Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 51
03-14-2012, 09:30 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by srlebonv View Post
I don't want to say the devs are lazy, but it probably takes less work to add or change specs than to design new ships.
I think a big part of it is just to give all players a reason to fly a ship of the flagship class, to fly a ship of the same class as the Enterprise-F. To do that, they have to change up the stats to make it useful to each class. There was a lot of hulabaloo a bit ago about how all new ships are cruisers; I can see Cryptic taking that message and trying to make the new ship reasonably appealling to Tac, Eng, and Sci captains^H admirals. I don't have a problem with this.

Then they went and made a set bonus if you mount the consoles from all three variants. This I have a slight problem with.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 52
03-14-2012, 09:34 AM
Yeah, and the fact is, once you drop money on one ship, you're essentially paying out the same again for... a console? They should've made visual differences, and made them incompatible, this would've given cross specialization utility without creating something that obsoleted every other cruiser in the game, including C-store ones.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 53
03-14-2012, 09:36 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by V-Mink
Well, that's been a problem for STO since the beginning. People want to fly their favorite ship all the time but they really... well, they could, but they get severe disadvantages. There's no real rational way to, for example, explain how one can upgun a Miranda (my favorite ship) into something that could be equivalent to a Sovereign.

Which is unfortunate, but kinda makes sense. Even if one assumes that the Miranda has dual phaser cannons, a ship like that -- at best a light cruiser (though I sometimes view it as a light battlecruiser developed in response to the D-7 or K't'inga (and yes, I'm well aware of what happened at Jutland and of Jackie Fisher's "Dreadnought Math")) --should not be able to go against a Sovereign; if nothing else, it's just too small.
The Mirands/NX/Constitution/Akira/Nova t5 discussion is one thing.
There were already a lot of people who couldnt fly their favorite on t5 and that always sucked.
But we HAD a variety, at least SOME favorite ships were valueable.

Thats diffrent now. We dont have "some" variety, something that even wasnt a given: We startet with 2 cruisers, with 3 costumes each at launch.

But NOW its even worst then at launch:
We have ONE endgame cruiser with ONE Skin (in coming in 3 diffrent console arrangement versions).
Thats it.
We are getting a ship variety situation WORST then it was AT RELEASE!

Its not only my Souvereign that is useless. Its the next guys Excelsior (wich, to play Captain Obvious here, is much older then the Souvereign and still worked well as en en-par-ship in endgame), the other guys Galaxy and the next ones GX. And believe it or not, there actually ARE people who liked the ugly-whale-MKI for his looks, however that did happen, they are now useless, too.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 54
03-14-2012, 09:45 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by V-Mink
I think a big part of it is just to give all players a reason to fly a ship of the flagship class, to fly a ship of the same class as the Enterprise-F. To do that, they have to change up the stats to make it useful to each class. There was a lot of hulabaloo a bit ago about how all new ships are cruisers; I can see Cryptic taking that message and trying to make the new ship reasonably appealling to Tac, Eng, and Sci captains^H admirals. I don't have a problem with this.

Then they went and made a set bonus if you mount the consoles from all three variants. This I have a slight problem with.
That the variants of the ships are somehow suited more to a particular class over another is fallacy.

--the variants are not all that different--

If they had the tac one with a tactical LtCmdr, the eng one with an eng LtCmdr and the sci one with a sci LtCmdr. Then the versions would be different. As it is, they all have the exact same boff seating and are largely identical. They then move 1 console to a different place on each variant and try and fool people into thinking "Hey, it's a tactical cruisert, my tac can fly it". Which is of course wrong; you're still flying the exact same ship as that engineer over there, except that he is actually filling a role on a team.

Then, as you say, the idiotic 'console set bonus' to make people buy them all just stinks
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 55
03-14-2012, 10:06 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by japfi
I dare you all to bring your "Pay2Win" ships into PVP.. and my Bird of Prey.. which I got for free.. will roll you all every time. It's not about the ship, its about the user and understanding what their ship is and isn't capable of. I can't wait to see all the posts a week later by Tac officers crying.. "THE TAC ODYSSEY DOESN'T DO ENOUGH DPS!" Thinking they are going to make the Cruiser/Escort Hybrid.
well said. I play both fed and klink, the only ship i used real mony for was the excelsior retro. I had more success in PvP with a BoP, a fleet escort, an assault cruiser, and a carrier then i ever did with the excelsior retro. It's not about the ship but player, if a player has no idea how to play the strengths of their ship the player is going to suck regardless. It takes time to learn the ship you're in and play style is a big part of it.

Will there be people who are able to make the new ships useful in PvP? I am sure there will, but there will be plenty of people who won't. This I don't feel is a game breaker at all, just one more path you can take.
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 10:02 PM.