Go Back   Star Trek Online > Feedback > Federation Gameplay
Login

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 111
04-01-2010, 09:13 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rothnang
The simple truth is this:

Adding bigger ships to the federation that trade maneuverability for more firepower and survivability is a response to the factors that currently make space PvP boring - namely having to huddle into a pile waiting to be attacked or squaring off against carriers that have practically no weak spots.

Instead of asking for a ship that plays into the factors that make space PvP sucky and boring in the first place it would be much more sensible to ask for things that make space PvP more fun in the first place.

Also adding larger ships just blows away the frame of reference. cruisers are already absolutely massive, they just don't seem impressive because you're comparing them with Negh'vars and Carriers. If you really want to have a sense of scale for your ship you should ask for more small ships that are worthwhile using, not for even bigger ships.

Lastly, capital ships erode the playstyle for a faction. You see Klingons go into PvP with nothing but carriers, if Federation had one you'd see Federation go in with nothing but carriers. What then? Carrier wars? The real focus should be on making the existing ships cooler, fixing abilities so it isn't all about RSP and FBP, thinking about more ways to make a ships speed into a meaningful factor in combat etc.
As i said in the carrier thread "Carrier Trek, Boldy going where Star Wars has gone before"
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 112
04-01-2010, 04:28 PM
Battleship.

Make it a upgraded Galaxy class, as we have seen in the final episode of ds9, where the galaxys kinda sat there, and instant gibbet things with their massive phaser arrays.


Give them Battleship arrays that only they can fit. 1,5 second firing animation, 8 second cool down, and massive damage per shot. If you go with the galaxy you can go with a hard limit of 2 (since it has 2 main arrays)
Perhaps increase their engagement range to 15 km.

Then work out the powerdrain so the player has to make a choice as whether to spam the smaller arrays alongside the big ones or not (ie: take into account em power to weaps... something you totally missed with cannons.... which fire with no powerdrain at all once set up correctly....).


"hang back and maul some doods" or go in and .... maul some doods closeup.


A carrier is the most boringest thing you could ad, for it does nothing engaging at all.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 113
04-01-2010, 10:16 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by cavilier210 View Post
Who said bigger? I said more powerful, and geared toward combat. Theres the Star Cruiser which has an additional science station at the cost of the assault cruisers tac slot.

What I'm saying is that a fed battleship would be a T5-T6 ship thats the same size or smaller than the current T5's, but takeing the assault cruisers sci console and making a higher ranked tac console and maybe an addition engineering console.
T6 maybe

We don't need it in T5 currently it would throw alot of stuff out of whack balance wise. Then on top of that people will want something similar for sci and tac since that would really be a 3rd T5 cruiser.

The loss of the sci console breaks the ship in anything other then PVE and maybe even there. You HAVE to HAVE Sci team in PVP.

When they raise the level cap and want to add it there that'f fine but it doesn't have a place in T5 without causeing issues.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 114
04-02-2010, 08:52 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leonwulf
T6 maybe

We don't need it in T5 currently it would throw alot of stuff out of whack balance wise. Then on top of that people will want something similar for sci and tac since that would really be a 3rd T5 cruiser.

The loss of the sci console breaks the ship in anything other then PVE and maybe even there. You HAVE to HAVE Sci team in PVP.

When they raise the level cap and want to add it there that'f fine but it doesn't have a place in T5 without causeing issues.
I agree. It SHOULD be a T6. With T6 they can balance among one tier, and also they can have a lot of options. Just like T5 has 2 variations per type, T6 could have 3. If they go that way.

I liked the uber beam array for battleships idea. Should eat tons of Power per shot though and be kind of a stand off weapon.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 115
04-02-2010, 12:59 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by cavilier210 View Post
I agree. It SHOULD be a T6. With T6 they can balance among one tier, and also they can have a lot of options. Just like T5 has 2 variations per type, T6 could have 3. If they go that way.

I liked the uber beam array for battleships idea. Should eat tons of Power per shot though and be kind of a stand off weapon.
Ok I'm missing something then so if we both agree that at T6 it might be feasible.....why the carrier hate? Why not have both?
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 116
04-02-2010, 01:38 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leonwulf
Ok I'm missing something then so if we both agree that at T6 it might be feasible.....why the carrier hate? Why not have both?
My carrier hate is fueled by my love of games that have distinct factions. Like on RTS games like Starcraft, where they have counters and equivalents, but not the same things.

I think there should be some reason why to pick a faction. Offering different tactics and abilities is one way to draw people to it. Especially the Klingons for instance. Giving the Federation klingons was a big mistake IMO.

Plus, if they did give fed's carrier, s imagine the forum rage about how its just a reskinned klingon carrier, lol.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 117
04-02-2010, 01:44 PM
I agree to a point, the game is definately more interesting when you have factions that are very different from each other.

I think the main problem that people see is just that there is no real equivalent to carriers on the federation side, and not as in "another carrier", more as in "a huge capital ship".

The issue I see personally is simply that there is no way to make a capital ship that is simply bigger and stronger than regular ships in every way except speed without having it become the standard because speed rarely matters in this game.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 118
04-02-2010, 01:58 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rothnang
I agree to a point, the game is definately more interesting when you have factions that are very different from each other.

I think the main problem that people see is just that there is no real equivalent to carriers on the federation side, and not as in "another carrier", more as in "a huge capital ship".

The issue I see personally is simply that there is no way to make a capital ship that is simply bigger and stronger than regular ships in every way except speed without having it become the standard because speed rarely matters in this game.
Isn't speed supposed to amplify a "dodge" chance? It would be great if cryptic found a way to implement misses, cuz then it would be a lot more apparent when you dodge or the enemy is just a sucky shot.

"Pure Tank" would be what i would envision, as I said before. Cruisers can be a balance between tank and support atm. Battleships could be limited to just beam arrays and torps but have a ton of ways to increase both shields and hull, or increase damage resistance.

Maybe in T6 one model could be a tank, and the other model geared for support. Though this may be why the assault cruiser has less crew and sci than the star cruiser. not sure though.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 119
04-02-2010, 04:23 PM
DPS is so absurdly huge in this game right now that no defense really matters except those that render your opponent completely unable to shoot you, even if just for a short time.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 120
04-06-2010, 05:11 AM
Ok I have never seen a fed carrier in a movie, show or read about one in a book. The klingon one took me by surprise at first it made sense and I remember one somewhere maybe Armada II. The only ship I really remember being a true carrier type ship was the Scimitar, the lines of Scorpion Fighters in its shuttle bay in "Nemesis". The klingons on this board are not saying, "No you don't need a carrier because we don't have science ships." The are saying no because it would make FvK more like KvK, and their side is way under developed story wise. Hell I loathe to level my klink, now I know why they are so good at PvP. Yeah I love the idea for a dreadnaught is is workable probably is realistic as a PvP ship no the damn thing won't be able to turn and in some of these maps with the debris it would be a sitting "Spruce Goose" look at the klink carrriers very seldom do see them changing direction a lot of the times they let themselves get blow up because Fed like to shoot at big shiny objects. So if they want to give the feds something in line with the carrier, dreadnaught I hope they are fair and give the klinks something in line with a science ship and then we will see some QQing on these boards.
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 02:34 AM.