Go Back   Star Trek Online > Feedback > Federation Gameplay
Login

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 31
05-22-2011, 09:02 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by staalker View Post
Read my post. This isn't my argument. blah blah.

You are basing your whole "deserve" point on the idea that teh Federation is lacking something the KDF has.

Well, YOU are wrong. If you are playing as a FED in PvP, any class and any ship. You can easily know what to take with you because the KDF has little in the way of variety. You will have to deal with cloaking and pets. Everything else isn't special.
Okay, so Fed's in PVP need to deal with battle cloaks, pets, and 'everything else that isn't special.' That's a bit broad but lets see what you say about Klingon PVP.

Quote:
As a KDF player, you go into PvP you can't plan for what you might face. Tell ya what, I'd happily agree that the FEDS should have a BoP type ship, as soon as the KDF is given equality. Sure, maybe a D'Kyr and Nebula are both science ships, but they play entirely different. That makes them more than just a variant.
Well, you seem to have lost the thread of your argument. But I agree with this! In fact, I have a post in the Klingon Gameplay forum suggesting a bridge officer conversion kit that would allow you to swap one of your lieutenant slots with your lieutenant commander slot. This would allow Federation and Klingon both to create those unique hybrid builds we see on the D'Kyr, MVAE and Excelsior. It would still leave the Nebula as the only ship capable of two Lieutenant tactical spots so if you'd like to propose a Klingon equivalent I'd support that.

Quote:
A BoP is just an escort, a really fragile one, that gies up that extra survival to vanish (hopefully) form combat. It's not some special class of ship. It functions just like an escort, the MVAE is a pretty equal match for it. Just instead of a cloak you get to split into 3 ships. Reading the forums, most consider the MVAE overpowered.
Well, you can play the BoP as 'just an escort' but it's not really ideal for that task. And in the 'just an escort' play style I would say it's easily over matched by the MVAE. But that's not the ONLY way to play a BoP.

Quote:
The only thing the KDF has that the FEDS don't are battle cloaks. The Feds have plenty that the KDF doesn't. The FED get multiple types of a ship class, that is they way they are. The KDF gets one of a type, but more types. How is it not fair and balanced that way?
And carriers. The rest of this point I've addressed at length.

Quote:
Feds get scorpions fighters, making EVERY ship a carrier if you want.
No.

Quote:
Battle Cloak is the only thing the KDF has that makes them unique. You are lookin at this the wrong way. It's not about matching ship types, but ships function. The FEDS have so many special ship that they might as well be their own type. Those ships all generally have one specific role they are good at. Yes, the Intrepid and the D'kyr are both Science class ships, but they don't have the same function.
You're going to need to define what you mean by 'function.' But if by 'function' you mean that they feel very different when you fly them you won't see me disagreeing with that and I've already outlined a solution.

Quote:
They act differently. Just as a BoP is an Escort just like the Raptor, they just have different functions.
No, the BoP is not an escort.

Quote:
Worse part here is, the KDF "special ships" aren't equal to their FED counterpart. Heck, the B'Rel is broken.
Yes, there are some issues with the B'Rel Enhanced Battle Cloak that need to be fixed.

Quote:
The Varanus is inferior to any equal tier science ship, which is why you see very few of them. One ship for the FED 5? Yeah, that is sure equal. Sadly, the Varanus can't stand up one on one to any of those FED science ships.
Yes, there are issues with the repair platforms which make them ineffective and thus not worth the cost that Cryptic imposed on the Varanus for them.

Now, having said that, see if you can spot the tactical mistake in asking me, a person pointing out that the Federation has 0 battle cloaking raiders, if I think that the Klingons having 1 science vessel is acceptable.

Quote:
You mention taking turns, but I don't get how you think it's the FED's turn? How many ships have come out on the FED side since the last time the KDF got a ship? How many ships between KDF ships? So Fed's get to go 3 times before the KDF goes?
Yes. The Fed's get to go 3 times before the KDF goes. This is an unfortunate market decision brought about by faction population. Now, the Klingon population problems are caused by lack of play content not lack of ships or lack of fans.

Quote:
There is a reason the KDF population is low. Funny how so many people claim the KDF is overpowered (and I am not saying YOU said it). If it's so OP on the KDF side, why is it so low population? Players typically like to be where they have the advantage....so why aren't they on the KDF? It's because it's just not true.
You're right, I never said they were overpowered. And in fact, in this same thread, I stated that the introduction of a battle cloaking light raider would not be a balancing factor one way or the other. Actually the BoP is a hard ship to play well and the Carrier seems to be an impossible ship to play well. The Federation is stronger without them. The game is weaker for lack of options.

Quote:
So you'd have the FEDs get more now, before the KDF even gets closer to being equal? The MVAE can usually 1vs1 an BoP and win. There is a reason the BoP pilots fly in packs.
Yes, because the game needs to stay profitable to justify further large scale investment and that means keeping the subscriber base stable by making decisions that appeal to the largest number of players. Unfortunately this means a disproportionate amount of time will go towards frills and cash shop gimmicks for the Federation. But if them designing a Lieutenant level ship for the Federation that looks just like the ship from Enterprise makes them enough cash shop money to hire another programmer or content designer I am all for it and I'm not going to get sore or overly frustrated by my inability to play a BoP well.

Quote:
Nah. Can't see why anyone would "misunderstand" your point.

I get your point. I really do. I think it's selfish and greedy.
Then you don't get my point. You really don't. I don't play on the Federation side and I don't fly Birds of Prey. The only benefit I would directly receive from this idea would be the smirk of satisfaction when I see a Federation captain trying to fly a Bird of Prey purely as an escort and failing miserably. The indirect benefit though can be huge. It could lead to a larger player base, more popular PVP and an overall better game. It could allow the developers to more efficiently address bugs, issues, and balance problems with these ship classifications which could save money and free up resources to do things that this game really needs.

Quote:
This is the reason the KDF has been passed over for so long, people like you who thinnk that FEDs are supposed to have everything anyone else has. Sadly, the devs are probably gonna give it to you eventually. If you are more familiar with KDF ships than FED, that would almost suggest that you play more KDF than FED. I could believe that if you hadn't made this post.
No it's not. I'm afraid I can't believe that you know anything about the marketing and development of an MMO. You don't truly understand the issues facing this game and you don't seem to truly understand the points I've raised.

Quote:
You can call it what you like, but there is no way a TRUE KDF player would ever think that giving MORE of the KDF away to the FEDs before we get some quality of our own is a good idea.

If the KDF has battle cloak, FEDs have plenty of other shiny toys. Sadly, battle cloak is easily defeated by most of those Sci ships you have 5 of. Can't see how there is an easy defeat for those Sci Ships though, not from the KDF side.

There is New stuff almost weekly for the FED...once per quarter for KDF, if we're lucky.

Maybe if you saw things from the realistic perspective, you'd see why you have gathered so much hostility here. I have to laugh that you can even suggest the FED need more to be fair. You send over some MVA consoles, some ablative shielding and support shuttles...then maybe we can discuss how battle cloaking works.
A realistic perspective? Wow, okay, you live in a fantasy world where the KDF is not a small minority of subscribers in a massively unbalanced game ran by a company that's looking to make money off of their hard work. I have a realistic perspective, in my realistic perspective Klingon gameplay problems like the woeful lack of fighter control and the aggravating tendency to become decloaked the second a comm screen opens get fixed faster when they effect a larger number of players. That's just one benefit we receive from homogenization. I've mentioned others.

Stop speaking out of frustration and look to the future of our faction.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 32
05-22-2011, 09:14 AM
Yridian scoutship in Starfleet? No offense, but this seems more purposed towards baiting Klingon players than actually getting a Yridian. Seriously, Yridian scoutships? Seriously?
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 33
05-22-2011, 09:50 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by drkfrontiers
My first response hardly qualifies as a rant.
True, but what it actually qualified as, spam, would be penalized or moderated. So rant seemed nicer.

Quote:
Refer to my "spam" - you just made my point. Feds have more choice in your own words.
No, again and for the 3rd time, the range of play experience between the 4 different Escorts on the Federation side does not vary greatly, with the possible exception of the MVAE and it's LC scientist a play imbalance I've forwarded an idea to address already on the Klingon forum. The range of play experience between an escort and a Bird of Prey is far greater than you see between any of the four Federation escorts.


Quote:
I fly the BOP very successfully as a Science Officer. My point is that it is not a Science Vessel in the eyes of Cryptic, therefore has no science abilities that the Federation science players enjoy - tachychon detection field, techychon detection grid, support craft, ablative armor, or sensor analysis for that matter as it can only be used on the Veranus. The BOP counter to all this is the fact that it has universal BO slots and cloak. If you want all the best of the BOP, and still want to keep all these abilities then you are simply asking too much.
I agree and I don't. A Bird of Prey with battle cloak, universal flexibility, the kind of maneuverability that lets it turn on a dime AND the benefits of larger, more rigidly outfitted science vessels would be horribly overpowered.


Quote:
The Federation should have carriers if you look at the cannon material. The BOP - come on seriously. But then there are a host of shoulds and should nots that both factions should address. Where's the Pulse Cannon on the Negh'Var? Where's the Tier 5 K'Tinga? Where's the most infamous K'Vort?
I hope those make their way into the Cash Shop eventually, if only because it means that the Klingon player base has grown enough to justify them. I don't care much for canon arguments because, in my mind, they all went out the window when they set this game in a future beyond any canon sources.

Quote:
You were given the cloaked escort that performs very well?
This seems off topic but from what I understand the Federation does has a cloaked escort that performs on par with the t5 Raptor.

Quote:
My mistake - by that I meant Career. And you are wrong. Please show me how a Science Commander ability can be remotely viable in the Negh'Var or Raptor, etc.
Science Commander ability? You mean something like Photonic Fleet, Dampening Field, Subnucleonic Beam, and Sensor Scan? From what I understand the Aux-Power bonus is nice for those but they are useful without. Or perhaps you're only referring to Science Fleet, which, yeah, is not great outside of a 'purist' set up. It's unfortunate and I really think they should replace it, and it's tactical/engineering equivalence with a 'fleet support' skill based on your ship class rather than your captain career.

Quote:
The Federation has much better ship-BO-slot diveristy than the Klingon Empire, and thus can afford to have their careers play different ships.
This is also something I'd like to see addressed. I've got an idea up on the Klingon gameplay forum for adjustable bridge officer slots which should allow a wider degree of diversity not just for each side but for individual ships as well. From a gameplay standpoint it would boil individual ships down to an aesthetic choice and a possible special ability.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 34
05-22-2011, 11:13 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jermbot View Post
True, but what it actually qualified as, spam, would be penalized or moderated. So rant seemed nicer.
Well it was not my intention, so hopefully Cryptic's moderators will see that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jermbot View Post
No, again and for the 3rd time, the range of play experience between the 4 different Escorts on the Federation side does not vary greatly, with the possible exception of the MVAE and it's LC scientist a play imbalance I've forwarded an idea to address already on the Klingon forum. The range of play experience between an escort and a Bird of Prey is far greater than you see between any of the four Federation escorts.
Honestly, I cannot say. I have never played Federation - so I'm willing to remain openminded to this.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jermbot View Post
I agree and I don't. A Bird of Prey with battle cloak, universal flexibility, the kind of maneuverability that lets it turn on a dime AND the benefits of larger, more rigidly outfitted science vessels would be horribly overpowered.
Even at T5, I often feel this way about the Retrofit Fed. Escort.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jermbot View Post
I hope those make their way into the Cash Shop eventually, if only because it means that the Klingon player base has grown enough to justify them. I don't care much for canon arguments because, in my mind, they all went out the window when they set this game in a future beyond any canon sources.
Perhaps, but they could still keep the genre authentic.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jermbot View Post
This seems off topic but from what I understand the Federation does has a cloaked escort that performs on par with the t5 Raptor.
Yes, and it is potent.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jermbot View Post
Science Commander ability? You mean something like Photonic Fleet, Dampening Field, Subnucleonic Beam, and Sensor Scan? From what I understand the Aux-Power bonus is nice for those but they are useful without. Or perhaps you're only referring to Science Fleet, which, yeah, is not great outside of a 'purist' set up. It's unfortunate and I really think they should replace it, and it's tactical/engineering equivalence with a 'fleet support' skill based on your ship class rather than your captain career.
Sorry, I was referring to BO skills at Commander level.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jermbot View Post
This is also something I'd like to see addressed. I've got an idea up on the Klingon gameplay forum for adjustable bridge officer slots which should allow a wider degree of diversity not just for each side but for individual ships as well. From a gameplay standpoint it would boil individual ships down to an aesthetic choice and a possible special ability.
I agree this would allow players greater versatility.

You see Jermbot! - debate is healthy and meaningful. How else would a community have a positive impact of future development.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 35
05-22-2011, 11:43 AM
Personally while i see points of both sides i think one of the major things is that Klingons really didnt do much ship designing. They found something that worked and then used it. Lack of Klingon ships is partly because of this and also cause there is a quite large difference between Fed players and Klingon players. I agree that part of the Klingon population or lack of it is the lack of content to grind but most players i agree go with and stick to federation because its the side everyone always saw in the movies and series (personally would love to see a star trek series that follows either one ship or jumps around throughout the empire).

While its true you lack alot from not having Science ships you do have two types fed players dont, carriers and BOP. Its just common that Fed players are gonna want to be able to play these classes without having to be a klingon. Personally i like both factions but i know many that have no interest outside their ship styles for wanting a Klink.

Its up to the devs what they do or what they determine to give each faction. Personally both sides have merit.
I do think the Feds should have atleast ONE additional class of ship even if its only one ship design just to have 4 class ships for each side. Whether its a Carrier a BOP wannabe or something unique is up to the devs.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 36
05-22-2011, 12:06 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by drkfrontiers
Well it was not my intention, so hopefully Cryptic's moderators will see that.
I'm sure. And I will seek a more connotation neutral word for 'sledge hammer of information designed to drive a point home.'


[quote]Even at T5, I often feel this way about the Retrofit Fed. Escort.[/quote[

Quote:
Sorry, I was referring to BO skills at Commander level.
Then ofcourse you're correct. You can not play a Raptor or Battle Cruiser as a ship with a selection of BO skills at Commander or Lieutenant Commander level. You have to play a Raptor or Battle Cruiser as a ship with a selection of Tactical or Engineering top tier BO skills. Which in fact is the point I was making about character class being far more complicated than just your captain's career choice. In fact, the type of ship you play is going to effect your play style and experience a lot more than getting to choose between a Photonic Fleet or Attack Pattern Alpha.

If there was any type of true 'character class' in this game, it would be your ship classification.

Quote:
I agree this would allow players greater versatility.

You see Jermbot! - debate is healthy and meaningful. How else would a community have a positive impact of future development.
All I've ever wanted is healthy debate. But look over the responses I've received and tell me at what point my ideas were given meaningful opposition. So if I come off as a bit zealous in my position, it is only because the straw man rebuttals I receive are worse than unconvincing, they in fact go on to reinforce the idea that there are no cons to the perceived pros. If I come off as a bit snarky or sarcastic, it is only because my patience wears thin and manners tend to suffer. And if my idea seems a bit on the stupid side, it's only because it's a catchy title for the overall concept. For more likely the answer to this will be a "defiant-x" which will be described as a 'light weight' version of the existing defiant-r that sacrifices weapons, hull strength and power to become compatible with experimental battle cloaking technology.
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 01:59 PM.