test content
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc

Guramba Siege Destroyer - Mirror version

questeriusquesterius Member Posts: 8,708 Arc User
I'm sure everyone is familiar with this beauty: http://sto.gamepedia.com/Guramba_Siege_Destroyer
With all the recent attention for the mirror universe i got thinking: what would the mirror version of the Guramba be like.

So,, why not make this a little thought experiment: What do you think would be the stats, consoles and boffs for a T5 or T5-U mirror Gurumba?
This program, though reasonably normal at times, seems to have a strong affinity to classes belonging to the Cat 2.0 program. Questerius 2.7 will break down on occasion, resulting in garbage and nonsense messages whenever it occurs. Usually a hard reboot or pulling the plug solves the problem when that happens.

Comments

  • warmaker001bwarmaker001b Member Posts: 9,205 Arc User
    edited December 2015
    questerius wrote: »
    I'm sure everyone is familiar with this beauty: http://sto.gamepedia.com/Guramba_Siege_Destroyer
    With all the recent attention for the mirror universe i got thinking: what would the mirror version of the Guramba be like.

    So,, why not make this a little thought experiment: What do you think would be the stats, consoles and boffs for a T5 or T5-U mirror Gurumba?

    T5 Mirror Guramba? My guess it would be the flip of it's current ENG & SCI alignment.
    TAC Cmdr
    TAC LtCmdr
    ENG Lt
    SCI Lt
    SCI Ens
    Consoles 2 ENG, 3 SCI, 4 TAC (5 at T5U)

    On the "cold day in hell" chance of T6 Mirror ships, I would say that BOFF layout would go:
    TAC Cmdr
    TAC LtCmdr
    ENG Lt
    SCI LtCmdr/Hybrid
    UNIV Ens

    It would be an extremely fragile Escort and most players don't know how to survive with a Lt ENG station only. Hell, most players can't survive with even a Lt+Ens or LtCmdr ENG station. Just like the T5 Defiant. I had no problems staying alive with her BOFF layout but lots of others had major issues. A Mirror Guramba would be the same.

    If one knew how to survive with that Lt ENG, it has a decent foundation supported by today's meta.
    XzRTofz.gif
  • markhawkmanmarkhawkman Member Posts: 35,236 Arc User
    edited December 2015
    Or they might do Mirror Kolasi.... with Pilot. :p But that would be a T6- with no trait.
    -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
    My character Tsin'xing
    Costume_marhawkman_Tsin%27xing_CC_Comic_Page_Blue_488916968.jpg
  • samt1996samt1996 Member Posts: 2,856 Arc User
    I think mirror T6 ships are an interesting prospect... perhaps in the next fleet holding we can get them.
  • markhawkmanmarkhawkman Member Posts: 35,236 Arc User
    There's already one mirror T6. Guardian. which has a different spec.
    -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
    My character Tsin'xing
    Costume_marhawkman_Tsin%27xing_CC_Comic_Page_Blue_488916968.jpg
  • questeriusquesterius Member Posts: 8,708 Arc User
    Survival nowadays is easy even with Lt Eng once you have energized nanites (was that the name?) which heal for 2.5% of outgoing damage.

    Instead of switching eng and sci, perhaps the LtCmdr slot can be switched to science.
    Perhaps even a secondary deflector, making it a real science vessel?

    They could use that setup to test the waters for a KDF science vessel.
    This program, though reasonably normal at times, seems to have a strong affinity to classes belonging to the Cat 2.0 program. Questerius 2.7 will break down on occasion, resulting in garbage and nonsense messages whenever it occurs. Usually a hard reboot or pulling the plug solves the problem when that happens.
  • orangeitisorangeitis Member Posts: 5,222 Arc User
    It would be an extremely fragile Escort and most players don't know how to survive with a Lt ENG station only. Hell, most players can't survive with even a Lt+Ens or LtCmdr ENG station. Just like the T5 Defiant. I had no problems staying alive with her BOFF layout but lots of others had major issues. A Mirror Guramba would be the same.

    If one knew how to survive with that Lt ENG, it has a decent foundation supported by today's meta.
    Why would it be an Escort? There is currently no precedent for any Mirror Universe ships having different ship types than their Prime Universe counterparts. A Mirror Escort of a Prime Destroyer is unlikely.
    Or they might do Mirror Kolasi.... with Pilot. :p But that would be a T6- with no trait.
    I'd think it would have the trait. The Mirror Universe Guardian did, after all. Probably no fleet version though, unless our next fleet holding will be a Mirror Universe outpost.
  • warmaker001bwarmaker001b Member Posts: 9,205 Arc User
    edited December 2015
    orangeitis wrote: »
    It would be an extremely fragile Escort and most players don't know how to survive with a Lt ENG station only. Hell, most players can't survive with even a Lt+Ens or LtCmdr ENG station. Just like the T5 Defiant. I had no problems staying alive with her BOFF layout but lots of others had major issues. A Mirror Guramba would be the same.

    If one knew how to survive with that Lt ENG, it has a decent foundation supported by today's meta.
    Why would it be an Escort? There is currently no precedent for any Mirror Universe ships having different ship types than their Prime Universe counterparts. A Mirror Escort of a Prime Destroyer is unlikely.
    Or they might do Mirror Kolasi.... with Pilot. :p But that would be a T6- with no trait.
    I'd think it would have the trait. The Mirror Universe Guardian did, after all. Probably no fleet version though, unless our next fleet holding will be a Mirror Universe outpost.

    "Escort" is a generic, umbrella term for Cmdr TAC ships.

    "Destroyer" is an old community term for the Escorts with at least a LtCmdr ENG station on it.

    Cryptic's naming conventions to their own ships is completely irrelevant since they randomly put the names for ships, sometimes to sucker people into buying ships. An old favorite of mine is calling the T5 Galaxy-X a "Dreadnought" when the regular, dil Assault Cruiser from Lv40 was almost at its level in offensive capability and retained practically the same survivability.

    Anyways, that's not what I'm going about from the post of mine you were referring to. One of the things I was going about was the simple, traditional "swaps" Cryptic does with Mirror Ship stats. They never change the Cmdr station around. But they will "mirror" the secondary, tertiary BOFF skill and console alignments around, especially when it came down to KDF ships.

    Standard Negh'Var
    Mirror Negh'Var
    Standard Qin
    Mirror Qin
    Standard Vor'Cha
    Mirror Vor'Cha

    Easy to predict going by what they've done previously with previous KDF Mirror Ships. Mirror KDF ships were not simple skin swaps like several Fed Mirror Ships, for example the Prometheus, Mirror Prometheus. Predicting a Mirror Guramba is easy.

    Edit: I want to clarify that the stats I gave out in my first reply are simply predictions on what Cryptic would actually do if they were up to it. Mirror Ships stats are very, very simple alterations and not some big revamp.
    XzRTofz.gif
  • rmy1081rmy1081 Member Posts: 2,840 Arc User
    Yeah but cryptic changed the mirror formula with the mirror guardian. Unlike the T5 mirror ships, the mirror guardian has the same boff layout as the prime guardian but the specialization changed from intel to command.
  • warmaker001bwarmaker001b Member Posts: 9,205 Arc User
    edited December 2015
    rmy1081 wrote: »
    Yeah but cryptic changed the mirror formula with the mirror guardian. Unlike the T5 mirror ships, the mirror guardian has the same boff layout as the prime guardian but the specialization changed from intel to command.

    It's news to me since I didn't get the Mirror Guardian :) That is a major change from past behavior.

    Edit: A Mirror T6 ship. Oh my.
    XzRTofz.gif
  • ssbn655ssbn655 Member Posts: 1,894 Arc User
    There would not be any simple as that. If you ever paid attention to the events in the MU the Terran Empire conquered all the known universe.
  • warmaker001bwarmaker001b Member Posts: 9,205 Arc User
    ssbn655 wrote: »
    There would not be any simple as that. If you ever paid attention to the events in the MU the Terran Empire conquered all the known universe.

    Yet here we are flying Species 8472 Bioships, Herald ships, etc.! ;)
    XzRTofz.gif
  • ssbn655ssbn655 Member Posts: 1,894 Arc User
    ssbn655 wrote: »
    There would not be any simple as that. If you ever paid attention to the events in the MU the Terran Empire conquered all the known universe.

    Yet here we are flying Species 8472 Bioships, Herald ships, etc.! ;)

    Yes but we are not the Mirror universe so by canon no mirror ships outside of Terran empire designs and jury is out on the tholians.
  • markhawkmanmarkhawkman Member Posts: 35,236 Arc User
    ssbn655 wrote: »
    There would not be any simple as that. If you ever paid attention to the events in the MU the Terran Empire conquered all the known universe.
    Yet here we are flying Species 8472 Bioships, Herald ships, etc.! ;)
    Also... there are Mirror ships for KDF and Rom already.
    -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
    My character Tsin'xing
    Costume_marhawkman_Tsin%27xing_CC_Comic_Page_Blue_488916968.jpg
  • alexvio1alexvio1 Member Posts: 389 Arc User
    edited December 2015
    What about NO? They didn't release Fleet T5 version, but released T6 version and Fleet T6 was called "Guramba". If they called it "Guramba" then I want to get fleet ship modules discount!
  • orangeitisorangeitis Member Posts: 5,222 Arc User
    edited December 2015
    "Escort" is a generic, umbrella term for Cmdr TAC ships.
    "Destroyer" is an old community term for the Escorts with at least a LtCmdr ENG station on it.
    That is demonstrably wrong. "Escort" is not synonymous with Tactical ships. In fact, I shall demonstrate it right now.
    No. A Destroyer is not an Escort.
    What the "community" calls them is irrelevant. What matters are the terms that are used in-game, and above all, what the STO devs dictate them to be. It's their game and their continuity.
    Cryptic's naming conventions to their own ships is completely irrelevant since they randomly put the names for ships, sometimes to sucker people into buying ships. An old favorite of mine is calling the T5 Galaxy-X a "Dreadnought" when the regular, dil Assault Cruiser from Lv40 was almost at its level in offensive capability and retained practically the same survivability.
    Dreadnoughts have been functionally different since Delta Rising, so that example does not fit into a mere superficial marketing ploy, or at least not entirely one.

    Destroyers are not Escorts, period.


    Edit: @borticuscryptic 's statement was made around the 4th anniversary on the old forums in regards to the question of the Dyson Science Destroyer's ability to use the Hirogen console that only Escorts, Raptors and Raiders can use, since "it's(the DSDs) an Escort", and Borticus gave that as a response.

    Kinda hoping he'll come by and confirm so I don't have to dig 2-year-old threads up.
  • warmaker001bwarmaker001b Member Posts: 9,205 Arc User
    edited December 2015
    orangeitis wrote: »
    "Escort" is a generic, umbrella term for Cmdr TAC ships.
    "Destroyer" is an old community term for the Escorts with at least a LtCmdr ENG station on it.
    That is demonstrably wrong. "Escort" is not synonymous with Tactical ships. In fact, I shall demonstrate it right now.
    No. A Destroyer is not an Escort.
    What the "community" calls them is irrelevant. What matters are the terms that are used in-game, and above all, what the STO devs dictate them to be. It's their game and their continuity.
    Cryptic's naming conventions to their own ships is completely irrelevant since they randomly put the names for ships, sometimes to sucker people into buying ships. An old favorite of mine is calling the T5 Galaxy-X a "Dreadnought" when the regular, dil Assault Cruiser from Lv40 was almost at its level in offensive capability and retained practically the same survivability.
    Dreadnoughts have been functionally different since Delta Rising, so that example does not fit into a mere superficial marketing ploy, or at least not entirely one.

    Destroyers are not Escorts, period.


    Edit: @borticuscryptic 's statement was made around the 4th anniversary on the old forums in regards to the question of the Dyson Science Destroyer's ability to use the Hirogen console that only Escorts, Raptors and Raiders can use, since "it's(the DSDs) an Escort", and Borticus gave that as a response.

    Kinda hoping he'll come by and confirm so I don't have to dig 2-year-old threads up.

    Ahh, come on man, what Cryptic officially calls what is horseshit, and you know it :) I'll use my favorite example again. The "Dreadnought" circus is still around because the ships still exist to make it a circus.

    The officially named Dreadnoughts:

    T5 & T6 Galaxy-X
    T5 Voth Bulwark
    T5 JHDC (TAC Cmdr; 2 Hangar Carrier)
    T5 Scimitar Pack
    T6 Sheshar
    T6 Xindi Ateleh
    T5 Xindi Narcine (TAC Cmdr; 2 Hangar Carrier)
    T6 Annorax (Science Vessel; +1 weapon slot)
    T6 Breen Rezreth
    T6 Vonph (TAC Cmdr; 2 Hangar Carrier)

    Now, you've been around this game long enough and know enough to have a general idea what these ships' general stats are. So what exactly makes them a "Dreadnought?"

    - More weapon slots? Some of those compared to similar ships have more armament. But a lot more don't.

    - Tougher ships? I don't think so. Their hulls aren't that so far above what the general stats are. They're not exactly resisting a lot more either because they're stat driven according to the build as other ships are.

    - Superior armament? Only a few of the listed have gimmick attacks like the built-in Phaser Lance on the Galaxy-X. Yet some require sacrificing console slots (like Sheshar & Elachi Barrage).

    I'll go one further. This is the old one that we used to bust Cryptic's balls about ever since the Galaxy-X came out. What do people think of when they see, read, hear the term, "Dreadnought?" They think along the lines of what a Battleship generally means. Super heavy armament, super tough protection. Power to dominate over other ships.

    Yet those ships officially called "Dreadnought" are not necessarily tougher nor harder hitting. I'll gladly take a Fed Eclipse, Fed Avenger (T6 especially), KDF Qib, KDF Mogh (T6 especially) if we want to have very hard hitting, very tough ships. Back before T6 even existed, the Avenger, Mogh, Fleet Vor'Cha, Excelsior, C-Store+ Sovereign/Regent, Odyssey could keep up with hitting hard and staying alive quite well, yet were not named Dreadnought. There is no significant difference in BOFF & Console Layouts from Non-Dreadnoughts.

    The TAC oriented Dreadnought Carriers do have +1 weapon slot over the Non-TAC oriented Carriers. The Annorax is a genre bending ship. But do they fulfill the imagery people have of what a "Dreadnought" really means?

    The only one that truly busted the game and deserved the title "Dreadnought" was the Scimitar Pack.

    Cryptic's naming conventions are jacked up. There are many things I go by with Cryptic's word on how things are supposed to be. But their naming conventions are not one of those.
    XzRTofz.gif
  • samt1996samt1996 Member Posts: 2,856 Arc User
    Actually they make perfect sense.

    Dreadnought carrier - an extra weapon slot and a tactical focus.

    Dreadnought warbirds - can't be compared because warbirds are a totally different class and the Scimitar is unique among all ships.

    Dreadnought cruiser - has a hangar bay and generally more tactical focus, also tends to be very slow and tough.

    The last one is somewhat vague depending on the ship but that pretty much covers it.
  • orangeitisorangeitis Member Posts: 5,222 Arc User
    Ahh, come on man, what Cryptic officially calls what is horseshit, and you know it :) I'll use my favorite example again. The "Dreadnought" circus is still around because the ships still exist to make it a circus.

    The officially named Dreadnoughts:

    T5 & T6 Galaxy-X
    T5 Voth Bulwark
    T5 JHDC (TAC Cmdr; 2 Hangar Carrier)
    T5 Scimitar Pack
    T6 Sheshar
    T6 Xindi Ateleh
    T5 Xindi Narcine (TAC Cmdr; 2 Hangar Carrier)
    T6 Annorax (Science Vessel; +1 weapon slot)
    T6 Breen Rezreth
    T6 Vonph (TAC Cmdr; 2 Hangar Carrier)

    Now, you've been around this game long enough and know enough to have a general idea what these ships' general stats are. So what exactly makes them a "Dreadnought?"

    - More weapon slots? Some of those compared to similar ships have more armament. But a lot more don't.

    - Tougher ships? I don't think so. Their hulls aren't that so far above what the general stats are. They're not exactly resisting a lot more either because they're stat driven according to the build as other ships are.

    - Superior armament? Only a few of the listed have gimmick attacks like the built-in Phaser Lance on the Galaxy-X. Yet some require sacrificing console slots (like Sheshar & Elachi Barrage).

    I'll go one further. This is the old one that we used to bust Cryptic's balls about ever since the Galaxy-X came out. What do people think of when they see, read, hear the term, "Dreadnought?" They think along the lines of what a Battleship generally means. Super heavy armament, super tough protection. Power to dominate over other ships.

    Yet those ships officially called "Dreadnought" are not necessarily tougher nor harder hitting. I'll gladly take a Fed Eclipse, Fed Avenger (T6 especially), KDF Qib, KDF Mogh (T6 especially) if we want to have very hard hitting, very tough ships. Back before T6 even existed, the Avenger, Mogh, Fleet Vor'Cha, Excelsior, C-Store+ Sovereign/Regent, Odyssey could keep up with hitting hard and staying alive quite well, yet were not named Dreadnought. There is no significant difference in BOFF & Console Layouts from Non-Dreadnoughts.
    A ship type is defined by what is in its name. A Dreadnought Cruiser is both a Dreadnought and a Cruiser. Stats and what it 'feels' like are completely irrelevant.
    The TAC oriented Dreadnought Carriers do have +1 weapon slot over the Non-TAC oriented Carriers. The Annorax is a genre bending ship. But do they fulfill the imagery people have of what a "Dreadnought" really means?

    The only one that truly busted the game and deserved the title "Dreadnought" was the Scimitar Pack.

    Cryptic's naming conventions are jacked up. There are many things I go by with Cryptic's word on how things are supposed to be. But their naming conventions are not one of those.
    Yes, Cryptic's naming conventions are indeed jacked up. But they ARE who gets to decide what their own ships(and their versions of "canon" ships) are called. And that's the point I'm trying to make.
  • narthaisnarthais Member Posts: 452 Arc User
    orangeitis wrote: »
    Yes, Cryptic's naming conventions are indeed jacked up. But they ARE who gets to decide what their own ships(and their versions of "canon" ships) are called. And that's the point I'm trying to make.

    None of which makes a lick of difference in the original point raised that Escort is a blanket, if unofficial, term for those smaller faster Tac Cmdr ships, of which 'Destroyers', 'Raptors' and 'Tactical Warbirds' are all a part of, Raiders as well to a lesser extent.

    Since Delta Rising its been easier to make distinctions on official naming, Just look at the mastery trait packages (ranks 1-4) and that tells you what sub-type of ship it is.
  • markhawkmanmarkhawkman Member Posts: 35,236 Arc User
    edited December 2015
    The real world definition of "dreadnought" basically amounts to "big and scary" warship... or a kind of protective outerwear designed to keep you warm in winter... they should totally add those next year just to mess with people. http://www.cactusoutdoor.co.nz/clothing/heavy-duty-pants/hd-dreadnought.html
    or: http://archivalclothing.com/tag/old-town-clothing/
    -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
    My character Tsin'xing
    Costume_marhawkman_Tsin%27xing_CC_Comic_Page_Blue_488916968.jpg
  • This content has been removed.
  • mustrumridcully0mustrumridcully0 Member Posts: 12,963 Arc User
    If there ever is a Tier 6 Gurumba and it comes with a science lt.cmdr, I'd be in.
    Star Trek Online Advancement: You start with lowbie gear, you end with Lobi gear.
  • questeriusquesterius Member Posts: 8,708 Arc User
    ssbn655 wrote: »
    There would not be any simple as that. If you ever paid attention to the events in the MU the Terran Empire conquered all the known universe.

    Correction: They SAY they have conquered all of known universe.
    Is it true or were they simply boasting.
    This program, though reasonably normal at times, seems to have a strong affinity to classes belonging to the Cat 2.0 program. Questerius 2.7 will break down on occasion, resulting in garbage and nonsense messages whenever it occurs. Usually a hard reboot or pulling the plug solves the problem when that happens.
  • orangeitisorangeitis Member Posts: 5,222 Arc User
    edited December 2015
    narthais wrote: »
    None of which makes a lick of difference in the original point raised that Escort is a blanket, if unofficial, term for those smaller faster Tac Cmdr ships, of which 'Destroyers', 'Raptors' and 'Tactical Warbirds' are all a part of, Raiders as well to a lesser extent.
    What does make a difference is that when there are established outlines of what a ship is and what a ship is not in-game, it is reasonable to assume that when one says "Escort" or any other type of ship, one is talking about what is actually that type of ship. Using a totally different method colloquially is confusing, and to be frank, unnecessary and not useful.
    narthais wrote: »
    Since Delta Rising its been easier to make distinctions on official naming, Just look at the mastery trait packages (ranks 1-4) and that tells you what sub-type of ship it is.
    What is a "sub-type"? How did you determine what exactly a sub-type is?
    ruinthefun wrote: »
    ssbn655 wrote: »
    There would not be any simple as that. If you ever paid attention to the events in the MU the Terran Empire conquered all the known universe.
    Seems to me that this would make it MORE likely. If the other races have been conquered, it seems only natural that their people would flee to us as refugees.
    Agreed. But technically, I'm under the impression that one of them did flee - Mirror Universe Hakeev, as a duty officer. He was a reward from the first Mirror event after the event was revamped. =D
  • ltminnsltminns Member Posts: 12,573 Arc User
    They tell you this ship has the 'Escort' T1-T4 Ship Masteries for example.
    '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.'
    Lt. Philip J. Minns
  • markhawkmanmarkhawkman Member Posts: 35,236 Arc User
    edited December 2015
    orangeitis wrote: »
    narthais wrote: »
    Since Delta Rising its been easier to make distinctions on official naming, Just look at the mastery trait packages (ranks 1-4) and that tells you what sub-type of ship it is.
    What is a "sub-type"? How did you determine what exactly a sub-type is?
    that's kinda awkward and a vague distinction at best. The first thing to look at is what the ship has as it's commander slot. Then the rest of the ship stats.... is it 4/3, 4/2, 4/4, 5/2.... etc... also shield mod and turn rate as well as the number of devices it can equip.

    Oh and the mastery for the T5-u and T6 ships. That's not always consistent either,
    -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
    My character Tsin'xing
    Costume_marhawkman_Tsin%27xing_CC_Comic_Page_Blue_488916968.jpg
  • orangeitisorangeitis Member Posts: 5,222 Arc User
    edited December 2015
    orangeitis wrote: »
    narthais wrote: »
    Since Delta Rising its been easier to make distinctions on official naming, Just look at the mastery trait packages (ranks 1-4) and that tells you what sub-type of ship it is.
    What is a "sub-type"? How did you determine what exactly a sub-type is?
    that's kinda awkward and a vague distinction at best. The first thing to look at is what the ship has as it's commander slot. Then the rest of the ship stats.... is it 4/3, 4/2, 4/4, 5/2.... etc... also shield mod and turn rate as well as the number of devices it can equip.

    Oh and the mastery for the T5-u and T6 ships. That's not always consistent either,
    Yeah, that does seem pretty inconsistent, awkward, and vague. The most reliable way to determine types and sub-types I have found would be, indeed, the playable starship naming system in STO. And I kinda understand why people are having difficulty grasping the ship naming system that STO had put forth. After all, I had once thought that the playable Vo'quv was a "Dreadnought" because the enemy Vo'quvs were Dreadnoughts.

    Primary types are straightforward: Tactical ships, Engineering ships, and Science ships. These are defined by STO devs as either having a Commander bridge officer seat of the corresponding career or the amount of console slots of the corresponding career in which the number of the other two career console slots can not exceed. These parameters have direct and usually heavy influence on gameplay styles.

    Secondary types are directly found in ship titles: Escort, Cruiser, Science Vessel, Destroyer, Carrier, Raider, Warbird, Raptor, Dreadnought, etc, with alterations or combinations on those types such as Flight-Deck Cruiser, Multi-Mission Science Vessel, Dreadnought Warbird etc. These classifications may or may not have much gameplay significance, but they are what they are.

    Also, secondary types do not necessarily adhere to only one primary type. There are Warbirds that cover all three primary types(though Science much less so, unfortunately). Other ships that demonstrate this are the Obelisk Carrier, which is an Engineering ship, or the B'Rotlh Bird-of-Prey, which despite existing as a Tactical ship in Admiralty is a Science ship, as it has two Science console mod slots over one of each of the other two career's console modifications, and four bridge officer seats, one of which must be Science - the rest Universal.

    But if one pays attention to these groupings in-game, less confusion will be had(sloppy shipyard filters and misleading C-store bundles notwithstanding). Not all Science ships are Science Vessels, not all Dreadnoughts necessarily need to match each other in gameplay style, no Cruiser is going to have 5 Tactical console mods if those particular ships only have 4 Engineering console mods, and "Escort" is certainly not synonymous with "Tactical ship".
    ltminns wrote: »
    They tell you this ship has the 'Escort' T1-T4 Ship Masteries for example.
    The Kolasi actually has the Destroyer/Warship Starship Mastery Package. The only ships so far that share mastery packages with Escorts are Raptors, as it is called(in blogs at least) "Escort/Raptor Starship Mastery Package".
Sign In or Register to comment.