Ensign
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 17
Hello. My name is TopCat (IGN) and this are a few game changes i thought in order to balance some of the problems we encounter in the game.
I'll try to even explain my thought process.

1) The introduction of a Power Capacity.

It's a obvious that a Cruiser should have the biggest power reserves, while the escort the lowest.
To make it easier to understand :

(random numbers to make it easier to comprehend...i could give a full table of values for every ship)
Cruiser : 1 000 power
Science : 800 power
Escort : 600 power.

The bigger the ship, the higher the power.

If all ships have %

weapons : 100
shields : 50
engine : 25
aux : 25.

That would make (cruiser/science/escort)

weapons : 500/ 400 / 300
shields : 250 / 200 / 150
engine: 125/ 100 / 75
aux : 125/ 100 / 75

Weapons
Now ... when a Cruiser fires it's weapons , it has a more energy from which the drain can occur. So i suggest the weapons drain from the power capacity not the percentage of power alocated (drain from the 500 instead of the 100% ). That means a cruiser can maintain it's power levels higher and not suffer huge drains from the sustained fire. An escort still has the burst but can't maintain it forever. Science vessel is somewhere in between.

Drains will be made from the Power Capacity which will regenerate over time , power levels will drop according to the remaining Power Capacity ( 250/500 power will mean that you will have 50/100 in weapons power)

Shields

More power..more resilient shields. Ex: cruiser with 250 power allocated should have 15% bonus dmg reduction, science 200 power will have 10% and the escort 5%. (random numbers subjected to change .. i can also try to provide a full table of values for power influencing shields). Take in consideration a low level cruiser could have 300 available power, that means it would have 75 power available in shields, receiving no bonuses.

Engines

Power capacity / <unique number for each ship > = turn rate and speed (it might require 2 numbers here). Cruisers have a higher number , since they are massive ...escorts have the lowest. This will be a game of sizes . Since the number is unique , the base turn rate could be changed with this number.

Auxilary power
Power capacity / <unique number> = bonus to skills influenced by aux power. You should be able to feel the difference when using Tyken Rift 1 ,for example on a low class ship and on a tier 5 ship.

The current bonuses given by power to subsystems is unaffected by my addition (it just makes the levels harder to drop on cruisers and science vessels).
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Ship addtional passives


Just one of them (giving even more choices for players)

Escort possible passives : bonus accuracy, bonus shield penetration, bonus damage on weapons , increased proc rate on weapons, additional effects on weapons (yes...this could go a bit overboard if not checked) etc.

Escort threat level is unaffected. 0%

Cruisers possible passives : regenerate shields on hit,bonus damage reduction, increased shields, etc.

Also all beam arrays mounted on Cruisers should get 360 firing arc instead of 250 (for all the comments about turrets -> escorts and science still need them). Cruisers should be feared, unable to be cornered and deal sustained moderated damage.

All cruisers get 25% bonus Threat

Science possible passives : decreased cooldown on science skills , bonus damage on some skills, bonus effects when using some skills etc.

All Science Vessels get -25% threat and Carriers get 0%.

Also...if any of these changes are implemented i expect at least a thank you .

Last edited by legacyofdarkness; 03-11-2013 at 01:49 PM.
Captain
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 3,465
# 2
03-11-2013, 12:16 PM
You do realize that most of what you're suggesting, especially in regards to power levels, already exists in-game right? The only difference being magnitude and implementation.
Starfleet Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,731
# 3
03-11-2013, 01:13 PM
Hello,

I fly a cruiser and I think a number of changes should be implemented so my favorite ship is the best in the game.

There are many of these threads every day.

As an Engineer I know that higher power levels can be achieved by higher pressures in smaller devices so the old "Cruisers have more space" rule doesn't apply.
If your post is anything like, "I have a sandwich so you can't be starving" it's time to rethink posting.
Ensign
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 17
# 4
03-11-2013, 01:47 PM
#1 These changes are not in the game right now and i was aiming for them to be easy to implement.
#2 Really...do you think i actually think i'm aiming to improve just the Cruiser? With my modifications , Science vessels could actually be a viable choice.
#3 I'm pretty good at stuff like that too. But my RULE still applies. More space = more space to store those smaller devices you were talking about. If two ships use the same type of generator with the same efficiency, the one with the bigger generator will be able to produce more ammounts of energy. More matter conversion.

Oooppss..i forgot the passive Threat changes.

p.s: i also took in consideration the Star Trek series. I also know about the Defiant Escort. And i also could provide a more detailed value table if my ideas are taken into consideration

Last edited by legacyofdarkness; 03-11-2013 at 01:55 PM.
Starfleet Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,731
# 5
03-11-2013, 01:51 PM
Cruisers are designed for L O N G voyages.

All that extra space is for supplies and parts.

An Escort is a comparably short ranged vehicle designed for war.

Compare a military transport to a jet fighter.
If your post is anything like, "I have a sandwich so you can't be starving" it's time to rethink posting.
Ensign
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 17
# 6
03-11-2013, 01:57 PM
Are you telling me that the HUUUUUUGE ENGINEERING ROOM is just for show?! My life is a lie...

Really now...think about it. Even maintaining a shield over a huge ship means that you have to generate tons of power


And if you want to compare it that way :

Jet fighters have limited ammo and after a short skirmish they're nothing more than targets.
Military transports have more defensive capabilities and ammo to last for a few weeks.

My changes will just shorten the time an escort is able to sustain it's damage output and it will increase damage of the Cruiser making the gap in power lower. That's all. The escort will still remain at the top of the food chain...but it will think twice on who to bite

Last edited by legacyofdarkness; 03-11-2013 at 01:59 PM.
Captain
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 3,465
# 7
03-12-2013, 05:33 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by legacyofdarkness View Post
#1 These changes are not in the game right now and i was aiming for them to be easy to implement.
#2 Really...do you think i actually think i'm aiming to improve just the Cruiser? With my modifications , Science vessels could actually be a viable choice.
#3 I'm pretty good at stuff like that too. But my RULE still applies. More space = more space to store those smaller devices you were talking about. If two ships use the same type of generator with the same efficiency, the one with the bigger generator will be able to produce more ammounts of energy. More matter conversion.

Oooppss..i forgot the passive Threat changes.

p.s: i also took in consideration the Star Trek series. I also know about the Defiant Escort. And i also could provide a more detailed value table if my ideas are taken into consideration
1) So there isn't a drain mechanic in place for weapons? High shield power doesn't yield a shield resist boost? Higher engine power doesn't yield better engine performance? Higher aux doesn't boost sci abilities? FYI, all of those currently happen in-game.

2) Power levels aren't the problem with sci abilities (and by extenstion science ships) at the moment. It's the inherently flawed design decisions Cryptic has made when it comes to skills (most notable power insulators) and science powers.

3) You're making a flawed assumption that

a) All ships use the exact same power distribution theory (IE: that all ships proportionally devote the same percentage of power to each task)

and

b) That Trek canon has any bearing on space gameplay mechanics
Ensign
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 17
# 8
03-12-2013, 06:12 AM
1) They do but mine are additional boosts. If you would have read my ideas you would know that ,for example , a tier 5 science ship (which has more power available) will do more damage with the same skill at the same level compared to using the same skill on a tier 3.

My changes would mean that drains will occur from a base number rather than the % allocated to that subsystem.

2) Yes they are. Power levels are what screw up since all ships are classified by % in the system. It's like saying that 1% of China is equal to 1% of Vatican. China has more than 1 billion population and the Vatican has less than 800. Now do you see the flaw ?!

3) I am not making assumptions based on the game. I am saying that the concept of devoting % of power is FLAWED. That mechanic should remain in the game to make it easier to change between offense and defense , but another mechanic must be added.
My suggestions :
http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/sh...d.php?t=581161
Captain
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 3,465
# 9
03-12-2013, 06:28 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by legacyofdarkness View Post
1) They do but mine are additional boosts. If you would have read my ideas you would know that ,for example , a tier 5 science ship (which has more power available) will do more damage with the same skill at the same level compared to using the same skill on a tier 3.

My changes would mean that drains will occur from a base number rather than the % allocated to that subsystem.
Just because I disagree with you, doesn't mean that I didn't read your ramblings. Please try to understand that before you run off and insult someone again.

Weapon drain already occurs on an absolute, not a percentage, scale. DHCs don't drain 12% of your power, they drain 12 power while firing. Beams don't drain 10%, they drain 10.

Secondly, you've made zero mention of tier-based balance modifications prior to now. All you've done is talk about more capacitor-like power pools.

Quote:
Originally Posted by legacyofdarkness View Post
2) Yes they are. Power levels are what screw up since all ships are classified by % in the system. It's like saying that 1% of China is equal to 1% of Vatican. China has more than 1 billion population and the Vatican has less than 800. Now do you see the flaw ?!
You really need to learn to understand the mechanics behind science abilities. Not only are most of them shadows of what they once were, many of them can be effectively ignored if the target has serious points into power insulators (which just about everything does).

Power level tweaks aren't going to change that, nor will a completely irrelevant analogy about two different nations' population.

Quote:
Originally Posted by legacyofdarkness View Post
3) I am not making assumptions based on the game. I am saying that the concept of devoting % of power is FLAWED. That mechanic should remain in the game to make it easier to change between offense and defense , but another mechanic must be added.
So you're *not* saying that larger ships should have more power capacity simply because they're larger?
Commander
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 255
# 10
03-12-2013, 07:09 AM
I know larger ships should have more power capacity because they're larger. It all goes back to what Sisko said in regards to the defiant, which was essentially this: "She's over gunned for a ship her size."

This essentially means the defiant over packed on weaponry because there's not enough power to make it work. In the end they made it work but the point is, from a Star Trek canon perspective which can and does have an impact in this game, there are limits on the fire power of a ship. The bigger the ship, the more power you have presumably due to more room for bigger toys.

Also one can reasonably presume that the defiant's firepower doesn't necessarily make it THE go to ship for borg combat, it's the size. It's a smaller target, therefore harder to hit. A ship that's quick on it's toes with the firepower of awesome = defiant is born. Yet it didn't work but for the convenience of the watching experience the crew of DS9 did what Star Trek engineers who do nothing more than build ships all day couldn't: make the defiant go.


My point is, it makes sense for power capacity to make a difference and I would like to see cruiser sized ships take their rightful place as #1 damage dealer but fall behind escorts for DPS due to their nature and lack of steering capability that escorts have to maintain their sustained DPS output as ships of war. We have that right now to an extent but certain changes could make it more profound and balanced.
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 03:22 PM.