Just received word from Cryptic that 3/5 is accurate. Carry on.
Huh.. strange.. but ok.
I'm not going to use it either way, I am just happy about a free account wide Admiralty Card, but it will be cool to see what people come up with build wise for this ship.
If I were building it, I would just put 8 beams on it and call it a day (or maybe 6 beams and 2 rear omni beams.) When broadsiding it isn't going to matter anyway.
I don’t get it either. None of the weapon systems benefit from 5 rear. In a turret boat or beam array boat it makes no difference if it’s a 4/4 or 3/5 you get the same result. With mines or omni there is no real benefit past 3 rear. Perhaps I am missing something but I am really struggling to see a use for those 5 rear.
Most recent patch notes;
The Mine shared cooldown has been decreased to 3 seconds from 5.
The Console - Universal - Ordnance Accelerator now decreases the Mine shared cooldown by 1.5 seconds from 1.
So there you have it .... 1.5s shared mine global with new rep console. 3/5 ship They clearly think people are going to fill those slots with mines. The ships pet even drops chrone mines.
Really hoping its a typo...Was kinda hoping to do a 5x DBB front - New story weap+torp+KCB rear with this ship. I mean I could still just do arrays and not much would change, but 5 rear limits build options unless they finally let us slot DBB or DHC on the butt XD
Just received word from Cryptic that 3/5 is accurate. Carry on.
What were they smoking when they came up with that and how much zen does that cost to get? Has to be good stuff because this ship is like putting your shoes on backwards to go for a walk.
Just received word from Cryptic that 3/5 is accurate. Carry on.
Huh.. strange.. but ok.
I'm not going to use it either way, I am just happy about a free account wide Admiralty Card, but it will be cool to see what people come up with build wise for this ship.
If I were building it, I would just put 8 beams on it and call it a day (or maybe 6 beams and 2 rear omni beams.) When broadsiding it isn't going to matter anyway.
I don’t get it either. None of the weapon systems benefit from 5 rear. In a turret boat or beam array boat it makes no difference if it’s a 4/4 or 3/5 you get the same result. With mines or omni there is no real benefit past 3 rear. Perhaps I am missing something but I am really struggling to see a use for those 5 rear.
Most recent patch notes;
The Mine shared cooldown has been decreased to 3 seconds from 5.
The Console - Universal - Ordnance Accelerator now decreases the Mine shared cooldown by 1.5 seconds from 1.
So there you have it .... 1.5s shared mine global with new rep console. 3/5 ship They clearly think people are going to fill those slots with mines. The ships pet even drops chrone mines.
The thing is I fly mine layer boats and before the change I could only run 2 mine launchers. Now I haven’t had as much time to test as I would like but with the Ordnance Accelerator and new Mine shared cooldown the main mine laying builds I have can only run up to 3 launchers. The 4th and 5th still run into global cooldown problems.
So while mine boats have had a massive boost which I love and thank the devs for, I do not see how this Vorgon ship is going to be any good as a mine boat. As I said before it has a poor bridge office layout for mines, poor console layout for mines, poor weapon layout. A good mine layer boat doesn't benefit from 5 rears.
I don't think the devs designed this Vorgon ship as a mine layer boat. Going by the all the problems its looks like it will massively underperform with mines compared to the good mine layer ships.
Just received word from Cryptic that 3/5 is accurate. Carry on.
What were they smoking when they came up with that and how much zen does that cost to get?
I feel like they wanted to Try Something Different™ (heck, look at the Home reward set. The console gives bonus to attacks in the rear arc). And it's probably better to do that in a giveaway ship, than in something that people would say "and why would I pay for this?"
It has been confirmed as not a miss type. Which leaves me wondering just what we are meant to do with 5 rears. None of the weapon systems benefit from that.
This is third thread I will have had to merge on this topic.
Star Trek Online Volunteer Community Moderator and Resident She-Wolf
Community Moderators are Unpaid Volunteers and NOT Employees of Gearbox/Cryptic
Views and Opinions May Not Reflect the Views and Opinions of Gearbox/Cryptic
Changed the thread title in hopes to curtail any more duplicate threads.
Star Trek Online Volunteer Community Moderator and Resident She-Wolf
Community Moderators are Unpaid Volunteers and NOT Employees of Gearbox/Cryptic
Views and Opinions May Not Reflect the Views and Opinions of Gearbox/Cryptic
I, for one, am interested in seeing what this ship can do. Especially after reading all the whining about it. I'd bet that it can be an awesome ship to fly. I intend to give turrets/torp/mines a try. Tetryon, of course. Probably as many of the heavy turrets as I can lay hands on.
Just because it's not laid out to YOUR satisfaction does not mean it is garbage. That is just the opinion of those who can't seem to cope without mega-tac layouts.
Now a LTS and loving it.
Just because you spend money on this game, it does not entitle you to be a jerk if things don't go your way.
I have come to the conclusion that I have a memory like Etch-A-Sketch. I shake my head and forget everything.
I for one welcome a change in layout from the normal forward heavy mind, now if we could just retroactively game wide get some aft DBB, and Cannon mounts, and overall port/starboard mounting in game, and make dreadnoughts, battleships, and capital ships feel more like how they should be with more weapons (but have weaknesses more like to balance out big vs small)… But that is a dream, and would probably take a full new engine to do such, so...eh?
It's a tank ship that will shine when it can get enemies to chase it. What's hard to see about this? Use the Strategist secondary spec to pull threat and hold it, use the Pilot primary spec to make yourself harder to hit from behind. Put two omnis and the new quest reward turret in the front, put three arrays, a strong torpedo, and the Gamma reputation mine launcher in the aft, and make enemies that pursue you choke on your vented warp engine plasma while you stay on the move and bombard them.
Every new event ship doesn't need to be "the same old FAW TRIBBLE, but stronger" in order to justify its existence.
I, for one, am interested in seeing what this ship can do. Especially after reading all the whining about it. I'd bet that it can be an awesome ship to fly. I intend to give turrets/torp/mines a try. Tetryon, of course. Probably as many of the heavy turrets as I can lay hands on.
Just because it's not laid out to YOUR satisfaction does not mean it is garbage. That is just the opinion of those who can't seem to cope without mega-tac layouts.
See, I don't like this..
Why is it 'whining' if we don't like the layout? Is any difference of opinion or any negative criticism 'whining?' is that really fair?
I think most of it has been pretty constructive and people are making good points. There is currently no awesome aft only weapon type that people were clamoring to put more of into their builds so given the current array of available equipment, the weapon layout makes little sense.
We're giving opinions and feedback, not whining.. there is a difference. If you're going mostly turrets then the layout is irrelevant anyway since you will have mostly omni directional weapons. If I ran this ship, I would run beams and broad side, but what we're both doing with our proposed builds is countering the odd layout.. not taking advantage of it.
You can come up with plenty of builds for this ship, that's not a problem, but they will all be about counter acting the hard point placements.. you would be really hard pressed to come up with a build that takes advantage of a 3/5 layout. The layout is more of an obstacle to be overcome, not a feature to take advantage of.
I, for one, am interested in seeing what this ship can do. Especially after reading all the whining about it. I'd bet that it can be an awesome ship to fly. I intend to give turrets/torp/mines a try. Tetryon, of course. Probably as many of the heavy turrets as I can lay hands on.
Just because it's not laid out to YOUR satisfaction does not mean it is garbage. That is just the opinion of those who can't seem to cope without mega-tac layouts.
That’s not what it is at all. We are saying it looks poor based on logic and common sense. Based on how the current weapons systems work there doesn’t appear to be any benefit in losing front slots to gain rear slots. If you go fit turrets to this ship you are not gaining anything from having 5 rare slots.
That build you intend to use wont function any better or different at 3/5 then it would on the more common layouts. The question is what new builds does this open up? what is improved, better or different if you use 3/5 over other layouts?
Extra slots in the front like 5 front opens up new builds as there are certain weapons that only work in the front and you can stack up 5 of them. Extra slots in the rear does doesn't appear to open up new builds as the only weapons that function in the rear are limited and don't work over 5 slots. So all you are doing by having 5 rear slots is placing extra limitation on the ship so gaining a negative for zero benefit.
“It's a tank ship that will shine when it can get enemies to chase it. What's hard to see about this?”
What is hard to see is there is no real benefit with how the game current functions. Enemy don’t really chase you which is why I stopped using my EPG boosted eject warp plasma build.
Why is it 'whining' if we don't like the layout? Is any difference of opinion or any negative criticism 'whining?' is that really fair?
I think most of it has been pretty constructive and people are making good points. There is currently no awesome aft only weapon type that people were clamoring to put more of into their builds so given the current array of available equipment, the weapon layout makes little sense.
We're giving opinions and feedback, not whining.. there is a difference. If you're going mostly turrets then the layout is irrelevant anyway since you will have mostly omni directional weapons. If I ran this ship, I would run beams and broad side, but what we're both doing with our proposed builds is countering the odd layout.. not taking advantage of it.
You can come up with plenty of builds for this ship, that's not a problem, but they will all be about counter acting the hard point placements.. you would be really hard pressed to come up with a build that takes advantage of a 3/5 layout. The layout is more of an obstacle to be overcome, not a feature to take advantage of.
Some may be constructive, but others pretty much boil down to "I'm not even gonna bother trying", "I don't like it because its different", and in general not that helpful. The constructive feedback is positive. The people who aren't providing anything other than "it sucks" can be classified as whining because its not what they want.
So what if its rear heavy? Its something new that will require some experimentation. Also... I can see a properly built one being a bit of a nightmare for Raiders who enjoy their Raider Flanking bonuses.
So yea... we'll probably see a few minelayers, but mostly we might see broadside beam boats. Only time will tell, and it will be interesting to see how the veteran ship builders handle this unusual loadout.
So yea... we'll probably see a few minelayers, but mostly we might see broadside beam boats. Only time will tell, and it will be interesting to see how the veteran ship builders handle this unusual loadout.
I do not get why people keep saying this. There is zero benefit or reason in using this ship as a minelayer. It wont be any different to any other ship in fact it will be pretty poor at it compared to the good minelayer ships. So why will we suddenly see more mine layers on it?
EDIT: Same for broadside beam boats. 3/5 is identical to 4/4 or 5/3 if you are broadsiding. If you are broadsiding there is no advantage or reason to use 5 rear.
I do not get why people keep saying this. There is zero benefit or reason in using this ship as a minelayer. It wont be any different to any other ship in fact it will be pretty poor at it compared to the good minelayer ships. So why will we suddenly see more mine layers on it?
Well... Mines seem to have gotten a bit of a buff recently, and with it being heavier on the rear arc...
Only time will tell. But I, and many others, are predicting a few experimental mine builds.
omni's will at least make the ship workable as a normal cruiser, beam broadsiding cares not if front or rear layout. That said, if the new changes to mines puts their cooldown rotations closer to that of torpedos then you maybe able to get use from 4-5 of them. However 1 FaW volley and they all go poof so kinda pointless. Mines need a rework where they all have mask energy sig and they deploy faster, atm mines are to easily avoided unless you are bombing with them.
Nakura web mines with a bomb run are nasty. The ships tac layout is pretty TRIBBLE when it comes to mines though, mines reallly need the cmd spreads. Devs could use this time to lower the ability for mines down a rank to match torps but since we cant get them to even do that for cannons im not holding my breath.
I dont see the point in a 3/5 layout the way the ship currently is set up, to few tac consoles/powers for mines, and for reg builds 3/5 does nothing for beams. 3/5 is not any good for DHC either, atm it seems a not very well thought out ship. But the only way to find out for sure will be to fly her, people make all kinds of nutty builds work so /shrug.
I do not get why people keep saying this. There is zero benefit or reason in using this ship as a minelayer. It wont be any different to any other ship in fact it will be pretty poor at it compared to the good minelayer ships. So why will we suddenly see more mine layers on it?
Well... Mines seem to have gotten a bit of a buff recently, and with it being heavier on the rear arc...
Only time will tell. But I, and many others, are predicting a few experimental mine builds.
Heavier on the rear arc is no good for mine boats. What experiment mine builds? It is correct mines got a large buff as I fly mine layers but I don’t see how any of them will benefit from 5 rear slots. The good Mine launchers which I tested for the most part don’t really work past 3 rear slots as you run into global cooldown problems.
The ship has a poor console layout for mines, has poor bridge slots and wrong command seating to benefit mine layers. So I don't understand all this talk about it being good as a mine layer. Based on the stats it looks like its going to be a very poor mine boat.
Edit: I am going to take a closer look on Sunday. But based on tonight's testing I am really struggling to see a benefit to 5 rears.
Heavier on the rear arc is no good for mine boats. What experiment mine builds? It is correct mines got a large buff as I fly mine layers but I don’t see how any of them will benefit from 5 rear slots. The good Mine launchers which I tested for the most part don’t really work past 3 rear slots as you run into global cooldown problems.
The ship has a poor console layout for mines, has poor bridge slots and wrong command seating to benefit mine layers. So I don't understand all this talk about it being good as a mine layer. Based on the stats it looks like its going to be a very poor mine boat.
Its called EXPERIMENTATION. Players are going to play around with it, see what works and what doesn't. Writing it off because it doesn't fit your idea of an ideal mine layer doesn't really accomplish much. Until people actually get their hands on it, we can only speculate on how effective it will or won't be.
The ship really isn't going to be good for mines. No commander tactical seat is enough to ruin its potential in that regard. The thing is just a boring old Dreadnought Cruiser, which is a continually muddying pool of samey ships.
I personally believe this ship will pass the T6 Resolute as the worst T6 ship currently available.
Not possible. Cryptic would have to consciously decide to sabotage a ship to make it worse than the Resolute.
At the very least, the Ytijara-class Dreadnought has a hanger of Frigate class pets. If you turn both ships into beam-array broadsiders, the Ytijara will come out ahead because it has frigate pets. It also comes with a 3rd Science console, so it can make better use of it's trait. The Resolute has a particle generators dependent trait and 2 Science console slots. It's tough to out-fail the Resolute.
At the very least, the Ytijara-class Dreadnought has a hanger of Frigate class pets. If you turn both ships into beam-array broadsiders, the Ytijara will come out ahead because it has frigate pets. It also comes with a 3rd Science console, so it can make better use of it's trait. The Resolute has a particle generators dependent trait and 2 Science console slots. It's tough to out-fail the Resolute.
The Resolute also had 3 Engie BOff stations. Kinda hard to find Ensign level Engie BOff abilities that don't share a cooldown.
The Resolute also had 3 Engie BOff stations. Kinda hard to find Ensign level Engie BOff abilities that don't share a cooldown.
Without a doubt, the Ytijara Dreadnought has a more flexible BOff layout. It can actually make better use of the Improved Weaponized Emitters Trait than the Resolute. I was just comparing the potential damage from equipment. With it's superior BOff layout, the Ytijara curb-stomps the Resolute (not that it is any great achievement. Many T5 and some T4 vessels outperform the Resolute).
I don't even see why they are calling it a dreadnought, it has a pretty typical cruiser layout like the T6 Fleet Galaxy or D'deridex only difference being the weapon setup and hangar bay.
Because Cryptic just loves to throw the label 'Dreadnought' around with absolutely no rhyme or reason.
They just slap it on any ship that they want to make desirable.. it makes a ship sound like it would be super powerful.
It's really annoying.
I think "Dreadnought" tends to be fairly consistently +1 weapon slot and +1 hangar bay to whatever the ship is a Dreadnought of. Usually at the cost of turn rate. Exception is only for Cruisers, because they don't allow ships with more than 8 weapon slots, and Cruiser already start with 8. But Cruisers also tend to have a low turn rate, and consequently lose very little turn rate when turned into a Dreadnought.
Star Trek Online Advancement: You start with lowbie gear, you end with Lobi gear.
I personally believe this ship will pass the T6 Resolute as the worst T6 ship currently available.
Not possible. Cryptic would have to consciously decide to sabotage a ship to make it worse than the Resolute.
At the very least, the Ytijara-class Dreadnought has a hanger of Frigate class pets. If you turn both ships into beam-array broadsiders, the Ytijara will come out ahead because it has frigate pets. It also comes with a 3rd Science console, so it can make better use of it's trait. The Resolute has a particle generators dependent trait and 2 Science console slots. It's tough to out-fail the Resolute.
You're right, the Resolute will maintain it's firm hold on last place.
This ship is close though. I still have yet to see one person with a VALID argument in favor of 3/5. You're right though, in a build with all beams, this one still beats the Resolute.
Comments
Most recent patch notes;
The Mine shared cooldown has been decreased to 3 seconds from 5.
The Console - Universal - Ordnance Accelerator now decreases the Mine shared cooldown by 1.5 seconds from 1.
So there you have it .... 1.5s shared mine global with new rep console. 3/5 ship They clearly think people are going to fill those slots with mines. The ships pet even drops chrone mines.
What were they smoking when they came up with that and how much zen does that cost to get? Has to be good stuff because this ship is like putting your shoes on backwards to go for a walk.
https://sto.gamepedia.com/Romulan_Singularity_Harness#Romulan_Hyper-Plasma_Torpedo_Launcher
https://sto.gamepedia.com/Romulan_Singularity_Harness#Experimental_Romulan_Plasma_Beam_Array
https://sto.gamepedia.com/Omega_Adapted_Borg_Technology_Set#Kinetic_Cutting_Beam
https://sto.gamepedia.com/Obfuscated_Strategist_Set#Modulating_Competition_Mine_Launcher
https://sto.gamepedia.com/Nukara_Appropriated_Munitions#Nukara_Web_Mine_Launcher
https://sto.gamepedia.com/Tractor_Beam_Mine_Launcher
https://sto.gamepedia.com/Breen_Transphasic_Cluster_Torpedo
https://sto.gamepedia.com/Vaadwaur_Cluster_Torpedo
I don't know how this would work but if I had to outfit that ship this is what I'd do. I don't think it would work very well but oh well.
The german blog was released several days before the english one and it also had the 3/5 layout in it. Seems very much as intended.
So while mine boats have had a massive boost which I love and thank the devs for, I do not see how this Vorgon ship is going to be any good as a mine boat. As I said before it has a poor bridge office layout for mines, poor console layout for mines, poor weapon layout. A good mine layer boat doesn't benefit from 5 rears.
I don't think the devs designed this Vorgon ship as a mine layer boat. Going by the all the problems its looks like it will massively underperform with mines compared to the good mine layer ships.
I feel like they wanted to Try Something Different™ (heck, look at the Home reward set. The console gives bonus to attacks in the rear arc). And it's probably better to do that in a giveaway ship, than in something that people would say "and why would I pay for this?"
It has been confirmed as not a miss type. Which leaves me wondering just what we are meant to do with 5 rears. None of the weapon systems benefit from that.
Views and Opinions May Not Reflect the Views and Opinions of Gearbox/Cryptic
Moderation Problems/Issues? Please contact the Community Manager
Terms of Service / Community Rules and Policies / FCT
Facebook / Twitter / Twitch
Views and Opinions May Not Reflect the Views and Opinions of Gearbox/Cryptic
Moderation Problems/Issues? Please contact the Community Manager
Terms of Service / Community Rules and Policies / FCT
Facebook / Twitter / Twitch
Just because it's not laid out to YOUR satisfaction does not mean it is garbage. That is just the opinion of those who can't seem to cope without mega-tac layouts.
Every new event ship doesn't need to be "the same old FAW TRIBBLE, but stronger" in order to justify its existence.
See, I don't like this..
Why is it 'whining' if we don't like the layout? Is any difference of opinion or any negative criticism 'whining?' is that really fair?
I think most of it has been pretty constructive and people are making good points. There is currently no awesome aft only weapon type that people were clamoring to put more of into their builds so given the current array of available equipment, the weapon layout makes little sense.
We're giving opinions and feedback, not whining.. there is a difference. If you're going mostly turrets then the layout is irrelevant anyway since you will have mostly omni directional weapons. If I ran this ship, I would run beams and broad side, but what we're both doing with our proposed builds is countering the odd layout.. not taking advantage of it.
You can come up with plenty of builds for this ship, that's not a problem, but they will all be about counter acting the hard point placements.. you would be really hard pressed to come up with a build that takes advantage of a 3/5 layout. The layout is more of an obstacle to be overcome, not a feature to take advantage of.
That build you intend to use wont function any better or different at 3/5 then it would on the more common layouts. The question is what new builds does this open up? what is improved, better or different if you use 3/5 over other layouts?
Extra slots in the front like 5 front opens up new builds as there are certain weapons that only work in the front and you can stack up 5 of them. Extra slots in the rear does doesn't appear to open up new builds as the only weapons that function in the rear are limited and don't work over 5 slots. So all you are doing by having 5 rear slots is placing extra limitation on the ship so gaining a negative for zero benefit.
What is hard to see is there is no real benefit with how the game current functions. Enemy don’t really chase you which is why I stopped using my EPG boosted eject warp plasma build.
Some may be constructive, but others pretty much boil down to "I'm not even gonna bother trying", "I don't like it because its different", and in general not that helpful. The constructive feedback is positive. The people who aren't providing anything other than "it sucks" can be classified as whining because its not what they want.
So what if its rear heavy? Its something new that will require some experimentation. Also... I can see a properly built one being a bit of a nightmare for Raiders who enjoy their Raider Flanking bonuses.
So yea... we'll probably see a few minelayers, but mostly we might see broadside beam boats. Only time will tell, and it will be interesting to see how the veteran ship builders handle this unusual loadout.
EDIT: Same for broadside beam boats. 3/5 is identical to 4/4 or 5/3 if you are broadsiding. If you are broadsiding there is no advantage or reason to use 5 rear.
Well... Mines seem to have gotten a bit of a buff recently, and with it being heavier on the rear arc...
Only time will tell. But I, and many others, are predicting a few experimental mine builds.
Nakura web mines with a bomb run are nasty. The ships tac layout is pretty TRIBBLE when it comes to mines though, mines reallly need the cmd spreads. Devs could use this time to lower the ability for mines down a rank to match torps but since we cant get them to even do that for cannons im not holding my breath.
I dont see the point in a 3/5 layout the way the ship currently is set up, to few tac consoles/powers for mines, and for reg builds 3/5 does nothing for beams. 3/5 is not any good for DHC either, atm it seems a not very well thought out ship. But the only way to find out for sure will be to fly her, people make all kinds of nutty builds work so /shrug.
The ship has a poor console layout for mines, has poor bridge slots and wrong command seating to benefit mine layers. So I don't understand all this talk about it being good as a mine layer. Based on the stats it looks like its going to be a very poor mine boat.
Edit: I am going to take a closer look on Sunday. But based on tonight's testing I am really struggling to see a benefit to 5 rears.
Its called EXPERIMENTATION. Players are going to play around with it, see what works and what doesn't. Writing it off because it doesn't fit your idea of an ideal mine layer doesn't really accomplish much. Until people actually get their hands on it, we can only speculate on how effective it will or won't be.
At the very least, the Ytijara-class Dreadnought has a hanger of Frigate class pets. If you turn both ships into beam-array broadsiders, the Ytijara will come out ahead because it has frigate pets. It also comes with a 3rd Science console, so it can make better use of it's trait. The Resolute has a particle generators dependent trait and 2 Science console slots. It's tough to out-fail the Resolute.
The Resolute also had 3 Engie BOff stations. Kinda hard to find Ensign level Engie BOff abilities that don't share a cooldown.
You're right, the Resolute will maintain it's firm hold on last place.
This ship is close though. I still have yet to see one person with a VALID argument in favor of 3/5. You're right though, in a build with all beams, this one still beats the Resolute.