Career Officer
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 449
# 41
02-08-2013, 05:33 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by disposeableh3r0 View Post
Lots of threads basicaly saying that the escort classed vessels are too powerful.

So heres an idea, change their stats to be more inline with a BOP.

I hear the flames, but hang on.

Ships under a certain size would have their stats changed to reflect their size IE BOp sized.

Ships over a certain size would be adjusted to more destroyer like stats (see chimera/peng'hu).

This would make escorts more of what they were always supposed to be, glass cannons, and would also make the larger ships (akira, prometheus, etc) slightly less than an escort in terms of manueverability but just as deadly damage wise.

Plus the klingons might stop complaining about the bop being weak. And we all want the klingons to shut up....all that spitting just to say hi.
I like what you're saying, I've been ranting to in-game friends about this.

simply for most high end escorts, fleet, bug. they have a really big hull hp and 5 tac consoles.

I was thinking maybe for those high hull escorts, to be reduced to 4tac consoles and lower hull hp escorts such as the B'Rel BoP retro to have 5 tac consoles.

Glass Cannons should be what they are, and considering most escorts... appear/decloack, fire all weapons until their buffs run out, then run away... orr speed tank.

the survival ability of almost 80/90% of escorts is ridiculous, I think those that can survive the longest should do the least DPS of the escorts, and those that don't last too long having the highest.

RachelJ88

P.S. a little idea I had that I never seem to want to say, I think all fleet ships should stick to a 4-3-3 console arrangement unless statistically they need to be a 5-3-2.

an example-ish

Fleet GOD Escort thingg...
weps layout - 4 bow/2 aft
BO layout - Cmd-Tac/Ltc-Tac/Lt-Sci/Lt-Eng/Ens-Uni
35k hull
shield mod 0.9-1
consoles
3-eng
3-sci
4-tac

Fleet GOD Science thing...
weps layout - 3 bow/3 aft
BO layout - Cmd-Sci/Ltc-Sci/Lt-Tac/Lt-Eng/Ens-Uni
30k hull
shield mod 1.3/4
consoles
3-eng
4-sci
3-tac

Fleet GOd Cruiser thing...
weps layout - 4 bow/4 aft
BO layout - Cmd-Eng/Ltc-Eng/Lt-Sci/Lt-Tac/Ens-Uni
40k hull
shield mod 1.1/1.2
consoles
4-eng
3-sci
3-tac

Fleet GOD DPS Dealing Escort thingg...
weps layout - 4 bow/2 aft
BO layout - Cmd-Tac/Ltc-Tac/Lt-Sci/Lt-Eng/Ens-Uni
25k hull
shield mod 0.9-1.0
consoles
3-eng / 2-eng
2-sci / 3-sci
5-tac

balanced... no?

Last edited by rachelj88; 02-08-2013 at 05:53 AM.
Career Officer
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,979
# 42
02-08-2013, 05:42 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.
This. If your cruiser or science ship feels underwhelming to you, you're either not geared/specced correctly, aren't playing it as intended or both.

Escorts are fine as is IMO.
Captain Kirk is climbing a mountain. Why is he climbing a mountain? Is he learning to fly?
Ensign
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 12
# 43
02-08-2013, 05:51 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by tobar26th View Post
Seriously people, does the phrase Glass Cannon mean nothing?
My guess is that most people that hate escorts don't fly one . I tried the new Ambassador for some fleet action .

Cruisers have it easy when it comes to PvE . Even with the default craptacular equipment and only 3/4 Bridge Officers it was far easier to deal with then my usual hell bent fire breading escort .

Hell I'm thinking to move to cruisers permanently . It just transforms the game from "OMG die die .... boost shield , BRACE FOR IMPACT " into "Yea , you can shoot but you're still going to die" .

Escorts are for the adrenaline junkie . Cruisers are for people that don't desire a heart attack .
Starfleet Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,616
# 44
02-08-2013, 06:02 AM
Yes i know the trinity thing ist as simple. Really every one has some of all 3 on every ship, only the percentages vary.

For instance an escort is generaly
70% scissor tac
10%paper sci
20% rock eng

The primary putpose of my post was simply to split it up a little more with some super scissor (my escort version), and some titanium reinforced scissors (destroyer).

Quote:
Originally Posted by rachelj88 View Post
I like what you're saying, I've been ranting to in-game friends about this.

simply for most high end escorts, fleet, bug. they have a really big hull hp and 5 tac consoles.

I was thinking maybe for those high hull escorts, to be reduced to 4tac consoles and lower hull hp escorts such as the B'Rel BoP retro to have 5 tac consoles.

Glass Cannons should be what they are, and considering most escorts... appear/decloack, fire all weapons until their buffs run out, then run away... orr speed tank.

the survival ability of almost 80/90% of escorts is ridiculous, I think those that can survive the longest should do the least DPS of the escorts, and those that don't last too long having the highest.

RachelJ88

P.S. a little idea I had that I never seem to want to say, I think all fleet ships should stick to a 4-3-3 console arrangement unless statistically they need to be a 5-3-2.

an example-ish

Fleet GOD Escort thingg...
weps layout - 4 bow/2 aft
BO layout - Cmd-Tac/Ltc-Tac/Lt-Sci/Lt-Eng/Ens-Uni
35k hull
shield mod 0.9-1
consoles
3-eng
3-sci
4-tac

Fleet GOD Science thing...
weps layout - 3 bow/3 aft
BO layout - Cmd-Sci/Ltc-Sci/Lt-Tac/Lt-Eng/Ens-Uni
30k hull
shield mod 1.3/4
consoles
3-eng
4-sci
3-tac

Fleet GOd Cruiser thing...
weps layout - 4 bow/4 aft
BO layout - Cmd-Eng/Ltc-Eng/Lt-Sci/Lt-Tac/Ens-Uni
40k hull
shield mod 1.1/1.2
consoles
4-eng
3-sci
3-tac

Fleet GOD DPS Dealing Escort thingg...
weps layout - 4 bow/2 aft
BO layout - Cmd-Tac/Ltc-Tac/Lt-Sci/Lt-Eng/Ens-Uni
25k hull
shield mod 0.9-1.0
consoles
3-eng / 2-eng
2-sci / 3-sci
5-tac

balanced... no?
Interesting...certainly puts a dampner on the power creep.
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
# 45
02-08-2013, 06:18 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by disposeableh3r0 View Post
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.)
Actually.
I think the firing rate is more or less equal (The cannon fires in volleys, then it has cooldown before firing again, while beams fire while the cooldown counts down)
Only occasion when cannons have faster firing rate is when you use a special attack.
Perhaps a pure turret boat could acomplish this, but i doubt it.

And still, you want to give more firepower to weapons that are still more in line to use on bigger ships then small ships.
It's still a question about power allocation.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 139
# 46
02-08-2013, 07:52 AM
To me, instead of changing weapons or ships, the answer to balance and parity is to either add in diminishing returns to tac consoles or remove them from the eng/sci consoles.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 139
# 47
02-08-2013, 08:23 AM
I stated it in the "dps is king" thread, to me the problem in balance isn't the ships, console or boff layouts or even the stats (to a certain extent), but the fact sci and eng consoles have diminishing returns while tac consoles can stack w/ no penalty.

I used to have a pure tanking build but still wouldn't last long in PVP bc the escorts' 5 tac consoles would overwhelm my 5 armor consoles and 2 shield consoles. Meanwhile, I've moved to an escort, stack my tac consoles and last far longer than I ever did in a pure tank.

Either add in diminishing returns to tac consoles or remove them from eng and sci consoles.
Career Officer
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 168
# 48
02-08-2013, 08:37 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by disposeableh3r0 View Post
Lots of threads basicaly saying that the escort classed vessels are too powerful.

So heres an idea, change their stats to be more inline with a BOP.

I hear the flames, but hang on.

Ships under a certain size would have their stats changed to reflect their size IE BOp sized.

Ships over a certain size would be adjusted to more destroyer like stats (see chimera/peng'hu).

This would make escorts more of what they were always supposed to be, glass cannons, and would also make the larger ships (akira, prometheus, etc) slightly less than an escort in terms of manueverability but just as deadly damage wise.

Plus the klingons might stop complaining about the bop being weak. And we all want the klingons to shut up....all that spitting just to say hi.
Until such a time as a fourth category of ships (Warships with subcategories of Destroyers, Support Ships, and Flightdeck Cruisers, Carriers, and Escorts) is added onto the federation list in the wiki, the way that the Klingons have it set up... I don't see us having the need to redefine what is or is not an escort in such a manner as to classify the Chimera as anything other than an escort.

But if we did add such a category. Then the Chimera, Armitage, Caitian Atrox Carrier, and the Exploration Dreadnought Cruiser would all fall under the Warship category in one form or another. Also the Mobius Temporal Destroyer would also fall under the same category as the Chimera. On the other hand, the remaining ships would likely fall under their normal categories.

Please note that the Federation does not have Birds of Prey. The closest they come to such ships is the Defiant. And even that is not quite the same thing. Forcing a respec of the Defiant and all other escorts so that they perform in such a way as to make them identical performance wise to Birds of Prey, would go against Canon. And despite everything that Cryptic has done to destroy the feel of Canon in this game (i.e. the Lockbox ships in particular), they still generally get the right idea when it comes to how ships are supposed to perform in relation to other ships.
______________________________
Community Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,657
# 49
02-08-2013, 08:50 AM
I don't think the problem is that Escorts are OP. Escorts are supposed to do the most damage; they're in effect the space DPS class.

The problem is that Cruisers can't effectively Tank, and Science can't effectively Heal.

Ideally, Escorts that concentrate on DPS would be the best at it, Cruisers that concentrate on Tanking would be best at it, and Science that concentrate on Healing would be best at it. But as things stand, it's not that Escorts are best at DPS that's the problem, it's that they're best at Tanking as well, and Healing is completely unnecessary.

Any time you screw up the balance on the trinity, DPS is going to dominate, because Tanking and Healing extend fights, DPS ends them. The only way to fix it is to make the other ships clearly superior at their intended roles.

So Cruisers need better threat control, and need to get credit for damage absorbed when measuring their place in a group. Science need to get credit for heals when measuring their place in a group.

Those things alone may very well fix the problem. If it doesn't, then they can look at Escort changes; but even then, I wouldn't say make them do less DPS, I'd say make it harder for them to heal themselves or make them less tanky; or at least make doing those things reduce their DPS.
Volunteer Community Moderator for the Star Trek Online Forums. My views do 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.
Follow me: Twitter,Google
Career Officer
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 555
# 50
02-08-2013, 08:51 AM
Maybe an attempt should be made to define the discusion. In other words, are we talking about PvE or PvP?

In PvE, I've used my cruiser as a tank in ISE, and have done a pretty good job at it. I put points in to threat control, and I don't use threat reduction consoles. I use Beam Fire at Will to get the Borg's attention in ISE and they tend to stay on me. One time, there was another cruiser that did nothing but heal me while I grabed the Borgs attention. I've seen Science ships be effective when a transformer was blown to early and the spheres had to held off.



In PvP; well that might depend on the level of coordination between a team. We've all seen cruisers get hammered, and we've all seen cruisers take the damage. Heck, once I've seen an Oddyssey distract half a team of escorts while his Chel Grett firends layed waist with polaron and transphasic torpedoes.

Perhaps the only easy solution maybe to just reduce to power drain of firing beam weapons and maybe reduce the escort's ability to tank?
Most JJ Trek hate = IDIC fail.
Quote:
Most who don't like the new Star Trek either didn't like TOS, don't remember TOS, or didn't see TOS
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 05:37 PM.