Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 51
02-10-2010, 06:49 PM
The problem isnt that the Raptor is too weak, it's that the BoP is too op. It does more damage, has more survivability, and can battle-cloak. BoP needs to have its Heavy Cannons taken away or something like that to make it more in line with the other ships.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 52
02-11-2010, 02:17 AM
Well well well, BoP in tier 5 is totally useless sadly tho. Low hull, low dmg output.. I don't know what is wrong but I cannot dent anyone and i got Mk X wepons..

Plus feds damage is so high you cannot even battle cloack (not even with +res on before cloacking), totally very bad ship in tier 5 seems or I'm not used to this new tier... or the feds are just overpowered.
I don't know.. I did very well any tier.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 53
02-11-2010, 08:54 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Azma
The problem isnt that the Raptor is too weak, it's that the BoP is too op. It does more damage, has more survivability, and can battle-cloak. BoP needs to have its Heavy Cannons taken away or something like that to make it more in line with the other ships.
The BoPs are fine...they are classic canon in their representation...the Raptor is the new comer with very little detail in canon. It needs to be adjusted since it has very little prescident....leave the BoP alone.

I really cant accept butchering well established canon so we can pidegon hole these vessels into some convient MMO slot. The Raptor needs to have its place better defined within STO(especially since it wasnt in Trek).

But leave my BoP alone.

Honestly the raptor needed to have been the T1 and T2 light Cruiser to fill in the lower tier Cruiser role. Honestly, my first impression from Trek was that the Raptor was the fore-father of the modern KDF Cruiser. Look at its lines, its a primiative successor to the KDF cruiser, showing a design trend consistent from the D7/K'tinga through the Neg'var.

Cryptic decided to take this single design and treat it like it was its own hull lineage from the Cruiser so they could "increase" KDF ship types/classes in game. Cryptic pidegon holed the Raptor into a ill-defined role between the BoPs and the Cruisers.

The Raptor as a seperate ship lineage looked better on paper and for game marketing...for the love of Kahless dont touch my BoP because of this crap!

The KDF never needed 3 distinct classes like the Feds. The Klingons have two type sof warships...the fast, light raider/escort hull and the Battle Cruiser hull...thats it.

BoPs are perfect where they are, as light, expensive units, they fit the bill as the jack of all trades role they have in game. The Klingons wont invest heavy resources into a less than pure combat design. So the small BoP has to be flexiable enough to fit any support role for the pure combat role Battle Cruiser. That means Escort/Raider or the EW frigate or a recon/science vessel...thats the BoP...whatever we need thats not Fleet related, give it to the cheap BoP to do.

After that, its just battle cruiser and for economic reasons, a light cruiser(the Raptor's perfect and only real role) That means Raptors need to be T1 and T2 Cruisers. It should have been a stepping stone to Commanding a Vorcha and eventually the Neg'var..
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 54
02-11-2010, 09:00 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by voidtarget View Post
Well well well, BoP in tier 5 is totally useless sadly tho. Low hull, low dmg output.. I don't know what is wrong but I cannot dent anyone and i got Mk X wepons..

Plus feds damage is so high you cannot even battle cloack (not even with +res on before cloacking), totally very bad ship in tier 5 seems or I'm not used to this new tier... or the feds are just overpowered.
I don't know.. I did very well any tier.
BoP are the most manueverable and flexible ships in the game, keep practicing and ask people for help but they are absolutely deadly when handled properly.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 55
02-11-2010, 09:02 AM
The problem with the Raptor (and Fed Escort for that matter) is not the ships so much as it is the problem with canons. By making cannons ideal at 5kms the Raptor and Escort lost their uses as front heavy weapons platforms because they don't have the extra hull and Engineering slots to tank like the Cruisers and they lack the maneuverability and battle cloak of the BoP.

What I'd like to see is a fixing of cannons so that they are more useful further out, but I can understand that this would only make the BoP all the more dangerous. If that solution is not possible bump the turn rates of Raptors and Escorts to be closer, but not equal to, the BoP.

Until something is done to address cannons Raptors/Escorts will always be useless.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 56
02-11-2010, 09:06 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Varrangian View Post
The problem with the Raptor (and Fed Escort for that matter) is not the ships so much as it is the problem with canons. By making cannons ideal at 5kms the Raptor and Escort lost their uses as front heavy weapons platforms because they don't have the extra hull and Engineering slots to tank like the Cruisers and they lack the maneuverability and battle cloak of the BoP.

What I'd like to see is a fixing of cannons so that they are more useful further out, but I can understand that this would only make the BoP all the more dangerous. If that solution is not possible bump the turn rates of Raptors and Escorts to be closer, but not equal to, the BoP.

Until something is done to address cannons Raptors/Escorts will always be useless.
They could tie efefctive range to ship...so it coul dbe argued the BoP doesnt have the power to project the same amount of damage from farther ranges.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 57
02-11-2010, 09:10 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by cocoa-jin View Post
They could tie efefctive range to ship...so it coul dbe argued the BoP doesnt have the power to project the same amount of damage from farther ranges.
I like that idea. I personally think it would have made more sense to make beams more effective in close and diminishing further away, regardless though the current issues with Raptors/Escorts are all tied to this effective range problem with cannons.

A related issue is the 3d movement restrictions. While BoP's that are cannon heavy suffer this problem as well, they have flexibilities in BO's, turn rate and battle cloak that make them less susceptible to this problem.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 58
02-11-2010, 09:11 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Varrangian View Post
A related issue is the 3d movement restrictions. While BoP's that are cannon heavy suffer this problem as well, they have flexibilities in BO's, turn rate and battle cloak that make them less susceptible to this problem.
which is the reason I carry a pair of arrays on my escort.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 59
02-11-2010, 09:15 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by faithborn
which is the reason I carry a pair of arrays on my escort.
Yes, but even at that Escorts are front heavy on slots and so the arc of an array is limited more so than a ship that is balanced fore and aft weapons slots. BoP's are front heavy too, but they have a turn rate of 21 while the Escort/Raptor has a 15 that's a 6 point difference and it that is huge.

Escorts are supposed to be DPSers and currently they fail at their job because they've been nerfed to death. Bump their turn rate and extend their cannon range and you might actually give them a job back.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 60
02-11-2010, 09:22 AM
That lower turnb rate for Escorts must be at higher tiers. Even ore reason why i wish in higher tiers i culd keep th higher tier seats, but put it in my lower tier ship. I love to swat down T4 Feds in a T2 BoP!
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 01:24 AM.