Go Back   Star Trek Online > Feedback > Federation Shipyards
Login

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Starfleet Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 866
# 21
09-27-2012, 10:42 AM
Well, teleon, it not that i have serious problems with it either.
For most fight i do fine, but it when you fall against the best pvp player, that where you see the current design limitation of the ship.
There is noob, average players, good players, very good players and then what i call elite players.
It again that last categorie that i clearly feel the limitation, not in my skillpoint layout, my BO layout or my piloting skill, but in the general design of the ship.
You realize that whatever you would have done in your strategy, there is nothing that you would have done better, that would allow you to beat the guy.
Note that i don't speak about team play because here it is just not your build, strategy or piloting skill that enter in the balance, but those of an entire team so it difficult to be sure that there is something wrong with your build or whatever in these kind of fight.
And it not about absolutly win either, i don't pretend to be the best pvper in the game, it just that i feel that against those players, my performance could have been better than what ultimatly the ship force me to delivers.

here is one of the build that i would use with the fleet versio.
I have one for beam and one for canon

Bridge officer plan:
TT1/ BO2
BO1/ APD
EPTS1/ AUXTO DAMP/ EPTS3/ AUXTO SIF3
ENGI TEAM1/ RSP1/ WARP PLASMA1
TSS1

2 con officer for the 15sec reduction timer of tact team
2 brace for impact
1 warp core engi

Consoles
Borg/point system defense/cloack/ manifoldmk12 or grapplin
2 field generator
4 mk12 phaser console

Weapons
1 DBB phaser acc3/ 2 beam acc3/ 1harpeng
4 beam array acc3

This combine to my tact captain power allow me to delivers relativly good dps for a beam build.
1 BO and TACT TEAM every 15 sec, APD to enhance damage and resistance.
Put in maco deflector and shield with borg engine to have the hull proc ( yes i have realize that the borgs shield proc have been directly and indirectly nerfed too much with S5).
I will make an other post for the canon build that i would love to test with the fleet version.
Starfleet Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 866
# 22 canon build
09-28-2012, 09:11 AM
for the canon build it pretty straight foward
just the tact BO power change:

TT1/ CRF1
TT1/ CRF1
the rest same as previous build

duty officer:
2 brace for impact and 3 warp core

weapons:
3 single canon acc3 and 1 harpeng
4 turret acc3

that is the kind of build i would like to fully test and see if it daes more damage than the beam build for this particular ship
Starfleet Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 866
# 23
01-01-2013, 10:15 AM
ok, sorry to bump this tread but i will not create an other and explain everything again.
i just wanted to post here a new idea that came up for a redesign of dreadnought setup according to it tactical orientation.

this only concern the BO change, indeed the previous idea was good but not the best ( in my opinion ) to adress the firepwer option and was also reducing too much the healing capabilities.i will not touch the other aspect of my previous build as they still stand correct.

so remember the old proposal who was, a second lieutenant tactical bo ( to get a real canon build ) and the removal of the lieutenant science BO slot wich leave us with only 1 ensign science.

as i said that was a compromise, and indeed it was...but just too much.

so here my new idea

a lt commander tactical bo ( only 1 tactical bo slot )
and 2 science ensign bo slot ( 2 science bo slot )

so the dreadnought will at last get it lt commander slot to have more firepower both in beam build or canon build, and will not loose too much healing capabiitie and option in science department

so to resume the BO setup:

1 lt commander tatical
1 commander engeneer
1 lt commander engeneer
1 ensign science
1 ensign science

and that it, here i am sastisfy ( i can now keep my tractor beam and use 1 shield heal in science, even if it loose efficiency on it ).
and beam build will have acces to BO3, and canon build will have a chance to deal more damage than rapidfire 1.
Survivor of Romulus
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 165
# 24
01-01-2013, 11:47 AM
I think the ship suffers from two things, it is too engineering heavy and has a low base turn rate.

So I propose downgrading the Lt. Cmd. Engineering down to Ensign but then upgrade the ships Lt. Slots of tactical and science to Lt. Cmd. Making it:

Lt. Cmd: Tactical
Ensign: Tactical
Cmd. Engineering
Ensign: Engineering
Lt. Cmd. Science

Power level bonuses could remain the same, same could go for inertia, I think the inertia issue would resolve itself when a saucer separation comes available.

The Galaxy X would still remain somewhat slow but at the same time powerful and versatile.
Commander
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 459
# 25
01-01-2013, 12:46 PM
Nothing significant will be changed...it will have it's shield modifier and hull increased by 10% and that's it.


U.S.S. Mary Celeste

Last edited by nikephorus; 01-01-2013 at 12:48 PM.
Commander
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 278
# 26
01-02-2013, 07:49 AM
Personally my main gripe with the Dreadnought Cruiser is that it's so ugly; if anything the venture class looks even worse than the Galaxy class. Okay, so the Galaxy class is an iconic design, but it doesn't look so great next to the sleeker, more modern looking cruisers.
I think it's okay spec-wise, but I won't get one for the appearance alone.


That said, it could do with some way of bringing forward weapons to bear more easily. Personally I think a turn rate buff wouldn't fit, but one alternative could be to give it +10 degrees to all firing arcs; this would very slightly widen the arcs for all weapons, allowing it to fire forward weapons that bit more easily, though the lance should probably remain at a fixed 45 degrees.


I'd also like to see a version with a unique console; personally I'm not sure of the value of the cloaking device on this ship, something that could boost power levels under fire could be interesting, like a capacitor that absorbs a tiny portion of weapons fire and dump it into your power system. Could even boost the lance somehow? I dunno.

I do think the lack of a Commander console for tactical is a bit strange, personally I'd downgrade the lt. commander officer so the tactical can be boosted to commander.

Another interesting fix could be to give the Dreadnought an extra forward weapon slot. This would allow it to be a true beam power-house, or allow you to justify taking advantage of the ability to mount cannons while still maintaining a solid broadside.

Last edited by haravikk; 01-02-2013 at 09:02 AM.
Starfleet Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 866
# 27
01-02-2013, 11:38 AM
Quote:
Nothing significant will be changed...it will have it's shield modifier and hull increased by 10% and that's it.
yes, there is a high propability that it happen like this, and there is an even higher probalility that no fleet galaxy x version come out too.
Commander
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 459
# 28
01-02-2013, 01:44 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by neo1nx View Post
yes, there is a high propability that it happen like this, and there is an even higher probalility that no fleet galaxy x version come out too.
I'm fairly certain they will put out a fleet version since its a chance for Cryptic to earn more money by selling those fleet ship modules. They will get to charge 5 since it has the lance build in, just like the fleet excelsior with its built in transwarp. I just don't see them doing any changes to the ship.

Don't get me wrong...I wish they would "fix" this ship. It's suppose to be a dreadnought, a pillar of firepower, yet has a gimped bridge officer layout that doesn't allow for much in the way of tactical skills. It can mount dual heavy cannons, but doesn't have the turn rate or tac layout to support them, making the ability pointless. As it is right now it's not a very good ship, it's got a couple fun toys in the lance and cloak, but other then that there are many better choices if you want to fly a cruiser.


U.S.S. Mary Celeste
Starfleet Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 866
# 29
01-02-2013, 04:11 PM
Quote:
Don't get me wrong...I wish they would "fix" this ship. It's suppose to be a dreadnought, a pillar of firepower, yet has a gimped bridge officer layout that doesn't allow for much in the way of tactical skills. It can mount dual heavy cannons, but doesn't have the turn rate or tac layout to support them, making the ability pointless. As it is right now it's not a very good ship, it's got a couple fun toys in the lance and cloak, but other then that there are many better choices if you want to fly a cruiser.
i COMPLETELY agree with you on that, hence my proposal for new bo layout/power level and turn rate, because i don't want to make it a breen ship who turn like an escort and....wait, WHO IS AN ESCORT with a cruiser hull and shield.
i really bielieve that the changes i propose would change this ship enought to change the gameplay experience with it.
it don't need +15 to turn rate, it don't need 3 lt commander tact slot, 16 weapons slot in front like some would like too, no... just a little and calculated buff in all of these will make it more coherent.
i don't need a breen clone with lance, because i don't want to loose the tanking abilitie of the engi BO ( any of them ).
and there really no need, i like the fact that it is a slow ship, it give majesty to it, but just not THAT slow, damnit.
at the origin this ship was not made for war,the base ship was a galaxy class who have been afterward refit for war.
so you just can't transform it in a warship like the breen ship, it must remain closer to a cruiser than to a warship.
i think the changes i propose do just that, it will be more tactical oriented but still not what we can call a warship.

i known that my attemp to bring this to the devs eyes is somehow pointless, because they are other variant than just balancing this ship, that many player have already buy, working on this and gain no money for it? not in the best interest of the game developers.

but i have to, because even if the changes never happened i could not blame myself for not trying.
and the best way to convinced them to change the way i wanted them to change is to have a constructive, logical, coherent and justify build.
when the ship is rebuild you can said that it will have a reason to exist other than just be a icon ship, in pve AND pvp.
you will be able to clearly dicerned it role, to resume, i want a balanced ship gear toward tactical i would get the regent, if i wanted a tactical one more focused on tanking i will choose the odyssey, but if i want to make the most damage at the expense of survivabiliti i will choose the galaxy x ( hehe and even if that sound just like what it is right now...bielieve me it is not ).
by doing this, i hope the dev will realize that giving the dreadnought a real purpose could raise the selling of this ship and and changes the overall gameplay experience of pve and pvp, because there will be a "new" ship in the game, not a ship that most of us buy and then let it gather dust in the garage.

but in the end even if they made us paid 5 fleet ship module to have a fleet version it will be better than nothing, and i will buy them for sure.
Community Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 4,461
# 30 Closing Necro Thread
01-03-2013, 02:09 PM
Just a reminder... bumping threads is spamming under the forum rules, and it's especially frowned on when a thread has been inactive for 30 days or more.

If you want to continue a "dead" topic, you should start a new thread and you can link back to specific posts in older threads if you want to reference something said previously.

Please remember to check the dates of threads; and if you find an old thread which violates the PWE Community Rules and Policies just report it and avoid posting in it per the Temporal Prime Directive.

Please bear in mind that re-posting in "necro'd" threads is considered a form of spamming.

Note that you're more than welcome to start a new thread (unless there is an existing thread on the topic that has received a post within the last 30 days, in which case you can just continue to post in that thread)!

Live Long and Prosper,
Bluegeek
Volunteer Community Moderator for the Star Trek Online forums -- My views may not represent those of Cryptic Studios or Perfect World Entertainment. If you wish to speak to someone on the community team, file a "forums and website" support ticket here, as we are not able to respond to PMs regarding moderation inquiries.
Link: How to PM - Twitter @STOMod_Bluegeek
Closed Thread

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 06:30 AM.