Go Back   Star Trek Online > Support > Gameplay Bug Reports
Login

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Captain
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 564
# 81
02-25-2013, 02:11 PM
Sounds like I might have to give the console set a 2nd look once the changes go through.

Any chance of changing the boff layout on the tac version, maybe swaping the lt tac to an ensign tac and giving us an lt eng or sci in its place. Given the global cooldowns there is just no way to use that many tactical boff powers, not unless you want to equip beams on an escort.
Ensign
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 20
# 82 Suggestion
02-25-2013, 03:49 PM
To start:
These ships are gorgeous and i love them, as soon as you fix the bugs and un-nerf them i will happily blow $50 on the whole set!

Now to more important things:

If these ships are made to exemplify every aspect of an escort there is one thing y'all could do... Escorts = Speed and power right? they have the marvelous 5 forward weapon slots which makes them better then every other escort in the game DPS wise, but there are several others (three to be exact) that still have better turn rate and could get behind it and kill it in PVP. So if you increase its turn rate from 16 to 18 (just 2 points) i would be VERY happy! It would then be the best escort in the game, even beating out the stupid and much vaunted Bug.
Starfleet Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 650
# 83
02-25-2013, 04:00 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by john98837 View Post
Sounds like I might have to give the console set a 2nd look once the changes go through.

Any chance of changing the boff layout on the tac version, maybe swapping the lt tac to an ensign tac and giving us an lt eng or sci in its place. Given the global cooldowns there is just no way to use that many tactical boff powers, not unless you want to equip beams on an escort.
Just dump the third tac ensign all together.

There is never a reason for 3 tac ensigns on any ship that will be used for maximum performance, such as the zstore ships. The only ships that have three tac positions are escorts and cannons are the order of the day since torps are so lame and have limited applicability from performance stand point. (and balance is driven by performance not role play) Ships like cruisers and science vessels would never have 3 tac Boffs, well maybe in a decade when new ship ideas require that kind of expansion.

This is a great ship, the balance issue is due to the fact that dps is king. Really the oddy and the vesta were required to answer the potential of fleet patrol escorts. Imagine the fleet version of a Kumari if one comes out.

Balance could be easier to obtain if players were forced to put one torpedo in the fore weapons of every ship and perhaps cruisers and sci ships have a torp/mine in the rear. This could be done by separating the weapons slots from general weapons slots to kinetic and energy slots.
Ensign
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 20
# 84
02-25-2013, 04:08 PM
Interesting idea milanvorious...

By the way y'all should release a Dev blog when you finish fixing these ships to make sure the whole community is aware of the improvement... It may also boost sales when people see how much better they are.
Starfleet Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 650
# 85
02-25-2013, 04:12 PM
I feel that forcing every ship to have a torp in the fore weapon and some to have them in the rear would be in line with star trek cannon. Of course each ship would have a tractor too.
Captain
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 564
# 86
02-25-2013, 04:31 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by milanvorius View Post
Just dump the third tac ensign all together.

There is never a reason for 3 tac ensigns on any ship that will be used for maximum performance, such as the zstore ships. The only ships that have three tac positions are escorts and cannons are the order of the day since torps are so lame and have limited applicability from performance stand point. (and balance is driven by performance not role play) Ships like cruisers and science vessels would never have 3 tac Boffs, well maybe in a decade when new ship ideas require that kind of expansion.
Well ofcourse I would prefer not to have more then the lt cmdr and cmdr tac, just didn't want to be to greedy in my question.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 210
# 87
02-25-2013, 04:33 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by archoncryptic View Post
I'm working on some optimizations to the AI on these to get them fire a little more consistently and cutting down their cooldown between shots a little. Their base damage per shot isn't being increased, but their rate of fire will be a little more consistent.

I'm also improving their Overload damage significantly.
Hey Archon, I've come to really enjoy the WCP's and appreciate the changes considered above. However, one aspect of the plaforms is sorely lacking: longevity. I've noticed that they seem to try to "jump" away from explosions, which is a greatly needed combat pet response in general. IMO, THESE pets need more, considering their long cooldown, having only two active at a time and lack of durability. No, they shouldn't be able to survive being directly targeted for long, that wouldn't be fair, but losing them and staring at 3-minutes before I can relaunch doesn't sit well either.

Also, and this may be just me, but I noticed that I tend to fly differently when they're online in an effort to keep them online. This isn't true with my HEC because I know I can respawn almost as quickly as I need to.
Rihannsu
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 275
# 88
02-25-2013, 07:37 PM
Drop 3rd Tac and make it a Uni. Ensign tac options for a none BB are so limited it is not funny. Two Uni would be better so Tac players dont have to use the Eng or Sci version to greatly improve their survivability. Sad really....

My personal preference is for two Commander Tac slots on the Tac ship - as it should be for such a ship.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 210
# 89
02-25-2013, 07:52 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by lsegn View Post
If these ships are made to exemplify every aspect of an escort there is one thing y'all could do... Escorts = Speed and power right? they have the marvelous 5 forward weapon slots which makes them better then every other escort in the game DPS wise, but there are several others (three to be exact) that still have better turn rate and could get behind it and kill it in PVP. So if you increase its turn rate from 16 to 18 (just 2 points) i would be VERY happy! It would then be the best escort in the game, even beating out the stupid and much vaunted Bug.
For your keyboard to god's eyes! A snappy turnrate would make this ship a lot better. A buff would just need to make the Ando equal to the F-TER in terms of turnrate to make me very happy.
Starfleet Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 650
# 90
02-25-2013, 09:19 PM
I don't care about turn rate, the thing can have a few weaknesses. If it were perfect then there is no room for the next ship. Really it makes sense, all weapon systems and platforms have their weaknesses, but tactics and doctrine is what can make a good weapon great and an great weapon elite.

I am advocating a removal of the 3rd tac doff on all escorts because there is no reason for it. Really it seems a bit of an exploit to have all cannons, but till that is fixed then the third tac is silly and wasteful of a BO slot. It was not ever seen in Star Trek that I can recall where a major power's warship of high tier only had energy or kinetic weapons.

Balance will always cripple game play and creativity till this game gets back to Star Trek roots: create viable cripple (not destroy) and science based win scenarios for combat (imagine if a science ship could turn cap points in Cap and Hold much faster than escorts) and break the game into 4 game play modes with separate skill trees/stats and equipment load outs: space pvp, space pve, ground pvp, and ground pve. The problem is balance doesn't work when you want to balance a human opponent (pvp) to a contemporary gaming AI opponent (pve). This seems to be the heart of this ship's balance issue and the heart of the overall game balance issue. PvP and PvE are incompatible in the same skill tree. Ships need a pvp and pve load out, ground perhaps as well.

Until this is done I don't see a way to get optimal balance where both pve and pvp aspects of the game can flourish. Both game play options are great, but they are water and oil.

Last edited by milanvorius; 02-25-2013 at 10:21 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 10:30 AM.