Go Back   Star Trek Online > Feedback > Federation Gameplay
Login

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Commander
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 336
# 31
03-25-2013, 01:22 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by chi1701d View Post
its your oppinion that they are supposed to tank. Cryptic stated and no i cant get a direct link to this, that before launch and after, that the term tank doesn't mean trinity tank but ability to absorb damage, they used tank because people understood that concept.
I do recall reading something about that.

However, it used to be that ship classes on the Federation side could be clearly divided into those three groups. The stats and abilities also corresponded to such labels, so I hardly think that it was the case in practice.

I also remember something about the devs referring to a "trinity", in which case I will say that they need to get with the programming.
Captain
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 855
# 32
03-25-2013, 08:24 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by chi1701d View Post
its your oppinion that they are supposed to tank. Cryptic stated and no i cant get a direct link to this, that before launch and after, that the term tank doesn't mean trinity tank but ability to absorb damage, they used tank because people understood that concept.
Wrong again. It is my opinion that Cruisers are the jack of all trades of Star Trek. Not once have I suggested they should tank. The "Escort fanboys" are the ones who claim that Cruisers should stick to tanking, and leave the dps role to Escorts.
Captain
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 2,405
# 33
03-26-2013, 02:17 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by eraserfish View Post
Carriers.


Quote:
Originally Posted by eraserfish View Post
In a way, this thread points out that the so-called trinity no longer exists, and that this will only become more evident as time goes on.
I fully agree.
Trying to put Star Trek ships into the so called "trinity" was a bad idea from the beginning.
It's just another indication of how little some devs understand about Star Trek ships IMO.

-> -> -> STO players unite and say NO to ARC <- <- <-

The "TT and/or AtB less builds" - Thread
Career Officer
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,215
# 34
03-26-2013, 06:00 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by gardat View Post
Have you considered you might need to just become better at internet spaceships?

This reads like "I am bad and need lots of help. Here are my ideas to break the game.".
I'm still laughing...

I might need to make that my sig...

Edit: Yup, I had too!

And I suppose I'll drop my customary "Cruisers are fine, its beams that are broken, use single cannons and L2P" here.
Vice Admiral Space Orphidian Possiblities Wizard

Last edited by kimmym; 03-26-2013 at 06:59 AM.
Commander
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 336
# 35
03-26-2013, 04:45 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by kimmym View Post
I'm still laughing...

I might need to make that my sig...

Edit: Yup, I had too!

And I suppose I'll drop my customary "Cruisers are fine, its beams that are broken, use single cannons and L2P" here.
And I suppose I'll drop my customary "What do cruisers do better than other ship types" in response.

It's not just beams either: Eng BOff skills are a bit iffy compared to Tactical and Science.

As for game-breaking... perhaps you should consider the idea a little further before rushing to judge it. All I have suggested is to replace two existing seats on each Fed cruiser with universals, and to switch over one Engineering console slot to Universal. The former is something that has already been put into practice.

Last edited by eraserfish; 03-26-2013 at 04:49 PM.
Captain
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 2,405
# 36
03-27-2013, 11:42 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by eraserfish View Post
And I suppose I'll drop my customary "What do cruisers do better than other ship types" in response.

It's not just beams either: Eng BOff skills are a bit iffy compared to Tactical and Science.

As for game-breaking... perhaps you should consider the idea a little further before rushing to judge it. All I have suggested is to replace two existing seats on each Fed cruiser with universals, and to switch over one Engineering console slot to Universal. The former is something that has already been put into practice.
I think your idea is not that far-fetched.
Since we all know that Cruisers should be "jack of all trades" they need some way to become more versatile.

-> -> -> STO players unite and say NO to ARC <- <- <-

The "TT and/or AtB less builds" - Thread
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 195
# 37
03-27-2013, 11:20 PM
Between all the cruisers that have been released they've pretty much covered all the configurations, so more universal slots do not mean versatility, just doing the same thing with a different skin if you want. A cosmetic change at best, and destroying the individuality of each cruiser at worst.

The console portion is essentially advocating that every cruiser swaps an engineering console for a tactical one. Because that's the only thing anyone would ever use a universal console slot for.

So I guess the suggestion boils down to a tiny bit more weapon damage, faster turning, and 'let me fly my galaxy like a sovereign pretty please'. I'm sure many people would welcome the first two, but they just don't seem necessary nor particularly effective at combating the perceived 'weaknesses' of cruisers.
Captain
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 2,405
# 38
03-28-2013, 04:31 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by mscowboy View Post
Between all the cruisers that have been released they've pretty much covered all the configurations, so more universal slots do not mean versatility, just doing the same thing with a different skin if you want. A cosmetic change at best, and destroying the individuality of each cruiser at worst.
In a certain sense, i don't see any big individuality in STO when it comes to ships. Most poeple fly their preferred BOFF&Console Layout not the actual ship they like.

And Yes universal BOFF slots do mean more versatility for each individual ship.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mscowboy View Post
The console portion is essentially advocating that every cruiser swaps an engineering console for a tactical one. Because that's the only thing anyone would ever use a universal console slot for.
Thats just a indication of the DPS focus of STO in general, If there where more usable and offenive focussed Engineering powers or even Consoles, people wouldn't be so fixated on Tactical Consoles.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mscowboy View Post
So I guess the suggestion boils down to a tiny bit more weapon damage, faster turning, and 'let me fly my galaxy like a sovereign pretty please'. I'm sure many people would welcome the first two, but they just don't seem necessary nor particularly effective at combating the perceived 'weaknesses' of cruisers.
I think the problem lies much deeper.
Cryptic obviously put Star Trek ships into a Game Mechanic which forces them to work completely different as they are supposed to.
Apart from the MMO player mass which obviously prefers Escorts as "Master of everything", some like Crusiers more. Those (including me) are of course disappointed about how wrong/weak/teethless Cryptic made the primary Star Trek ships in their game. I think it'sunderstandable that those people want to make the best of their ships, even if it's something little as an additional tactical Console or a slightly different BOFF layout.
But as long as people are in charge who prefer to fly Escorts themselves, we certainly won't see any big change.

-> -> -> STO players unite and say NO to ARC <- <- <-

The "TT and/or AtB less builds" - Thread
Commander
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 336
# 39
03-28-2013, 05:30 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by mscowboy View Post
Between all the cruisers that have been released they've pretty much covered all the configurations, so more universal slots do not mean versatility, just doing the same thing with a different skin if you want. A cosmetic change at best, and destroying the individuality of each cruiser at worst.

The console portion is essentially advocating that every cruiser swaps an engineering console for a tactical one. Because that's the only thing anyone would ever use a universal console slot for.

So I guess the suggestion boils down to a tiny bit more weapon damage, faster turning, and 'let me fly my galaxy like a sovereign pretty please'. I'm sure many people would welcome the first two, but they just don't seem necessary nor particularly effective at combating the perceived 'weaknesses' of cruisers.
I actually prefer the Sovereign to the Galaxy.

The point of my suggestion is to bring Federation cruisers closer to the multipurpose role as they have traditionally been depicted in canon material. I believe that the function of cruisers is no longer applicable, as carriers seem to surpass them entirely. At this rate, I believe that the current specification for the cruiser will no longer become viable.

If you have gone back to my original post, you'll notice that the Universal BOff stations would not completely replace existing specializations. My suggestion is such that the Commander Engineering is always retained, and that there would be at least two specialized BOff stations regardless. The point is to introduce a little more flexibility to cruiser gameplay, because cruisers at present do lack individuality, primarily due to the limitations of the Engineering BOff abilities that they are forced to specialize at.

Undoubtedly, many people would turn a Universal Console slot into a Tactical one, but not all. Not too much to be done about that...
Empire Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 6,757
I completely disagree with the idea but if your gonna push for these changes on the feds its only fair that the KDF battle cruisers are also similarily buffed to maintane gameplay feel and factional differences.
Roy Hatch (stryker) soldier, friend, and good man.
1945-2014
RIP
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 01:16 AM.