edit: additionally, if you're not using torps, you should be. All cannons are nice DPS but your power levels can be problematic, and torps + supporting doffs can yield good results.
Your preferences. But, all cannon builds is a viable build.
You said it yourself, it has nice DPS. From that, you can guess that the power consumption isn't an issue.
The only thing that is really going to get affected is your afts, as they fire after your fore. But, the higher DPS on the fore easily makes up for the afts, and then some.
If you're really that concerned about it, you can always divert more power to your weapons and increase your cap. Your damage modifier will still be at 125, but your power drain starts at whatever your cap is at.
For instance, if I switched my power level back to 100, I would have an actual weapon subsystem at 135. Drain starts from this point. If you hit a battery and get 150, all of your fore weapons would be firing at the maximum 125 damage multiplier.
Your preferences. But, all cannon builds is a viable build.
You said it yourself, it has nice DPS. From that, you can guess that the power consumption isn't an issue.
The only thing that is really going to get affected is your afts, as they fire after your fore. But, the higher DPS on the fore easily makes up for the afts, and then some.
If you're really that concerned about it, you can always divert more power to your weapons and increase your cap. Your damage modifier will still be at 125, but your power drain starts at whatever your cap is at.
For instance, if I switched my power level back to 100, I would have an actual weapon subsystem at 135. Drain starts from this point. If you hit a battery and get 150, all of your fore weapons would be firing at the maximum 125 damage multiplier.
Well, more my point is that if you *are* running an all-DHC configuration, that third ensign slot is wasted, as others in the thread have stated. If you use torps/beams, you can make that third slot un-useless and still achieve comparable (and in my experience, superior) DPS numbers.
Tachyokenetic Converter (+22% Turn rate and bunch of bonuses to CritH and S) and Field Generator in the Science console slot and you turn the Fleet Defiant into a poor-mans Bug ship. Same DPS and turn rate, just sub shields and hull.
EDIT, Cannot recommend complete Temporal Warfare set, cause then your taking away from your DPS. If you do add Chroniton Dual Beam Bank, you could turn that ensign into a target subsystem shields and use Chroniton Torps since you get that nice damage boost.
Hi, my name is: Elim Garak, Former Cardassian Oppressor
LTS, here since...when did this game launch again?
Menial tasks? Forget that...you can solo cubes in Infected and KA elites. Even more so if you stay below or above the cube, so it can't fire it's heavy torpedo.
In Cure, the probes get taken out pretty quickly too.
Oh absolutely.
I just mean it to say that anything the 3 DHC + 1 Torp Config can do against fodder enemies like BoPs and probes with it's better spike a 4x DHC build can do as well.
On top of that, the all cannon builds come out with overall significantly higher DPS.
This is what my combat logs have shown me, including comparisons to my own ships, the ships of friends and the ships of PUGs.
My Bortasqu makes a great all-cannon build too... if only Cryptic could see fit to eliminate the clearly erroneous turn rate so the ship could function like other escorts.....
That's not really the same thing as being forced to
A) Use a substandard fore layout with a DBB or Torp. Leave the slot empty.
If the Torp/DBB + 3DHC layouts performed equally as well as 4x DHCs that would be fine. They do not.
If there were other choices once you already have 2x TT that would be fine too. There are not.
Those sacrifices you talk about? I'm not trying to "win the internet" with this.
I fly a JHAS.
I had considered putting the Fleet Defiant on a secondary, and tertiary character but the layout is poor enough that I simply refuse to pay for it.
Quite simply, the Fleet Patrol Escort is the superior ship (able to run the old Patrol Escort or Adv Escort layouts) and 1 Tactical Console is not as large a damage improvement as people think.
There's the paradox, the Defiant gives up Ensign Sci or Ensign Eng survivability tools for what should be greater damage potential.
Instead, an Ensign Tactical actually lowers your overall DPS.
edit: additionally, if you're not using torps, you should be. All cannons are nice DPS but your power levels can be problematic, and torps + supporting doffs can yield good results.
If all cannons consistently come out significantly higher DPS than 3+1 Torp, then your concerns about power levels are effectively irrelevant.
I just mean it to say that anything the 3 DHC + 1 Torp Config can do against fodder enemies like BoPs and probes with it's better spike a 4x DHC build can do as well.
On top of that, the all cannon builds come out with overall significantly higher DPS.
This is what my combat logs have shown me, including comparisons to my own ships, the ships of friends and the ships of PUGs.
That's not really the same thing as being forced to
A) Use a substandard fore layout with a DBB or Torp. Leave the slot empty.
If the Torp/DBB + 3DHC layouts performed equally as well as 4x DHCs that would be fine. They do not.
If there were other choices once you already have 2x TT that would be fine too. There are not.
Those sacrifices you talk about? I'm not trying to "win the internet" with this.
I fly a JHAS.
I had considered putting the Fleet Defiant on a secondary, and tertiary character but the layout is poor enough that I simply refuse to pay for it.
Quite simply, the Fleet Patrol Escort is the superior ship (able to run the old Patrol Escort or Adv Escort layouts) and 1 Tactical Console is not as large a damage improvement as people think.
There's the paradox, the Defiant gives up Ensign Sci or Ensign Eng survivability tools for what should be greater damage potential.
Instead, an Ensign Tactical actually lowers your overall DPS.
If all cannons consistently come out significantly higher DPS than 3+1 Torp, then your concerns about power levels are effectively irrelevant.
Rather than dropping a DHC have you tried mounting a rear beam array/mine/torp?
The defiant is a fairly nimble boat and w/the critH repairs coming from rep system, it may be better to drop a rear turret for a Beam Array and BO or TSSx or aTric/Cront projectile.
It would take a different piloting style, but may well be more effective in the end.
[Zone] Dack@****: cowards can't take a fed 1 on 1 crinckley cowards Hahahaha you smell like flowers
Random Quote from Kerrat
"Sumlobus@****: your mums eat Iced Targ Poo"
C&H Fed banter
Considering how easy Fleet Defiants are to aquire, it seems like a very reasonable and necessary trade-off for that ship. It would put it on par, if not ahead of (with the cloak), the Jem'hadar attack ship. We all know the bug is already OP, but at least its a lockbox ship. If that was a Ens Eng slot, no Fed would have reason to use any other escort.
Rather than dropping a DHC have you tried mounting a rear beam array/mine/torp?
The defiant is a fairly nimble boat and w/the critH repairs coming from rep system, it may be better to drop a rear turret for a Beam Array and BO or TSSx or aTric/Cront projectile.
It would take a different piloting style, but may well be more effective in the end.
Dispersal mine patterns start at the LT level. So adding a mine launcher is useless. You need to either use a Beam or a Torpedo to get usage out of the 3rd tac ensign
Having a uni ensign slot would turn this around in an instant, especially as its a T3 shipyard ship!
Yeah, it would make it a ridiculously OP ship for a tier 3 shipyard. You are basically wanting ot turn it into the equal of a Jem'hadar bug, that's unacceptable for the ease of acquiring that ship. Hell the Klingon's don't even have a tier 5 raptor/destroyer that's anywhere near as powerful as the Fleet Tac Escort, Tac Ens slot be damned.
The Fleet MVAE and the HEC both use the same layout for tac officers, and for good reason. If you change any of those Tac Ensigns to a Uni or Eng, 3 ships that are very powerful already become absolute monsters.
Considering how easy Fleet Defiants are to aquire, it seems like a very reasonable and necessary trade-off for that ship. It would put it on par, if not ahead of (with the cloak), the Jem'hadar attack ship. We all know the bug is already OP, but at least its a lockbox ship. If that was a Ens Eng slot, no Fed would have reason to use any other escort.
Precisely. These Feddies are whining that Cryptic didn't make their ship even MORE 'OP' than it is. Seriously, it's got 5 tac consoles, and it turns fairly well for a Federation escort. KDF doesn't have any 5 tac console escorts, and the raptors all turn worse than the Defiant (the BoPs aren't destroyers/escorts). It's the KDF that has room to complain here, not the effing Feddies. They got a ship that literally has the power to shred through the TT1's redistribution, at least when used on BoPs and other escorts/destroyers. That's not enough for 'em, especially when combined with a cloak that gives exactly the same decloak bonuses as the vaunted 'OP' BoP battlecloak?
People trying to 'tank endlessly' in an escort are doing it wrong.
My PvP toon is Krov, of The House of Snoo. Beware of my Hegh'ta of doom.
I use the third Tac Slot to run an instance of Beam Overload, equipping a single Dual Beam. the power comes back pretty quickly, and it provides an excellent amount of burst.
I didnt like the three tac slots at first, but after setting it up with 1 Dual Beam I quite enjoy it.
The cloak is trash, (not a battle cloak) and I rarely use it.
Why did you guys revive a month and a half old thread? Seriously? This is like the 10th zombie thread revived in the past 2 weeks. ENOUGH ALREADY. Make new threads, stop reviving old ones.
It is said the best weapon is one that is never fired. I disagree. The best weapon is one you only have to fire... once.
Why did you guys revive a month and a half old thread? Seriously? This is like the 10th zombie thread revived in the past 2 weeks. ENOUGH ALREADY. Make new threads, stop reviving old ones.
Eh, I don't care. I'm just using the opportunity to bash feddies who are never satisfied.
My PvP toon is Krov, of The House of Snoo. Beware of my Hegh'ta of doom.
personally i just use a torpedo tube and spread 1. photons in stfs (for the borg proc), quantums against anything else and chronitons/transphasic for PVP.
sure it does less dps in most situations, but torpedos have a certain utility that can't be denied (aceton assimilator, fire a salvo at frigates - change target - frigates will blow while you blow other stuff with your cannons)
But then again i do not see a torp tube instead of a forth DHC as big miss in DPS, more like an added variety to the arsenal that can fullfill other functions, energy weapons can't.
Both of those ships make a trade off for their Ltc Eng and Sci BOFF slots.
The defiant just gets an extra useless tac slot.
While no ship likes the crappy 3rd ensign slot, the defiant suffers the worst from it.
That's where you lose me.
Yes, "third Tac Ensign" is useless; but it's no more and no less useless on the Defiant-F than on the Prometheus-F or Akira-F (or the Qin-F, for that matter!).
Should all those get an universal Ensign as well?
And you know very well the third Tac Ensign isn't lowering your DPS. If a DBB or Torpedo lowers your DPS (it does), you leave it empty (well, you put a 5th Efficient Saurian and don't care what skill he has).
Here's how Cryptic sees things:
- lockbox Ships=more powerful than the rest, can break balancing rules. Hence the JHAS.
- Fleet Ships should all be relatively balanced with each other and have their own niches.
Did they completely succeed on the balance front? No, but that's impossible.
But on the variety front, yes (I've already done this in the past, but here we go again):
1. Hermes-F.
Pros: Universal Ensign.
Cons: 10th Console is Eng.
Bog-standard thing. This Ship's one advantage over the other Fleet Escorts is its Universal Ensign; for that it pays in not having anything exceptional: turn rate is average, Hull/Shields are average, Consoles are bad,...
Give a Universal (or even Sci*) Ensign to the Defiant-F and this thing is pointless.
2. Defiant-F.
Pros: 5th Tac Console, Cloak, turn rate
Cons: Useless Ensign, lower Hull, lolCrew
The Defiant-F does have the best raw DPS of all Escorts. Between the Cloak's bonus, 5th Tac console and C/LC Tac, no non-JHAS can equal it.
You say the 5th Tac Console is overrated and it can be, yes, but so is the added Sci* Ensign power of the Hermes.
In the end, it's a slight damage bonus for a slight survivability malus.
Could be worse: the Qin-F has the useless Ensign but no 5th Tac Console!
3. Prometheus-F.
Pros: 5th Tac Console, LC Sci, MVAM
Cons: Useless Ensign.
Let's be honest: this thing is a cut above the rest. Not a huge cut, but a cut nonetheless.
4. Akira-F
Pros: LC Eng, if so inclined, Hangar, Hull, looks
Cons: Useless Ensign, Turn rate.
Personally, I'm no huge fan of the LC Eng, but I'd imagine anyone getting this would be.
A nice mix nonetheless.
5. Aquarius-F.
Pros: 2 Universal BOFFs, Turn rate, loldevices
Cons: Hull, Shields, Consoles, Impulse mod, lolCrew, 1 less Aft weapon
Even after the buff, this thing is still junk. Still can't understand why anyone would get it/fly it.
Tbh, if it was up to me, both for balance and consistency reasons, I'd change the Console layouts as such (Tac/Eng/Sci):
Hermes-F: 4/3/3
Akira-F: 4/4/2
Prometheus-F: 4/2/4
Now, to fix the "useless 3rd Tac Ensign" on all concerned Ships, the slot should provide some use, if less than others.
New BOFF abilities would be ideal (same for "useless 3rd Eng Ensign"), but a simpler fix is to make subsystem targetting work with all Energy Weapons.
*an all-cannon Escort has only 3 really useful DOFFs: Warp Core Engineer, Shield Distribution Officer, Damage Control Engineers; so EPTS1*2 is unnecessary.
The fleet MVAM is well ahead of this thing, they buffed the turn rate on the other escorts & still decided not to buff the shield mod to .99 or change the ensign station on the fleet Defiant. Sure it has a small boost to hull & a 5th tac console, but honestly this ship has lost ground on the others.
The only thing that Torpedos are currently good for are dealing with Fodder ships.
This tends to drop your average DPS off by quite a bit (using Elite STFs as an example you can go from 6k DPS to 8-10k DPS by running all DHCs/Turrets).
Those same fodder ships can be destroyed with just cannon fire, maybe it takes 1 or 2s more - or maybe it doesn't.
A 4x DHC + 3x Turret build Escort can easily do the menial tasks in Elite STFs like Guard Kang solo or take both sides of KASE probes out.
If you think an Escort with a Torp instead of a DHC can't pull 10k DPS, then you are quite mistaken. I myself did 9,5k damage in ISE, a STF that isn't usually very kind to squishy escorts. And that's with my Retrofit Defiant, not the fleet version and only MK XI blue tac consoles.
Yes, if you want to run an all Cannon build other ships are better. This just doesn't mean, that the Fleet Defiant is all-out bad.
Cannon builds are just too streamlined and dull in my opinion. You just cycle through your abilities again and again without little to no variation. Plain boring.
Sure an all Cannon build may provide more consistent DPS, but it's less fun to play. (in my opinion)
That's where you lose me.
Yes, "third Tac Ensign" is useless; but it's no more and no less useless on the Defiant-F than on the Prometheus-F or Akira-F (or the Qin-F, for that matter!).
It's no less useless, but those ships do at least get something very useful out of the deal - chiefly Ltc Eng and Sci. So while the 3rd Tac Ensign is still an issue, I'm more willing to accept it on those ships.
As far as a fix goes, my ideal fix would be a reorganization of Tactical powers to bring a few powers down 1 tier and allow them to be slotted in the Ensign slot.
I'd also like for BO 1, 2 and 3 to get a balance pass.
BO 1 should (continue to) do less damage than 2 & 3, and 2 should do less than 3 - but they should have a lower weapon power reduction to compensate. (Just roughly shooting a number out for example's sake BO 1 = 30 weapon power drain, BO 2 = 40 Weapon Power drain, BO 3 = 50 weapon power drain).
(I also think Engineering is even in more dire need of this kind of BO power reorganization to make ensign slots more useful).
I just don't think that's ever going to happen unfortunately.
And you know very well the third Tac Ensign isn't lowering your DPS. If a DBB or Torpedo lowers your DPS (it does), you leave it empty (well, you put a 5th Efficient Saurian and don't care what skill he has).
So what you're saying is:
* A DBB or Torpedo lowers your DPS.
* Suggested solution is to not slot one and leave a Tac Ensign BOFF slot blank.
> Result is a ship that has one, zero function BOFF slot.
Hence, the creation of this thread - because what you have said above is not a value added solution.
Here's how Cryptic sees things:
- Fleet Ships should all be relatively balanced with each other and have their own niches.
That's not what happened.
They took the niche that was the Patrol Escort and the Niche that was the Adv Escort and mashed them together (unfortunately).
Ultimately my lament is that I want to fly Federation ships on my Federation characters and Klingon ships on my Klingon Characters, and I'm a fan of the Defiant in canon Trek.
However at the same time I don't want to get stuck with a crappy BOFF layout and the Defiant has a crappy BOFF layout.
So at that point, I can (and have) just shelled out for Lockbox ships off the exchange that usually let me have the exact or near exact boff layout that I prefer.
Instead of a Defiant, I fly a JHAS on my main Tac.
Instead of the MVAE with it's crappy 3rd ensign, I fly a Mobius on another character.
That's why this thread exists, it's one part griping and one part hoping (however infinitesimally small) that someday maybe this will change (and new Tac powers or a reorganization of Tac powers would satisfy that - it doesn't necessarily need to see all ships getting Universal ensigns).
(FWIW, my KDF Tac gets to actually fly a real Klingon ship - A Fleet Vor'cha. )
I run the Fleet Defiant (all cannons) and I basically ignore the Ensign Slot.... I dont like that fact but this is my "poor man's version of a bug ship" and I have the cloak when i want to use it. Plus, I am just a big fan of DS9.
So.. I run in with an Alpha strike, run away in a hurry before the agro smacks me....rinse and repeat!
I would luv to have the bug and all it's flexibility, but aint paying those prices for it.
Another ship to consider as an Alternative is the Steamrunner, not cheap either.
Precisely. These Feddies are whining that Cryptic didn't make their ship even MORE 'OP' than it is. Seriously, it's got 5 tac consoles, and it turns fairly well for a Federation escort. KDF doesn't have any 5 tac console escorts, and the raptors all turn worse than the Defiant (the BoPs aren't destroyers/escorts). It's the KDF that has room to complain here, not the effing Feddies. They got a ship that literally has the power to shred through the TT1's redistribution, at least when used on BoPs and other escorts/destroyers. That's not enough for 'em, especially when combined with a cloak that gives exactly the same decloak bonuses as the vaunted 'OP' BoP battlecloak?
People trying to 'tank endlessly' in an escort are doing it wrong.
I fly a B'rel Retrofit and the Fleet Tactical Escort Retrofit.
However, I will note that, even though my B'rel Retrofit only has 9 consoles, it has the built in Enhanced Battle Cloak, as do all of the other BoPs (regular Battle Cloak, that is).
Their cloaks are not the same. The Fleet Tactical Escort Retrofit, if you want the cloak, requires that you purchase the Tactical Escort Retrofit or Dreadnaught. Even then, it's a console that uses up one of your slots. If you choose to use it, you are down to 9 consoles. If you count the Battle Cloak on BoPs as a console that you can't remove, my B'rel Retrofit would have 10 consoles as well.
What does number of crew have anything to do with anything? Repair rate is dictated by percentage of crew. 50% able-bodied crew members has the same repair rate on a ship with 50 crew or 500 crew.
I fly a B'rel Retrofit and the Fleet Tactical Escort Retrofit.
However, I will note that, even though my B'rel Retrofit only has 9 consoles, it has the built in Enhanced Battle Cloak, as do all of the other BoPs.
Their cloaks are not the same. The Fleet Tactical Escort Retrofit, if you want the cloak, requires that you purchase the Tactical Escort Retrofit or Dreadnaught. Even then, it's a console that uses up one of your slots. If you choose to use it, you are down to 9 consoles. If you count the Battle Cloak on BoPs as a console that you can't remove, my B'rel Retrofit would have 10 consoles as well.
What does number of crew have anything to do with anything? Repair rate is dictated by percentage of crew. 50% able-bodied crew members has the same repair rate on a ship with 50 crew or 500 crew.
I wish my Defiant had a built-in cloak....depending on the mission, I take the cloak console out and use an armor console or whatever I need.
but I still use the ship....it creates havoc for tactical cubes or beating on the Queen in Hive Onsaught
It's no less useless, but those ships do at least get something very useful out of the deal - chiefly Ltc Eng and Sci. So while the 3rd Tac Ensign is still an issue, I'm more willing to accept it on those ships.
And the Defiant-F gets better turn rate, Cloak and 5th Tac Console.
Whether you or I like that particular trade-off or not is something to be decided on an individual basis.
Come to think of it, it's not that bad a trade-off when you get over the psychological barrier of "leaving a slot empty".
This thread is actually making me consider switching to the Defiant: a 5th Tac Console+the occasional Cloak bonus+better turn rate... that might be worth sacrificing Polarize Hull for.
Only problem is: that Cloak would compete with the Subspace Jumper for a slot. Hmm.
BO 1 should (continue to) do less damage than 2 & 3, and 2 should do less than 3 - but they should have a lower weapon power reduction to compensate. (Just roughly shooting a number out for example's sake BO 1 = 30 weapon power drain, BO 2 = 40 Weapon Power drain, BO 3 = 50 weapon power drain).
Agree, BO shouldn't drain the same energy at all tiers; but that's for another thread.
So what you're saying is:
* A DBB or Torpedo lowers your DPS.
* Suggested solution is to not slot one and leave a Tac Ensign BOFF slot blank.
> Result is a ship that has one, zero function BOFF slot.
Not exactly, I'm saying it doesn't lower your DPS because that option is always availlable.
It's not ideal, of course, but it's not that disastrous either.
They took the niche that was the Patrol Escort and the Niche that was the Adv Escort and mashed them together (unfortunately).
They did. I see no problem with it, they had to include the Hermes, Defiant-R, Prometheus, Prometheus-R (MVAE) and Akira-R into Fleet Ships and didn't want 2 Prometheuses anymore (if only they gave it a Sci Console instead of Eng, it'd have been a perfect upgrade of both).
Since neither those Ships qualify for a discount anyway, it's no problem, unless you were really attached to the looks of the Prometheus.
Ultimately my lament is that I want to fly Federation ships on my Federation characters and Klingon ships on my Klingon Characters, and I'm a fan of the Defiant in canon Trek.
However at the same time I don't want to get stuck with a crappy BOFF layout and the Defiant has a crappy BOFF layout.
So at that point, I can (and have) just shelled out for Lockbox ships off the exchange that usually let me have the exact or near exact boff layout that I prefer.
Instead of a Defiant, I fly a JHAS on my main Tac.
Instead of the MVAE with it's crappy 3rd ensign, I fly a Mobius on another character.
Well, problem is, they decided the lockbox Ships were p2w Ships, basically. If you bring the Defiant-F in line with the JHAS, you render all the other Escorts/Raptors obsolete.
Fleet FED/KDF Ships are basically for those of us that don't have lockbox/Veteran Ships.
This is a completely different gripe, this is "regular Ships aren't as strong as Lockbox ones!"
That gripe, I can get behind; but singling out the Defiant from the regular line-up makes no sense.
And the Defiant-F gets better turn rate, Cloak and 5th Tac Console.
Alternatively the Patrol and Advanced Escorts both got Turn rate boosts so the difference is no longer as strong as it was.
The MVAE can use the MV console for even better turn rate, and the HEC will remain to be the HEC with it's Hangar bay and Torp Console.
I accept that the value of different consoles are not equal but that's not really relevant to the thread.
As an owner of a JHAS (5 Tac), MVAE (4 Tac), HEC (4 Tac), Defiant (4 Tac), Mobius (4 Tac), AVE (4 Tac), Patrol Escort (4 Tac), etc. I can tell you that for all the hand wringing about it, the 5th Tac Console is a good but ultimately smaller boost than people make it out to be.
As an owner of the JHAS I don't believe that a universal Ensign would not have brought the Defiant in line with the JHAS.
3 Base Turn rate is quite large, it also has a (small) bit of extra hull and a slightly better (IIRC) impulse modifier.
The difference would be pretty negligible. The defiant has a better console layout and can field a better shield tank, it also has the option to equip a cloak.. It makes the Fl Defiant far too powerful for a t3 fleet ship.
The difference would be pretty negligible. The defiant has a better console layout and can field a better shield tank, it also has the option to equip a cloak.. It makes the Fl Defiant far too powerful for a t3 fleet ship.
There is no correlation to ship power and tier they are located in, not at least one that makes any kind of rational sense. If anything it's completely arbitrary and cynically I think they are placed by perceived desire to push people to continue progressing in tiers.
Otherwise the Fleet Galaxy-R would not be T5 by any stretch of the imagination.
Nor would the Fleet Vor'cha, easily one of the best ships available KDF side: a ship with 8 weapon slots, DHCs, cloaking device, 10 base turn rate for a Cruiser - be T3.
Comments
You said it yourself, it has nice DPS. From that, you can guess that the power consumption isn't an issue.
The only thing that is really going to get affected is your afts, as they fire after your fore. But, the higher DPS on the fore easily makes up for the afts, and then some.
If you're really that concerned about it, you can always divert more power to your weapons and increase your cap. Your damage modifier will still be at 125, but your power drain starts at whatever your cap is at.
For instance, if I switched my power level back to 100, I would have an actual weapon subsystem at 135. Drain starts from this point. If you hit a battery and get 150, all of your fore weapons would be firing at the maximum 125 damage multiplier.
Well, more my point is that if you *are* running an all-DHC configuration, that third ensign slot is wasted, as others in the thread have stated. If you use torps/beams, you can make that third slot un-useless and still achieve comparable (and in my experience, superior) DPS numbers.
EDIT, Cannot recommend complete Temporal Warfare set, cause then your taking away from your DPS. If you do add Chroniton Dual Beam Bank, you could turn that ensign into a target subsystem shields and use Chroniton Torps since you get that nice damage boost.
LTS, here since...when did this game launch again?
Oh absolutely.
I just mean it to say that anything the 3 DHC + 1 Torp Config can do against fodder enemies like BoPs and probes with it's better spike a 4x DHC build can do as well.
On top of that, the all cannon builds come out with overall significantly higher DPS.
This is what my combat logs have shown me, including comparisons to my own ships, the ships of friends and the ships of PUGs.
4x DHCs consistently outperformed 3 DHCs + 1 Torp.
That's not really the same thing as being forced to
A) Use a substandard fore layout with a DBB or Torp.
If the Torp/DBB + 3DHC layouts performed equally as well as 4x DHCs that would be fine. They do not.
If there were other choices once you already have 2x TT that would be fine too. There are not.
Those sacrifices you talk about? I'm not trying to "win the internet" with this.
I fly a JHAS.
I had considered putting the Fleet Defiant on a secondary, and tertiary character but the layout is poor enough that I simply refuse to pay for it.
Quite simply, the Fleet Patrol Escort is the superior ship (able to run the old Patrol Escort or Adv Escort layouts) and 1 Tactical Console is not as large a damage improvement as people think.
There's the paradox, the Defiant gives up Ensign Sci or Ensign Eng survivability tools for what should be greater damage potential.
Instead, an Ensign Tactical actually lowers your overall DPS.
If all cannons consistently come out significantly higher DPS than 3+1 Torp, then your concerns about power levels are effectively irrelevant.
Rather than dropping a DHC have you tried mounting a rear beam array/mine/torp?
The defiant is a fairly nimble boat and w/the critH repairs coming from rep system, it may be better to drop a rear turret for a Beam Array and BO or TSSx or aTric/Cront projectile.
It would take a different piloting style, but may well be more effective in the end.
Random Quote from Kerrat
"Sumlobus@****: your mums eat Iced Targ Poo"
C&H Fed banter
Dispersal mine patterns start at the LT level. So adding a mine launcher is useless. You need to either use a Beam or a Torpedo to get usage out of the 3rd tac ensign
Yeah, it would make it a ridiculously OP ship for a tier 3 shipyard. You are basically wanting ot turn it into the equal of a Jem'hadar bug, that's unacceptable for the ease of acquiring that ship. Hell the Klingon's don't even have a tier 5 raptor/destroyer that's anywhere near as powerful as the Fleet Tac Escort, Tac Ens slot be damned.
The Fleet MVAE and the HEC both use the same layout for tac officers, and for good reason. If you change any of those Tac Ensigns to a Uni or Eng, 3 ships that are very powerful already become absolute monsters.
Precisely. These Feddies are whining that Cryptic didn't make their ship even MORE 'OP' than it is. Seriously, it's got 5 tac consoles, and it turns fairly well for a Federation escort. KDF doesn't have any 5 tac console escorts, and the raptors all turn worse than the Defiant (the BoPs aren't destroyers/escorts). It's the KDF that has room to complain here, not the effing Feddies. They got a ship that literally has the power to shred through the TT1's redistribution, at least when used on BoPs and other escorts/destroyers. That's not enough for 'em, especially when combined with a cloak that gives exactly the same decloak bonuses as the vaunted 'OP' BoP battlecloak?
People trying to 'tank endlessly' in an escort are doing it wrong.
I didnt like the three tac slots at first, but after setting it up with 1 Dual Beam I quite enjoy it.
The cloak is trash, (not a battle cloak) and I rarely use it.
Eh, I don't care. I'm just using the opportunity to bash feddies who are never satisfied.
No, they don't.
Both of those ships make a trade off for their Ltc Eng and Sci BOFF slots.
The defiant just gets an extra useless tac slot.
While no ship likes the crappy 3rd ensign slot, the defiant suffers the worst from it.
FFS I was obviously talking about 3 tac ensigns
sure it does less dps in most situations, but torpedos have a certain utility that can't be denied (aceton assimilator, fire a salvo at frigates - change target - frigates will blow while you blow other stuff with your cannons)
But then again i do not see a torp tube instead of a forth DHC as big miss in DPS, more like an added variety to the arsenal that can fullfill other functions, energy weapons can't.
That's where you lose me.
Yes, "third Tac Ensign" is useless; but it's no more and no less useless on the Defiant-F than on the Prometheus-F or Akira-F (or the Qin-F, for that matter!).
Should all those get an universal Ensign as well?
And you know very well the third Tac Ensign isn't lowering your DPS. If a DBB or Torpedo lowers your DPS (it does), you leave it empty (well, you put a 5th Efficient Saurian and don't care what skill he has).
Here's how Cryptic sees things:
- lockbox Ships=more powerful than the rest, can break balancing rules. Hence the JHAS.
- Fleet Ships should all be relatively balanced with each other and have their own niches.
Did they completely succeed on the balance front? No, but that's impossible.
But on the variety front, yes (I've already done this in the past, but here we go again):
1. Hermes-F.
Pros: Universal Ensign.
Cons: 10th Console is Eng.
Bog-standard thing. This Ship's one advantage over the other Fleet Escorts is its Universal Ensign; for that it pays in not having anything exceptional: turn rate is average, Hull/Shields are average, Consoles are bad,...
Give a Universal (or even Sci*) Ensign to the Defiant-F and this thing is pointless.
2. Defiant-F.
Pros: 5th Tac Console, Cloak, turn rate
Cons: Useless Ensign, lower Hull, lolCrew
The Defiant-F does have the best raw DPS of all Escorts. Between the Cloak's bonus, 5th Tac console and C/LC Tac, no non-JHAS can equal it.
You say the 5th Tac Console is overrated and it can be, yes, but so is the added Sci* Ensign power of the Hermes.
In the end, it's a slight damage bonus for a slight survivability malus.
Could be worse: the Qin-F has the useless Ensign but no 5th Tac Console!
3. Prometheus-F.
Pros: 5th Tac Console, LC Sci, MVAM
Cons: Useless Ensign.
Let's be honest: this thing is a cut above the rest. Not a huge cut, but a cut nonetheless.
4. Akira-F
Pros: LC Eng, if so inclined, Hangar, Hull, looks
Cons: Useless Ensign, Turn rate.
Personally, I'm no huge fan of the LC Eng, but I'd imagine anyone getting this would be.
A nice mix nonetheless.
5. Aquarius-F.
Pros: 2 Universal BOFFs, Turn rate, loldevices
Cons: Hull, Shields, Consoles, Impulse mod, lolCrew, 1 less Aft weapon
Even after the buff, this thing is still junk. Still can't understand why anyone would get it/fly it.
Tbh, if it was up to me, both for balance and consistency reasons, I'd change the Console layouts as such (Tac/Eng/Sci):
Hermes-F: 4/3/3
Akira-F: 4/4/2
Prometheus-F: 4/2/4
Now, to fix the "useless 3rd Tac Ensign" on all concerned Ships, the slot should provide some use, if less than others.
New BOFF abilities would be ideal (same for "useless 3rd Eng Ensign"), but a simpler fix is to make subsystem targetting work with all Energy Weapons.
*an all-cannon Escort has only 3 really useful DOFFs: Warp Core Engineer, Shield Distribution Officer, Damage Control Engineers; so EPTS1*2 is unnecessary.
HEC:-
Cmdr tac: TT1, CRF1, APO1, APO3
Lt tac: TT1, CRF1
Ens: BO1
Tactical Escort retrofit:
Cmdr tac: TT1, CRF1, CRF2 or BO3, APO3
Lt Cmdr Tac: TT1, BO2 or CRF1, APO1
Ens Tac: BO1
So no, the tactical escort retrofit is fine. It's designed as a speed tank with a high alpha potential. It is fine.
Daizen - Lvl 60 Tactical - Eclipse
Selia - Lvl 60 Tactical - Eclipse
If you think an Escort with a Torp instead of a DHC can't pull 10k DPS, then you are quite mistaken. I myself did 9,5k damage in ISE, a STF that isn't usually very kind to squishy escorts. And that's with my Retrofit Defiant, not the fleet version and only MK XI blue tac consoles.
Yes, if you want to run an all Cannon build other ships are better. This just doesn't mean, that the Fleet Defiant is all-out bad.
Cannon builds are just too streamlined and dull in my opinion. You just cycle through your abilities again and again without little to no variation. Plain boring.
Sure an all Cannon build may provide more consistent DPS, but it's less fun to play. (in my opinion)
It's no less useless, but those ships do at least get something very useful out of the deal - chiefly Ltc Eng and Sci. So while the 3rd Tac Ensign is still an issue, I'm more willing to accept it on those ships.
As far as a fix goes, my ideal fix would be a reorganization of Tactical powers to bring a few powers down 1 tier and allow them to be slotted in the Ensign slot.
I'd also like for BO 1, 2 and 3 to get a balance pass.
BO 1 should (continue to) do less damage than 2 & 3, and 2 should do less than 3 - but they should have a lower weapon power reduction to compensate. (Just roughly shooting a number out for example's sake BO 1 = 30 weapon power drain, BO 2 = 40 Weapon Power drain, BO 3 = 50 weapon power drain).
(I also think Engineering is even in more dire need of this kind of BO power reorganization to make ensign slots more useful).
I just don't think that's ever going to happen unfortunately.
So what you're saying is:
* A DBB or Torpedo lowers your DPS.
* Suggested solution is to not slot one and leave a Tac Ensign BOFF slot blank.
> Result is a ship that has one, zero function BOFF slot.
Hence, the creation of this thread - because what you have said above is not a value added solution.
That's not what happened.
They took the niche that was the Patrol Escort and the Niche that was the Adv Escort and mashed them together (unfortunately).
Ultimately my lament is that I want to fly Federation ships on my Federation characters and Klingon ships on my Klingon Characters, and I'm a fan of the Defiant in canon Trek.
However at the same time I don't want to get stuck with a crappy BOFF layout and the Defiant has a crappy BOFF layout.
So at that point, I can (and have) just shelled out for Lockbox ships off the exchange that usually let me have the exact or near exact boff layout that I prefer.
Instead of a Defiant, I fly a JHAS on my main Tac.
Instead of the MVAE with it's crappy 3rd ensign, I fly a Mobius on another character.
That's why this thread exists, it's one part griping and one part hoping (however infinitesimally small) that someday maybe this will change (and new Tac powers or a reorganization of Tac powers would satisfy that - it doesn't necessarily need to see all ships getting Universal ensigns).
(FWIW, my KDF Tac gets to actually fly a real Klingon ship - A Fleet Vor'cha.
I run the Fleet Defiant (all cannons) and I basically ignore the Ensign Slot.... I dont like that fact but this is my "poor man's version of a bug ship" and I have the cloak when i want to use it. Plus, I am just a big fan of DS9.
So.. I run in with an Alpha strike, run away in a hurry before the agro smacks me....rinse and repeat!
I would luv to have the bug and all it's flexibility, but aint paying those prices for it.
Another ship to consider as an Alternative is the Steamrunner, not cheap either.
Thx
Locutus
Delirium Tremens
Tier 4 Starbase, Tier 3 Embassy
http://dtfleet.com/
However, I will note that, even though my B'rel Retrofit only has 9 consoles, it has the built in Enhanced Battle Cloak, as do all of the other BoPs (regular Battle Cloak, that is).
Their cloaks are not the same. The Fleet Tactical Escort Retrofit, if you want the cloak, requires that you purchase the Tactical Escort Retrofit or Dreadnaught. Even then, it's a console that uses up one of your slots. If you choose to use it, you are down to 9 consoles. If you count the Battle Cloak on BoPs as a console that you can't remove, my B'rel Retrofit would have 10 consoles as well.
What does number of crew have anything to do with anything? Repair rate is dictated by percentage of crew. 50% able-bodied crew members has the same repair rate on a ship with 50 crew or 500 crew.
I wish my Defiant had a built-in cloak....depending on the mission, I take the cloak console out and use an armor console or whatever I need.
but I still use the ship....it creates havoc for tactical cubes or beating on the Queen in Hive Onsaught
thx
Locutus
Delirium Tremens
Tier 4 Starbase, Tier 3 Embassy
http://dtfleet.com/
I swap it out for Subspace Jumper for Fleet and Romulan Marks missions.
At the very least, I think they should make it a built-in on the Fleet Defiant, and without nerfing console space.
Whether you or I like that particular trade-off or not is something to be decided on an individual basis.
Come to think of it, it's not that bad a trade-off when you get over the psychological barrier of "leaving a slot empty".
This thread is actually making me consider switching to the Defiant: a 5th Tac Console+the occasional Cloak bonus+better turn rate... that might be worth sacrificing Polarize Hull for.
Only problem is: that Cloak would compete with the Subspace Jumper for a slot. Hmm.
Agree, BO shouldn't drain the same energy at all tiers; but that's for another thread.
Not exactly, I'm saying it doesn't lower your DPS because that option is always availlable.
It's not ideal, of course, but it's not that disastrous either.
They did. I see no problem with it, they had to include the Hermes, Defiant-R, Prometheus, Prometheus-R (MVAE) and Akira-R into Fleet Ships and didn't want 2 Prometheuses anymore (if only they gave it a Sci Console instead of Eng, it'd have been a perfect upgrade of both).
Since neither those Ships qualify for a discount anyway, it's no problem, unless you were really attached to the looks of the Prometheus.
Well, problem is, they decided the lockbox Ships were p2w Ships, basically. If you bring the Defiant-F in line with the JHAS, you render all the other Escorts/Raptors obsolete.
Fleet FED/KDF Ships are basically for those of us that don't have lockbox/Veteran Ships.
This is a completely different gripe, this is "regular Ships aren't as strong as Lockbox ones!"
That gripe, I can get behind; but singling out the Defiant from the regular line-up makes no sense.
Alternatively the Patrol and Advanced Escorts both got Turn rate boosts so the difference is no longer as strong as it was.
The MVAE can use the MV console for even better turn rate, and the HEC will remain to be the HEC with it's Hangar bay and Torp Console.
I accept that the value of different consoles are not equal but that's not really relevant to the thread.
As an owner of a JHAS (5 Tac), MVAE (4 Tac), HEC (4 Tac), Defiant (4 Tac), Mobius (4 Tac), AVE (4 Tac), Patrol Escort (4 Tac), etc. I can tell you that for all the hand wringing about it, the 5th Tac Console is a good but ultimately smaller boost than people make it out to be.
I can tell you from flying a BoP that it's not totally a psychological issue.
Yes, leaving the slot empty in and of itself is not a DPS loss. It's usually survivability/utility loss.
Actually I was attached to the BOFF layout + Console Layout + MV Module.
As a combination those are no longer an option for the Adv Escort.
As an owner of the JHAS I don't believe that a universal Ensign would not have brought the Defiant in line with the JHAS.
3 Base Turn rate is quite large, it also has a (small) bit of extra hull and a slightly better (IIRC) impulse modifier.
The difference would be pretty negligible. The defiant has a better console layout and can field a better shield tank, it also has the option to equip a cloak.. It makes the Fl Defiant far too powerful for a t3 fleet ship.
There is no correlation to ship power and tier they are located in, not at least one that makes any kind of rational sense. If anything it's completely arbitrary and cynically I think they are placed by perceived desire to push people to continue progressing in tiers.
Otherwise the Fleet Galaxy-R would not be T5 by any stretch of the imagination.
Nor would the Fleet Vor'cha, easily one of the best ships available KDF side: a ship with 8 weapon slots, DHCs, cloaking device, 10 base turn rate for a Cruiser - be T3.
Not in any logical universe anyway.