Fundamentally, Science is at a continuous disadvantage in PvE, it may be able to measure up in PvP, I don't know, but most people don't play that. Vesta is supposed to be a Sci ship with dual cannons, so that should come out looking something like this:
27k hull
1.43 shield modifier
4 fore/3 aft weapons
3 Sci/3 Tac/2 Eng consoles
Inertia rating: 50, turn rate: 13
includes Sensor Analysis
can mount dual cannons
Lt. Cmdr. Tac.
Lt. Eng
Cmdr. Sci
Lt. Sci
Ens. Sci
The boff layout is the standard hybrid style, although I'd be fine with the same layout as Recon Sci as well. The shield modifier matches the one on fleet ships, although if there would be a fleet version this would obviously change. The movement stats are selected to match the Recon Sci, which seems reasonable. Where I know I'm going to get argument is on the weapons, but I deliberately made sacrifices to compensate for that. That's the reason it has only 8 consoles instead of 9, a low hull strength compared to fleet ships, and no SST (admittedly no one would use that since they'd run cannons, but still).
For anyone who thinks this would still be OP, you must not have run the numbers. An RSV with a 2 single cannon+1torp/3 turrets layout gets the same boost to DPS over time from GW3 and CSV1. The difference is that CSV1 is a Lt. ability while GW3 is a Cmdr. ability. Sci abilities don't even chain effectively, since they have the 1/2 uptime of most tac abilities and the 2/3 global CD of most eng abilities.
What that all means is that while this would be OP relative to other science ships, it would not be OP relative to other classes. There was a very revealing comment on page 5 of this thread: "a good sci player ( not even a great sci player, but a good one) can cause all sorts of havoc and pretty much take you one on one." Yes, a skilled player in a sci ship can come up to the level of a player in another ship. Wait a second, shouldn't a player in any ship be a match for a player of the same level in any other ship?
The same argument applies to the Sov though, those nacelles protrude a LONG way rearwards.
If you remove the Nacelles on both ships you will find that the Vesta is about 100 meters shorter i believe - that is a significant difference.
One reason to justify a 10+ turn was that in the books she was stated as being very nimble thus the only crusier to be able to make use of forward cannons.
Fundamentally, Science is at a continuous disadvantage in PvE, it may be able to measure up in PvP, I don't know, but most people don't play that. Vesta is supposed to be a Sci ship with dual cannons, so that should come out looking something like this:
27k hull
1.43 shield modifier
4 fore/3 aft weapons
3 Sci/3 Tac/2 Eng consoles
Inertia rating: 50, turn rate: 13
includes Sensor Analysis
can mount dual cannons
Lt. Cmdr. Tac.
Lt. Eng
Cmdr. Sci
Lt. Sci
Ens. Sci
The boff layout is the standard hybrid style, although I'd be fine with the same layout as Recon Sci as well. The shield modifier matches the one on fleet ships, although if there would be a fleet version this would obviously change. The movement stats are selected to match the Recon Sci, which seems reasonable. Where I know I'm going to get argument is on the weapons, but I deliberately made sacrifices to compensate for that. That's the reason it has only 8 consoles instead of 9, a low hull strength compared to fleet ships, and no SST (admittedly no one would use that since they'd run cannons, but still).
For anyone who thinks this would still be OP, you must not have run the numbers. An RSV with a 2 single cannon+1torp/3 turrets layout gets the same boost to DPS over time from GW3 and CSV1. The difference is that CSV1 is a Lt. ability while GW3 is a Cmdr. ability. Sci abilities don't even chain effectively, since they have the 1/2 uptime of most tac abilities and the 2/3 global CD of most eng abilities.
What that all means is that while this would be OP relative to other science ships, it would not be OP relative to other classes. There was a very revealing comment on page 5 of this thread: "a good sci player ( not even a great sci player, but a good one) can cause all sorts of havoc and pretty much take you one on one." Yes, a skilled player in a sci ship can come up to the level of a player in another ship. Wait a second, shouldn't a player in any ship be a match for a player of the same level in any other ship?
thats the boff seating most seem to agree on , hopefully it'll be like that or similar
Comments
27k hull
1.43 shield modifier
4 fore/3 aft weapons
3 Sci/3 Tac/2 Eng consoles
Inertia rating: 50, turn rate: 13
includes Sensor Analysis
can mount dual cannons
Lt. Cmdr. Tac.
Lt. Eng
Cmdr. Sci
Lt. Sci
Ens. Sci
The boff layout is the standard hybrid style, although I'd be fine with the same layout as Recon Sci as well. The shield modifier matches the one on fleet ships, although if there would be a fleet version this would obviously change. The movement stats are selected to match the Recon Sci, which seems reasonable. Where I know I'm going to get argument is on the weapons, but I deliberately made sacrifices to compensate for that. That's the reason it has only 8 consoles instead of 9, a low hull strength compared to fleet ships, and no SST (admittedly no one would use that since they'd run cannons, but still).
For anyone who thinks this would still be OP, you must not have run the numbers. An RSV with a 2 single cannon+1torp/3 turrets layout gets the same boost to DPS over time from GW3 and CSV1. The difference is that CSV1 is a Lt. ability while GW3 is a Cmdr. ability. Sci abilities don't even chain effectively, since they have the 1/2 uptime of most tac abilities and the 2/3 global CD of most eng abilities.
What that all means is that while this would be OP relative to other science ships, it would not be OP relative to other classes. There was a very revealing comment on page 5 of this thread: "a good sci player ( not even a great sci player, but a good one) can cause all sorts of havoc and pretty much take you one on one." Yes, a skilled player in a sci ship can come up to the level of a player in another ship. Wait a second, shouldn't a player in any ship be a match for a player of the same level in any other ship?
If you remove the Nacelles on both ships you will find that the Vesta is about 100 meters shorter i believe - that is a significant difference.
One reason to justify a 10+ turn was that in the books she was stated as being very nimble thus the only crusier to be able to make use of forward cannons.
thats the boff seating most seem to agree on , hopefully it'll be like that or similar
Rear Admiral , Engineering Division
U.S.S. Sheffield N.C.C. 92016
Rear Admiral , Engineering Division
U.S.S. Sheffield N.C.C. 92016
This post has been edited to remove content which violates the Perfect World Entertainment Community Rules and Policies . ~BranFlakes
ill wait for confirmation on the dev blog thanks
it makes sense with the cannons , but not the fighters
Rear Admiral , Engineering Division
U.S.S. Sheffield N.C.C. 92016
Also like somoe else said, universal slts of some kind are garunteed.
Cheers,
Brandon =/\=
Times up.. it's been more than 50 minutes.
If by '50' you mean '6', then yes.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]