Captain
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,690
# 151
09-23-2012, 01:34 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by bitemepwe View Post
So we are back to canon again? I was given the impression that canon was not to be used in this thread on an aspect of gameplay.
If so then I say that the KDF battle cruisers in STO, as one of two very dominate types, are portrayed very well with the faster turn and DPS minded design fits very well with what we see as canon for klingon society.
Ok, I would have this conversation on my thread dedicated to ship balance (That's where it belongs) but as I have said earlier fed cruisers shouldn't be incapable of being independent simply because they should be dishing out heals. Here I explained the requirements of an exploration cruiser, which is exactly what the federation built.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bitemepwe View Post
I still like my idea of raising the base turnrate of both fed cruisers and KDF battle cruisers by 1to 2 points each and everyone is happy. The fed cruiser become alittle more agile and fun to play and the KDF battle cruisers lose nothing for the change.
With regard to this, I don't have a problem with it either (though it might made keeping a target in my broadside using my Excelsior) it would make the vast majority of cruisers more viable. With regard to the person complaining about the Galaxy class, it was always designed even by Starfleet to have all it's firepower forward facing so while yes while at a near standstill it should turn like nobody's business, it's so big that with any forward speed it is going to be slow, it is always going to be slow and due to it's design flaws, there is nothing anyone can do about that. (except waste console space on RCS and max out your impulse thrusters+engine performance)
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 185
# 152
09-23-2012, 06:44 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by juniormint10 View Post
Cryptic,

The turn rate for Federation cruisers like the Galaxy Class are just awful. The turn rate is a discouraging and cumbersome 6 for the Galaxy. It's counterpart, the Vor'cha is slightly better at 7, but the Negh'var gets a whopping turn rate of 9. This is hardly an accurate reflection of starship maneuverability from the TV shows.

The Galaxy was known for being quite maneuverable for a ship of its size. The Negh'Var was slightly larger, and built for sheer strength and force over speed. I know the Galaxy is a tier 4 ship, and the Negh'var a tier 5 ship in STO. However, it still doesn't make sense that a larger battleship should have a higher turn rate. Even the Excelsior has a lower turn rate of 8.

The Exploration Cruiser Retrofit helps somewhat because it can saucer separate, but w.o saucer separation it's still has a sluggish turn rate of 6. Besides, some people might prefer the extra survivability of being unseparated. Therefore, the turn rate should be adjusted for the Galaxy. I suggest making a new turn rate of 9 for the Galaxy so it doesn't handle like a train.

The Constitution has a turn rate of 9 and the K'T'inga has a turn rate of 11. This further unbalances gameplay as the Constitution has the same turn rate of the Negh'var, and the K'T'Inga has an even higher turn rate. I won't go into details on how the Constitution should be equal to the K'T'Inga, that is for a separate topic. But for the current topic, the turn rate of the Constitution should be 11.

The Excelsior should have a turn rate of 10 and the Nebula a turn rate of 9.

Thank you
Wow at this thread, how many pages just wow. You guys really need to learn how to build your toons than relying on base ship stats that change depending what you have trained in.

Are you in a Fleet?

There is a Brilliant Engineer in our fleet that could teach you how to fly a cruiser as if it was an escort no need for winging about turn rates ever again or if your already in a fleet our fleet runs whats called the UFC which is a whole bunch of independent fleets keeping their identity's but working as one with in the UFC.

Honestly stop looking at base ship stats they change ,the only time they go back to there base stats is when your in sector space other than that the ships stats change depending what you have trained in.

It wouldn't be fair to nerf some of the ships you mentioned or add stats to others as it would make a lot of builds useless and force people to re spec toons which is totally unfair because a few people don't know how to build their ships and toons.
Captain
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,241
# 153
09-23-2012, 10:31 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by paragon92518 View Post
(In real life) if Starfleet and the KDF were two actual factions and they were "at war" with each other, Starfleet would be kneeling before its' KDF counterparts and the battle between the factions would last less than 30 days. The ships the Feds have just wouldn't cut it against the KDF. Does anyone really think the Feds would stand a freakin' chance against the KDF? So, why pretend in-game? It's foolish!
Actually if you look at all the Trek movies and TV series the reason why the Federation could keep the Klingons at bay was because Federation ships had better science.

In Klingon Academy, Chang asks: What three things make the Federation such a powerful adversary?

A cadet answers him: 'Their vast natural resources, their economic capacity and the skills of their science'.

In all movies and tv series the Federation beat their enemies through engineering and science skills, not by using overpowered weaponry and vicious attacks.

..that is how the Klingons did it.


Pre-F2P patch the game DID have such a difference visible. Federation ships, even the escorts, were nowhere near as powerful as the KDF vessels when it came to weapons. However, the Federation ships did have much better ability to tank and to do science.

Pre-science nerf a Federation science ship was a very dangerous opponent. It had decent weaponry but it could pull a lot of very nasty abilities on a klingon warship and obliterate it.

Today however, with science having been nerfed into uselessness and guns/torpedoes peddled to the playerbase as the only way STO can do 'Trek' ...

well, THAT is the problem.
http://media.tumblr.com/160cacdb395f8340dac90864182ebe16/tumblr_inline_mx9yxhItkb1qg9pkt.jpg
Captain
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,331
# 154
09-23-2012, 10:44 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by rodentmaster View Post
False. You're trying to make balance = identical. That's not it at all. Balance across the entire faction is already there. Across all ship classes. You're just whining for a more manueverable cruiser. That's not balance, not by a long shot.


P.S. PvP is so broken and boring it should NOT be the measure to base things upon. It isn't the reason people play this game. It's an afterthought. You look at the history of the development of this game and that's abundantly clear.
For me PvP is the reason why I want to play this game. The biggest impediments have been the lack of work that has been put into PvP and the grind-fest required to get competitive gear to play PvP.
Captain
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,331
# 155
09-23-2012, 10:53 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by yreodred View Post
Thats the point, most people wanting to fly a Cruiser want to to that because they expect those ships to be like in the shows. Able to take care of themselves and able to do a good amount of damage. Federation Cruisers can't do this very well compared to other ships in this game.
Of course you can tickle your enemy to death, but thats not what most of us want your ships to do.
Surely one can use some BOFF powers that support DPS for a cruiser, but they are by far not powerful enough to my expectations and standards. Thats why many people (including myself) are dissappointed with Federation Cruisers, serving as healboats is boring and not fun (IMO), especially when doing Solo PvE or just casual Ker'rat PvP missions.
You can however fly a Galor, D'Kora or Regent (if you got the EC/ZEN), but in my opinion all Starfleet cruisers should just as able to do a good amount of Damage (and be more maneuverable) and they shouldn't be as boring as they are now.
In my opinion Federation Cruisers are the most boring and dull ships in the Game.
(althrough they are the most iconic ones, the devs must have a wierd sense of humor. )


Live long and prosper.
I disagree, I use Engie' Fed. Cruisers all the time. I keep my friends alive to dish out more damage, I lay down decent damage and I can tank when the guns turn on me. And if I make a mistake in combat, cruisers are more forgiving than the other classes because of their tank-ability. That's why my sci is in a Nebula and my Tactical gravitates towards the "heavier" escort types. But the cruisers are where the survivability is.
Captain
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,331
# 156
09-23-2012, 11:02 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by jellico1 View Post
Picard was a cruiser caption. ( battleship )
The Galaxy was not a battleship, it was an exploration cruiser, it was designed with optimal use for a large science crew and to haul families along for a long term expedition in mind. Battleships do not have these sort of things. Just because a ship is equipped to defend itself (by itself) against typical enemy attacks doesn't make it a battleship.

Yes, by Pakled and Talarian standards, it would be a battleship, but by Klingon standards, its a luxury liner.
Captain
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,331
# 157
09-23-2012, 11:16 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by bitemepwe View Post
So we are back to canon again? I was given the impression that canon was not to be used in this thread on an aspect of gameplay.
If so then I say that the KDF battle cruisers in STO, as one of two very dominate types, are portrayed very well with the faster turn and DPS minded design fits very well with what we see as canon for klingon society.

I still like my idea of raising the base turnrate of both fed cruisers and KDF battle cruisers by 1to 2 points each and everyone is happy. The fed cruiser become alittle more agile and fun to play and the KDF battle cruisers lose nothing for the change.
Roach,

Base turn rate isn't the only determinant in a ships overall turn rate, it is combined with the ships "inertia" stat. Take a Soverign or Regent and put the same gear in it that you put in an Excelsior and you will have an average of a 2.5 degree turn rate deficit, yet the base turn rate is only 1 degree separation. Why? The Regent/Sovy' has an inertial value of 40, while the Excelsior has an inertial value of 30. The higher a ships inertia, the harder it is for it to overcome its weight(inertia) to accelerate/turn. This is why Klingon (lighter) battle-cruisers and the Excelsior are so much better for turning and the Bortas(qu)/ Oddy and Galaxies are so sluggish. Its a combination of base turn rate and the inertial value.

My thought is base hull hit-points on the inertia(weight) of the ship. Most T5 Fed cruisers have a hull of 39k. The Excel should have less than that the Sovy/Regent/Starcruiser should have 39k and the Galaxy hulls should have more than that. This would balance out some of the differences in players distinguishing different ships.

As far as "actual" base turn rates, the Klinks' should have a better base turn rate than a Fed ship, they are designed for fighting, not exploration or multi-tasking. Stellar Chartography or Medical rescues don't require you to turn on a dime.
Captain
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,690
# 158
09-23-2012, 11:20 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by whamhammer1 View Post
by Klingon standards, its a luxury liner.
^This

The galaxy was never meant to go to war (except when the enterprise C found it's temporal anomaly) The excelsior is comparable to federation warships, it was built with a war going on if memory serves my right and notice how despite the vast majority of them being decommissioned, they are brought out again to be the mainstay of the federation fleet in wars 200 years later because they are perhaps the best darned ships starfleet ever built (evidenced by the fact they still keep up with the ships being built on the day), this alone suggests they have some bite, heck the excelsior out-performs the defiant for goodness sake!

The galaxy is portrayed (until you see it in a real fight) as a fortress and with those forward phaser banks it really is... until you get past that and then it may as well be shuttle for the punch it has. The excelsior on the other hand is a damned nasty piece of work, it's dangerous from the front, it's dangerous from behind, it's even more dangerous from the side though. i personally think that a game that claims to be based on ST canon should reflect this not toss it out the window because it doesn't suit them despite the fact they've been running a reflection of canon for 2 years now.

I would very much like to know what prompted this change in attitude by Cryptic/PWE as they are still trying to make money out of cruisers with no ability to destroy anything
Captain
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 2,051
# 159
09-23-2012, 02:13 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by whamhammer1 View Post
I disagree, I use Engie' Fed. Cruisers all the time. I keep my friends alive to dish out more damage, I lay down decent damage and I can tank when the guns turn on me. And if I make a mistake in combat, cruisers are more forgiving than the other classes because of their tank-ability. That's why my sci is in a Nebula and my Tactical gravitates towards the "heavier" escort types. But the cruisers are where the survivability is.
Yeah, if you find it entertaining to keep other players alive so they can fight the enemy, i am happy for you.

As far as i know in STFs, Escorts don't need other ships healing them, they can easily take care of themselves, as do Science ships (when using the appropriate powers).

Maybe we just have different expectations, in my opinion Cruisers should be similar to escorts, but slower and bigger. But they should have definitly more firepower than they have in STO. To tickle your enemy to death is not what i expect from a such a big and powerful ship like a cruiser.

Of course there are cruisers feautring more firepower in STO. Just look at the Galor, D'Kora or some Klingon ships, they can generate a good amount of destructiveness. But especially the Galaxy, Star Cruiser, Assault Cruiser, and Galaxy -X and some other Starfleet ships just don't live up to the expectations.
Yes the Galaxy is not the newest ship anymore, i get that, but the D'Kora and the Galor aren't new too (in fact they are from the same time period). No one seems to be furious about them having much better tactical BO stations than many Starfleet ships. (maybe because they are availlable to KDF players too?)


Every ship should be able to survive on its own, having to rely on others, to do damage or getting some heals is just not like Star Trek ships work. Such a game mechanic would be ok in a generic Sci Fi game but not Star Trek.
Especially Cruisers are the dominant ship type in Star Trek, all other ships are special ships build for a certain task (just like the Defiant, or the Oberth). In "real" Star Trek those ships are NOT as powerful, versatile and survivable as cruisers. They are experts in what they do but they are not very useful when doing other tasks. In Star Trek (not STO) cruisers don't "heal" other ships to such a degree. Surely they can beam a engineering team aboard an other ship, but thats it.


Live long and prosper.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
-> -> -> STO players unite and say NO to ARC <- <- <-

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Last edited by yreodred; 09-23-2012 at 02:16 PM.
Captain
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,331
# 160
09-23-2012, 03:30 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by yreodred View Post
Yeah, if you find it entertaining to keep other players alive so they can fight the enemy, i am happy for you.

As far as i know in STFs, Escorts don't need other ships healing them, they can easily take care of themselves, as do Science ships (when using the appropriate powers).

Maybe we just have different expectations, in my opinion Cruisers should be similar to escorts, but slower and bigger. But they should have definitly more firepower than they have in STO. To tickle your enemy to death is not what i expect from a such a big and powerful ship like a cruiser.

Of course there are cruisers feautring more firepower in STO. Just look at the Galor, D'Kora or some Klingon ships, they can generate a good amount of destructiveness. But especially the Galaxy, Star Cruiser, Assault Cruiser, and Galaxy -X and some other Starfleet ships just don't live up to the expectations.
Yes the Galaxy is not the newest ship anymore, i get that, but the D'Kora and the Galor aren't new too (in fact they are from the same time period). No one seems to be furious about them having much better tactical BO stations than many Starfleet ships. (maybe because they are availlable to KDF players too?)


Every ship should be able to survive on its own, having to rely on others, to do damage or getting some heals is just not like Star Trek ships work. Such a game mechanic would be ok in a generic Sci Fi game but not Star Trek.
Especially Cruisers are the dominant ship type in Star Trek, all other ships are special ships build for a certain task (just like the Defiant, or the Oberth). In "real" Star Trek those ships are NOT as powerful, versatile and survivable as cruisers. They are experts in what they do but they are not very useful when doing other tasks. In Star Trek (not STO) cruisers don't "heal" other ships to such a degree. Surely they can beam a engineering team aboard an other ship, but thats it.


Live long and prosper.
I just don't do STF, or PvE, I also do PvP. In PvP you need the support that the cruisers bring, and they can do damage, just not the ultra high levels the tac escorts can with spike damage. Cruisers keep laying out the damage all the time and I would argue that my enemies arent just being "tickled".

The Galaxy X can lay out a bunch of damage, you just have to know how to do it. Check out Hakashins old thread. I was running around with my Enige GalX on friday, after hearing all the griping about the Galaxies (my Tac is the only one with a Gal-R) and doing pretty good. The Gal-X isnt that much different from the Gal-R when you take the lance away (which only works every 3 minutes).

I dont have any points in threat control and I was doing fine in holding agro.
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 10:08 AM.