Career Officer
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 5,440
# 71
02-08-2013, 04:06 PM
I really think what's needed, keeping it simple, is a stat which regulates how much damage you can take per hit

And when fully geared for, any damage beyond 10% of a cruiser's total HP is completely mitigated, 20% for sci, and 30% for escorts.

So when geared to survive, an escort could NOT DIE in fewer than 4 hits without DoT effects and a cruiser could not die in fewer than 10 hits.

OMG Borg super-weapon vs a tanking cruiser? Would cap out at 10% of a cruiser's base hull.

So... With a tanking Odyssey, fully decked out with tanking consoles, no attack regardless of buffs or crits or anything would be able to deal more than 4,200 against an Odyssey in a single hit.

A Fleet Defiant class if somebody decided to spec and gear it for tanking? Could not be hit for more than 7,500 hp in any single attack. Regardless of special abilities, crits, bonuses, etc.
Starfleet Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 78
# 72
02-08-2013, 04:30 PM
We had Glass cannon escorts when the game first launched. There was no all powerful TT back then, and DSP was just as worthless as it is today. Escorts sucked almost as much as science ships do today, unless you had a cloak, and then every one hated you..

Escort survivability was terrible, your front shield would collapse in a few seconds & typically you would be running around with 15/50% hull & desperately trying to keep your best shield facing to the enemy, so combat revolved around you hiding for 5 minutes waiting for all of your buffs to come off cool down & then you would mash every button you had & try to obliterate the enemy in your 5 second window of "god mode".

As I remember it, people absolutely hated the crazy burst potential escorts had & eventually Cryptic nerfed the ability to stack multiple attack patterns & APA. When TT showed up every one cheered for joy, because up until that point shield tanking was not a forgone conclusion. Cruisers had to stack RSP & when they ran out of that they had to hull tank.

Science ships had access to ST-III & RSP witch pretty much made them the only true shield tanking ships in the game at the time. ST III offered 42%+ resistance & an operations buff, witch would last long enough to buff your second ST III copy for even more resistance. VM was a 25/45 second nuke that completely shut you down, you could not even use DSP & the cleanse from ST was 50/50. Science ruled the stars back then... we all know what happened next.

So, what I'm trying to say with this overly long "back in my day" post is that they should leave the class that's actually working well right now alone & either buff the support ability's for Engineering & Science so they matter again, or just buff their damage enough to be competitive. Engineers are pretty close, with a lot of STFers pulling 7/9k, although I still hate beam tactical buffs compared to CSV & CRF, they could use a pass, as could engineer utility skills witch are iffy at best.

With science, well, the skill tree needs to be condensed first, and then pretty much every CC ability needs a pass to see if there's enough value in the utility it offers, and if the value is found to be lacking then either the damage needs to be buffed, or the skill scratched, and frankly I think there are more then a few skills that need to be cut, or see serious makeovers. Science ships need more weapon hard points & the problem with aux & weapon power needs to be addressed.

If people put their system power into aux there MUST be just as large a pay off for that commitment as to what you would see with that power in weapons. As it stands right now if you don't put a lot of your system power into weapons you do very little damage, this only became a major issue when they introduced weapon power drain to combat broadside cruisers. It ended up hurting science ships the most. I can't stress that enough, low/middling weapon power = HORRIFIC weapon damage. There HAS to be a pay off with aux, or we need more aux weapons.
Starfleet Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,618
# 73
02-08-2013, 08:20 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by helixsunbringer View Post
Until such a time as a fourth category of ships (Warships with subcategories of Destroyers, Support Ships, and Flightdeck Cruisers, Carriers, and Escorts) is added onto the federation list in the wiki, the way that the Klingons have it set up... I don't see us having the need to redefine what is or is not an escort in such a manner as to classify the Chimera as anything other than an escort.

But if we did add such a category. Then the Chimera, Armitage, Caitian Atrox Carrier, and the Exploration Dreadnought Cruiser would all fall under the Warship category in one form or another. Also the Mobius Temporal Destroyer would also fall under the same category as the Chimera. On the other hand, the remaining ships would likely fall under their normal categories.

Please note that the Federation does not have Birds of Prey. The closest they come to such ships is the Defiant. And even that is not quite the same thing. Forcing a respec of the Defiant and all other escorts so that they perform in such a way as to make them identical performance wise to Birds of Prey, would go against Canon. And despite everything that Cryptic has done to destroy the feel of Canon in this game (i.e. the Lockbox ships in particular), they still generally get the right idea when it comes to how ships are supposed to perform in relation to other ships.
Yet the defiant and a BOP have nearly the same size and crew count.

And I re-iterate I do not feel Anything is OP. the purpose of using quotes in a statement like make escorts less"OP" is to denote a suggestive not difinative Meaning.

AS in make escorts appear to be less OP than people currently think they are.

I don't understand what a good percentage of responders feel the need to redefine my argument so they can tell me how wrong I am or that I must not be very good at the game.

Or maybe they just read the header and assume they know what the thread contains.
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: 150
# 74
02-08-2013, 08:28 PM
When I left the game ~11 months ago, Cruisers were solidly ahead of Escorts. What changed to make Escorts OP now? At that time, all the best choices and builds were cruisers.
Want to know more about Cryptic's hidden lottery odds and outcomes?  Read my posts below.
Lock Boxes: The true value - (thread link)
Jem'Hadar Bug Odds - (thread link)
Galor Creation Rate - (thread link)
Find me in TSW - TSW Chronicle Profile
Career Officer
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 168
# 75
02-08-2013, 08:50 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by stoleviathan99 View Post
I really think what's needed, keeping it simple, is a stat which regulates how much damage you can take per hit

And when fully geared for, any damage beyond 10% of a cruiser's total HP is completely mitigated, 20% for sci, and 30% for escorts.

So when geared to survive, an escort could NOT DIE in fewer than 4 hits without DoT effects and a cruiser could not die in fewer than 10 hits.

OMG Borg super-weapon vs a tanking cruiser? Would cap out at 10% of a cruiser's base hull.

So... With a tanking Odyssey, fully decked out with tanking consoles, no attack regardless of buffs or crits or anything would be able to deal more than 4,200 against an Odyssey in a single hit.

A Fleet Defiant class if somebody decided to spec and gear it for tanking? Could not be hit for more than 7,500 hp in any single attack. Regardless of special abilities, crits, bonuses, etc.
This proposal sounds an awful lot like something straight out of a certain Fantasy which most certainly is not Final (sorry overt named references to other video gaming franchises are strictly forbidden on most parts of the Perfect World Entertainment website). But basically in the eighth installment of said franchise there was a gravity based attack used by a certain boss whose name translates into english as "Devil." This Gravity based attack would reduce the parties hit points to exactly 1/8th of it's maximum hit points. There were two other gravity spells in this installment of the game, one would reduce the target's hit points by 50% of it's current total, the other would reduce it by 25% of it's current total. These reductions were not alterable by equipment modifiers or anything like that, they were static.

What you are suggesting sounds very similar to these spells. You are basically proposing that damage can never do more than 10% of the current total of a Cruisers hit points. This would basically invalidate Critical Hits of any kind. It would make the extremely high powered weaponry obsolete. And it would destroy DPS as we understand it by fixing the amount of damage we can possibly do to a Cruiser or any other ship in a given number of seconds. This is not the solution that we should be looking for to the "Escorts are OP" whiners.

Quote:
Originally Posted by disposeableh3r0 View Post
Yet the defiant and a BOP have nearly the same size and crew count.
You are correct, the Defiant class and the B'rel-class are nearly identical in size and number of decks / crew compliment. However, there is a number of differences between a Klingon vessel and a Starfleet Vessel that needs to be taken into consideration.

First off, a Klingon Vessel has little in the way of back up systems in case of emergency. It would be dishonorable for a Klingon to rely on such things in times of battle. Thus they are able to devote more space to superior primary systems (such as faster engines, better inertial dampeners, stronger armor, a fully functional battle cloak, etc...) This is in fact the reason that Montgomery "Scotty" Scott was capable of fitting two Humpback Whales inside of a B'rel with little trouble, while still having room for the vast majority of the requisite primary systems needed to get the ship into space and back to their century. There is no way that two Humpback Whales would fit inside the Defiant.

Second off, you are going on the assumption that the Federation placed the same emphasis on speed and maneuverability that Klingons place on their vessels when designing the Defiant. This is a faulty assumption. The Defiant was designed for stealth yes, but it was also designed with the intent of being capable of dishing out massive butt loads of damage. In fact the armament on the Defiant was so massive when it was first designed that the ship was threatening to rip itself apart whenever it fired it's payload (even with Inertial Dampeners at full power), and this using primarily energy weapons which should have no recoil in theory. So basically we are looking at a ship that was forced to go back to the drawing board and have heavy amounts of structural reinforcement put into place so that it won't rip itself apart. This structural reinforcement along with the added secondary systems, and all the armor that a ship designed strictly for war and which was intended to keep it's crew alive at the same time is all probably a good reason for why the Defiant is less maneuverable than a Klingon Bird of Prey. Keep in mind the Klingons have less drive to keep their warriors alive due to their belief that death in battle is a glorious thing, the federation doesn't feel that way.
______________________________

Last edited by helixsunbringer; 02-08-2013 at 08:54 PM.
Captain
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 955
# 76
02-08-2013, 09:26 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by disposeableh3r0 View Post
This is in fact the reason that Montgomery "Scotty" Scott was capable of fitting two Humpback Whales inside of a B'rel with little trouble, while still having room for the vast majority of the requisite primary systems needed to get the ship into space and back to their century. There is no way that two Humpback Whales would fit inside the Defiant.
To be fair, the size of a Klingon Bird-of-Prey is a source of some small controversy in Trek.

http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/articles/bop-size.htm

Even at 100m long, those are some pretty spacious cargo bays for such a small ship, especially considering that the exterior geometry doesn't match up to that much empty space.
Career Officer
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 168
# 77
02-08-2013, 09:50 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by thratch1 View Post
To be fair, the size of a Klingon Bird-of-Prey is a source of some small controversy in Trek.

http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/articles/bop-size.htm

Even at 100m long, those are some pretty spacious cargo bays for such a small ship, especially considering that the exterior geometry doesn't match up to that much empty space.
Okay here is the thing. The B'Rel is approximately the same length, has the same number of deck's and roughly the same crew capacity as the Defiant. However, that does not indicate that they are in fact the same size.

A given deck on a given ship does not need to be a uniform shape or size when compared to a given deck on a different given ship. Thus the B'rel could have 4 really small decks comparatively similar in size and purpose to that of the Defiant, but one really LARGE deck dedicated to Cargo. Keep in mind that the Memory Alpha site only lists the length of the B'rel class ships. It does not indicate the Beam or Height of these vessels. Thus it is possible that in those other two dimensions the B'rel is massive when compared to the Defiant. The Defiant however has both the Beam and the Height listed. Additionally, if the Defiant has Cargo holds, they are tiny. It is not designed as a Cargo vessel in any way shape or form. The Klingons don't use replicators except on rare occassions. They keep live food. Thus even their warships need Cargo Holds or more accurately, Pens, for their animals. Thus it is entirely probable that what you are defining as a Cargo Hold, and the place where the Humpback Whales would ultimately reside, is actually where the live food was kept on the Klingon Vessel. Not a Cargo Hold.

Also, Humpback Whales aren't all that big. They are at most 15.85 meters long. So assuming that you convert the majority of a cargo deck into a swimming pool, and thus have a 100 meter by unknown by unknown size swimming pool, then the humpback whales should be fine, at least for the short trip back to the Crew's home century.

Also, it should be noted, that you could do a cross comparison on the size of the B'rel that appeared in Star Trek IV to the size of a human being (you saw the outline of the nose section next to Kirk's Girlfriend of the day at one point) and the ship was hovering at another point over a Whaling vessel which I believe the movie used a very real type of ship for that, which can be used as a point of reference for determining the exact size of the B'rel.
______________________________

Last edited by helixsunbringer; 02-08-2013 at 09:56 PM.
Captain
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 955
# 78
02-08-2013, 10:05 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by helixsunbringer View Post
Okay here is the thing. The B'Rel is approximately the same length, has the same number of deck's and roughly the same crew capacity as the Defiant. However, that does not indicate that they are in fact the same size.

A given deck on a given ship does not need to be a uniform shape or size when compared to a given deck on a different given ship. Thus the B'rel could have 4 really small decks comparatively similar in size and purpose to that of the Defiant, but one really LARGE deck dedicated to Cargo. Keep in mind that the Memory Alpha site only lists the length of the B'rel class ships. It does not indicate the Beam or Height of these vessels. Thus it is possible that in those other two dimensions the B'rel is massive when compared to the Defiant. The Defiant however has both the Beam and the Height listed. Additionally, if the Defiant has Cargo holds, they are tiny. It is not designed as a Cargo vessel in any way shape or form. The Klingons don't use replicators except on rare occassions. They keep live food. Thus even their warships need Cargo Holds or more accurately, Pens, for their animals. Thus it is entirely probable that what you are defining as a Cargo Hold, and the place where the Humpback Whales would ultimately reside, is actually where the live food was kept on the Klingon Vessel. Not a Cargo Hold.

Also, Humpback Whales aren't all that big. They are at most 15.85 meters long. So assuming that you convert the majority of a cargo deck into a swimming pool, and thus have a 100 meter by unknown by unknown size swimming pool, then the humpback whales should be fine, at least for the short trip back to the Crew's home century.

Also, it should be noted, that you could do a cross comparison on the size of the B'rel that appeared in Star Trek IV to the size of a human being (you saw the outline of the nose section next to Kirk's Girlfriend of the day at one point) and the ship was hovering at another point over a Whaling vessel which I believe the movie used a very real type of ship for that, which can be used as a point of reference for determining the exact size of the B'rel.
You can see in this picture the relative sizes of the BoP next to the Defiant:
http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/ar...calltoarms.jpg

Not including the wings, the Bird of Prey is indeed a little taller than the Defiant. However, as I said before, the exterior geometry doesn't really lend itself to massive cargo bays capable of holding two whales.

Nothing can be inside the giant silver parts, which easily make up the bulk of that section, because those are made of several bladed hinges that move the wings up and down. The two "pods" on top are also much too small, and it's clear that about half of those are actually part of the wing hinge system.

That leaves just the middle part, which is no wider than the bridge capsule up front. That part has to contain main engineering, the impulse engines themselves, and very likely the living accommodations for Klingons -- after all, they may not need individual, lavish quarters, but they still need room to eat, sleep, and train (we see in DS9 that they have at least one dedicated training room). The forward bridge pod has the bridge, and a weapons room where they load the forward torpedoes (and probably store them there, too).

That doesn't really leave a lot of room left for whale-sized cargo.

It's a plot hole, as is the Bird-of-Prey's actual size throughout the franchise's run -- the ship changes sizes several times in Star Trek IV alone. Either it's a Transformer with mass-shifting technology, or it's just a massively unreliable benchmark for the size of other vessels.

The Defiant has this same problem, too, though not to quite the same degree; it's been shown being as small as 50m long, and as long as 130m.
Career Officer
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 168
# 79
02-08-2013, 10:28 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by thratch1 View Post
You can see in this picture the relative sizes of the BoP next to the Defiant:
http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/ar...calltoarms.jpg
No, I really can't, because that jpeg is blocked on my computer and I don't really feel like disagreeing with my computer. Also, when ex-astris-scientia.org becomes an official source or is part of a collaborative project focusing on canonical work the way that Memory Alpha is, then I might consider it reliable. But as near as I can tell it is neither of these things.

Quote:
Originally Posted by thratch1 View Post
Not including the wings, the Bird of Prey is indeed a little taller than the Defiant. However, as I said before, the exterior geometry doesn't really lend itself to massive cargo bays capable of holding two whales.

Nothing can be inside the giant silver parts, which easily make up the bulk of that section, because those are made of several bladed hinges that move the wings up and down. The two "pods" on top are also much too small, and it's clear that about half of those are actually part of the wing hinge system.
Eh... actually... the whales were in a cargo hold that was located underneath the massive silver parts that you claim nothing can be inside of (those silver things actually contain lots of bulkhead space (also known as Jeffries Tubes)). Crew Quarters are actually above the bulkhead space. The Engineering section is just behind the Silver parts of the ship. And the actual drive section is further back, and that is the part of the ship you can't actually get into while the drive is active, unless you want to suffer radiation poisoning the way that Spock did at the end of the Wrath of Khan. Interestingly enough the Gangway Plank is right underneath the Drive section. So basically your entire premise is incorrect as indicated in this image the first part of which was done by Jackill.
______________________________

Last edited by helixsunbringer; 02-08-2013 at 10:33 PM.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 172
# 80
02-08-2013, 10:43 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by tobar26th View Post
This must be the February edition of 'Escorts are Overpowered'.



Seriously people, does the phrase Glass Cannon mean nothing?
They are not glass cannons, with all the gtfo abilities and defense from speed. The game needs a overhaul tbh.
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 02:07 AM.