This is tested info, right? Cause I know the in-game description says 0.99, but I have no way of knowing wheather the blog is the one with the typo or the in-game description.
This is tested info, right? Cause I know the in-game description says 0.99, but I have no way of knowing wheather the blog is the one with the typo or the in-game description.
I took the info from the ingame ship store, so i assume it's correct, anyways, how shall i test that?
Everytime I look at the weapons layout, I keeping thinking its like the 25th Century of a Dive Bomber or a fighter-bomber, with the saturation bomb almost like modern day cluster munitions, and the rear gunner like in WWII bombers. Possibly good for Torpedo Boat builds?
USS Canada
N.C.C. 171867
Sovereign Class
Saint John Fleet Yard
"A Mari Usque Ad Mare"
My one main problem with this ship and the other three recent releases is that they have taken a fifth boff slot away from us. I would like to have that slot on new ships and I don't think that I will grind any dilithium, or zen to get these ships or the two new undine ships as they suffer from the same problem. It seems like all new ships are nerfed when talking about the boff slots. Just my opinion here.
My one main problem with this ship and the other three recent releases is that they have taken a fifth boff slot away from us. I would like to have that slot on new ships and I don't think that I will grind any dilithium, or zen to get these ships or the two new undine ships as they suffer from the same problem. It seems like all new ships are nerfed when talking about the boff slots. Just my opinion here.
Nerfed because you've swapped an ensign level ability for a leuitenant commander? There's fewer boffs involved but we're not loosing anything, really.
Bipedal mammal and senior Foundry author.
Notable missions: Apex [AEI], Gemini [SSF], Trident [AEI], Evolution's Smile [SSF], Transcendence
Looking for something new to play? I've started building Foundry missions again in visual novel form!
Was looking at the model in ESD shipyard, something caught my eye. I noticed that on the main saucer above the main impulse drive there are two pretty well modelled shuttle bays. Now I might just be speculating, but given the somewhat controversial nature of this release... if the Tempest doesn't sell as well as is hoped you think they might slap on a hanger like happened with the Ar'Kif?
Looking for a dedicated Star Trek community? Visit www.ufplanets.com for details.
Was looking at the model in ESD shipyard, something caught my eye. I noticed that on the main saucer above the main impulse drive there are two pretty well modelled shuttle bays. Now I might just be speculating, but given the somewhat controversial nature of this release... if the Tempest doesn't sell as well as is hoped you think they might slap on a hanger like happened with the Ar'Kif?
Possibly but keep in mind the Sovereign, Constitution, Excelsior, Galaxy (Vanilla), Nebula, and Voyager classes also have pretty noticeable shuttle bays. It's part of Federation design (even outside of Cryptic's FED carriers. Those simply need to have them.)
Bipedal mammal and senior Foundry author.
Notable missions: Apex [AEI], Gemini [SSF], Trident [AEI], Evolution's Smile [SSF], Transcendence
Looking for something new to play? I've started building Foundry missions again in visual novel form!
Is it just me but this ship is new and shiny, maybe better than current Fed offerings but.......The Tal Shiar adapted destroyer seems better in nearly every way save the gimick rear cannon, some turn rate and the fifth tac slot.
However, the destroyer gets cloak, sensor analysis, more hull, better shields, etc, etc. I personally would love to get a real Fed ship with the Tal Shiar's stats.
I took the info from the ingame ship store, so i assume it's correct, anyways, how shall i test that?
No, I meant that maybe if you have bought the fleet ship yourself to compare shield values.
Thanks anyway, I guess it makes sense to have the same shield value as the rest of the C-Store escort line, although I wouldn't mind a suprise by Cryptic on that part so it really would be 1.045.
Possibly but keep in mind the Sovereign, Constitution, Excelsior, Galaxy (Vanilla), Nebula, and Voyager classes also have pretty noticeable shuttle bays. It's part of Federation design (even outside of Cryptic's FED carriers. Those simply need to have them.)
Oh I know, but a patrol escort is a smaller ship not a long range or what could be classed as a ship of the line. For an escort to have two shuttle bays like that makes you wonder.
Looking for a dedicated Star Trek community? Visit www.ufplanets.com for details.
Does seem extraneous since its already getting that boff layout, the 5 tac consoles out of the box, and the hull and shields boost.
The implementation of a rear dual cannon is not smart (and I'm being very polite in using that). This is due to several practical factors.
1. BOFF ability mechanics: CRF, CSV do not behave like BFAW. With BFAW, you do not need to target somebody, the FAW mechanics will allow the beams to shoot at what's available in its arcs. Cannon skills however require you to target SOMETHING in the arc. CRF, CSV, doesn't matter. You don't just hit something like CSV and it shoots and hits whatever is out front. You MUST target something.
2. No matter what you do, your Aft weapons setup will be inferior to what your front weapons are as an Escort. To keep a dangerous target to your rear so you can piddle away with a Dual Cannon, a few turrets, or BA's, is stupid, idiotic. As an Escort, the Real Meat of your true firepower is to the front. And IF you are using this new boat as a BeamScort, then you're going to try to broadside your pursuer anyway to present 6-7 beam arrays... thereby negating completely the point of having a fixed, rear mounted Dual Cannon. And IF you are going the traditional DHC/DBB, turrets to the rear route, a few turrets and a Dual Cannon plinking away is like trying to urinate on a Grizzly Bear. It's stupid and will get you killed.
The stats, BOFF layout, console layout of the ship is OP. The console I think is stupid. The fixed dual cannon is one of the stupidest things to have crossed as far as ship mounted equipment goes, in a long, long time.
The implementation of a rear dual cannon is not smart (and I'm being very polite in using that). This is due to several practical factors.
The stats, BOFF layout, console layout of the ship is OP. The console I think is stupid. The fixed dual cannon is one of the stupidest things to have crossed as far as ship mounted equipment goes, in a long, long time.
The fixed dual cannons are - in my opinion - for hit and run attacks. Charge a borg cube, unloading everything, as you flip around and fly off to line up another attack run, your ship is firing it's aft cannon to cover you as you pull back. It won't do massive damage, but it'll stop the patrol escorts dps from dropping if they do anything but 'park 4 km away from the cube' - it's a motivation to actually fly the ship in my opinion.
As to the console - it's buffed by phaser consoles. If you load up with phaser relays, every report I'm hearing says that console hits like an absolute truck.
My one main problem with this ship and the other three recent releases is that they have taken a fifth boff slot away from us. I would like to have that slot on new ships and I don't think that I will grind any dilithium, or zen to get these ships or the two new undine ships as they suffer from the same problem. It seems like all new ships are nerfed when talking about the boff slots. Just my opinion here.
No, they were basically doing what the KDF BoP did, by giving it a more powerful universal seating. (In this case, 1 Lieutenant Commander Universal)
The fixed dual cannons are - in my opinion - for hit and run attacks. Charge a borg cube, unloading everything, as you flip around and fly off to line up another attack run, your ship is firing it's aft cannon to cover you as you pull back. It won't do massive damage, but it'll stop the patrol escorts dps from dropping if they do anything but 'park 4 km away from the cube' - it's a motivation to actually fly the ship in my opinion.
As to the console - it's buffed by phaser consoles. If you load up with phaser relays, every report I'm hearing says that console hits like an absolute truck.
Doesn't matter for a Hit & Run style of play... because if you ARE moving around, that means you'll try to come back ASAP to do a STRONGER attack run using your much more powerful Front Weapons. And if you ARE doing a prolonged strafe where you put alot of distance between you and the target to regroup and prepare, rest assured: Your piddly little Dual Cannon's damage will suffer as the distance increases. If you ARE doing tight turns in short ranges, then that means you're trying to put your heavier front firepower to bear on the target. You are not putting any worthwhile time to piddle away with a Dual Cannon. You're going to be using your CRF/CSV for where it's actually needed: A good attack run with your 3-4 DHCs, not a piddly little, single Dual Cannon.
An Escort will be presenting as much forward firepower as it possibly can, unless it's a BeamScort. The weapons to the front are much, much heavier, more powerful. Wasting time to piddle away with the rear Dual Cannon is a waste of time when you should be presenting forward firepower. Whether you decide to turret it (unwise, IMO) or do proper strafing attacks... you want forward weapons as much as possible.
And if you ARE doing a BeamScort, then a rear Dual Cannon is that much more useless, because you will be Broadsiding as much as possible.
The rear Dual Cannon is just a completely stupid thing for an otherwise OP ship.
The implementation of a rear dual cannon is not smart (and I'm being very polite in using that).
As I said, extraneous. I'm sure there will be plenty of dumb people who will spent time trying to line up a rear shot as they fly past a target when they should be spending that time turning around, but thats their choice. A rear DBB might have been more interesting but whats done is done (and I'm glad they did something stupid frankly). And since apparently the blog-listed 0.95 shield mod is in fact only the regular 0.9, that does tone things down slightly. Still quite powerful with that boff layout (make a great NWS ship), but it does have me now thinking about how it compares to the Kumari variants, 5 tac consoles vs 5 forward weapons.
That dual cannon is excellent for what this ship was made for, dogfighting in PvP. Fly straight into an enemy with DHCs on CRF cycle, then get free extra damage after the pass. Who wouldn't want that?
Sure, there are better choices for PvE. There are better ships for beams and better ships for cannons. But for PvP, I think this ship is top-notch.
That dual cannon is excellent for what this ship was made for, dogfighting in PvP. Fly straight into an enemy with DHCs on CRF cycle, then get free extra damage after the pass. Who wouldn't want that?
Sure, there are better choices for PvE. There are better ships for beams and better ships for cannons. But for PvP, I think this ship is top-notch.
If you are dog fighting in PVP, you are moving fast as hell and turning, turning, turning, and doing lots of maneuvers. You are trying to line up your best weapons... All the front BTW, unless you are doing a BeamScort. Devoting time to put your weakest weapons, AFT, to line up to a deadly target on your TRIBBLE who are blazing away with their heaviest, best weapons? That's insanity!
If you are dog fighting in PVP, you are moving fast as hell and turning, turning, turning, and doing lots of maneuvers. You are trying to line up your best weapons... All the front BTW, unless you are doing a BeamScort. Devoting time to put your weakest weapons, AFT, to line up to a deadly target on your TRIBBLE who are blazing away with their heaviest, best weapons? That's insanity!
You're thinking of this fused cannon all wrong. It's just a nice addition, not something to base your tactics around.
Who says I'm lining it up? My opponent does that for me when evasive is on cd. Most of the time though two ships running cannons tend to do a straight pass at eachother, so the aft cannon tends to get off a firing cycle. Then comes the constant turns, but the opponent wants to attack my aft, so this is a nice bonus.
Something is better than nothing, that's all I'm saying. It's not a perfect ship, and there are better choices, but it's a great PvP dogfighter in my opinion.
You're thinking of this fused cannon all wrong. It's just a nice addition, not something to base your tactics around.
Who says I'm lining it up? My opponent does that for me when evasive is on cd. Most of the time though two ships running cannons tend to do a straight pass at eachother, so the aft cannon tends to get off a firing cycle. Then comes the constant turns, but the opponent wants to attack my aft, so this is a nice bonus.
Something is better than nothing, that's all I'm saying. It's not a perfect ship, and there are better choices, but it's a great PvP dogfighter in my opinion.
I tend to agree. A few points. First, most escorts have a 4/3 layout so the four wep slot is a "freebie". Secondly, it has RF I for free. So if you run all beams, the rear cannon still has a bonus. If you run cannons, your skills will upgrade it too. Likely, you will not be using scatter volley for your rear cannon anyways. Thirdly, this new ship lines up nicely with the new wep set from Counter command rep. The heavy phaser turret will be very nice with a cannon set up.
Basically i think this ship was an uneeded flop. One too expensive for it's worth like the Regent. it should be much cheaper. 2 it's another craptic design. Seriously guys higher a new ship model team this one sucks. The Regent, Avenger, and this just plain suck. And with rear cannon, that forces you into a phaser build like the Gal X does to use it effectively and the arc on dual heavy's is not that great. If it was a fix Dual heavy cannon turret wou,ld make it worth the price but as is no and even more not a canon base ship no inherent fan base. I want to see canon ships. and bugs fixed before any new ships.
You're thinking of this fused cannon all wrong. It's just a nice addition, not something to base your tactics around.
Who says I'm lining it up? My opponent does that for me when evasive is on cd. Most of the time though two ships running cannons tend to do a straight pass at eachother, so the aft cannon tends to get off a firing cycle. Then comes the constant turns, but the opponent wants to attack my aft, so this is a nice bonus.
Something is better than nothing, that's all I'm saying. It's not a perfect ship, and there are better choices, but it's a great PvP dogfighter in my opinion.
Even with the opponent lining up behind you, it's still meaningless. Because you are trying to line up your best weapons, which all reside to your front, or your broadside if you're using it as a BeamScort. Either way, you are trying to turn back into your opponent. Leaving him to your rear or at any position to keep pummeling away with his 4-5 forward weapons and rear turrets is not ideal.
Because of this, the very basic idea of the fixed, aft Dual Cannon is idiotic by Cryptic, regardless of it being something extra.
The ship itself is OP. The BOFF layout is OP. The console setup is OP. But the rear DC is just stupid because it is soooooo situational, and even if that situation does come up, the moment is over in a blink of an eye.
Basically i think this ship was an uneeded flop. One too expensive for it's worth like the Regent. it should be much cheaper. 2 it's another craptic design. Seriously guys higher a new ship model team this one sucks. The Regent, Avenger, and this just plain suck. And with rear cannon, that forces you into a phaser build like the Gal X does to use it effectively and the arc on dual heavy's is not that great. If it was a fix Dual heavy cannon turret wou,ld make it worth the price but as is no and even more not a canon base ship no inherent fan base. I want to see canon ships. and bugs fixed before any new ships.
To me, being forced into a Phaser build by the Dual Cannon isn't an issue. The bombing console however demands Phaser damage. If you have no intention of using the bombing console, then I say you have no need to be forced into Phasers. As I've griped alot of in this thread, the aft Dual Cannon is pointless. Why force your build to use Phasers for the sake of such an awfully implemented weapon? If you go, say, an AP supported build and just ignore the aft DC altogether, go for it. The weapon is so stupid and won't serve much, and you still have the 4/3 weapons layout, that you still come out the better for it by using better weapons.
Even with the opponent lining up behind you, it's still meaningless. Because you are trying to line up your best weapons, which all reside to your front, or your broadside if you're using it as a BeamScort. Either way, you are trying to turn back into your opponent. Leaving him to your rear or at any position to keep pummeling away with his 4-5 forward weapons and rear turrets is not ideal.
Because of this, the very basic idea of the fixed, aft Dual Cannon is idiotic by Cryptic, regardless of it being something extra.
The ship itself is OP. The BOFF layout is OP. The console setup is OP. But the rear DC is just stupid because it is soooooo situational, and even if that situation does come up, the moment is over in a blink of an eye.
To me, being forced into a Phaser build by the Dual Cannon isn't an issue. The bombing console however demands Phaser damage. If you have no intention of using the bombing console, then I say you have no need to be forced into Phasers. As I've griped alot of in this thread, the aft Dual Cannon is pointless. Why force your build to use Phasers for the sake of such an awfully implemented weapon? If you go, say, an AP supported build and just ignore the aft DC altogether, go for it. The weapon is so stupid and won't serve much, and you still have the 4/3 weapons layout, that you still come out the better for it by using better weapons.
In essence this ship is typical craptic design, worthless and never requested. they ignore the pleas for graphic fixes on the galaxy models and to make the Gal Retro truely playable instead of challenging to make playable. Yes we are rumpred for Constellation but many want to see New Orleans and a few other canon designs. Heck I even take playable and redesigned Typhooon and Jupiter but now instead they give us this TRIBBLE. me and two others in the fleet said no and it's defiantly NOT worth 2500 zen
First off, am I correct in deducing - from the various Boff powers suggestions - that this is a *four* station ship? I never new such ships existed in STO!
Also, assuming I deduced correctly, I see the four station configuration as a major liability. The Commander Tac slot and Lt. Commander Engineering slots make sense - this is how my Hirogen Hunter is laid-out. However, dropping an Ensign station (either Tac or Uni) in order to provide both a Lt. Commander and a Lt. universal station is, IMHO, quite limiting.
For example, assuming I dedicate the Lt. Uni station to Sci (to slot the HE and ST skills I always carry), I'm now virtually forced to run the Lt. Commander Uni station as an Engineering station and then use Aux2Batt to decrease the CD on my lone copy of TT. On the other hand, if I want to run a 2x A2D build and use double TT to ensure continuous coverage, I have to sacrifice all of my Sci skills and go with a Tac officer in the Lt. Uni station (to get that second TT skill).
By contrast, with my Hunter I can go all A2D (no A2B), use the Lt. Uni station for engineering and put a 2nd Tac officer in the Ensign Uni station for full TT coverage. And since my 2nd Tac officer is, like my primary Tac, a Superior Romulan Operative, I get the boost to CritH/CritD as well. Or if I do go A2B/Hybrid A2B-A2D, I can use the Ensign Uni. station for PH (which is how I typically fly my Hunter now). There is simply no way to do that with the new Patrol Escort - at least not that I can see from where I'm sitting.
And then there is the console layout. The original FPE's strength was always its expansive engineering support. 4 engineering console slots meant I could equip some armor (with +Turn) and an RCS, and still have room for up to 4 universals (or a mixture of Sci and Uni). Again, this is how my Hunter is currently laid out - Neut +Turn, RCS +AllRes, Nukara, Borg, ZP and Leech. With the 5th tac console, and the loss of an Engineering slot, I have to choose whether or not to be squishier (by dropping an armor console) or less accurate with lower CrtH (by dropping Nukara or ZP).
Again, lots of compromises. In fact, the more I look at this new ship, the less desirable it appears. Having spent weeks tuning and tweaking my Hunter, I see nothing in the new FPER that would inspire me to grind for 5x fleet modules (or hundreds of thousands of Dil for Zen conversion) in order to acquire it.
At the end of the day, it may have a nasty spike (DHCs + 5x Tac consoles = uber alphas), but it's nothing I haven't seen before from countless Bug ships. And if you're flying escorts and don't know how to handle a Bug, you really shouldn't be PvP'ing in the first place.
Comments
0.9 Refit/0.99 Fleet
so standard Fleet Escort
This is tested info, right? Cause I know the in-game description says 0.99, but I have no way of knowing wheather the blog is the one with the typo or the in-game description.
I took the info from the ingame ship store, so i assume it's correct, anyways, how shall i test that?
N.C.C. 171867
Sovereign Class
Saint John Fleet Yard
"A Mari Usque Ad Mare"
Nerfed because you've swapped an ensign level ability for a leuitenant commander? There's fewer boffs involved but we're not loosing anything, really.
Notable missions: Apex [AEI], Gemini [SSF], Trident [AEI], Evolution's Smile [SSF], Transcendence
Looking for something new to play? I've started building Foundry missions again in visual novel form!
Looking for a dedicated Star Trek community? Visit www.ufplanets.com for details.
Possibly but keep in mind the Sovereign, Constitution, Excelsior, Galaxy (Vanilla), Nebula, and Voyager classes also have pretty noticeable shuttle bays. It's part of Federation design (even outside of Cryptic's FED carriers. Those simply need to have them.)
Notable missions: Apex [AEI], Gemini [SSF], Trident [AEI], Evolution's Smile [SSF], Transcendence
Looking for something new to play? I've started building Foundry missions again in visual novel form!
http://youtu.be/FXOehzZiXGE
USS WARRIOR NCC 1720 Commanding Officer
Star Trek Gamers
However, the destroyer gets cloak, sensor analysis, more hull, better shields, etc, etc. I personally would love to get a real Fed ship with the Tal Shiar's stats.
No, I meant that maybe if you have bought the fleet ship yourself to compare shield values.
Thanks anyway, I guess it makes sense to have the same shield value as the rest of the C-Store escort line, although I wouldn't mind a suprise by Cryptic on that part so it really would be 1.045.
Oh I know, but a patrol escort is a smaller ship not a long range or what could be classed as a ship of the line. For an escort to have two shuttle bays like that makes you wonder.
Looking for a dedicated Star Trek community? Visit www.ufplanets.com for details.
The implementation of a rear dual cannon is not smart (and I'm being very polite in using that). This is due to several practical factors.
1. BOFF ability mechanics: CRF, CSV do not behave like BFAW. With BFAW, you do not need to target somebody, the FAW mechanics will allow the beams to shoot at what's available in its arcs. Cannon skills however require you to target SOMETHING in the arc. CRF, CSV, doesn't matter. You don't just hit something like CSV and it shoots and hits whatever is out front. You MUST target something.
2. No matter what you do, your Aft weapons setup will be inferior to what your front weapons are as an Escort. To keep a dangerous target to your rear so you can piddle away with a Dual Cannon, a few turrets, or BA's, is stupid, idiotic. As an Escort, the Real Meat of your true firepower is to the front. And IF you are using this new boat as a BeamScort, then you're going to try to broadside your pursuer anyway to present 6-7 beam arrays... thereby negating completely the point of having a fixed, rear mounted Dual Cannon. And IF you are going the traditional DHC/DBB, turrets to the rear route, a few turrets and a Dual Cannon plinking away is like trying to urinate on a Grizzly Bear. It's stupid and will get you killed.
The stats, BOFF layout, console layout of the ship is OP. The console I think is stupid. The fixed dual cannon is one of the stupidest things to have crossed as far as ship mounted equipment goes, in a long, long time.
The fixed dual cannons are - in my opinion - for hit and run attacks. Charge a borg cube, unloading everything, as you flip around and fly off to line up another attack run, your ship is firing it's aft cannon to cover you as you pull back. It won't do massive damage, but it'll stop the patrol escorts dps from dropping if they do anything but 'park 4 km away from the cube' - it's a motivation to actually fly the ship in my opinion.
As to the console - it's buffed by phaser consoles. If you load up with phaser relays, every report I'm hearing says that console hits like an absolute truck.
No, they were basically doing what the KDF BoP did, by giving it a more powerful universal seating. (In this case, 1 Lieutenant Commander Universal)
Doesn't matter for a Hit & Run style of play... because if you ARE moving around, that means you'll try to come back ASAP to do a STRONGER attack run using your much more powerful Front Weapons. And if you ARE doing a prolonged strafe where you put alot of distance between you and the target to regroup and prepare, rest assured: Your piddly little Dual Cannon's damage will suffer as the distance increases. If you ARE doing tight turns in short ranges, then that means you're trying to put your heavier front firepower to bear on the target. You are not putting any worthwhile time to piddle away with a Dual Cannon. You're going to be using your CRF/CSV for where it's actually needed: A good attack run with your 3-4 DHCs, not a piddly little, single Dual Cannon.
An Escort will be presenting as much forward firepower as it possibly can, unless it's a BeamScort. The weapons to the front are much, much heavier, more powerful. Wasting time to piddle away with the rear Dual Cannon is a waste of time when you should be presenting forward firepower. Whether you decide to turret it (unwise, IMO) or do proper strafing attacks... you want forward weapons as much as possible.
And if you ARE doing a BeamScort, then a rear Dual Cannon is that much more useless, because you will be Broadsiding as much as possible.
The rear Dual Cannon is just a completely stupid thing for an otherwise OP ship.
As I said, extraneous. I'm sure there will be plenty of dumb people who will spent time trying to line up a rear shot as they fly past a target when they should be spending that time turning around, but thats their choice. A rear DBB might have been more interesting but whats done is done (and I'm glad they did something stupid frankly). And since apparently the blog-listed 0.95 shield mod is in fact only the regular 0.9, that does tone things down slightly. Still quite powerful with that boff layout (make a great NWS ship), but it does have me now thinking about how it compares to the Kumari variants, 5 tac consoles vs 5 forward weapons.
Sure, there are better choices for PvE. There are better ships for beams and better ships for cannons. But for PvP, I think this ship is top-notch.
If you are dog fighting in PVP, you are moving fast as hell and turning, turning, turning, and doing lots of maneuvers. You are trying to line up your best weapons... All the front BTW, unless you are doing a BeamScort. Devoting time to put your weakest weapons, AFT, to line up to a deadly target on your TRIBBLE who are blazing away with their heaviest, best weapons? That's insanity!
You're thinking of this fused cannon all wrong. It's just a nice addition, not something to base your tactics around.
Who says I'm lining it up? My opponent does that for me when evasive is on cd. Most of the time though two ships running cannons tend to do a straight pass at eachother, so the aft cannon tends to get off a firing cycle. Then comes the constant turns, but the opponent wants to attack my aft, so this is a nice bonus.
Something is better than nothing, that's all I'm saying. It's not a perfect ship, and there are better choices, but it's a great PvP dogfighter in my opinion.
I tend to agree. A few points. First, most escorts have a 4/3 layout so the four wep slot is a "freebie". Secondly, it has RF I for free. So if you run all beams, the rear cannon still has a bonus. If you run cannons, your skills will upgrade it too. Likely, you will not be using scatter volley for your rear cannon anyways. Thirdly, this new ship lines up nicely with the new wep set from Counter command rep. The heavy phaser turret will be very nice with a cannon set up.
Even with the opponent lining up behind you, it's still meaningless. Because you are trying to line up your best weapons, which all reside to your front, or your broadside if you're using it as a BeamScort. Either way, you are trying to turn back into your opponent. Leaving him to your rear or at any position to keep pummeling away with his 4-5 forward weapons and rear turrets is not ideal.
Because of this, the very basic idea of the fixed, aft Dual Cannon is idiotic by Cryptic, regardless of it being something extra.
The ship itself is OP. The BOFF layout is OP. The console setup is OP. But the rear DC is just stupid because it is soooooo situational, and even if that situation does come up, the moment is over in a blink of an eye.
To me, being forced into a Phaser build by the Dual Cannon isn't an issue. The bombing console however demands Phaser damage. If you have no intention of using the bombing console, then I say you have no need to be forced into Phasers. As I've griped alot of in this thread, the aft Dual Cannon is pointless. Why force your build to use Phasers for the sake of such an awfully implemented weapon? If you go, say, an AP supported build and just ignore the aft DC altogether, go for it. The weapon is so stupid and won't serve much, and you still have the 4/3 weapons layout, that you still come out the better for it by using better weapons.
In essence this ship is typical craptic design, worthless and never requested. they ignore the pleas for graphic fixes on the galaxy models and to make the Gal Retro truely playable instead of challenging to make playable. Yes we are rumpred for Constellation but many want to see New Orleans and a few other canon designs. Heck I even take playable and redesigned Typhooon and Jupiter but now instead they give us this TRIBBLE. me and two others in the fleet said no and it's defiantly NOT worth 2500 zen
Also, assuming I deduced correctly, I see the four station configuration as a major liability. The Commander Tac slot and Lt. Commander Engineering slots make sense - this is how my Hirogen Hunter is laid-out. However, dropping an Ensign station (either Tac or Uni) in order to provide both a Lt. Commander and a Lt. universal station is, IMHO, quite limiting.
For example, assuming I dedicate the Lt. Uni station to Sci (to slot the HE and ST skills I always carry), I'm now virtually forced to run the Lt. Commander Uni station as an Engineering station and then use Aux2Batt to decrease the CD on my lone copy of TT. On the other hand, if I want to run a 2x A2D build and use double TT to ensure continuous coverage, I have to sacrifice all of my Sci skills and go with a Tac officer in the Lt. Uni station (to get that second TT skill).
By contrast, with my Hunter I can go all A2D (no A2B), use the Lt. Uni station for engineering and put a 2nd Tac officer in the Ensign Uni station for full TT coverage. And since my 2nd Tac officer is, like my primary Tac, a Superior Romulan Operative, I get the boost to CritH/CritD as well. Or if I do go A2B/Hybrid A2B-A2D, I can use the Ensign Uni. station for PH (which is how I typically fly my Hunter now). There is simply no way to do that with the new Patrol Escort - at least not that I can see from where I'm sitting.
And then there is the console layout. The original FPE's strength was always its expansive engineering support. 4 engineering console slots meant I could equip some armor (with +Turn) and an RCS, and still have room for up to 4 universals (or a mixture of Sci and Uni). Again, this is how my Hunter is currently laid out - Neut +Turn, RCS +AllRes, Nukara, Borg, ZP and Leech. With the 5th tac console, and the loss of an Engineering slot, I have to choose whether or not to be squishier (by dropping an armor console) or less accurate with lower CrtH (by dropping Nukara or ZP).
Again, lots of compromises. In fact, the more I look at this new ship, the less desirable it appears. Having spent weeks tuning and tweaking my Hunter, I see nothing in the new FPER that would inspire me to grind for 5x fleet modules (or hundreds of thousands of Dil for Zen conversion) in order to acquire it.
At the end of the day, it may have a nasty spike (DHCs + 5x Tac consoles = uber alphas), but it's nothing I haven't seen before from countless Bug ships. And if you're flying escorts and don't know how to handle a Bug, you really shouldn't be PvP'ing in the first place.
RCK
RCK
TT1, APD1, CRF2, APO3
TT1, CSV1,CRF2
PH1, HE2
EPtE1, RSP1
EPtS1
2x Zemok
3x Damage control
1x Keel'el
Now the new old school DHC patrol escort...
TT1, APD1, CRF2, APO3
TT1, CSV1, CRF2
PH1, HE2
EPtE1, RSP1, EPtS3
2x Zemok
3x Damage control
1x Keel'el
I know which one I like the look of the most and that's just a vanilla set up,
Another thing to remember just because you have 5 Tac consoles doesn't mean you can't put a Uni console in one of them.
≡/\≡