What? "We don't do something because WE DON'T DO IT!" is a perfectly valid form of reasoning.
...circular reasoning...
Tautologies are the ony way to be sure, since tautologies are the ony way to be ... certain.
Of course, but don't forget that also means you can't logically prove that logic is actually any good.
Anyway, on the OP: I claim no great authority, haven't got any particularly ridiculous number of alts, or any 100K+ parses (mostly because I don't normally parse.) My currently favourite build is just for fun hybrid with a little bit of everything (torps, beams and grav well, mostly to herd stuff into AoE torp effects.)
Would I personally prefer 3 tac consoles? Yes, I said so in another thread. Does having 2 tac consoles mean these ships are useless? No. Just a bit less flexible.
If you absolutely must make it into a FaW boat you still can, I think you don't even need the 3rd locator for the warbird, as long as you got an all-SRO crew. It would be a bit more expensive for other factions, but doable (Probability Manipulation can even make it not that expensive) And, even though a lot of people indeed do that, this is not how sci ships are supposed to work and this is not the way to get most DPS out of them.
It's a fun option if you know what you're doing and why, an example of following "the meta" without understanding why it's meta in the first place otherwise, or often a stopgap to get the trait with the gear you already have.
In the end, no matter what i say, you will still bombard me with your counter arguments, cause of course everything i say is so wrong and ludicrous, and so different from your believes (again not everyone but enough of you)
I'm really sorry if anything anyone said here offended you... But your complaint is highlighting something a lot of experienced players don't like about STO: For years now, the "best" way to build ships was ABSOLUTELY EXACTLY THE SAME: Get lots of CrtH, CrtD, Seat boffs with 2 FaWs, and get 125+weapon power (and something to negate weapon drain) and with some tactics and a good team you're all set up.
And before that it was "get lots of acc and 2 CSVs," everything else the same.
Many people would like more diversity and your complaint (which is that basically not every ship can be built like that) reads like "no, FaW boats should rule forever." This is probably not what you meant,. but that's what it sounded like.
Now, sales... Sure, a sci ship that's also a FaW uberboat would sell (I'd be the first in line) it would sell better than the sci ships in this pack, but if the top meta builds stay as stale as they had been lately people may get bored and leave... And do you really want that?
No mention of if in the Galactic News Network like other ships.
Yay new Nebby, but confused on the Console Layout.
Old Nebula Class Advanced Research Vessel Retrofit: 3 Eng, 4 Sci, 2 Tac. (Rear Adm)
Old, Multi-Mission Surveillance Explorer Vesta: 2 Eng, 5 Sci, 3 Tac. (Rear Adm) Or Variant 2 Eng, 4 Sci, 4 Tac.
New, T6 Advanced Research Vessel: 3 Eng, 5 Sci, 2 Tac (Vice Adm)
Wait what, the new T6 has just ONE Sci console over the old Rear Adm Nebula, and a Lt Cmd Uni Station over a Lt Uni one?!?!?
Looks like I'll just be using my Old Fleet Advanced Research Vessel Retrofit T5-U with the new skin, oh wait...
What about old Fleet version love for the new skin? Says we have to reclaim it for the new skin, but how for a Fleet Version?
By the way the Old Fleet T5-U has 4 Eng, 5 Sci, 2 Tac. So there is not any real reason to get the new T6.
Will you ever let us chose a base ship and apply a model to it? Like Vesta base, then slap Nebby Hull on it.
Like with like though so Sci with Sci, Eng with Eng, Tac with Tac. That way we can play the Hull (Models) we like with the layouts of our choosing, a closer step to true ship building. Or bring out a true ship building system, where we chose a Type (Tac, Eng, Sci), a Corresponding Model (Tac with Tac, etc) then a Boff Station layout, so if it's a Tac Type then [Cmdr Tac, Lt Cmdr Uni, Lt Cmdr Eng/Sci, Lt Eng, Lt Tac] very similar to other T6 where there is 1 Cmdr, 2 Lt Cmdr, 1 Lt, 1 Ens. (like the Intel Assault Cruiser). Then finally a Console Layout of 10, 11 if fleet and it would go toward Ship Type, ie Tac gets extra Tac, Eng to Eng, Sci to Sci, so layout if Tac then 4 Tac, 3 Eng 3 Sci, or move one around so, 5 Tac, 2 Eng, 3 Sci, or 4 Tac, 3 Eng, 4 Sci, like that. It's be so cool to build our own Station, Console, and ship model layouts based on a set of configuration rules.
If that is to much to ask, then at least let us build a ship where we can take what we own, or buy in the Zen shop, and apply it to another ship of the same field. So like take the Nebby Model, and put in the Vesta Stations and Console slots. It'd be less configuration, but would be all Cryptic made Stations and Consoles.
I'd love a Bortasqu' Command Cruiser for Federation. 4x4 Weap, 4 Eng, 2 Sci, 4 Tac, with Cruiser Commands, Sensor Analysis, and Battle Cloak.
Since its - sadly - more than unlikely that Cryptic will change anything, it will be just the same as usuall, new ship does not fit Playstyle = Pass on it and go on. No need to turn this into a battlefield of arguments, unlike you people enjoy it.
This is what I find funny. YOU started this thread (aka battlefield) and started complaining and venting how you don't like new ships and how they will totally suck etc etc. Furthermore, when people tried to provide counterarguments, there were only greeted with your counter-insults, you couldn't even think for a second that perhaps someone who thinks a bit differently than yourself might be right as well.
Instead of just brushing it off and thinking "oh well, Cryptic releases a ship I don't find useful for myself, guess I'll spend my money elsewhere", you decided to make a myriad of angry and entitled forum posts.
No mention of if in the Galactic News Network like other ships.
Looks like I'll just be using my Old Fleet Advanced Research Vessel Retrofit T5-U with the new skin, oh wait...
What about old Fleet version love for the new skin? Says we have to reclaim it for the new skin, but how for a Fleet Version?
Someone on the forum said that all you need is to reclaim the regular version, WITHOUT dismissing the fleet one, and it would update skins on either.
Anyway, yea, T6 was always just 1 extra boff seat and the same consoles as the corresponding T5U. If you're happy with the T5U and don't want spec seating or the trait, there's little reason to get a T6 version.
So what if the new science ships only have two tactical console slots available?
The Archon and the Vizier only have two science consoles available to them, and I don't see too many threads firing up whining about that.
Tactical is not the focus, nor even too big of a concern for, science ships. Just like science isn't a focus for assault cruisers.
And frankly, if that's the first thing you start to nitpick about when it comes to captaining a science ship, then maybe you shouldn't be in a science ship to begin with.
Call me ludicrous or whatever you want if that makes you happy, but know this, its by far not just "Highlandrise" who has this oppinion, not even close and the last part of your comment the "($&!^ing UNRELEATED." yea cursing and swearing makes your post more valid.
What I like is that......it IS just "Highlandrise" that has that opinion......soooooooooo......3 pages of replies and no one is agreeing with you. That means it is JUST you on that opinion. So EVERYONE vs just YOU, tends to lean towards you *might* not be right. Maybe. Possibly.
And also, seriously, throwing around the "I have 47 toons, so I know what I'm doing" really reads to anybody as: "I have an addiction and don't go outside a lot", especially if your "I've played since Season 7" statement is true. So if you have that many characters is does become impossible that you are playing them all, which means you are space whaling them. And I'm not being insulting by saying you don't get out much, it is simply fact. If you are JUST logging into those chars to do daily DOFFs, Admiralty, and R&D, that's say 5-10 min per char times 47 characters = somewhere between 4 and 8 hours a day. If that isn't true, then that indicates your other statements are also false.
AND as far as your "I get flamed every time I post here" comment, here's some free advise:
Don't put YOUR opinion in ANYONE else's mouth. EVER. ESPECIALLY in an online forum. About a GAME. You may be right in your opinion, and people will side with you; or you may be wrong and people will point out HOW wrong you are. But if your posts all read like this one, even the people that *might* agree with you won't say anything because they don't want to be associated with you. Saying "X is right, and I know all so it MUST be so".....really? And you didn't EXPECT to get ripped apart.
The OP in this thread really made my day with this great piece of comedy. Lot's of knowledgeable folks here telling you how it is. If it helps, I've done well over 200k in a pug run with no nannies or even a wingman to cover me. I only had 1 Locator console. When I decide to do ISA runs again, I'm going to drop that Locator for the Delphic Tear console and I should have a net increase.
As an example to illustrate, in case you can't visualize how a ship might operate without tac consoles, let me write out the console setup for my Edoulg (ISA 100k as a fed Eng, since that's a more familiar context):
2 Eng/5 Sci/4 Tac consoles
Eng:
Plasmonic Leech (Exchange) (Can also be Denuos console for set bonus, or other of my choice, since Aux power is ~130 anyway) Quantum Deceleration Field Generator (Ship-unique, 15% cat2 exotic passive and 10% sci ability c/d reduction)
Sci:
4x Restorative Particle Focuser (6% cat2 all dmg on use of heals, stacks up to 5x)
1x Exotic Particle Field Exciter (+75 EPG skill)
Tac:
Chronometric Capacitor (This is actually a Tac console, but here for the set bonus that buffs exotic, as well as the +37.5 EPG)
Thank you for sharing this. I hadn't realized several of those were cat 2... I hadn't imagined they'd throw around such big numbers when introducing cat 2 bonuses. Might be time to do a little shopping !
I will amend this in light of something I read, just by way of notifying anyone else looking at my build. In the master article on damage categories on Reddit, the passive effect of the Eternal's console (same 15% as the Edoulg's console) is listed under cat1 rather than cat2. I seem to remember that when I equipped and unequipped it on my Eternal, I saw a change consistent with cat2.
Thus, I skipped a similar test and assumed the ship-specific console for the Edoulg was the same. If it is indeed cat1, then the new Lobi console (~19% cat1 exotic at mk14 epic) is slightly better, although it does not come with a clicky/attack.
you cannot build something for the "minority" but build it so that as many as possible, in other words the mainstream can somewhat make use of it.
There are many things in that post that take away from the argument's already dubious credibility, but others have addressed those nicely. I'd just like to highlight this statement that I find particularly odd, considering that every single dedicated sci captain I've ever seen on the forums emphasizes exotic damage or drain builds, with the odd torp boat thrown in (which also doesn't rely on tac consoles, if I understand correctly).
Minority of players overall? Maybe so. Minority of people who actually fly science ships for more than just a lark? ...Nope, don't think so. These are science ships built for science captains, not tac captains who want to do the same old "pew pew" in every single ship regardless of type.
Someone on the forum said that all you need is to reclaim the regular version, WITHOUT dismissing the fleet one, and it would update skins on either.
Anyway, yea, T6 was always just 1 extra boff seat and the same consoles as the corresponding T5U. If you're happy with the T5U and don't want spec seating or the trait, there's little reason to get a T6 version.
OP...plenty of sci ships already exist to match your layout demand. This new ship/these new ships need not match your "minimum 3 tac console" preference/fetish/neurosis.
Seriously though, the only consoles that are restricted to tactical console slots that I would consider useful (so leaving out universal ones) are
- torpedo consoles
- or maybe, if you're using Polaron weapons and want to get some extra damage out of them, polaron boosters. Even then the polaron consoles are probably inferior to other options since I usually don't care about the damage of my polaron weapons, they're there for other reasons when I use them.
- Last one: the tactical console that forms a set with the Krenim Torpedo from the anniversary ship.
Seriously though, the only consoles that are restricted to tactical console slots that I would consider useful (so leaving out universal ones) are
- torpedo consoles
- or maybe, if you're using Polaron weapons and want to get some extra damage out of them, polaron boosters. Even then the polaron consoles are probably inferior to other options since I usually don't care about the damage of my polaron weapons, they're there for other reasons when I use them.
- Last one: the tactical console that forms a set with the Krenim Torpedo from the anniversary ship.
Gotta agree with you. The only tac consoles i'd slot in tac spaces would probably be:
Torp spire consoles - because torps work best with science, so if i already have enough exotic dmg maybe i'd throw some torp consoles in to boost my torps. The console from the Quantum Phase set - if only to get the Quantum Destabilized Beam 3pc set. The console from the Krenim set - because it boosts exotic and torp dmg. The Multi-conduit Energy Relay - because it boost photons for a torp build and radiation for a sci build.
Any time i'm not using those it'll just be a case of filling the tac slots with uni consoles for set bonuses or just slotting fun gimmick consoles.
My Sci ship identifies as a Tac ship...did you just assume my ship's career?
But once again I must thank you for voting me into power, it is that one dimensional thinking of where any opinion that is not my own is wrong, and evil, and there for can't be right.
Yes we get it you don't like that play style you want pew pew pew, but apparently a lot of these people here have given alternatives to that kind of play style...and after reading, and taking notes....it makes sense
Here's the thing, if you don't want to play a certain way....then guess what you don't have too, this kind of sci ship is not for you
BTW it don't take a pro or rocket scientist to max anything in this game, just time and patience, not skill
Seriously though, the only consoles that are restricted to tactical console slots that I would consider useful (so leaving out universal ones) are
- torpedo consoles
- or maybe, if you're using Polaron weapons and want to get some extra damage out of them, polaron boosters. Even then the polaron consoles are probably inferior to other options since I usually don't care about the damage of my polaron weapons, they're there for other reasons when I use them.
- Last one: the tactical console that forms a set with the Krenim Torpedo from the anniversary ship.
Gotta agree with you. The only tac consoles i'd slot in tac spaces would probably be:
Torp spire consoles - because torps work best with science, so if i already have enough exotic dmg maybe i'd throw some torp consoles in to boost my torps. The console from the Quantum Phase set - if only to get the Quantum Destabilized Beam 3pc set. The console from the Krenim set - because it boosts exotic and torp dmg. The Multi-conduit Energy Relay - because it boost photons for a torp build and radiation for a sci build.
Any time i'm not using those it'll just be a case of filling the tac slots with uni consoles for set bonuses or just slotting fun gimmick consoles.
Lol, Never even considered using that last console to boost the radiation damage. May just be interesting.
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.
So stop acting so conceited, like you are all sooooo much better than me or anyone who does not share your oppinion, talking about oppinion, i CANT remember having said anything about my oppinion being better than yours, its just ONE of many maybe not better, maybe not worse, but DIFFERENT.
Ok, you've got tons of things you could stand to learn from this thread, but lets start with a biggie: lose the idea that opinions can't be wrong. Especially opinions about math and its nerdy grandkid game theory. Math doesn't do polls, doesn't run popularity contests, and does not deal softly with rank ignorance.
You like chocolate best? Sure, pretty defensible, though I'd probably ask if you've ever had three or four other flavors to see if you were presenting an informed decision or just found something you liked and stopped looking. Saying chocolate is "the only flavor worth having"? Your opinion is WRONG.
You literally just made an argument in defense of variety in a thread COMPLAINING ABOUT VARIETY. "Oh noes, they made a ship outside my comfort zone and they should never ever do that." That opinion is WRONG. It is wrong on every level, from what is best for the game financially to understanding how to build ships within the constraints given. When you say stuff like that glorifying your intolerance, don't expect a lot of tolerance. You picked the tone for this thread and then had the gall to look surprised. Finally falling back to the last great redoubt of the intractably mistaken "oh, its just an opinion, so you lost this argument before it even started because I control all the rules." Yeah, no, you don't.
...So really, stop digging a hole and ask the question you should have asked in the first place:
"If I'm wrong, can you explain to me why?"
Mind you, people already have, in detail, with twenty-seven 8x10" color glossy photos with circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back of each one telling what its all about. But you refuse to listen. You're off in the bushes trying to argue with how you were replied to instead of the content of those replies. Chocolate is still categorically wrong in your little universe and sadly it looks like you'll never even know if you might actually like butter pecan better after trying it. Because chocolate is good enough for you and anything else can't be worth trying. And everyone trying to offer you alternatives is just a big meanie.
Granted, I would probably look helpless with only 2 Tact Consoles (I'm a Fed Engineer). Roms have plenty innate CrtH, though; so, yeah, offload your Tachyo and such into your Tact slots, and fill up the rest of your Consoles with the good Sci stuff.
Its a science ship. It will do Science Space Magic very well.
And by the logic of "No ship should have less than 3 tac consoles" means you're wiping out quite a few low tier ships as well as a few higher tier science ships.
Fact: KDF and Romulans were in desperate need of a decent faction Science ship. We will soon have that, and Feds are getting an equivelent that also revamps the old Nebula model.
The "It needs 3 tac consoles" TRIBBLE, is just that TRIBBLE. Ship can do just fine with only 2(and I'd likely throw universals in the slots, or set bonus stuff from the recent missions. Anyone who tries to force a ship into something it's not meant to do is a fool.
Ship with 5 science consoles is BEGGING to have it's exotic damage pegged to the max with torps galore.
Space magic kids. And these 3 ships will do them in spades. About time we had a proper KDF science ship. I mean I've been using the science pilot raptor and she does ok, but she's not as good as a purebread science ships.
Star Trek Battles member. Want to roll with a good group of people regardless of fleets and not have to worry about DPS while doing STFs? Come join the channel and join in the fun!
I have a great solution.... someone from the science min/max crowd go pvpeen highlandrise and film it as you absolutely crush his 3tac console ship of choice in one of these new sci ship...
then we shall all feed on the shards of his ego and drink his tears
Comments
Anyway, on the OP: I claim no great authority, haven't got any particularly ridiculous number of alts, or any 100K+ parses (mostly because I don't normally parse.) My currently favourite build is just for fun hybrid with a little bit of everything (torps, beams and grav well, mostly to herd stuff into AoE torp effects.)
Would I personally prefer 3 tac consoles? Yes, I said so in another thread. Does having 2 tac consoles mean these ships are useless? No. Just a bit less flexible.
If you absolutely must make it into a FaW boat you still can, I think you don't even need the 3rd locator for the warbird, as long as you got an all-SRO crew. It would be a bit more expensive for other factions, but doable (Probability Manipulation can even make it not that expensive) And, even though a lot of people indeed do that, this is not how sci ships are supposed to work and this is not the way to get most DPS out of them.
It's a fun option if you know what you're doing and why, an example of following "the meta" without understanding why it's meta in the first place otherwise, or often a stopgap to get the trait with the gear you already have.
And before that it was "get lots of acc and 2 CSVs," everything else the same.
Many people would like more diversity and your complaint (which is that basically not every ship can be built like that) reads like "no, FaW boats should rule forever." This is probably not what you meant,. but that's what it sounded like.
Now, sales... Sure, a sci ship that's also a FaW uberboat would sell (I'd be the first in line) it would sell better than the sci ships in this pack, but if the top meta builds stay as stale as they had been lately people may get bored and leave... And do you really want that?
English isn't my native language either.
Yay new Nebby, but confused on the Console Layout.
Old Nebula Class Advanced Research Vessel Retrofit: 3 Eng, 4 Sci, 2 Tac. (Rear Adm)
Old, Multi-Mission Surveillance Explorer Vesta: 2 Eng, 5 Sci, 3 Tac. (Rear Adm) Or Variant 2 Eng, 4 Sci, 4 Tac.
New, T6 Advanced Research Vessel: 3 Eng, 5 Sci, 2 Tac (Vice Adm)
Wait what, the new T6 has just ONE Sci console over the old Rear Adm Nebula, and a Lt Cmd Uni Station over a Lt Uni one?!?!?
Looks like I'll just be using my Old Fleet Advanced Research Vessel Retrofit T5-U with the new skin, oh wait...
What about old Fleet version love for the new skin? Says we have to reclaim it for the new skin, but how for a Fleet Version?
By the way the Old Fleet T5-U has 4 Eng, 5 Sci, 2 Tac. So there is not any real reason to get the new T6.
Will you ever let us chose a base ship and apply a model to it? Like Vesta base, then slap Nebby Hull on it.
Like with like though so Sci with Sci, Eng with Eng, Tac with Tac. That way we can play the Hull (Models) we like with the layouts of our choosing, a closer step to true ship building. Or bring out a true ship building system, where we chose a Type (Tac, Eng, Sci), a Corresponding Model (Tac with Tac, etc) then a Boff Station layout, so if it's a Tac Type then [Cmdr Tac, Lt Cmdr Uni, Lt Cmdr Eng/Sci, Lt Eng, Lt Tac] very similar to other T6 where there is 1 Cmdr, 2 Lt Cmdr, 1 Lt, 1 Ens. (like the Intel Assault Cruiser). Then finally a Console Layout of 10, 11 if fleet and it would go toward Ship Type, ie Tac gets extra Tac, Eng to Eng, Sci to Sci, so layout if Tac then 4 Tac, 3 Eng 3 Sci, or move one around so, 5 Tac, 2 Eng, 3 Sci, or 4 Tac, 3 Eng, 4 Sci, like that. It's be so cool to build our own Station, Console, and ship model layouts based on a set of configuration rules.
If that is to much to ask, then at least let us build a ship where we can take what we own, or buy in the Zen shop, and apply it to another ship of the same field. So like take the Nebby Model, and put in the Vesta Stations and Console slots. It'd be less configuration, but would be all Cryptic made Stations and Consoles.
I'd love a Bortasqu' Command Cruiser for Federation. 4x4 Weap, 4 Eng, 2 Sci, 4 Tac, with Cruiser Commands, Sensor Analysis, and Battle Cloak.
This is what I find funny. YOU started this thread (aka battlefield) and started complaining and venting how you don't like new ships and how they will totally suck etc etc. Furthermore, when people tried to provide counterarguments, there were only greeted with your counter-insults, you couldn't even think for a second that perhaps someone who thinks a bit differently than yourself might be right as well.
Instead of just brushing it off and thinking "oh well, Cryptic releases a ship I don't find useful for myself, guess I'll spend my money elsewhere", you decided to make a myriad of angry and entitled forum posts.
U.S.S. Buteo Regalis - Brigid Multi-Mission Surveillance Explorer build
R.R.W. Ri Maajon - Khopesh Tactical Dreadnought Warbird build
My Youtube channel containing STO videos.
Anyway, yea, T6 was always just 1 extra boff seat and the same consoles as the corresponding T5U. If you're happy with the T5U and don't want spec seating or the trait, there's little reason to get a T6 version.
The Archon and the Vizier only have two science consoles available to them, and I don't see too many threads firing up whining about that.
Tactical is not the focus, nor even too big of a concern for, science ships. Just like science isn't a focus for assault cruisers.
And frankly, if that's the first thing you start to nitpick about when it comes to captaining a science ship, then maybe you shouldn't be in a science ship to begin with.
What I like is that......it IS just "Highlandrise" that has that opinion......soooooooooo......3 pages of replies and no one is agreeing with you. That means it is JUST you on that opinion. So EVERYONE vs just YOU, tends to lean towards you *might* not be right. Maybe. Possibly.
And also, seriously, throwing around the "I have 47 toons, so I know what I'm doing" really reads to anybody as: "I have an addiction and don't go outside a lot", especially if your "I've played since Season 7" statement is true. So if you have that many characters is does become impossible that you are playing them all, which means you are space whaling them. And I'm not being insulting by saying you don't get out much, it is simply fact. If you are JUST logging into those chars to do daily DOFFs, Admiralty, and R&D, that's say 5-10 min per char times 47 characters = somewhere between 4 and 8 hours a day. If that isn't true, then that indicates your other statements are also false.
AND as far as your "I get flamed every time I post here" comment, here's some free advise:
Don't put YOUR opinion in ANYONE else's mouth. EVER. ESPECIALLY in an online forum. About a GAME. You may be right in your opinion, and people will side with you; or you may be wrong and people will point out HOW wrong you are. But if your posts all read like this one, even the people that *might* agree with you won't say anything because they don't want to be associated with you. Saying "X is right, and I know all so it MUST be so".....really? And you didn't EXPECT to get ripped apart.
arcgames.com/en/forums/startrekonline/#/discussion/1225290/modern-science-vessels-for-the-modern-tact-guy-gal
please enjoy.
if I stop posting it doesn't make you right it. just means I don't have enough rum to continue interacting with you.
I will amend this in light of something I read, just by way of notifying anyone else looking at my build. In the master article on damage categories on Reddit, the passive effect of the Eternal's console (same 15% as the Edoulg's console) is listed under cat1 rather than cat2. I seem to remember that when I equipped and unequipped it on my Eternal, I saw a change consistent with cat2.
Thus, I skipped a similar test and assumed the ship-specific console for the Edoulg was the same. If it is indeed cat1, then the new Lobi console (~19% cat1 exotic at mk14 epic) is slightly better, although it does not come with a clicky/attack.
There are many things in that post that take away from the argument's already dubious credibility, but others have addressed those nicely. I'd just like to highlight this statement that I find particularly odd, considering that every single dedicated sci captain I've ever seen on the forums emphasizes exotic damage or drain builds, with the odd torp boat thrown in (which also doesn't rely on tac consoles, if I understand correctly).
Minority of players overall? Maybe so. Minority of people who actually fly science ships for more than just a lark? ...Nope, don't think so. These are science ships built for science captains, not tac captains who want to do the same old "pew pew" in every single ship regardless of type.
Awesome TY for that info about the skin update
This new ship/these new ships need not match your "minimum 3 tac console" preference/fetish/neurosis.
Or 11
- torpedo consoles
- or maybe, if you're using Polaron weapons and want to get some extra damage out of them, polaron boosters. Even then the polaron consoles are probably inferior to other options since I usually don't care about the damage of my polaron weapons, they're there for other reasons when I use them.
- Last one: the tactical console that forms a set with the Krenim Torpedo from the anniversary ship.
Gotta agree with you. The only tac consoles i'd slot in tac spaces would probably be:
Torp spire consoles - because torps work best with science, so if i already have enough exotic dmg maybe i'd throw some torp consoles in to boost my torps.
The console from the Quantum Phase set - if only to get the Quantum Destabilized Beam 3pc set.
The console from the Krenim set - because it boosts exotic and torp dmg.
The Multi-conduit Energy Relay - because it boost photons for a torp build and radiation for a sci build.
Any time i'm not using those it'll just be a case of filling the tac slots with uni consoles for set bonuses or just slotting fun gimmick consoles.
But once again I must thank you for voting me into power, it is that one dimensional thinking of where any opinion that is not my own is wrong, and evil, and there for can't be right.
Yes we get it you don't like that play style you want pew pew pew, but apparently a lot of these people here have given alternatives to that kind of play style...and after reading, and taking notes....it makes sense
Here's the thing, if you don't want to play a certain way....then guess what you don't have too, this kind of sci ship is not for you
BTW it don't take a pro or rocket scientist to max anything in this game, just time and patience, not skill
Lol, Never even considered using that last console to boost the radiation damage. May just be interesting.
Ok, you've got tons of things you could stand to learn from this thread, but lets start with a biggie: lose the idea that opinions can't be wrong. Especially opinions about math and its nerdy grandkid game theory. Math doesn't do polls, doesn't run popularity contests, and does not deal softly with rank ignorance.
You like chocolate best? Sure, pretty defensible, though I'd probably ask if you've ever had three or four other flavors to see if you were presenting an informed decision or just found something you liked and stopped looking. Saying chocolate is "the only flavor worth having"? Your opinion is WRONG.
You literally just made an argument in defense of variety in a thread COMPLAINING ABOUT VARIETY. "Oh noes, they made a ship outside my comfort zone and they should never ever do that." That opinion is WRONG. It is wrong on every level, from what is best for the game financially to understanding how to build ships within the constraints given. When you say stuff like that glorifying your intolerance, don't expect a lot of tolerance. You picked the tone for this thread and then had the gall to look surprised. Finally falling back to the last great redoubt of the intractably mistaken "oh, its just an opinion, so you lost this argument before it even started because I control all the rules." Yeah, no, you don't.
...So really, stop digging a hole and ask the question you should have asked in the first place:
"If I'm wrong, can you explain to me why?"
Mind you, people already have, in detail, with twenty-seven 8x10" color glossy photos with circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back of each one telling what its all about. But you refuse to listen. You're off in the bushes trying to argue with how you were replied to instead of the content of those replies. Chocolate is still categorically wrong in your little universe and sadly it looks like you'll never even know if you might actually like butter pecan better after trying it. Because chocolate is good enough for you and anything else can't be worth trying. And everyone trying to offer you alternatives is just a big meanie.
And by the logic of "No ship should have less than 3 tac consoles" means you're wiping out quite a few low tier ships as well as a few higher tier science ships.
Fact: KDF and Romulans were in desperate need of a decent faction Science ship. We will soon have that, and Feds are getting an equivelent that also revamps the old Nebula model.
Ship with 5 science consoles is BEGGING to have it's exotic damage pegged to the max with torps galore.
Space magic kids. And these 3 ships will do them in spades. About time we had a proper KDF science ship. I mean I've been using the science pilot raptor and she does ok, but she's not as good as a purebread science ships.
Star Trek Battles member. Want to roll with a good group of people regardless of fleets and not have to worry about DPS while doing STFs? Come join the channel and join in the fun!
http://forum.arcgames.com/startrekonline/discussion/1145998/star-trek-battles-channel-got-canon/p1
then we shall all feed on the shards of his ego and drink his tears
My character Tsin'xing