Empire Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 6,766
# 11
08-08-2012, 10:57 AM
I agree the shield revamp would not work as the game is not designed for it, though I do like the idea that Klingon battle cruisers get a revamp to a more forward slotted weapon aproach.

A Vor'cha, Negh'var,K'tinga with a 5/3 set-up makes more since than the standard 4/4 that beam boats abide by normally. Given teh Klingon use of cannons and our often higher turn rate, it makes sense to me.
The BortasQu would be the only vessel to suffer since it has the crappy turnrate.

The Raptors could be left as they are since they all have one less weapon slots as it is.
The BoPs could be left untouched as well since they have even one less weapon slot than the Raptors.

All other KDF ships could be left alone as being from different races they may have differing design philosophies than the Klingon "in your face" approach to combat.
Richard Hamilton (1975-2014)
goodbye good friend. We will see you in the DMZ in the sky oneday, save a shot for us.
Captain
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 855
# 12
08-08-2012, 02:01 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by kamenskshax View Post
To me all the games appear to have got stuck on the board game concept - space is 3D - so why no "upper" and "lower" shields/weapons?
Check out Bridge Commander (released in 2002). It has forward, aft, left, right, top and bottom shields. It has full 360-degree ship movement and firing arcs, with "left" weapons capable of firing 90 degrees up, down, left, right and forward from it's mounting (depending on the ships configuration/hardpoint).
Career Officer
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 574
# 13
08-08-2012, 02:27 PM
Yup, roach is right, the game mechanics won't allow more than 4 shield facings. And since changing the shield mechanics probably needs many changes, it won't happen. On the top of that, we're talking about the kdf, the poor and abused kid of sto, lol. But it's an interesting concept though and I would like it being implemented. what they could do is to allow a weapon from back to be moved to the front, especially for higher turn rate ships. But then some other faction may consider it op...

And yea, bridge commander was the closest game to the cannon star trek.
Hear! Sons of Kahless
Hear! Daughters too.
The blood of battle washes clean.
The Warrior brave and true.
We fight, we love, and then we kill...
Empire Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 6,766
# 14
08-08-2012, 02:34 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by trueprom3theus View Post
Yup, roach is right, the game mechanics won't allow more than 4 shield facings. And since changing the shield mechanics probably needs many changes, it won't happen. On the top of that, we're talking about the kdf, the poor and abused kid of sto, lol. But it's an interesting concept though and I would like it being implemented. what they could do is to allow a weapon from back to be moved to the front, especially for higher turn rate ships. But then some other faction may consider it op...

And yea, bridge commander was the closest game to the cannon star trek.
Unless you ran all beams on a battle Cruiser it shouldn't be OP, and even then it would not be OP as a 4/4 Cruiser can still Broadside all beams like a 5/3 Battle cruiser would be able to.

The 5 forward weapons would not be OP becuase even with a burst shot, once your target gets out of the limited cannon firing arc the only weapons you have on them would be your rear Turrets or at most two beams.
Frankly it would make the BCs more vulnerable to those rear arc creeping escorts and make the BC player ahve to think more about his/her attacking posture.

Plus I think it fits the IP for Klingons very well.
Richard Hamilton (1975-2014)
goodbye good friend. We will see you in the DMZ in the sky oneday, save a shot for us.
Captain
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 3,934
# 15
08-08-2012, 02:59 PM
Unfortunately (or perhaps fortunately depending on your point of view) other games assigned a BPV to each weapon and when equipping a ship you were limited to the BPV total allowed on any given ship, so it was VERY unlikely that you'd run into an all-cannon equipped ship unless it gave up some other unit (say an Aux reactor or a couple of weapon mounts). ST:O doesn't use that type of system so it's very common to see ships running around overloaded with weapons of a single type.

A change to this system this late in the game isn't going to happen.

The 5/3 layout works rather well tho, as a torp launcher, pair of cannons and pair of beams cover the front 235 deg arc nicely, and a torp and pair of turrets are a nice rear defensive setup, that can be swapped for beams as ST:O doesn't need any drone defenseon ships.
KBF Lord MalaK
Awoken Dead

You're gonna upgrade my Chel Grett for FREE but charge me $27 to upgrade my Kamarag ?
Empire Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 7,097
# 16
08-08-2012, 03:27 PM
in nemisis, it was clear their were 6 shield facing on at least the enterprise, the 4 sides, dorsal and ventral. but as far as gameplay is concerned, im most happy with 4. the flight angles we are limited to makes any more facing an over complication, to even engage an enemy with low arc weapons you have to be at approximately the same plain as him. having 4 v 6 is a minor, unimportant issue really, its the setups of the ships themselves that are not quite right.


i would make enumerable changes to all ships, but proboly to kdf the most. the system in place is great imo, the engine and gameplay system is solid, its just the entries associated with the ships that need work. you can have balance and a closer interpretation to canon, saying you have to chose 1 or the other is a cop out, it can totally be done.
gateway links-->Norvo Tigan, Telis Latto Ruwon, Sochie Heim, Solana Soleus
Captain
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,070
# 17
08-08-2012, 08:20 PM
Im ok with how the shields work right now and can't think of a single canon shot of shields being shown as six sided. The moving a weapon to the front idea is really interesting though. Maybe it could be a console option?
Career Officer
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 4,050
# 18
08-09-2012, 02:31 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by lordmalak1 View Post
Still, triangles can make squares but I don't see a hint of a square on any KDF chart or display, and the first pic you posted clearly outlines a hexagon.
Not sure what you're aiming at with this.
Yes triangles can make squares.
Triangles with a right angle for example.
With these triangles it's impossible since they're even sided ones with 60 degree angles.
The best you can get out of those would be a parallelogram.
And since the Klingons seem to like threes, a hexagon make more sens aestetically speaking than a prallelogram which always looke kinda crooked.

Still the triangle is the smallest element in the Klingon "grid" not the hex like in SFB.
*scratches head* are we really debating geometry right now?
Oh boy do I feel nerdy today.
Captain
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 553
# 19
08-10-2012, 10:44 AM
I'm not going to get into the circular mines bigger than your argument going on in this thread as they are useless arguing that raise my blood pressure and make me think "get off my lawn" curmudgeon like thoughts. The idea of more attack front and less rear is interesting, but the shield stuff would just make the KDF more the Feds bad guy targets. No thanks.

Canon. Heh, this is a game. Balance. Heh, one persons balance is another's whine.

A tier 5 BoP purchased from the z store has the same weapon layout as a commander level ship. No way this ship shouldn't be 4 and 3.

This game is based on a 4 shield need more pew pew design. Gotta beat down the shield face to do the hurting. 5 front? Ok. Decreasing rear guns. NO.
Chingachgook told me, Don't try to understand them; and don't try to make them understand you. For they are a breed apart and make no sense.
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 04:18 PM.