Prometheus/MVAM

posted on January 16th, 2011, 7:30 am

Hey all …ok first of all this going to be a post about the Prometheus a . I would like people to respond in a constructive manner ,and if you feel differently about the post please respond in a respectful manner.

I was wondering if the Prometheus will be added to the game at some point, perhaps when fleet ops can  make the effect of MVAM look good. In the event that the Prometheus was added to the game I think It would be an experimental warp-in as it is an experimental ship and only one was made or perhaps very few by fleet ops time line.

The ships description might say something like …..The Prometheus class  was a highly  classified and advanced experimental star ship  designed for deep space tactical assignments. due to a very high production cost and the destruction of so many star ships during the dominion war Starfleet went with the  newer Excelsior II, and  Phalanx class star-ships thus  the Prometheus project was put to an end.

Balance would be very important. the descent class players more of a defensive role in fleet ops with strong shields and a special that recharge shields. the Prometheus would be a more offensive orientated ship. IN order to incorporate the ship as an offensive ship the MVAM would carry most of the ships offensive value.

Now the Prometheus as a full ship would be a medium size ship a bit weaker then a sovereign class perhaps with offence of 35 and defence of 45 nothing to special there. with perhaps  multi- layer shield generators as its passive...or not ? it would have med range phasers and only fwd fire"Q" torps. IF the ship is destroyed then it would cost -45 supply and consume 6 warp in slots to prevent having two of them and also leaves open the option of having a descent class or some standard warp-ins. well you could argue that they could raise the warp-in with nova class but this does not happen often and if they can rank up a nova then sure let them have 2 Prometheus class ships ...good for them.

Now about MVAM.... Now how could this be translated to fleet ops and make sense...well after much brain storming I have found some possible solutions/explanations that would make MVaM worth it. why not make MVAM an ability on the Prometheus on a cool down timer or use special energy to prevent players from using it over and over . I propose then when activated the ship would split into 3 smaller ships and receive boost.say ... 75% boost to its weapons ...or enough to kill a BIG "D". also when activated the ship would provide the cover fire ability to nearby ships. When MVaM is over it will auto reintegrate. BUT there is some risk using this ability the target priority of the 3 small ships is low to prevent enemy ships from auto targeting them. this introducer some micro management on your opponents hand if they respond quickly they can micro and try to target one or more of the 3 small ships .....thus ending the effect of MVaM and preventing the remaining parts from re joining.

The top portion of the ship is a small size ship with mild to weak offensive and defensive stats . Equipped with short range phasers and perhaps some form of pulse weapon along with speed and tactical weapons array as its passive .

The middle section would be a small size ship with short range phasers and “P” torp’s  with a passive of ADAI  with mild / weaker offensive and defensive stats.

The Bottom portion of the ship would have mild /weak offensive and defensive stats being small sized and short range phasers  and only fwd firing “Q” torp’s with a passive of guided  torps ??/.

The cost  in supply  for each ship would be 15 and in the event that  one of the  sections are destroyed you can not simply repair one or both parts and get the 3rd part back ….no if 1 or 2 of the parts is destroyed  you will be stuck with 1 or 2weak ships….after all its an experimental ship and its not perfect.

Well this was just an idea of how to get the Prometheus  into the game without making it this useless ship or making it OP and it would bring more synergy into the game along with a nice new experimental ship.

posted on January 16th, 2011, 7:40 am

Well I too would someday like to see the Prommie in as well.  Sucks to be missin any Canon ships at all.

  I do, however, question the need to have MVAM at all.  I think the Prommie would make a great Fed battleship regardless of MVAM.  With the cool new abilities the recent patches have brought I'm sure some new ideas could be given.

  For example, MVAM was meant to be an offensive ability, but what if instead the Prommie entered a times period and granted Cover-fire-esque bonuses to nearby cruisers?  Or perhaps it allowed nearby ships targeting the same unit to do extra damage?  There are lots of options that could make "lore sense" and still get the Prommie back in the game

[GaryOak]

posted on January 16th, 2011, 7:43 am

Last edited by GaryOak on January 16th, 2011, 7:51 am, edited 1 time in total.

Did the staff have a specific reason for leaving the prometheus out?

also..

IF the ship is destroyed then it would cost -45 supply and consume 6 warp in slots to prevent having two of them and also leaves open the option of having a descent class or some standard warp-ins.

well you could argue that they could raise the warp-in with nova class but this does not happen often and if they can rank up a nova then sure let them have 2 Prometheus class ships ...good for them.

I dont really understand what you're trying to say..could you explain in other words? :$

posted on January 16th, 2011, 7:48 am

i think there not to sure where it would make a good fit in the game and MVAM as far as i know cant be done ...very well yet so that it would look good.

posted on January 16th, 2011, 7:53 am

I see...well I for one would always rather have a canon ship extra than an uncanon one..lol

posted on January 16th, 2011, 7:57 am

IF the ship is destroyed then it would cost -45 supply

what i ment is that in the new patch when warp-in ships are destroyed it cost the player supply now. so i just set the supply cost (loss) to -45 like the descent class and a cost loss for each of the small parts at -15.

posted on January 16th, 2011, 8:07 am

Oh right, I see. Youve thought this through pretty good.

One thing I might change, though. Id say, if I request an experimental, Id want something the exact worth of the Descent...if you can get ships of different value, it could interfere much with strategic plans..

posted on January 16th, 2011, 8:16 am

Boggz, cyrax did mention the prommie when mvam was activated giving coverfire to other ships? or did boggz not read the post? Hmm?

posted on January 16th, 2011, 8:18 am

Sure I can see wanting the same worth as a Descent.  I
Think whatever you get will be a great boon for your war effort no matter what .

posted on January 16th, 2011, 8:21 am

i was thinking about that and i did think of this as my reason ....lets take a D'deridex-class or vorcha or even negvhar with out its cloak. well the D'deridex-class and vorcha can both cloak and run from the descent
and even without the cloak a negvhar  can out run a decent ......the prometheus could MVAM the ship and destroy it or leave it badly damaged.

posted on January 16th, 2011, 8:28 am

How much slots does the descent consume again? Wasnt it 4? Because thats more what I meant lol. If you request an experimental ship, sure it's strengths and abilities may vary. The standard warpin always varies, too! A game of luck, so to say..But no matter what you get, the standard warpins always consume the same amount of slots..

Getting a 6 slot ship instead of a 4 one may ruin your warpin plans..And you probably have to write some new script for it? ( in this case, the decision of which ship it's gonna be must be made BEFORE points are consumed..) I think : p

posted on January 16th, 2011, 10:42 am

i dont think mvam should increase the offensive power of the prommie. less power might be available as each ship now has to power its own life support and other things that used to be shared. and all for what? when attached they could just use all that power to fire multiple phaser blasts from the integrated ship anyway.

the only possible justification i can think of is that it allows the prommie parts to swarm around the enemy vessel. and then by firing from multiple angles, they cant divert shields to the direction needed most and the weapons do more damage. but that makes a huge assumption, that ships automatically divert shields to the direction of an enemy ship, which there is no evidence at all to support, and moderate evidence against, where ships have to specifically divert shields to a direction as its not automatic. i guess maybe by fleetops time all ships now auto divert shields to the direction of the enemy fleet, explaining why fighters and prommie parts might do well.

posted on January 16th, 2011, 12:38 pm

MVAM works because weakening multiple shields at once prevents them from turning a weakened shield away from the target, meaning they have to keep exposing the weak one to the enemy. Hitting multuiple ships by itself without multi-targetting would likely also be valid for a ship like it.

Each ship should have the same power or more, as each has a warp core (since they are all warp capable) and only a third of a ship to power. Not using all of them at once would be justified by the weapons only being able to handle so much power before frying (so using all three would be unneeded), and draining the fuel supply much faster would make it inefficient.

For balance reasons however, I would not oppose each part being weaker than the combined. Canon still has to 'take one for the team' every so often.

posted on January 16th, 2011, 1:07 pm

MVAM works because weakening multiple shields at once prevents them from turning a weakened shield away from the target, meaning they have to keep exposing the weak one to the enemy. Hitting multuiple ships by itself without multi-targetting would likely also be valid for a ship like it.

a good theory, but like my previous thing, it doesnt work in canon nor fleetops. in fleet battles we never see ships doing that. also shields arent always shown to have multiple strenghts like that most of the time. its usually 1 shield 1 strength, like in fleetops. rarely in canon do we have a distinction between shields.

Each ship should have the same power or more, as each has a warp core (since they are all warp capable) and only a third of a ship to power. Not using all of them at once would be justified by the weapons only being able to handle so much power before frying (so using all three would be unneeded), and draining the fuel supply much faster would make it inefficient.

each strip/turret can only take so much power, but there are multiple strips, as each ship has strips. so fire from multiple strips, it gives the same amount of phaser power as when they are separate. when together only 1 bridge is powered, presumably there are 2 other bridges that need power to their complex computer systems. also there may be separate life support systems, separate hull integrity etc. i just dont see the advantage of mvam when working within the boundaries of canon. even in real life, why build something that splits up and needs intricate and complex separation systems and special training, its probably cheaper to build 3 separate ships which travel in a trio.

posted on January 16th, 2011, 1:21 pm

Why should 3 bridges with 3 warp cores be less efficient than 1 bridge with one warp core. And the other modules not neccessarily do have to use their own bridge...