Captain
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 10,911
# 1 STO lacks Class!
03-06-2013, 09:36 PM
Since the dawn of multiplayer gaming, there have always been 5 basic classes. The Fighter, the Archer, the Backstabber, the Attack Magic, and the Healing Magic. There are many minor variations, but whether the game is in a Fantasy setting, a Science Fiction setting, or even a Realistic setting, these classes have remained more or less the same for the past 40 years.

Enough history, what does this have to do with STO? Well, currently, STO has the five roles split over it's three classes. Tacticals are supposed to be the Fighter/Backstabber, Science are supposed to be Attack Magic, and Engineers are supposed to be the Healing Magic. This is what it's supposed to be. It's not. Tacticals do damage, and Engies heal, but Science abilities are less attack magic and more roots/disables. But don't worry, their healing/protection abilities are much more effective!

Aaaaaand heres where the problem lies. We have one class built around damage, and two support classes. If this were any other MMO, Science Officers would have awesome AOE attacks, and we would have to deal with various ranges of effectiveness, with different weapons and classes filling out the roster. In fact, this is exactly how ground combat works. But in space, every weapon has the same range, so this isn't really a problem.

So make it one.

Give Beams an effective range of 15 km, DHCs a range of 7 km, and everything else leave at 10.

This would open up a huge area and give cruisers a brand new purpose and dynamic. This also would force escorts to rely on one of their biggest strengths (their really good turn rates) rather than giving them a weakness. The only real issue is cruisers that equip DHC's, but those tend to have Cloaking Consoles, so to balance that out you could make them built in instead.
http://i1151.photobucket.com/albums/o633/centersolace/189cux9khvl6ojpg_zpsca7ccff0.jpg

So inhumane superweapons, mass murder, and canon nonsense is okay, but speedos are too much for some people.
Captain
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,192
# 2
03-06-2013, 09:37 PM
Actually, it would be much easier if they just scraped the classes. It createst nothing but trouble and it's relic of the past.
Ensign
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 10
# 3
03-06-2013, 10:23 PM
No, I disagree.

There are 3 classes, and 2 ship categories. Ship category (it seems to me) does more to define your class than your captain's training.

Tactical: Fighter
Engineering: Healing
Science: Support

Cruiser: Tank
Escort: DPS

Tact/Cruiser: Warrior, good damage, good health
Tact/Escort: Berserker, great damage, low health.
Engi/Cruiser: Paladin, Hard to kill, good healer, low DPS
Engi/Escort: Dark Priest, powerful attacks, competent healer
Sci/Cruiser: Warmage, Debilitates foes and buffs allies, hard to kill
Sci/Escort: Rogue, debilitates foes, combos with strong DPS.

Mostly we only end up seeing the Berkserker, the Paladin, and the Warmage, but that doesn't mean other possibilities exist!
Commander
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 488
# 4
03-06-2013, 10:25 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by centersolace View Post
Since the dawn of multiplayer gaming, there have always been 5 basic classes. The Fighter, the Archer, the Backstabber, the Attack Magic, and the Healing Magic. There are many minor variations, but whether the game is in a Fantasy setting, a Science Fiction setting, or even a Realistic setting, these classes have remained more or less the same for the past 40 years.
If you say so.

I see it as 3 basic classes, the warrior, the rogue and the mage.

Quote:
Originally Posted by centersolace View Post
Give Beams an effective range of 15 km, DHCs a range of 7 km, and everything else leave at 10.
That seems totally random.

I should have stuck with my initial reaction to ignore the rest of your troll thread.

Buffing beams (and they should be buffed) could be done simply by giving them firing cycles patterned off of cannons. Well, DHCs to be specific. Actually, all the weapons should use DHC firing cycles, because it seems the most powerful weapon type also got the most efficient firing cycle.

Nerfing DHCs to use beam firing cycles is another option, but the servers would implode from the QQ.

Last edited by millimidget; 03-06-2013 at 10:31 PM.
Captain
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 4,015
# 5
03-06-2013, 10:44 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by centersolace View Post
We have one class built around damage, and two support classes.
and Support Class has always been a fancy way of saying Designated Loser. Roles are great if you are doing a party-based dungeon crawl (ala the ground game), but they are terrible for 1v1 and random/kinetic fights.

It would be far better to use a rock-paper-scissor model for the space combat. It wouldnt be hard either, keep things basically like they are now but close up the damage so that tac>sci>eng>tac with about 10% margin of benefit (enough to overcome with player skill). Something like, tac can burn a hole in a sci ship, but eng can polarize the hull and shoot back, while sci can break the polarized hull with corrosion damage. Team dynamics still work (sci corrosion while tac shoots), but 1v1 also works where it doesnt with Designated Loser trying to go against Swordmaster.

Also balance ship types separately, especially here where everything is basically a cruiser or battleship class (modulo the shuttles). Larger ships need more hard-points than smaller ships, and preferably bigger power plants too, while smaller ships need better agility, faster healing, and so on. There's not any bombers or gunboats with wholly different abilities, so you can do it with linear progression and avoid ship classes entirely.

Quote:
Give Beams an effective range of 15 km, DHCs a range of 7 km, and everything else leave at 10.
Different ranges are interesting, but the auto-aim and auto-fire mechanisms of this game wont allow it to perform correctly. The guy with the longer reach just keeps mashing spacebar while running, to keep the other ship from closing within 10k. Or worse, the fast light ship uses beams and is completely untouchable. Or another example, weapons have different munition speed (EG heavy cannon travels slower than instant-on beam), but its irrelevant when the computer does the aiming and firing, the slow and fast weapons will hit regardless.

One thing you can do though is monkey with variables, things like ~cannons lose accuracy over distance (same as they lose damage now), so that they miss more often at range versus the instant-on beam weapons that travels at the speed of light and therefor is more accurate at range.

Self-propelled munitions can have a variable range, since those can actually be shot down, or outrun, or cloaked from, as the case may be. Mines are fine now with 3k seeker range, if you dont get seekered they're no-op. Forward-firing torpedoes could be bumped to 12k probably but only for forward-mounted launchers (harder to spam while running when you have to do it in reverse).

Anyway, I agree that the classes should be realigned. The gameplay would be improved, and it wouldnt be that much of a change.
Captain
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 11,568
# 6
03-06-2013, 10:45 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by centersolace View Post
Since the dawn of multiplayer gaming, there have always been 5 basic classes. The Fighter, the Archer, the Backstabber, the Attack Magic, and the Healing Magic. There are many minor variations, but whether the game is in a Fantasy setting, a Science Fiction setting, or even a Realistic setting, these classes have remained more or less the same for the past 40 years.
Hrmmm, source?

Quote:
Originally Posted by centersolace View Post
Enough history, what does this have to do with STO? Well, currently, STO has the five roles split over it's three classes. Tacticals are supposed to be the Fighter/Backstabber, Science are supposed to be Attack Magic, and Engineers are supposed to be the Healing Magic. This is what it's supposed to be. It's not. Tacticals do damage, and Engies heal, but Science abilities are less attack magic and more roots/disables. But don't worry, their healing/protection abilities are much more effective!
Hrmmm, somewhat opinion...mainly opinion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by centersolace View Post
Aaaaaand heres where the problem lies. We have one class built around damage, and two support classes. If this were any other MMO, Science Officers would have awesome AOE attacks, and we would have to deal with various ranges of effectiveness, with different weapons and classes filling out the roster. In fact, this is exactly how ground combat works. But in space, every weapon has the same range, so this isn't really a problem.
Hrmmm, speculation and opinion...

Quote:
Originally Posted by centersolace View Post
So make it one.

Give Beams an effective range of 15 km, DHCs a range of 7 km, and everything else leave at 10.
Hrmmm, range does affect damage...

Quote:
Originally Posted by centersolace View Post
This would open up a huge area and give cruisers a brand new purpose and dynamic. This also would force escorts to rely on one of their biggest strengths (their really good turn rates) rather than giving them a weakness. The only real issue is cruisers that equip DHC's, but those tend to have Cloaking Consoles, so to balance that out you could make them built in instead.
Hrmmm, what do ships have to do with classes?

But anyway...

Quote:
Originally Posted by dalnar83 View Post
Actually, it would be much easier if they just scraped the classes. It createst nothing but trouble and it's relic of the past.
To an extent, I agree...but only in the sense of scrapping what they've got for what one would actually see in Star Trek - so to speak.

Unfortunately, this is biased toward Feds (simply don't have the information at hand if it's even available in a similar fashion for KDF)...but anyway:

Command Division
Operations Division (Tactical/Engineer)
Science Division

In many cases, the "heroes" would either be dual-spec or in some cases single-spec or even multi-spec.

So imagine, if along those lines (again, this is unfortunately Fed biased) that players could choose to play as the following:

Command/Command
Command/Tac Ops
Command/Eng Ops
Command/Science
Tac Ops/Command
Tac Ops/Tac Ops
Tac Ops/Eng Ops
Tac Ops/Science
Eng Ops/Command
Eng Ops/Tac Ops
Eng Ops/Eng Ops
Eng Ops/Science
Science/Command
Science/Tac Ops
Science/Eng Ops
Science/Science

Where for the 5 abilities a player is able to select, they select 3 for the the item before the slash and 2 for the item after the slash. Only those that went Command/Command, Tac Ops/Tac Ops, Eng Ops/Eng Ops, Sci/Sci would be able to pick the "top" 2 of 5 abilities for that particular Division/Career. They've specialized.

This would reflect the nature of the "heroes" we see in Star Trek more - where Captains and Bridge Officers were often part of multiple divisions.
Willard the Rat, Reman, F.T'varo - Rave, J.Trill, Kar'Fi - Mysk, Gorn, Varanus
Maal, Klingon, Mogh - Vegar, Orion, Marauder - R'ebel, Romulan, Haakona
Kopor, Nausicaan, Guramba - Nivuh, Ferasan, B'rel - Venit, Lethean, M.Qin
Captain
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 11,568
# 7
03-06-2013, 11:03 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by waladil View Post
Ship category (it seems to me) does more to define your class than your captain's training.
In Space (and for the most part, I only talk about Space) - there are "only" five things that separate each of the Careers. I put the only in quotes because some people have complained that I'm being dismissive of those five things - when it's just a case of pointing out that so many of the things people attribute to the Careers have nothing to do with the Careers. Those five things are the five innate abilities.

That's it. Not being dismissive, but that's it.

Ships neither define nor are they restricted based on Career chosen. Gear? Nope. Doesn't define/restrict. Even the skill build doesn't. Outside of Ground skills, all three Careers have the same access to skills for Space.

Perhaps it's a case of discussing role more than it is a case of discussing class, because much like the same class in many games can perform different roles - the Careers in STO can perform different roles.

The gist of the three Careers, mind you, are Damage (Tac), Tank (Eng), Support (Sci)...imho. Sci is the only one that can kind of be argued, imho - since Sci does a few things there, eh? It's pretty easy to label them with the term support - they debuff, they debuff, they buff, they have pets, they buff... Buffer/Debuffer/Pet Master? Nah, Support.

Of course, of interest is how the roles change on the Ground, eh? Look at the 5 innates - heck, look at the kits. I've always found that interesting - Tac with the taunt, Eng as the shield healer, etc, etc, etc.

I think the gist of the Careers in Space is somewhat broken - and although many feel that Ground is broken as well, it's much easier to view Tac as DPS, Eng as Defensive Support/Offensive Support, and Sci as Offensive Support/Defensive Support...imho.

But yep, in Space at least, the Career is "only" those five innate abilities. You could skill an Eng into mainly damage dealing abilities, drop them in an Escort, and play that way... that's not going to be the same as the Eng skilled mainly in healing abilities and in a Cruiser, eh? They're both Engineers though...yep, so much of the role that a player takes on is determined by things other than Career choice with those five innate abilities that only come into play when they're not on their extended cooldowns...
Willard the Rat, Reman, F.T'varo - Rave, J.Trill, Kar'Fi - Mysk, Gorn, Varanus
Maal, Klingon, Mogh - Vegar, Orion, Marauder - R'ebel, Romulan, Haakona
Kopor, Nausicaan, Guramba - Nivuh, Ferasan, B'rel - Venit, Lethean, M.Qin
Career Officer
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 5,424
# 8
03-06-2013, 11:06 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by virusdancer View Post
Hrmmm, source?
You just asked for a source for a statement that was the equivalent of, "The sky is blue."
Captain
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 11,568
# 9
03-06-2013, 11:30 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by stoleviathan99 View Post
You just asked for a source for a statement that was the equivalent of, "The sky is blue."
No, I asked somebody for a source on something that I had never seen said before and contradicts my own experience (as well as research into the matter).

I started playing RPGs in 1980.
I started playing MMOs in 1997.
Willard the Rat, Reman, F.T'varo - Rave, J.Trill, Kar'Fi - Mysk, Gorn, Varanus
Maal, Klingon, Mogh - Vegar, Orion, Marauder - R'ebel, Romulan, Haakona
Kopor, Nausicaan, Guramba - Nivuh, Ferasan, B'rel - Venit, Lethean, M.Qin
Captain
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,054
# 10
03-06-2013, 11:52 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by virusdancer View Post
No, I asked somebody for a source on something that I had never seen said before and contradicts my own experience (as well as research into the matter).

I started playing RPGs in 1980.
I started playing MMOs in 1997.
Then your experience has been very narrow... Because it's pretty self evident.
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 05:50 PM.