Empire Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 87
# 221
03-21-2013, 04:05 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by loading159 View Post
I suggested this earlier but immediatly found it would make it extremely easy for escorts in an STF, they could just stack that hull armor and hull tank and shield tank the whole time pushing cruisers and sci ships even more out of the picture for STF.
Which is why the armor has speed and turn rate attached to it. An escort with three armor should have a very bad turn rate. The 2 number used in the example where just pull out as examples.
Captain
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 2,993
# 222
03-21-2013, 04:12 AM
If armor hurts your turn rate...by a PERCENTAGE, it would be extremely bad for Escorts, because if a cruiser loses a percentage of its nonexistent turn rate...meh. But for an Escort, losing a huge percentage of its turn rate is AWFUL.
Captain
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,462
# 223
03-21-2013, 05:34 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by crypticgeko View Post
Here is the bottom line we are discussing internally:

? We want to add a ship armor slot. Having more itemization is good
? Armor means Damage Resistance (to be consistent with ground Armor). Other enhancement bonuses can be available
? We don?t want to raise the survivability of every ship in the game.
? We feel Cruisers could use an increase in survivability.
? Armor could be added as a set piece.
? Armor could offer a ship material change.


So two options we are discussing:
Option 1:
? Only Cruisers Get Armor.
? No other changes needed (simple).
? We couldn't integrate armor as set piece for everyone, but it could possibly become part of a set only usable by cruisers.

Option 2:
? Everyone gets an Armor slot, but Cruisers can equip Heavy Armor.
? This is dangerous b/c it potentially raises the survivability of every ship in the game. To do this, Armor consoles would have to be changed. They would have to be something that is not related to damage mitigation (so not damage resistance, or bonus HP, or defense). The consoles would have to change to something new, or existing.
? Basic Armor could have lots of options and types, but in general, the damage resistance bonus would be equivalent to about 2 to 3 engineering consoles (for white quality - higher qualities could be better). Heavy armor would be worth much more.
Alright! Something I can sink my teeth into.


Disagree with this point. Cruisers already stay alive pretty darned well. Maybe there are many cruiser captains who aren't very good at flying cruisers so they drag the stats down? When you say "cruisers need more survivability", I hear "cruiser survivability isn't intuitive to the players" . And that is pretty much directly attributable to the fact that there's no tutorial on ship configuration nor any sandbox mode to try stuff out on the spot. If you had a tutorial of some kind that said basically that big ships which can't rely on defense from movement should use tactical teams to balance their shields and emergency power to shields to increase their hardness, then cruiser survivability in your stats would go up.

Not a fan. Basic damage mitigation should be available to every ship, especially because you don't have nice clear cut lines. Is the Jem'hadar heavy escort carrier an escort or a cruiser? It doesn't have the turn rate or tactical abilities of the first, nor does it have the hull strength and engineering abilities of the second. Same with the dreadnaught carrier, is it an escort or a cruiser? Simply dividing everything into "armored" and "not armored" forces you into the position of making extremely binary distinctions between ships, and as should be clear by now some of the most popular ships in the game are genre benders that have a bit of everything.

Not a fan of this either. Having a dedicated "heavy armor" item class is just going to cheese people off, because they'll find something really good and realize that it's the wrong kind of armor for their ship. Also, having only 1 slot for armor limits the variety that players can express. Right now players can choose a type of armor and also how much of it to carry, having to balance damage mitigation against "other". Carrying 4 layers of armor does great things for your ability to absorb damage but now you can't have an assimilated console or a Romulan ZPM without cutting into your shield strength or tactical boosts. There's tradeoff. If you have only 1 slot, then people are going to fill that 1 slot and that's the end of it.

If you really want to increase cruiser survivability via damage mitigation, and only specifically cruisers, then leave armor alone and add cruiser-exclusive engineering consoles that increase the performance of the armor they can already choose to carry. This leaves every ship at their current level of tank except for cruisers, who gain the option to harden up further by installing their exclusive consoles. As random brainstorms:
* Redundant hull bonding: Reduces the chance to be hit critically, and the hitpoint severerity of critical hits, based on your damage resistance.
* Powered plating: Multiplies your damage resistance by a factor based on your Aux power level.
* Nano-active systems: Automatic hull repair rate is increased.
* Regenerative couplngs: Energy weapon damage to the hull will increase your ship's power levels.
* Microstabilizers: Shield hardness and regeneration rate is multiplied by a factor based on your armor's resistance.
* Sensor-stealthed surfacing: Adds a passive Defense value based on your armor's resistance
Empire Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 87
# 224
03-21-2013, 05:51 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by doffingcomrade View Post
If armor hurts your turn rate...by a PERCENTAGE, it would be extremely bad for Escorts, because if a cruiser loses a percentage of its nonexistent turn rate...meh. But for an Escort, losing a huge percentage of its turn rate is AWFUL.
the idea. Our have to chose between extra survivability at the cost of speed and turn. like wise a curiser captain that chose to for go armor would gain speed and turn rate.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 193
# 225
03-21-2013, 05:59 AM
I am all for more options, customization, and set slots. That said, I feel the only fair way to proceed is including everyship type for the inclusion of an armor slot.

Now couldn't it be possible that these armor items could have passive stats on them much like the Romulan Reputation consoles, only in this case the bonuses would be tailored toward a much broader, gameplay changing design.

By having tough choices attached to each type, the player would have to decide what the best advantage and subsequently lest dis-advantage when equiping the armor.

Heavy armor could drastically increase survival, but light armor makes your ship faster and turn better. Photonic armor reduces recharge times on all science abilities. Just some examples off the top of my head.
Empire Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 87
# 226
03-21-2013, 09:29 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ocp001 View Post
...
Escorts (generally) got Dual Heavy Cannons to pew with extreme prejudice.

...
And the Vesta, and dreadnought and battle cruisers all which are not escorts.
Ensign
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 2
# 227 Armor Slot
03-21-2013, 09:50 PM
I really don't understand wanting to increase cruiser survivability. Cruisers are already tough enough that I fly them with tactical captains without any trouble. With an engineer captain they are practically indestructible. Survivability is their only real strength, besides shield healing.

If you want to make cruisers more attractive, as others have already said, you need to look at the areas in which they are lacking, like damage output. A power bonus, like a heavier class of Warp Core, would help. Just making beam arrays better, or having more wide angle torpedo launchers would go a long way.

I just really don't understand why anyone would want to take the most ineffectual ship class and make them better at the only thing they already do extremely well, instead of addressing their flaws.

Someone else mentioned that it likely had to do with statistics and how often cruisers actually get blown up in game. But that person hit the nail on the head when they said that most players don't know HOW to fly a cruiser, what abilities to use and so on, because the game doesn't actually tell you. Personally, I had to learn from forums, the sto wiki and a lot of trail and error.
Career Officer
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,691
# 228
03-22-2013, 01:11 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by imralizal View Post
I just really don't understand why anyone would want to take the most ineffectual ship class and make them better at the only thing they already do extremely well, instead of addressing their flaws.
As you mentioned in your post, most players have no idea how to play or how to get anything worthwhile out of their ships. These players gravitate towards cruisers because their ridiculous durability allows them to play the game. For them, the idea of making a cruiser even tougher sounds like a FANTASTIC idea. Cryptic knows that by making cruisers tougher they will sell more of them if nothing else. How often do people talk about the amazing great tac capability of the Ody, and how often to people rave about how durable it is? Clearly, the average player wants more and more indestructible ships above all else.
Empire Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 802
# 229
03-22-2013, 03:28 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by doffingcomrade View Post
If armor hurts your turn rate...by a PERCENTAGE, it would be extremely bad for Escorts, because if a cruiser loses a percentage of its nonexistent turn rate...meh. But for an Escort, losing a huge percentage of its turn rate is AWFUL.
If we can get flat rate based RCS console in return, you can have flat rate based armor turn rate penalty

-= ISE: 12:19 -=- CSE 12:41 -=- KASE 11:59 -=- HSe 8:06 total =-
-= KAGE 5:43 =-
[7:07] [Combat (Self)] Your Dual Disruptor Banks - Overload II deals 123086 (41096) Disruptor Damage(Critical) to Assimilated Carrier.
Captain
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,440
# 230
03-22-2013, 03:41 AM
OK , where did this "armor VS turn rate" thing come from ?
It wasn't here before (while you were still slotting armor) , so why now ?
STO will be out of Beta in another 2-4 years ???
... you know after another 3 story arc remasters, crafting revamp, skills revamp, PVP upgrade ...
*note : the 2-4 year guesstimate came out of comparing Cryptic's Dev speed and that of a snail . Sadly the snail won .
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 07:24 AM.