Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 291
01-26-2012, 09:18 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by GenEricII

So the ship works for how you want to play and that's why you're happy with it. Great for you, but what about the rest of us? I stated clearly this is about versatility and not power. My only statement regarding power was that the oddesy doesn't compare well to the bortas and that's true. No, versatility is exactly what you stated (and restated) you're more than willing to give up so this can be the best "science" cruiser possible. Well, in defference to your assumption that no one would "waste" the commander slot on a tac, I'd like the option to do just that if I wish.

Everything that's gone into the skill changes was hailed as making it easier to switch ship types on your captain without the need to respec. Cryptic has a definite financial reason to want people to be able to switch ships easily. So what reason could there possibly be to pidgeonhole this ship into such a narrow use?

It meets your needs so you're fine with it, cool. I wouldn't expect you to be up in arms over something you like, that doesn't mean we all want a science cruiser. Universal stations, and further, some universal consoles, allows for everyone to play the way they want in the ship they want.
*laughs*

It's not how I want to play her at all. I'm largely disillusioned about science powers, science captains and science ships. Plus, my main is a tactical right now so I was personally looking forward to using LtC tactical powers on said Odyssey too.

But, I'm not blind. I can read the forum, see where the speculation goes, see that some people are making a lot of good points. The Odyssey fills a niche that wasn't filled: a cruiser with a LtC science station. People will likely choose other, more turn-capable vessels in the long run if they want to use the universal stations for something else. The +10 shield and +10 auxiliary power bonuses were obviously given to the ships by the Devs for a purpose.

I still think significant science powers are a load of bull on non-science vessels. You're going to have to split your power to auxiliary to fling out powers that'll likely be lackluster when you could've instead used tactical or engineering powers while keeping power funneled toward things that STO, as a game, favors more anyhow.

If ultimately the universal choice given will not be all that valued, all that useful... I'd rather see that likely redundant trait diminished (to any fixed configuration, really) in order to see more turn rate - especially if it can be an excuse for greater turn rate. Hence my calling it 'all important' in what you quoted.

After all, you can choose the power you like, but once you hit your sweet spot there, you aren't likely to change them, right? They'll stay the same favored build for you from there on in. So, if it was, say, tactical stations (assuming that's what you'd want to put there in the first place) then they wouldn't have needed to be universal in the first place and might've as well have been tactical stations.

Because, really, the 'catering to all careers" aspect of the Odyssey-class right now is pretty much an illusion of choice.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 292
01-26-2012, 10:41 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoberraz View Post
It's my argument. About what I consider more important.

You don't need to like it. But it doesn't make the argument any less mine or any less important in my eyes. Hence my airing it. Ironically, it sorts of support your gripe about it 'punching like a Ferengi in comparison to the Klingon', since greater maneuverability may not mean greater firepower, but could mean dealing more focused damage on a shield facing/through a shield facing, thus indirectly helping offense.

I inspired CapnLogan to add impulse engines on the nacelle pylons. Maybe I can inspire Al Rivera to favor the Odyssey's turn rate a bit more. I think it's worth a shot. I know they read our feedback.

Though, I don't expect them to go just on wishful thinking. The moment of truth there will probably be the tryouts on Tribble. Al Rivera seems serious about it.
Zoberraz I could not agree more. The Odyssey (in my humble opinion), is not going to be a factor and is another "cookie-cutter Galaxy" if the turn rate cannot be improved. WHY....really, why does the turn-rate need to be so unbearably low? The Klingons LAUGH when they see fed cruisers because if you are flying any cruiser besides an Excelsior, you are basically huffing and puffing your way to a heart attack, just to keep your shields rotated as the Klingon ships are busy flying circles round and round and round the fed Cruiser until it rolls over and dies because it cannot adequately keep up. You could give bonuses left and right to the Odyssey, but at the end of the day, its nothing more than a big healing, space-whale of a ship. Unable to make enough of a turn, she will be unable to fairly defend herself.

If the Odyssey is supposed to be the FLAGSHIP of the Federation, the fed shipyards must be mass-producing escorts like crazy to support these Odyssey aircraft carriers. I don't see how the feds would make such a ship "the flagship" and have such a poor turn rate. If they were facing the Borg, do you think an Odyssey with all its "bells and whistles" could maneuver itself out of harms way? what if it was a 2 on 1? It would be a sitting duck! The lack of a turn-rate above a 6 cannot compensate in any way for any universal slots, or any special bonuses. At the end of the day, its another "cookie cutter Galaxy cruiser". powerful, but so freakin' slow, that its' handicap is so great, it simply cannot be overcome without an upgrade to turn-rate.

Who made this the standard for Fed cruisers? Would the world END or start spinning backwards on its' axis if the Odyssey was given the same turn-rate as an Excelsior? Would it make the game unbalanced? NO, NO it would not.

I'm taking the time out from my night because the individuals who have the power to change this need to know the current turn-rate is unacceptable and will not be enough to play a factor in the game. The real unbalance is always having to play "catch up" with the klingons, forcing me to play in an escort or a science ship. If i want a cruiser, I am not expecting a ship with the turn rate of a defiant, i'm simply saying I don't see how they can make the turn rate LOWER than a Sovy and expect this ship will be able to survive on its' own. i fail to see how a ship of its' caliber could be the pride and flagship of the federation. If that's the best the feds have, they better start looking over their shoulders, because they will be conquered very soon by their enemies.

I am not ungrateful, i am not complaining....i am not whining...i am simply stating the obvious. DO YOU want ANOTHER cookie-cutter GALAXY ship that is handicapped so much that its' weaknesses can never be overcome?

I just want to close with this.....WHY does the turn-rate have to be so terrible for the odyssey? Would the game become unbalanced if the feds had the Odyssey with the turn rate of the Excelsior? Would it be overpowered? Would it be overpowering against klingons?....NO , i dont see this being the case at all, nor can I think of any justifiable reason as to why the turn-rate must be suppressed. Yes its a big ship, yes its a cruiser, blah blah blah blah. What about the cutting-edge technology? What about it's new engines? What about its' big, powerful warp core? Surely the technology must be there to build a ship that can turn better than a 6. At this rate, the 1701-J would only be able to fly in 2 directions. Straight or in reverse, lol. I mean if ships get bigger that's 1 thing, but technology keeps improving, which should balance the scale at least with a semi-survivable rate of turn.

I still see players using other ships, and I see slightly more balance between Feds and Klingons in places like Kerrat, etc. I don't see this in any way being a cancer for the game. I see it as completely healthy. This is the last i will talk about my dis-satisfaction for the turn-rate of the Odyssey. I've already explained why it makes zero sense to me.

I want to close again by thanking Cryptic for making a free ship for its' players, but to please listen to us and finally give us something different, and something that can live up to its' own hype.

Thank You.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 293
01-26-2012, 11:08 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by USS_Merriman
Zoberraz I could not agree more. The Odyssey (in my humble opinion), is not going to be a factor and is another "cookie-cutter Galaxy" if the turn rate cannot be improved. WHY....really, why does the turn-rate need to be so unbearably low? The Klingons LAUGH when they see fed cruisers because if you are flying any cruiser besides an Excelsior, you are basically huffing and puffing your way to a heart attack, just to keep your shields rotated as the Klingon ships are busy flying circles round and round and round the fed Cruiser until it rolls over and dies because it cannot adequately keep up. You could give bonuses left and right to the Odyssey, but at the end of the day, its nothing more than a big healing, space-whale of a ship. Unable to make enough of a turn, she will be unable to fairly defend herself.

If the Odyssey is supposed to be the FLAGSHIP of the Federation, the fed shipyards must be mass-producing escorts like crazy to support these Odyssey aircraft carriers. I don't see how the feds would make such a ship "the flagship" and have such a poor turn rate. If they were facing the Borg, do you think an Odyssey with all its "bells and whistles" could maneuver itself out of harms way? what if it was a 2 on 1? It would be a sitting duck! The lack of a turn-rate above a 6 cannot compensate in any way for any universal slots, or any special bonuses. At the end of the day, its another "cookie cutter Galaxy cruiser". powerful, but so freakin' slow, that its' handicap is so great, it simply cannot be overcome without an upgrade to turn-rate.

Who made this the standard for Fed cruisers? Would the world END or start spinning backwards on its' axis if the Odyssey was given the same turn-rate as an Excelsior? Would it make the game unbalanced? NO, NO it would not.

I'm taking the time out from my night because the individuals who have the power to change this need to know the current turn-rate is unacceptable and will not be enough to play a factor in the game. The real unbalance is always having to play "catch up" with the klingons, forcing me to play in an escort or a science ship. If i want a cruiser, I am not expecting a ship with the turn rate of a defiant, i'm simply saying I don't see how they can make the turn rate LOWER than a Sovy and expect this ship will be able to survive on its' own. i fail to see how a ship of its' caliber could be the pride and flagship of the federation. If that's the best the feds have, they better start looking over their shoulders, because they will be conquered very soon by their enemies.

I am not ungrateful, i am not complaining....i am not whining...i am simply stating the obvious. DO YOU want ANOTHER cookie-cutter GALAXY ship that is handicapped so much that its' weaknesses can never be overcome?

I just want to close with this.....WHY does the turn-rate have to be so terrible for the odyssey? Would the game become unbalanced if the feds had the Odyssey with the turn rate of the Excelsior? Would it be overpowered? Would it be overpowering against klingons?....NO , i dont see this being the case at all, nor can I think of any justifiable reason as to why the turn-rate must be suppressed. I still see players laying other ships, and I see slightly more balance between Feds and Klingons in places like Kerrat, etc. I don't see this in any way being a cancer for the game. I see it as completely healthy. This is the last i will talk about my dis-satisfaction for the turn-rate of the Odyssey. I've already explained why it makes zero sense to me.

I want to close again by thanking Cryptic for making a free ship for its' players, but to please listen to us and finally give us something different, and something that can live up to its' own hype.

Thank You.
also i should point out, the dreanaught cruiser can equip DHC andsuch with a turn rate of 6 also with two tact slots, no reason this ship cant either
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 294
01-26-2012, 11:25 PM
I'm sure this will have been answered a thousand times already but is there any information given about what happened to the E-E? Will it be answered during the mission to get the Odyssey?
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 295
01-26-2012, 11:26 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gapaxbr View Post
also i should point out, the dreanaught cruiser can equip DHC andsuch with a turn rate of 6 also with two tact slots, no reason this ship cant either
"DHCs with a turn rate of 6"

Yeah, no... Don't do that. Not ever.

Beam arrays, broadsides. Anyone who puts DHCs on a Galaxy-X doesn't know what they are doing... The Odyssey sure as heck doesn't need it.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 296
01-26-2012, 11:50 PM
I was thinking about the ship, some people expressing the desire for versatility that seems given out by the universal stations. The other points of view where the Odyssey's shield output, console placement and power distribution bonuses seem to slate it as a healboat. And the one shared by me and some others about the Odyssey's poor turn-rate/mobility.

Then an idea struck me. About getting what I wanted, and making the ship a bit more career-neutral.

The Odyssey is named after a word that stands for a long voyage, an adventure. It's stressed that it's an exploration vessel, meant to "boldy go". Its model shows two pretty nice impulse engines along with the impulse thrusters lining the upper-back of its nacelle pylons. The article says that the unique split saucer pylon reduces subspace wake at higher warp speeds - which speaks again of some form/ability for the ship for moving. Movement is pretty career neutral to me.

So... how about the base stats be considered for a change? This is my idea.

This is from the Dev blog:
Quote:
Requires: Vice Admiral rank (level 50)

Weapons: 4 Fore, 4 Aft
Device Slots: 4
Console Upgrades: 2 Tactical, 4 Engineering, 3 Science

Bridge Officer Stations: 1 Lieutenant Tactical, 1 Commander Engineering, 1 Lieutenant Science, 1 Ensign Universal, 1 Lieutenant Commander Universal

Hull Strength: 42,000
Maximum Warp: 9.996
Turn Rate: 6
Impulse Modifier: 0.15
Shield Modifier: 1.15

+10 Power to Shields, +10 Power to Auxiliary
Weapons? Leave as is.

Device slots? Leave them alone. Hard to justify lack of storage given the girth of the ship.

Console Upgrades? I'd leave it alone, since I think the 3/3/3 idea is wishful thinking that'll ultimately result in shooting the playerbase in the foot. But 3/3/3 could work too. Science consoles should be good, but are not - and this is likely more a problem of the game than of the ship that science console are not as desirable as tactical ones.

Bridge Officer Stations? Leave them as they are. Despite my previous arguments, people really seem to value the freedom of choice.

Hull Strength? Lower it. Special split saucer pylon don't say "structurally tough to me". Going down to 39k would probably not have many people bat an eye at it.

Maximum Warp? No change. Irrelevant to the ship anyhow, since warp speed is captain level/driver coil skill/gear determined anyhow

Turn Rate? It can't stay at 6 to me. I'm hoping for 8, personally.

Impulse Modifier? Possibly 0.17 like the Luna-class recon science vessel? I mean, it has a lot of engines. It's supposed to travel and explore. Why not? Then again, people usually don't seem to care about impulse modifiers.

Shield Modifier? I'm fine with 1.0. I don't see why this has to be any different than any cruiser, or infringe on the better shields of science vessels. Cruiser shields are already kind of in the inbetween of escorts and science vessels anyhow, right?

Power Bonuses? This is where there's this silent message from the Devs telling you how to expect to operate the ship the most efficiently. How about we turn that around, still following the traveling/exploration theme of the Odyssey? How about...

+5 Shields, +15 Engines.

* * *

I don't recall any Federation ship giving a power boost to engines. It hasn't been done yet as far as I know. It's also a bonus that's not really determinant on any character profession either like Weapons or Auxiliary... possibly making the ship a more versatile platform for anyone to play it the way he likes.

I'm biased. I want the ship to be mobile over all - for a cruiser, of course. but I think that would lend it a certain uniqueness without shoehorning it the way many people feel it is with the current setup. It still doesn't have the tac consoles of the bortaS, or its cannons, or cloak, or the amazing bonus to weapons (a very sought after commodity) but I feel going in that direction makes it stand out more. It doesn't really fix the issue of science consoles... but I think it makes it look far more novel and attractive.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 297
01-27-2012, 12:01 AM
*sighs* Okay, I can understand how people would like the turn rate improved, okay. But I don't understand that the turn rate makes the federation into "Easily conquered" or "soon to be conquered" I wonder if people are complaining about the KDF flagship having an even lower turn-rate?

If I recall, in TNG the galaxy (which was hardly a nimble ship) just being around sometimes was enough for enemies to go "Nah, let's not bother right now".

Why would it be any different with this? Seriously failing to understand how the turn rate = Federation weak. I fail to see how the flagship (note, flagship. Aka when in major combat IT is the ship directing the fleet. Note, FLEET.) not having the best turning is so massively bad. The galaxy was hardly a quick moving ship, but it was enough to protect the federation. Why not the same with the Odyssey, a larger, more advanced ship?(Sure I agree maybe the turn rate should be bumped up to 7 or even 8, but I'm okay with it for now.)


Edit: Some people seem to forget that the Odyssey is not going to be the only ship produced by the federation. They still have a rather massive array of ship classes to field. Even if it was a group of Odyssey's, I'd see it as being like a group of cubes. Sure, maybe appearing slow/hard to turn, but they pack such a punch it doesn't matter.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 298
01-27-2012, 12:11 AM
Thanks for all the feedback and enthusiasm. It makes me personally very happy to hear such excitement and constructive feedback on these ships.

The Oyssey and Bortas should be on Tribbles this weekend for testing. They will be sans-costume, and they will look like sovereigns and neghvars on tribbles so we can save the big reveal for the anniversary event. We look forward to your testing feedback.

We are not sure what the final stats on these ships will be, but we think they are pretty close. I've heard some interesting ideas. One was to make the Odysssey consoles a 3/3/3. I'm not sure about that one, but we will consider it. The other idea I saw was to give the Odyssey the Sensor Analisys ability that comes on all science vessels. That's an interesting idea that would fit the federation well, and help compete with the Bortas tactical advantage. We will have to think about that one.

There has been some discussion about improving the turn rate of these ships. This is something we do not want to pursue at this time. These are big ships - just wait till you see them beside an intrepid or a D7. They are meant to turn slow and have a lot of HP. Giving them higher turn rates (even a little) will not only diminish the emense feeling of the ship, but it will simply make them too good. These ships are meant to feel powerful and fearsome, but are not meant to be the best ships and completely devalue all other ships. They will have a roll in the fleet and should not destroy the need for other ship classes. Hopefully, they will offer new game experiences that many will enjoy. even if they are not your style, we hope you enjoy their beauty and have fun with your anniversary present.

Well be watching these threads, as well as official tribbles treads for play test feedback. I anticipate minor tweaks, but nothing to drastic at this time.

LLaP


-geko
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 299
01-27-2012, 12:15 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kalavier View Post
*sighs* Okay, I can understand how people would like the turn rate improved, okay. But I don't understand that the turn rate makes the federation into "Easily conquered" or "soon to be conquered" I wonder if people are complaining about the KDF flagship having an even lower turn-rate?
I can't speak for the pro-Klingon players, whom usually are a lot more into PvP as well, but my impression was that the people interested in the bortaS likely felt the Klingon flagship gave them enough payoff to feel the loss in turn rate was worth it, or could be worked around. So far, the trend in thinking seems to be that they'll cloak, trigger all their offensive powers and uncloak with a cannon-based Alpha Strike that's bound to cripple/destroy the target - hence perhaps making light of the need to turn in the first place. Others just figure they'll put beam arrays and that the high weapon power plus 4 tactical consoles will be more than enough to melt to slag anything that comes and gives them trouble.

*glances above* And yeah, I knew Al Rivera would play the "they wouldn't feel as big and massive if they turned better" card. Blegh. (see Gapaxbr? Told you this was his point of view =P )

I do appreciate the response, though. Thanks. Now go to bed, Al!
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 300
01-27-2012, 12:23 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainGeko
Thanks for all the feedback and enthusiasm. It makes me personally very happy to hear such excitement and constructive feedback on these ships.

(snip)

The other idea I saw was to give the Odyssey the Sensor Analisys ability that comes on all science vessels. That's an interesting idea that would fit the federation well, and help compete with the Bortas tactical advantage. We will have to think about that one.

-geko
I love that idea. It just makes sense on so many levels. For a ship of that size, with such a clear design purpose for exploration and study, now I think of it, it would be silly not to have it.

It would also allay some of the criticism of the ship's tactical versatility.
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 03:43 AM.