Starfleet Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,231
# 21
02-08-2013, 01:29 AM
Its not that they are too powerful, its that cruisers are boooooring
Federation Bushrangers
Federation & Imperial Bushrangers
Looking for an Australian/New Zealand fleet?
Sign up here:
www.bushrangers.net
Empire Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 236
# 22
02-08-2013, 01:30 AM
I disagree.

Escorts are not in anyway OP. It very much depends on the captain, the build and how the captain wants to play it.

The problem is there're many cruiser/sci captains who want to be an escort, instead of focusing on their strengths, they want to be something else.

While its true, DPS is glorious and its nice to see the dmg numbers and crits and the way some of the missions are skewed towards DPS, cruisers or science ships can be deadly when used properly.

For example, I fought against a galaxy-R on 1v1 recently, and I can't make a dent on his defenses and whenever I managed to take out half of his HP, he recovers very quickly. The match lasted a good 30 mins, before we both decided to stop. In consolation, he wasn't able to kill me too. However, on one occasion he nearly got me and I was only saved by my impulse capacitance console.

Similarly, a well played science ships are also very deadly. They can perma-confuse, drain, and kill you easily once your engines are disabled and weapons gone and shields down. Photonic fleet is also very irritatiing and annoying.

I think Cryptic did a good job balancing the ships.

If you examine very closely on the skills available, there're many skills are designed to be used in conjunction with other skills. E.g. EptA with HE/TSS/AuxSiF/AuxID. Then there's AuxtoBatt with BO/FAW and basically many more creative combination that involves battery consumables.

I feel that the issue is players are terrible at micromanaging their skill tree - they stick to easy skills like Eng Team 1, Eng Team 2, Eng Team 3 for example.

I flew a cruiser recently, with EptW and AuxtoBatt, FAW and BO is very deadly!
Captain
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 537
# 23
02-08-2013, 01:34 AM
Though I must ask, is it me or did they make the enemies in fleet missions tougher?
Lieutenant
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 99
# 24
02-08-2013, 01:38 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by disposeableh3r0 View Post
But the problem is we are to far beyond canon to apply it. It would require a redesign of the entire game.

And canon, as you mentioned, has a nasty habit of contradicting itself when ever some wrighter needs to create drama. So if all we used was canon, you would still have people complaining that their ship did/didn't do somthing in the show and why is it it can't/can do it in the game.

For the most part this game does not support a "captain of a ship" play style. Its more of a "my ship is my main gun" sort of thing.
Yeah, more "canon" would need a little re-designing of the game engine to allow for the "trek" that we've seen in the series and movies.
That wont happen.

As for high-powered beams...
I can understand that it gets tiresome to grind and grind with the cruisers and their slow speed and low damage output.
I've been using a few of them and know how it is...

However...
I would rather see that cruisers had a different boff slotting.
- Main would be tactical (Lt.Cmdr -Lt.) And a Cmdr station wouldn't be wrong either.
- 2nd would either be eng or sci (Lt.Cmdr - Ens.)
- 3rd would be sci or eng. (Lt. Alt. Lt.Universal)
So the cruiser would be more adapted for the skills that you choose either as Eng. capitan or Sci. capitan.
But main would be more varied tactical abilities.

Sci ships would still be mainly scientifc in their boff slotting.
A skilled sci toon or eng are quite powerful in these ships.

I know this isn't something that most would like from cruisers.
But when logic is being used, this is how it really should be.

As Trek goes, you never know what you are meeting out there friendly or not as friendly
so even cruisers would need the capability to defend itself in a more varied way.
Starfleet Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,632
# 25
02-08-2013, 01:46 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by avarseir View Post
I disagree.

Escorts are not in anyway OP. It very much depends on the captain, the build and how the captain wants to play it.

The problem is there're many cruiser/sci captains who want to be an escort, instead of focusing on their strengths, they want to be something else.

While its true, DPS is glorious and its nice to see the dmg numbers and crits and the way some of the missions are skewed towards DPS, cruisers or science ships can be deadly when used properly.

For example, I fought against a galaxy-R on 1v1 recently, and I can't make a dent on his defenses and whenever I managed to take out half of his HP, he recovers very quickly. The match lasted a good 30 mins, before we both decided to stop. In consolation, he wasn't able to kill me too. However, on one occasion he nearly got me and I was only saved by my impulse capacitance console.

Similarly, a well played science ships are also very deadly. They can perma-confuse, drain, and kill you easily once your engines are disabled and weapons gone and shields down. Photonic fleet is also very irritatiing and annoying.

I think Cryptic did a good job balancing the ships.

If you examine very closely on the skills available, there're many skills are designed to be used in conjunction with other skills. E.g. EptA with HE/TSS/AuxSiF/AuxID. Then there's AuxtoBatt with BO/FAW and basically many more creative combination that involves battery consumables.

I feel that the issue is players are terrible at micromanaging their skill tree - they stick to easy skills like Eng Team 1, Eng Team 2, Eng Team 3 for example.

I flew a cruiser recently, with EptW and AuxtoBatt, FAW and BO is very deadly!

Well most of the game can be played with only dps, and the fact that your 1v1 ended in stalemate just shows that there is a balance issue. Granted any vessel capeable of mounting cannons will do more damage and they should, they should not also be able to take the kind of damage they currently can.

A destroyer classed vessel would fit nicely onto what the majority of escorts are and really only afew of the current ones would be severly cut to bop specs (the loss of hull points and an aft weapons slot) But in general that kind of change would probably make these ships more interesting since there would be no reason they couldn't have 1 or 2 universal boff slots.

And the ones that become destroyers would probably only loose 1 point from their turn rate, may even gain more hull.

Really if scoring counted more than who did more killing or how fast did the killing occur then the other roles would actualy have a use. But as it is why should I be a tank when the only recognitioni I get for it is "OMG why did you bring a cruiser to this stf/fleet eventf?" or the consolation prize from the fleet actions .
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: 1,632
# 26
02-08-2013, 01:50 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by thowas View Post
Yeah, more "canon" would need a little re-designing of the game engine to allow for the "trek" that we've seen in the series and movies.
That wont happen.

As for high-powered beams...
I can understand that it gets tiresome to grind and grind with the cruisers and their slow speed and low damage output.
I've been using a few of them and know how it is...

However...
I would rather see that cruisers had a different boff slotting.
- Main would be tactical (Lt.Cmdr -Lt.) And a Cmdr station wouldn't be wrong either.
- 2nd would either be eng or sci (Lt.Cmdr - Ens.)
- 3rd would be sci or eng. (Lt. Alt. Lt.Universal)
So the cruiser would be more adapted for the skills that you choose either as Eng. capitan or Sci. capitan.
But main would be more varied tactical abilities.

Sci ships would still be mainly scientifc in their boff slotting.
A skilled sci toon or eng are quite powerful in these ships.

I know this isn't something that most would like from cruisers.
But when logic is being used, this is how it really should be.

As Trek goes, you never know what you are meeting out there friendly or not as friendly
so even cruisers would need the capability to defend itself in a more varied way.

The intent wasn't to just buff cruisers, or any ship specificaly. It was to make beam weapons more viable for more people. As it is if you have a choice between a DHC and a BA, you chose the DHC almost every time.
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
Lieutenant
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 99
# 27
02-08-2013, 02:44 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by disposeableh3r0 View Post
The intent wasn't to just buff cruisers, or any ship specificaly. It was to make beam weapons more viable for more people. As it is if you have a choice between a DHC and a BA, you chose the DHC almost every time.
Not all the time :-)
I favour beam arrays lot of the time.
They do quite good dmg in a fleet Defiant, especially with specialized beam attacks.
The thing is with cannons is that they deal out high burst damages.
The firing arch of the cannons are limitited and not fitting very well on large ships.
A large ship with cannons will everytime be outgunned/outmanouvered by smaller ships with cannons.
That is why i am mentioning cruisers in my posts, because beams are more apropriate for cruisers than cannons.

Cruiser with beams have a better firing arch than i.ex. escorts with cannons.
You can do broadside, that is alot of power being drained.
Having beam arrays or db's that take more power will in time deplete your weapons power reserve.

The thing with cruisers is that they are usualy very big.
Alot of people in them...
Alot of power going to hull integrity and shielding, recovery.
Putting in beam weapons that do more dmg will drain more power will reduce a cruisers ability to defend itself the way a cruiser is supposed to work.
Unless you want to reconfigure the cruisers totaly?

On the other hand...
Having a different Boff layout will do alot to help the cruisers maximize their damage output with the power that is available to them.
This will also draw power, but without affecting the already output of the weapon power that you have, untill you use specialized beam attacks, that will drain alot so using them will need to be planned so you know that you will destroy the target and not yourself in the process.

A tactical boff layout will help more than high powered beam weapons will do.
Ex. Eng and science will not be affacted for those who wish to use alot of those abilities in their strategy.
Captain
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 3,311
# 28
02-08-2013, 02:47 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by disposeableh3r0 View Post
Well most of the game can be played with only dps, and the fact that your 1v1 ended in stalemate just shows that there is a balance issue. Granted any vessel capeable of mounting cannons will do more damage and they should, they should not also be able to take the kind of damage they currently can.

A destroyer classed vessel would fit nicely onto what the majority of escorts are and really only afew of the current ones would be severly cut to bop specs (the loss of hull points and an aft weapons slot) But in general that kind of change would probably make these ships more interesting since there would be no reason they couldn't have 1 or 2 universal boff slots.

And the ones that become destroyers would probably only loose 1 point from their turn rate, may even gain more hull.

Really if scoring counted more than who did more killing or how fast did the killing occur then the other roles would actualy have a use. But as it is why should I be a tank when the only recognitioni I get for it is "OMG why did you bring a cruiser to this stf/fleet eventf?" or the consolation prize from the fleet actions .
There is no proper aggro in this game, which mean a glass canon is gonna be useless in any endgame content. It will generate too much aggro, because in STO DPS=aggro, and die. All the time.
If you want squishy escort and tanky cruiser, by a huge margin, you want to revamp the aggro system first, and making a trinity, or nobody will fly escort in STF.

ATM, escort are not OP. The content is biased, favoring escort because it's DPS oriented, and sci/cruiser are underpowered. But that's different.
Republic Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 1,986
# 29
02-08-2013, 02:57 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by erei1 View Post
ATM, escort are not OP. The content is biased, favoring escort because it's DPS oriented, and sci/cruiser are underpowered. But that's different.
Yes, aggro system needs a revamp to not be purely DPS based. That, plus the lowering of beam array power usage would go a long way to fixing all the discontent, and it doesn't touch escorts or tactical captains.
Starfleet Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,632
# 30
02-08-2013, 03:11 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by thowas View Post
Not all the time :-)
I favour beam arrays lot of the time.
They do quite good dmg in a fleet Defiant, especially with specialized beam attacks.
The thing is with cannons is that they deal out high burst damages.
The firing arch of the cannons are limitited and not fitting very well on large ships.
A large ship with cannons will everytime be outgunned/outmanouvered by smaller ships with cannons.
That is why i am mentioning cruisers in my posts, because beams are more apropriate for cruisers than cannons.

Cruiser with beams have a better firing arch than i.ex. escorts with cannons.
You can do broadside, that is alot of power being drained.
Having beam arrays or db's that take more power will in time deplete your weapons power reserve.

The thing with cruisers is that they are usualy very big.
Alot of people in them...
Alot of power going to hull integrity and shielding, recovery.
Putting in beam weapons that do more dmg will drain more power will reduce a cruisers ability to defend itself the way a cruiser is supposed to work.
Unless you want to reconfigure the cruisers totaly?

On the other hand...
Having a different Boff layout will do alot to help the cruisers maximize their damage output with the power that is available to them.
This will also draw power, but without affecting the already output of the weapon power that you have, untill you use specialized beam attacks, that will drain alot so using them will need to be planned so you know that you will destroy the target and not yourself in the process.

A tactical boff layout will help more than high powered beam weapons will do.
Ex. Eng and science will not be affacted for those who wish to use alot of those abilities in their strategy.
I believe you mis understand. What i was suggesting is beam weapons gain utility. At the moment the only thing they have going for them is the wide firing arc (but i suspect that an all turret ship would produce more dps for less energy cost).

Cannons on the other hand (all cannons) have a higher firing rate thus producing more chances for weapons proc's and the like to actualy go off, DHC's also gain a critical bonus.

While I did post 2 additions to the beam line up you will notice that they don't do much more damage over the standard array, instead the big benifit is shield penetration. And as I said, the limit is just because no ship should be able to use everything.

Your suggestion of altering the boff layout to a tactical forcus just makes cruisers more like escortsm this was not my aim. I personaly feel the basics of each ship are fine, it's just some of them get the short end of the stick on available powers and weapons. (you'll notice I suggested power changes as well.)
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
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 10:55 AM.