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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Captain
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 2,770
# 11
01-02-2014, 07:16 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by misterde3 View Post
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.
Your example ony applies to STO.
A comparable big ship like the Akira is NOT as nimble as a D7 nor should it handle like a jetfighter. It's Cryptic that made it that way.


Quote:
Originally Posted by misterde3 View Post
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......
According to your logic, size doesn't matter at all. So why not give all ships equal turnrate?
That would make just as much sense.

You see, a ship tha is as huge as a Ha'feh or Scimitar should NOT have a turnrate like a defiant (or similar at least). Their huge firepower should have SOME disadvantage in exchange. Otherwise slower ships would be disadvantaged for no reason except that the devs just don't like them as much as other ships, which would make no sense at all.
Career Officer
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 4,037
# 12
01-05-2014, 03:30 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by yreodred View Post
Your example ony applies to STO.
A comparable big ship like the Akira is NOT as nimble as a D7 nor should it handle like a jetfighter. It's Cryptic that made it that way.

According to your logic, size doesn't matter at all. So why not give all ships equal turnrate?
That would make just as much sense.

You see, a ship tha is as huge as a Ha'feh or Scimitar should NOT have a turnrate like a defiant (or similar at least). Their huge firepower should have SOME disadvantage in exchange. Otherwise slower ships would be disadvantaged for no reason except that the devs just don't like them as much as other ships, which would make no sense at all.
I think we're having some kind of misunderstanding in here somewhere though not sure where.
I'll try to rephrase my point as a question, perhaps we can clear it up that way.

You said bricklike cruisers are disadvantaged. In what way?
Are they disadvantaged by the fact that they are less maneuverable or are they disadvantaged because the 3-d model of the ship that is more maneuverable than the cruiser is of the same size as the 3-d model of the cruiser?

The former is an indication of a balancing problem and the latter...well I have yet to see that a bigger 3-d model is of advantage to anyone.

It feels like you're mingling two different issues.
1.) Look does not fit stats
2.) Good maneuverability vs bad maneuverability balance

For 2.) that's what I meant when I said they could just swap out the models because it does not affect that balancing issue since it's unconnected to the look of the ship itself.

I'm pretty sure I know what you want. It's not that I wouldn't prefer it myself but it's not what we're debating here.
What you want is that the ship's turnrate is defined by its size and this also first and foremost defines how strong shields and hull are while the BO and console layout are at best a minor influence.
The obvious advantage of such a system would be that two ships could have identical BO and console layouts but since, for example, one is the size of the Nova and the other is the size of the Nebula the two would still play drastically different despite the same layout.

But that's not what we're talking about here is it?

p.s. please try not to put words into my mouth especally when I'm actually on your side in intention even if we approach things differently
Captain
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 2,770
# 13
01-05-2014, 03:46 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by misterde3 View Post
I think we're having some kind of misunderstanding in here somewhere though not sure where.
I'll try to rephrase my point as a question, perhaps we can clear it up that way.

You said bricklike cruisers are disadvantaged. In what way?
Are they disadvantaged by the fact that they are less maneuverable or are they disadvantaged because the 3-d model of the ship that is more maneuverable than the cruiser is of the same size as the 3-d model of the cruiser?
Bricklike cruisers are disadvantaged because:
They have to rely on Tactical Team because they cannot turn fast enough to change shield facing towards the enemy.
They also cannot effectively use dual and dual heavy cannons.
It's boring, lol.
These points have nothing to do with other ships being more maneuverable than a bricklike cruiser.

My point is that the 3D models of most romulan ships are way too big for their maneuverability.
(or the other way round, if you want.)


Quote:
Originally Posted by misterde3 View Post
The former is an indication of a balancing problem and the latter...well I have yet to see that a bigger 3-d model is of advantage to anyone.

It feels like you're mingling two different issues.
1.) Look does not fit stats
2.) Good maneuverability vs bad maneuverability balance

For 2.) that's what I meant when I said they could just swap out the models because it does not affect that balancing issue since it's unconnected to the look of the ship itself.

I'm pretty sure I know what you want. It's not that I wouldn't prefer it myself but it's not what we're debating here.
What you want is that the ship's turnrate is defined by its size and this also first and foremost defines how strong shields and hull are while the BO and console layout are at best a minor influence.
The obvious advantage of such a system would be that two ships could have identical BO and console layouts but since, for example, one is the size of the Nova and the other is the size of the Nebula the two would still play drastically different despite the same layout.

But that's not what we're talking about here is it?
I'm not saying that a big 3D model is an advantage, i find it just rediculus that a ship of the size of the scimitar turns faster than a Galaxy or Odyssey Class, it doesn't make sense.
Just because Cryptic puts a "escort" sticker on it doesn't make it more maneuverable IMO.

There is no good vs. bad maneuverability balance in STO.
If you are refering to the tiny bit more hull Starfleet ship have, i think it's a joke compared to the advantages a more maneuverable ship gets.
(and before you ask i have Rom and KDF characters flying according ships)
A Ships 3D model should be directly connected with its stats IMO.

For example, i find it rediculus that tiny ships can generate the same amount of power as a ship 10 or 20 times the size.
On the other hand a ship that has roughly the same size as a Galaxy Class like the Ha'feh gets a turnrate of 16! I don't think that's ok.
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 08:11 PM.