Go Back   Star Trek Online > Feedback > Federation Shipyards
Login

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Empire Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 830
# 91
01-29-2013, 02:54 PM
The entire bigger = slower is total bogus in space anyway.
All that matters is the trust/mass ratio of the ship. If that is the same, the ship will move the same, no matter how big or small.

And lets face it, most cruisers are simple rather boring to fly, because they move so slow in comparison to escorts or even sci ships.

I think all turn rates need a balance pass, something like this:

carrier +2
fed cruiser +2
kdf battlecruiser +1
destroyer +-0
sci ships +-0
escorts/raider <15 +-0
escorts/raider >15 -1
escorts/raider >20 -2

This is even out the field somewhat, right now escorts have all the advantages in movement, plus the biggest guns and near cruiser level tanking.

And while you are at it, increase beam range by 2km.
Starfleet Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,488
# 92
01-29-2013, 03:34 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by darkjeff View Post
Agreed. However the current damage discrepancy appears to be far too high. The difference between an average cruiser dealing 4k DPS and an average escort dealing 6k DPS in a quick 5 minute STF is 600,000 damage.

At the same time, the survival difference is not that great - it doesn't matter that you have 1000% more hull and shields if you only ever drop to 90% shields/hull and neither types of ships die.
Let me add my to the story a bit. My Fleet Excel has been averaging 6k during KASE recently, which anyone would probably agree is pretty good for a cruiser, and I have been sparring with a guy with a Fleet Defiant that does about 10k. Unless I tractor him, I literally cannot knock his shields down, and damage I do is via bleed-through. He was watching his combat log and even noticed that his ships resistances actually soaked all of my Advanced Fleet Phaser Turrets damage.


Quote:
Originally Posted by darkjeff View Post
You misunderstood. My point is the stance of "I have X, and you shouldn't have it in spite of that fact that it does not affect my possession of X in any way" bears striking familiarities to the anti-same-sex marriage arguments that it would somehow devalue their marriage because other people want to be married.
I'm not going to delve in this issue, its way to far of a hot issue/time bomb waiting to go off and if it does people aren't going to be happy. All I am going to say is that the relation you have pointed is too far of an extreme and one that is almost dropped in as minefield which will beg to get the thread locked down if it is discussed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by darkjeff View Post
It is also NOT a "core competency", but simply an imbalance that exists. Whatever balance may exist is not defined by 1 turn rate. They still have cloaks, they still have universal BOff slots. It is an extremely minor difference to the KDF but a huge difference to quality of life for Fed cruiser pilots. The KDF fanatics have a hair-trigger prosecution complex against any possible improvements for Feds because the KDF lack content.

If the KDF had as much content as the Feds, nobody would rant about being robbed of their uniqueness if Fed bricks became slightly faster bricks.
The very definition of a core competency suggests that its an imbalance, of course its an imbalance. Remember, the KDF ships have less hull and shield ratings than their Fed' counterparts as well they pay a price for that imbalance with an imbalance that benefits the Fed's.

Mind you, I am big-time majority Fed' player saying this. It's not the +1 turn rate that most of the KDF players are worried about, they see all of the things that made KDF ships what they are being whittled away and yes, they are frustrated with the content issues. Most of the consoles being swapped between factions do benefit the KDF much less (if at all) than benefits the Fed's. I agree with their points to an extent.

As far as uni consoles, the main ship that has the uni's is the BOP other than that, they are pretty much the same as the Fed ships in numbers.
Starfleet Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 915
# 93
01-29-2013, 03:42 PM
Quote:
You misunderstood. My point is the stance of "I have X, and you shouldn't have it in spite of that fact that it does not affect my possession of X in any way" bears striking familiarities to the anti-same-sex marriage arguments that it would somehow devalue their marriage because other people want to be married.

It is also NOT a "core competency", but simply an imbalance that exists. Whatever balance may exist is not defined by 1 turn rate. They still have cloaks, they still have universal BOff slots. It is an extremely minor difference to the KDF but a huge difference to quality of life for Fed cruiser pilots. The KDF fanatics have a hair-trigger prosecution complex against any possible improvements for Feds because the KDF lack content.

If the KDF had as much content as the Feds, nobody would rant about being robbed of their uniqueness if Fed bricks became slightly faster bricks.
you, buddy, you are someone! i have to remember your name!
+1 with all what you said in the quote!
Captain
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 16,926
# 94
01-29-2013, 03:57 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by lostusthorn View Post
The entire bigger = slower is total bogus in space anyway.
All that matters is the trust/mass ratio of the ship. If that is the same, the ship will move the same, no matter how big or small.
It's not bogus. I can see where somebody would say it's bogus. For the most part, the majority of us whether we took a couple of Physics courses before or in college - well, most of us would never touch upon everything that's actually involved. We pretty much just moved little cubes, balls, and the like (solid, mind you) through imaginary vacuums as we did our homework or took tests, etc, etc, etc.

Where to start?

A straight line. From X to Y. A larger mass will require more force to move from X to Y. Bam, right from the start we've introduced a limitation based on reasonable engine size. It may not be reasonable to have the size engine we need to place on the larger ship so it can go from X to Y as fast as a smaller ship. So we're more than likely going to be slower. That aspect would have been covered - minus the size of the engine - in discussing the amount of force needed.

Likewise, that larger vessel is going to have greater momentum. It will take a greater force to slow and stop that larger vessel. So, we don't want it to go too fast - or we wouldn't be able to stop it. Again, the reasonable engine size should come to mind.

But it's not a 2D plane. We're not just moving from X to Y. We're looking at vector forces being applied to move through a 3D system. So we need to look at the potential application of force in a manner that accounts for that. Again, this is going to limit us.

So that's all great and everything, but the real fun begins when you consider that we're not dealing with solid masses. Every see a TV show, movie, or even commercial where they show an impact...and...the car getting crushed - collapsing, etc, etc, etc?

Structural integrity/design will matter as we consider applying those forces. Moving from (0,0,0) to (0,0,1) is not the same as moving from (0,0,0) to (0,1,0). The vessel needs to withstand the force moving it in any number of directions without crumpling. Sure, on larger vessels we could reinforce the structure...but then we're adding mass...we'll need more force...and we'll need to reinforce the structure...but then we're adding mass...oh wait. Yeah, so it's another limiting factor.

So no, it's not bogus in the least. There are a multitude of reasons why a larger ship is going to be move slower, turn slower, accelerate slower, decelerate slower, etc, etc, etc...

That's all before considering that there are people on the vessel, eh? Those Inertial Dampeners can only stave off so much Star Trek Shake.
Starfleet Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 915
# 95
01-29-2013, 04:04 PM
Quote:
Agreed. However the current damage discrepancy appears to be far too high. The difference between an average cruiser dealing 4k DPS and an average escort dealing 6k DPS in a quick 5 minute STF is 600,000 damage.
the difference is bigger than what you said actually.
i am doing 5.5K damage with my focus beam setup on my galaxy x.
one of my fleetmate in a bug doing 8k in focus setup, this number go to 12k when he use multi target setup.
ACT recorded him doing 18k damage once.
this guy and an other of my fleet have finish CSE with only the 2 of them with optional( 2 escort ).
here the proof:
http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/sh...d.php?t=407821

so yeah escort power, when properly configured is way beyong cruiser

not that i care, some cruiser are capable to reduce the gap already, but some so called tactical cruiser ( yes gal x, i am looking at you!) are limited too much by their BO layout.
i am sure that with a good one, he can reach 7 and maybe 8K, and that would be more than sufficient.
Captain
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 16,926
# 96
01-29-2013, 04:50 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by neo1nx View Post
that would be more than sufficient.
Sufficient. That quirky and murky line.

Sufficient for ISE?
Sufficient for HOSE?
Sufficient for NWS?

Actually sufficient or efficient sufficient? Sufficient to do it in X amount of time - the required time...or...sufficient to do it in Y amount of time - the time certain players want it to be completed?

And well, that's just PvE...
Career Officer
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 2,152
# 97
01-30-2013, 09:06 AM
I think the thing about the trinity system is that the "tank" and "dps" are balanced by toughness and fragility.

On an individual basis, the glass cannon should deal a lot of damage but also should die or be forced to retreat a lot. Over the course of an encounter, his damage graph will go up and down a lot. The tank doesn't deal a lot of damage, but doesn't die or need to retreat. Over the course of an encounter, his damage graph is a fairly steady line. Over the course of an encounter, both types should deal roughly the same amount of damage. For example, half the time the glass cannon is dealing double the damage of the tank, but the other half the time he's dealing 0 damage.

On a team basis, when they team up properly the damage becomes greater than the sum of their parts - the glass cannon suddenly loses the valleys in his damage graph, and together they deal triple their damage rather than double.

I believe that is how it's supposed to work. How it's implemented in STO is that the glass cannons don't really need to retreat, or die, which severely skews the trinity's balance.

"Don't let them promote you. Don't let them transfer you. Don't let them do anything that takes you off the bridge of that ship, because while you're there... you can make a difference." - James T. Kirk
Career Officer
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,246
# 98
01-30-2013, 09:22 AM
Not to be a wet blanket... but... really... +1 turn? Hell, give every ship +1 turn, who cares?

If you can't fly your big ship, +1 turn isn't going to help you... If you aren't happy turning slowly, don't fly a big ship...

And realy, because the dread carrier gets a turn 6 Fed cruisers need a turn rate buff? Did I miss the memo where suddenly turn 6 was desireable? Turn 6 is still dreadful, pardon the pun.

People need to learn how to fly this ships as they are before screaming for buffs and nerfs. So many people out there simply cannot fly, and try to blame their failings on the design of the ship. Yes, there are a few less then desireable ships, but most ships are quite capable, it is their pilots that are lacking.
I once again match my character. Behold the power of PINK!

Vice Admiral Space Orphidian Possiblities Wizard
Starfleet Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 915
# 99
01-30-2013, 01:05 PM
Quote:
Sufficient. That quirky and murky line.

Sufficient for ISE?
Sufficient for HOSE?
Sufficient for NWS?

Actually sufficient or efficient sufficient? Sufficient to do it in X amount of time - the required time...or...sufficient to do it in Y amount of time - the time certain players want it to be completed?

And well, that's just PvE...
well it is not a secret that my level in english is not what i wich it to be but i don't anderstand what " quirky and murky line" mean.

nethertheless, i will explain to you what sufficient, here, for me, mean.
it is not about the time it take, or the type of stf, or anything related to pve, i don't build my ship to do pve, but pvp.
it about the ship, sufficient here would translate in what a tactical oriented cruiser should be able to reach when properly configured.
i am sure some exelsior, regent, dkora are already able to achieve this with a tact toon.
the galaxy x isn't, wich is a nonsense dut to it more tactical oriented design ( cloack, lance, abilitie to mount dual canon ).
the problem is that we don't have the possibility to have a decent cannon build in this ship, and before you ask, a decent canon build is at least 2 rapid fire1 ( or 2CSV1 for pve, if some want to only do pve ).
many guy here speak about enhancing the beam and all sort of things, i found their idea very good, but i simply don't bielieve cryptic will ever change their system.
so, for sure, the best way,is to go with the current system, and to do more damage, you need cannon, plain and simple.
and that not going the easy way either, because having a cannon build in a 6base turnate ship....well, you known.
i hope that help clear it up.
Captain
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 4,874
# 100
01-30-2013, 01:25 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by virusdancer View Post
Mass.
Force.
Inertia.

There is no size. Size has nothing to do with it. Okay, it has something to do with where you position the force - but not the overall amount of force.

Put a balloon and a soda can on the desk in front of you. Blow on the balloon. Blow on the can. Which one moves? But the balloon's bigger! It's not size.

While the Dread Bug might be more massive than the Galaxy Dread - that doesn't mean it has more mass.

Now, if somebody wanted to talk about silliness and turn rate - they'd look at Escorts/Raptors/BoPs... and say they turn too fast. That all the crew should be strapped into their seats with barf bags handy and everything else had either be bolted down, using some kind of industrial magnets, or at the very least a healthy dose of duct tape. Now that's where I'd go, if I were going to talk about issues with turn in the game - Escort sized ships turning better than fighters could before their pilots would blackout. Yep, that's where I'd plan my attack on some of the silliness of turn in the game...not that cruisers need to turn faster, but rather that escorts need to turn slower.
Not to be rude but ships do have artificial gravity along with inertial dampeners to keep crew from sufering ill effects from maneuvers at high speed and warp jumps.
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 04:01 PM.