Captain
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 3,733
# 151
10-03-2012, 06:21 AM
I have however noticed that with the same ship and build my tac gets more damage unbuffed than my engi does also unbuffed and the tac is less skilled up for the thing than the engi

any ideas?
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 144
# 152
10-03-2012, 07:27 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by bitemepwe View Post
This debate has become circular and is a debate as old as gaming itself, the debate of Why is my Cleric (Engineer/Cruiser) not as dangerous as your fighter(Tactical/Escort)?
The answer is the same as it ever was, He is not suppossed to be otherwise he would be a fighter.
In D&D, one of the most classical pen&paper games, the cleric is one of the most dangerous class available, beating fighter without problem at high levels when he can cast his magic. I don't know where the modern idea of defenseless and teethless healer archetype comes from ...

And sorry, but if you want to see it from the fantasy point of view, then an escort would be no fighter. Fighter mostly are not specialists in dealing damage, thats what mages/rogues are for. In fact, since escort can tank, deal damage and also heal them self they would be a multiclass mage-fighter-cleric ... For Klingons you can replace mage by rogue ...
Captain
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 3,288
# 153
10-03-2012, 08:04 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by adamkafei View Post
I have however noticed that with the same ship and build my tac gets more damage unbuffed than my engi does also unbuffed and the tac is less skilled up for the thing than the engi

any ideas?
well, racial traits...skills...accolades...weapon modifiers...range. this list can go on and on and on.

fact is, this can only be compared in an environment that is specifically designed for that evaluation. And taking your word, no offense here meant, is just not enough without some hard evidence.

combat logs, 1vs1 testing environment and so on would be a start...anything esle is subjective and speculative.
Go pro or go home
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 216
# 154
10-03-2012, 07:10 PM
[quote=bitemepwe;5933261]
Quote:
Captain abilities is part of the choice you make when you decide to create a character. If you do not like not being the heavy hitter then do not choose Engineer over Tactical. I do not see why the Engineer class suddenly needs a damage boost to compete with a different class designed to be the damage dealing class.
Anyone can use the DOffs and the number of tactical consoles on a ship is a part of said ships design, so while yes once you add all these factors into the equation the damage numbers start to have real differences its not unexpected as the classes start to show thier proffessional bonuses, of which only the tactical has direct damage multipliers.
Not asking to be the heavy hitter or main DD.
And nor am I asking for a damage buff to Engineers. But for Cruisers and Science Vessels that use beam arrays.


Quote:
BFAW is not a damage increasing skill though and never was intended to be in combat. BFAW is a pet killing skill designed back when the KDF had the only pets and the feds where tired of trying to counter them. Its not a damage dealing skill unless you are hoping to Proc a target or do damage indirectly via DEM or Sensor Analysis etc.
I beg to differ.
FAW was not intended as a pet killing skill. To begin with there were no carriers.
FAW was a threat generation tool with potential as a damage increaser vs single targets.
To say that it isn't is like saying that TSS was never intended to be used on yourself, only others. When clearly it is capable of both.

Quote:
The differences in damage between BO and CRF is highly buffed by the Tactical captain skills of ApA, TacFleet, GDF and TI3 (for speed) over every other class in the game as befits the class choice. I expect a tactical captain to ride in a do high damage with his weapons of choice. When said abilites are buffed 40k BO3s can happen and 8k CRF3 can happen easily if timed right and even the difference between the two is only 8k, with BO3 coming out on top.
CRF is the better skill out of the two.

Quote:
Comparing damage out put between abilities is fine but does not show any differences that are not to be expected in abilities that have different Tiers and can be buffed better by one class (whos function is damage output) over the other classes (whos function is not direct damage output). Its a moot point and is likened to comparing oneself to a professional shooter. You may wish to be more deadly and hit the bullseye as often as the Pro but without his skills you will not.
I am not saying anything about that.
I am saying that the abilities themselves, standing on their own, are to different in their output capabilities. So I have no clue what you are trying to say, but you have misunderstood what it is that I was showing. We know that the Tac Captain is the best DD option. We aren't asking for that to change.

Quote:
Buffing Cruisers is not an option becuase its a direct favortism to one class of vessels over the others and doing such should be avoided in my opinion.
And buffing Escorts isn't?
Say like the recent increase to turn rates for just Escorts.

Quote:
Buffing beams may work but all the Beam buffing BOff abilities are one Tier lower than the highest cannon Ability and it would be easy to unbalance the game if not done properly.
I would prefer a new class of beam Array be designed and implemented that falls into the area between a BA and DBB, say a heavy beam array with a 180 degree field of fire.
Or institute some new Beam and Cannon BOff abilities to fill in the gap, lower CRF down to T1 through T3, etc.
I fail to see what you are after.
Cruisers cannot access TIII of either FAW or BO. Increasing the base damage of the beam arrays can be balanced easily as BO and FAW are % increases.

Imposing a 180 degree arc on a Cruiser is a proverbial right cross to an already potentially unsteady opponent. You would cut even their current dps and raw output by close to half!
A 180 arc means no broadsiding unless you can line up a target within a 1-2 degree arc due to a continuation of current cycles. This would be a massive advantage for all Cruiser opponents.

Quote:
Overall the differences in direct damage out put between the Tac/Escort and all other vessels is functioning as intended consider tac is the damage class and Cruiser and Science are not.
The differences in damage out between the Character classes seems right as well since the Tactical can greatly buff damage in proportion to how much the Engineer can buff thier healing. Science so far is the only real loser as Cryptic has yet to balance them and make them useful at the same time.
I disagree. You have a system right now where a conservatively played Escort player, by his own admission, is up over 80%! from the nearest any Cruiser being captained by an Engineer. Even when you place a Tac Captain in a Cruiser that number is still over a 44% increase. That's far to wide a gap to consider it as anything other than blatantly biased towards a certain playstyle.

Quote:
This debate has become circular and is a debate as old as gaming itself, the debate of Why is my Cleric (Engineer/Cruiser) not as dangerous as your fighter(Tactical/Escort)?
The answer is the same as it ever was, He is not suppossed to be otherwise he would be a fighter.
We aren't asking why we aren't as dangerous!
We are asking why can't we be competitive in PvE and PvP without either becoming the large french window or a sponge.

Allow me to spell it out again.
We do not want to replace nor bump the Escort in its, agreed upon by all in here, role of being the primary DD in the game.

We want a reduced gap between the performance of Cruisers and the performance of Escorts.

Last edited by veraticus; 10-03-2012 at 07:34 PM.
Captain
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 3,288
# 155
10-04-2012, 03:03 AM
but this gap you are talking about is not that big as many here already pointed out. And it is compensated by a much better survival and support capability.
Not every cruiser is designed to be on the DD side of the spectrum, but every escort is.
Go pro or go home
Captain
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,366
# 156
10-04-2012, 04:57 AM
But your flat out wrong. That gap IS that big when it comes to damage but not healing/tanking.

A tac/escort combo will put out double the DPS of a eng/cruiser. And can still tank anything in an elite STF.

And the theory that sci captains are weak while eng captains are not is just, amazingly incorrect.
Captain
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,267
# 157
10-04-2012, 05:55 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by bareel View Post
But your flat out wrong. That gap IS that big when it comes to damage but not healing/tanking.

A tac/escort combo will put out double the DPS of a eng/cruiser. And can still tank anything in an elite STF.

And the theory that sci captains are weak while eng captains are not is just, amazingly incorrect.
How so?

To hear how the game plays from the "PvP players", and a little bit from personal experience, this post is so full of "huh?" that I can't figure it out...

1. A well flown cruiser can heal everything that 2-4 escorts can pump out, and barely break a sweat. Also, it doesn't really worry about where this damage is going, they can effectively keep anybody alive.

2. This is the only truth in the post...

3. When you look at, especially, PvP roles, that's how you get the "sci = weak" deal. To wit: Tac/Escorts are the "killers", primarily through "massive spike damage" - clearly defined, useful, and necessary role. Engie/Cruisers are "healers", again, clearly defined, useful, necessary. Science/Science, by virtue of nerfed powers and 3/3 weapons can't even perform a "sustained pressure damage" role that a cruiser (barely) executes. Paper hull means that a targetted Sci/Sci has to divert a majority of the heals to itself, meaning that it can't heal as well as a cruiser can. This leaves Science the "clearly defined role" of cruiser-pusher (TBR cruiser out of the fight so escorts can blow up targets that aren't being healed) and subnuc beamer (and they can subnuc beam from an escort / cruiser as well as a sci, and certain ships - MVAE anyone - can TBR with the best of them).

To back this up with a couple of my PvE experiences:

1. Sci in a Luna tanking tac cube at end of infected: due to lack of hull heals on highly offensive science build, was being blown up every 40% damage dealt to cube while being aggro magnet and never losing a shield. Granted, this PuG was so lame that a Sci/Sci with zero threat control could somehow maintain aggro, I probably would have succeeded with zero fatalities if even one cruiser bothered to heal me...

2. Buffed Armitage with danube fighters blows up mirror battleship in 3 hits due to string of 3x 7k+ critical hits, boosted due to tractor beam from runabout. Same effect could occur with MVAE that has extra science slot to divert to TB instead of fighters...

3. Cruiser takes as long as my Science did to play most missions (sustained DPS only), but only blew up when I was complete bonehead (forgot to slot resistances to plasma on Rommie front & heal appropriately, BFAW in massive battles of 2048 series, etc.
Well, with the upgrade announcement leaving NX and Connie fans in the dust again, can we restart / revisit the T5 Connie and NX threads - since they will no longer be "truly" endgame ships... (after we get the T5 versions, it'll be time to see them added to the T5U upgrade charts too...
Ensign
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 3
# 158
10-04-2012, 09:07 AM
lower the resist of escorts?

youare kidding, this wil mess up the STF because i nearly never see anengeneer on a cruiser with a good aggromanagment. So this is why escorts have to tank in estf's.
This looks like a big QQ from cruiser-captains who dont know their roll in games.

and in pvp its like in all other games: to kill an well played enemy, fokus your fire!
Empire Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 6,845
# 159
10-04-2012, 09:53 AM
[quote]
Quote:
Originally Posted by veraticus View Post

Allow me to spell it out again.
We do not want to replace nor bump the Escort in its, agreed upon by all in here, role of being the primary DD in the game.

We want a reduced gap between the performance of Cruisers and the performance of Escorts.
Then let me reply bluntly.

Most of the ideas in this thread and the many others like it are not geared to do what you say is the wish of the Cruiser crowd, not infringing on the Escort.
Thier have been ideas that the Cruiser needs buffing, the Engineer class needs buffing, the Science class needs buffing, the Tactical class need debuffing, Escorts need debuffing, etc etc.

No one has really given any simple and conclusive ideas that would make the cruiser crowd happy that doesn't infringe on the Tactical/Escort and fixes the perception that the Cruisers suck in the mind of the average Cruiser player.

To close that gap between Cruiser and Escort performance to a level that the average, unexperienced player finds adequite does remove the Escort viability as the primary Damage Dealing class of vessel in the game and if that happens why would anyone play a tac/Escort?

Why would anyone want to play a Tac/Escort or escort period if the choice of going cruiser nets you only a slight loss in total damage output of less than say even 1500 points total? Why would anyone choose the lesser survivable vessel?

Why would anyone want to play a Tac/Escort if teh Cruisers are bumped in turn rate and have thier enertia changed to make them more nimble in combat? Who would not choose the Cruiser for a loss of a little turn rate, gaining near Escort damage capability and the greater tanking?

Why would someone not choose the idea of new buffed beam arrays on thier existing cruiser if they do damage equal to a DHCs and have that wonderful 270 degree firing arc? You would have all the tankiness of a Crusier with Escort damage output and no need to really have to manuever to keep weapons on target.

I'm not saying that the Cruiser may need something to make them feel betetr in play or that the Engineer class needs something to ake them more fun to play or that Science is in the same boat.
As a game Developer Cryptic needs to make sure all their game aspects are fun to play to some extent but the bulk of the ideas offered up in the forums does that at the expense of the tactical/Escort class and will have us back here again in the forums debating the " Escorts need a buff" threads in 6 months and furthering ignoring the true fix for fan driven perceptions of how a vessel should play as oppossed to a game viewpoint of how they are designed to be played.
Leonard Nimoy, Spock.....

R.I.P

Last edited by bitemepwe; 10-04-2012 at 10:02 AM.
Captain
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 3,733
# 160
10-04-2012, 10:19 AM
Then let me put an idea on the table here.

How about if at 5km a 6 beam cruiser with 3 consoles dedicated to the energy type used could sit unbuffed and so 400-600 DPH (Damage per hit, as a cruiser this figure is more informative than DPS) BUT this figure would not climb by more than 100 at 1km, thus giving cruisers the ability to stay out of the say of escorts, get more out of their firing arcs and monitor the battlefield all from a good cruiser suiting distance. We all know cruisers were never supposed to get up close to enemies the way escorts are hence the difference in manoeuvrability:

Cruisers are meant slow with large firing arcs so they can stay out of the danger-zone and still land a good amount of damage effortlessly.
Escorts are meant to be quick with small firing arcs so they can get up close dodge a lot of fire and when they manage to hit something with a good high powered volley it hurts and vice versa.

What I am proposing gives cruisers the battlefield overview they were always meant to have, takes advantage of their speed, turn rate and when the escorts get within their 1-3km zone (for which they were designed) they will do lots more damage than the cruisers, so I'm still not putting escorts out of a job but giving cruisers a much appreciated ability to do some easy damage (for the less specialised of us).

I think even the escort pilots would like this, they get us out of their area, we can do a far better job of laying down support damage (as such they can relax a little), we can better see what's going on and thereby better co-ordinate our team support and lead groups with our increased line of sight.

Please do feel free to play with the figures a little (I did draft these from a mix of the top of my head and my exp pre season six combined with the cruisers primary role).
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 05:09 AM.