Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 31
07-23-2011, 03:08 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigRedJedi
Probably true, but they do not have them now...
And the UFP doesn't have Carriers nor Raiders now.

So...? We focus on rectifying one problem and ignore the other?

Quote:
Originally Posted by BigRedJedi
And the premier example of supposed 'uniqueness' for the KDF (the BoP) has been reduced from having a true versatility advantage, through its Universal consoles, to merely an interesting quirk...
So you can skill into an Escort Retrofit and switch from a Tactical heavy layout to a Science heavy layout? Because I can do that in my Bird-of-Prey, but I definitely can't do that in any of my Federation ships.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BigRedJedi
...with only 3 remaining truly unique BOff layouts (2 of which will likely be eliminated with the upcoming release of the Odyssey-class Cruiser, and the Andorian Tactical ship).
And you're making a vicious mistake here. You're stopping at Com/LtC for BOff layouts while accounting for Star Cruisers AND Assault Cruisers in the UFP. You're also ignoring all the more balanced BoP layouts. Like...

4 Engineering
3 Science
2 Tactical
2 Tacical

4 Engineering
3 Tactical
2 Science
2 Science

4 Science
3 Engineering
2 Tactical
2 Tactical

4 Science
3 Tactical
2 Engineering
2 Engineering

4 Tactical
3 Science
2 Engineering
2 Engineering

4 Tactical
3 Engineering
2 Science
2 Science

Which all have no corollaries in the UFP and offer more balanced power structures... a 4/4/3 layout as opposed to the typical imbalanced 7/2/2+1 we generally see.

And really, if you're going to ignore BOff layouts beyond the Com/LtC portion then...
  1. Eng/Eng - Assault Cruiser/ Star Cruiser/ Dreadnought/ Exploration Retrofit
  2. Tac/Tac - Advanced Escort/ Fleet Escort/ Tactical Retrofit
  3. Sci/Sci - Deep Space/ Recon/ Long Range Retrofit
  4. Sci/Eng - D'Kyr/ Advanced Research Retrofit
  5. Tac/Sci - Multi-Vector Advanced Escort
  6. Eng/Tac - Advanced Heavy Cruiser Retrofit

That's six.
  1. Uni/Uni - Hegh'ta/ B'rel Retrofit
  2. Tac/Tac - Qin/ Guramba
  3. Eng/Eng - Negh'var/ Vorcha Retrofit/ Marauder
  4. Sci/Eng/Tac - Vo'quv
  5. Sci/Tac - Kar'Fi
  6. Sci/Sci - Varanus

That's six.

So if you want to tally unique BOff positions based on the Com/LtC combo then they've each got six options.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 32
07-23-2011, 03:22 AM
*coughs* Scorpion fighters... anyone?
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 33
07-23-2011, 03:27 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyHappyJoyJoy View Post
And the UFP doesn't have Carriers nor Raiders now.

So...? We focus on rectifying one problem and ignore the other?
I would say that there is not a problem on either side of the lines. Each side has some things that make it unique, and that is not a bad thing; in fact, faction-specific unique items/ships/etc. exist to encourage players to experience the full game, not just a single faction in it.


Quote:
So you can skill into an Escort Retrofit and switch from a Tactical heavy layout to a Science heavy layout? Because I can do that in my Bird-of-Prey, but I definitely can't do that in any of my Federation ships.
That's a straw man comparison, in my BoP, I can slot BOffs from a Tactical-heavy layout and swap them, at will, to BOffs of an Engineer-heavy or Science-heavy layout, however, I only have so many skillpoints, and if I want to have an equivalent level of effectiveness as the fully-skilled Escort, I will have to re-spec into my new layout, just as the Escort pilot would have to do, if he were to move into a different class of ship.

Quote:
And you're making a vicious mistake here. You're stopping at Com/LtC for BOff layouts while accounting for Star Cruisers AND Assault Cruisers in the UFP. You're also ignoring all the more balanced BoP layouts. Like...

4 Engineering
3 Science
2 Tactical
2 Tacical

4 Engineering
3 Tactical
2 Science
2 Science

4 Science
3 Engineering
2 Tactical
2 Tactical

4 Science
3 Tactical
2 Engineering
2 Engineering

4 Tactical
3 Science
2 Engineering
2 Engineering

4 Tactical
3 Engineering
2 Science
2 Science

Which all have no corollaries in the UFP and offer more balanced power structures... a 4/4/3 layout as opposed to the typical imbalanced 7/2/2+1 we generally see.
Hmmm, to quote another poster, those are "minor variations on the same theme" , wherein the Cmdr and LtC are really what determines the 'focus' of the build, and the lower-tier BOff seating provides for diversity.


Quote:
And really, if you're going to ignore BOff layouts beyond the Com/LtC portion then...
  1. Eng/Eng - Assault Cruiser/ Star Cruiser/ Dreadnought/ Exploration Retrofit
  2. Tac/Tac - Advanced Escort/ Fleet Escort/ Tactical Retrofit
  3. Sci/Sci - Deep Space/ Recon/ Long Range Retrofit
  4. Sci/Eng - D'Kyr/ Advanced Research Retrofit
  5. Tac/Sci - Multi-Vector Advanced Escort
  6. Eng/Tac - Advanced Heavy Cruiser Retrofit

That's six.
  1. Uni/Uni - Hegh'ta/ B'rel Retrofit
  2. Tac/Tac - Qin/ Guramba
  3. Eng/Eng - Negh'var/ Vorcha Retrofit/ Marauder
  4. Sci/Eng/Tac - Vo'quv
  5. Sci/Tac - Kar'Fi
  6. Sci/Sci - Varanus

That's six.

So if you want to tally unique BOff positions based on the Com/LtC combo then they've each got six options.
Hmmm, an interesting comparison... So, with 6 unique BOff positions based on the Com/LtC combos, it seems to be balanced, and the Feds need neither the Raider nor the Carrier, and the KDF needs neither the Sci-heavy ships nor the Eng/Tac Cruiser... Fair enough.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 34
07-23-2011, 04:20 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigRedJedi
I would say that there is not a problem on either side of the lines. Each side has some things that make it unique, and that is not a bad thing; in fact, faction-specific unique items/ships/etc. exist to encourage players to experience the full game, not just a single faction in it.
So... no more KDF ships then. Because you've already acknowledged that, yes, when more ships are added it will to cut into the advantage that the UFP has due to the relatively limited option for ship layouts.

You can't acknowledge that as the give and take AND suggest that the KDF needs more ships AND suggest that it should retain it's "uniqueness" by restricting Carriers and Raiders.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BigRedJedi
That's a straw man comparison, in my BoP, I can slot BOffs from a Tactical-heavy layout and swap them, at will, to BOffs of an Engineer-heavy or Science-heavy layout, however, I only have so many skillpoints, and if I want to have an equivalent level of effectiveness as the fully-skilled Escort, I will have to re-spec into my new layout, just as the Escort pilot would have to do, if he were to move into a different class of ship.
Because there is never a point where you'd want to use a skill you haven't min/maxed? There is never a point when an alternate load out to counter the enemy would be more beneficial?

I know I've personally swapped out BOffs because it was advantageous. If there's, for instance, no dedicated healer in your group, a sub-optimal one is better than no healer at all. While an Escort wouldn't have the option to retool to fill that gap, a BoP does have that option.

No, you wouldn't have the same effectiveness as a dedicated ship captained by a dedicated captain but you can perform the role. You sacrifice some effectiveness for versatility. That only makes sense. You can't expect to gain more options and specialize in all of them at once just as well someone who doesn't have the same number of options you do.

That's just unrealistic. That doesn't mean the options don't exist, nor that it isn't advantageous to have them. There's a reason that Jack-of-all-trade or hybrid classes are popular in RPGs, even if they lack the sheer potency of a single dedicated class.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BigRedJedi
Hmmm, to quote another poster, those are "minor variations on the same theme" , wherein the Cmdr and LtC are really what determines the 'focus' of the build, and the lower-tier BOff seating provides for diversity.
So you're really going to say that this BoP layout...

4 Tactical
3 Science
2 Engineering
2 Engineering

4 Tactical powers, 3 Science powers, 4 Engineering powers ... is a minor inconsequential difference on the theme presented by the MVAM Advanced Escort layout...

4 Tactical
3 Science
2 Tactical
2 Engineering
1 Tactical

7 Tactical powers, 3 Science powers, 2 Engineering powers...?

One has almost twice the available Tactical powers and literally half the Engineering powers.

Meanwhile you felt that Federation ships like the Assault and Star Cruisers, which differ in BOff seating only by a single Ensign Slot, were different enough that each had to be listed with an effective counter when you were tallying differences.

That doesn't quite add up.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BigRedJedi
Hmmm, an interesting comparison... So, with 6 unique BOff positions based on the Com/LtC combos, it seems to be balanced, and the Feds need neither the Raider nor the Carrier, and the KDF needs neither the Sci-heavy ships nor the Eng/Tac Cruiser... Fair enough.
I think you've forgotten what you were arguing.

It's your argument that the UFP has "more 'unique' things than the KDF" and you came to this conclusion by focusing on BOff layouts, and as such you suggested that they don't need the fundamentally different ships that the KDF has, namely the Raider and Carrier.

So you've basically acknowledged here that the UFP doesn't have this great uniqueness of BOff slots that you argued, so they're relatively equal in unique BOff slotting options... but still lack two basic ship types, the Raider and the Carrier.

So you basically just admitted that your argument doesn't fly.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 35
07-23-2011, 05:39 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyHappyJoyJoy View Post
So... no more KDF ships then. Because you've already acknowledged that, yes, when more ships are added it will to cut into the advantage that the UFP has due to the relatively limited option for ship layouts.

You can't acknowledge that as the give and take AND suggest that the KDF needs more ships AND suggest that it should retain it's "uniqueness" by restricting Carriers and Raiders.
So... No Fed Carrier or Raider then, either.

More new ships will be added to the Federation roster, as well, and history has already proven that those additions will be in greater proportion on the Federation side, rather than the KDF side, thus, the imbalances will remain, until all conceivable configurations are available as unique ship classes.

The limits of the Tier 5 BOff layouts create the imbalances (and also lead, ultimately, to a mirroring of options to both sides), but how they have been handled within the existing ship structures, to this point, is where there are differences. The Federation has a wider array of ships, each with small, but important distinctions in available BOff seating; while the KDF has a narrower group of available ships and one, universal console-equipped ship that is capable of filling several roles, but is heavily underwhelming when used in any role except as a DPS/minor-CC ship (the specific implementation of being a DPS ship can fill a wide variety of setups, but the end result of the various combinations yields an Escort-comparable function, with a heavy focus on damage dealing, with a side focus of 'tricks').

Quote:
Because there is never a point where you'd want to use a skill you haven't min/maxed? There is never a point when an alternate load out to counter the enemy would be more beneficial?

I know I've personally swapped out BOffs because it was advantageous. If there's, for instance, no dedicated healer in your group, a sub-optimal one is better than no healer at all. While an Escort wouldn't have the option to retool to fill that gap, a BoP does have that option.

No, you wouldn't have the same effectiveness as a dedicated ship captained by a dedicated captain but you can perform the role. You sacrifice some effectiveness for versatility. That only makes sense. You can't expect to gain more options and specialize in all of them at once just as well someone who doesn't have the same number of options you do.

That's just unrealistic. That doesn't mean the options don't exist, nor that it isn't advantageous to have them. There's a reason that Jack-of-all-trade or hybrid classes are popular in RPGs, even if they lack the sheer potency of a single dedicated class.
There are many times where it is advantageous to swap out skills within a theme established by the primary skills of the Captain, however, to fundamentally change the purpose of a build on the fly is, in PvE, painfully inefficient, and in PvP, a disservice to your team. To use your example, there are circumstances where a sub-optimal healer is better than none, if you have something like a DPS Cruiser (A Cruiser being far better suited to a healing role) that can fit a few extra Heals, instead of some of its damage skills; but to take a damage-focused BoP and swap to a heal-moderate/heavy loadout is hurting your team twice, by being sub-optimal at healing and now being sub-optimal at dealing damage.

Even the 'trick' BoPs, like Tric bombers, which use Sci-heavy loadouts to set-up their runs, ultimately have a single goal in mind, inflicting destruction on their opponents. For the BoP, it is not this uber-flexible powerhouse that many Feds believe it to be, it is an Escort that has the versatility to tailor its abilities to its Captain's preferences (and does allow some creative license), but its primary role is as a damage-dealer, and trying to shoehorn it into a role better suited and served by another ship class will always yield sub-optimal results.

Quote:
So you're really going to say that this BoP layout...

4 Tactical
3 Science
2 Engineering
2 Engineering

4 Tactical powers, 3 Science powers, 4 Engineering powers ... is a minor inconsequential difference on the theme presented by the MVAM Advanced Escort layout...

4 Tactical
3 Science
2 Tactical
2 Engineering
1 Tactical

7 Tactical powers, 3 Science powers, 2 Engineering powers...?

One has almost twice the available Tactical powers and literally half the Engineering powers.

Meanwhile you felt that Federation ships like the Assault and Star Cruisers, which differ in BOff seating only by a single Ensign Slot, were different enough that each had to be listed with an effective counter when you were tallying differences.

That doesn't quite add up.
Yes, I would say that there is a minor variation on a theme, using your comparison:
  • Both ships have a Tactical Cmdr, so their primary damage dealing abilities will be found here.
  • Both ships have a LtC Sci, which gives both ships some flexibility to add extra tanking or extra CC powers, with the top available power being in the LtC-slot (usually PSW).
  • The minor differences would be in the remaining powers, both ships have 1 Lt Eng, and both ships will likely run at least 1 copy of EPtS, and either a 2nd Copy of EPtS (for additional tank), or a copy of EPtE (for hit-and-run style attacks). The BoP then slots a second Engineer, where it can slot: extra damage (DEM), extra tank (EPtS), extra healing (ET/ASIF), or something esoteric (AID, XS, etc), ultimately, it remains a damage dealing ship, with some extra survivability, or flexibility for its attack runs. The MVAE-R, on the other hand, drafts its remaining powers from additional Tac slots, meaning, it can add extra tanking by slotting multiple copies of Tac Team or APD, alternately, it can alleviate some need for tanking, by increasing its lethality with things like APB, THY, BO, etc. and compensating for its survivability in its available Eng/Sci slots.

The different BOff-slot choices do not change the end goal of either build (destroying the enemy), they simply approach it in slightly different ways.

The comparison of things like the AC and SC to their KDF equivalents was to illustrate that some ships for both sides have counterparts on the other side, but that there are some ships which are more 'unique' that are specific to each side.

For example:

Cruisers:
  • AC = Balance tank/damage
  • SC = Better tank/heal
  • Exc-R = Better damage
  • Galaxy-R = Better tank/heal
  • Negh'var = Better tank/heal, decent damage
  • Vorcha = Balance tank/damage
  • Marauder = Better tank/heal

etc.

Quote:
I think you've forgotten what you were arguing.

It's your argument that the UFP has "more 'unique' things than the KDF" and you came to this conclusion by focusing on BOff layouts, and as such you suggested that they don't need the fundamentally different ships that the KDF has, namely the Raider and Carrier.

So you've basically acknowledged here that the UFP doesn't have this great uniqueness of BOff slots that you argued, so they're relatively equal in unique BOff slotting options... but still lack two basic ship types, the Raider and the Carrier.

So you basically just admitted that your argument doesn't fly.

The Federation does have a greater variety of unique layouts, even within what you describe as 'minor variations'. Ultimately, Federation Captains can pick their desired BOff layout within a wide range of ship classes, while KDF Captains can do largely the same, but within a different framework.

The argument is not that both sides aren't eventually going to accumulate similar ship-layout options, the argument is whether each side can achieve some level of uniqueness, while retaining some semblance of balance (while, simultaneously, opening up a diversity of options) without becoming clones of each other. The Federation needs neither Carriers nor Raiders to have nearly the full gamut of available BOff-layouts (and the few remaining unavailable configurations are likely in the pipeline), and the KDF retains its unique approach to filling those same configurations.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 36
07-23-2011, 08:43 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigRedJedi
Hmmm, yep, that's exactly what I meant...

You did notice that in every case, the Federation has more 'unique' things than the KDF, right?

I don't care, one way or another if the Federation gets a Carrier (frankly, I don't think it belongs in a ST setting, for either side, but, we have what we have), in fact, if the Federation gets a Carrier, it becomes far more likely that some of the longstanding issues with Carriers might actually be addressed... Especially once Federation players actually play one, and realize that they are not constructed of refined Winniumô.

I was merely de-bunking the pervasive myth that the KDF has 'all this cool stuff' that the Federation doesn't get, in fact, it is the Federation that has much of the available unique 'cool stuff'.

As far as PvP goes, ask the average Fed player if the KDF "sucks at PvP", and it certainly is NOT Carriers that make the difference.

-Big Red Goomba
Ummmm, actually the Klink Carrier can put out so much spam it's ridiculously hard to even target another player. Not to mention the fact that they are extremely hard to take down unless the whole Fed team focus' fire on them and while they are doing that, the carriers spam and teammates are decimating the whole fed team. Couple that with two or three Klink carrier's in a match, it's almost impossible to win, not too mention all the lag that much spam introduces into the match.
I like the idea of a Fed. Carrier, it's about as (I can't believe I'm gonna do this, but for all you "Fed. Carrier isn't canon people) CANON as a Klingon carrier. Neither were ever seen on screen, only ever referenced in passing, but if we are going by what was shown onscreen, only the Federation and the Romulan's should have fighters to begin with. Never in all the show's or movies can I ever remember seeing, nor hearing of a Klingon Fighter.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 37
07-23-2011, 08:54 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by mister_dee
...several months after they gave the Federation a cloaking escort and a cloaking cruiser.
So Federation got one typical Klingon trait (cloaks) and the KDF got one typical Federation trait, a cruiser-sized ship with blue slots as compensation.
And you want the compensation for the compensation because being even is unfair right?
Feds must be one ahead or it's not balanced.
cloaking cruiser?!
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 38
07-23-2011, 09:10 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lilist
cloaking cruiser?!
Cloaking Cruiser = Dreadnought (Galaxy-X)
Cloaking Escort = Defiant-R


Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyHappyJoyJoy
Raptor = Escort
Battle Cruiser = Cruiser
Fleet Support = Science Vessel
Carrier =
Raider =
I believe its more like:
Raptor = Escort
Battle Cruiser = Cruiser
Fleet Support = Science Vessel
Carrier =
Raider =
= Dreadnought

Unless your lumping the Dreadnought in with the rest of the cruisers, if so then ignore that second quote.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 39
07-23-2011, 09:12 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by TFO-OptimusPrime View Post
Cloaking Cruiser = Dreadnought (Galaxy-X)
Cloaking Escort = Defiant-R
oh..... that galaxy x. hmmm, i dunno what to say about that really.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 40
07-23-2011, 09:57 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hravik
*hands you your flame repellent suit*

Devs have said over and over, there are no plans for a Federation carrier even on the radar.

And now to leave you to the horde of angry Klingon warriors.
/Thread
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 01:12 PM.