Captain
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,480
# 31
09-02-2012, 04:56 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by bareel View Post
Ok then why not just have every console effect a base number on the ship. I mean after all, why should an escort with 4 engineering consoles get the same amount of resist as a cruiser that doesn't make sense either. Escorts should only get half the bonus from them. Better yet don't let them apply any resist to the hull but increase the amount of resist granted from boff abilities! woot for random overly complex mechanics!

And lets not stop there, all science consoles that modify a skill should do it by a % of your captain skill. No more slotting in a resist console or two without the skill points to back it up.

The ONLY way this would be an issue is if the flat bonus was huge which is not what anyone is recommending.

and the skill Impulse Thrusters is complete garbage (nearly) giving an even smaller bonus than an RCS console for a bunch of valuable skill points. It also provides a relative increase.
The flat bonus you mentioned is by definition a huge bonus at next to no cost.

You've completely ignored the point I and others are making that you're taking ships designed for high Broadside DoT damage and allowing them to vastly increase their dps time on target and use higher damage narrow arc weapons whether it be DBB or DHCs.

If the Broadside DoT damage isn't providing the output is should than address that.

If there are too few practical in game applications for Broadside DoT damage address that.

I provide a potential solution to both.

Myself and others also pointed out some cruiser options for higher turnate. Here's another for you, the saucer seperated Odys.

Others pointed out Boff skills and items and flying techiniques to mitigate low turnrate cruisers.

Lastly, you've jumped the thought train tracks and went off and several tangets for no apparent reason.
Captain
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 11,100
# 32
09-02-2012, 05:18 PM
I agree with the OP, and he raises a valid point. Keep in mind that not all Cruisers are broadside vessels (The Gal-X being the biggest one) And this modification would give cruiser players a huge boost to movement while still remaining useful to escort players, if not as much. I think it would help out a lot.
http://i1151.photobucket.com/albums/o633/centersolace/189cux9khvl6ojpg_zpsca7ccff0.jpg

So inhumane superweapons, mass murder, and canon nonsense is okay, but speedos are too much for some people.
Captain
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,273
# 33
09-02-2012, 06:05 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by centersolace View Post
I agree with the OP, and he raises a valid point. Keep in mind that not all Cruisers are broadside vessels (The Gal-X being the biggest one) And this modification would give cruiser players a huge boost to movement while still remaining useful to escort players, if not as much. I think it would help out a lot.
And that's why certain cruiser designs are flawed, and why nobody who wants to be competitive flies them. Putting forward-firing builds or cannon capability on something that can't turn is just a gimmick that nobody will really use well. Instead of changing the RCS consoles and potentially breaking another aspect of the game. . .don't fly those vessels. Or, better yet, stop playing Fed and play KDF if you want nimble battlecruisers that can use cannons properly (Vorcha, certain Raptor builds, Guramba Siege Destroyer, etc).
Captain
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,086
# 34
09-02-2012, 06:23 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by p2wsucks View Post
The flat bonus you mentioned is by definition a huge bonus at next to no cost.

You've completely ignored the point I and others are making that you're taking ships designed for high Broadside DoT damage and allowing them to vastly increase their dps time on target and use higher damage narrow arc weapons whether it be DBB or DHCs.

If the Broadside DoT damage isn't providing the output is should than address that.

If there are too few practical in game applications for Broadside DoT damage address that.

I provide a potential solution to both.

Myself and others also pointed out some cruiser options for higher turnate. Here's another for you, the saucer seperated Odys.

Others pointed out Boff skills and items and flying techiniques to mitigate low turnrate cruisers.

Lastly, you've jumped the thought train tracks and went off and several tangets for no apparent reason.
Your looking at it purely from a pvp min/max point of view, which is fine. I'm looking at it from a quality of life and gameplay enjoyment view primarily, and trying to make something that serves no real purpose in the game become useful to some degree.

I personally have no problems with the slow turning ships, in PvE its not difficult to even keep my carrier nose on target. But it is frustrating at times and those who want to sacrifice the console slots so that their ship has a decent turn rate should be allowed to do so.

I just checked with my klink in a Vo'Quv carrier. I have a 6.9 turn rate, if I add a +35% console it only increases it by .7 to a whooping 7.6. That is just pathetic.

My fed in an advanced escort with 28 turn rate leaps up to a 32.2 turn rate from a 32.5% console or a 4.2 turn rate gain. That is 5x the bonus.

Does a sci ship get 5x the bonus from a shield console? Does any console effect vary this much depending on the ship's base stat? Or any piece of gear? NO.

It would not break the game one tiny bit to grant a flat +1 bonus along with half of the existing % bonus. An escort will still be top dog in turn rate. Is a cruiser with a 12 or even a 20 turn rate (if it had a high base to start with) going to break the game? NO.

Would a cruiser with an extra turret in the back really be that scary to you with a good turn rate compared to a CRF3 Escort that still has a significantly higher turn rate? Really?

And finally, many people like to fly cruisers and many people are frustrated by their turn rate. How many LOST SALES were there of the flagships for this simple reason? Did you see how much RCS consoles were going for on the exchange on their release or the thread of people slotting in 3 of them. This is a casual game and the vast majority of players are not going to aim for a high system mastery just so they can fly a ship with a pathetic turn rate. This is bad design that is costing cryptic money! And using the 'L2P' argument along with an invalid balance argument doesn't change anything.

There is a better way.
Captain
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,480
# 35
09-02-2012, 06:48 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by bareel View Post
Your looking at it purely from a pvp min/max point of view, which is fine. I'm looking at it from a quality of life and gameplay enjoyment view primarily, and trying to make something that serves no real purpose in the game become useful to some degree.

I personally have no problems with the slow turning ships, in PvE its not difficult to even keep my carrier nose on target. But it is frustrating at times and those who want to sacrifice the console slots so that their ship has a decent turn rate should be allowed to do so.

I just checked with my klink in a Vo'Quv carrier. I have a 6.9 turn rate, if I add a +35% console it only increases it by .7 to a whooping 7.6. That is just pathetic.

My fed in an advanced escort with 28 turn rate leaps up to a 32.2 turn rate from a 32.5% console or a 4.2 turn rate gain. That is 5x the bonus.

Does a sci ship get 5x the bonus from a shield console? Does any console effect vary this much depending on the ship's base stat? Or any piece of gear? NO.

It would not break the game one tiny bit to grant a flat +1 bonus along with half of the existing % bonus. An escort will still be top dog in turn rate. Is a cruiser with a 12 or even a 20 turn rate (if it had a high base to start with) going to break the game? NO.

Would a cruiser with an extra turret in the back really be that scary to you with a good turn rate compared to a CRF3 Escort that still has a significantly higher turn rate? Really?

And finally, many people like to fly cruisers and many people are frustrated by their turn rate. How many LOST SALES were there of the flagships for this simple reason? Did you see how much RCS consoles were going for on the exchange on their release or the thread of people slotting in 3 of them. This is a casual game and the vast majority of players are not going to aim for a high system mastery just so they can fly a ship with a pathetic turn rate. This is bad design that is costing cryptic money! And using the 'L2P' argument along with an invalid balance argument doesn't change anything.

There is a better way.
1st there are many consoles which don't provide a flat bonus, most don't actually:

The shield % HP bonus boosts ships w/+shield modifiers using high buffer shields the most. You're wrong to think otherwise.

The diminishing returns of Armor resist consoles are another.

The general diminishing returns of Sci consoles over 99 points.

In fact only damage Tac consoles provide a non diminishing return, with the exception of the Tetryon weapon proc when used w/flow caps.

A cruiser w/20 Base turnrate is absolutely game breaking, are you serious? What do you think it'll be w/APA or APO or Evasives or Aux2Damp or even just an Engine Battery?

W/a 10 base turnrate Cruiser I can get ~24 turnrate w/2x RCS currently. Adding in movement buffs it's high 30s. You seriously are wrong on nearly every assumption you're making.

I even stated how and Odsy., you know one of those flagships you're whining about, can have a very respectable turnrate. Use the Saucer Seperation console ...

Tell you what, if you don't believe a cruiser w/a solid turnrate and 4 turret/4DHCs layout is powerful I can demonstrate it for you. Since, they already exist in game and I have one.
Captain
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 11,100
# 36
09-02-2012, 07:15 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by travelingmaster View Post
And that's why certain cruiser designs are flawed, and why nobody who wants to be competitive flies them. Putting forward-firing builds or cannon capability on something that can't turn is just a gimmick that nobody will really use well. Instead of changing the RCS consoles and potentially breaking another aspect of the game. . .don't fly those vessels. Or, better yet, stop playing Fed and play KDF if you want nimble battlecruisers that can use cannons properly (Vorcha, certain Raptor builds, Guramba Siege Destroyer, etc).
Ignore an entire class of vessels just because you're afraid of losing a bonus that someone else will gain? And you're telling me to use those stapled together scraps of metal?

Right....

I am not a Klingon fan. I never will be. Stuff like this makes me even less impressed. Give me a more compelling argument next time.
http://i1151.photobucket.com/albums/o633/centersolace/189cux9khvl6ojpg_zpsca7ccff0.jpg

So inhumane superweapons, mass murder, and canon nonsense is okay, but speedos are too much for some people.
Captain
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,273
# 37
09-02-2012, 09:32 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by centersolace View Post
Ignore an entire class of vessels just because you're afraid of losing a bonus that someone else will gain? And you're telling me to use those stapled together scraps of metal?

Right....

I am not a Klingon fan. I never will be. Stuff like this makes me even less impressed. Give me a more compelling argument next time.
Yes, you avoid ship designs that can't compete in PVP. It's as simple as that. The Hegh'ta is on the verge of being uncompetitive in PVP, for example, and if it's left behind much further I'll stop using it in PVP. The same goes for any other design that was either left behind, or was designed in such a way that it's impractical for PVP because there's another ship design that does what it's supposed to do, only better. It's why the Ning'tao (Fleet BoP design) will be difficult to use effectively in PVP, because of the low hull strength and lack of Enhanced Battlecloak (which is soooo OP - in eyes of unskilled Fed players - that it merits an entire ship type being underpowered in every stat rating).

Oh, and it's this 'GIVE US EVERYTHING THE KDF HAS ON OUR SHIPS!!!' approach you Feddies seem to have that drives ME from playing Federation. You have your advantages, we have ours. . .but you can't possibly just keep it at that. No, you've gotta have stuff on your ships that was never intended to be on your ships (the Dreadnought has a CLOAK, on a ship that isn't the Defiant!), and you're still not happy.

Go ahead, don't play KDF. Just stop demanding that the Feddies get everything the KDF has and more. Live with the limitations of the faction, just like what the KDF has to do with it's own ship designs.

Lastly: Our KDF ships are more badass than your harmless-looking 'graceful' cruisers and whatnot

/rant
Career Officer
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,173
# 38
09-02-2012, 09:48 PM
Why is everyone bagging on the OP? It seems like a safe idea...yes, there are other methods to manage the crappy maneuverability of cruisers, but his suggestion isn't bad and still leaves escorts as king...if someone wants I sacrifice an armor console or whatever to have a slightly less crappy-maneuverable boar, let them. It won't break the game ffs....
Captain
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,480
# 39
09-02-2012, 11:15 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by badname834854 View Post
Why is everyone bagging on the OP? It seems like a safe idea...yes, there are other methods to manage the crappy maneuverability of cruisers, but his suggestion isn't bad and still leaves escorts as king...if someone wants I sacrifice an armor console or whatever to have a slightly less crappy-maneuverable boar, let them. It won't break the game ffs....
I agree broadside Cruiser gameplay needs some love. But, boosting the turnrate via console or otherwise won't fix that. It will just let Cruisers designed to broadside become forward Arc damage dealers. Further hindering the role of the broadside cruiser.

The real problem is via defensive boost Doffs, borg procs, stf shields, ship hull buffs, and new ships including escorts w/far too much hull and improved boff layouts leaves the broadside cruiser damage lacking. Further, the extra defenses for each ship has reduced the need for cross repairs. Which is a role traditionally filled by Cruisers designed to do Broadside damage.

It's why I mentioned the level up as a potential solution, so base weapon damage across the board will be boosted. This will increase the broadside damage for cruisers as well as provide a need for repair support since escorts et al will be under more dps pressure.

Additionally, there are somewhat manuverable Cruisers in this game as was mentioned before many times. Even a couple for the Fedside.

I've see no good reason to boost the console turnrate to a flat effect and quite frankly the opposite in terms of harming the Broadside Cruiser's traditional role.
Captain
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 3,159
# 40
09-03-2012, 12:25 AM
I agree with the OP as long as the base turn rate improvement isn't too high. Somewhere around 3 is fair for a Mk XI rare.
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 12:22 PM.