Go Back   Star Trek Online > Feedback > Federation Shipyards
Login

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Empire Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 2,202
# 51
01-26-2013, 03:14 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by hereticknight085 View Post
Now my 2 biased ECs. And biased because I have no qualms about admitting I am. Cruisers do need a slight turn rate buff, and DDIS was correct that 2 would do nicely. HOWEVER I believe that NO fed cruiser should exceed a turn rate of 10. And then we go to Roach, who comments that BAs need to be looked at, and I also agree with that, especially the drain mechanic behind them. I also still support the return of the 20% damage they lost. And a SLIGHT accuracy bonus. As for the cruisers vs escorts? Hell there are dozens of threads about just that, so no need to answer that. Cruisers vs BATTLEcruisers? I think I just put up my comment with how I typed that in. Fed vs KDF? Who cares? They both stink, just in different ways. DHCs vs BAs? See cruiser threads. Cruiser turn rate buff? See cruiser threads.
Basically you're asking for ways for cruisers to kill escorts while escorts will hardly be able to destroy a good cruiser. A good cruiser is cyclying EPTS II and III, TSS II, with of course a RSP or an extend shield with the right doffs, and it's extremely hard to kill something like that, unless you have 2-3 excellent escort captains working in tandem and not being harrassed.

Currently in a pvp match, the first targets are escorts and not cruisers, and cruisers are targeted only when they are the last ones alive on the other team, because it requires the concerted efforts of a whole team to take one down. They really don't need DPS while being almost unvulnerable and not harrassed.

The only good way to get rid of a good cruiser in pvp is also tractor beam repulsors, because his low turnrate will prevent him from getting back in the battle too soon. If you buff dps and maneuvrability you get ships with no flaws, and such a gameplay has no interest.

Furthermore, if you buff beams you also buff science ships, and believe me, my main is a sci flying a vesta and i know it's a bad idea, because scis have great debuff and hold abilities and will likely be the ones getting the most from such a buff.

Last edited by diogene0; 01-26-2013 at 03:20 AM.
Captain
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 3,686
# 52
01-26-2013, 03:42 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by diogene0 View Post
Basically you're asking for ways for cruisers to kill escorts while escorts will hardly be able to destroy a good cruiser. A good cruiser is cyclying EPTS II and III, TSS II, with of course a RSP or an extend shield with the right doffs, and it's extremely hard to kill something like that, unless you have 2-3 excellent escort captains working in tandem and not being harrassed.

Currently in a pvp match, the first targets are escorts and not cruisers, and cruisers are targeted only when they are the last ones alive on the other team, because it requires the concerted efforts of a whole team to take one down. They really don't need DPS while being almost unvulnerable and not harrassed.

The only good way to get rid of a good cruiser in pvp is also tractor beam repulsors, because his low turnrate will prevent him from getting back in the battle too soon. If you buff dps and maneuvrability you get ships with no flaws, and such a gameplay has no interest.

Furthermore, if you buff beams you also buff science ships, and believe me, my main is a sci flying a vesta and i know it's a bad idea, because scis have great debuff and hold abilities and will likely be the ones getting the most from such a buff.
The only catch here (other than my blatantly obvious bias which I admitted at the start of the post) is that you cannot buff one without the other. You cannot buff cruisers without buffing sci. You cannot buff either without buffing escorts. Balance dictates that there be balance. And balance dictates that one cannot simply go around buffing things on a whim without first considering every other ship and what it can and cannot do.

As such, I simply put in small adjustments that can be made to a cruiser arsenal to make them somewhat more effective. However, if you asked me to do the same thing with escorts and/or science ships, I would be happy to oblige. After all, as the Deferi say, the balance must be maintained.
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.
Why the Devs can't make PvE content harder. <--- DR proved me wrong!
Captain
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 16,940
# 53
01-26-2013, 04:34 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by diogene0 View Post
Currently in a pvp match, the first targets are escorts and not cruisers, and cruisers are targeted only when they are the last ones alive on the other team, because it requires the concerted efforts of a whole team to take one down. They really don't need DPS while being almost unvulnerable and not harrassed.
That's um...well...not the complete story on why a cruiser would fit in where it does in target calling/target priority.
Career Officer
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 589
# 54
01-26-2013, 04:55 AM
And to add insult to injury, the Imperial Star Destroyer probably out turns FED cruisers by quite a margin...

Joking aside, the turn rates for some FED cruisers are very bad. Take the Odyssey as an example. Here we have the best ship currently in Starfleet service, and yet it's turn radius is very bad. I seriously doubt that Starfleet would make the flagship turn so badly taking into account all the enemies out there.... It should not take an entire sector block just to turn the thing around, should it???

So yeah, something needs to be done about the turn rates. Heck, even the TOS Constitution ship in game turns better the the Odyssey, and the Constitution ship is an old ship, yet it has better turn rate...
Go figure...
Career Officer
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 987
# 55
01-26-2013, 05:10 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by virusdancer View Post
Watch everything starting in '66 through now.
Then look at the turn rate in STO.

Tada.
I was referring to the Okuda/Jefferies explanation of why they needed to make Star Trek have inertial damping technology; it prevents the crew from turning into chunky salsa when they go to warp or do any other super-high force maneuver.
Captain
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,204
# 56
01-26-2013, 05:37 AM
As a Science main, I'm for boosting only Fed cruisers +1 turn. Then/if this proves to make cruisers "too tough" do we apply the +1 across the rest of the board...

I'm eventually gonna make a full blown post about this, but I'm gonna say only one thing in here. The needs of balancing PvP and PvE are ridiculously different right now, mainly because of one factor - PvP opponents use 17 skills, PvE opponents use 2-3 skills and have ludicrous shields/hull to make up for the other 15.

Oh, and for those who say the current levels are "fine", it's because thyey've adapted to surviving with them. Can I survive PvE with the chintzy turn-rate of the Gal-X right now? Yeah. Will it work better in PvE and maybe PvP if it was +1 turn without "blowing up" PvP? As another game I used to play sums it up: "The only valid test: Combat"...

And for completeness, I want to eventually try PvP, but as of right now I feel the imbalances/lack of training/inability to hit a boot camp/role issues for Sciences is my primary hold-back, way too many people make it feel like I can't "wizard" in PvP - aka have enough offensive powers to actually kill people in a science ship, and I don't want to play with a role of "shove the cruiser to the corner so us escorts can kill"... So my PvP knowledge is hideously screwed...
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...
Captain
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 16,940
# 57
01-26-2013, 06:06 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by atatassault View Post
I was referring to the Okuda/Jefferies explanation of why they needed to make Star Trek have inertial damping technology; it prevents the crew from turning into chunky salsa when they go to warp or do any other super-high force maneuver.
Yeah, but while Inertial Dampening "explains" the 0 to Warp...it doesn't do anything for Star Trek Shake. The way ships move in STO is more akin to Shake than 0 to Warp...that's really just the gist of what I'm trying to say.

The way escorts turn...well, U.S.S Cuisinart anybody?

I need to be clear on something with this, mind you - I went out for a smoke to think through the example I wanted to give when I realized that what I'm trying to say may not be clear.

It's not the base turn rates. It's how high they can be pumped through gear and abilities. That's where you're going to be hosing the crew off the walls. It's more about capping how high it can go than lowering what the base rate is.
Career Officer
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 148
# 58
01-26-2013, 06:10 AM
I love how the OP only mentioned increasing Fed cruiser turnrates... that Dread is usable by KDF... increase KDF battlecruiser and carrier turnrates too!
Starfleet Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,815
# 59
01-26-2013, 06:11 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by heresincebeta View Post
I love how the OP only mentioned increasing Fed cruiser turnrates... that Dread is usable by KDF... increase KDF battlecruiser and carrier turnrates too!
With the exception of the bortas they are all higher to begin with. He suggests making them more equal.
Actually reading things before posting will make you look smarter than yelling loudly. Reading comprehension is apparently a lost art.

Not everything you see on the internet is true - Abraham Lincoln
Career Officer
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 148
# 60
01-26-2013, 06:16 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by disposeableh3r0 View Post
With the exception of the bortas they are all higher to begin with. He suggests making them more equal.
That's my point... this thread is nothing more than another attempt to take away any uniqueness of the KDF... FED's already took cloaks and carriers... now they want to eliminate the slight maneuverability bonus of the KDF battlecruisers too!
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 04:28 AM.