Captain
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,427
# 41
08-01-2012, 10:40 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by kimmera View Post
I repeats: How much more survivability does a Commander Eng provide over a Commander Tac?



Same question to you.

If absolutely nothing else, why can't a cruiser be a good mine layer? Isn't the top mine dispersal ability commander tac?

In what way would Attack Pattern: Omega be a waste on a beam boat? or Beta or Delta?

And why do people think this is about some sort of 'magic kirk button' or 'search for uber' rather than just liking the concept of a different configuration ship?

(and for the KDF, these questions apply to both sides. This is not a Fed only issue)
Cruisers already can be good mine layers. In fact one of the best things a cruiser can do is swap out a rear beam for plasma/chroniton mines.

Beta is meh (too easily cleared), Delta is awesome (and would fit the profile of a "battleship" best) but it doesn't scale that great, especially up to Commander. Omega is also just okay on cruisers rather than amazing.

I can understand wanting a new or interesting configuration, and I support that. In fact, to be honest if people want a Commander Tac cruiser, go wild. My problem is that the OP fundamentally wants a ship that's both tanky and a DPS monster (note his original wording: "I don't like (as in, find outright disgusting) the notion of "tactical ships must be agile and fragile..."). Such a ship would break the game and it's the reason that ships aren't intended to do everything equally well.
Empire Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 5,824
# 42
08-01-2012, 11:20 PM
I like your idea, and I would love to see it happen, but honestly, you're asking to have your cake and eat it too.

I've kinda wanted a Cmdr. Tac on something like that. I could just imagine it now, having Omega 3, or a Cannon Rapid Fire 3 on something like my Bortas...

That said, a lot would have to be given up for that, mostly in the engineering BOFFs and the engineering consoles.

Here might be a way of doing it:

Cmdr. Tac
Lt. Cmdr Tac
Lt. Sci
Ensign Sci
Lt. Engineer

(possibly even drop the extra ensign slot, and/or make the engineer an ensign as well)

For consoles, it'd be like...

5 tactical
1 (maybe 2) engineering
2 (maybe 3) science

Along with giving it a good amount of hull comparable to like a Galaxy class (captain level one), possibly a bit more, but not too low.

As for making it more of a 'battleship', what might be better is a semi-transforming ability, like the D'kora, transferring all (or nearly all) power to the weapons from all other systems, and reducing the weapons drain while you are firing as this is active. In turn, your weapons would be hitting for full, or nearly full damage all the time, at the cost of essentially just 'sitting there'.

Or, make it kind of a reverse-Point Defense System, where instead of shooting smaller ships, it would mostly target larger ones, which unloads damage from any port that can hold a gunner, pretty much.



That might be a rather 'extreme' way to do it, maybe that is still too overpowered, but it would fit more in-line with a battleship on how I feel it should be done.


If this happens, great, if not, I'll be perfectly content to fly around in what I have now.


Why are all of STO's EPs named 'Steve'?
Captain
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 573
# 43
08-01-2012, 11:32 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by disposeableh3r0 View Post
Some perspective.
Modern naval terminology does not apply well to anything startrek.
That said heres how I think it breaks down.

hope this helps.
You are partially correct. Modern naval terminology does not apply well to anything STO.

Star Trek, on the other hand is another matter.

Sticking to STO for a moment though, just because cruisers are currently engineering vessels does not mean that has to be the case. I still think a cruiser that switches a commander Eng and lt com Tac with com Tac and lt com Eng would be interesting.

It would still have most of the survivability of a standard cruiser with a little more tactical capacity.

As for differences between STO ships and Star Trek, that would be a whole other thread. Most of the differences don't get noticed because we see very little ship to ship combat in canon.
Starfleet Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,815
# 44
08-01-2012, 11:47 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by kimmera View Post
You are partially correct. Modern naval terminology does not apply well to anything STO.

Star Trek, on the other hand is another matter.

Sticking to STO for a moment though, just because cruisers are currently engineering vessels does not mean that has to be the case. I still think a cruiser that switches a commander Eng and lt com Tac with com Tac and lt com Eng would be interesting.

It would still have most of the survivability of a standard cruiser with a little more tactical capacity.

As for differences between STO ships and Star Trek, that would be a whole other thread. Most of the differences don't get noticed because we see very little ship to ship combat in canon.
While you are correct I was more refrencing the fact that most cannon ships in Startrek aren't given class designations. In fact in generations lursor refers to the enterprise as a galaxy class battleship. And for the record I do not disagree with there being a battle ship I was just stating that using modern terminology as a refrence was a flawed approach.

I think that currently the odossy comes closest to being a battle ship but the curent limitation isn't really the officer lay out its the weapons. If there were a heavy beam bank or array equipable to only battleship class vessels then it would make more sence. But currently the big guns are only equipable or viable for the smaller ships.
Actually reading things before posting will make you look smarter than yelling loudly. Reading comprehension is apparently a lost art.

Not everything you see on the internet is true - Abraham Lincoln
Career Officer
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 6,416
# 45
08-02-2012, 12:06 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by kimmera View Post
I repeats: How much more survivability does a Commander Eng provide over a Commander Tac?
So Tactical Team, Pattern Delta or Omega vs SIF3 RSP3 (yes PvPers, I know) and ET3?

I can guarantee you the best captains in STO would choose SIF3 over Omega 3 or Delta 3. Heals with resists on a 15 second timer vs waiting 30 - 45 seconds.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kimmera View Post
Similar displacement to a Galaxy or Ody but with a third nacelle? What about that even implies 'slower but better armored?'

Those are WARP nacelles, not very useful at Impulse Speeds.

Quote:
Originally Posted by daedalus304 View Post
again the Gal-X is far far far far far far from an actual Dreadnought, Let me put it this way, compare the Bismark to the Iowa....one is a dreadnought which was taken down after a lengthly battle with 3 battleships, and one had several taken down by many planes, they both had a lot of guns but one had more than the other. Battlecruisers are just ships one down from Battleships, they are easily taken down and can dish some damage out, but against numbers they dont stand a chance nor can they inflict as much damage.

whereas a battleship can not only last a while in battle, it can take out a significant ammount of forces before going down, a Battlecruiser cannot.

I will stand by the point that the Gal-X is nothing more than a Cruiser with one weak gun and the ability to attach more. let me put it this way, "Dreadnought" Is starfleets token name for saying our only class of warship.....once something new comes out it becomes nothing more than a mere battlecruiser with a horrible turn rate.

I'm sorry, but you're making the statement like you created the Galaxy-X and know her true capabilities. Because she has X in STO doesn't mean Y in Star Trek canon. Because in the final TNG episode the G-X Ent-D did a number on two Negh'vars (really Voodeigh-class Negh'var Varients).

BTW, last I checked the Bismark was a Battleship and those "3 Battleships" were British Battlecruisers. Unless the H.M.S. Hood and her sister ships were redesignated without my knowledge. And these Battlecruisers purposely left off battleship armor in favor for speed, but retained a battleship's arsenal.
Career Officer
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 3,499
# 46
08-02-2012, 12:18 AM
Wow, there seems to be quite some interest for such a ship.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sophlogimo View Post
[...]
Battleship

Commander Tactical
Lt. Com. Tactical
Lt. Engineer
Ens Engineer

Lt Science

Crew: 900
Hull hitpoints: 39,000
Shield modifier: 1.0
Impulse Modifier: 0.15
Turn rate: 7 degrees per second

Consoles: 4 Tactical, 3 Egineering, 2 Science
Device slots: 4

Weapons: 4 for, 4 aft




Would you buy one for 2500 Zen? How would you use it? What do you think about the general idea?
Well, needless to say, I myself would happily throw my Zen at this ship for having it account-wide. And here's how I would equip it, Federation side:

Commander Tactical: Tactical Team1, Torpedo Spread 2, Beam overload 3, Attack Pattern Omega 3
Lt. Com. Tactical Tactical Team 1, Beam Overload 2, Attack Pattern Omega 1
Lt. Engineer Emergency Power to Shields 1, Reverse Shield Polarity 1
Ens Engineer Emergency Power to Shields 1
Lt Science Hazard Emitters 1, Tractor Beam 2.

Consoles: 4 Phaser Relays 2x Neutronium Armor, 1 Borg Console, 2x Field Generators

Weapons:
Fore: 3 Phaser Beams, 1 Quantum Torpedo
Aft: 3 Phaser Beams, 1 Quantum Torpedo

Deflector Dish: Borg
Impulse Drive: Borg
Shield: MACO Mk XII

Devices: Subspace field modulator, Deuterium Surplus, Shield Battery, Weapons Battery

Doffs:Shield Distribution Officer x3, Tractor Beam Doff, Exocomp Doff (Special battery buffs)

Standard Energy Setting 100/50/25/25



By the way, it has been claimed that such a ship would "break the game"... But I seriously don't see that happen. How would it?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Promote what you love, instead of bashing what you hate.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?featur...lM_skuv4#t=584
Captain
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,427
# 47
08-02-2012, 12:36 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by sophlogimo View Post
By the way, it has been claimed that such a ship would "break the game"... But I seriously don't see that happen. How would it?
The ship you're proposing wouldn't do anything other than die extremely fast due to its lack of decent tank abilities and very low defense stat. I think if people would like to pay 2,500 Zen for such a ship, all the power to them.

What I was describing was the ship you really want, which is something that can put out escort-level damage and take cruiser-level punishment. There is no such ship (at least, not intentionally) because no one would fly anything else.
Captain
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,427
# 48
08-02-2012, 12:46 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by jim940 View Post
Battleships had a ton of armor, compared to everything else out there back when they were being used. However Destoryers and Cruisers are more effective today due to Ship to Ship Missiles being the primary way of attacking another ship instead of guns (which are almost ceremonial use only today).

A real battle ship, has little advantage in today's world, heavy, slow to turn and fire, good for defence on the hull, especially against torpedo attack, but a vertically vectored weapon will cause massive damage. Which is what most ship to ship missiles are designed to do today, as most of the armor is still in the sea hull to protect from torpedoes etc.

Jim
This is what's most ironic about the thought process that bigger ship = more firepower. "Battleships" were already seeing the end of their day at the turn of the 20th C. The submarine all but obsoleted them (the Royal Navy's biggest and most prestigious ships sunk like lead balloons when pitted against small Imperial/German subs).
Career Officer
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 3,499
# 49
08-02-2012, 12:55 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by shimmerless View Post
The ship you're proposing wouldn't do anything other than die extremely fast due to its lack of decent tank abilities and very low defense stat.
So it would not break the game.

The Defense stat would probably be on the level of an appropriately skilled Capain in an Assault cruiser - that is, 60-70 depending on the captain's traits, compared to an escort's max of 70-80. This should really balance out with the 30% more hull hitpoints and 11% more shields than an escort has.

Quote:
What I was describing was the ship you really want[...].
How telepathic of you.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Promote what you love, instead of bashing what you hate.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?featur...lM_skuv4#t=584
Captain
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,427
# 50
08-02-2012, 01:09 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by sophlogimo View Post
So it would not break the game.

The Defense stat would probably be on the level of an appropriately skilled Capain in an Assault cruiser - that is, 60-70 depending on the captain's traits, compared to an escort's max of 70-80. This should really balance out with the 30% more hull hitpoints and 11% more shields than an escort has.
Do you know why all end-game cruisers have Commander Engineers?
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 01:41 PM.