Empire Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 6,764
# 401
01-04-2013, 11:57 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by kiloace View Post
Bottom line is Escorts are just too good. The insane damage is not offset by its current abilities, and like you said, its truly impossible to tank indefinitely, at which point escorts will be outputting more damage, have a higher speed and higher defense, and also absorb more damage by conveniently distributing damage across all shield quadrants, meaning they'll win, no matter how much defense you have.
So thier Damage should be nerfed to make Cruiser happy?

Or should it be thier movement and turnrate to make Cruisers happy?

Which ability is it exactly that makes them "too good" compared to others?
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: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,990
# 402
01-04-2013, 12:25 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by bitemepwe View Post
By what parameters do you define "compete"?
We all know that escorts (if built right) can compete with cruisers in terms of defence, I'm thinking of this sort of thing for cruisers and damage, if you build right for it you can get damage that competes with escorts in a similar way to how escorts compete with cruisers as tanks if you get what I'm getting at, it is kinda hard to explain
Captain
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,033
# 403
01-04-2013, 12:46 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by adamkafei View Post
We all know that escorts (if built right) can compete with cruisers in terms of defence, I'm thinking of this sort of thing for cruisers and damage, if you build right for it you can get damage that competes with escorts in a similar way to how escorts compete with cruisers as tanks if you get what I'm getting at, it is kinda hard to explain
Not really but yes. A cruiser can out-(self)tank an escort by a large amount due to engineering boff ability slots (no other reason) BUT that level of tank is pointless. Especially because if we truly push the game in the trinity direction of tank+healer the escort wins as tank and half the playerbase quits playing that content. At the same time a Sci Vessel can out-tank both of them BUT has much better things to do.

But at the end of the day you only need enough tank to survive the encounter, any extra is inefficient.

The disparity begins with the boff abilities (tac > eng typically) and continues into the weapons (DHC > all) and ends with the final hull touches (+10% defense > +10% shield cap + ??% hull).

Please keep in mind by disparity in boff abilities I mean a CRF is going to increase your dps by so much more than a DEM. Although if you fly the Steamrunner you can use both.
Empire Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 6,764
# 404
01-04-2013, 12:58 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by adamkafei View Post
We all know that escorts (if built right) can compete with cruisers in terms of defence, I'm thinking of this sort of thing for cruisers and damage, if you build right for it you can get damage that competes with escorts in a similar way to how escorts compete with cruisers as tanks if you get what I'm getting at, it is kinda hard to explain
We already have that.

It shouldn't be hard to explain at all.

If Escorts are behaving as Cruisers in the "defense department" then what ability or set of abilities is giving them this defense that is beyond thier design? What abilities are making them out-tank a Cruiser?

Thats a great deal of the issue.

Many are making claims of how the Escort is OP at the moment but nobody can put thier finger on the exact issue that makes them so out of balance and given the sheer number of factors that could be a ....factor any fix that just stabs in the dark in not going to be a fix.

Or it could be as simple as the cycling of ApO has removed the one big weakness of the Escorts.
Richard Hamilton (1975-2014)
goodbye good friend. We will see you in the DMZ in the sky oneday, save a shot for us.

Last edited by bitemepwe; 01-04-2013 at 01:17 PM.
Captain
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 3,553
# 405
01-04-2013, 01:44 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by adamkafei View Post
...and to implement them would make a class viable again for most of the game content...
So you're saying that the Engineer you have spent weeks drooling over after you got your Fleet Excel is not viable for most of the game content? I can remember a number of KASE that you specifically asked to be left alone on one side and you even bragged to me once that you cleared it faster than a full team.

And you don't consider this viable? I can tell you for a fact that Engis are plenty viable for all game content. They can put out some SERIOUS numbers on the ground (OH NO, GROUND!!! HERESY!!!! BLASPHEMY!!! NUUUUUUUUUU...), and in space, a competent Engineer in a good ship (not just cruisers, but escorts, sci ships, carriers) can STILL do some major damage. Not as high as a tac can, and not NEARLY at the level of a tacscort (something about APA3 + FOMM + TI + GDF + APO3 + CRFX + TTX = PAIN), but they are plenty viable.

I too read the thread, found it interesting, found Roach's posts enlightening and a few amusing, but for the most part, I still say that you are trying to use the Cruiser in a role it's not designed to fill. It's like asking a cop to do a paramedics job. And vice versa. The cop will never get as good at saving lives as a paramedic, and the paramedic will never be as good at catching criminals as a cop.

Look at your cruiser. Just take a quick look at your purty (not to me) little Excelsior. Now what do we see? Well we see that for some f'd up reason your tac consoles match your engi consoles in number (only reason that you can draw aggro off my oddy btw), but that's an unusual case for most cruisers. Going with what most cruisers look like, you have more Engineering consoles than Tactical consoles. Now let's look at your BOff layout. You have a plethora of engineering BOff slots, coming out to eight in total (not entirely sure, but somewhere around there). And only three (yes, THREE) Tactical BOff slots. Hm... why do I get the feeling that damage dealing is NOT the idea behind this setup?

Now let's look at the vaunted Jem'hadar Attack Ship (aka the "bug"). Starting with the consoles, I see... five tactical consoles. Five. And I only see four engineering consoles. Then we look at BOff layout. I see SEVEN tactical slots. And only ONE engineering slot. Even if you took both Lt Universals and made them Engineering, you would still only have 5. So all in all, I get this odd feeling that damage dealing IS the idea behind this setup.

Now let's be fair and look at a more common escort, the Advanced Escort, a favorite of a few of my friends (even though I prefer the FPE to their MVAM). Starting with consoles... I see FOUR tactical consoles, and only TWO engineering. Hm... Then we look at BOff layout. I see SEVEN tactical BOff slots and only TWO engineering ones. Again, looks like it was made to deal damage. And if we take the Fleet version to properly compare it to your fleet excel, we see an even greater disparity with it's FIVE tactical consoles to it's still TWO engineering consoles, with the ratio on the BOffs unchanged.

Even if we took the tankier escorts (on paper and in game), NONE of them have the ability to stay alive nearly as well as your excelsior, and ALL of them can deal far more damage then you possibly ever could. Even if you gave an escort the 6/2 setup, they would still deal damage. It's their JOB. With that many tactical BOff slots and that many tactical consoles, of course they will deal more damage than a ship with fewer in either category.

So yes, cruisers are underpowered, and will not perform as well, in a function they were never really designed to perform in.
It is said the best weapon is one that is never fired. I disagree. The best weapon is one you only have to fire... once.
Tired of Wasting EC and Time trying to get Superior Romulan Operative BOffs? Here's a cheap and easy way to get them, with an almost 100% chance of success.
Why the Devs can't make PvE content harder.
Captain
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 622
# 406
01-04-2013, 01:45 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by adamkafei View Post
And I agree but there is no reason a 6 beam broadside should be made to look incompetent by 4 DHCs what I want is for 6 beams on a cruiser to compete with but not outperform 4 DHCs, something I believe to be fair
It only appears incompetent to players to do not understand the differences in ship designs and the roles those ships play respectively. This is on the same level as demanding a Protection Warrior be capable of the same DPS output as an Arcane Mage while still performing the role of a meatshield. If you are unhappy with your choice then perhaps you shouldn't captain a Cruiser or play an Engineer.
All cloaks should be canon.
Captain
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,704
# 407
01-04-2013, 03:03 PM
Since the Battlecruisers are different. I use a Sovereign Class that is the "free" one. As I hadn't bought a newer better ship yet. Even with it, I don't have problems. I came out a lot of nasty combat spots and managed to survive. Granted it don't have the punch forward like my KDF. However its effective going broadside. As it packs a wallop. Tear up the shields, do a quick turn to get torpedoes in target and let them fly.

However like the others say, the cruiser is made to tank and take it. So compared to a DPS ship, it will do less damage. Which is why I survived some really impressive battles on solo.

Last edited by farmallm; 01-04-2013 at 03:07 PM.
Commander
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 373
# 408
01-04-2013, 03:41 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by bloctoad View Post
It only appears incompetent to players to do not understand the differences in ship designs and the roles those ships play respectively. This is on the same level as demanding a Protection Warrior be capable of the same DPS output as an Arcane Mage while still performing the role of a meatshield. If you are unhappy with your choice then perhaps you shouldn't captain a Cruiser or play an Engineer.



And here the ugly head of this whole arguments fallacy rears it head again:
You base your arguement on the premise that the "trinity" approach to game design is actually a good one for a game about star trek. A franchise where there is no such thing as a healer: every ship is its own healer, damage dealer and crowd control.


That aside:

cryptic itself contradicts your argument by constantly releasing new cruisers and throwing the term "tactical" and "heavily armed" and "battleship" into the mix.



And now the "boom your argument is dead" point:

klingon cruisers can heal just as well, and still do loads of supplemental damage - with the fleet vorcha and ktinga actually turned into tankier escorts.
But still: al klinker cruisrs hav high mobility and can fit the games best daamge dealer: dhc.

And here comes the expectd counter argument:
"they are klingons bla bla"


I say this is BS. This artificial difference between the two races is BS. Fed cruisers should be almost as mobile as klingon cruisers, Beam arrays should become a fearsome weapon again.

All ship classes need to get closer to each other in terms of damage and tanking potential.


This trinity shiite aint working right.
Captain
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 622
# 409
01-04-2013, 05:08 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by reynoldsxd View Post
And here the ugly head of this whole arguments fallacy rears it head again:
You base your arguement on the premise that the "trinity" approach to game design is actually a good one for a game about star trek. A franchise where there is no such thing as a healer: every ship is its own healer, damage dealer and crowd control.


That aside:

cryptic itself contradicts your argument by constantly releasing new cruisers and throwing the term "tactical" and "heavily armed" and "battleship" into the mix.



And now the "boom your argument is dead" point:

klingon cruisers can heal just as well, and still do loads of supplemental damage - with the fleet vorcha and ktinga actually turned into tankier escorts.
But still: al klinker cruisrs hav high mobility and can fit the games best daamge dealer: dhc.

And here comes the expectd counter argument:
"they are klingons bla bla"


I say this is BS. This artificial difference between the two races is BS. Fed cruisers should be almost as mobile as klingon cruisers, Beam arrays should become a fearsome weapon again.

All ship classes need to get closer to each other in terms of damage and tanking potential.


This trinity shiite aint working right.
Then we all fly a single generic class ship. Every ship has the same loadout capabilities, the same hull, and the same shield modifier. Problem solved. You people complain when X doesn't get the same abilities or stats that Y does. Then you complain that X and Y have the same stats and we're paying for Cryptic to be lazy with development and they're just stealing our money. The only dead argument here is the feeble attempt you made at a relevant post.
All cloaks should be canon.
Captain
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 3,553
# 410
01-04-2013, 05:09 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by reynoldsxd View Post
And here the ugly head of this whole arguments fallacy rears it head again:
You base your arguement on the premise that the "trinity" approach to game design is actually a good one for a game about star trek. A franchise where there is no such thing as a healer: every ship is its own healer, damage dealer and crowd control.


That aside:

cryptic itself contradicts your argument by constantly releasing new cruisers and throwing the term "tactical" and "heavily armed" and "battleship" into the mix.



And now the "boom your argument is dead" point:

klingon cruisers can heal just as well, and still do loads of supplemental damage - with the fleet vorcha and ktinga actually turned into tankier escorts.
But still: al klinker cruisrs hav high mobility and can fit the games best daamge dealer: dhc.

And here comes the expectd counter argument:
"they are klingons bla bla"


I say this is BS. This artificial difference between the two races is BS. Fed cruisers should be almost as mobile as klingon cruisers, Beam arrays should become a fearsome weapon again.

All ship classes need to get closer to each other in terms of damage and tanking potential.


This trinity shiite aint working right.
But you will notice that KDF battlecruisers are squishier with weaker shields. You will also notice they heavily lack in utility, something that fed cruisers excel at. KDF battlecruisers cannot keep other ships alive as well as fed cruisers can. So they make up for it by being far more selfish ships. Ships that focus more on keeping themselves alive.

As for your "artificial differences between the two races", it's not artificial. It's canon. Federation ships usually did not use anything even resembling cannons. The only ship that used cannons in canon was the Defiant and her class. KDF ships on the other hand were seen using cannons for almost the entirety of canon.

And as for this:

Quote:
Originally Posted by reynoldsxd View Post
All ship classes need to get closer to each other in terms of damage and tanking potential.
Um... no. If you do that then there will be no reason to fly certain ship classes, and no reason to fly certain ships. The ships are already incredibly close in survivability and damage dealing. Even the extremes are only 5-10% ahead of the other classes. If anything, the exact opposite needs to be done. Ships should be drawn even further apart in damage dealing and survivability, so that there's a reason to fly certain ships over others.
It is said the best weapon is one that is never fired. I disagree. The best weapon is one you only have to fire... once.
Tired of Wasting EC and Time trying to get Superior Romulan Operative BOffs? Here's a cheap and easy way to get them, with an almost 100% chance of success.
Why the Devs can't make PvE content harder.
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 09:07 PM.