test content
Logo
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc
Command Battlecruiser question
darthstormstrike
Member Posts: 771 Arc User
Are the BOFF seats kind of off?
It seems they all get the engineering command seat but the one for tactical seems to get the second command seat being science. Science gets a tactical command seat as the secondary one. Shouldn't those have the seat that fits the type of command battlecruiser? Now I have only seen a limited exposure to this so I could be wrong.
It seems they all get the engineering command seat but the one for tactical seems to get the second command seat being science. Science gets a tactical command seat as the secondary one. Shouldn't those have the seat that fits the type of command battlecruiser? Now I have only seen a limited exposure to this so I could be wrong.
___________________
"There is no problem in the universe that can't be solved with a bribe, a paid assassin, or an overpowered fighter." - Chubain from Jumpgate Evolution
"There is no problem in the universe that can't be solved with a bribe, a paid assassin, or an overpowered fighter." - Chubain from Jumpgate Evolution
Post edited by darthstormstrike on
0
Comments
The reason why the secondary slot is not engineering and not the ship's secondary focus class is most likely so that the ship
a) Still will have an engineering focus as is expected from a Cruiser
b) Still has more slots devoted to its secondary focus only.
Basically, if the Science variant had a Lt.Cmdr Science/Command slot, it would mean it actually could devote less slots to science abiliies than a ship with a Lt. Science slot.
I also suspect a guideline is that no ship gets more than 6 BO power slots devoted to a specialization, so Cmdr Engineerg/Command + Lt.Cmdr Tactical/Command for example would be out of the question. But whether that will stay the rule forever we can only guess.
Ultimately, the designers will want to have a lot of freedom in how they distribute slots, and not add too many restrictions. The goal is to have a lot of potential variety so they can come up with more unique (and still worthwhile) combos.
But then thinking the Lt Commander seat would be the command seat instead as you pointed out, I can understand better.
And I'm sure the Command Escorts they will drop (and we know that's going to happen), we will see Command Commander seats in there with the secondary being the "off" class seat.
"There is no problem in the universe that can't be solved with a bribe, a paid assassin, or an overpowered fighter." - Chubain from Jumpgate Evolution
Engineering-centric...
X, X
C, C, C, C
X, X, X
C, C
U, U
Science-centric...
C, C
C, C, C, C
X, X
X, X, X
U, U
Tactical-centric...
X, X, X
C, C, C, C
X, X
C, C
U, U
For me, it's the Engineering one that is "off" so to speak. Since they're all CBCs, the Cmdr Eng/Command seat's going to make sense. The "-centric" bit to me would mean having that LCdr seat (Eng, Sci, Tac) without the the Command hybrid stuff. Which gets into the Lt Tac/Command for the Sci and the Lt Sci/Command for the Tac...but the Eng there...shouldn't it have been Lt Uni/Command in that case rather that Lt Sci/Command?
1) The devs once said that they didn't intend universal slots with specialization capabilities. I am not sure if that means that they never wnated Universal|Specialization slots, or that they just didn't want "Universal" to mean that it could slot any specialization. But if they meant the first, that means they couldn't even do it.
2) Every "U" slot is also implicitely an "E" slot. So they could have argued that turning an E into a C slot should not be possible beyond the Cmdr slot. Even if you go "full commando" (pun intended) on a Command Cruiser, the engineering variant would still have the highest "E" potential.