Lol I have noticed whatever these epohhs are -they hit you hard
The D'Deridex it not old -They have that Rom ship from the 2150s in the game thats OLD
I actually have NO problem with that whatsoever in the context of the storyline.
Disregarding the fact that this could be another Starfleet-esq 'modern ship that simply uses an older, established, design (a'la NX class), UNLIKE that scenario, there is justification for the Romulan refugees using old ships.
I mean, they're refugees who lost their homeworld and all the resources it afforded - it actually makes a lot of sense that they'd be using pretty much any spaceworthy ships they could get their hands on, regardless of age.
Originally Posted by iconians
Instead of asking the question "Why are players doing this?"
The question being asked is, "How do we stop players from doing this?"
The basic problem with the slow turning ships is that the Beam damage is just stupidly out of whack when compared with cannons, and has been since they decided that crew no longer generate power. Before, the Escorts had severe power problems and cruisers could compete with their 4 full power beams in every direction, now that's simply not the case. And Klingon cruisers can use cannons effectively as they are pretty maneuverable.
Anyone that thinks the 50 degrees that a cruiser can bring all 8 (more usually 6) beams to bear is the same as an escort able to bring everything to bear in a 45 degree arc has not actually played the game, and in any case the escort is always bringing double the dps into its sweet spot, and facing 3 beams and maybe a torp back from the cruisers. Its ridiculous. And since they have slowly made escorts have nearly as tough as cruisers (hi Raptors, Defiants and bug ships) whats the point anymore. Apart from style, which is good enough for me.
Of course any attempt to boost beams back to even competitive status would generate howls of rage from people that might actually die to a fed cruiser, so we are stuck with it till the eng and sci players actually clue the devs in.