bursts. they receive higher bonuses from buffs, but are also hit harder by debuffs. they have normal resistance to CC, but by their nature anything that slows them down makes them considerably more vulnerable. they have mostly tactical station powers. Destroyers will be strong against capital ship, regular against heavy cruisers, and weak against light cruisers


this is much more natural setup for these ships, they are not being forced into 1 of 3 roles, its as close to canon as i think is possible in a game like this. there isnt even a hit to gameplay that i can see and there are plenty of checks and balances. it would be very interesting to balance everything.



the klingon side would be interesting when all the gorn nasican and orian ships fill out the KDF ranks. i think i would have to ditch the raptor completely, there's no historical precedent for it to exist in any modern KDF, and it kind of steps on the bop's toes and forced it to be this universal station ship that can do anything. frankly, that's bizarre, bops are a more focused tactical ship then even the defiant, period. that along with tactical focused nasican ships definitely crowds it out. klingon battle cruiser would more or less have an even split between tactical and engineering, with little science. the only science heavy ships would be gorn ships, orian ships would be cruiser carrier hybrids.

if you fly a bop, as you level up you will unlock costume pieces of that tier's bop. at level cap you can mix and match every bop component, nearly. everything that can be made to possibly match up

tier 1 T1ktinga, T1brel

tier 2 T2bop, T2tkono

tier 3 T3bop, T3gorn T3nasican T3orian

tier 4 T4bop, T4gorn T4nasican T4orian T4vorcha, T4Fek’Ihri carrier

tier 5 T5bop, T5gorn T5nasican T5orian T5vorcha, T5negvar, T5Fek’Ihri carrier, T5Vo'quv Carrier

other then the bop just gaining stats and costume options as it levels, no other KDF ships can upgrade 2 tiers like the starfleet ships can, there is what there is at that tier.

post with station and basic stat setups
http://forums.startrekonline.com/sho...4&postcount=18
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 2
10-08-2011, 07:53 AM
That makes so much sense it will never happen. Let your ship advance with you. Then you have access to more ships as you rank up but you don't have to. However, lower tier ships typically have less crew. Wouldn't you still be handicapped by crew capacity. You can't exactly cram more people aboard.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 3
10-08-2011, 08:00 AM
Reminds me alot of the "tier" set up from SFC3, ships classes in that game had a clear cut progression...Man I miss that game, if the old 464 server was still up I'd probably reinstall it lol. Course I don't know how well recieved this set up would be excpeted by the PVP community, could hear alot of whining coming lol. Question though, where would the dreadnoughts?
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 4 No Such Thing as Tiers
10-08-2011, 12:18 PM
I agree that the game needs a revamp to the tiers. But, a revamp is not enough. It needs to be blown up. In Star Trek there is no such thing as tiers. Captains are given command of ships no matter what capability those ships have as opposed to what rank they are. If you look at Star Trek there are different types of ships in the fleets that appear on screen. Not abunch of Galaxys and Sovereigns all T4 or T3 just becuase you have a bunch of Ltcmdrs, Captains, or Admirals. I believe we should be able to keep a ship as long as we want. Captains had the ability to refuse a command. Remember Riker refused various commands before finally taking the Titan. We should be able to gradually update and upgrade our ships as we move through the lvls. Not based on rank. And also, we should be able to use our bridge officers to augment this not just using Hazard emitters, or tacyon beam and such. Of course a Miranda class would not be able to stand up to a Galaxy but we should have the option to fly it if we want and still move through the lvls. That is what Star Trek was all about. Having a bunch of VA flying around in all the same ships is just not Trek.

Not only that, why does Zephyr, Oslo, and Akira all have the same stats? Or Cheyene, Stargazer or Dakota? In real Trek every ship class though they may be of the same class-type (escort, cruiser, or science) have different specs. The Akira may be faster or have slightly higher hull or the Oslo may be slightly more manuverable. Right there Cryptic can greatly expand the amount of ships in the game without great adjustment be. I just cannot fathom that three different ships types are all EXACTLY the same spec wise.

Just my 2 cents.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 5
10-08-2011, 03:08 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nilladog View Post
That makes so much sense it will never happen. Let your ship advance with you. Then you have access to more ships as you rank up but you don't have to. However, lower tier ships typically have less crew. Wouldn't you still be handicapped by crew capacity. You can't exactly cram more people aboard.
it would be nice if crew matters in some way, but it doesn't seem to currently. the tier 5 defient and bop seem to do fine with small crews
Quote:
Originally Posted by TFO-OptimusPrime View Post
Reminds me alot of the "tier" set up from SFC3, ships classes in that game had a clear cut progression...Man I miss that game, if the old 464 server was still up I'd probably reinstall it lol. Course I don't know how well recieved this set up would be excpeted by the PVP community, could hear alot of whining coming lol. Question though, where would the dreadnoughts?
oh the galaxy X? that would be a capital ship, that could probably equip a wider variety of weapons then the others. i'd also make the lance a 45 degree arc single beam bank that has the fire rate and dps of a duel heavy cannon. it would also be an equipable weapon, so if you didn't want to use it you dont have too. it would have more forward firepower then other capital ships, but at the expense of its damage in the rest of its firing arc, so it would be even easier to exploit by an attacking destroyer.

that single beam bank, i would probably have a cannon version of that too for the klingons, the negvar would come with 2 of them for its 2 underslung canons, and the vorcha could have 1 too for that disruptor between its front forks

i see the capital ships like the galaxy firing full power shot after full power shot from its 2 big arrays ONLY, in a basically 360 degree firing arc. these are the most powerful starship weapons fielded by the federation, and they should be in game too. the current in game beam array weapon is accurate for much smaller ships with much smaller arrays, but all wrong for the largest ships.

Quote:
Originally Posted by htatc View Post
I agree that the game needs a revamp to the tiers. But, a revamp is not enough. It needs to be blown up. In Star Trek there is no such thing as tiers. Captains are given command of ships no matter what capability those ships have as opposed to what rank they are. If you look at Star Trek there are different types of ships in the fleets that appear on screen. Not abunch of Galaxys and Sovereigns all T4 or T3 just becuase you have a bunch of Ltcmdrs, Captains, or Admirals. I believe we should be able to keep a ship as long as we want. Captains had the ability to refuse a command. Remember Riker refused various commands before finally taking the Titan. We should be able to gradually update and upgrade our ships as we move through the lvls. Not based on rank. And also, we should be able to use our bridge officers to augment this not just using Hazard emitters, or tacyon beam and such. Of course a Miranda class would not be able to stand up to a Galaxy but we should have the option to fly it if we want and still move through the lvls. That is what Star Trek was all about. Having a bunch of VA flying around in all the same ships is just not Trek.

Not only that, why does Zephyr, Oslo, and Akira all have the same stats? Or Cheyene, Stargazer or Dakota? In real Trek every ship class though they may be of the same class-type (escort, cruiser, or science) have different specs. The Akira may be faster or have slightly higher hull or the Oslo may be slightly more manuverable. Right there Cryptic can greatly expand the amount of ships in the game without great adjustment be. I just cannot fathom that three different ships types are all EXACTLY the same spec wise.

Just my 2 cents.
in star trek, there are ships that are absolutely bigger, more advanced and more powerful then others. any low end ships should not be able to be upgraded to be as good as the best and biggest ships. i did allow for a 2 tier upgrade limit, witch is extremely generous i think, and it allowed for people to more or less have access to their favorite ships at top tier. any ship at least at tier 3 can be upgraded to tier 5, so all the tier 3, 4, and 5 ships can be used at max level.

the rule of thumb is, the bigger it is, the more powerful it is. the largest ships can equip the largest phaser arrays, have the largest most burst capable torpedo launchers, have the largest warp cores, and have the highest endurance from just their size alone. that's why i set up that second designations based on volume, but i gave each of the size classes their advantages and disadvantages so they can all compete in a game environment.

also, that nonsense that there would be 3 different classes that basically only look different but have the same exact stats i did mention was being stopped. there is only the akira class for example, no Zephyr or Oslo, the costume pieces by that name would just be variations to the standard akira design. no mater what combination you used, it would just be an akira class.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 6
10-08-2011, 04:23 PM
Limiting my gameplay is a bad idea from the start.

I will pilot any ship I want.

I will put whatever weapons I want on that ship.

I will use these weapons that I choose, on the ship I want, in the fashion with which I so choose.

System works fine. Don't mess with what isn't broken.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 7 Still not Trek
10-08-2011, 06:19 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dontdrunkimshoot View Post
in star trek, there are ships that are absolutely bigger, more advanced and more powerful then others. any low end ships should not be able to be upgraded to be as good as the best and biggest ships. i did allow for a 2 tier upgrade limit, witch is extremely generous i think, and it allowed for people to more or less have access to their favorite ships at top tier. any ship at least at tier 3 can be upgraded to tier 5, so all the tier 3, 4, and 5 ships can be used at max level.

the rule of thumb is, the bigger it is, the more powerful it is. the largest ships can equip the largest phaser arrays, have the largest most burst capable torpedo launchers, have the largest warp cores, and have the highest endurance from just their size alone. that's why i set up that second designations based on volume, but i gave each of the size classes their advantages and disadvantages so they can all compete in a game environment.
...First I never said that ships should be upgraded to be on par with the biggest and baddest. But, yes they should be able to be upgraded significantly. Remeber the episode of "Paradise Lost" and the heavily upgraded Lakota. This Excelsior went toe to toe with a Defiant and gave as good as she got. Even the Chief was suprised at her firepower. And anyway the biggest and badest does not always equal the best. Take the Prometheus, absolutely one of the best Starfleet has to offer but certainly not the biggest. We have to get away from this mindest of big always equals the very best...As in Startrek that is just not always the case. Let alone even in Star Trek a Captain such as Charlie Reynolds did not have the luxury or option to have the biggest and baddest. The Centuar anyone! The Federation was at war and they were not going to just sit ships in dock just because they were not Galaxy or Nebula or Akira classes. And even more so you saw these same lower tier ships fighting along side the "big boys." This is Trek canon. They may not have the fire power or durability but at least we should be able to have the option. at current we do not...

Also in Trek there are no ship classes-types that are inherently made inferior to another.
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:40 AM.