Captain
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,764
# 51
01-30-2013, 12:38 AM
Upped it to 90 degrees. 45 was a typo.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lt. Comm. Pion
What should I wish upon the endless universe;
To be able to smile and forgive everything;
That's right, if we light up the dream in our hearts without averting our eyes;
We should be able to walk whatever tomorrow comes...

I am V. Adm. Kha Yuung, and I approve of this message.
Captain
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 9,081
# 52
01-30-2013, 05:21 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by sophlogimo View Post
The key here is: The Defiant used a warp core that would have normally been used on a much larger ship, so it was as good as a larger ship. And in that regard, it makes sense for STO escorts (who are all just named by that one line "officially, she's an escort" that Sisko said when he was rallying his crew to like her despite her size) use the same size class of weapons as cruisers.

That does also make sense from a game-design point of view, so that there is something for the "fast, fragile damage dealer" crowd who like to play that way, who like to feel like space fighter pilots.

But this has led STO to become a game only for those, as you can see when dueling a DHC escort in anything but a DHC escort. That's a pity, and needs to be looked at. Especially when we will have more dreadnoughts in the game, who, by console and boff layout, should actually be on-par with the Defiants and Raptors and, yes, Jem'Hadar Attack Ships.
It's like being the hero in a bad action movie - where the guy fires over a thousand rounds from his 9mm pistol and kills the 30 bad guys with assault rifles. Hero Ships.

As for it making sense that the smaller ship that's already giving up much of it's finite space for the larger engine being able to also utilize the same size and (near) number of weapons as a larger ship...how?

If it's a case that the weapons were not as large as one imagined - then would not the larger ships have more of them - given their overall size?

Getting in a dread...doesn't feel like getting in a dread. Heck, getting in a battleship doesn't feel like getting in a battleship.

There are fast and nimble small Escorts.
There are slow and lethargic big Escorts.

That's how it feels.

With more Dreads being introduced...it would feel pretty spiffy to fly one that didn't feel like a bad build on an Escort....
Willard the Rat, Reman, F.T'varo - Rave, J.Trill, Kar'Fi - Mysk, Gorn, Varanus
Maal, Klingon, Mogh - Vegar, Orion, Marauder
Nivuh, Ferasan, B'rel - Venit, Lethaen, M.Qin - Kopor, Nausicaan, Guramba
Republic Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 1,562
# 53
01-30-2013, 05:53 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by disposeableh3r0 View Post
In current naval terminology a dreadnought is an all big gun battleship, so technicaly Iowa class battleships are dreadnoughts.
Yes but the Dreadnought terminology was dropped by WW2 as by then all trace of the Pre-Dreadnought design had disappeared. I do not like the usage of the word as something "larger than a Battleship". It is quite ignorant of naval classification.
Career Officer
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 2,916
# 54
01-30-2013, 06:04 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by virusdancer View Post
It's like being the hero in a bad action movie - where the guy fires over a thousand rounds from his 9mm pistol and kills the 30 bad guys with assault rifles. Hero Ships.
Yes. Sadly.

Quote:
As for it making sense that the smaller ship that's already giving up much of it's finite space for the larger engine being able to also utilize the same size and (near) number of weapons as a larger ship...how?

If it's a case that the weapons were not as large as one imagined - then would not the larger ships have more of them - given their overall size?
I guess it would be the power requirements. A given warp core (what we would probably call a "tier 5 warp core" in STO) would only feed this and that many weapons, ECM, sensor, and targetting systems, and so on.

Quote:
Getting in a dread...doesn't feel like getting in a dread. Heck, getting in a battleship doesn't feel like getting in a battleship.

There are fast and nimble small Escorts.
There are slow and lethargic big Escorts.

That's how it feels.

With more Dreads being introduced...it would feel pretty spiffy to fly one that didn't feel like a bad build on an Escort....
I agree. I believe that fixing beams so that having 7 of them would be about as desireable on an escort as DHC/turret builds (4 DHC's, 3 turrets) are right now could solve this.
Commander
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 307
# 55
01-30-2013, 06:07 AM
I'm not bothering to quote from two pages back regarding the beam issue.
People seem to not be aware that beams can be fired in broadsides, say 7 at once, while DHCs you have at most 4, with three turrets, in this scenario.

Beam dps is 190 -10 power
DHC dps is 260 -12 power
Turret dps is 130 -8 power

7 x 190 = 1330 | -70 power
4 x 260 + 3 x 130 = 1430 | -72 power

CSV/CRF is better than BO/BFAW, yes, but FAW is being fixed -> firing arcs.

3 x 130 @ 360deg. -> always 390 dps and 1430 dps in 45deg. arc
vs
3,5 x 190 (mathematically for the sake of the example) @ 2 x 250deg. -> always 665 dps
and 1330 dps in 2 x 70deg. arcs.

Also, do you realize I was assuming same number of weapon slots used?
Bigger ships have more weapon slots.

You can also near infinitely move at maximum speed while maintaining a broadside.
This is utterly impossible when facing something directly unless you slow down and lose most of your coveted defense bonus that makes Escorts so 1337.

At this point I will also say that with full beams you need less than half the turn of a DHC user.
Why? Because you have twice as many full-damage position and both their firing arcs are larger.

He's dead, Jim.

Last edited by lolimpicard; 01-30-2013 at 06:24 AM. Reason: forum codepages messed up or something...
Career Officer
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 2,916
# 56
01-30-2013, 06:47 AM
You are ignoring two important things: The way the power drain is applied for DHC's vs beams, and the fact that there is no "single target broadside enhancing" power for beams.

I agree that a broadside ship will have an easier time to keep a ship in its broadside arc than the same ship with aa DHC/turret build would have to keep it in its 45 degree front arc. And yes, it is also more survivable because it can keep moving.

Unfortunately, right now, only very rarely (when the beam ship is massively overgeared), this additional broadside time and survivability will lead to the beam ship being on par with the DHC ship. Test it yourself, preferably with an escort.

So, yes, one has to be careful when fixing beams, absolutely, so that survivability and dps are then balanced to one another (which right now, they are not). But that does not relieve us from the task of fixing the beams.
Empire Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,746
# 57
01-30-2013, 11:25 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by virusdancer View Post
It's funny how many times this happens to your threads, eh? They seem pretty clear to me...but they end up going all over the place.
Indeed, that seems to have happened again here.

Starfleet Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,571
# 58
01-30-2013, 11:44 PM
Was away for a bit forgot about this thread.

With my first post I wasn't saying that current naval terminology and sto have much to do with eachother, my meaning was that if a dreadnought is the pinnacle of a battleship then a dreadnought in sto should be the pinnacle of whatever its based off of.

Having cannons is just because, why not right. Besides it was listed for any faction and I doubt there would ever be a klingon ship without the ability to equip cannons.
Actualy reading things pefore posting will make you look smarter than yelling loudly. Reading comprehension is aparently a lost art.

Not everything you see on the internet is true - Abriham Lincoln
Career Officer
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 2,916
# 59
01-31-2013, 12:02 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by mimey2 View Post
Indeed, that seems to have happened again here.
I apologize. It's just... you cannot discuss Dreadnoughts in STO without analyzing how they currently underperform. All of them, even the tactical ones.

But hell, yes, we do want more Dreadnoughts. Big fat ships inspire awe in many people.
Career Officer
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 2,813
# 60
01-31-2013, 12:16 AM
IMO...,
If ya really wanna make them true Battleships/Dreadnoughts, then make them Cannon, Torpedo and Carrier Squadrons capable only, with the ability to fire weapons from 20 kms out.

To balance that out, make it so when they fire their main weapons within 10 kms of a target, they have a large penalty against accuracy. (but if they do happen Hit a target, the Crit should be large)

Give them an inherent FAW beam console, for close quarter fighting with shuttles/fighters/mines.
(this should be limited to Faction Specific beam weapons and have a 5-7 km radius-of-effectiveness.)

And make their turn rate the Slowest in the game.
(They should really be Lumbering Behemoths, not the Twinkle-toed Ballerinas they are now.)

Give them two weapons each... Fore, Aft, Starboard, and Port (8 total).
With 90 degree ONLY, firing arcs, plus Two Hangers.

Make them have the Largest Hull Numbers of any ships in-game and Shield Capacities that can only be taken out by Groups of three or more other players. (or another Battleship)

They should have three Lt. BOffs (one from each discipline), two Lt. Cmndrs. (one TAC & one ENG) And one Universal Cmndr.
(the First Officer of a Battleship, should be a Pro at everything)

+Four Device slots

4 - ENG consoles
2 - SCI consoles
3 - TAC consoles

I'm sure you guys can come up with the rest to balance these out, but these mothers should be the toughest things to go up against in the game (next to BORG ships).
...... DaveyNY ...STO Forum Member since February - 2009
..............Star Trek Fan since Thursday Sept. 8th, 1966
There are No Longer any STO Veterans... We're Just People who have Played the Game for the last 4 years.
I Really Do Miss the little TOP Button at the bottom of the threads.

Last edited by daveyny; 01-31-2013 at 12:29 AM.
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 04:50 PM.