Go Back   Star Trek Online > Feedback > The Art of Star Trek Online
Login

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Captain
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 2,825
I know it is supposed to be a part of the Haakona Advanced Warbird as much as i have understood, but that ship is just too big!
Especially since it has a turnrate of 16!

Personally i would like to have it's size reduced to be more like the Talvath Temporal destroyer.

-> -> -> STO players unite and say NO to ARC <- <- <-
T6 Guardian Class design / A 25th century Ambassador refit
Republic Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 875
# 2
12-19-2013, 06:01 AM
Its shorter and from nacelle to nacelle narrower than the Mogai, which has a base turn of 14.

It's very unlikely that a ship that has been out this long with a real money cost attached to it is going to have its model resized.
Republic Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 952
# 3
12-19-2013, 06:07 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by yreodred View Post
I know it is supposed to be a part of the Haakona Advanced Warbird as much as i have understood, but that ship is just too big!
Especially since it has a turnrate of 16!

Personally i would like to have it's size reduced to be more like the Talvath Temporal destroyer.
It's a part of the Ha'apax warbird, and that ship is even bigger than the D'Deridex, the Ha'feh is at the right size as it is, there's no reason to change the size so that it's smaller than it is now.
Captain
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 2,825
# 4
12-20-2013, 05:08 AM
SO it's ok to have a ship with almost 1,5 times the mass of a Galaxy class with a turnrate of 16?
Just because the devs decide it is supposed to be a Escort, doesn't mean it should handle like a jetfighter, no matter how large it is.

Either the ship should be resized or its turnrate lowered to 5 or 6 IMO.

-> -> -> STO players unite and say NO to ARC <- <- <-
T6 Guardian Class design / A 25th century Ambassador refit
Captain
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 815
# 5
01-01-2014, 08:28 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by yreodred View Post
Either the ship should be resized or its turnrate lowered to 5 or 6 IMO.
No. Keep it as it is. I'm a happy Romulan.

Cloak. Turn my myself around like a jet fighter. Set fire to everything and load everything. Uncloak

Watch things explode really fast!

Gosh. I love my lady Ha'feh and my crew.
Captain
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 2,825
# 6
01-01-2014, 11:14 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by vivenneanthony View Post
No. Keep it as it is. I'm a happy Romulan.

Cloak. Turn my myself around like a jet fighter. Set fire to everything and load everything. Uncloak

Watch things explode really fast!

Gosh. I love my lady Ha'feh and my crew.
Very interesting...

But what about similar sized ships (or even smaller one) who turn like a brick compared to romulan monsters ships?
I know Cryptics devs care about Starfleet ships (or Cruisers in general) but i think that size should determine a ships turnrate, no matter how many cannons people want to put on them. But, gargantuan escorts that turn like jetfighters, while Cruisers that are restricted to less heavy powerful weapons handle like bricks, is just rediculus and totally unbeliveable.

-> -> -> STO players unite and say NO to ARC <- <- <-
T6 Guardian Class design / A 25th century Ambassador refit
Career Officer
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 4,045
# 7
01-01-2014, 11:52 AM
The foremost defining characteristic for ships is their class with their size as a secondary concern. I know it's counterintuitive but changing that would result in a very massive change to the way ships are balanced.
Base the turnrate on the size and for example the Akira ends up with a turnrate of about 8-9...in the same league as the Excelsior and the Vor'cha. And then what? The ship would need to get a serious hull and perhaps even a shield boost.
The D7/K't'inga at its 228 meters is smaller than a Miranda and every Raptor the KDF has so should the K't'inga's turnrate be increased to 15?
Sorry but without a total reconstruction of the game's balancing system this request can't work.

Last edited by misterde3; 01-01-2014 at 12:01 PM.
Captain
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 2,825
# 8
01-01-2014, 02:08 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by misterde3 View Post
The foremost defining characteristic for ships is their class with their size as a secondary concern. I know it's counterintuitive but changing that would result in a very massive change to the way ships are balanced.
Base the turnrate on the size and for example the Akira ends up with a turnrate of about 8-9...in the same league as the Excelsior and the Vor'cha. And then what? The ship would need to get a serious hull and perhaps even a shield boost.
The D7/K't'inga at its 228 meters is smaller than a Miranda and every Raptor the KDF has so should the K't'inga's turnrate be increased to 15?
Sorry but without a total reconstruction of the game's balancing system this request can't work.
All your examples show show in a excellent way that Cryptics ship system is flwaed inits very basic.

The Akira IS and never was a Cruiser (in canon) and in no way a jetfighter like escort.

But don't you think that by favouring certain ships (HUGE escorts), that other ships (smaller brick like cruisers) and people flying them Cryptic seriously disadvantages those people?

-> -> -> STO players unite and say NO to ARC <- <- <-
T6 Guardian Class design / A 25th century Ambassador refit

Last edited by yreodred; 01-01-2014 at 02:11 PM.
Career Officer
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 4,045
# 9
01-02-2014, 03:39 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by yreodred View Post
All your examples show show in a excellent way that Cryptics ship system is flwaed inits very basic.

The Akira IS and never was a Cruiser (in canon) and in no way a jetfighter like escort.

But don't you think that by favouring certain ships (HUGE escorts), that other ships (smaller brick like cruisers) and people flying them Cryptic seriously disadvantages those people?
Those are actually two different matters entirely.
The look of the ship and the stats of the ship.
As we've seen a big ship like the Akira can be more nimble than a smaller one like the K't'inga. The important question in terms of advantaging or disadvantaging is one of game balance and not of aestetics.

Cryptic could just swap out the look of the Ha'feh, create a completely new model and make it look the size of a Defiant but the stats would still be the same. But what would it change in terms of game balance? Nothing.

So we're back to the age-old problem of whether the brick like ones are tankier and supportier in the same manner that the other ones are more pew-pewish......
Captain
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 1,014
# 10
01-02-2014, 04:06 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by yreodred View Post
SO it's ok to have a ship with almost 1,5 times the mass of a Galaxy class with a turnrate of 16?
Just because the devs decide it is supposed to be a Escort, doesn't mean it should handle like a jetfighter, no matter how large it is.

Either the ship should be resized or its turnrate lowered to 5 or 6 IMO.
I agree. These large and monstrously sized ships, need to either be made smaller, or have their turn rates driven down, to reflect all that mass.

butcher suspect, "What'd you hit me with?"
Temperance Brennan, "A building"
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 On
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:31 AM.