Starfleet Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,580
# 71
05-01-2013, 11:13 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by daggermoon View Post
here you go from dev blog.

The T'varo Light Warbird Retrofit is an upgraded version of the Warbirds used in the 22rd Century. Like the T'liss, the T'varo is fast, light, and maneuverable. .

It is equipped with a Romulan Enhanced Battle Cloaking Device. This allows them to fire projectile weapons and remain cloaked. Directed Energy weapons still cannot be used while cloaked.

The T'varo Light Warbird Retrofit comes with a universal Plasma Destabilizer console. This console allows you to launch a massive slow moving Destabilized Plasma Torpedo. This torpedo can be targeted and attacked, but it is much more resilient than a standard High Yield torpedo. Note that this is a console, not a weapon. This console can only be equipped on the T'varo Light Warbird Retrofit, as well as its the Fleet version (see below) .

Unlike most Retrofit ships, this ship is available at the rank of Subadmiral I.
Yep thats the one, EBC and a shiny toy. Altho IIRC it has the deifant layout for bo's and consoles. But that was on tribble and could have just been a place holder.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 191
# 72
05-02-2013, 03:01 AM
The cloak is a trade off its that simple. Believe me the Defiant is a freaking cannon. Ive toasted more then my fair share of ships with that ship. What I will say, and I think most will agree on this, is some of the officer spots like the extra ensign need to be universal. Furthermore these spots bring out a cool down issue. In almost all the tier one bridge officer abilities, they all share the same cool down. I kinda find this pointless, sense a ship in the va range, ends up with allot of tier one abilities. So you pick them but they are all on the same cool down, this results in useless. Only few are usable due to there cool down, like tactical team. This is why I think it would be wise to turn all those ensign slots into universal slots.

As I posted in another thread I think all cruisers need the bulk of there firepower moved front of the ships, while maintaining the broadside dps. Just my thoughts.
Survivor of Romulus
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,447
# 73
05-02-2013, 03:34 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by thecosmic1 View Post
But they're like the Regent: 9 console ships as opposed to 10 console T5.5 Fleet ships. The Vesta, Odyssey, and Kumari packs are the only C-Store T5.5 10 console ships. The rest must be purchased in the Fleet store - where you'll find the T5.5 Galaxy, Intrepid, and Defiant. So effectively the Galaxy, Intrepid, and Defiant Rs are no more powerful than any other RA ship.
The steamrunner (T5.5 VA) is also at 10 console "fleet" grade ship.

Quote:
Originally Posted by borticuscryptic View Post
I find this line of replies sadly hilarious. We put a lot of work into the massive list of fixes/changes above, and ya'll are hung up on the ability to skip our content. =p
Community Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 3,628
# 74
05-02-2013, 09:34 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by thratch1 View Post
Plus, it wasn't that they turned just cloaks into consoles, but every special ability. I believe it was Season 5 that they did this, and turned abilities like Saucer Sep into consoles. The difference being, other cloak-capable ships kept their cloaks as integrated abilities on top of having their special consoles.
I really don't want this thread to continue to be about cloaking, but... in regard to integrated ability vs console...

My take on that is that Klingons have cloak. It's a standard feature of every klingon BoP, Raptor, and Battlecruiser. The only KDF ships that don't have it are the race-specific ships and the carriers. The C-Store versions of these ships have the standard features (including cloak), plus a console.

It would not be fair to effectively take away a console slot on every Klingon vessel by changing cloak from integrated to console. Nobody's suggesting that, mind you. I'm just making a point. The KDF C-Store ships don't have to use Cloaking consoles, nor should they.

The Federation, however, does not officially have cloaking technology. It is not a standard feature on any Federation vessel as of right now (and hopefully never).

Cloaking IS the special feature of the C-Store Defiant. It doesn't need another special feature. Like all other C-Store ships, it gets a console and that console provides the special feature of cloaking. No other Federation ships with the exception of the Gal-X get access to that special feature.

Now, I'm going to ask that any further discussion of an integrated cloaking device for the Defiant and Galaxy-X be separated into another thread. Feel free to start one.
Volunteer Community Moderator for the Star Trek Online forums -- My views may not represent those of Cryptic Studios or Perfect World Entertainment. If you wish to speak to someone on the community team, file a "forums and website" support ticket here, as we are not able to respond to PMs regarding moderation inquiries.
Link: How to PM - Twitter @STOMod_Bluegeek
Captain
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 941
# 75
05-02-2013, 10:26 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by bluegeek View Post
I really don't want this thread to continue to be about cloaking, but... in regard to integrated ability vs console...

My take on that is that Klingons have cloak. It's a standard feature of every klingon BoP, Raptor, and Battlecruiser. The only KDF ships that don't have it are the race-specific ships and the carriers. The C-Store versions of these ships have the standard features (including cloak), plus a console.

It would not be fair to effectively take away a console slot on every Klingon vessel by changing cloak from integrated to console. Nobody's suggesting that, mind you. I'm just making a point. The KDF C-Store ships don't have to use Cloaking consoles, nor should they.

The Federation, however, does not officially have cloaking technology. It is not a standard feature on any Federation vessel as of right now (and hopefully never).

Cloaking IS the special feature of the C-Store Defiant. It doesn't need another special feature. Like all other C-Store ships, it gets a console and that console provides the special feature of cloaking. No other Federation ships with the exception of the Gal-X get access to that special feature.

Now, I'm going to ask that any further discussion of an integrated cloaking device for the Defiant and Galaxy-X be separated into another thread. Feel free to start one.
The cloaking issue was brought up in the original post, though. It's clearly on track and relevant to the thread.

You're also bringing story reasons into the cloaking discussion, after you yourself put an end to the conversation Cosmic and I were having about the story reasons behind cloaking in Star Trek. So let's stay on track and stick to the gameplay balance discussion re: cloaks (and any other issue brought up by the OP that people wish to discuss). If you don't want to talk about cloaks, you don't have to, but you can't say it's not on topic.

To reiterate what I've said before: it would be more balanced with the Klingon ships, and upcoming Romulan ships, to give Federation characters access to cloaking ships without a restriction that no other cloaking ship has. It feels very arbitrary at this point for Federation ships to be singled out as the only ones needing to use a console slot for their cloaking device, when both the Romulans and the Klingons get ships with standard cloaks that do not use up console space.

Daggermoon actually brought up an interesting bit of infomation on the upcoming T'varo Warbird:

Quote:
Originally Posted by daggermoon View Post
here you go from dev blog.

The T'varo Light Warbird Retrofit is an upgraded version of the Warbirds used in the 22rd Century. Like the T'liss, the T'varo is fast, light, and maneuverable.

It is equipped with a Romulan Enhanced Battle Cloaking Device. This allows them to fire projectile weapons and remain cloaked. Directed Energy weapons still cannot be used while cloaked.
With a follow-up from disposeableh3r0:

Quote:
Originally Posted by disposeableh3r0 View Post
Yep thats the one, EBC and a shiny toy. Altho IIRC it has the deifant layout for bo's and consoles. But that was on tribble and could have just been a place holder.
So, if this is true, then the Romulans may be getting a ship that is a copy of the Defiant's stats, but with an integrated Enhanced Battle Cloak. Despite being in the same tier as the Defiant, it would be clearly and without question a superior ship just for that, even if I got my way and the Defiant's regular cloak was re-integrated.

Of course, Snoggymack22 had what I thought to be the most believable, and disappointing, post in this whole thread:

Quote:
Originally Posted by snoggymack22 View Post
That can be said for more than a few ships. But I mean, I think the solution Cryptic wants people to do is to fly the ships with the better BOFF layouts that already exist.

Which means buying a new ship.

Which makes them more money.

Least that's how I perceive it. They haven't done a whole lot of tweaking to C-Store ships over the years. But they have put out a lot of newer, better C-Store options over the years.
Cryptic would probably just release a new Federation ship instead of changing an old one. In fact, they did just that when they released the Operations Odyssey -- it's the Galaxy Retrofit, but better in every way. Precedent seems to suggest that, for all intents and purposes, Cryptic completely forgets about every ship that's been in the game over a month.

Last edited by thratch1; 05-02-2013 at 10:45 AM.
Starfleet Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,580
# 76
05-02-2013, 08:45 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by bluegeek View Post
I really don't want this thread to continue to be about cloaking, but... in regard to integrated ability vs console...

My take on that is that Klingons have cloak. It's a standard feature of every klingon BoP, Raptor, and Battlecruiser. The only KDF ships that don't have it are the race-specific ships and the carriers. The C-Store versions of these ships have the standard features (including cloak), plus a console.

It would not be fair to effectively take away a console slot on every Klingon vessel by changing cloak from integrated to console. Nobody's suggesting that, mind you. I'm just making a point. The KDF C-Store ships don't have to use Cloaking consoles, nor should they.

The Federation, however, does not officially have cloaking technology. It is not a standard feature on any Federation vessel as of right now (and hopefully never).

Cloaking IS the special feature of the C-Store Defiant. It doesn't need another special feature. Like all other C-Store ships, it gets a console and that console provides the special feature of cloaking. No other Federation ships with the exception of the Gal-X get access to that special feature.
Now, I'm going to ask that any further discussion of an integrated cloaking device for the Defiant and Galaxy-X be separated into another thread. Feel free to start one.
I would just like to point out that the console is the same for both the gal x and the defiant. In that in you buy the X you can put the cloak on the fleet defiant.

Along those likes the gal x also gets the phaser lance and the ability to take cannons.

So in comparison the defiant gets a single ability console not unique to it and the X gets the same ability a weapon and an ability unique among fed cruisers.

While the cloaking console is at the center of my argument, to me it isn't about the cloak, it's about the bang for my buck. The cloak is worthless, cloaking in general is highly situational and really only shines in pvp, In most pve content I only cloak if I need to go take a leak, and thats only if I'm worried about being blown up in space. So still highly situational.

Real issue is that as a power its not great and in general its a power almost every one else gets for free. Maybe if there were some mechanical difference in the fed cloaks. Like the one on the defiant grants a romulan style cloak (it was loaned from the romulans) and the one on the galaxy some other sort of unique bonus(being aparently fed designed), it would seem more worth it.

But as it stands, it isn't very shiny.
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 02:34 AM.