Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 31
07-02-2011, 05:27 PM
Q: What ship(s) did you fly as you ranked up? For each, primarily PvE, PvP or both? Group or solo?
A: LT BoP, LC BoP, Comander BoP, CAPT Vor'Cha (beautiful ship) Carrier up to LTG and now GURAMBA SEIGE DESTROYER, PvE, solo

Q: What ship(s) do you fly at cap? For each, primarily PvE, PvP or both? Group or solo?
A: GURAMBA SEIGE DESTROYER for everything.

Q: Which ship(s) do you think are currently overpowered? PvE, PvP, or both? Specifically why?
A: Dont feel like starting a war with other klink's

Q: Which ship(s) do you think are currently underpowered? PvE, PvP, or both? Specifically why?
A: Don't feel like starting a war with other klink's

Q: What feature of your favorite ships do you like the most? As in, console configurations, station configurations, aesthetics, special abilities, etc.?
A: What abilities? Other than cloak the only ship with a special power is the GURAMBA SEIGE DESTROYER to Transform and use it Javelin.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 32
07-02-2011, 06:22 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blasten_Blaster View Post
Various federation info
Wrong thread mate, This is the KDF side.

1. What ship(s) did you fly as you ranked up? For each, primarily PvE, PvP or both? Group or solo?
My only LG KDF character has been in raptors the entire time, on my other two KDF characters that I actually care about one has been in BoPs till their commander rank and the other is sticking with Battlecrusiers (almost captain where it will stay in a Vor'cha and never budge again) I'll do a mix of pve and pvp with most but the BoP is a science officer that I've been doing mostly pvp with a housemate on.

2. What ship(s) do you fly at cap? For each, primarily PvE, PvP or both? Group or solo?
Since reaching the cap my LG has moved between the Nausican destroyer and tier 5 raptor. I have only pvped with the raptor so far however.

3. Which ship(s) do you think are currently overpowered? PvE, PvP, or both? Specifically why?
Haven't really done enough pvp at cap to judge, but in pve the carrier (which my LT tried for a little while) just seems painful to play most of the time and extremely overpowered at others... like then your 2 BoPs and 4 fighters take out a cube in about 10 seconds.

4. Which ship(s) do you think are currently underpowered? PvE, PvP, or both? Specifically why?
See above.

5. What feature of your favorite ships do you like the most? As in, console configurations, station configurations, aesthetics, special abilities, etc.?
The naccels and mission pod on the new vor'cha skin are gold imo and blend very well with the stock vor'cha model, on top of that I thoroughly enjoy the way battlecrusiers are set up in power, manoeuvrability and weapons capacity. They strike a very good balance between attacking capability and toughness imo. A bit more variety in station layouts would help though I think, I'd be so bold as to say above and beyond what the variation in fed layouts is could be quite interesting too. (course these more adventurous layouts could be added to fed side too.)
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 33
07-02-2011, 07:18 PM
I have level up my klingon tac in raptor, its needs work to get on par with fed escorts. My klingon Sci fly bops, and the brel retrofit needs alot work the cloak is subpar compared to the normal battle cloak. But i love the speed and turn rate of it. My kling engi flys battlecruisers no complaints there, we just need the d5 war cruisers for t2.

Right now cannons need some some love they just dont do enough damage in pvp agains shields with current heals and shield resist. And more alpha strike power.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 34
07-02-2011, 07:25 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatness View Post
Wrong thread mate, This is the KDF side.

1. What ship(s) did you fly as you ranked up? For each, primarily PvE, PvP or both? Group or solo?
My only LG KDF character has been in raptors the entire time, on my other two KDF characters that I actually care about one has been in BoPs till their commander rank and the other is sticking with Battlecrusiers (almost captain where it will stay in a Vor'cha and never budge again) I'll do a mix of pve and pvp with most but the BoP is a science officer that I've been doing mostly pvp with a housemate on.

2. What ship(s) do you fly at cap? For each, primarily PvE, PvP or both? Group or solo?
Since reaching the cap my LG has moved between the Nausican destroyer and tier 5 raptor. I have only pvped with the raptor so far however.

3. Which ship(s) do you think are currently overpowered? PvE, PvP, or both? Specifically why?
Haven't really done enough pvp at cap to judge, but in pve the carrier (which my LT tried for a little while) just seems painful to play most of the time and extremely overpowered at others... like then your 2 BoPs and 4 fighters take out a cube in about 10 seconds.

4. Which ship(s) do you think are currently underpowered? PvE, PvP, or both? Specifically why?
See above.

5. What feature of your favorite ships do you like the most? As in, console configurations, station configurations, aesthetics, special abilities, etc.?
The naccels and mission pod on the new vor'cha skin are gold imo and blend very well with the stock vor'cha model, on top of that I thoroughly enjoy the way battlecrusiers are set up in power, manoeuvrability and weapons capacity. They strike a very good balance between attacking capability and toughness imo. A bit more variety in station layouts would help though I think, I'd be so bold as to say above and beyond what the variation in fed layouts is could be quite interesting too. (course these more adventurous layouts could be added to fed side too.)
ya i should read the thread not just trust the summary my friend said when he sent the link
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 35
07-02-2011, 07:49 PM
1. Levelling

Bird of Prey or Raptor because they kill the npcs the quickest.

2. Max Tier

All of them (sci/cruiser/escort/bird)

3. Overpowered

Intrepid - The Ablative armour is a 15 second RSP that cannot but subnucc'd off the enemy (only stun via shockwave or tricobalt). Way too powerful. Also, the sci ensign is the best by far.

MVAM - Has the best escort layout by far, plus it turns better, is faster, etc. Makes the advanced escort 100% obsolete. Its simply the most killy of them all with the sci LTC. Dont know what you can do to change that to make up for it, maybe make it the slowest escort in the game at the same time so there is a tradeoff?

4. Underpowered

B'Rel - As explained, this is simply the worst ship in the game. I dont think I need to go into detail

Vorcha - Less hull, doesnt really do anything for klingons (raptor has little bit less hull/shields but has firepower, and even that ship isnt used). Cannons get no benefit from the ensign tactical. Bump this bad boy up to be equal to the excellsior at the very least. Imo, if you want a true battle cruiser, go Tactical Commander, LTC Engineer, LT Engineer, Ensign Engineer, LT Sci. It would be unique and actually useful. Keep the lower hull though.

Raptor - Cant turn. Should be like the defiant at the very least (but I think something innovative/unique to make people choose this over the bird). Something is just off with this ship.

Refit special abilities - All the klingon ones suck. They should be optional with the console slot they are sacrificing (orion has a science "interceptor" console that can be replaced if you do not want it). I also wish they all had a cloak as well as it would allow for more unique ship setups (for example, you cant bring a single orion cruiser with raptors/birds as teammates as it will get annihilated by itself).

Individually:

Orion interceptors - mediocre, just brings more spam.
Varanus Healers - Do absolutely nothing to help your hull. 50 points a tick when a hazard emitters 1 gives 20x that amount. Also they just heal each other most of the time
Brel - Terrible Cloak
Garaumba - Lance takes way to long to come out when you actually click it. It has to be instant otherwise the shield facing will be replenished. Garaumba is good otherwise however.


Overall Id like to see Klingons get more damage oriented ships with unique boff layouts. Right now the only non fed clone ship that is competitive is the bird of prey (voquv nerf was unnecessary and made it uncompetitive).


On the Fed side, ships like the advanced escort, recon sci, galaxy refit are all underplayed and with internal balance would be considered underpowered. However, having said that, thats because feds have so many options and some are simply better than others. A recon sci would be most welcomed on the klingon side (especially if it had a standard cloak).
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 36
07-03-2011, 10:39 AM
1. What ship(s) did you fly as you ranked up? For each, primarily PvE, PvP or both? Group or solo?
-I only flew BoPs while levelling: PvP as often as i could but this had to be supplimented with a lot of PvE- generally solo

2. What ship(s) do you fly at cap? For each, primarily PvE, PvP or both? Group or solo?
-I currently fly a neghvar in PvP and PvE but always in a group

3. Which ship(s) do you think are currently overpowered? PvE, PvP, or both? Specifically why?
-no klingon vessels are currently over powered in my opinion: see my post in the federation version of this thread.

4. Which ship(s) do you think are currently underpowered? PvE, PvP, or both? Specifically why?
-varanus support vessel as the special ability in no way makes up for low turn rate or the loss of a console, Vo'quv (only PvP) as it has been hit by too many nerfs and though it can easily top numeric values in PvP it does not actually contribute as much as a support BoP can do. The guramba is a little too squishy for the damage it deals too with no real escape/anti agro options like the BoPs have.

5. What feature of your favorite ships do you like the most? As in, console configurations, station configurations, aesthetics, special abilities, etc.?
- I love the look of the KDF ships and their strong emphesis on movement and ambushing, however as stated in my federation version of this thread i prefer power combinations and console slots; the current KDF ships are not appealing to my playstyle in that area.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 37
07-03-2011, 11:14 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heretic

Specific questions:
1. What ship(s) did you fly as you ranked up? For each, primarily PvE, PvP or both? Group or solo?
2. What ship(s) do you fly at cap? For each, primarily PvE, PvP or both? Group or solo?
3. Which ship(s) do you think are currently overpowered? PvE, PvP, or both? Specifically why?
4. Which ship(s) do you think are currently underpowered? PvE, PvP, or both? Specifically why?
5. What feature of your favorite ships do you like the most? As in, console configurations, station configurations, aesthetics, special abilities, etc.?
1. Still no PvP. My science charcters are more or less forced to use BoPs, to put their science Boffs to use. For reasons that escape me, some KDF ships have fewer weapon slots than their fed equivalents of the same tier (T2 cruiser, T4 Raptor come to mind)

2. My engineer used the Vor´cha Refit, the Negh´var and the Orion cruiser (in that order of liking them).

Sci on the Vo´quv carrier (hate to flee from my own pets to keep them from redocking between enemies).

Guramba on my tactical. Cannons suck in Siege mode though.

Planning on my newest toon to use the Kar´Fi (it looks like it comes straight from hell..wait it does.)

3. None

4. The special ability of the Orion cruiser is not very impressive, the fighters leave as soon as the current enemy is destroyed, and with a cooldown of three minutes it´s not fun. I hear that the special of the Varanus seems to be underpowered too, but it´s just hearsay for me.

5. Carriers are nice ships, but there needs to be more variety. Let us use Carriers beginning with T2. I made a thread about my carrier ideas here: http://forums.startrekonline.com/sho...d.php?t=221564
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
I've not read the thread yet, but since you're asking for my opinion it doesn't matter. I will read it later to see if my points are well represented.

I have 3 tacs, 2 eng and 2 sci officers. One eng is lt. commander, I have one of each class at max and the rest are commanders currently.

The best part of playing KDF is the ships. The versatility and handling of the BoP, the damage of the Raptor, and the wonderful Battlecruisers are the reason I keep coming back even though the grind of levelling is not very fun on this side.

Again we have a problem...pvp and pve are basically different games with different needs. Nowhere is this problem more apparent than with the carriers. They were godly in both pve and pvp at one time. Now they got hit with several nerfs at once instead of one at a time with testing. Too little time was spent on the rebalance of these ships, and now they are poor cousins to the other ships in pve and not quite powerful enough in pvp. The Vo'Quv got the worst of this, but the Kar'Fi was basically fine as is and got nerfed anyway. Target spam is a real problem in pvp; and server lag a problem in pve with too many fighters and mines and everything else spam related going on. But when you lowered the spawn rate of fighters, made them run back to the ship against your will, and lowered the number of fighters you could have out at one time, you needed to buff the capabilities of each individual fighter to compensate somewhat, and you did not. From Scorpions to the carrier fighters, they just feel too weak now.

Sensor analysis would be a good addition for the carriers since they primarily help in pve and don't adversely effect pvp too much. Things take too long to kill with a carrier in pve. Science skills aren't very valuable in pve; at least compared to how powerful they are in pvp.

BoPs are fairly well balanced. I'd kill for the universal slots on Fed ships; the Battle cloak is nice but not OP, and their squishiness does make up somewhat for their definite advantages. The only exception here is at Tier 4, I think the BoP here is inferior to both the Raptor and the Vor'Cha at this level. It's the only time you rank up with a ship and don't get an extra weapon slot.

Raptors are pretty well equivalent to escorts as I see it.

Battlecruisers are the one area where I think the KDF has it all over the Feds. I love the Vor'cha retrofit and the Negh'var. Those are the only cruisers in the game that can actually fight with cannons while the Galaxy X only pretends to be able to use them. Feds would kill to get the stats on these ships with the skins of their cruisers. Cloak, great turn rate, and cannons make them superior to the Fed alternatives. Only the Excelsior has an actual advantage with their lt. commander tac slot.

The Garumba is a special case like the Gal X is for the Feds. For a premium priced ship it should be able to hold its own with any other tier 5 ship, though I agree it should not have an "I win" button on it. Siege mode takes too much away for the lance in my opinion. It takes a long time to transition and loses so much turn rate when it does it. The lance is nice though. Right now, especially since in pvp it will be probably the only KDF ship out there that can't cloak, it's underpowered.

The Varanus isn't very popular even though it's the only real science vessel the KDF has. It probably needs some love. I've only started flying this ship recently so I've yet to form a solid opinion.

I'd buff the carriers, especially the fighters, and the Garumba. I don't think the battlecruisers are actually OP; more so I think the Fed cruisers need a bit of love to match them up; especially the Galaxy X.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 39 Good post
07-04-2011, 02:57 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MustrumRidcully View Post
All of them, basically. All of them in PvE, and later some of them in PvP. Typically soloed (PvE).


Assault Cruiser, Star Cruiser, Neg'Var Battlecruiser, Recon Science Vessel, Long Range Science Vessel Retrofit, Tactical Escort Retrofit, Gorn Fleet Support Vessel.


The differences are not that big, and most of the strength and weaknesses come from the powers.

The Advaned Heavy Cruiser Retrofit seems to have an unfair advantage with its +1 turn rate over other cruisers of its tier.
The Long Range Science Vessel Ablative Armor is pretty strong, almost like the old 15-second RSP strong. Generally, having a Commander and a Lt.Cmdr BO slot differ opens combinations that sometimes seem stronger.
The Multi-Vector Assault Escort seems to have significant advantages when in MVAM mode to all other ships, and even its BO configuration makes it highly desirable (and overall potentially outshining the Bird of Prey)

For PvE, I think Cruisers are basically indestructable if played right, and both Cruisers and Escorts breeze through space combat very quickly (Escorts quicker than Cruisers). I think overall Escorts are the most fun to play in space combat, at least at normal and advanced difficulty.

A little weird to me is that some people deem the Federation Cruisers as OP compared to the Klingon ships - though all Kling Cruisers have better turn rate and a cloak. The Neg'Var certainly beats the Galaxy-Retrofit when not cloaked. But I think this might be all due to the two factions setting up their ships differently - KDF for alpha strikes, FED for Healing. So it seems the problem is that the defensive powers of Engineering are simply better than the offensive ones. Considering how many people complain about Cruisers not dealing enough damage and jumped onto the broken Beam Fire At Will as their clutch for this, I think it is required to look into these powers. Maybe a few nerfs to resist and heal powers, and a few small buffs to the offensive power?


For PVE, Science Vessels are a little weak on that front. Science suffers a lot from the enemy not really using any powers or tactics that Science abilities can disrupt or circumvent. For example, Charged Particle Burst is wonderful in PvP, as it ignores shield resistance, which makes a lot of ships so tough. But in PvE, not many enemies even have shield resistance buffs, so CPB is just a weak damage burst skill in PvE - no reason to sacrifice 2 weapons for that. Too boot, you often fight only one single enemy, so area effects are less useful.

Over the tiers, I think in Tier 3, the Klingon Battle Cruiser is better than the Heavy Cruiser, as it has better offensive potential (almost escort-level turn rate, and turn rates are not boosted as strong at that tier which increases the gap at tier 5). (That said, I would love to have a Tier 5 non-Advanced Heavy Cruiser...)

The Raptor is underpowered. The Federation equivalents inherent better turn rate cannot be compensated with an engineering console, and within the KDF, it has to compete with the Bird of Prey. Giving it an Engineering instead of Tactical Ensign could make it more interesting to players.

The Assault Cruiser is slightly underpowered. The Star Cruiser is a better healer and the Excelsior is a better damage dealer. Give the Assault Cruiser the Excelsior turn rate, and it should work fine.

The Fleet Support Vessel is a little on the weak side as its healing pets are weak. (And generally, please, can we have less pets in PvP, or at least the option to not use pets?). It does not integrate well with the Klingon fleet, which mostly focuses on first strike tactics using stealth. That is a problem it shares with the Patrol Cruiser.

The Carrier is unfun to play with and unfun to play against. The ship turns frustratingly slow, and the control about the pets is too indirect. Also, on the opposing end -those pets turn PvP into PvEvP. If there was a way to equip some kind of alternative special weapons (torps or beams) in those Pet slots, the Carrier might be more fun and less annoying to fight. People that really must have their pet classes and think fighters in Startrek fit can still have their ship for that (and just need to get better pet controls), but others can do different things with it.


Stations
Everyone wants to have Universal Stations, of course.

I think generally configurations that allow you to mix two different classes for Commander and Lt.Cmdr are interesting to players, especially if we talk about offense-oriented builds.

The reason for that is probably that you can not really use more than 4 Tactical powers at once on an alpha strike in the first place. So it is nice to add the offensive powers of a second class into the mix - and especially nice if that's Photonic Shockwave.
The BoP and the MVAM AE are very powerful for that reason.

For all other class combinations - there are drawbacks and advantages, but one of the biggest advantage for all is that it allows you to use more high level ranking skills at the same time without running into shared and global cooldowns.

If you introduce such ships, give such BO combinations to all factions, and maybe come up with something for the "focused" ship classes.

Ships that have 3 Ensign slots of the same class are generally bad, unless they are science slots. Science has a lot of good ensign powers, and even the low-ranking ones provide good benefits. Filling Engineering and Tact Ensign slots is always hard, because you quickly run into shared cooldowns with either higher ranking powers or other Ensign powers. That limitation doesn't exist for Science powers.

It is probably too late for this, but I always wondered why the _Exploration_ Cruiser is the ship with the Engineering Ensign and not with an Ensign (or even Lt.Cmdr) Science. But then; I would have probably designed all Federation ships with a science focus and all Klingon ships with a tactical focus. (E.g. instead of giving ships a second Bridge Officer of their associated shhip/BO class, I would have given them one associated with their faction. So all Tier 5 Federation vessels would have had a Lt.Cmdr Science, and all Tier 5 Klingon vessels would have had a Lt.Cmdr Tact).

Consoles
Science Consoles are weak. It's the default place for the Borg Universal Console for me. The only ship that really needs them is the Science Vessel. I think "nerfing" the Science Console might have been done better in a different way - for example, add some kind of stacking penalty / diminishing return. The way it's now, for a ship that has only 2-3 science stations, 2-3 science consoles are irrelevant.

Engineering Consoles are great to have. Tactical consoles are great for anyone relying on weapons. There are several good choices even. (But don't bother with those Engineering Regeneration booster consoles)

Aesthetics
I hate the Tier 3 Golfball ships. But their stats are good for an SV of that tier.
I love the Tier 2 Science Vessels, and I enjoyed the Tier 3 Cruiser.
The Tier 3 Escorts are neat as well.
The Recon Science Vessel look good from the top,but the engineeing/deflector section doesn't.
Sovereign has the best assault cruiser parts (though I like the Imperial nacelles, but not the rest).
The Defiant is the best-looking Tactical Escort Retrofit by far.
I have grown somewhat fond of the Cochrane LRSV, but with the Intrepid pylons (otherwise, the nacelle position just doesn't look right, and the Discovery pylons just work the wrong way around)

Special Ability
I don't like any of the KDF special abilitie, other than cloak/battle cloak (enhanced battle cloak works badly).
On the Federation side, Ablative Armor and Cloak is nice. Saucer seperation and MVAM mode are of course good also, but primarily due to the advantages the bring.
The Galaxy X Lance is neat, but the KDF/Naucassian equivalent mechanic is not.

...

On a general note: I don't like the current ship skill system. At Tier 5, the skill list is cluttered with a skill for almost every ship, for no good reason. Easiest solution: Give us one skill for each ship type (Cruiser, Science Vessel, Escort, Raider, Carrier) and be done with it. There is no reason to have the current skill list, except to force us into spending our respecs (and buying them on C-Store, to use the standard boogey man ).
I am also not sure i like the whole idea of the "spec a lower tier skill for 50 % the benefit". It sticks out like a sore thumb to the way all other skills work. Maybe it would be better to split what the ship skills do into 3 areas (shield improvement, hull improvement, turn rate/speed improvement?) for each ship.
(e.g. "Cruiser Shield Management" and "Escort Engine Management" and "Science Damage Control management"), and put the ships for different ships in different tiers. (Cruiser Hull Tier 3, Cruiser Shield Tier 4, Cruiser Engine Tier 5; Science Shield Tier 3, Science Maneuverability Tier 4, Science Hull Tier 5, Escort Engine Tier 3, Escort Hull Tier 4, Escort Shield Tier 5, Raider Engine Tier 3, Raider Shield Tier 4, Raider Hull Tier 5, Carrier Shield Tier 3, Carrier Hull Tier 4, Carrier Engine Tier 5)
I agree pretty much with all of this. I have flown the Raptors in pve and hadn't really noticed the weaknesses, but in retrospect you seem correct about them. I also think that those thinking the Feds cruisers are OP are really thinking Fire at Will is OP and Feds are running heavy use of cruisers using it. It's hard to argue that the slower turning non-cloaking non-cannon using cruisers are the OP ones in my opinion.

It's no surprise that the KDF side has a much heavier pvp emphasis than the Fed side talking in their equivalent thread. And pretty much nobody thinks anything is underpowered for pve over here. In my opinion it's not a matter of being underpowered so much as not being as powerful as the alternatives. Sci vessels are powerful in pvp, not powerful in pve in my opinion.

I also hadn't considered the weakness of the special abilities on the KDF side. I just started using the Varanus a couple days ago and never used the Battle Barge.

Agreed that sci consoles got an unnecessary nerf. They simply are not as valuable as any of the other consoles, both in terms of numbers or in terms of necessity and benefit. Eng consoles hugely help with some things, Tac consoles are very helpful in comparison.

The skill system definitely needs a revamp too. Damage types and ship handling skills in particular.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 40 Fire at will
07-04-2011, 02:59 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SeanNewBoy View Post
3 characters 1 tac, 1 eng, 1 sci.
1. A)Raptors, mostly pve, group when i can
B) Battle cruisers, pve, group when i can
C) Bops, pve, group when i can
2. A) Tier 5 Raptor for pvp, Nausicaan for pve. mostly pve, but some pvp. group when i can
B) Refit Vor'Cha for pvp, Orion for pve.rest as 2a
C) Will be Bop for pvp, Varanus for pve. rest as 2a
3. In pve, none. Not enough data for pvp.
4. I think the BoP and Raptors needs a hair more hull.
5. I love for the most part how the Klink ships come together, the whole package.

In STO in general the only problem i have with the ships is that Cruisers tend to have all the pluses in pvp. Highest hull, highest crew, most weapon slots, more overall power (+20 as opposed to +15). I notice that in pvp more than half of all fed use cruisers and about half of klinks do in pvp, i think the numbers should be tweaked to encourage more of the lighter ships.

It should be noted that although on the Klingon side i tend to run class ships, on my feds i tend to use more sci and tac ships for all 9 of my alts.
I think it's just fire at will being OP which benefits the Fed cruisers since they were already more tank-y and gives them more parity with the dps heavy kdf battlecruisers. Otherwise it's KDF cruisers ftw.
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 10:51 PM.