Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 1 Jiffy Pop FAQ 2!
06-10-2011, 06:16 AM
Jermbots Ideas For Fixing Yssues via Potentially Outrageous Proposals!

Today's topic, Destroyers!

This likely won't be as sensational as my previous posts but as always, if you feel like you should respond I will read your views with an open mind, if you have any questions I will do my best to answer them, if you have an alternative idea in the same vein I would love to hear it, and if you want to flame, go crazy I only ask that you flame on topic.

Now, there is out there a group of players even smaller than the KDF, even more ignored than the Romulan Empire, and even more marginalized than that one guy still hoping for a Cardassian faction one day. It's a group that finds members in the old and young, the brave and bold, the bold and the beautiful, the beauty and the beast and the KDF and Starfleet. Yes, if you're a die-hard Klingon hoping for that T5 K'Tinga, a TOS fan posting support on your sixth T5 Connie thread, or a lonely Nausicaan space pirate who wished his Guramba beam boat was always in siege mode, maybe turned a little faster and was a little bit tougher, you are not some lone voice that will never be heard, you are one voice among, well, a couple of other voices that may never be heard. Join together people, I identify you and I name you for you are Destroyers!

Or, well, captains who want to fly Destroyers. Originally designed and introduced in the 1800's as "Torpedo Boat Destroyers" these vessels originally had one sole purpose, to protect larger cruisers and battle ships from the agile, hard hitting, but short ranged 'torpedo boats' that were permitting a country to reak untold damage on larger expensive navy's at a fraction of the cost. In a modern navy the Destroyer's role has grown significantly making it a versatile work horse ship capable of taking on any number of varied tasks and objectives and it's that versatility that I want to see at play here. My proposal for an entirely new class of ships, available in distinct forms to both factions, is here. Currently I have a rough outline for what the Destroyer should be.

A destroyer would have 4 forward weapon mounts and 3 rear. Generally it would not be able to equip cannons, though that and a standard cloak can be balanced into the K'Tinga-R the way it was for the Vorcha-R. Its manueverability would be on par with an end game science vessel, I don't have the numbers just an understanding of the feel. There'd be room for special abilities as appropriate, the Guramba-D that inspired me to take up this cause would have a disruptor javelin similar to the Guramba-E counter part. Possibly with a larger wind up time but obviously no need to enter a 'siege mode' to use it, so mechanically very similar to the phaser lance on the Galaxy-X.

And here's where I go off the deep end, ready? Four universal bridge officer slots. A commander, lieutenant commander and two lieutenants. While you gasp in outrage I'll even add to that, 2 adjustable console slots in addition to the 6 baseline consoles divided evenly between tactical, engineering and science. Still haven't had a heart attack yet, here's the coupe de grace, scaling power setting bonuses based on where you apply those adjustable console slots. For each adjustable console set to science, you get +5 auxilary power, for each in tactical you get +7.5 weapons power and for each engineering you get... actually +5 to all subsystems is kinda tricky to divide up, but lets throw it in anyway, a +2.5 bonus to all subsystem power.

Lets get to the questions.

Q1. Are you INSANE!?

It's not madness, this is Revolution!

Q2. The MVAE may have killed the Bird of Prey but you, good sir, have thrown the first shovelfull of dirt on its coffin!

That's not a question but okay, lets address it. The bird of prey is still the only craft in the game capable of battle cloaking hit and run strategies and, to be honest, the degree of versatility that the Bird of Prey has on paper is wasted because of its low hull strength. Yeah, the Bird of Prey is capable of any officer loadout, but not all of them were even remotely effective. The destroyer I suggest would be a truly universal ship in a way the Bird of Prey could not be, but it also will not have the special benefits exclusive to the Bird of Prey so there is room for both in the game.

Q3. But shouldn't Bird of Prey players have been given adjustable consoles and scaling benefits first?

They should have this already, the idea has been floating around for awhile and I didn't invent it myself, I coopted it, shamelessly, from an earlier post. I forget who's but if you're reading this and you know who you are, props and I wish I could remember to give you credit.

Q4. Wouldn't this give Universal Bridge Officer Slots to the Federation, increasing dirty dirty homogenization?

Well yes. Yes it will, but unfortunately the reasoning behind this idea holds true for both factions, the Klingons do not have a patent on modular technology with adjustable purposes, and since these are entirely new classes of ships the Klingons maintain the same unique play options they have already.

Q5. But it's still one less reason to choose a Klingon over a Fed, how can you sleep at night?

As is the case with any increase in play experience on both sides of the game, it's also one more reason to choose a Klingon. Plus, we're really not going to get any game changing innovation that doesn't also benefit the Federation, it's a harsh truth but one we have to live with.

Q6. Do you really think people want to play middle of the road ships who's only special ability is to ape the benefits of more pure ship classes?

Yes.

Q7. I believe this ship will be massively over powered, it will become a God ship that will overshadow all other ships and kill game diversity.

Well, it's certainly my intention that the Destroyer be a balanced ship and by fine tuning things like hull strength, turn radius and the like we should be able to make it so. I'm very interested in hearing your proposal for balancing it.

Q8. I don't know how to balance it, it's a stupid idea.

Ah, okay, thank you for your time then.

Q9. I believe this ship will be massively under powered, it will become a laughinstock that will never be played, it's not worth the developers time.

Well, it's certainly my intention that the Destroyer be a balanced ship and by fine tuning things like hull strength, turn radius and the like we should be able to make it so. I'm very interested in hearing your proposal for balancing it.

Q10. I don't think it should be balanced, it's a stupid little ship idea and it's stupid to think it should be able to compete with {insert ship here}.

Ah, okay, thank you for your time then.

Q11. My Guramba is perfect the way it is and this change would only nerf me, I do not approve.

I agree, the Guramba as it is in the game now and has been paid for should stay. This would be a 'siege destroyer' variant or even a different Nausicaan ship of similar design. I don't care, just so long as I keep getting to shoot them awesome disruptor lances out of my tentacles.

Q12. I imagined the Constitution as a full cruiser with a crew of 800, here is my design below!

Thanks, but there are threads dedicated to that sort of thing already. Sure, most of them have been closed, but if you disagree with this particular version of a T5 Connie, that's okay. You probably don't need to worry as I doubt this proposal will go through so long as T5 Connie's are attached.

Q13. I imagined the K'Tinka-R as a science vessel cause of that time in Star Trek V when....

Okay... that's an interesting idea, strangely the 'destroyer' I've outlined would be able to serve as one of the purest 'science vessels' in the Klingon fleet if that's how you wanted to arrange it. Still, I don't think it's a defining feature of the K'Tinka.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 2
06-10-2011, 09:25 AM
T5 K't'inga?
4/3 weapons arrangement?
turnrate similar to a Federation Science ship?
Why do i find these ideas so very familiar?
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 3 Hee-hee
06-10-2011, 09:46 AM
You must have quite a dialog going there with yourself. In my experience never engage with it in crowded lift as I do. People tend to get nervous

Other than that keep them coming!
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 4
06-10-2011, 09:56 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by mister_dee
T5 K't'inga?
4/3 weapons arrangement?
turnrate similar to a Federation Science ship?
Why do i find these ideas so very familiar?
Yep, and you thought I never read your posts. Building a T5 K'tinga as a destroyer not quite like anything in the game currently was an idea of yours that I really liked, but it always seemed wrong to me to add an entirely new ship classification for just the one ship. Especially since I was already flying the one 'official' destroyer in the game. Between this, a thoroughly interesting T5 Connie proposal that would have made it a destroyer with universal bridge officer spots who's author I can't name either, and a throwaway suggestion in a BoP thread suggesting universal consoles, I think I've used three other better ideas to cobble this proposal together. Might be a record.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 5
06-10-2011, 10:13 AM
I never said you never read them, I only said that you had commented on a few things you had not read yourself.
Not quite the same thing.
Besides if you never read my posts I'd have had several monlogues with you which is as stupid as it sounds.
I was actually referring to the fact that you sounded very sceptical about this idea when I proposed it.

http://forums.startrekonline.com/sho...9&postcount=98

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jermbot
But it sounds like you're suggesting something not in the game at all in any form. While that's not a bad thing it is harder, it will require a greater deal of work to get the balance right and with Cryptic's current method of balancing, 'throw the ship in, see how it does, fix if enough people complain' I can't see how anything shiny and new can get through the testing process in the Klingon's favor.
It's bit odd that what you considered an idea you said would require so much work you now praise as a revolution.
And that even though you want to go one step further than I did and put universals in which make the whole matter even more complicated that's all.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 6
06-10-2011, 11:09 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by drkfrontiers
You must have quite a dialog going there with yourself. In my experience never engage with it in crowded lift as I do. People tend to get nervous

Other than that keep them coming!
Staring at your cheerful Cardassian face, it has occured to me that the Galor, if we ever see it as playable, would likely be another ship to fit the Destroyer model better than the Escort model.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mister_dee
It's bit odd that what you considered an idea you said would require so much work you now praise as a revolution.
And that even though you want to go one step further than I did and put universals in which make the whole matter even more complicated that's all.
Ah, yeah I can completely understand the confusion that caused but I stand by both statements. Obviously I have no problem sounding shizophrenic at need and I'm sorry if, in my attempt to provide intelligent feedback, I didn't allow myself enough time to properly praise the merits of the idea. In my defense, I was nursing a grudge against you and your K'Tinka posts were what grudgingly turned me around.

I guess I can really only describe it as an idea that's too much work for one ship, but not enough work for an entire class of ships. Thus the efforts to further separate the class from the other ships so it brings more to the game than being just a small maneuverable cruiser or a slow but sturdy escort. Plus, and I hate being in a situation where I have to concede this, but until we have faction parity, the math will be different when the idea can be applied to the Federation.
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 03:35 AM.