Captain
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 2,297
# 181
10-04-2012, 02:52 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by adamkafei View Post
Does that mean there is a chance for the age of escort domination to come to an end at some point?
I have been playing for nearly two years and I will tell you one thing.

STO is a game of cycles.

Yes, I believe that we are in the "escort-age" and do you want to know why?

PvP is struggling. Cryptic is desperate to capture the interest of the MMO market. And most kids just love to blow things up, and escorts provide that attraction more than cruisers or sci ships at the moment in my opinion.

I have 2x science captains (Atrox, Voqov), 2x engineer captains (Oddy, Bort), and 2x tactical captains (MVAM, Jemmy). Depending on the team I am with, I decide which ship to use. Each ship does its job very well.

I can say one thing from experience as a cruiser captain. I always loose the match when I am focused soley on dps and not on supporting my team. When I support my team, we rarely loose.

Last edited by drkfrontiers; 10-04-2012 at 02:58 PM.
Captain
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 3,274
# 182
10-04-2012, 03:02 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by drkfrontiers View Post
I have been playing for nearly two years and I will tell you one thing.

STO is a game of cycles.

Yes, I believe that we are in the "escort-age" and do you want to know why?

PvP is struggling. Cryptic is desperate to capture the interest of he MMO market. And most kids just love to blow things up, and escorts provide that attraction more than cruisers or sci ships at the moment in my opinion.

I have 2x science captains (Atrox, Voqov), 2x engineer captains (Oddy, Bort), and 2x tactical captains (MVAM, Jemmy). Depending on the team I am with, I decide which ship to use. Each ship does its job very well.

I can say one thing from experience as a cruiser captain. I always loose the match when I am focused in dps and not on supporting my team. When I support my team, we rarely loose.
Well I run 1 of each I run my sci in a DSSV (healboat, polaron and a little CC: GW and TR), Engi Excelsior (tries for a little of everything (as that's my play style)) and tac (Patrol escort, excelsior (same build as the engi) and MVAE) I chose my what I am working with which profession I need and then if I land tac I have to decide what hole I need to fll
Captain
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 598
# 183
10-04-2012, 03:26 PM
There reason why the cruiser concept in this game is muddled because the game was not created by those who study war, obviously. You don't have to be a soldier or veteran to google or go to the library to research war machines and their purpose. Cruisers and battleships were not built to just take punishment and not dish it out. They had the most type of firepower than any other war machine in the world. They could not only fight ship to ship and sink eachother, but engage aircraft, and provide fire support for ground troops several miles inland.

This "tank" idea from other MMO games is a big contradiction to what a tank is. A tank is the most feared ground machine on the battlefield in the world because it is hard to kill and it can kill any troop, light armored, medium armored, all the way up to another tank. This idea of tanking and not being able to fight back is a ridiculous idea for a multiplayer game because there is no reward for taking hits and healing, but there is rewards for the most damage and kills. Just play some Fleet action missions and you will see that the most kills get the best end game drops. Tank players lose out on this when they are playing alongside many escort players because escorts easily kills. If you think this is a fair way of rewarding players, then you are totally blind.

Last edited by alexindcobra; 10-04-2012 at 03:57 PM.
Captain
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,360
# 184
10-04-2012, 03:40 PM
The idea with cannons (in star trek, anyway) is that they're so unwieldy that they're only practical on a ship that can bring them to bear with its own maneuverability. Now, if you want a new energy weapon for broadside cruisers that carries a big penalty in exchange for big damage, that might be a worthy argument, but the idea of cruisers being maneuverable enough to make fixed cannons viable is just silly.
Captain
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 598
# 185
10-04-2012, 03:56 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by drkfrontiers View Post
I have been playing for nearly two years and I will tell you one thing.

STO is a game of cycles.

Yes, I believe that we are in the "escort-age" and do you want to know why?

PvP is struggling. Cryptic is desperate to capture the interest of the MMO market. And most kids just love to blow things up, and escorts provide that attraction more than cruisers or sci ships at the moment in my opinion.

I have 2x science captains (Atrox, Voqov), 2x engineer captains (Oddy, Bort), and 2x tactical captains (MVAM, Jemmy). Depending on the team I am with, I decide which ship to use. Each ship does its job very well.

I can say one thing from experience as a cruiser captain. I always loose the match when I am focused soley on dps and not on supporting my team. When I support my team, we rarely loose.
This happens because PUG teams get more players tthat are stranger to eachother and don't know eachother enough to trust working together. Many cases they don't even communicate, just be the first to fly off in their own direction. Most matchs with the PUG teams vs the established team have the established team winning all the time. Its destroying PVP because the established teams have their ships, skills, and tactics so fine tuned that they mop the floor with other newly put together teams, and it's cause new players to lose morale for PVP because they will never win. This is why the PVP population is at an all-time low.

To bring life back to PVP, the Dev need: 1) balance the firepower of ships so one type of ship doesn't dominate PVP. 2) They need to change the scenarios for PVP, making Capture and Hold more of a destroy and defend. Instead of siting in one spot to waiting for an emblem to change you set up a station that the other side has to destroy while trying to fighting you. People are more interersted in fighting than taking over checkpoints. 3) Make things in PVP to where teams can't spawn kill eachother by making the station weapons actual hardpoints tha can't be destroy and have real devistation against player ships. Randomize where teams will spaw so the victor team can't sit on a spawn point and kill everything that pops up. 4) Finally, change these old stale maps to something new. They have been using most of these maps since launch, and players are bored of it.
Captain
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 3,136
# 186
10-04-2012, 04:11 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by alexindcobra View Post
Leave it to someone like yourself who doesn't know bullistics, to tell me what guns will do and won't do. I shot many calibur weapons for 13 years because it was my job. Not only did I shoot them but had to know the mechanics of the weapon, affecective ranges and damage done by these weapons. I shot 5.56, 7.62, 9mm, 50 Cal., 25mm, 30mm, 40mm, and 120mm. I ran ranges and did battle damage assesments in the US and in Iraq. If it has anything to do with grunts and tankers, I did it. The planes are armed with 30mm machine guns in those days. The size of one round is as thick as 3 of your fingers together will make a hole in 12 inch thick aluminum armor of a M113, large enough to put you head through it. That's a light, medium armored army vehicle, so imagine the round going through a thiner skin plane with wind speeds 200-300 mph. If the holes don't split your wings, the wind will finish the job. Fighter planes's structure can't stand the 300 mph wind pressure after it's structure beams have been split by 30mm bullets. The planes will decentergrate after the pressure, so if you think those guns can't destroy planes, you are sadly mistaken.

I don't think taking some of the turn rate from the escort will solve the problem because there ships like the Galaxy types that are at the bottom rung of the turn rate latter. We players has been asking for a turn rate boost for the Galaxy types since the game's launch, yet the Devs don't think we need one. I sight balancing the weapons as a better way to even the playing field without making all the ships totally identical in performance.
yeah you made exactly my point...the fighter planes had bigger caliber guns than the bombers atleast those mounted on turrets...and bigger caliber means greater range.
and some parts of the plane (plates behind the pilots seat for instance) could withstand those smaller calibers actually.
and yes, what i wrote was, that when fired upon, fighters had to break off their attack...and if hit, they had to break off completely the attack. But being hit does not mean shot down.
anyway, i have no intention to derail this thread, since i know already you are a strong opinionated person. So i'll just leave it at that.

But you should read this from the section "the 8th AF" until "Bombing japan" (somewhere below the middle) to learn that the heavy armaments on the bombers were proven only semi usefull and to some extend a disadvantage.
Go pro or go home
Captain
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 598
# 187
10-04-2012, 04:20 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by hanover2 View Post
The idea with cannons (in star trek, anyway) is that they're so unwieldy that they're only practical on a ship that can bring them to bear with its own maneuverability. Now, if you want a new energy weapon for broadside cruisers that carries a big penalty in exchange for big damage, that might be a worthy argument, but the idea of cruisers being maneuverable enough to make fixed cannons viable is just silly.
I'm not the one asking for cannons to be put on crusiers because the effect will make the game look more Star Wars like than Star Trek. This game is already drifting to match other Sci-Fi lore because many of the canon escorts are not supposted to be armed with cannons, only the Defiant class. With ships flying around as fast as small fighterships and firing reapeating energy cannons, it can be argued that STO is copying Star Wars or some other space based Sci-Fi show. I am asking for beam power to match the cannons or come close to it because that's all we have as enegy weapons for cruisers.
Captain
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 598
# 188
10-04-2012, 04:51 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by baudl View Post
yeah you made exactly my point...the fighter planes had bigger caliber guns than the bombers atleast those mounted on turrets...and bigger caliber means greater range.
and some parts of the plane (plates behind the pilots seat for instance) could withstand those smaller calibers actually.
and yes, what i wrote was, that when fired upon, fighters had to break off their attack...and if hit, they had to break off completely the attack. But being hit does not mean shot down.
anyway, i have no intention to derail this thread, since i know already you are a strong opinionated person. So i'll just leave it at that.

But you should read this from the section "the 8th AF" until "Bombing japan" (somewhere below the middle) to learn that the heavy armaments on the bombers were proven only semi usefull and to some extend a disadvantage.
I did not make your point because those turrets on the bombers were made to shoot holes in other planes. They are .50 calibur or machine guns. The pilots wore flak vest that doesn't stop bullets and will minimize wounds from shrapnel from flak. You can look up flak for yourself. The plate in front of the pilot was made to stop flak and will only stop 9 mil, through 7.62. Nothing is stopping .50 cal rounds but tank armor, and there are no such planes flying around, even today with that kind of armor. Bombers never went one on one with fighter planes, there were always groups of fighters to take on bombers. The fighters didn't have avionics so they had to fire from close distance while straight on to target, and risk getting killed by the the machine gun turrets. Since you are so ignorant on the supbject, I suggest you get off your lazyboy chair, and go to the library read the books on this subject, go to your Military Day events, or go to a museum where there are WWII fighter planes and bombers and asked veterants who operated these things. Better yet, join the military and you will have all the access to this information and more, as long as you're not a criminal.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 216
# 189
10-04-2012, 09:48 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by bitemepwe View Post
Then let me reply bluntly.

Most of the ideas in this thread and the many others like it are not geared to do what you say is the wish of the Cruiser crowd, not infringing on the Escort.
Thier have been ideas that the Cruiser needs buffing, the Engineer class needs buffing, the Science class needs buffing, the Tactical class need debuffing, Escorts need debuffing, etc etc.

No one has really given any simple and conclusive ideas that would make the cruiser crowd happy that doesn't infringe on the Tactical/Escort and fixes the perception that the Cruisers suck in the mind of the average Cruiser player.

To close that gap between Cruiser and Escort performance to a level that the average, unexperienced player finds adequite does remove the Escort viability as the primary Damage Dealing class of vessel in the game and if that happens why would anyone play a tac/Escort?

Why would anyone want to play a Tac/Escort or escort period if the choice of going cruiser nets you only a slight loss in total damage output of less than say even 1500 points total? Why would anyone choose the lesser survivable vessel?

Why would anyone want to play a Tac/Escort if teh Cruisers are bumped in turn rate and have thier enertia changed to make them more nimble in combat? Who would not choose the Cruiser for a loss of a little turn rate, gaining near Escort damage capability and the greater tanking?

Why would someone not choose the idea of new buffed beam arrays on thier existing cruiser if they do damage equal to a DHCs and have that wonderful 270 degree firing arc? You would have all the tankiness of a Crusier with Escort damage output and no need to really have to manuever to keep weapons on target.

I'm not saying that the Cruiser may need something to make them feel betetr in play or that the Engineer class needs something to ake them more fun to play or that Science is in the same boat.
As a game Developer Cryptic needs to make sure all their game aspects are fun to play to some extent but the bulk of the ideas offered up in the forums does that at the expense of the tactical/Escort class and will have us back here again in the forums debating the " Escorts need a buff" threads in 6 months and furthering ignoring the true fix for fan driven perceptions of how a vessel should play as oppossed to a game viewpoint of how they are designed to be played.
This is just like the 31/31/31 arguments against Paladins in WoW.

If a Cruiser is loaded to the gills with DPS abilities, they lose most of their tanking abilities.
Not all true, but most. Due to the increased number of Engineering BOff ability openings when compared to an Escorts.

Even if they give Cruisers a more flexible BOff layout allowing greater access to Tactical abilities it won't change much in the way of their damage output due to the design of FAW and BO. I wouldn't recommend cannons for Cruisers as a way of increasing damage, let the Escorts keep their Defiant styled weapons.

Again, increasing the turn rate and changing the inertia is not going to put us over the top or anywhere near the mobility of Escorts. You act as if we want a mid teens turn rate.
For the largest ships Fed side we aren't even asking for a 9, we are asking for an 8 tops.

When tweaking numbers you don't tweak based on the average or poor players performance. You tweak or create based on its maximum potential.
So when I say I think that gap should be smaller, I mean smaller when played by competent players closest towards its best performance. Right now that gap is 83%+ for Escorts when played by players of equal skill.

Bumping that to close the gap to something closer to 38%-42% for Enginner/Science piloted Cruisers. I believe for Tac Captains in a Cruiser that difference would be something closer to a 20%-24% difference for Tac Captains. And there wouldn't be a very large increase in durability for the Tac Captain over the Escorts because the abilities of the BOffs would all be geared towards damage and not survivability.

Quote:
To close that gap between Cruiser and Escort performance to a level that the average, unexperienced player finds adequite does remove the Escort viability as the primary Damage Dealing class of vessel in the game and if that happens why would anyone play a tac/Escort?

Why would anyone want to play a Tac/Escort or escort period if the choice of going cruiser nets you only a slight loss in total damage output of less than say even 1500 points total? Why would anyone choose the lesser survivable vessel?
Why did players choose to play anything other than a Warrior for melee dps in WoW?
Why did players choose to play anything other than a Priest for healing in WoW?
Why did players choose to play anything other than a Mage for ranged dps in WoW?
Captain
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,280
# 190
10-04-2012, 10:07 PM
Or they could simply make beams and cannons different by:

Beams: Accuracy Bonus
Cannon: Resistance Penetration (ignore x% of target resist)

would work out well and help to counter the extreme defense or shield resists that are beginning to run rampant.
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 02:01 PM.