Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 131
01-24-2011, 07:32 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MustrumRidcully View Post
But that all is not the case, at least not anymore. Some powers were dependent on crew numbers, but either with the 1.2 or the 2.0 balance changes, this relationship was removed. And even for the newply proposed crew duty roster system, they have decided to make it independent of crew numbers, since they figured that the numbers of crewmen are all over the place and it would make the entire system unbalanced.

But even then, the numbers your crew had made no difference, just the percentage of crew that was alive.

In fact, due to t he slowness of crew recover, it can be more effective to have a small crew then a large crew, since it takes forever for the large crew to recover so you get a decent percentage of crew alive.
That's what I've been saying. I'm not saying the bigger the crew, the better. I'm saying the healthier the crew the better. That's all I've been saying. This is what I posted: "Crew does help out in every situation. The more healthy crew, the faster things work, the faster the ship moves, the faster things heal". I didn't say "Oh they have 4,000 crew, so that ship moves better than any other one". That was supposed to say "The more healthy the crew, ..." as in if half your crew is "injured", then things don't work as fast. I'm sorry if people misunderstood what I posted.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 132
01-24-2011, 07:38 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by booker9172 View Post
That's what I've been saying. I'm not saying the bigger the crew, the better. I'm saying the healthier the crew the better. That's all I've been saying. This is what I posted: "Crew does help out in every situation. The more healthy crew, the faster things work, the faster the ship moves, the faster things heal". I didn't say "Oh they have 4,000 crew, so that ship moves better than any other one". That was supposed to say "The more healthy the crew, ..." as in if half your crew is "injured", then things don't work as fast. I'm sorry if people misunderstood what I posted.
So it doesn't matter what your total crew is, which is what we've been saying. a smaller crew heals faster, so it would actually be a liability to have a larger crew.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 133
01-24-2011, 05:38 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by amidoinitright View Post
So it doesn't matter what your total crew is, which is what we've been saying. a smaller crew heals faster, so it would actually be a liability to have a larger crew.
I never said the more crew the better. I said the more healthy the crew the better (as in a full healthy crew is better than a crew with only 1/3 healthy). I said that the carrier has approximately 3,000 to 3,500 more crew than any other ship. That's all that I said. I just listed all the differences. The carrier needs all the extra crew, the bigger the ship, the more crew that's needed to run it. I understand that. And yes, by looking at it that way, a smaller crew can be seen as more beneficial than a larger one. Yes they do heal faster, but they also get injured faster too. So you get the good with the bad.

Joachim: Sir our shields are dropping.
Khan: Raise them.
Joachim: I can't.
Khan: Where's the override, the override?
Kirk: Fire.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 134
01-24-2011, 06:18 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigRedJedi
The Galaxy-X desperately needs a re-work, as it is essentially useless in high-end PvP (save for some very creative and, frankly, half-crazed pilots who insist on trying to make it work), but this has been true since its launch.

I would have no problem with the Defiant getting a Battle Cloak, however, if it were to be given to that ship, it would have to be given to ALL Cloaking ships, which, from a mechanical standpoint, very well might prove an "iWin" button for the KDF.

Since we don't currently have an MVAM-equipped ship, there's no way to tell whether we're going to get a "gimped" version, or not.

Intrepid is, without question, one of the top 3 ships (if not 'the' top) in VA-level PvP right now, and Ablative Armor is a 'very' useful ability that takes some practice to use effectively, but can make all the difference between survival and defeat in PvP.

The proposed change to Carriers, as I stated, is to give the Carriers a much more clearly-defined role and purpose, rather than being the 'Science Vessel that's not really a Science Vessel, that can launch pets' which it currently is.

The pet mechanics need re-tweaking, but you sound as though you have already made up your mind that no matter what is done to Carriers, that they are a KDF "iWin" button, but many more eloquent and experienced Captains than I have illustrated time and time again how that is untrue, and if they have not convinced you, I am unlikely to do so, either.

-Big Red

I do not think Carriers are an "I WIN" button, but I do think the BOP is hence why I said, "another I WIN" button.
The Carrier, as you proposed would become an "I WIN" button that the Klingons don't need, don't deserve and would be counterintuitive for game balance.

I am not against the Klingons having a canon cloak on every cloak capable ship. It was this was in the show and it should be this way in the game. There is enough refence material in the series to allow Federation ships a way to detect those cloaks so that it isn't another "I WIN" for the Klingons.

If it isn't clear, good, bad or indifferent, I am all for canon.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 135
01-30-2011, 01:29 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by NWCtim
Target Carrier Bays = Target Auxilliary Subsystem.

Currently on tribble, launch speed is affected by Aux power level:
http://forums.startrekonline.com/sho....php?p=3306371

If Aux goes offline the carrier losses the ability to launch ships.
Yes I just saw that. Check the dates, this thread was started before they announced that.

Congrats go to Jonathan_Kent, for taking my original, generalized "target hanger bays" concept, and coming up with the idea to tie it in to the Auxiliary Systems; and to Snix, for seeing the possibilities and merits of this idea and going with it.

Nice job people.


Saavik: Then you never faced that situation, faced death.
Kirk: I don't believe in the no-win scenario. Kirk to Spock, it's two hours are your ready?
Spock: Right on schedule Admiral, just give us your coordinates and we'll beam you aboard.
Kirk: Alright. I don't like to lose.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 136
01-30-2011, 01:38 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fishdo
OK how about this Idea. Since almost every fed can't win in PvP and demand that they have ships similar to the Klingon. Due away with the Klingon as a playable race. Cause I sick and tired of the feds crying about every ship we have.Either learn to deal with it or change the game and rename it Federation online.
That is a surprisingly good idea...
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 137
01-30-2011, 01:56 AM
You know, I've been doing a lot more PvP the last month or so, and while I have found the BoP to be a very versatile tool and dangerous opponent in a stand up fight it is NOT an I-Win button. Neither is the Carrier. Admittedly I have yet to defeat a carrier in a 1 on 1 battle, but that's mostly due to A) I fly an Intrepid-R built for 2 things, stripping shields and healing allies, and I'm better at the second, and B) The KDF players are generally smart enough to not give me a 1v1 battle for long enough to find out who would win. (and usually my allies are just as smart) BoPs on the other hand I can decimate in 1v1 if they don't manage the perfect storm against me and hit everything just right in the first second of battle. One tiny mistake or not enough critical hits means I survive the alpha strike and very quickly hit them back hard. I think I've been 'popped' by a single BoP maybe three times, ever. Two or three on one of course they generally win. Add to that the fact that in order to pull off that 'perfect storm' they must use multiple skills with much longer CDs than practically all of the skills I use besides my armor generator.

Anyway, back on topic. I wholeheartedly support something like this, a way of disabling or diminishing a carrier's ability to send out its pets. I do not support a Fed carrier, and I am generally against nerfs to the carrier. (this being a buff to the Feds, not a nerf to the carrier)
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 04:20 AM.