Starfleet Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,618
So I was thinking, what if every ship carried and armor modifier similar to the shield modifier?

The purpose would be to address aome of the issues people have with the escort vs cruiser vs science debates.

Yes the hull numbers are all different but what if there was a bonus or detractor to your resistances?

Say an escort got a 1.0 mod then a cruiser of similar tier would get a 1.5 (numbers are arbitrary) and a science ship would fall somewhere inbetween.

This should only affect equipped consoles and maybe resistance gained through skill use not bonus or innate resistances. (so if your not currently using an armor console you wouldn't notice a difference.)

On that same note maybe there should be modifiers for specific weapon types.

Like mods for beam, cannon, torpedo, and mine weapons. that way each ship gets a boost in effectiveness for certain weapon types, Like the long complained galaxy class getting a boost to beam weapons siting the long arrays argument.

Although that one is more out there.
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
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 130
# 2
01-30-2013, 09:43 PM
Several things here; Klingon ships (not gorn, orion, or other) would have better armor modifier than Federation ships on *average*. Defiant and Prometheus (and star cruiser) would have higher armor modifier.

Honestly I see it favoring Escort more as Defiant and Prometheus were considerably covered with Ablative Armor.
Career Officer
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 765
# 3
01-30-2013, 09:43 PM
This line of thought does have potential. It would certainly add more variation and uniqueness to the ships.
Rihannsu
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 287
# 4
01-30-2013, 09:53 PM
If I recall, wasn't one of the major advantages of the Ambassador class in the later conflicts like the Dominion War that it still had actual structural armor instead of integrity fields?
Starfleet Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 159
# 5
01-30-2013, 10:09 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by disposeableh3r0 View Post
So I was thinking, what if every ship carried and armor modifier similar to the shield modifier?

The purpose would be to address aome of the issues people have with the escort vs cruiser vs science debates.

Yes the hull numbers are all different but what if there was a bonus or detractor to your resistances?

Say an escort got a 1.0 mod then a cruiser of similar tier would get a 1.5 (numbers are arbitrary) and a science ship would fall somewhere inbetween.
Escorts are warships, they are designed to fight
Cruisers and Science ships are not supposed to be fighting.

Thus, why would you put more armor on a ship that isnt supposed to fight ?
Equally, why would you waste space putting in fancy labs and gardens in a warship ?

The reality is: You dont
The only thing larger ships have going for them is more room to put stuff in, for a warship that is weapons and armor. For a cruiser or science ship, that is labs and gardens.

What that room is used for ultimately defines what the ship is supposed to be.
You want to have that conversation about ALL ships in this game being warships - fine, have fun playing with Cryptic about turning all console slots and officer stations universal.


Quote:
Originally Posted by disposeableh3r0 View Post
On that same note maybe there should be modifiers for specific weapon types.

Like mods for beam, cannon, torpedo, and mine weapons. that way each ship gets a boost in effectiveness for certain weapon types, Like the long complained galaxy class getting a boost to beam weapons siting the long arrays argument.

Although that one is more out there.
Bonuses tied to specific hulls and weapon types.
That sounds familiar

If you want to adopt the same kind of ship system that EVE Online does... fine. I promise you it will not be what you like and result in the entire ship system of STO being decimated.
No more Tiers because every ship will have to be given a specific role with a specific set of bonuses.

The flexibility of STO's equipment and Boff power system would make doing that extremely difficult to the point your better just gutting the game.
Career Officer
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 867
# 6
01-30-2013, 10:24 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by causalityeffect View Post
Escorts are warships, they are designed to fight
Cruisers and Science ships are not supposed to be fighting.
Um, what? If Cruisers and Science Ships are, "not supposed to be fighting", then why are constant references made in canon to the Galaxy class ship being the most tactically powerful ship in the Federation (with Nebula class ships presumably being of similar power)? Why did they design the Sovereign to supplement the role of the relatively new Galaxy class ships and fix its tactical flaws?

Why are numerous references made to the strong tactical capabilities of the Intrepid class ships?

In all of canon that I can recall, there are only two ships that are mentioned as being primarily combat oriented: the Defiant (which was designed to be used as a last resort to stop the Borg, presumably with an inactive reserve fleet of them stationed around Earth and the federation) and the Prometheus (which was designed to be something akin to an Intrepid, except designed more for security patrols rather than scientific exploration).

Even then, the only ship ever mentioned in canon as being a "warship" was the Defiant. All starfleet ships were designed to have very powerful weapons for the era.

Last edited by logicalspock; 01-30-2013 at 10:26 PM.
Career Officer
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 6,008
# 7
01-30-2013, 10:32 PM
We really do need more difference with ships than just BOFF layouts, and this is a good way to do it.

Like the Galaxy would have more power due to it's higher capacity warp core engine. The Sovereign has high armor due to the ablative armoring and a boost to regenerative shields (since the Enterprise-E had regenerative shields).

The Sabre would have speed advantages, while the Defiant has armor boosts, and the Akira having improved targeting systems.


Hopefully Cryptic does this.

Quote:
Originally Posted by logicalspock View Post
Um, what? If Cruisers and Science Ships are, "not supposed to be fighting", then why are constant references made in canon to the Galaxy class ship being the most tactically powerful ship in the Federation (with Nebula class ships presumably being of similar power)? Why did they design the Sovereign to supplement the role of the relatively new Galaxy class ships and fix its tactical flaws?
The Sovereign wasn't supplementing the Galaxy-class, it was replacing the aging Excelsior-class. And due to lessons learned from the Borg, the Sovereign-class had newer technologies such as Ablative Armor, Regenerative Shielding, Quantum Torpedoes, and no civilians.
NO to ARC!

Season 9.5 = STO's NGE is Here! Welcome to the Grind!

New Crafting = It's not Crafting, is an overblown Reputation System.

Last edited by azurianstar; 01-30-2013 at 10:34 PM.
Captain
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,192
# 8
01-30-2013, 10:59 PM
We do not need amor change. We need new Warp Core gear slot.
Career Officer
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,719
# 9
01-30-2013, 11:15 PM
Armor modifiers for ship types is an interesting idea. Hull tanking might be a thing again with this. At the very least the Cruisers' high HP might mean a little more if it takes more of a pounding to damage it.

Not a fan of the weapon specialty modifiers, though.
Starfleet Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 159
# 10
01-30-2013, 11:23 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by logicalspock View Post
Um, what? If Cruisers and Science Ships are, "not supposed to be fighting", then why are constant references made in canon to the Galaxy class ship being the most tactically powerful ship in the Federation (with Nebula class ships presumably being of similar power)? Why did they design the Sovereign to supplement the role of the relatively new Galaxy class ships and fix its tactical flaws?
Your evidence for this is... where ?
"Most tactically powerful ship" - Means nothing.
What 'Tactical Flaws' did the Galaxy have that the Sovereign fixed ?

Quote:
Originally Posted by logicalspock View Post
Why are numerous references made to the strong tactical capabilities of the Intrepid class ships?
Evidence, Quantify, Examples.
Fun fact: A knife has strong tactical capabilities, that dosent mean its a good idea to bring it to a gunfight.

Quote:
Originally Posted by logicalspock View Post
In all of canon that I can recall, there are only two ships that are mentioned as being primarily combat oriented: the Defiant (which was designed to be used as a last resort to stop the Borg, presumably with an inactive reserve fleet of them stationed around Earth and the federation) and the Prometheus (which was designed to be something akin to an Intrepid, except designed more for security patrols rather than scientific exploration).
Shock: The pacifist Federation has limited ships designed exclusively for combat.
Would never have guessed that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by logicalspock View Post
Even then, the only ship ever mentioned in canon as being a "warship" was the Defiant. All starfleet ships were designed to have very powerful weapons for the era.
And... ?
If the existing ships were so powerful the Federation would NOT have to build new ones unless the new ones could do things the others could not.
Being fitted with 'powerful weapons' means nothing and quantifies exactly NADA.

The thing these threads keep moaning about is that Cruisers and Science ships should be better than Escorts. Very few of them do anything to demonstrate WHY or HOW those ships are better beyond being bigger and useless filler dilague about being "tactically awesome"
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 04:24 PM.