I've always loved my Romulan Dyson, but the other two never really grew on me at all.
I'd be more enthusiastic about T6 Dysons if Cryptic hadn't set a precedent with the flagship and multi-mission ship packs (and maybe one or two others). 9 Dysons are a bit more than I'm willing to buy and I really would like to own one ship for each faction if I get any at all.
I agree on all parts. The Romulan version looked great and flew well; it was a good substitute for a real science ship, at the time. The idea that the Dyson ships didn't sell well is hardly surprising, they not only gave a decent nearly complete version out for free, but they tried selling them as a 9-pack. I considered buying a bundle, but the consoles didn't add enough to the experience to be worth the expense. The 9-pack problem is the same reason why I didn't go for the T6 Vesta but happily sprung for the T6 Nebula. I get a one ship for each faction, not three usable ships and six near duplicates.
I thought the console set was pretty fun actually. I bought all three Fed dysons and enjoyed using the set a lot.
I must add that this was before I really developed a Sci build that requires other consoles - and it was at a time when I was still throwing irrational amounts of money at the game.
Nowadays I agree that 9-packs are a bit too much, even 3-packs are something I will only sometimes buy and not before having thought and reconsidered a lot. Usually the consoles are not that interesting indeed and even when they are fun, it's just not worth paying an extra 3000 zen if you're never going to use some of the variants. You're basically paying 3000 zen for a single console and maybe some costume options. That's something I am no longer willing to do either.
Uh..The Dysons were not "Substitute Sci ships," they are sci ships period.
I bought both the 6 Dysons and all multi-mission t6 variants. Though...If they do...Release a T6 dyson destroyer pack..I kinda hope they do what what they did with some of the Gamble packs..But the ship for 1 faction and have the other 2 (consoles) available on the exchange for the other 2 factions..
They need to make the t5 stuff available for KDF and ROM somehow for the t5 Multimission set..
Granted..The Consoles on the t5 dysons are kinda meh...However the 4 piece for the Alliance Set...Awesome!
You know the idea behind the Dyson ships was adapting newly discovered technologies to create Cross-faction ships of similar design. That does not necessarily mean we have to get the same type of 'Dyson' ships we got at T5 for new T6 'Dysons'.
'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.'
You know the idea behind the Dyson ships was adapting newly discovered technologies to create Cross-faction ships of similar design. That does not necessarily mean we have to get the same type of 'Dyson' ships we got at T5 for new T6 'Dysons'.
So long as I can use the C store skins..Im ok with that.
Uh..The Dysons were not "Substitute Sci ships," they are sci ships period.
Not 'substitute' Science ships per se, but definitely meant as hybrid ones: being both Tactical and Science (depending on which Commander seat you chose). Not sure the hybrid concept really worked out all that well, though; primarily, I'd say, because ppl kept fitting them as cannon Escorts. What best worked for me, was to just forget the soldered-in cannon, just treat and fit it like a Science ship, and just welcome the extra cannon dmg as a bonus.
I ignored the cannon altogether, cause it was only available having the ship in tactical mode. Meanwhile science mode gave me access to cmdr. sci and +aux power, something which I definitely preferred.
While I like the idea of a T6 dyson with some of those flaws ironed out I doubt we'll see them.
The T5s sold badly and earned much critique, the hull material update pleased some people but that was too little too late (personally I'm very fond of the dyson materials). Adding the fact that proton weapons are barely a thing and were pretty much dead on arrival even back then I doubt they'll find much support from the broad mass for another special snowflake shipline, which would directly translate into very low sales again.
Honestly...I wouldn't care if they didn't do much or any modification to the hull designs (So it's more cost effective) I just would love the ship as T6
I ignored the cannon altogether, cause it was only available having the ship in tactical mode. Meanwhile science mode gave me access to cmdr. sci and +aux power, something which I definitely preferred.
I slotted APO in the TacComm slot and used it immediately prior to swapping to sci mode so I could drop an APO fueled Grav Well.
> @odinforever20000 said: > ltminns wrote: » > > You know the idea behind the Dyson ships was adapting newly discovered technologies to create Cross-faction ships of similar design. That does not necessarily mean we have to get the same type of 'Dyson' ships we got at T5 for new T6 'Dysons'. > > > > > So long as I can use the C store skins..Im ok with that.
> @lianthelia said: > seriousdave wrote: » > > While I like the idea of a T6 dyson with some of those flaws ironed out I doubt we'll see them. > The T5s sold badly and earned much critique, the hull material update pleased some people but that was too little too late (personally I'm very fond of the dyson materials). Adding the fact that proton weapons are barely a thing and were pretty much dead on arrival even back then I doubt they'll find much support from the broad mass for another special snowflake shipline, which would directly translate into very low sales again. > > > > > Honestly...I wouldn't care if they didn't do much or any modification to the hull designs (So it's more cost effective) I just would love the ship as T6
Most test trials on YouTube use builds not really suited for Dyson ships. Instead of really maximizing the proton build and Dyson rep add-ons they tried to shoehorn in the current meta of the time and complained that it was sub-par. I still have not seen one on YouTube done maximizing the proton build along with Dyson rep set. At epic level this works wonders.
Most test trials on YouTube use builds not really suited for Dyson ships. Instead of really maximizing the proton build and Dyson rep add-ons they tried to shoehorn in the current meta of the time and complained that it was sub-par. I still have not seen one on YouTube done maximizing the proton build along with Dyson rep set. At epic level this works wonders.
I do this...Not top DPS.. but I can do 50k dps with it..
Tho I do wish the T5u Dyson consoles would benefit better (I think) if they scaled on EPG or Drain depending on console (Like the T6 Mulitmission stuff).
Not 'substitute' Science ships per se, but definitely meant as hybrid ones: being both Tactical and Science (depending on which Commander seat you chose). Not sure the hybrid concept really worked out all that well, though; primarily, I'd say, because ppl kept fitting them as cannon Escorts. What best worked for me, was to just forget the soldered-in cannon, just treat and fit it like a Science ship, and just welcome the extra cannon dmg as a bonus.
Dunno, I have mine set up so they can do an AoE Sci game when in Sci mode and a nice turret game when in Tac mode. Yes, both in themselves can and will be done more efficiently by specialized ships, but this one is one that can do both AoE against mobs and peak against single large enemies. Probably that can be achieved by builds on single ships as well, but not with that much enjoyment.
My mother was an epohh and my father smelled of tulaberries
> @xyquarze said: > memnoch#6978 wrote: » > > Just please keep it proton based. I like alternative builds. Sick of worshipping at the meta. > > > > > +1. I like them for what they are. DPS be banned. And they still dish out damage every second. > meimeitoo wrote: » > > Not 'substitute' Science ships per se, but definitely meant as hybrid ones: being both Tactical and Science (depending on which Commander seat you chose). Not sure the hybrid concept really worked out all that well, though; primarily, I'd say, because ppl kept fitting them as cannon Escorts. What best worked for me, was to just forget the soldered-in cannon, just treat and fit it like a Science ship, and just welcome the extra cannon dmg as a bonus. > > > > > Dunno, I have mine set up so they can do an AoE Sci game when in Sci mode and a nice turret game when in Tac mode. Yes, both in themselves can and will be done more efficiently by specialized ships, but this one is one that can do both AoE against mobs and peak against single large enemies. Probably that can be achieved by builds on single ships as well, but not with that much enjoyment.
> @coldnapalm said: > memnoch#6978 wrote: » > > The community wasn't able to wrap their head around a dual purpose ship. It was meant to be good at both jobs, instead of being great at only one. > > With a good build it succeeded. It was fun and still is. > > > > > By good, you mean meh at both jobs...sure. The trouble is that you can't have the gear to be good at both jobs. Just meh at both. You could be good at one and dabble in the other, but you really can't be good at both and that isn't the failing of the ship but how our gear works in this game.
I understand that you don't like these ships. Ok. But I'll definitely buy them as t6. I don't worship at the dps alter and enjoy playing them a heck of a lot more than my pilot escorts or my arbiter or even my t6 multi mission science ship.
> @coldnapalm said: > memnoch#6978 wrote: » > > I understand that you don't like these ships. Ok. But I'll definitely buy them as t6. I don't worship at the dps alter and enjoy playing them a heck of a lot more than my pilot escorts or my arbiter or even my t6 multi mission science ship. > > > > > Where was fun mentioned on my part? You claimed that they can do a good job with BOTH roles. I said that is false and that isn't even related to the ship itself. Go ahead and have fun with your silly looking ships if that makes you happy, but don;t go and lie about how effective these things are. No, they ain't terrible...they ain't good either.
You seem to have some issues with opinions other than your own. You say I lie instead of saying our standards differ. I will be the one to apologize if it resolves your issue.
I stand by my statement however. Live long and prosper.
instead of new dyson ships, how about revamping and expanding the currently wasted proton damage type first, including the fixed proton cannon on current dyson ships.
Draal - FED, Saurian, LV60 - TAC
Mirak - FED 23c, Vulkan, LV60 - TAC
Ascaran Bloodclaw - KDF, Gorn, Lv18 - TAC
Melchiah - KDF, Gorn, LV60 - TAC
Ne'roon - KDF,Lethian, L60, TAC
Turel - ROM-KDF, Reman, 30, TAC
Elric - ROM-Fed, Romulan, L60, TAC
Richtor Belmont - FED 23c, Human,LV20, SCI
G'Kar - KDF, Gorn, L10
USS Sharlin NCC79713 B (part of sheridans access code) - T6, Hestia Class Advanced Escort
USS Babylon IV - T6 Krenim Science Vessel
USS Brakiri - T6 Elachi Escort
"I am Grey. I stand between the candle and the star."
"We are Grey. We stand between the darkness and the light."
Here's an idea: add protonic weapons, or offer (as in some of the new reputation systems) a weapon option to the existing protonic polaron weapons in the rep store to now also offer polarized proton weapons. Then add some standard proton weapon consoles into the reputation store. But just plain old tactical consoles, so you can opt to buy them and have a higher boost, but you won't get the "benefits" of the hybrid tactical consoles we have now?
> @shadowwraith#9264 said: > instead of new dyson ships, how about revamping and expanding the currently wasted proton damage type first, including the fixed proton cannon on current dyson ships.
> @markhawkman said: > tunebreaker wrote: » > > I ignored the cannon altogether, cause it was only available having the ship in tactical mode. Meanwhile science mode gave me access to cmdr. sci and +aux power, something which I definitely preferred. > > > > I slotted APO in the TacComm slot and used it immediately prior to swapping to sci mode so I could drop an APO fueled Grav Well.
What's APO? It's gonna take years for me to memorize all these abbreviated words. Also did it work out well?
Uh..The Dysons were not "Substitute Sci ships," they are sci ships period.
Default status for the ships was tac with 4/3 weapons... they only became a sci ship with the toggle, if I recall correctly. So they are "substitute sci ships", especially for KDF & Roms who were lacking sci ships at T5.
Comments
I agree on all parts. The Romulan version looked great and flew well; it was a good substitute for a real science ship, at the time. The idea that the Dyson ships didn't sell well is hardly surprising, they not only gave a decent nearly complete version out for free, but they tried selling them as a 9-pack. I considered buying a bundle, but the consoles didn't add enough to the experience to be worth the expense. The 9-pack problem is the same reason why I didn't go for the T6 Vesta but happily sprung for the T6 Nebula. I get a one ship for each faction, not three usable ships and six near duplicates.
I must add that this was before I really developed a Sci build that requires other consoles - and it was at a time when I was still throwing irrational amounts of money at the game.
Nowadays I agree that 9-packs are a bit too much, even 3-packs are something I will only sometimes buy and not before having thought and reconsidered a lot. Usually the consoles are not that interesting indeed and even when they are fun, it's just not worth paying an extra 3000 zen if you're never going to use some of the variants. You're basically paying 3000 zen for a single console and maybe some costume options. That's something I am no longer willing to do either.
I bought both the 6 Dysons and all multi-mission t6 variants. Though...If they do...Release a T6 dyson destroyer pack..I kinda hope they do what what they did with some of the Gamble packs..But the ship for 1 faction and have the other 2 (consoles) available on the exchange for the other 2 factions..
They need to make the t5 stuff available for KDF and ROM somehow for the t5 Multimission set..
Granted..The Consoles on the t5 dysons are kinda meh...However the 4 piece for the Alliance Set...Awesome!
Rouge Sto Wiki Editor.
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.'
So long as I can use the C store skins..Im ok with that.
Rouge Sto Wiki Editor.
Not 'substitute' Science ships per se, but definitely meant as hybrid ones: being both Tactical and Science (depending on which Commander seat you chose). Not sure the hybrid concept really worked out all that well, though; primarily, I'd say, because ppl kept fitting them as cannon Escorts. What best worked for me, was to just forget the soldered-in cannon, just treat and fit it like a Science ship, and just welcome the extra cannon dmg as a bonus.
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.
Honestly...I wouldn't care if they didn't do much or any modification to the hull designs (So it's more cost effective) I just would love the ship as T6
My character Tsin'xing
> ltminns wrote: »
>
> You know the idea behind the Dyson ships was adapting newly discovered technologies to create Cross-faction ships of similar design. That does not necessarily mean we have to get the same type of 'Dyson' ships we got at T5 for new T6 'Dysons'.
>
>
>
>
> So long as I can use the C store skins..Im ok with that.
Same here..
> seriousdave wrote: »
>
> While I like the idea of a T6 dyson with some of those flaws ironed out I doubt we'll see them.
> The T5s sold badly and earned much critique, the hull material update pleased some people but that was too little too late (personally I'm very fond of the dyson materials). Adding the fact that proton weapons are barely a thing and were pretty much dead on arrival even back then I doubt they'll find much support from the broad mass for another special snowflake shipline, which would directly translate into very low sales again.
>
>
>
>
> Honestly...I wouldn't care if they didn't do much or any modification to the hull designs (So it's more cost effective) I just would love the ship as T6
Honestly I agree.
I do this...Not top DPS.. but I can do 50k dps with it..
Tho I do wish the T5u Dyson consoles would benefit better (I think) if they scaled on EPG or Drain depending on console (Like the T6 Mulitmission stuff).
Rouge Sto Wiki Editor.
+1. I like them for what they are. DPS be banned. And they still dish out damage every second.
Dunno, I have mine set up so they can do an AoE Sci game when in Sci mode and a nice turret game when in Tac mode. Yes, both in themselves can and will be done more efficiently by specialized ships, but this one is one that can do both AoE against mobs and peak against single large enemies. Probably that can be achieved by builds on single ships as well, but not with that much enjoyment.
> memnoch#6978 wrote: »
>
> Just please keep it proton based. I like alternative builds. Sick of worshipping at the meta.
>
>
>
>
> +1. I like them for what they are. DPS be banned. And they still dish out damage every second.
> meimeitoo wrote: »
>
> Not 'substitute' Science ships per se, but definitely meant as hybrid ones: being both Tactical and Science (depending on which Commander seat you chose). Not sure the hybrid concept really worked out all that well, though; primarily, I'd say, because ppl kept fitting them as cannon Escorts. What best worked for me, was to just forget the soldered-in cannon, just treat and fit it like a Science ship, and just welcome the extra cannon dmg as a bonus.
>
>
>
>
> Dunno, I have mine set up so they can do an AoE Sci game when in Sci mode and a nice turret game when in Tac mode. Yes, both in themselves can and will be done more efficiently by specialized ships, but this one is one that can do both AoE against mobs and peak against single large enemies. Probably that can be achieved by builds on single ships as well, but not with that much enjoyment.
This. Right here. +1
With a good build it succeeded. It was fun and still is.
> memnoch#6978 wrote: »
>
> The community wasn't able to wrap their head around a dual purpose ship. It was meant to be good at both jobs, instead of being great at only one.
>
> With a good build it succeeded. It was fun and still is.
>
>
>
>
> By good, you mean meh at both jobs...sure. The trouble is that you can't have the gear to be good at both jobs. Just meh at both. You could be good at one and dabble in the other, but you really can't be good at both and that isn't the failing of the ship but how our gear works in this game.
I understand that you don't like these ships. Ok. But I'll definitely buy them as t6. I don't worship at the dps alter and enjoy playing them a heck of a lot more than my pilot escorts or my arbiter or even my t6 multi mission science ship.
Your favorite ships don't necessitate priority over someone else's favorite ships.
Helpful Tools: Dictionary.com - Logical fallacies - Random generator - Word generator - Color tool - Extra Credits - List of common English language errors - New T6 Big booty tutorial
> memnoch#6978 wrote: »
>
> I understand that you don't like these ships. Ok. But I'll definitely buy them as t6. I don't worship at the dps alter and enjoy playing them a heck of a lot more than my pilot escorts or my arbiter or even my t6 multi mission science ship.
>
>
>
>
> Where was fun mentioned on my part? You claimed that they can do a good job with BOTH roles. I said that is false and that isn't even related to the ship itself. Go ahead and have fun with your silly looking ships if that makes you happy, but don;t go and lie about how effective these things are. No, they ain't terrible...they ain't good either.
You seem to have some issues with opinions other than your own. You say I lie instead of saying our standards differ. I will be the one to apologize if it resolves your issue.
I stand by my statement however.
Live long and prosper.
USS Sharlin NCC79713 B (part of sheridans access code) - T6, Hestia Class Advanced Escort
USS Babylon IV - T6 Krenim Science Vessel
USS Brakiri - T6 Elachi Escort
"We are Grey. We stand between the darkness and the light."
– Grey Council greeting
> instead of new dyson ships, how about revamping and expanding the currently wasted proton damage type first, including the fixed proton cannon on current dyson ships.
Along with sounds better to me.
> tunebreaker wrote: »
>
> I ignored the cannon altogether, cause it was only available having the ship in tactical mode. Meanwhile science mode gave me access to cmdr. sci and +aux power, something which I definitely preferred.
>
>
>
> I slotted APO in the TacComm slot and used it immediately prior to swapping to sci mode so I could drop an APO fueled Grav Well.
What's APO? It's gonna take years for me to memorize all these abbreviated words.
Also did it work out well?
> Still hoping to see some T6 Dyson ships...only Romulan ship that looks a lot like the D'deridex without being a whale.
That's my favorite one as well.
Default status for the ships was tac with 4/3 weapons... they only became a sci ship with the toggle, if I recall correctly. So they are "substitute sci ships", especially for KDF & Roms who were lacking sci ships at T5.