Captain
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 3,080
# 31
01-26-2013, 06:05 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by eulifdavis View Post
No, you have no idea what a tank is. Tanks are meant to absorb damage. Cruisers are best designed to fill this role by having high hull points and the ability to slot an absurd number of heals.

Escorts are damage dealers. Sure, they're not "glass cannons", but they can't take as much punishment as a cruiser can. An escort's forte is killing the enemy before the enemy kills them. To that end, they have high damage, and MEDIUM tanking abilities. A cruiser or science vessel pilot with half a brain will always out-tank even the best escort.
This i completely disagree with, as a tac captain with max hull capacity i find my fleet defiant at only a 10k hull str and 1-2k shld str difference over a tac oddy. Despite the oddy having more sci or eng capabilities, it only keeps you alive so long as your boffs or personal healing aren't on lengthy cd's. If escorts were to live up to their name, and not so much as how pwe makes them to be dps avoidance fighters with huge hull and shield capacity. Than starfleet wouldn't have fleets of capital ships, they would have fleets of escorts with capital ships as escorts in this mmo world. This game gives no example to star trek other than the name and ship appearances. So in retrospect my defiant is by far just as strong in hull and shield str as quite a few cruisers, with by far more dps to boot and less chance to be hit. I've mentioned many times that escorts need a drastic hull, and shld str nerf to make cruisers a more viable ship competitive wise when flying along side an escort. After all they are called escorts meaning they are there for support and not to be leading the pack by destroying everything solo.
Starfleet Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,616
# 32
01-26-2013, 08:00 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by bitemepwe View Post
So we will all fly Cruisers under these ideas firing Super Beam arrays broadsides as there will be no need for Escorts in STO.

Yet the ******** will remain because nothing would have been fixed, just more unbalance for a poorly balanced game.

We need a fix, not a further nuetering of another aspect of the game.
Actualy my intent was to leave the drain mechanic alone mostly. Just a minor adjustment since I think a beam array should require a longer recharge period.

I was thinking of beam arrays as artillary. Capeable of massive damage but only firing afew shots at a time. They already have a longer effective range than cannons so why not make use of it.

And again if you notice my suggested heavy arrays suffer more power drain per shot than a DHC and still only do standard beam array dps, meaning that instead of 4 shots in a cycle you only get 2. So a miss would half your damage.

And again these werent specificaly targeted at cruisers, I just postulated that cruisers would brobably get the lions share of the benifit. But I also believe that even with the flat boost these weapons would give there would be no way to out dps an escort due to the efficiency of DHC's, you would just be prety good at knocking things around.

Basicaly a ship armed with heavy arrays would circle the battle firing spike damage into the enemy drawing attention while the ships armed with cannons could take advantage of the sudden shield loss and chew the hull to bits with their cannons.

Not much different from a torpedo boat just more effective against shields and easier to employ.
Actualy reading things pefore posting will make you look smarter than yelling loudly. Reading comprehension is aparently a lost art.

Not everything you see on the internet is true - Abriham Lincoln
Starfleet Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,616
# 33
01-26-2013, 08:08 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by bitemepwe View Post
And I feel that fix involves fixing Beam Arrays so they do not bottom out in power levels when fired repeatedly and adding beam based CRF style BOffpowers from ensign to Ltc for Tac BOffs.Without the sudden power loss effecting BAs and a CRF style power up to Tier 3, add in all the other ingame choices to help cruisers boost power, maintain power or other wise nullify the drain you end up with a cruiser firing beams faster they they do now buffed by a BOff ability that emulates how DHCs work yet do the damage by a thousand cuts instead of a few heavy sledgehammer blows.
Even Science and especially Engineers will find it a welcome change to how poorly things are now given thier captain abilities.
Hell, it would even work on all existing cruisers given that some do have LTC BOff slots.

True, STO would still have many issues left to overcome but Cruiser captains would enjoy better damage based gameplay

The <self edited> bleeding style crying may still remain.
I'm afraid I disagree here. And my disagrement is more on a technical basis.

When we see a beam array fire theer is a noticeable build up in power along the leangth of the array (galaxy lovers bring this up constantly), this leads to the conclusion that there is a charge cycle happening and energy is being built up prior to release. Suggestiong that the beam is carrying more charged particle energy toward its target.

While a cannon has a verry short charge up time per cycle, suggesting that either the energy is pre cached in a capacitor bank or that it is firing lower energy shots at a higher density.

So a beam set to rapid fire would not have sufficient time to build a proper charge and would therefor do less damage.

Not saying it would matter in gameplay, lots of things dont, just saying it doesnt seem to fit the overall weapons purpose.
Actualy reading things pefore posting will make you look smarter than yelling loudly. Reading comprehension is aparently a lost art.

Not everything you see on the internet is true - Abriham Lincoln
Empire Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 6,757
# 34
01-26-2013, 09:57 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by disposeableh3r0 View Post
I'm afraid I disagree here. And my disagrement is more on a technical basis.

When we see a beam array fire theer is a noticeable build up in power along the leangth of the array (galaxy lovers bring this up constantly), this leads to the conclusion that there is a charge cycle happening and energy is being built up prior to release. Suggestiong that the beam is carrying more charged particle energy toward its target.

While a cannon has a verry short charge up time per cycle, suggesting that either the energy is pre cached in a capacitor bank or that it is firing lower energy shots at a higher density.

So a beam set to rapid fire would not have sufficient time to build a proper charge and would therefor do less damage.

Not saying it would matter in gameplay, lots of things dont, just saying it doesnt seem to fit the overall weapons purpose.
Irelevant what we saw in the shows or movies on how Beams arrays strips or cannon works. The game mechanics of drain is why beams suck . They have no "rest" period in thier firing cycle to recoop lost power like DHCs hence they need thier drain value changed to something more effficient to simulate that rest period without changing thier firing cycle.
Add a Rapid fire BOff ability to give them a similiar mechanic that makes cannons so effective and the problem solved.
Empire Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 6,757
# 35
01-26-2013, 10:04 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by disposeableh3r0 View Post
Actualy my intent was to leave the drain mechanic alone mostly. Just a minor adjustment since I think a beam array should require a longer recharge period.

I was thinking of beam arrays as artillary. Capeable of massive damage but only firing afew shots at a time. They already have a longer effective range than cannons so why not make use of it.

And again if you notice my suggested heavy arrays suffer more power drain per shot than a DHC and still only do standard beam array dps, meaning that instead of 4 shots in a cycle you only get 2. So a miss would half your damage.

And again these werent specificaly targeted at cruisers, I just postulated that cruisers would brobably get the lions share of the benifit. But I also believe that even with the flat boost these weapons would give there would be no way to out dps an escort due to the efficiency of DHC's, you would just be prety good at knocking things around.

Basicaly a ship armed with heavy arrays would circle the battle firing spike damage into the enemy drawing attention while the ships armed with cannons could take advantage of the sudden shield loss and chew the hull to bits with their cannons.

Not much different from a torpedo boat just more effective against shields and easier to employ.
What you described is a beam version of a DHC with a 250 degree firing arc. With such a weapon in play having high damage, wide overlapping firing arcs for the broadside and the efficiency of a DHC to maintain high power makes Escorts pointless, DHCS pointless.

Why have an escort who must be pointed at thier target when one can fly a cruiser and do the same without the worry of manueverability being an issue.
Starfleet Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 742
# 36
01-26-2013, 10:11 PM
I just want my torpedoes with tribble warheads for anti-klink warfare. Is that so much to ask?
http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/image.php?type=sigpic&userid=91851990000&dateline=  1341951426
Starfleet Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 283
# 37
01-26-2013, 10:12 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by sonulinu2 View Post
This +1.

In addition, OP only lightly touches on turn rate, which is far more important than many in this thread have so far discussed. Sure cruisers have a large firing arc to compensate, but the truth is you cant sustain broadside for more than a second or two against an escort with such high maneuverability. Evasive man will help but it has a long CD, given the choice of other devices most cruisers won't carry engine batteries, and APO, not to mention some space sets, give even more evasion to escorts. So 6, 7 or even 8 BA is a joke because most times its only the fore or aft beams that sustain fire for any significant period of time (unless you're talking non/slow moving borg). And please, TB and GW don't hold any decently piloted escorts.

IMHO cruisers need love in the following areas:
1. DPS output of beams, either through a heavy ba, faster firing, straight increase, etc.
2. Power Drain is too high and has been covered by the above post.
3. Turn Rate - discussed in para above.
4. Better tanking and healing skills (for others not self). +Th Consoles help but where are the Field Gen +Th? The new +Th Doffs are nice but, to equip them means cruisers lose out on other Doff options just so they have a chance to inch out the threat an escort puts out, who has 5 doffs fully utilized for it's purpose of max dps. Show me a cruiser that uses 3 or even 2 +Th Doffs and I'll show you a cruiser that is not optimally built.
Ummmm.... What's a "+Th Doffs" mean????
Empire Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 5,327
# 38
01-26-2013, 10:28 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by redheadguy View Post
Ummmm.... What's a "+Th Doffs" mean????
The '+Th DOFFs' he is referring to is the new DOFF that affects Attack Pattern Delta, which adds 100% more threat generation to the target of APD. You can stack upto 3 of these DOFFs as well.

Career Officer
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 5,425
# 39
01-26-2013, 10:39 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by azurianstar View Post
That pretty much died with Season 5, when they completely changed abilities. Right now, DPS is more important, and people know it. That's why the majority of people are flying Tac-Heavy ships or ships with high DPS capability.

And in PvE, there is no need for a "tank". A smart escort team can easily defeat an opponent in a few seconds, or in longer fights like with Tac Cube in gaining high amounts of aggro (without even the use of threat skills), and simply get out of range, while the others attack with immunity.

Which nicely goes back to the OP's point, that DPS is king. Nobody want's Cruisers or Science ships (except the Vesta), STO is all about the DPS.
And the problem here is threat mechanics and aggro design.

I run 4 threat reduction consoles on an escort. I always fire four seconds after the cruisers initiate. It should not be POSSIBLE for me to pull aggro in that scenario without substantially outgearing them or one of us pausing. But I do.

Escorts should not be good at aggro control.

What they need to do, from what I'm seeing, is this:

Adjust threat mechanics to scale by ship type meaningfully.

Decrease escorts' durability and damage when they have aggro. Increase escorts' durability and damage when they don't have aggro.

Increase cruisers' durability and damage when they have aggro. Decrease cruisers' durability and damage when they don't have aggro.
Starfleet Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,616
# 40
01-26-2013, 10:54 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by bitemepwe View Post
What you described is a beam version of a DHC with a 250 degree firing arc. With such a weapon in play having high damage, wide overlapping firing arcs for the broadside and the efficiency of a DHC to maintain high power makes Escorts pointless, DHCS pointless.

Why have an escort who must be pointed at thier target when one can fly a cruiser and do the same without the worry of manueverability being an issue.
Not if the innate dps and therefor firing rate is so low. Thats like saying torpedos make DHC's useless.

And I do agree power drain needs looked at, but what im suggesting is that even if they fix it firing multiple heavy arrays in a broad side should still drain enough power to reduce their effectiveness, and without a proper build specificaly set up to mitigate that drain there shouldn't be too many people spamming 6 heavy beam arrays. Add to that fewer shots per cycle and the defence stat and I doubt you would see a multi heavy beam ship out dpsing an escort.

Part of my suggested weapon design and balance is that beam arrays should have less efficient power useage, it's the trade off for the huge arc and (at least for heavy arrays) high spike damage potential.




---------------------

I'd also like to point out to every one that I was never arguing for or against the percieved inequities in ship classes, and that my OP was never about a specific or non specific ship type.

I was talking about weapons, and only weapons. And so far most of the feed back is just "Your idead is bad because it conflicts with what I think." and almost no one has posed a constructive argument refering to weapons specificaly.
Actualy reading things pefore posting will make you look smarter than yelling loudly. Reading comprehension is aparently a lost art.

Not everything you see on the internet is true - Abriham Lincoln

Last edited by disposeableh3r0; 01-26-2013 at 11:02 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 08:26 AM.