Go Back   Star Trek Online > Feedback > Federation Shipyards
Login

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Career Officer
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 381
# 21
01-25-2013, 05:11 PM
Speculating on each other's nefarious motives does nothing to advance the conversation, guys.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jengoz View Post
Silly Rabbit, the Devs don't play the game. That's why they have no idea about the problems.
Captain
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 750
# 22
01-25-2013, 05:14 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by diogene0 View Post
And they also have incredible tanking abilities. This carrier obviously doesn't. This could explain why the inertia/turnrate is higher. I know it's a major complaint from people flying cruisers, they want DPS, tanking and maneuvrability, which won't be added in this game for obvious reasons.

BTW the original complaint comes from the compared sized of ships.
All I want is more maneuverability. Keep dps and tanking the same. Slightly higher maneuverability doesn't make a cruiser overpowered. Once uponm a time, back in February 2010, the Exploration cruiser had a turn rate of 5, and every other cruiser nad one less turn rate than they do now. After much complaining, turn rates were improved by one for all cruisers, though most players demanded they be increased by two. I'm just here to tell Cryptic that Fed cruisers still turn too slowly.

By the way, KDF cruisers have DPS, tanking and maneuverability. Fed escorts have DPS, tanking and maneuverability. I once watched a tactical captain in a heavy escort carrier tank an elite tactical cube, which is plenty of tank for an escort to have. Explain that. You're advocating that Fed cruisers remain weak compared to at least two other ship classes. Why?

All I'm asking for is + 1 turn rate. Why are you opposed to that? I can only deduce that you're pushing an agenda, rather than arguing from reason.
Captain
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 750
# 23
01-25-2013, 05:17 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by bloctoad View Post
Whatever agenda you attribute the "escort fanboy" your agenda is clearly that of raising the turn rate of cruisers. One must conclude you command a cruiser and in doing so are rather adamant regarding your agenda. Therefore, it is also safe to conclude you are a "cruiser fanboy" and your posts be viewed in such light. You continue to make such statements regarding other players while obfuscating your own proclivities.
My agenda is to improve balance. His agenda is to maintain imbalance in his favour.
Captain
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 622
# 24
01-25-2013, 05:20 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fulleatherjacket View Post
My agenda is to improve balance. His agenda is to maintain imbalance in his favour.
Conjecture.
All cloaks should be canon.
Captain
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,333
# 25
01-25-2013, 05:24 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by bloctoad View Post
Whatever agenda you attribute the "escort fanboy" your agenda is clearly that of raising the turn rate of cruisers. One must conclude you command a cruiser and in doing so are rather adamant regarding your agenda. Therefore, it is also safe to conclude you are a "cruiser fanboy" and your posts be viewed in such light. You continue to make such statements regarding other players while obfuscating your own proclivities.
Well, in his defense, it has been a little frustrating for Fed' cruiser captains to have their ships outmaneuvered out gunned(dps) and out-resisted (per point of hull) versus their typical opponent (KDF or Fed').

Unless a cruiser captain goes to the extremes, they pretty much only can rely on low damage Beam Arrays, single cannons and the sort to bounce off of enemy shields and hulls while hoping they can hold out with enough heals to bore their enemies to leaving them alone (usually ineffective).
Empire Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 6,757
# 26
01-25-2013, 05:29 PM
A buffed turn rate for cruisers, some more Tac BOff minded choices shipwise for both factions cruiserwise, a rebalnce of beam arrays so cruiser benefit from them as DHCs benefit escorts (science needs something though) and new BOff abilities would all be welcomed by me if, and only if, it keeps balance and the ideology of the respective factions in mind
Captain
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,333
# 27
01-25-2013, 05:34 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by bitemepwe View Post
A buffed turn rate for cruisers, some more Tac BOff minded choices shipwise for both factions cruiserwise, a rebalnce of beam arrays so cruiser benefit from them as DHCs benefit escorts (science needs something though) and new BOff abilities would all be welcomed by me if, and only if, it keeps balance and the ideology of the respective factions in mind
Roach, we are in total agreement. I do still argue that the KDF should still have problems dispensing coffee while cloaked
Empire Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 6,757
# 28
01-25-2013, 05:39 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by whamhammer1 View Post
Well, in his defense, it has been a little frustrating for Fed' cruiser captains to have their ships outmaneuvered out gunned(dps) and out-resisted (per point of hull) versus their typical opponent (KDF or Fed').

Unless a cruiser captain goes to the extremes, they pretty much only can rely on low damage Beam Arrays, single cannons and the sort to bounce off of enemy shields and hulls while hoping they can hold out with enough heals to bore their enemies to leaving them alone (usually ineffective).
Ive always seen that experience as more of alacking of choices on beam related BOff abilities.
Empire Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 2,202
# 29
01-25-2013, 05:40 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fulleatherjacket View Post
Okay, try to follow this train of logic:

He said playability is the issue. I did not suggest nerfing the dreadnought, so its playability would remain the same with my idea. Don't tell me he's simply thick in the head, and that he assumed I wanted to nerf the dreadnought's playability when I said nothing of the sort.

So whose playability is diogene0 referring to? Cruiser captains? He wants cruisers to remain as they are, so it's unlikely that he's suggesting a slightly higher turn rate would make cruiser playability worse. That would be asinine.

What does that leave him with? Escorts and science ships. He is afraid that a boost to the playability of Cruisers will threaten either one or both. I know he flies a Vesta which is a science/escort hybrid, and I doubt he wants the viability of that threatened by anything.

And also, he seems to think all cruisers should be doing is healing teams in pvp and little else, because "that's their role". As if an increased turn rate would ruin that role or the roles of the other ship classes.

Oh, looky. He thinks the best Fed cruiser is the one with a turn rate of 10 that isn't Fed at all.



I already have seen those posts, Roach. I had no intention of besmirching you unfairly. I only do it fairly, to guys like diogene0.
FYI I enjoy flying all ships, even those with a turnrate of 6 like my former Recluse. This was one of the best ships i'veever played with. In no way i feel "threatened" by cruiser pilots I'm just tired to see people complaining that the game isn't balanced when it's just a lack of piloting skills.

I mean, i'm not better than anyone here, and if i can do it well, anyone can.

Last edited by diogene0; 01-25-2013 at 05:44 PM.
Empire Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 6,757
# 30
01-25-2013, 05:41 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by whamhammer1 View Post
Roach, we are in total agreement. I do still argue that the KDF should still have problems dispensing coffee while cloaked
I still do, but a upcomming franchise buyin with Starbucks may solve it for us.
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 12:02 AM.