Captain
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 749
# 1 RCS Accelerators need a rework
11-01-2012, 07:17 PM
Of many things needing a new perspective, RCS acceleratos is one of them. In the old days they were fine, but with all the new ships with turn rates 5 or below, a new perspective is needed. After a lot of thought, I came up with 2 options:

A-Rework the Turn Bonus, and remove the Consoles from Marks I-VI.
I would say that at least a 5% increase on the RCS from VII-XII would benefit.

B-Change the percent into a Solid number, and limit them to one per ship.

Opinions?
Starfleet Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,784
# 2
11-01-2012, 08:20 PM
I kinda think they're good the way they are. Cruisers (obviously the slowest turning ships) shouldn't be able to be made to turn greater than a stock science or escort. By doing that you're making the cruiser in to something it was never designed to be.

My opinion extends to all ships. No ship of one class should ever be able to match the forte of another class. Science and cruisers should never have the DPS and turn of an escort and cruisers and escorts should never be able to out-aux or have a greater shield capacity than a science.
Captain
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 536
# 3
11-02-2012, 12:30 AM
A cruiser that gives up its engineering slots is giving up damage resistance to turn faster; thus, this would hardly make cruisers OP or anything. I mean, sure, they'd turn a bit faster, but engineering console slots are precious things, especially on a cruiser, IMHO; I hate to have fewer than 3 to start with, on any type of ship.

Even then, a system of harsh diminishing returns could be put in place, to make even a second console almost pointless...or enable the same feature as the universal consoles, so that only one could be equipped on each ship, so that cruisers would never out-turn science/escort ships (except the slower-turning science ships, of course).
Lieutenant
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 86
# 4
11-03-2012, 06:20 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by darramouss1 View Post
I kinda think they're good the way they are. Cruisers (obviously the slowest turning ships) shouldn't be able to be made to turn greater than a stock science or escort. By doing that you're making the cruiser in to something it was never designed to be.

My opinion extends to all ships. No ship of one class should ever be able to match the forte of another class. Science and cruisers should never have the DPS and turn of an escort and cruisers and escorts should never be able to out-aux or have a greater shield capacity than a science.
This.

Don't even need to read the rest of the thread. Each type of ship has it's own strengths and weaknesses, no ship should do everything. Hence why the Vesta is coming in 3 different specs.
***The above ramblings are, as always, my own opinion. Based on my experiences and interpreted by my mind, they by no means reflect the universal truth (unless coincidentally). Peace.***
Captain
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 632
# 5
11-03-2012, 08:05 PM
Quote:
This.
The problem with that is it's the same as saying. Only use RCS on Sci ships. Littrially their tottally usless otherwise. BH it wouldn;t even allow a cruiser to match an escort's turn rate, there's typiclly a 7-9 point differance. Even at +2 per consle only a handful of cruiser could pump their turn rate up that high, and they'd have to do so entierly a the expense of tanking ability. +1.5 and no cruiser is keeping up.
Captain
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 2,565
# 6
11-02-2012, 12:53 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by burstdragon323 View Post
Of many things needing a new perspective, RCS acceleratos is one of them. In the old days they were fine, but with all the new ships with turn rates 5 or below, a new perspective is needed. After a lot of thought, I came up with 2 options:

A-Rework the Turn Bonus, and remove the Consoles from Marks I-VI.
I would say that at least a 5% increase on the RCS from VII-XII would benefit.

B-Change the percent into a Solid number, and limit them to one per ship.

Opinions?
-----------------------------

It should be a number not a %

Percent only helps those with a good turn rate
I'n the first place.
Jellico....Engineer ground.....Da'val Romulan space Sci
Saphire.. Science ground......Ko'el Romulan space Tac
Leva........Tactical ground.....Koj Romulan space Eng

JJ-Verse will never be Canon or considered Lore...It will always be JJ-Verse
Commander
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 371
# 7
11-02-2012, 01:27 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by jellico1 View Post
-----------------------------

It should be a number not a %

Percent only helps those with a good turn rate
I'n the first place.
I think that is the point of them..

If they added a flat value of say.. or 3 .. right.. you could slot 3-4 of em on an oddy.. and it would move as swiftly as an escort, and slotting them on escorts would them then well.. just plain stupid fast on the turn. I think in this particular case, "Working as intended" is fine. They're designed as such to give a boost to an existing stat, while not breaking the ship out of it's role.
Captain
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 3,278
# 8
11-02-2012, 01:33 AM
maybe adding an inertia % value to it, so the drifting is less. maybe that would already make cruiser hndling a lot easier.

but, myself i think they are "working as intended"
Go pro or go home
Captain
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 749
# 9
11-02-2012, 01:36 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fiberteksyfir View Post
I think that is the point of them..

If they added a flat value of say.. or 3 .. right.. you could slot 3-4 of em on an oddy.. and it would move as swiftly as an escort, and slotting them on escorts would them then well.. just plain stupid fast on the turn. I think in this particular case, "Working as intended" is fine. They're designed as such to give a boost to an existing stat, while not breaking the ship out of it's role.
Which is why I said that if they changed it to a solid number system for them, limit them to one per ship. The main point is to give Heavy Cruisers (Galaxy for Example) and Carriers (Atrox, Vo'Quv) a small increase to turn.

For example, the Mk XI Rare console could give +2 turn to Cruisers and +3 to Heavy Carriers. That would give the Galaxy and Atrox/Vo'Quv a turn of 8, thus making them more viable, but not game breaking.
Commander
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 371
# 10
11-02-2012, 01:41 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by burstdragon323 View Post
Which is why I said that if they changed it to a solid number system for them, limit them to one per ship. The main point is to give Heavy Cruisers (Galaxy for Example) and Carriers (Atrox, Vo'Quv) a small increase to turn.

For example, the Mk XI Rare console could give +2 turn to Cruisers and +3 to Heavy Carriers. That would give the Galaxy and Atrox/Vo'Quv a turn of 8, thus making them more viable, but not game breaking.
using 2 white mk xiis/green mk xis/blue mk x's/etc will already accomplish that. As somebody posted above, by design you force to sacrifice a little bit of survivability for maneuverability.
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 09:20 PM.