Go Back   Star Trek Online > Feedback > PvP Gameplay
Login

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 51
02-08-2010, 04:41 PM
I agree, Boff powers add way more survivability than raw hull numbers. More hull helps survivability a little, but not near as much as turn rate.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 52
02-08-2010, 04:45 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by coldflow View Post
Klingons just have better ships. I'd guess its intended to be this way as compensation for having no other content!

BoPs are better than escorts.
Battlecruisers are better than cruisers.
And between science ships and support BoPs its hard to call. Extra Aux and great shields Vs Greater access to the goodies from Eng BOs and starting in stealth.

Klingons keep bringing up low hull. Hull is totally pointless.
How much extra hull would a Federation escort with a max of one RSP have to have to outlast a BoP with 2 or more RSP's?

All that matters is not being the focus target and how many immunity cds you can pop. BoPs start in stealth, have as many immunities as they can carry and can break target lock at will.
If you gave an escort 40k more hull it would still struggle to outlast a BoP!
Better how? If you only think tactical/DPS is all that counts then yeah...but then you are missing out on most of the combat opions out there(its like only seeing in red). This likly means such a narrow perception of combat forces those into pidegon holing their non-tactical designed hulls into disadvantaged tactical roles and set-ups.

This is the first step in failure for the Feds...you guys have the most flexiable and diverse fleet and ya'll squander it by all trying to be the USS Defiant. Then you wonder why we seem so OP...the KDF is just easier for most PvPers to relate too, so with the same level of experience/ability, most players will adapt to the KDF faster...but not necessarily be any smarter on the battlefield. The KDF embraces simple DPS type play styles...but falls short to good coordinated role specific Fed play each time. i dont believe we cant compete in a more diverse fleet set-up...just that the large number of KDf players are just as naive and deluded as the Feds...so for the KDF there is little consideration for non-DPS roles from us or from the enemy too.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 53
02-08-2010, 05:11 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by cocoa-jin View Post
Better how? If you only think tactical/DPS is all that counts then yeah...but then you are missing out on most of the combat opions out there(its like only seeing in red). This likly means such a narrow perception of combat forces those into pidegon holing their non-tactical designed hulls into disadvantaged tactical roles and set-ups.

This is the first step in failure for the Feds...you guys have the most flexiable and diverse fleet and ya'll squander it by all trying to be the USS Defiant. Then you wonder why we seem so OP...the KDF is just easier for most PvPers to relate too, so with the same level of experience/ability, most players will adapt to the KDF faster...but not necessarily be any smarter on the battlefield. The KDF embraces simple DPS type play styles...but falls short to good coordinated role specific Fed play each time. i dont believe we cant compete in a more diverse fleet set-up...just that the large number of KDf players are just as naive and deluded as the Feds...so for the KDF there is little consideration for non-DPS roles from us or from the enemy too.
this was a really good post. One of the best. For the flustered players out there- please read it and, rather then mindlessly going straight for some sort of lame rebuttal, have a good think about what the poster has said here. If you want perfectly even sides in pvp according to a set play style then go fvf or kvk. If you want roughly even sides where all players playstyle matches the faction they are playing then go kvf. If you don't like the reality that the factions (and how they should engage in team battles) are different and suited to different playstyles depending on the ship you are using and what ships are in the group- this probably is not the game for you if you only want to pvp.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 54
02-08-2010, 06:05 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rothnang
Sure, it only means something in lining up all your ships to instantly kill someone right out of cloak...
Thus the Feds developed the "Ball Maneuver". Seriously, teamwork is the major factor in whether or not you win the match, not cloaking. Escorts are normally the first to be targeted, yet, can survive with the help of their teammates. This happens frequently, believe it or not. At that point, the plan of surprise is up and epic spam of abilities are over for Klingons... It's anyone's game...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lelutsi View Post
I would like to point out how disengenious you are not admitting that there really is a huge gap in the performance of these ships in question. You say others should go and learn, how about you do the same.

Lets recap what we have learned:
Federation cruiser, 2k more hull
Klingon cruiser, Cannons
Klingon cruiser, Cloak
Klingon cruiser, More turning speed

The real issue IS NOT the skills, as everyone can get them, it is the ships themselves. Additionally you say people dont know game mechanics, based upon your ridiculous statements it is you who dont know jack or just feign ignorance because you want to have better ships than others.

Edit: I have seen klingon cruisers do 300k damage, it is all about how long the game lasts and who heals what.
First of all, if I'm going to use cannons, I'm going to use dual heavy cannons. We may have slightly better turn ratings with the ability to equip cannons...the question is...are those turn ratings good enough to get those firing arcs up fast to do the type of damage up front??? If you want that option, then sure...go for a heavier forward attack but the turn rating is not enough to get into position as an Escort would so you won't be using the cannons as often as you would an Escort. If you get the regular cannons or turrets then you'll use Rapid Cannon Fire more often, yet, at a lower DPS level.

An Escort will gain more Tactical abilities in the long run as well. They have the ability to dish out more DPS than Cruisers. And I disagree, skills and ships go hand in hand. BoP's get universal, specific ships get higher end skills indigenous to that class. So skills play in a HUGE factor along side with the ship you use.

Secondly, cloaking is a great skill, no doubt. There are smart players that KNOW game mechanics and use them to their advantage. A good example is sensor scan and there are other abilities that knock Klingons or hold them from cloaking.

Thirdly....Klingons don't get Science Vessels. It must be nice to have a vessel that can tank, do numerous special abilities, do decent DPS, turn decently, target subsystems... Klingons do get Carriers at T5. Carriers also have a turn rate of 4, no cloaking, 6 weapon slots overall. They're very hard to kill (I'm sure), have fighters, and a decent ability selection, but it's nothing in depth or specific to one area. You're not going to be getting some Mark II or all of Mark III specialization skills.

Lastly... I've made it both to T3 on Klingon and Fed side so I'm going to talk from that perspective. I've never seen a Fed or Klingon do 300k DPS. I've seen screenshots of 250k from Escorts but at least in T3....I've never witnessed anyone going to such heights. Escorts have the potential. I can personally say that Cruisers have decent DPS, but Escorts can surpass them. I've done it before...easily.

So what do people expect?? Two factions to be completely the same in every regards...No! Even though Klingons will be getting T2 Cruiser...I went through it not having the benefit of anything beyond a DPS class. Feds had tankers, specialist ships while we had DPS. It's not a complaint and I'm glad Klingons will at least get a Cruiser at that level, but it didn't stop us from trying to be strategic in order to win a match. We won some and lost some.

In short, Feds have their strengths and weaknesses as do the Klingons.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 55
02-08-2010, 06:06 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaglug View Post
A quick look at Suricata's ship charts gives the data.
T4 Klink cruiser = Less hull than any fed ship. Better turning than Fed cruiser, worse turning than Sci Ship. Same console slots as fed cruiser, same BO as fed cruiser, same weapon slots as a fed cruiser.


So...less survivable than a fed cruiser.
Less maneuverable than a fed sci ship.
A cloaking device that doesn't do anything once combat is joined.


Honestly, some Fed perspective is needed.
TBH, i would trade all of my extra hull for a cloaking device and maneverability. I mean seriously, what is with this fricken bullshlt about using "extra" hull to justify better turning, increased maneuverability in general, a fricken cloaking device, and the ability to use cannons on all ships.

You know what that extra hull gives us? An extra 3-5 cannon shots or *maybe* , if we're really lucky, an extra torpedo hit on the hull. You know why that means jack **** (aside from the obvious reason that one torpedo or 3-5 cannon shots mean nothing)? Once your shields go down (and stay down) and you start taking hull damage, its GG. So extra hull means nothing. Also, with better turning, you can use your shield arcs more effectively giving you a better tank.

I'm not crying for a nerf here, I'm just pointing out that saying "extra fed hull justifies all the stuff klinks get" is bullshlt. Getting tired of seeing that.

The only time when hull is worth a **** is when you're pressing the attack with an escort and you need to keep your forward arc facing the enemy to finish them off. And this doesn't apply to a broadsiding cruiser for obvious reasons.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 56
02-08-2010, 06:44 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PotatoOverdose View Post
TBH, i would trade all of my extra hull for a cloaking device and maneverability. I mean seriously, what is with this fricken bullshlt about using "extra" hull to justify better turning, increased maneuverability in general, a fricken cloaking device, and the ability to use cannons on all ships.

You know what that extra hull gives us? An extra 3-5 cannon shots or *maybe* , if we're really lucky, an extra torpedo hit on the hull. You know why that means jack **** (aside from the obvious reason that one torpedo or 3-5 cannon shots mean nothing)? Once your shields go down (and stay down) and you start taking hull damage, its GG. So extra hull means nothing. Also, with better turning, you can use your shield arcs more effectively giving you a better tank.

I'm not crying for a nerf here, I'm just pointing out that saying "extra fed hull justifies all the stuff klinks get" is bullshlt. Getting tired of seeing that.

The only time when hull is worth a **** is when you're pressing the attack with an escort and you need to keep your forward arc facing the enemy to finish them off. And this doesn't apply to a broadsiding cruiser for obvious reasons.
Once again, are you looking at 1 vs 1 or within a team dynamic. 1 vs 1 means very little in the PvP environment STO puts us in. Maintain a diverse mixed-role fleet(not hard for the Feds) where players actually play their role, and then you see your strength as the Feds. The more Feds the Fed players teach this lesson to, the better off the Feds will be in all tiers.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 57
02-08-2010, 07:13 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by cocoa-jin View Post
Once again, are you looking at 1 vs 1 or within a team dynamic. 1 vs 1 means very little in the PvP environment STO puts us in. Maintain a diverse mixed-role fleet(not hard for the Feds) where players actually play their role, and then you see your strength as the Feds. The more Feds the Fed players teach this lesson to, the better off the Feds will be in all tiers.
Well, even in a team dynamic, I'd trade a 6.25% reduction in effective hit points for an increased turn rate, as a Cruiser pilot (you can keep the Cannons). Doesn't even have to be the same as Battlecruisers- would do it for a turn rate of 7 for the Tier 4 and 5 cruisers.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 58
02-08-2010, 07:37 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by cocoa-jin View Post
Once again, are you looking at 1 vs 1 or within a team dynamic. 1 vs 1 means very little in the PvP environment STO puts us in. Maintain a diverse mixed-role fleet(not hard for the Feds) where players actually play their role, and then you see your strength as the Feds. The more Feds the Fed players teach this lesson to, the better off the Feds will be in all tiers.

I gotta say I don't understand what you're saying at all. If the discussion is still on battle cruisers, they offer precisely the same support options cruisers do, but with much better turning and much better forward DPS potential for a slightly lower hull rating. Battle cruisers and raptors are pretty much directly analogous to cruisers and escorts, the only variable is the science ship and BOP.


In any case, I've been saying this since closed beta, cruisers need some buffing to their turn rate at the very least. They can't defend their shields like battle cruisers can so the tiny amount of extra hull is meaningless because of it. They do not provide anything more to a group of Feds than a battle cruiser provides to the Klingons, with the exception of being easier to kill due to that aforementioned lack of turning.

As for cannons, battle cruisers do just fine with them. I had very little trouble in open beta with my battle cruiser and heavy cannons. Put on a couple of turn rate consoles and you have better turning than science ships.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 59
02-08-2010, 07:41 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Foxrocks
I gotta say I don't understand what you're saying at all. If the discussion is still on battle cruisers, they offer precisely the same support options cruisers do, but with much better turning and much better forward DPS potential for a slightly lower hull rating. Battle cruisers and raptors are pretty much directly analogous to cruisers and escorts, the only variable is the science ship and BOP.
Exactly- what c-jin is saying is that the support available to the cruiser and battlecruiser respectively, is lacking in the case of the battlecruiser, specifically because of science ships.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 60
02-08-2010, 08:38 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by faithborn
I can see it now!
---Beam: overload--- 20 second duration, 35 second cooldown@9
for 20 seconds your beams deal double damage, after 15 seconds one of your beams breaks down and incinerates itself.


but in a serious mode, just make beam overload deal increased damage with a small chance to fry out your beams for 30 seconds to a minute.
this just attests to how overpowered rapid fire is, because that would be extremely similar to rapid fire if they did make that change

fed cruisers are the gimpest ships in the game especially at t4, the tiny hull advantage makes no diffrence whatsover, its not even one extra torpedos or 2 seconds of rapid firing cannons worth of hull, klingon cruisers and klingon bops continue to be by far the strongest ships and at the same time can stealth

even if klingons didnt have stealth at t3 they would still have an advantage over feds in combat
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 07:06 PM.