Ensign
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 19
# 251
04-10-2013, 08:12 AM
I dont see any usefull improvement of cruisers or scienceships on this changes. today, we dont need more armor oder any simple sciencebuff. These changes will not give the posibility to reach a frist place in a fleetaction like minefield against a escort. These changes doesnt make cruisers oder scienceships more efficent on the pve-content.

there are only 2 real usefull options:

1. reduce the survibility of escorts so they need to be supported by cruisers and scienceships
2. increase the outgoing damage of cruisers and scienceships to make them more efficent for actual content

Geckos suggestions are ony smoke screens...
Captain
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 3,203
# 252
04-10-2013, 08:19 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by relizarraras View Post
Armor for all. But give armor "weight". Make it lower the turn rate, inertia and impulse modifier of ships.
Something like rcs accelerators work but inverse. The lower your base turn, the less it affects you. Ships with very low movement stats, like cruisers and carriers, would be basically inmune to being affected by armor weight.

Also maybe, heavy armor exclusive of cruisers. Escorts limited to light armor. Everything in between light and medium armor.
Different types of armor would have varying ways of modifying movement stats.
NO !

The LAST thing I want on my cruiser is more weight on a ship that powerslides for 10km. Sure it would be nice to just sit a 7km and be invincible with the heavy armour and endless supply of heals but it won't happen against an escort who MUST be within 3km to get his DHC up to their damage potential, who you want to give light armour to.

I think the best option is to leave armour alone and de-tank the scort- cut the boff hull heals about 40% across the board, that way cruisers who already have many more eng boff power slots gain their advantage back.

Gekos proposal is simply to force players into ships they don't particularly want to fly. It has nothing to do with equipment balance, it's all about getting players out of fighters and into bombers.
KBF Lord MalaK
Awoken Dead

Contact support @ https://support.perfectworld.com/app/ask
to show your displeasure over the stealth mail attachment nerf

Last edited by lordmalak1; 04-10-2013 at 08:21 AM.
Captain
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 3,322
# 253
04-10-2013, 08:27 AM
26 pages of preferential power creep...
as it turns out, an intrepid would lose a fight with a connie.
and thats canon.
! the power of plot compels you.
Republic Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 799
# 254
04-10-2013, 08:41 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by crypticgeko View Post
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.

So bottom line, would you be willing to loose Engineering Damage Resistance consoles for an armor slot that gives you about the same resistance, but also offers you more options.
Definitely option #2, that's also what was proposed by players around a year ago. Moving the current Engineering Resistance Consoles out of the system is the logical approach when adding an Armor slot to ships to replace said functionality.

Also it doesn't necessesairly raise the survivability, when most/Top end ships already run full Neutronium Alloy Consoles.
Republic Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 459
# 255
04-10-2013, 09:28 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by crypticgeko View Post
Thanks for starting this discussion.

First, let?s take Warp Cores out of the discussion. If STO gets a Warp Core, it will have little to do with armor.

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.


So bottom line, would you be willing to loose Engineering Damage Resistance consoles for an armor slot that gives you about the same resistance, but also offers you more options.
I say opition 2 but I honestly like the idea of armor plating becoming %based hp or +structural integrity skill consoles this would decrease the effect it would have escorts and science vessels but on high hp ships it would give more effect. I know you don't want to increase all ships survivability but that's one of the reason people use engineering slots to began with, if you want normalize it by lowering the effect of the structural integrity skill... Or buffing mob kinetic damage by a small amount...

However i think each of the different armor consoles should have a effect unique to them. Like a bonus to hull repair or power insulators or thrusters or warp core potential or shield emitters or inertial dampers, maybe even counter measures,when hull is hit with ____ damage type... or just remove armor consoles from the game..Though then how would you handle refunding the people with lots of valuable armor consoles..


Becuase I think we are long over due for a console or anything really besides deflectors which help HP... Though I guess you could just make hp a mod on the armor slotted, if so make another mod crew death resistance...

Also about sets I'm not sure it would be to out of the question the possibility of adding set with armor piece that could either be heavy or normal depending on the ship its slotted in or to different armor pieces that serve the set the same function..

You could do option 1 in the short term and then go option 2.But option 2 needs heavy testing and getting alot of feedback from pve player to pvp player alike before implementing to live.... If you go this route please allow people on test server to get a hold of the mark 12 armor's easily, like set up a free store in earth space dock and Klingon home world, possible romulan new home as well.
Ensign
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 19
# 256
04-10-2013, 10:45 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnsteward View Post
This thread is so sad. People bending over backwards in the small hope geckos reads this AND acts on it.
To me personally its hard to determine whether gecko is just a bad game designer or simply cornered by cryptics limited understanding of how to make money off of us.
BULLSEYE! That's just the way it is.
Career Officer
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 765
# 257
04-10-2013, 01:19 PM
I see it's been nearly a month and no feedback from Geko since his original comment. Any chance of an update on this subject from Geko or someone else at Cryptic?
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 108
# 258
04-10-2013, 01:36 PM
Ok seriously 26 pages?

The issue with engineering consoles is three fold.

1) Armor calculations are completely ludicrious. +35 from dibirnium, only gives what +7%??? more damage resistance to just disruptor damage for me.
2) Nuetronium is simply the best, since it not only mitigates income all incoming energy fire, but gives a kinetic protection too. Since the rate of protection is so non linear, the +18 damage resistance is almost all the benefit I could ask for.
3) You geniuses painted yourself into a corner with releasing escorts with as many engineering consoles as a cruiser.

If your looking for actual fixes longterm...

1) This is no different then science, and tactical consoles you really should revamp the entire system. There are a plethora of consoles that you've completely made OMG LOL YOU USE THAT?

2)Keep the same system, give cruisers a more profound hull point advantage. These things are supposed to be massive survivable ships, these things are where sci ships should be IMHO.
Captain
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,089
# 259
04-10-2013, 02:02 PM
I wouldn't mind an armor console.

And on the subject of weight and heavy armor.

I think that part of the reason that a cruiser should be capable of equipping heavy armor is that it has the size and engine power to not be weighed down by it, so Engineers should have a bonus where they can equip armor, even heavy armor without suffering a maneuverability hit.

Quote:
Originally Posted by haarspalter View Post
I dont see any usefull improvement of cruisers or scienceships on this changes. today, we dont need more armor oder any simple sciencebuff. These changes will not give the posibility to reach a frist place in a fleetaction like minefield against a escort. These changes doesnt make cruisers oder scienceships more efficent on the pve-content.

there are only 2 real usefull options:

1. reduce the survibility of escorts so they need to be supported by cruisers and scienceships
2. increase the outgoing damage of cruisers and scienceships to make them more efficent for actual content

Geckos suggestions are ony smoke screens...
2!

Increase the outgoing damage. That way all cruiser and/or sci teams aren't hobbled in STFs.

Although one is meaningful enough that it should be implemented as well, that would hobble a tactical vessel that is not supported by a cruiser or sci. There's a difference between meaningful team work and forced interdependence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dwhornet View Post
Ok seriously 26 pages?

The issue with engineering consoles is three fold.

1) Armor calculations are completely ludicrious. +35 from dibirnium, only gives what +7%??? more damage resistance to just disruptor damage for me.
2) Nuetronium is simply the best, since it not only mitigates income all incoming energy fire, but gives a kinetic protection too. Since the rate of protection is so non linear, the +18 damage resistance is almost all the benefit I could ask for.
3) You geniuses painted yourself into a corner with releasing escorts with as many engineering consoles as a cruiser.

If your looking for actual fixes longterm...

1) This is no different then science, and tactical consoles you really should revamp the entire system. There are a plethora of consoles that you've completely made OMG LOL YOU USE THAT?

2)Keep the same system, give cruisers a more profound hull point advantage. These things are supposed to be massive survivable ships, these things are where sci ships should be IMHO.
On that last point I find it curious, there are enemy npc cruisers that have 60-100+k hit points, but most cruisers we can play as top out in the 60K range I guess on the Oddy and B'Q? Aren't these supposed to be ships from the superpowers in the region?
Yes I support This

"Rise like Lions after slumber, In unvanquishable number, Shake your chains to earth like dew, Which in sleep had fallen on you-Ye are many they are few"
Captain
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 5,280
# 260
04-10-2013, 02:19 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dwhornet View Post
Ok seriously 26 pages?
It's only 7 pages long for me.
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 07:47 AM.