Let me get this strait, the galaxy x gets a fairly substantial update, when all it needed was a fleet version. Now the nebula which was already a great ship will get improved. but in no way shape or form will the galaxy r, the worst ship in the game by a mile, the only ship among the 3 that needs improvement, they would dare touch.
This is what scorn for a certain group of fan looks like. This is what they can do hurt those players they hate.
There's still hope. Since lockboxes are including retrofit mirror ships, there is a high chance we could get a mirror Galaxy in a future lockbox.
... your inferior playstyle and knowledge comes through.
The fact that you can't shine in an Excelsior and only in an Overpowered Scimitar should tell us enough about what you can do with the game and its ships.
A rude and insulting way to make a point.
'But to be logical is not to be right', and 'nothing' on God's earth could ever 'make it' right!'
Judge Dan Haywood
'As l speak now, the words are forming in my head.
l don't know.
l really don't know what l'm about to say, except l have a feeling about it.
That l must repeat the words that come without my knowledge.'
Is it, or is it NOT a factual point? That the one I referred to couldn't shine in a good, but well game balanced ship, one that many Fed captains will still sear by, and only in one of the most OP platforms out there in the game?
Is it, or is it NOT a factual point? That the one I referred to couldn't shine in a good, but well game balanced ship, one that many Fed captains will still sear by, and only in one of the most OP platforms out there in the game?
An ad hominem attack is a very poor foundation to prove any kind of point. Can you make your point without appealing to someone's personal faults?
"Gosh guys we really need to create something more for the Feds, because like there are too many Scimitars flying around because we made them too bad-@rse, and yeah lets just forget about the KDF who hurt me as a child."
maybe this buff for vesta is a clue that fleet vesta will come? fleet ships are 10-20% better than ordinary c store ships( thats a buff to them)....hmmmm......i would like to see fleet vesta for 5 fleet modules gimme gimme that and take my money
I look forward to improvements to the Nebula Class Science Vessel, almost as much as I look forward to installing secondary deflectors in my science vessels.
There's still hope. Since lockboxes are including retrofit mirror ships, there is a high chance we could get a mirror Galaxy in a future lockbox.
Which would change absolutely nothing.
The Galaxy Retrofit and Fleet Galaxy would still be very underwhelming ships consigned to an eternity of mediocrity, if not even more so.
Which would change absolutely nothing.
The Galaxy Retrofit and Fleet Galaxy would still be very underwhelming ships consigned to an eternity of mediocrity, if not even more so.
That's a pretty large claim to make. It ignores the possibilities that new BOFF ability options, Engineering console revamps, and/or saucer section A.I./ability upgrades could occur.
But... those improvements are only a small fraction of improvements they have done since the first expansion last year. Cruiser comm arrays, flanking, secondary deflectors...
lol... comm arrays lol.... yes, the thing that was supposed to make cruisers viable again, but doesn't. good god man, we are all doctors, but we cant all be blind lol.. comm arrays are a wash, as, if you play with people who are not picking their noses and or afking, they also get the same boost you do, thus, we are still underpowered..
however, I am one who believes cruisers really were not that underpowered to begin with, I kick TRIBBLE and take names with mine.
flanking, is awesome if your a klink, kinda sucks if your not.
secondary deflectors? you mean the ones that you can only use on one ugly ship?. im a little disappointed that they have not been released to all sci ships yet. seems like cryptic (as per the usual) dropped the ball here. who knows when we will see it implements on all the other ships.
what cryptic needs to do is stop thinking about ships in terms of dmg output, and roles.. someone asked in this thread why would you want a 3rd tac console on a nebula? well, because this game is almost 100 percent damage based. everything cryptic puts out is a dps race, everything is on a timer. so that being said, why wouldn't you want more raw dps?
they need to stop thinking in terms of cruisers have cmdr engineer stations. honestly, the nebula should have been a cruiser with a universal commander station. I mean Christ, its a multi mission specific ship. change out the pod, and boom, it has a new role. but, getting back on track lol, I hate how the ships are broken up into three major groups, and the major boff stations are segregated that way.
when I hear the term "assault cruiser" cmdr engineer is not the first thing that comes to mind lol.
honestly, when I hear "exploration cruiser" I don't think cmdr engineer either. I would assume science.
cryptic needs to release some ships that shake up the "old school" boff layouts we are used to. and brings new fresh ideas and build possabilites to the door. cryptic keeps trying to reinvent the wheel when all they have to do is adjust some bad habbits.
lol... comm arrays lol.... yes, the thing that was supposed to make cruisers viable again, but doesn't. good god man, we are all doctors, but we cant all be blind lol.. comm arrays are a wash, as, if you play with people who are not picking their noses and or afking, they also get the same boost you do, thus, we are still underpowered..
however, I am one who believes cruisers really were not that underpowered to begin with, I kick TRIBBLE and take names with mine.
flanking, is awesome if your a klink, kinda sucks if your not.
secondary deflectors? you mean the ones that you can only use on one ugly ship?. im a little disappointed that they have not been released to all sci ships yet. seems like cryptic (as per the usual) dropped the ball here. who knows when we will see it implements on all the other ships.
Your opinions don't change the fact that those are genuine updates to those ships.
what cryptic needs to do is stop thinking about ships in terms of dmg output, and roles.. someone asked in this thread why would you want a 3rd tac console on a nebula? well, because this game is almost 100 percent damage based. everything cryptic puts out is a dps race, everything is on a timer. so that being said, why wouldn't you want more raw dps?
Cryptic has an agenda, but isn't exactly developing gameplay to reflect it. The rest of the gameplay shouldn't pander to that.
they need to stop thinking in terms of cruisers have cmdr engineer stations.
Why? It is implied by the fact that almost every Cruiser having a Cmdr Engineering BOFF seat that Cruisers are Engineering ships. Just as there are Science ships and Tactical ships.
honestly, the nebula should have been a cruiser with a universal commander station. I mean Christ, its a multi mission specific ship. change out the pod, and boom, it has a new role. but, getting back on track lol, I hate how the ships are broken up into three major groups, and the major boff stations are segregated that way.
when I hear the term "assault cruiser" cmdr engineer is not the first thing that comes to mind lol.
honestly, when I hear "exploration cruiser" I don't think cmdr engineer either. I would assume science.
cryptic needs to release some ships that shake up the "old school" boff layouts we are used to. and brings new fresh ideas and build possabilites to the door. cryptic keeps trying to reinvent the wheel when all they have to do is adjust some bad habbits.
Cryptic wants Cruisers to be Engineering ships. *shrug* If they see no good reason to change them, they probably won't.
The Vesta ships are very good if kitted out right, but the paper thin hull means in certain elite stfs if you draw too much aggro you just die. You spend a fair few powers trying to plug this weakness, which drives you into certain defensive builds. Good examples of elite stfs that tax the Vesta more than most other T5 ships are "The Cure", "Hive", and the new Undine one, "Viscous Cycle".
I'm pretty sure one or more of the Devs realised this after jumping in a Vesta and trying some elites. It's pretty obvious if you've flown any of the Vesta variants for any length of time. So I for one welcome a hull buff, it is well over due. The Vesta never should have been released with such a weak hull with a 3/3 weapon setup, and 12 turn rate.
Is it's hull so much worse than that of other SVs? Other SVs that don't even have an invulnerability power and lack a hangar bay and aux phasers?
Sometimes weaknesses are needed to balance the strengths.
Star Trek Online Advancement: You start with lowbie gear, you end with Lobi gear.
The Vesta is the Fleet-tier science vessel that has the second weakest hull and the weakest shields. What it trades it for is sheer gadgetry.
The invulnerability powers are console based, but just how good are they as "oh shi-" buttons when most Vestas actually die from critical hits at times their players thought they were still 'relatively' safe. The Vesta is actually not all that much more resilient than the Aquarius Destroyer or some bird of preys.
The Aux cannons don't actually do all that much DPS, teach their players to be lazy with their power management, and toxically encourage a head-on fighting style on a ship that can only poorly afford it.
Finally, hangar AIs stink at best, and those things don't last/get swatted down like flies.
As far as I'm concerned, Vestas are good for two things: the occasional well-timed gravity well, and blowing up.
By contrast, what I believe is the new apex predator for science ships is the Dyson Science Destroyer.
The Solanae console set is plainly better in general and includes a more relevant passive set bonus. There's definite power creep in that vessel as despite its mode changing, it offers some of the most solid hull (second to the Fleet Nebula) and shield values (better than the Wells) science ships have since it doesn't have to compensate for the doubtful advantages of the Vesta's smallcraft hangar. The Vesta's versatility with universal console is generally just shunted into tactical LtC stations, which the DSD gets by default.
Personally, I would've actually considered the Fleet Intrepid or Fleet Luna better than the DSD since they share in its passive stat dependability - but your mileage may vary as the current meta seems to be 'turn your science ships as escorty as possible'.
As far as I'm concerned, the Vesta is an overhyped waste of space and money - with people so keen on making something out of thier investment to just settle on it and 'make it work' rather than master something which is handicapped. Weaknesses + Fluff really is just equal to 'weak'. There's nothing strong in being a dual cannon self-healboat topped with GravWell that barely makes it when it does succeed. @genemorph gets it.
If the Vesta's hull is actually raised to reach a more respectable level amongst fleet ships (i.e.: 30k) I'll likely swallow my ill opinion of it.
The Vesta is the Fleet-tier science vessel that has the second weakest hull and the weakest shields. What it trades it for is sheer gadgetry.
The invulnerability powers are console based, but just how good are they as "oh shi-" buttons when most Vestas actually die from critical hits at times their players thought they were still 'relatively' safe. The Vesta is actually not all that much more resilient than the Aquarius Destroyer or some bird of preys.
The Aux cannons don't actually do all that much DPS, teach their players to be lazy with their power management, and toxically encourage a head-on fighting style on a ship that can only poorly afford it.
Finally, hangar AIs stink at best, and those things don't last/get swatted down like flies.
As far as I'm concerned, Vestas are good for two things: the occasional well-timed gravity well, and blowing up.
By contrast, what I believe is the new apex predator for science ships is the Dyson Science Destroyer.
The Solanae console set is plainly better in general and includes a more relevant passive set bonus. There's definite power creep in that vessel as despite its mode changing, it offers some of the most solid hull (second to the Fleet Nebula) and shield values (better than the Wells) science ships have since it doesn't have to compensate for the doubtful advantages of the Vesta's smallcraft hangar. The Vesta's versatility with universal console is generally just shunted into tactical LtC stations, which the DSD gets by default.
Personally, I would've actually considered the Fleet Intrepid or Fleet Luna better than the DSD since they share in its passive stat dependability - but your mileage may vary as the current meta seems to be 'turn your science ships as escorty as possible'.
As far as I'm concerned, the Vesta is an overhyped waste of space and money - with people so keen on making something out of thier investment to just settle on it and 'make it work' rather than master something which is handicapped. Weaknesses + Fluff really is just equal to 'weak'. There's nothing strong in being a dual cannon self-healboat topped with GravWell that barely makes it when it does succeed. @genemorph gets it.
If the Vesta's hull is actually raised to reach a more respectable level amongst fleet ships (i.e.: 30k) I'll likely swallow my ill opinion of it.
Wow, I never thought I could find a post with so much completely opposite opinions of mine! :eek: :P
As far as I'm concerned, the Vesta is the top-dog science ship in the game and the DSD is pure, 100% TRIBBLE. But, that's just me. *shrugs*
Your opinions don't change the fact that those are genuine updates to those ships.
Cryptic has an agenda, but isn't exactly developing gameplay to reflect it. The rest of the gameplay shouldn't pander to that.
Why? It is implied by the fact that almost every Cruiser having a Cmdr Engineering BOFF seat that Cruisers are Engineering ships. Just as there are Science ships and Tactical ships.
Cryptic wants Cruisers to be Engineering ships. *shrug* If they see no good reason to change them, they probably won't.
yes, they are physical update, but it doesn't mean they are good, or that they fix anything they say they are fixing.
so what your saying is, that they should build ships, with specific functions, and builds, but not make content to support them? i don't get what you said. cause it doesn't make sense.
cryptic has been on record on these forums and in podcasts as saying that they don't want the ships to have a stigma. al has said there is no reason that only tac players should fly escprts and vice versa. they have said it was not their intent to make any certain ship an "engineers" ship, nor tac nor sci. but that is exactly what they have created. the ship types are so gated, its stupid. all im asking for is common sense.. if you have a ship named multi mission anything, it should have universal layout.. if you have a ship named "assault" anything, it should probably tip more towards tac.
and the good reason to change that up, is to keep it interesting for us.. the way ships work in this game has long been something players have not liked.. sure, they are making them better with the addition of warp cores and blah blah. but the ships are so gated and role specific, that there are ships i like, but cant fly because they do not support my role. this was kind of a stupid mistake in my eyes.. basically, you've cut the sales of a ship down to ship collectors, and specific classes..
The Vesta is the Fleet-tier science vessel that has the second weakest hull and the weakest shields. What it trades it for is sheer gadgetry.
The invulnerability powers are console based, but just how good are they as "oh shi-" buttons when most Vestas actually die from critical hits at times their players thought they were still 'relatively' safe. The Vesta is actually not all that much more resilient than the Aquarius Destroyer or some bird of preys.
The Aux cannons don't actually do all that much DPS, teach their players to be lazy with their power management, and toxically encourage a head-on fighting style on a ship that can only poorly afford it.
Finally, hangar AIs stink at best, and those things don't last/get swatted down like flies.
As far as I'm concerned, Vestas are good for two things: the occasional well-timed gravity well, and blowing up.
By contrast, what I believe is the new apex predator for science ships is the Dyson Science Destroyer.
The Solanae console set is plainly better in general and includes a more relevant passive set bonus. There's definite power creep in that vessel as despite its mode changing, it offers some of the most solid hull (second to the Fleet Nebula) and shield values (better than the Wells) science ships have since it doesn't have to compensate for the doubtful advantages of the Vesta's smallcraft hangar. The Vesta's versatility with universal console is generally just shunted into tactical LtC stations, which the DSD gets by default.
Personally, I would've actually considered the Fleet Intrepid or Fleet Luna better than the DSD since they share in its passive stat dependability - but your mileage may vary as the current meta seems to be 'turn your science ships as escorty as possible'.
As far as I'm concerned, the Vesta is an overhyped waste of space and money - with people so keen on making something out of thier investment to just settle on it and 'make it work' rather than master something which is handicapped. Weaknesses + Fluff really is just equal to 'weak'. There's nothing strong in being a dual cannon self-healboat topped with GravWell that barely makes it when it does succeed. @genemorph gets it.
If the Vesta's hull is actually raised to reach a more respectable level amongst fleet ships (i.e.: 30k) I'll likely swallow my ill opinion of it.
Vesta is a great ship if you bought 3x pack with useful consoles in it.
But i would like to see Fleet Vesta with 10% increase in all (hull and shields) except consoles (4tac-4sci-2eng layout)and maybe some new fleet console or special attack or maybe quantum field focused phaser get 360 degree attack with fleet version. And than i could die happy flying my Vesta
Vesta is a great ship if you bought 3x pack with useful consoles in it.
But i would like to see Fleet Vesta with 10% increase in all (hull and shields) except consoles (4tac-4sci-2eng layout)and maybe some new fleet console or special attack or maybe quantum field focused phaser get 360 degree attack with fleet version. And than i could die happy flying my Vesta
The Vesta is already a fleet level ship, so there won't be a fleet version. At least not until and if they make T6 ships, then - who knows?
so what your saying is, that they should build ships, with specific functions, and builds, but not make content to support them? i don't get what you said. cause it doesn't make sense.
No, I'm saying that's what they do NOW, and that's why we have so much imbalance. I personally want them to fix content so it supports every ship layout to reduce the amount of useless layouts, such as the Exploration Cruiser's, any ship that has a similar layout, or any more ship that comes out with a similar layout.
cryptic has been on record on these forums and in podcasts as saying that they don't want the ships to have a stigma. al has said there is no reason that only tac players should fly escprts and vice versa. they have said it was not their intent to make any certain ship an "engineers" ship, nor tac nor sci. but that is exactly what they have created. the ship types are so gated, its stupid.
I don't think there was ever an issue with a tactical captain flying a science ship, or an engineer flying a tactical ship, or any combination. If you could maybe provide examples, we could examine them.
all im asking for is common sense.. if you have a ship named multi mission anything, it should have universal layout.. if you have a ship named "assault" anything, it should probably tip more towards tac.
Well maybe your definitions are just different from Cryptic's.
and the good reason to change that up, is to keep it interesting for us.. the way ships work in this game has long been something players have not liked.. sure, they are making them better with the addition of warp cores and blah blah. but the ships are so gated and role specific, that there are ships i like, but cant fly because they do not support my role. this was kind of a stupid mistake in my eyes.. basically, you've cut the sales of a ship down to ship collectors, and specific classes..
Of course there are ships that are role-specific. That's a realistic function that reflects how real naval ships operate. There are functions to every ship type. Search & rescue, frontline, etc. Sure, starships in Star Trek might have different functions that may not always match real naval vessels, but my point stands.
But again, I'm not sure how you think something prevents say an engineer from flying a tactical ship.
Uh, you guys better look at what didnt happen to the Galaxy before you start getting wiggly about the Nebula
What? The Nebula Dreadnought will get a minor buff and the ship, of the subject matter, will get ignored?
...I guess that would mean nothing will happen since there isn't a Nub Dread. =/
Each ship should be unique and useful, not just old or vanilla. As said in this thread, perhaps make it a cruiser-crossover and give it come cruiser commands and another weapon port... to start.
Star Trek Battles Channel - Play Star Trek like they did in the series!Avatar: pinterest-com/pin/14003448816884219Are you sure it isn't time for a "colorful metaphor"? --Spock in 'The Voyage Home' SCE ADVISORY NOTICE: Improper Impulse Engine maintenance can result in REAR THRUSTER LEAKAGE. ALWAYS have your work inspected by another qualified officer.
Who said they're "good"? That's merely an objective view.
And no, that doesn't mean things are fixed from them. But it does mean they're trying.
No, I'm saying that's what they do NOW, and that's why we have so much imbalance. I personally want them to fix content so it supports every ship layout to reduce the amount of useless layouts, such as the Exploration Cruiser's, any ship that has a similar layout, or any more ship that comes out with a similar layout.
I don't think there was ever an issue with a tactical captain flying a science ship, or an engineer flying a tactical ship, or any combination. If you could maybe provide examples, we could examine them.
Well maybe your definitions are just different from Cryptic's.
Of course there are ships that are role-specific. That's a realistic function that reflects how real naval ships operate. There are functions to every ship type. Search & rescue, frontline, etc. Sure, starships in Star Trek might have different functions that may not always match real naval vessels, but my point stands.
But again, I'm not sure how you think something prevents say an engineer from flying a tactical ship.
ok kool, were on the same page with some stuff now. lol.. just some mis communication lol..
but.. there are definatly ships that do not favor say eng. and tac, and like wise with the other vessels.. what im saying is that in star trek, your role should be less about the ship, and more about the crew. Christ, with the right crew the defient partook in some scientific study, and humanitarian missions.
having two different parts of the game that define roles (ie, your characters class, and your ships class) often create issues. I am one of those people who has no problem running say my engineer in a nova class, but. I do it at a cost, I lose surviveability, and I lose dps. (well sustainable dps). sure, I don't do too badly, but, its def. no where near my other builds.
I made my choice to be an engineer, or a science officer, or a tactical officer once already, now I have to constantly play a game of trying to optimize the two together. which automatically knocks half the ships off the table for me (some in which I love dearly lol). and in a game that is all about beating timers via a dps race, it is a necessity to bring your a game, and min max your dps.
Comments
Helpful Tools: Dictionary.com - Logical fallacies - Random generator - Word generator - Color tool - Extra Credits - List of common English language errors - New T6 Big booty tutorial
A rude and insulting way to make a point.
l don't know.
l really don't know what l'm about to say, except l have a feeling about it.
That l must repeat the words that come without my knowledge.'
Is it, or is it NOT a factual point? That the one I referred to couldn't shine in a good, but well game balanced ship, one that many Fed captains will still sear by, and only in one of the most OP platforms out there in the game?
Helpful Tools: Dictionary.com - Logical fallacies - Random generator - Word generator - Color tool - Extra Credits - List of common English language errors - New T6 Big booty tutorial
Sorry, if I sound ungrateful - but after 4 years this sounds a lot like deja vu....
Instead I'm only sensing this:
Fed Fed Fed Fed Fed Fed .... KDF (wishful...) ... Fed Fed Fed Fed Fed ... ROM (LOL) ........
"Gosh guys we really need to create something more for the Feds, because like there are too many Scimitars flying around because we made them too bad-@rse, and yeah lets just forget about the KDF who hurt me as a child."
Which would change absolutely nothing.
The Galaxy Retrofit and Fleet Galaxy would still be very underwhelming ships consigned to an eternity of mediocrity, if not even more so.
Helpful Tools: Dictionary.com - Logical fallacies - Random generator - Word generator - Color tool - Extra Credits - List of common English language errors - New T6 Big booty tutorial
lol... comm arrays lol.... yes, the thing that was supposed to make cruisers viable again, but doesn't. good god man, we are all doctors, but we cant all be blind lol.. comm arrays are a wash, as, if you play with people who are not picking their noses and or afking, they also get the same boost you do, thus, we are still underpowered..
however, I am one who believes cruisers really were not that underpowered to begin with, I kick TRIBBLE and take names with mine.
flanking, is awesome if your a klink, kinda sucks if your not.
secondary deflectors? you mean the ones that you can only use on one ugly ship?. im a little disappointed that they have not been released to all sci ships yet. seems like cryptic (as per the usual) dropped the ball here. who knows when we will see it implements on all the other ships.
what cryptic needs to do is stop thinking about ships in terms of dmg output, and roles.. someone asked in this thread why would you want a 3rd tac console on a nebula? well, because this game is almost 100 percent damage based. everything cryptic puts out is a dps race, everything is on a timer. so that being said, why wouldn't you want more raw dps?
they need to stop thinking in terms of cruisers have cmdr engineer stations. honestly, the nebula should have been a cruiser with a universal commander station. I mean Christ, its a multi mission specific ship. change out the pod, and boom, it has a new role. but, getting back on track lol, I hate how the ships are broken up into three major groups, and the major boff stations are segregated that way.
when I hear the term "assault cruiser" cmdr engineer is not the first thing that comes to mind lol.
honestly, when I hear "exploration cruiser" I don't think cmdr engineer either. I would assume science.
cryptic needs to release some ships that shake up the "old school" boff layouts we are used to. and brings new fresh ideas and build possabilites to the door. cryptic keeps trying to reinvent the wheel when all they have to do is adjust some bad habbits.
Cryptic has an agenda, but isn't exactly developing gameplay to reflect it. The rest of the gameplay shouldn't pander to that.
Why? It is implied by the fact that almost every Cruiser having a Cmdr Engineering BOFF seat that Cruisers are Engineering ships. Just as there are Science ships and Tactical ships.
Cryptic wants Cruisers to be Engineering ships. *shrug* If they see no good reason to change them, they probably won't.
Helpful Tools: Dictionary.com - Logical fallacies - Random generator - Word generator - Color tool - Extra Credits - List of common English language errors - New T6 Big booty tutorial
Is it's hull so much worse than that of other SVs? Other SVs that don't even have an invulnerability power and lack a hangar bay and aux phasers?
Sometimes weaknesses are needed to balance the strengths.
The Vesta is the Fleet-tier science vessel that has the second weakest hull and the weakest shields. What it trades it for is sheer gadgetry.
The invulnerability powers are console based, but just how good are they as "oh shi-" buttons when most Vestas actually die from critical hits at times their players thought they were still 'relatively' safe. The Vesta is actually not all that much more resilient than the Aquarius Destroyer or some bird of preys.
The Aux cannons don't actually do all that much DPS, teach their players to be lazy with their power management, and toxically encourage a head-on fighting style on a ship that can only poorly afford it.
Finally, hangar AIs stink at best, and those things don't last/get swatted down like flies.
As far as I'm concerned, Vestas are good for two things: the occasional well-timed gravity well, and blowing up.
By contrast, what I believe is the new apex predator for science ships is the Dyson Science Destroyer.
The Solanae console set is plainly better in general and includes a more relevant passive set bonus. There's definite power creep in that vessel as despite its mode changing, it offers some of the most solid hull (second to the Fleet Nebula) and shield values (better than the Wells) science ships have since it doesn't have to compensate for the doubtful advantages of the Vesta's smallcraft hangar. The Vesta's versatility with universal console is generally just shunted into tactical LtC stations, which the DSD gets by default.
Personally, I would've actually considered the Fleet Intrepid or Fleet Luna better than the DSD since they share in its passive stat dependability - but your mileage may vary as the current meta seems to be 'turn your science ships as escorty as possible'.
As far as I'm concerned, the Vesta is an overhyped waste of space and money - with people so keen on making something out of thier investment to just settle on it and 'make it work' rather than master something which is handicapped. Weaknesses + Fluff really is just equal to 'weak'. There's nothing strong in being a dual cannon self-healboat topped with GravWell that barely makes it when it does succeed. @genemorph gets it.
If the Vesta's hull is actually raised to reach a more respectable level amongst fleet ships (i.e.: 30k) I'll likely swallow my ill opinion of it.
Wow, I never thought I could find a post with so much completely opposite opinions of mine! :eek: :P
As far as I'm concerned, the Vesta is the top-dog science ship in the game and the DSD is pure, 100% TRIBBLE. But, that's just me. *shrugs*
yes, they are physical update, but it doesn't mean they are good, or that they fix anything they say they are fixing.
so what your saying is, that they should build ships, with specific functions, and builds, but not make content to support them? i don't get what you said. cause it doesn't make sense.
cryptic has been on record on these forums and in podcasts as saying that they don't want the ships to have a stigma. al has said there is no reason that only tac players should fly escprts and vice versa. they have said it was not their intent to make any certain ship an "engineers" ship, nor tac nor sci. but that is exactly what they have created. the ship types are so gated, its stupid. all im asking for is common sense.. if you have a ship named multi mission anything, it should have universal layout.. if you have a ship named "assault" anything, it should probably tip more towards tac.
and the good reason to change that up, is to keep it interesting for us.. the way ships work in this game has long been something players have not liked.. sure, they are making them better with the addition of warp cores and blah blah. but the ships are so gated and role specific, that there are ships i like, but cant fly because they do not support my role. this was kind of a stupid mistake in my eyes.. basically, you've cut the sales of a ship down to ship collectors, and specific classes..
Vesta is a great ship if you bought 3x pack with useful consoles in it.
But i would like to see Fleet Vesta with 10% increase in all (hull and shields) except consoles (4tac-4sci-2eng layout)and maybe some new fleet console or special attack or maybe quantum field focused phaser get 360 degree attack with fleet version. And than i could die happy flying my Vesta
The Vesta is already a fleet level ship, so there won't be a fleet version. At least not until and if they make T6 ships, then - who knows?
And no, that doesn't mean things are fixed from them. But it does mean they're trying.
No, I'm saying that's what they do NOW, and that's why we have so much imbalance. I personally want them to fix content so it supports every ship layout to reduce the amount of useless layouts, such as the Exploration Cruiser's, any ship that has a similar layout, or any more ship that comes out with a similar layout.
I don't think there was ever an issue with a tactical captain flying a science ship, or an engineer flying a tactical ship, or any combination. If you could maybe provide examples, we could examine them.
Well maybe your definitions are just different from Cryptic's.
Of course there are ships that are role-specific. That's a realistic function that reflects how real naval ships operate. There are functions to every ship type. Search & rescue, frontline, etc. Sure, starships in Star Trek might have different functions that may not always match real naval vessels, but my point stands.
But again, I'm not sure how you think something prevents say an engineer from flying a tactical ship.
Helpful Tools: Dictionary.com - Logical fallacies - Random generator - Word generator - Color tool - Extra Credits - List of common English language errors - New T6 Big booty tutorial
... Galaxy-R, Star Cruiser, all Science vessels except for the Vesta, ENG heavy cruisers in general...
Rebofit, Retroboot, Bootfit, Retrobootfit
What? The Nebula Dreadnought will get a minor buff and the ship, of the subject matter, will get ignored?
...I guess that would mean nothing will happen since there isn't a Nub Dread. =/
Each ship should be unique and useful, not just old or vanilla. As said in this thread, perhaps make it a cruiser-crossover and give it come cruiser commands and another weapon port... to start.
SCE ADVISORY NOTICE: Improper Impulse Engine maintenance can result in REAR THRUSTER LEAKAGE. ALWAYS have your work inspected by another qualified officer.
ok kool, were on the same page with some stuff now. lol.. just some mis communication lol..
but.. there are definatly ships that do not favor say eng. and tac, and like wise with the other vessels.. what im saying is that in star trek, your role should be less about the ship, and more about the crew. Christ, with the right crew the defient partook in some scientific study, and humanitarian missions.
having two different parts of the game that define roles (ie, your characters class, and your ships class) often create issues. I am one of those people who has no problem running say my engineer in a nova class, but. I do it at a cost, I lose surviveability, and I lose dps. (well sustainable dps). sure, I don't do too badly, but, its def. no where near my other builds.
I made my choice to be an engineer, or a science officer, or a tactical officer once already, now I have to constantly play a game of trying to optimize the two together. which automatically knocks half the ships off the table for me (some in which I love dearly lol). and in a game that is all about beating timers via a dps race, it is a necessity to bring your a game, and min max your dps.
except they have stated many many many many many many times that their will be no t6 ships..