Captain
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 855
# 11
03-24-2013, 10:41 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by taj2480 View Post
You... can't be serious right?

If you want a different Lt Commander slot and ensign slot... there's a cruiser that does that, its the Odyssey. For all others they're the different flavor of cruiser.. The Ambassador for sci, The Regent or Excelsior for Tac, and Galaxy / Galaxy X for Engineering.

Yes it requires that you either be a ship junkie and have all these if you want to switch around or specialize and stick to a ship. Begging like this is like wanting to have your cake an eat it too.

For you see, a long time ago, universal slots only existed on a small bird of prey...

Now they're all up in most new fed ships -p
Cruisers are the "jack of all trades, master of none", in the real Star Trek productions (movies, tv-shows), yet in STO, they act solely as the "tanks" in a pseudo-Trinity style gameplay. A tank in most MMOs, tends to be the fairly stationary target, which absorbs most of the damage, and protect his/her teammates from being hit. Ring any bells?

The introduction of more widespread usage of "Universal" BOff slots on Cruisers, would make Cruisers exactly that: Jack of all trades, master of none. Yes, you can switch between ships to get the "exact" build you want. The bigger question is, why should you have to? If I love flying a Galaxy Class due to it's appearance, and hate it's BOff layout, why should I get shoe-horned into flying a ship with the "proper" BOff layout, but for which I hate the design?

The solution is actually alot simpler in this regard; For every Cruiser you unlock via Zen store purchase, Lockbox, Dilithium or Lobi crystals, you unlock the "skin" for said cruiser, usable by ANY cruiser you choose to fly. Obviously without having the ability to mix-and-match parts from different cruiser styles.
Empire Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 5,260
# 12
03-24-2013, 10:49 PM
I'm quite on the fence about this. On one end, yes, turn rate buff. There's no reason not to give that anymore considering the sheer amount of turn rate pretty much everything else has.

As for the universal spots...I dunno.

It's a bit difficult to say. I mean, even if you switch to Tac and sci skills, at the lower levels, there's still not a huge amount of choices, so you'd still have to be limited in your decisions, though at least that would open it up more.



Honestly, if there were more Ensign and Lt. level (specifically engineering) skills that DIDN'T all just share cooldowns with each other, it wouldn't be quite so bad. Between a few more skills and a turn rate buff, cruisers would probably be a lot better. They're truly gimped due to turn and lack of BOFFs I feel now a days more than anything. KDF cruisers, cannons and cloak or not, still have to deal with the same thing, but at least they usually have the turn to make it work.

Still, just feels like universal slots aren't the way to go.

Career Officer
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,691
# 13
03-25-2013, 12:06 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by yreodred View Post


I think it would be a Win - Win for everyone.
I agree as well. I think some ship/console/uni boff stations may need to be rebalanced, but the idea as a whole is very good. And not just because I proposed something similar in a post a while ago!

I'm still uncertain about the console requirement to allow them to equip Duals though. KDF battlecruisers have lower HPs in part because they have a cloak, its not just because they have a better weapon selection and a little better turning. Maybe the Dual console could have something else built in like a half to a third of a RCS console's turning boost?

The only problem I see with the Uni boff station idea is that it gets in teh way of Cryptic's never ending attempts to sell more ships. If anything they'd want to sell a pack that has all 3 options for a Lt. CMDR slot instead of selling you one ship with a uni LT. CMDR.
Captain
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,273
# 14
03-25-2013, 12:46 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by mimey2 View Post
I'm quite on the fence about this. On one end, yes, turn rate buff. There's no reason not to give that anymore considering the sheer amount of turn rate pretty much everything else has.

As for the universal spots...I dunno.

It's a bit difficult to say. I mean, even if you switch to Tac and sci skills, at the lower levels, there's still not a huge amount of choices, so you'd still have to be limited in your decisions, though at least that would open it up more.



Honestly, if there were more Ensign and Lt. level (specifically engineering) skills that DIDN'T all just share cooldowns with each other, it wouldn't be quite so bad. Between a few more skills and a turn rate buff, cruisers would probably be a lot better. They're truly gimped due to turn and lack of BOFFs I feel now a days more than anything. KDF cruisers, cannons and cloak or not, still have to deal with the same thing, but at least they usually have the turn to make it work.

Still, just feels like universal slots aren't the way to go.
Fed cruisers don't have a high turnrate because they do not need it. Fed cruiser pilots complaining about turnrates is just funny as hell. KDF cruisers need higher turnrates because they have a different focus and carry DHCs. If people want a cruiser like that, they should play KDF instead of trying to steal yet another KDF concept for the greedy Federation players who want to have their cake and eat it, too.

Otherwise, get used to flying and using the Fed cruisers like you're supposed to fly and use them. Or fly some Romulan cruiser when the faction comes out, I'm sure they'll be slightly more DPS oriented than Federation cruisers.

As for engineering skills, that's an argument I actually agree with. Engineering skills aren't as flexible or all-inclusive. Granted, they're supposed to be focused on tanking skills, but I agree that there should be some more offensive options in there.

Lastly, I disagree with the further distribution of universal slots. As a BoP pilot, it absolutely infuriates me that universal boffslots are being cheapened by their inclusion in Tier 5.5 fleetships, lockbox ships, and lobi ships. The BoP sacrifices stats for a reason, to gain access to not only the battlecloak, but also the universal slots. Yet these new ships do not sacrifice anything for their universal boffslots.
Captain
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 2,270
# 15
03-25-2013, 01:14 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by travelingmaster View Post
Fed cruisers don't have a high turnrate because they do not need it. Fed cruiser pilots complaining about turnrates is just funny as hell. KDF cruisers need higher turnrates because they have a different focus and carry DHCs. If people want a cruiser like that, they should play KDF instead of trying to steal yet another KDF concept for the greedy Federation players who want to have their cake and eat it, too.

Otherwise, get used to flying and using the Fed cruisers like you're supposed to fly and use them. Or fly some Romulan cruiser when the faction comes out, I'm sure they'll be slightly more DPS oriented than Federation cruisers.
This is not about KDF vs Starfleet. ALL cruisers would benefit from it.
Second, very few want and no one needs Crusiers as supporters or healers, thats just an old antiquated MMO concept, which is completely wrong at a Star Trek game.
First and foremost in a Star Trek game Big ships are not supposed to heal others.

Personally i am not in the least interested in flying a Klingon ship, in order to fly a Crusier as it is supposed to be. If anything Klingon Cruisers should be the ones supporting the Klingon BoP, Raptors and whatever ship Klingons use.
Starfleet ships should be the versatile ones, being able to dish out damage and to fulfill various roles.


Quote:
Originally Posted by travelingmaster View Post
As for engineering skills, that's an argument I actually agree with. Engineering skills aren't as flexible or all-inclusive. Granted, they're supposed to be focused on tanking skills, but I agree that there should be some more offensive options in there.

Lastly, I disagree with the further distribution of universal slots. As a BoP pilot, it absolutely infuriates me that universal boffslots are being cheapened by their inclusion in Tier 5.5 fleetships, lockbox ships, and lobi ships. The BoP sacrifices stats for a reason, to gain access to not only the battlecloak, but also the universal slots. Yet these new ships do not sacrifice anything for their universal boffslots.
Having one of the oldest ships being the most Veratile ones is rather ... strange IMO.

-> -> -> STO players unite and say NO to ARC <- <- <-

The "TT and/or AtB less builds" - Thread
Career Officer
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,691
# 16
03-25-2013, 01:54 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by travelingmaster View Post
Fed cruisers don't have a high turn rate because they do not need it.
What's truly sad is that its a possibility that is also something the original devs though. In practice however, better turning equates (for most players at least) into a mor exciting gamestyle. Designing without takign into consideration player fun is partly why Fed cruisers are soooo boring unless you really work at doing something interesting with it. It shouldn't be that way.
Captain
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 855
# 17
03-25-2013, 02:04 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by travelingmaster View Post
As for engineering skills, that's an argument I actually agree with. Engineering skills aren't as flexible or all-inclusive. Granted, they're supposed to be focused on tanking skills, but I agree that there should be some more offensive options in there.
Science Skills: Support/Debuff
Tactical Skills: Damage Enhancing
Engineering Skills: Survival/Defensive

And guess what? Neither of the above clearly says "You must TANK!!!". Every Captain benefits from additional survivability or defensive skills. Every Captain benefits from Damage Enhancing skills, and every Captain benefits from having the ability to Support friendly team members, or Debuff enemies.

The whole notion of the "Holy Trinity" in Star Trek Online seems rather alien to me. Starfleet ships especially, regardless of ship class have always been leaning towards a tendency of "jack-of-all-trades, master-of-none". Sure, there have been certain individual classes with a more specified ship role (Oberth Class Science Vessel for instance, or Defiant Class Heavy Escort). But for the most part, ships are rather generalized, capable of dealing impressive damage, high survivability and longevity.

Pretty much all ships are setup with an array of science facilities to support the whole "Deep Space Exploration" mission of Starfleet, with some ships having less (Defiant) or more (Nova/Oberth).

I'm curious why some people seem to want to force the Holy Trinity system into STO, when it's simply not appropriate for the game (or genre) ?
Career Officer
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 521
# 18
03-25-2013, 02:18 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by meurik View Post
I'm curious why some people seem to want to force the Holy Trinity system into STO, when it's simply not appropriate for the game (or genre) ?
Because this is the fallback excuse that every escort fanboy will bring out every single time a thread like this pops up.

"You can't nerf escorts/cannons cause we're the damage dealers and you can't buff cruisers cause you're the tanks and if you want to deal damage then fly escorts and escorts need a buff to hull cause we die too fast and you don't."

Etc.
Captain
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 855
# 19
03-25-2013, 02:26 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by matridunadan1 View Post
Because this is the fallback excuse that every escort fanboy will bring out every single time a thread like this pops up.

"You can't nerf escorts/cannons cause we're the damage dealers and you can't buff cruisers cause you're the tanks and if you want to deal damage then fly escorts and escorts need a buff to hull cause we die too fast and you don't."

Etc.
Sounds about right. Thing is, I see the benefit of some ships dealing more damage than others. Case in point: Defiant Class. I also see the benefit in some ships being better at scientific assignments (Oberth Class). But there really isn't any "tanking" niche for Federation ships. Hull hitpoints are determined by the ships mass, and there are plenty of examples of high mass "Escorts", which are not classified as "tanks" by the game. Akira Class and Prometheus Class being two quite notable examples of this. Both are considered Escorts in STO, and both have a rather high mass (and thus should have high hitpoints).

Ultimately, the best balance would be to achieve one where all ships (no matter if they are escorts, cruisers or science ships) deal relatively the same amount of damage, and have relatively equal survivability potential. Choice of ship should come down to player preference. Not "You must choose THIS ship, to be best at doing THIS". What's the point in having 50 different ships, if only ONE specific ship is the best for a given task?

(As a primarily Science Captain/Science ship flyer, I do not feel subject to this whole "Escort fanboyism-bs")

And FWIW, I don't necessarily see a need to make 1 buffed, and 1 nerfed. I'd rather just see an across-the-board balance between the ships, rather than shoe-horning ships into given roles (which have no place in a Trek game).
Career Officer
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 521
# 20
03-25-2013, 03:37 AM
Well thanks to gecko Escorts are the new "Jack of all trades, Master of all"

Speed, maneuverability, damage, and tankiness (at 80% hull strength of cruisers, they ARE tanks as well).
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 06:11 AM.