Go Back   Star Trek Online > Feedback > Federation Gameplay
Login

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Commander
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 336
# 21
03-25-2013, 05:10 AM
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
Super serious.

Every cruiser would still demand some degree of specialization, as the stations are not 100% interchangeable like on a bird of prey. If you consider everything else that's been going on with other ships, I would say that it's high time that cruisers get an update. Things change; keep up and get with the times.

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.
At this point in time, there's no reason why cruisers should not get a buff in turn rate.

Anyhoo...

There are problems inherent in the way that BOff abilities are set up. Concerning Engineering BOff abilities, I've noticed that a lot of the abilities are poorly suited for cruisers and would work much better elsewhere. For all of its usefulness, Eject Warp Plasma cannot reaching its full potential because cruisers are rather unwieldy; mounting it on a bird of prey expands its uses. Likewise, Directed Energy Modulation is more effective with cannon weapons because the damage is solely determined by weapon power and applied per hit, and Aceton Beam would be better off on a science vessel.

Now as I have mentioned before in my first post, I am concerned that Federation cruisers are falling behind and that some form of intervention is needed to prevent them from becoming completely obsolete. This is one of the reasons why I believe that they should be revised from raw tankers into more versatile, multipurpose vessels. Another reason is that this option seems a lot simpler than fixing Engineering BOff abilities, which I believe would require an overhaul of the entire BOff ability system. With the release of new ships every quarter or so, it is only a matter of time before the limited flexibility and restrictive roles of Federation cruisers leads their designs to a dead-end.

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.

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.
It is not fun to have an escort on your tail and not be able to do anything about it, to float straight into a cloud of Warp Plasma that you thought you could avoid, or to just pass over an ally you wanted to heal because your turn rate screwed up your Z-XY movement. Believe it or not, turn rate is important for reasons that have nothing to do with DHC. Disregarding the mangled parts of your metaphor, Federation cruiser captains (especially Engineers) like myself would like to know why Cryptic knocked the cake out of our hands and hasn't bothered to give us a fresh slice.

On some cruisers, I don't mind nearly as much that my damage can't even do scratch damage. But when it gets to the point that a so-called tactical cruiser has trouble doing so AND tanking, that's where I'm going to put my foot down. Ditching my cruiser in favour of something else is not an option: I want to play Federation, just as much as Klingon players want to see content. That being said, the concerns which prompted me to open this thread lie in a different direction entirely, and are only partially related to the issue of damage. Rather curious how many players speak of flying cruisers how they are supposed to be flied, even though a significant portion of them are not certain of what that entails.

Your assertion that birds of prey "sacrifice" stats to gain access to universal slots or the battle cloak is somewhat questionable. Birds of prey are some of the most agile craft in the game, second only to small craft such as shuttles or fighters. While the battle cloak has something of an offensive function, the ability to cloak while under fire seems to indicate that it is just as much of an escape mechanism. I'm not sure why the type has been singled out to be the only craft with full universal BOff slots, but I do not think this has anything to do with having to fit a specific niche. That being said, you are being rather petulant about this.

Last edited by eraserfish; 03-25-2013 at 05:15 AM.
Empire Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 3,515
# 22
03-25-2013, 06:19 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.
The moment you started calling people fanboys you lost the argument. It is a well known fact that people only resort to that kind of name calling when they're losing an argument and/or are trolling and of course nobody likes trolls. And you are very obviously a troll.
The Emperor

Yet for me, love is knowing your target, putting them in your targeting reticule, and together, achieving a singular purpose... against statistically long odds.
Captain
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 855
# 23
03-25-2013, 08:13 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by westx211 View Post
The moment you started calling people fanboys you lost the argument. It is a well known fact that people only resort to that kind of name calling when they're losing an argument and/or are trolling and of course nobody likes trolls. And you are very obviously a troll.
His point still stands however. Whenever a thread is started, calling for a buff to Cruisers and/or Science, the "Escort fanboys" as he called it, come out in droves arguing against a buff to any other ship but their own. And why? Well, because they don't want to feel "replaced" as the go-to dps ship(s) in the game.

I believe i've argued again and again (a few times in this thread), that Cruisers are supposedly the "jack of all trades" in Star Trek, with the Escorts or Science vessels being more specialized. Officially, Trek doesn't use such designations (Cruiser, Escort, Frigate, Destroyer etc) unless they are in a state of war. On the FED side, ships are primarily designed for multi-purpose exploration, with the ability to defend themselves if attacked.

Not once, have I viewed any of the "so called" Cruisers in the Star Trek shows/movies, as "flying bricks", which is what they represent in the STO status quo. I'd like to honestly ask the "Escort Captains", what buffs they could conceivably see as appropriate for Cruisers, without necessarily stepping on their turf as "DPS Kings".
Captain
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 2,839
# 24
03-25-2013, 08:50 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by meurik View Post
His point still stands however. Whenever a thread is started, calling for a buff to Cruisers and/or Science, the "Escort fanboys" as he called it, come out in droves arguing against a buff to any other ship but their own. And why? Well, because they don't want to feel "replaced" as the go-to dps ship(s) in the game.

I believe i've argued again and again (a few times in this thread), that Cruisers are supposedly the "jack of all trades" in Star Trek, with the Escorts or Science vessels being more specialized. Officially, Trek doesn't use such designations (Cruiser, Escort, Frigate, Destroyer etc) unless they are in a state of war. On the FED side, ships are primarily designed for multi-purpose exploration, with the ability to defend themselves if attacked.

Not once, have I viewed any of the "so called" Cruisers in the Star Trek shows/movies, as "flying bricks", which is what they represent in the STO status quo. I'd like to honestly ask the "Escort Captains", what buffs they could conceivably see as appropriate for Cruisers, without necessarily stepping on their turf as "DPS Kings".
Thats exactly the same thing i am preaching since 3 years.
I find it unbeliveable for professional game developers that this is in question at all.
Telling someone who doesn't play this game about this meets just an incredulous shake of the head

The MMO trinity was made for fantasy characters wielding swords, axes and casting magic, NOT for Starfleet ships!

The MMO Trinity doesn't work with Trek ships, period.
Pressing them (star trek ships) into that system can only result in turning them upside down, just for the sake of a system that wasn't made for Star Trek at all.

As i said i find it just unbeliveable for game developers not even to see that problem
(well as long as their beloved Escorts dominate the game...)


The sad thing about this is, it wouldn't need much work to make ships in STO more like they should. But the devs seem not even to reckognise the problem in the first place.

Ultimately it is not that difficult

Escorts: Fast, nimble firepower specialists
Science ships: similar to cruisers, but smaller and mor science focussed.
Cruisers: Jack of all trades, capable of doing almost Escort like Damage or Science stuff.

So in a sense, Escorts and Science ships are specialists while Cruisers should be much more Generalists.

Strangely we don't hear one single word from the devs about that, they don't even respond to a thread like this, because they seem to be not interested in any opinions contradicting to their own.
Personally i find it really sad, because STO has so much potential only limited by some developers egos or opinions.

-> -> -> STO players unite and say NO to ARC <- <- <-
T6 Guardian Class design / A 25th century Ambassador refit

Last edited by yreodred; 03-25-2013 at 08:57 AM.
Empire Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 3,515
# 25
03-25-2013, 08:56 AM
The devs rarely post as much as they might want to cause they might get attacked for what they plan on saying and it might be that they don't post cause they don't want to acknowledge the problem.
The Emperor

Yet for me, love is knowing your target, putting them in your targeting reticule, and together, achieving a singular purpose... against statistically long odds.
Commander
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 336
# 26
03-25-2013, 09:13 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by yreodred View Post
Thats exactly the same thing i am preaching since 3 years.
I find it unbeliveable for professional game developers that this is in question at all.
Telling someone who doesn't play this game about this meets just an incredulous shake of the head

The MMO trinity was made for fantasy characters wielding swords, axes and casting magic, NOT for Starfleet ships!

The MMO Trinity doesn't work with Trek ships, period.
Pressing them (star trek ships) into that system can only result in turning them upside down, just for the sake of a system that wasn't made for Star Trek at all.

As i said i find it just unbeliveable for game developers not even to see that problem
(well as long as their beloved Escorts dominate the game...)


The sad thing about this is, it wouldn't need much work to make ships in STO more like they should. But the devs seem not even to reckognise the problem in the first place.

Ultimately it is not that difficult

Escorts: Fast, nimble firepower specialists
Science ships: similar to cruisers, but smaller and mor science focussed.
Cruisers: Jack of all trades, capable of doing almost Escort like Damage or Science stuff.

So in a sense, Escorts and Science ships are specialists while Cruisers should be much more Generalists.

Strangely we don't hear one single word from the devs about that, they don't even respond to a thread like this, because they seem to be not interested in any opinions contradicting to their own.
Personally i find it really sad, because STO has so much potential only limited by some developers egos or opinions.
Carriers.

In a way, this thread points out that the so-called trinity no longer exists, and that this will only become more evident as time goes on.
Commander
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 367
# 27
03-25-2013, 01:10 PM
The irony of live is that, IMHO, Cryptic got the space combat, both PvE and PvP perfectly right. Space combat is about DPS and debuffs/confuses. There should be, and is no place for tank and healer. STO should be warships online with all ships equally capable of dealing damage and equaly survivable.

Slight differences should point at the ship relative size/mass differences (so slightly more hull+shileds on bigger ships and more manouevrability on smaller. Bot overall 8 beam cruiser should be just as deadly as 4 DHC escort or 3 torp/3 mines sci ship.

And this is whre Cryptic fails utterly. Both sci and cruiser ships have literaly no way of getting up there to the escort level of damage.

To fix it without massive changes to the game I would propose to make all ships all-universal (BoP-like). This way there would be no "but cruiser is eng and must heal" bull****. Eng/cruiser should be just a little more tankier escort that is using eng captain and cmdr (lt.cmdr) BOFF to get energy levels high enough to compete with escorts whil having enough tactical slots for heaviest tactical buffs: BO III, HYT III, AP:O III.

But it would not happen. Sadly.
Career Officer
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 157
# 28
03-25-2013, 01:37 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by eraserfish View Post
Carriers.

In a way, this thread points out that the so-called trinity no longer exists, and that this will only become more evident as time goes on.
Trinity in this never existed in the first place.
Captain
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 855
# 29
03-25-2013, 01:42 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by chi1701d View Post
Trinity in this never existed in the first place.
Wrong. Up until recently, Cruisers are Tanks, Science are Support, and Escort are DPS Kings. If a Cruiser or Science ship wanted to do comparable dps, he/she gets told to re-roll in an Escort. Cruisers and Science ships have weapons too, don't they?

They have virtually identical weapons, and weapon strength is based primarily on available power (warpcore). Unless ships are limited to sublight only (most shuttles), then the ships with the biggest warpcore (Cruisers) should technically be capable of the most damage potential.
Career Officer
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 157
# 30
03-25-2013, 02:09 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by meurik View Post
Wrong. Up until recently, Cruisers are Tanks, Science are Support, and Escort are DPS Kings. If a Cruiser or Science ship wanted to do comparable dps, he/she gets told to re-roll in an Escort. Cruisers and Science ships have weapons too, don't they?

They have virtually identical weapons, and weapon strength is based primarily on available power (warpcore). Unless ships are limited to sublight only (most shuttles), then the ships with the biggest warpcore (Cruisers) should technically be capable of the most damage potential.
its your oppinion that they are supposed to tank. Cryptic stated and no i cant get a direct link to this, that before launch and after, that the term tank doesn't mean trinity tank but ability to absorb damage, they used tank because people understood that concept.
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 12:14 PM.