Fleet Kar'fi and Fleet Peghqu' consoles

jnohd

A small bit of feedback for the Fleet Kar'fi and Fleet Peghqu' upgrades. The 10% Shield and Hull bonuses are standard, and not having any kind of change to Bridge Officer Stations was expected.

The additional consoles, however, seem counter to (in my experience) the best way to upgrade these ships.

The Kar'fi can certainly use a Tactical console - what ship wouldn't - but it does not play to the ship's strengths imho. The Peghqu' is a Destroyer, and while an Engineering console might have some use in making it more survivable, where it's strength lies - and purpose - as a Destroyer is in its firepower.

I suggest that these consoles are the opposite of what would be most useful for both of these ships (and their other-faction brethren, presumably), keeping them less rounded - which maintains the need for ship class variety in groups, and focusing on improving their strengths rather than going over weakness and attempting to reinforce them. the Peghqu' with 5 Tac consoles becomes a much more focused ship, yet remains fragile, the Kar'fi with an additional Engineering console can be used to either improve sub-systems (including turning) or hull - or both with Fleet consoles.

Just my opinion! And too late to really make a difference, I'm sure (without overwhelming agreement from the community)

mimey2

I agree quite a bit actually. I also feel like these ships got the short end of the stick. The Kar'fi didn't really need another tac console. I'd rather see it get an engy console or (shock of all shocks) a science console.

Pegh'hu is the same. Didn't need an engy console, it's fine there IMO. Give it a 5th tac console. I think the KDF deserves at least that much on a ship that isn't the Bortas.

mandoknight89

I dunno... doing that for the Chimera and Pegh'qu would mean that they'd feel compelled to do it for the Romulans as well, and they don't need another 5-Tac ship (including not needing a 5-Tac Fleet Ar'kif) in my opinion.


...Though if they did change the Ar'kif to the 3 Eng/3 Sci/4 Tac of the Armitage, giving the Veteran Warbird a 3 Eng/2 Sci/5 Tac layout would be more reasonable...

blitzy4

The same thing happened to the Atrox too, and extra engineering console doesnt' really help it, but the extra Tactical would have helped a lot.

jnohd

Sometimes I see things like this in STO, and it really does look to me like someone said "Go put an ENG console on the carrier and a TAC console on the vet ship" and the actual person implementing it didn't know which was which- this isn't the first time I've looked at things in STO and thought "Wait... that's completely backwards of a good design idea."

Omega and MACO ground armor, for example (bear with me): That black stuff looks just like it was designed to be a clear evolution from the MACO stuff we've seen! That silver stuff was clearly designed to have big shoulders derivative from KDF armors, and kind of looks like a deliberate blending of Fed and KDF sensibilities... (if you assume there's a little KDF symbol version out there) And someone came along and decided "no wait, switch them."

This seems to me to be the same idea. "I heard you say make them sensibly upgraded, but I deem on a whim we will make this more rounded in a game that is trying to make things more specialized so group play and variety is encouraged, just because."

*sigh* I'm done bemoaning it - it will work fine, but it's really unneeded.

eradicator84

I think a fleet Karfi getting a 4th tac console is entirely in line with it's role. It is and always has been a very tactically oriented carrier in the game. 2nd only to the JDC in terms of tac boffs, but far superior in turn rate. It's certainly the correct choice for that ship. I wouldn't want it any other way.
An extra engy slot would be a waste on it and 5 sci slots should only be for true sci ships not carriers.

"True" ships (that epitomise a class) should be the only ones to only ever get 5 of a console type. Escort/dreadnaughts for tac, ships like vesta (and what should be on fleet varanus) for sci, and things like odyssey/bortas etc for engy.


Peghqu, as mentioned is a destroyer. By definition alone that means it's not an escort. imo only escorts get the prized 5th tac slots. Destroyers are a cross between escorts and cruisers, so should be engy heavy. So 4 engy slots seems perfectly fine too. Although given the nature of the vet ships, a 3rd sci console slot might have been nice to give it better role flexibility with it's uni LTC. But really it's ok with 2.

mimey2

eradicator84 wrote: »

<snip>

I understand completely what you are getting at. But honestly...

I just want a KDF ship that isn't the Bortas with 5 tac consoles. I don't think it's really asking much at this point to be totally honest.

rylanadionysis

I hate to be the person to post something like this... but can we just get on with everyone having 10 tactical consoles and be done with it?

The game doesnt need more damage. People can do ESTFs in 3 minutes flat.

I may be the only naysayer, but a naysayer i shall be.

eradicator84

mimey2 wrote: »

I understand completely what you are getting at. But honestly...

I just want a KDF ship that isn't the Bortas with 5 tac consoles. I don't think it's really asking much at this point to be totally honest.

Yep. But altering the afore mentioned ships to fit that role doesn't suit the ships roles.

I'm counting on the Negvar refit to address this and be similar to the Avenger with 5 tac.
A completely new ship needs to be made for a kdf escort 5 tac ship imo. Korvat perhaps.

I think KDF also missing a 5 sci console ship.

khayuung

On the other hand, I welcome the additional tac console on the Karfi. Its got 5 sci and 5 tac boff slots, so a 4/4/2 layout reflects the boff slotting.

It seems like Cryptic gives ships that have no console focus an engineering console... See: B'rel.

guard41

I regret buying my Kar'Fi, it is soooo squishy! I mistakingly put fleet dhc's on it, only to find out I can't make it resist anything because it needs the RCS. 2 Mk XII RCS+res consoles aren't enough.

I would dearly love to see a 3rd Engineering console myself.

For now I have benched my Kar'fi and bought a Mirror Raptor which has been much better, especially with cannons. I will wait to see what the KHG set does for my kar'fi as to whether or not I use it on that character again, or roll a kdf engineer to use it instead.

lianthelia

eradicator84 wrote: »

I think a fleet Karfi getting a 4th tac console is entirely in line with it's role. It is and always has been a very tactically oriented carrier in the game. 2nd only to the JDC in terms of tac boffs, but far superior in turn rate. It's certainly the correct choice for that ship. I wouldn't want it any other way.
An extra engy slot would be a waste on it and 5 sci slots should only be for true sci ships not carriers.

"True" ships (that epitomise a class) should be the only ones to only ever get 5 of a console type. Escort/dreadnaughts for tac, ships like vesta (and what should be on fleet varanus) for sci, and things like odyssey/bortas etc for engy.


Peghqu, as mentioned is a destroyer. By definition alone that means it's not an escort. imo only escorts get the prized 5th tac slots. Destroyers are a cross between escorts and cruisers, so should be engy heavy. So 4 engy slots seems perfectly fine too. Although given the nature of the vet ships, a 3rd sci console slot might have been nice to give it better role flexibility with it's uni LTC. But really it's ok with 2.

The Kar'fi has a slightly higher turn rate which the JHDN can easily beat with some RCS consoles...which the Kar'fi would have to sacrifice defense in order to keep up and not to mention is lacking in SST and a much stronger hull.

Personally I've never seen the Kar'fi as a Tactical Carrier, I mean between the Sci Cmdr and the Fer'jai frigates I always thought of her as more of a CC/Debuffer.

The Fer'jais dropping Tricobalts to stun and aceton beams and what the Kar'fi can do with the Sci Cmdr...I was thinking of calling her more of a jack of all trades ship but the Vo'quv is better at that.

Lets be honest though, what is the point of trying to make it a tactical carrier when there is almost a half dozen other ships that make better tactical carriers?

tom61sto

lianthelia wrote: »

Lets be honest though, what is the point of trying to make it a tactical carrier when there is almost a half dozen other ships that make better tactical carriers?

Only the JHDC is more tactically orientated than the Kar'fi of the limited dual-hangar carrier selection, and of the HECs out there only the Jem'hadar one is playable by KDF. Many are playing the Kar'fi with Sci BOff's CC augmenting the firepower it can dish out, myself included. An extra Tac console is the most requested addition I've seen on the forums to the Kar'fi of the three possible console spots. While I do see some merit in an additional Eng console, I don't think one extra Eng console would be enough on it's own to offset the survivability/turnrate troubles.

Survivability would be better gotten with Universal BOff adds, IMO. Even just the ensign being able to be flipped to Universal would allow for one more Eng power so 2x EPtS1 and 1x Aux2SIF, which makes a fair bit of difference with heals and resists for both shields and hull at decent pace. With the layout change being to Universals, rather than fixed position re-arranging like on the Tor'Kaht vs. the Vor'cha, people happy with the current layout can keep the layout the way they prefer too. While the Damage Control Engineer DOffs can reduce the cooldown of a single EPtS, it is a proc and with 3x purples I still end up with misses

bpharma

Personally I think the the Karfi with 2/4/4 for consoles (E/S/T) is kinda bang on, as someone said it has 5 tactical stations and 5 science stations, the consoles reflect this nicely,

As for the 1000 day ships, they will and should all get the same console layout and considering it has a tactical commander but otherwise very flexible boff stations I would think 3/3/4 would be better. Most buffing of tactical as that is the commander station but allows reasonable buffing of the other areas.