Commander
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 432
# 11
09-01-2012, 05:06 AM
I like it. With a percent base bonus the affect on non-escort is seen, but not by much. Where as on a escort is gives it a comparatively massive increase. So ... for a ship tat can make use of it, it does little to nothing. For a ship that does not need it, it does a great deal.

I think a flat bonus is a awesome suggestion. It doesn't actually have to help cruiser or the like, and it keep escorts from shooting well over the curve into broken.

------

Also it should be noted that consoles do have a diminishing return. The second console only gives part of the bonus the first did, and the third a very small increase. Anything after that gives effectively nil.

Last edited by resoundingenvoy; 09-01-2012 at 05:11 AM.
Captain
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 535
# 12
09-01-2012, 06:51 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by elandarksky View Post
I think what your asking, would be like asking if the console that boosts shield capacity would be a set number so it would benefit escorts more thus making escorts tougher,

Cruisers are ment to be bulky and slow turning, if your play style is to be quick turning, then you need to modify your play style rather than the cruiser istelf ^^
I have to disagree, rather strongly; that's not like what I'm suggesting at all. Cruisers wouldn't be that maneuverable with an increase like this, and they would give up a tanking module to do so, thereby making them softer. It's not like I'm asking for a free turn rate increase, which is what the cruiser threads all suggest.

Second, I'm not trying to be 'quick turning'. An escort is a quick-turning ship; a cruiser never will be, without using abilities; I'm suggesting a change to a module that would help cruisers turn a little faster, at the expense of some of their tanking ability.

Quote:
Originally Posted by quiscustodiet View Post
This.
It's mind-boggling that the CRUZER ONLY crowd would request absolute increases over relative increases. Well, selectively, obviously: can't have absolute increases in areas where it wouldn't benefit the CRUZER ONLY agenda.

Then again, that one learns to expect anything from that crowd.

Well, then the players you've spoken to are lacking in the same areas you are. It's not even a question of opinion: it literally gives the same boost to everyone. That's what relative increases do.
You're jumping to conclusions...incorrect ones, at that.

Perhaps you can answer the following question for me:

How would it break the balance of the game if cruisers, science vessels, and carriers could turn a little bit faster, if they are giving up a tanking console to do it, and can't mount dual cannons?
Commander
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 384
# 13
09-01-2012, 08:44 AM
why make new other rcs consoles?

this consoles only for newbie players what can not decide/ telled what is really importend in endgame play.

its junk to punp into the replicator so bring more junk is good idea?

i dont think.
Captain
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,113
# 14
09-01-2012, 09:27 AM
First off, I would fully agree with this. I have two toons that wouldn't mind their "cruisers" turning at least as well as the RSV (turn rate 13)...

However:

Quote:
Originally Posted by momaw View Post
I think cruisers have all the drawback they need due to their having, optimistically, about half the firepower of an escort craft. What exactly are people afraid will happen by letting cruisers point their ship more quickly? They can't use dual cannons; they lack tactical shininess; they are never going to hit the same ridiculous DPS peaks that escorts do.
Galaxy X. Atrox. Tholian Recluse. IIRC, every KDF "cruiser". All of these can mount dual cannons. Heck, give me 2 of these RCS consoles on my engie's Gal-X and he might try to figure out a dualie build, and my Sci would love the turn rate his Reculse would have - can you say GW III and dual cannons almost whenever I want?
Well, with the upgrade announcement leaving NX and Connie fans in the dust again, can we restart / revisit the T5 Connie and NX threads - since they will no longer be "truly" endgame ships... (after we get the T5 versions, it'll be time to see them added to the T5U upgrade charts too...
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 232
# 15
09-01-2012, 09:53 AM
Have you guys ever heard about a BOff ability called Auxiliary to Dampeners?

Hint: it's a Eng Lt/LCdr rank ability that gives a massive boost to turnrate, along with a couple other buffs. And it's basically "cruiser only", as only cruisers come with enough Eng slots to make use of it.

Make a change like proposed ... and with dual Aux2Damp, a cruiser would fly circles around an Escort. And a Vor'cha/Tor'Kaht could reach BoP-level maneurability!
Hell, even former bricks like the Atrox/Vo'quv could suddenly outmaneuver pure Science Ships, as carriers are able to pull off dual Aux2Damp, too.
Yeah, that sounds balanced .... NOT!

If you want a Cruiser to turn quick, you already have the tools for this. It just comes at a price - what you're asking for though is to get super-maneuverabily CHEAP.
Learn to use the tools that you already have first.

Or maybe even: check if you actually need what you're asking for - a tanky beam-boat doesn't need super-turning. Except for the Dreadnought (which will get Saucer Seperation soon, which more than fixes it) and the Bortasqu' (which really is a space-whale ), every cruiser already has ways to maneuver, enough to get the job done.

What you're trying to do is not to "fix" cruisers. Cruisers are fine, if used for what they're meant for: tanking. If you want to fly around in a zippy boat, then go for a Sci or Escort. Nothing wrong with those, really. No, what you (and all the other "fix cruisers"-threads) are trying to do is turn Cruisers into some overpowered abomination that can do everything: deal damage as an escort, be as mobile as a Sci, and still tank like a baws.
Why?
Lieutenant
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 42
# 16
09-01-2012, 10:13 AM
What if it just gave a buff to Impulse Thrusters skill instead of a buff to base turnrate or the current percentage buff?

Honestly, anything percentage based can be min/maxed and effectively "exploited" upon.
Such as an Escort with a full loadout of these being able to spin like a top.

I think it would make more sense to throw everything into the skill tree math. At least that would make everything more uniform.

So yes, take the 17.5% Blue Field Generator MK XI and make it +XX to Shield Systems.

Make the RCS +XX to Impulse Thrusters. At least this could give us a more relative idea to what exactly we are looking at.

IMHO-- This would bring order to chaos.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 232
# 17
09-01-2012, 10:37 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by matthew486dx View Post
What if it just gave a buff to Impulse Thrusters skill instead of a buff to base turnrate or the current percentage buff?

Honestly, anything percentage based can be min/maxed and effectively "exploited" upon.
Such as an Escort with a full loadout of these being able to spin like a top.

I think it would make more sense to throw everything into the skill tree math. At least that would make everything more uniform.

So yes, take the 17.5% Blue Field Generator MK XI and make it +XX to Shield Systems.

Make the RCS +XX to Impulse Thrusters. At least this could give us a more relative idea to what exactly we are looking at.

IMHO-- This would bring order to chaos.
I might be totally wrong, but ... didn't give SIT a percentage increase to turnrate? And SSS a percentage increase to shield strength? ... And ... wasn't that percentage increase additive with percentage increases from consoles and other buffs?
... actually, I'm pretty sure that it worked this way.

Though I could be totally wrong really, since the skill tree is probably the most intransparent thing in the game, with no documentation whatsoever about the true effects of the skills. All we have is guesswork from measured ingame effects.
Yeah, that'd truely make things a lot easier ... not.
Captain
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 535
# 18
09-01-2012, 10:44 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by flekh View Post
Have you guys ever heard about a BOff ability called Auxiliary to Dampeners?

Hint: it's a Eng Lt/LCdr rank ability that gives a massive boost to turnrate, along with a couple other buffs. And it's basically "cruiser only", as only cruisers come with enough Eng slots to make use of it.

Make a change like proposed ... and with dual Aux2Damp, a cruiser would fly circles around an Escort. And a Vor'cha/Tor'Kaht could reach BoP-level maneurability!
Hell, even former bricks like the Atrox/Vo'quv could suddenly outmaneuver pure Science Ships, as carriers are able to pull off dual Aux2Damp, too.
Yeah, that sounds balanced .... NOT!

If you want a Cruiser to turn quick, you already have the tools for this. It just comes at a price - what you're asking for though is to get super-maneuverabily CHEAP.
Learn to use the tools that you already have first.

Or maybe even: check if you actually need what you're asking for - a tanky beam-boat doesn't need super-turning. Except for the Dreadnought (which will get Saucer Seperation soon, which more than fixes it) and the Bortasqu' (which really is a space-whale ), every cruiser already has ways to maneuver, enough to get the job done.

What you're trying to do is not to "fix" cruisers. Cruisers are fine, if used for what they're meant for: tanking. If you want to fly around in a zippy boat, then go for a Sci or Escort. Nothing wrong with those, really. No, what you (and all the other "fix cruisers"-threads) are trying to do is turn Cruisers into some overpowered abomination that can do everything: deal damage as an escort, be as mobile as a Sci, and still tank like a baws.
Why?
I'm not going to answer your last question, simply because you're asking me why I'm trying to do something that I'm not.

You, like some other posters, are either ignoring or missing something: in order to 'break the game' by creating a 'super maneuverable' cruiser, we'd have to give up all our tanking modules, which would make the ship a slow, soft version of an escort that does a lot less damage. In other words, that's not what we're suggesting, so stop blowing things out of proportion.

You also don't seem to understand the consequences of inertia; a cruiser with an excessively high turn rate will lose most of its defense rating when using that maneuverability, because it will be sliding around, instead of actually maneuvering quickly. Turning and maneuvering are two totally different things, as any Negh'Var player can tell you.

Another fallacy I have to point out: cruisers will never be able to 'deal damage as an escort', because escorts still FAR outpace cruisers, even battlecruisers, in terms of damage output. They have WAY more maneuverability than cruisers (if you're going to compare them, compare apples to apples...compare them when they are BOTH using powers, not just one), and they still have more damage output powers and consoles.

Furthermore, escorts would still be king in PVE; I've yet to hear a solid reason that increasing the cruisers' turn rate somehow would really, truly hurt anything or break the game.

So, yeah...please stop putting words in my mouth. I never said I wanted to make cruisers these overpowered, super-maneuverable DPS-monsters you seem to have nightmares about, and the fact that I'm not just asking for a FREE turn rate increase (as is requested in most cruiser threads) should have told you as much. It's pretty simple: I'm suggesting a turn rate increase in exchange for a weaker tank, with damage output remaining unchanged. It's a trade-off, not a free handout.

Last edited by aethon3050; 09-01-2012 at 10:49 AM.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 232
# 19
09-01-2012, 11:50 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by aethon3050 View Post
I'm not going to answer your last question, simply because you're asking me why I'm trying to do something that I'm not.

You, like some other posters, are either ignoring or missing something: in order to 'break the game' by creating a 'super maneuverable' cruiser, we'd have to give up all our tanking modules, which would make the ship a slow, soft version of an escort that does a lot less damage. In other words, that's not what we're suggesting, so stop blowing things out of proportion.

You also don't seem to understand the consequences of inertia; a cruiser with an excessively high turn rate will lose most of its defense rating when using that maneuverability, because it will be sliding around, instead of actually maneuvering quickly. Turning and maneuvering are two totally different things, as any Negh'Var player can tell you.

Another fallacy I have to point out: cruisers will never be able to 'deal damage as an escort', because escorts still FAR outpace cruisers, even battlecruisers, in terms of damage output. They have WAY more maneuverability than cruisers (if you're going to compare them, compare apples to apples...compare them when they are BOTH using powers, not just one), and they still have more damage output powers and consoles.

Furthermore, escorts would still be king in PVE; I've yet to hear a solid reason that increasing the cruisers' turn rate somehow would really, truly hurt anything or break the game.

So, yeah...please stop putting words in my mouth. I never said I wanted to make cruisers these overpowered, super-maneuverable DPS-monsters you seem to have nightmares about, and the fact that I'm not just asking for a FREE turn rate increase (as is requested in most cruiser threads) should have told you as much. It's pretty simple: I'm suggesting a turn rate increase in exchange for a weaker tank, with damage output remaining unchanged. It's a trade-off, not a free handout.
Okay, let's compare apples to apples.
Tor'Kaht vs any Escort/Raptor.
Put two of your +3 turnrate consoles in a Tor'kaht, you get the same base turnrate as an Escort/Raptor, while still having two eng consoles left. Most Escorts/Raptors only have two Eng console slots. And even those that have 3: No Escort/Raptor has two Lt or higher Eng BOff slots, so as soon as you throw in Aux2Damp, the Tor'Kaht will be have a higher turnrate than any Escort/Raptor.
Which leaves:
- Tor'Kaht has four Tac consoles, same as most Escorts/Raptors. Even compared to a Defiant, the fifth extra console adds about 7% dps. Which is pretty much equalized by having an extra turret.
- Tor'Kaht has LCdr and Lt Tac BOffs, compared to Cmdr and LCdr BOffs on most Escorts/Raptors. Still, enough to run two copies of TT and CRF each, with one copy of APO for the Tor'Kaht and two copies for the Raptors/Escorts, for 50% APO uptime on Raptors/Escorts, and 25% uptime on the Tor'Kaht. Also, Raptors/Escort can one CRF at one level higher.
Result: ~5% more dps from APO, and ~3% more dps from CRF.
But: the Tor'Kaht can run at least one copy of EptW instead, while still being able to use dual EPtS.

Result: the Tor'Kaht actually deals MORE damage than an Escort/Raptor already, at least if piloted by the same character.
And is a lot more tanky, thanks to better base hull and shield values and a Cmdr Eng slot we haven't used yet.
Yes, it is THAT good. Every KDF player salivates at the stats of that ship. The only, really the ONLY thing that keeps it anywhere near balanced is the slower turnrate - which your idea would "fix".


Next: Carrier vs Sci
Not even a challenge. Carriers can mount Dual Cannons, the only reason they usually don't is ... you guessed it: Slow turnrate.
"Fix" that ... and you've made all Sci ships useless.


Not to mention: The Galaxy refit and the Ody already have saucer seperation, and the Galaxy-X will get it. Add those consoles to them, and they can suddenly win turn-fights against Escorts/Raptors.
Full broadside into an Escort's back, while the Escort can answer with ... what, three turrets?
If PvP wasn't already dead, you'd kill it.

And Escorts/Raptors wouldn't even have a chance to cope. They can't run Aux2Damp, since they lack the Eng slots. APO only has a limited uptime, which would still leave them in the dirt for half the time, even compared to ships that can't run even a single APO. They don't have many Eng consoles, either. And you actually heavily nerfed any benefit they'd get from running an RCS console anyway.


As for inertia: true to some degree. But pretty much meaningless, since cruisers have all the abilities they need to tank through any such slide. And once you give them the ability to achieve better turnrates than anything else in the game, they will inevitably end up in the enemies' weak arcs, and at that point things turn into pure LOL. Yes, it takes longer to get there if you keep sliding - but in the end, the higher turnrate always wins out, if only for the ability to keep your cannons on target while the enemy's are ouf of arc.

Also: sliding is not necessarily bad. It can be used to your advantage, in fact: just make a powerslide that carries you away from your opponent, or past him, and turn to face him - perfect drive-by shooting, while Escorts actually have to move in the direction they're shooting.


Not that I'd not like more mobile cruisers and carriers, would be a lot more fun to fly around with ... but if you can't see that the lack of mobility is a balancing issue ...
Career Officer
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 544
# 20
09-01-2012, 12:31 PM
Not understanding why we should Nerf the Escort crowd in all of this..


Take a school bus, trick it out anyway you want and its still just a school bus on the obstacle course.

You'd be better off requesting for an "Emergency Turn" skill. Cruisers could afford to have a BO with the skill trained.
You know Cryptic has Jumped the Proverbial Shark when they introduced Tractor Pulling to Star Trek Online!

Last edited by gstamo01; 09-01-2012 at 12:33 PM.
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 07:34 PM.