Captain
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 750
Yep, it's that time again for yet another cruiser thread. But I've been thinking about the complaints some players keep making and I want to add my own suggestion for a buff that I think Fed cruisers need.

Now reasonable people can disagree with my ideas, but even after the Borg set nerf and all the other changes that will make escorts slightly less tanky (and players will find new flavour of the month setups to make them more tanky again), I still say Fed cruisers need some love.

So here goes:

Changes affecting all ships

1. Increase the base damage of all beam arrays by 6%. For example, I believe advanced fleet beam arrays do 245 damage each, before modifiers. I'm suggesting that they be buffed to do 260 damage. I had considered suggesting a 10% buff, which would put those arrays at 270 damage each, but I assumed people would scream that it would be too high an increase, hence a compromise.

2. Increase all cruiser turn rates by one point. Just one. We really only need one. Then we'd have Assault and Star cruisers turning like Excelsiors, Excelsiors would turn almost as quickly as a Galor or Vor'cha without equalling them. And of course, Exploration cruisers and Odyssey cruisers (and the Bortasqu) would turn like Assault and Star cruisers do now. Fed cruisers would still feel like cruisers, they wouldn't step on KDF toes, nor would they suddenly become overpowered by this change. They would however, become slightly more nimble and slightly reduce that space whale feeling most Fed cruiser captains are sick of.


Changes affecting specific ships

1. Give the Fleet Star cruiser the kind of boff layout the Fleet Assault cruiser will have, if they ever put it back in the game:

Cmdr Engineering
Lt. Engineering
Lt. Cmdr Science
Ensign. Science
Lt. Universal

This one is no-brainer. Let's be honest here: three low level science powers are only good for tanking yourself. They are useless as offensive abilities, and thus the Fleet Star cruiser is just another superfluous tank ship, like the Assault cruiser is another superfluous combat ship which justified the creation of the Regent after so much rage at the Excelsior. Next to the Fleet Exploration cruiser, the Fleet Star cruiser is the other useless pile of garbage cruiser. It has nothing going for it compared to dedicated science ships or cruisers that do a better job in combat.

2. Give the Fleet Exploration cruiser a universal ensign. Yes, that argument again. If there's one thing this ship sorely needs, it's to be given at least one more officer who doesn't have to be an engineer. This is not an enormous change. This is not a gamebreaking change. But this is a Tier four Fleet ship we're talking about. It deserves to have something going for it to justify the cost of attaining it.

Do I have to invoke Wesley Crusher to justify this suggestion? Because I will. See that? Three bands on his uniform, representing all three departments. He is a universal ensign. Give this ship a universal ensign in kind.

3. Double the zen price of the Galaxy Dreadnought, give it a fourth tactical console, and give it two tactical lieutenants and a science ensign.

Honestly, this ship is never going to get a fleet version due to the phaser lance. Yet people still want it up to par with them. So do this as a compromise, but don't make its tactical boffs the same as the Regent or Excelsior. That would make other combat cruisers obsolete. Just make it better but different, and increase the cost because everyone will probably want one.

Last edited by fulleatherjacket; 11-03-2012 at 07:50 AM.
Captain
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,895
# 2
11-03-2012, 07:40 AM
I like these ideas although I don't think a 10% beam buff would hurt the game as it would apply to all ships using beams although 10 base damage is neither here nor there.
Captain
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 750
# 3
11-03-2012, 07:46 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by adamkafei View Post
I don't think a 10% beam buff would hurt the game as it would apply to all ships using beams although 10 base damage is neither here nor there.
I have no idea what the final numbers would be with maxed skills, a tactical captain with all buffs active, 125 weapon power and 4 or 5 +30% energy damage consoles. So I went for the conservative option.
Captain
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,895
# 4
11-03-2012, 07:51 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fulleatherjacket View Post
I have no idea what the final numbers would be with maxed skills, a tactical captain with all buffs active, 125 weapon power and 4 or 5 +30% energy damage consoles. So I went for the conservative option.
At present with my tac based Excelsior I max out at about 2.5k so I'd estimate getting to 3-3.25 maybe with an extra 10% base... however it would increase the number of tac cruisers in game and would increase the effectiveness of most engineer based cruisers for the current content which is something a lot of people would appreciate
Empire Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 5,257
# 5
11-03-2012, 10:10 AM
I agree with all the changes you proposed (Except maybe how expensive the Gal-X would be).

Particularly though, the fleet Star Cruiser.

I have one of these myself, and certainly would love a different flavor of cruiser. In fact, I mentioned on a thread a few days ago about the Federation only needing one more 'flavor' to fill our their ranks completely: A Cruiser with a Lt. Cmdr science.

I'd love for that to happen.

Captain
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 3,553
# 6
11-03-2012, 06:00 PM
Oh dear, now we have two cruiser threads running XD. The other one being in the Federation Gameplay subforum, started by yours truly lol.

Anyways, back on topic. Your suggestions are interesting, but I would propose that you give cruisers +2 instead of just +1. You are correct, only having 1 would be enough, but I would prefer 2, and then a +1 to KDF BCs, that would give everyone a nice boost without making escorts cry foul.

As for your proposed BOff changes, I have a counter-proposal. Instead of modifying the Fl. Star Cruiser, why not just go with the alternate, and GIVE US BACK OUR Fl. Assault Cruiser. I would pay ZEN, ZEN mind you, for the FSMs to get that ship. You guys can even quote me on that and hold me to it. Give us back the Imperial-Class Fleet Assault Cruiser. I love my sovy. It has handles quite well and can do a nice bit of slappage. The only problem is that it's a 9 console ship. I really wouldn't mind a

4/4/2 console cruiser with a

LtCmdr Tac
Ensign Tac
Cmdr Engi
Lt Engi
Lt Sci

BOff setup.

Also give it the same hull and shield mod as the Fl. Star Cruiser, and you're set.

As for the Galaxy-R change, all I have to say is... GOOD LORD PLEASE JUST DO IT ALREADY. -.- And while you're at it (not being sarcastic) give the Fl Tac Escort-R a uni ensign instead of that superfluous extra tac ensign.

As for the changes to the Galaxy-X, putting aside my dislike for that ship, I think the zen cost x2 might be a little over the top, but the minor changes to the consoles I can approve of. Maybe increase it's cost by 500 zen, a small 20% increase. As for the BOff changes, i agree, for a combat cruiser (yeah, it's probably the only one that's actually a COMBAT cruiser) it's still a little engi heavy.

That's my input.
It is said the best weapon is one that is never fired. I disagree. The best weapon is one you only have to fire... once.
Tired of Wasting EC and Time trying to get Superior Romulan Operative BOffs? Here's a cheap and easy way to get them, with an almost 100% chance of success.
Why the Devs can't make PvE content harder.
Captain
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,395
# 7
11-04-2012, 05:15 AM
I think one nice change would be to make beams equally effective at any distance, i.e. to remove the distance fallout. I understand that this could be somewhat exploited by escorts but in all frankness it wouldn't be that drastic of a buff, it's just a QOL measure.

I think generally if Cryptic is going to make it terribly difficult for me to maneuver, I shouldn't have to suffer penalties for lack of proper positioning.

vids and guides and stuff

[9:52] [Zone #11] Neal@trapper1532: im a omega force shadow oprative and a maoc elite camander and here i am taking water samples
Captain
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,895
# 8
11-04-2012, 06:20 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by shimmerless View Post
I think one nice change would be to make beams equally effective at any distance, i.e. to remove the distance fallout. I understand that this could be somewhat exploited by escorts but in all frankness it wouldn't be that drastic of a buff, it's just a QOL measure.

I think generally if Cryptic is going to make it terribly difficult for me to maneuver, I shouldn't have to suffer penalties for lack of proper positioning.
You have my support on that one
Captain
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 507
# 9
11-04-2012, 06:46 AM
If you are an engineer and spec right it ain't terribly hard to get 8k dps in a cruiser with at least a ltcmdr tac slot. They are hardest ship to fly right but if done correctly with a gunship build can have dps close to those of escorts. Takes a lot of cleverness and fine tweaking to get right but does work insanely well.

Disadvantage? You pretty much have to be fully spec'd around this one ship which ain't fun or good if you like to use multiple ships.
Captain
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 3,553
# 10
11-04-2012, 07:52 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fulleatherjacket View Post
Okay now everyone is throwing in their ridiculously overpowered suggestions for cruisers, which is not where I wanted this thread to go. I am already well versed in the other ideas people keep suggesting and I don't think they need to be re-iterated in this discussion.

My suggestions are conservative, reasonable, and therefore more likely to favour well with Cryptic, and what I need from you lot is to nod approvingly at my wisdom and agree wholeheartedly that my ideas are the best ones to date and should be implemented immediately! Bah. Now they'll never listen after this rant.
I beg to differ. My idea for the Fleet Assault Cruiser is not OP in any way. It is a little more powerful than the current AC (which is kind of the point of the fleet ship) and still not as powerful as an Odyssey or KDF BC. Bleh to you sir!!

Quote:
Originally Posted by shimmerless View Post
I think one nice change would be to make beams equally effective at any distance, i.e. to remove the distance fallout. I understand that this could be somewhat exploited by escorts but in all frankness it wouldn't be that drastic of a buff, it's just a QOL measure.

I think generally if Cryptic is going to make it terribly difficult for me to maneuver, I shouldn't have to suffer penalties for lack of proper positioning.
I am half and half with this one.

I half agree for precisely the reason you stated: if I can't get anywhere, don't make me suffer for not being where I need to be. (self explanatory, so no additional backup reasoning needed here)

However I disagree because I can see that it would basically eliminate single cannons from ever needing to be used. DHCs won't suffer from this because their primary users would still be able to get up close and personal, neither would turrets because it's hard to make a 360 degree weapon suffer, but single cannons (barely used as is, exchange prices on purple quality mk XI and XIIs says enough there) would be almost unnecessary since you would be able to sustain better damage at higher ranges.

My 2 ECs (and courtesy of recent purchases on the exchange, I don't have a lot more XD)
It is said the best weapon is one that is never fired. I disagree. The best weapon is one you only have to fire... once.
Tired of Wasting EC and Time trying to get Superior Romulan Operative BOffs? Here's a cheap and easy way to get them, with an almost 100% chance of success.
Why the Devs can't make PvE content harder.
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 01:46 AM.