Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 71
04-11-2012, 06:18 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shinkuu_Akagan
That is just it... I still fail to see the problem with backing up to begin with. Even using many boosts to whip into a hard reverse and keep some speed to avoid death in PvP the logic escapes me that says it is such a completely OP tactic that it must be nerfed. So you can keep your guns on your target... Ok... Granted... There are a number of ways to achieve that goal for the duration you require them to be on target, especially in an Escort. It does not prevent the enemy ship from attacking you or even turning around to face you anymore than your standard ability to maneuver would.

So failing to see the issue I am having trouble coming up with a good alternative to fix what does not seem to be broken to begin with. If they really really hate people going in reverse Fast then just make the various speed enhancing abilities not work with reverse saying that they cannot really make the Thrusters more powerful (which is logical and I can buy easily). Besides that it is already FAR slower to go backwards than forwards.
You're still thinking in terms of a PvP balance nerf. I'm almost 100% positive the nerf didn't happen for PvP reasons, and I'm nearly as certain that it wasn't strictly a balance issue. Think in terms of unintended and unwanted behavior, and it might make more sense.

For ships with high-damage forward arcs, turretting was a "no brainer" strategy in PvE. It was easy, it was safe, it was effective. Unless the ships tried to move away from you (which NPCs never did), it was a sure win. Here's the kicker though - nobody cared about going in reverse per se; they just wanted to max their turn rate with minimal movement. If we had full turn rates while stationary, I don't think anyone would have bothered with reverse.

That same tactic would get you killed in PvP, though. Why? NPC ships usually don't stack Accuracy; player ships do. Any Accuracy over your Defense turns into critical hit chance, and your main source of Defense is ship speed. So if you're turretting in PvP, you're gonna get one- or two-shotted with critical hits.

So if it only impacted PvE, why would the devs try to nerf it? This is where "unintended and undesired behavior" comes in. Here the devs created really fast, really maneuverable ships packed with forward-mounting weapons, doubtless with visions of epic strafing runs in their heads, but what would the players do with these sleek engines of destruction? They'd sit and spin. No strafing, no trailing the enemies' six, no V formations or diagonal formations, no coming about for another pass, none of the epic action you saw or heard about in the shows or movies - just sitting and spinning like lumpy laser-packing asteroids.

In short (and as far as I can tell), the behavior didn't fit the devs' vision of how these ships should be flown, and the devs didn't like it. So they put in reverse power drain. Simple as that.

If my own PvE behavior is any indication, it worked. In Empire Defense missions, I started using different strategies for different ships and different spawns: strafing runs against frigates; sixxing the cruisers or battleships; and doing a modified turret maneuver for shuttles and fighters. I started using a diversity of tactics - and, oddly enough, those tactics proved to be more effective (and a lot more fun) than the old sit-and-spin. Some even proved useful in PvP.

So there you have it. I don't know if reverse power drain was the best answer to the issue (I think howdoiplay is on the right track), but in retrospect I can see why they did it, and I'm kind of glad they did.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 72
04-11-2012, 03:58 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by TFR_MACO_Specialist
I'll give you a reason.

Impulse engines are the means of propulsion we are speaking of when in combat, these large and powerful engines are at the rear of all Star Trek ships, you can see them clearly, they were designed and placed in that position from the first ever ship the NCC1701 Enterprise. Newton's third law of motion states that these engines will push the ship forward as they emit propulsion rearward. There is no reverse thrust available from these engines that I have ever read about, if you look at the design of the ships even if there were reverse thrust where would it go? The engines are behind the saucer or body of the ship, it cannot just reverse direction or the thrust would push against the ship superstructure cancelling out any movement.

My guess, and it is just a guess because none of this is real LOL, is that in order to move backwards a starship would rely on two methods. Firstly thrusters such as the space shuttle has, these are more like manoeuvring jets and use chemical propellants to provide thrust, very slow but no power drain. Secondly the only other way i can think of is small inefficient impulse generators at the front and sides of the ship. Normally these engines would be fine for reversing back a little, but in combat in order to maintain any appreciable movement these inefficient engines have to be pushed to their limits and as a result power is diverted from other systems within the ship. There is your power drain. As none of this is real my explanation is as good as any so take it or leave it
The problem is that it has been explained before that in many ships small fusion reactors power the Impulse Engines and likely are similarly responsible for the thrusters. Moreover as we can clearly see NO impulse engines mounted on the front of the ship there is no reason to believe that any impulse engine is making the ship go backwards. The only means of reversing would be either A) Use Thrusters, B) Eject particulates from the Buzzard Collectors, or C) Emit a powerful energy stream from the Deflector. We do not really see B or C happening. If C was responsible for the reverse thrust then I could understand why power was being lost though in all honesty it should be lost primarily from Aux considering that is where the power for all other Deflector based abilities come from.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Kolikos
You're still thinking in terms of a PvP balance nerf. I'm almost 100% positive the nerf didn't happen for PvP reasons, and I'm nearly as certain that it wasn't strictly a balance issue. Think in terms of unintended and unwanted behavior, and it might make more sense.

For ships with high-damage forward arcs, turretting was a "no brainer" strategy in PvE. It was easy, it was safe, it was effective. Unless the ships tried to move away from you (which NPCs never did), it was a sure win. Here's the kicker though - nobody cared about going in reverse per se; they just wanted to max their turn rate with minimal movement. If we had full turn rates while stationary, I don't think anyone would have bothered with reverse.

That same tactic would get you killed in PvP, though. Why? NPC ships usually don't stack Accuracy; player ships do. Any Accuracy over your Defense turns into critical hit chance, and your main source of Defense is ship speed. So if you're turretting in PvP, you're gonna get one- or two-shotted with critical hits.

So if it only impacted PvE, why would the devs try to nerf it? This is where "unintended and undesired behavior" comes in. Here the devs created really fast, really maneuverable ships packed with forward-mounting weapons, doubtless with visions of epic strafing runs in their heads, but what would the players do with these sleek engines of destruction? They'd sit and spin. No strafing, no trailing the enemies' six, no V formations or diagonal formations, no coming about for another pass, none of the epic action you saw or heard about in the shows or movies - just sitting and spinning like lumpy laser-packing asteroids.

In short (and as far as I can tell), the behavior didn't fit the devs' vision of how these ships should be flown, and the devs didn't like it. So they put in reverse power drain. Simple as that.

If my own PvE behavior is any indication, it worked. In Empire Defense missions, I started using different strategies for different ships and different spawns: strafing runs against frigates; sixxing the cruisers or battleships; and doing a modified turret maneuver for shuttles and fighters. I started using a diversity of tactics - and, oddly enough, those tactics proved to be more effective (and a lot more fun) than the old sit-and-spin. Some even proved useful in PvP.

So there you have it. I don't know if reverse power drain was the best answer to the issue (I think howdoiplay is on the right track), but in retrospect I can see why they did it, and I'm kind of glad they did.
The problem is that I do not need to go in reverse to turret and I do not need to do it for very long. So they solved nothing. In STF's most ships do not even MOVE so there is no point in strafing them. You HAVE to keep your guns on them because of their insane HP (which is acceptable due to their immense size).

The other problem is that enemy NPC ships move so slow and strafing is such an ineffective tactic that there is no incentive to do anything but turret and shoot them. I do it in my Cruisers as much as in my Escorts. If the NPC's actually moved like a real player and tried to evade me or put their best facing to me or even punished me for not moving then it would perhaps make it worth my while to move more. However, if I am coming up the Six of a Cruiser in PvE I have to come to a dead stop if I want to stay there because he is moving at 1/50th Impulse.

So ultimately if the Devs do not like Escorts sitting around and shooting things then the real solution is this:

Make Enemy ship AI better so that they will use you being stationary to their advantage.
Make Enemy ships get the same stacking Accuracy bonuses that we do.
Make Strafing with an Escort a worthwhile tactic instead of being worthless because the moment you fly past you deal 0 DPS and these spurts of no damage make killing your targets harder by orders of magnitude.

The fact is this: Healing abilities are very powerful and Escorts are not the OMGBBQ machines people wish they were. They are strong but with a savvy Captain at the helm of the enemy ship their DPS while very intense is not enough to kill in a single short-lived pass.




Now to the "Naval Battles in Space"... Here is some REAL Naval Battle: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B6qWD...feature=relmfu

Notice how real Battleships have quite a few guns and that they are on turrets allowing them to fire in wide arcs? Notice that the "Front" of the battleship is not the most dangerous place to be because it cannot bring all of its big TURRETED Heavy Cannons to bear from the front or rear. Keep in mind that also unlike space there is a well defined plane that the battleships need to be on and as such they have weapons only on one half of the ship's surface. Having guns underwater would not make any sense.


Let us move on to as close to a real Battleship in Space as it gets: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R9L9v...eature=related

Closer to Trek for sure but once again look at all those Turreted Cannons! Look at them! This sucker has some AWESOME firepower and you do NOT want to get on its side. You do not particularly want to suck its main super cannon on the bow either making it more forward heavy than a normal Battleship. It also has torpedo launchers more like a Trek ship would have so we are getting closer but it still mainly has all its guns on one plane of the ship and still has far more guns and very powerful TURRETED Heavy Cannons so that it is not required to maneuver like a jet fighter.


Now for the Galaxy the Star Trek Battleship: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d734a...eature=related

Does it have cannons?... No... Does it have Turrets? None. It has a few Beams that like a Battleship can fire in a very wide arc but it has substantially less firepower. It has weapons on nearly all sides of the ship to account for the fact that enemies are going to come from infront, behind, the sides, and DIRECTLY above and below. We get to watch the lovely Galaxy X going straight UP at some poor Nagh'vars too which is a lovely scene. Is being on the Galaxy's side the worst place to be?... Well... Not really. It can be just as effective regardless of where you are. Its torpedoes can be fired from anywhere and track you down. It can shoot you with its big beam arrays all around the ship. It is not fixed on some specific plane. You notice the Galaxy does not bother trying to really maneuver itself into some kind of advantageous position because it does not HAVE one.

Then we get things like the Defiant with fixed forward mounted cannons which flies a LOT more like a Jet Fighter and ruins the "Battleships in Spaaaaaaaace" analogy altogether. Even if we consider it to be a fighter craft where are the banks of antiaircraft guns on our cruisers? oh... right... They don't exist. Funny that. Star Trek ships and their battles may bear SOME resemblance to Naval engagements but they are NOT traditional sea going Battleships in how they maneuver and fight and they have to deal with three dimensions whereas traditional sea going Battleships really do not.

If we want to make the game truly Battleships in Space then I want fully Turreted Triple Heavy Cannons and a LOAD of Light Dual Cannons all fully Turreted. I want broadsides to be the be all and end all of damage dealing. I want to take immense punishment before going down. I also want everything to come at me from above, front, sides, or rear and to be able to hit things in those arcs with the vast majority of my guns. I would also not mind that big Cannon from Space Battleship Yamato ooooh wait... I got that on my Bortas'qu already. Nevermind then, good job.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 73
04-11-2012, 05:21 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shinkuu_Akagan
[color="Lime"]

Now to the "Naval Battles in Space"... Here is some REAL Naval Battle: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B6qWD...feature=relmfu

Notice how real Battleships have quite a few guns and that they are on turrets allowing them to fire in wide arcs? Notice that the "Front" of the battleship is not the most dangerous place to be because it cannot bring all of its big TURRETED Heavy Cannons to bear from the front or rear. Keep in mind that also unlike space there is a well defined plane that the battleships need to be on and as such they have weapons only on one half of the ship's surface. Having guns underwater would not make any sense.


Let us move on to as close to a real Battleship in Space as it gets: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R9L9v...eature=related

Closer to Trek for sure but once again look at all those Turreted Cannons! Look at them! This sucker has some AWESOME firepower and you do NOT want to get on its side. You do not particularly want to suck its main super cannon on the bow either making it more forward heavy than a normal Battleship. It also has torpedo launchers more like a Trek ship would have so we are getting closer but it still mainly has all its guns on one plane of the ship and still has far more guns and very powerful TURRETED Heavy Cannons so that it is not required to maneuver like a jet fighter.


Now for the Galaxy the Star Trek Battleship: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d734a...eature=related

Does it have cannons?... No... Does it have Turrets? None. It has a few Beams that like a Battleship can fire in a very wide arc but it has substantially less firepower. It has weapons on nearly all sides of the ship to account for the fact that enemies are going to come from infront, behind, the sides, and DIRECTLY above and below. We get to watch the lovely Galaxy X going straight UP at some poor Nagh'vars too which is a lovely scene. Is being on the Galaxy's side the worst place to be?... Well... Not really. It can be just as effective regardless of where you are. Its torpedoes can be fired from anywhere and track you down. It can shoot you with its big beam arrays all around the ship. It is not fixed on some specific plane. You notice the Galaxy does not bother trying to really maneuver itself into some kind of advantageous position because it does not HAVE one.

Then we get things like the Defiant with fixed forward mounted cannons which flies a LOT more like a Jet Fighter and ruins the "Battleships in Spaaaaaaaace" analogy altogether. Even if we consider it to be a fighter craft where are the banks of antiaircraft guns on our cruisers? oh... right... They don't exist. Funny that. Star Trek ships and their battles may bear SOME resemblance to Naval engagements but they are NOT traditional sea going Battleships in how they maneuver and fight and they have to deal with three dimensions whereas traditional sea going Battleships really do not.

If we want to make the game truly Battleships in Space then I want fully Turreted Triple Heavy Cannons and a LOAD of Light Dual Cannons all fully Turreted. I want broadsides to be the be all and end all of damage dealing. I want to take immense punishment before going down. I also want everything to come at me from above, front, sides, or rear and to be able to hit things in those arcs with the vast majority of my guns. I would also not mind that big Cannon from Space Battleship Yamato ooooh wait... I got that on my Bortas'qu already. Nevermind then, good job.
You're forgetting about real world submarines...saying that an escort is like a jet fighter and therefore ruins the space combat feel is wrong when you can say that they fit the role of early submarines. If you disregard the fact that one is underwater and one is above. Even if you dont want to disregard that fact, early submarines had to attack close to the surface with a periscope giving them their info. Being mostly underwater gives them some stealth, and if spotted then going deep underwater lets them evade. IRL Jam Sensors and Battle Cloak FTW? And of course another huge difference is that early submarines running on batteries ran slower.


Battleships will be equal to your cruisers obviously, but submarines will be equal to your escorts. early submarines required them to get a target to within a field of fire in front of the submarine or the rear. This was back when torpedoes didnt have guidance systems, and they relied on taking measurements to determine the enemy ship course, your course, the speed of the torpedo. Then with some math figure out how to make a straight moving torpedo travelling at a constant speed hit a (hopefully) straight moving ship that wont zig-zag.
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 08:44 AM.