test content
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc

Dyson Science Destroyers and the reason that they fail

gaevsmangaevsman Member Posts: 3,190 Arc User
@ambassadorkael#6946 as in the last stream, Jette wanted to know why the DSD's failed, as i was in the game by the time that they where released, i can say this:

1.- Customization, the ships had zero customization, the different materials where introduced after the uproar in the forums, but it was too late, people lost their interest on the ships before Cryptic reacted.

2.- Meh statistics, the ships are not bad, but they are not great either, it took me a lot of effort to create a build that was good, once done, the ships handled pretty well.

3.- The introductory mission, the build was terrible.. you have a proton cannon but phaser/disruptor/plasma???, there is no Sinergy in the build (dont know if they changed that with all the revamps), so killing undine was slow in a very slugish ship, when it was a great oportunity to introduce the protonic polaron weapons from dyson reputation.

4.- Buggy transformation mechanic, there was a lot of problems with the transformation, sometimes it didnt worked, or changed to different state in the middle of a fight, and that was kinda disorienting.

I think that that can be fixed, and i think Jette ideas on the Mirror Crossfield would be great for a T6 version of the DSC (also a fix on the T5U), letting us upgrade the protonic "experimental weapon" (That also could be applied to the Fleet Escort rear cannon) gives a lot more customization, more so if you can change the Protonic if you dont like it to some other experimental weapons (that deactivates when you change mode).

The revisit of the mechanics is great, and i love it, i just hope more people are interested, the design is not ugly (maybe the federation one seems a Little.. uninspired), the Romulan and the Klingon ones are great, so there is a lot of potential..

I dont remember what other problems those ships had, so feel free to comment more on those ships my dear fórum dwellers! :blush:
The forces of darkness are upon us!
Post edited by baddmoonrizin on
«1

Comments

  • rattler2rattler2 Member Posts: 57,973 Community Moderator
    Fed one was UGLY. KDF and Romulan ones were actually good looking.
    db80k0m-89201ed8-eadb-45d3-830f-bb2f0d4c0fe7.png?token=eyJ0eXAiOiJKV1QiLCJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiJ9.eyJzdWIiOiJ1cm46YXBwOjdlMGQxODg5ODIyNjQzNzNhNWYwZDQxNWVhMGQyNmUwIiwiaXNzIjoidXJuOmFwcDo3ZTBkMTg4OTgyMjY0MzczYTVmMGQ0MTVlYTBkMjZlMCIsIm9iaiI6W1t7InBhdGgiOiJcL2ZcL2ExOGQ4ZWM2LTUyZjQtNDdiMS05YTI1LTVlYmZkYmJkOGM3N1wvZGI4MGswbS04OTIwMWVkOC1lYWRiLTQ1ZDMtODMwZi1iYjJmMGQ0YzBmZTcucG5nIn1dXSwiYXVkIjpbInVybjpzZXJ2aWNlOmZpbGUuZG93bmxvYWQiXX0.8G-Pg35Qi8qxiKLjAofaKRH6fmNH3qAAEI628gW0eXc
    I can't take it anymore! Could everyone just chill out for two seconds before something CRAZY happens again?!
    The nut who actually ground out many packs. The resident forum voice of reason (I HAZ FORUM REP! YAY!)
  • gaevsmangaevsman Member Posts: 3,190 Arc User
    rattler2 wrote: »
    Fed one was UGLY. KDF and Romulan ones were actually good looking.

    Well, as i said, it seems uninspired, i used it for a long time, and kinda grow on me.. but yeah, the Klingon and Romulan onesa are great!
    The forces of darkness are upon us!
  • avoozuulavoozuul Member Posts: 3,196 Arc User
    edited March 2019
    rattler2 wrote: »
    Fed one was UGLY.
    Well I don't agree. But to each his/her own.

  • disqord#9557 disqord Member Posts: 567 Arc User
    I'll add that they came out just before the advent of Delta Rising, ie: T6 ships. Nobody felt a need to get them after their bugs were fixed because they were just sorta left in the dust. As well, I've seen a lot of people complain about the Proton DHCs, and how they're not only lacking in support of their damage type, but also can't be removed or upgraded.

    I will say, that I absolutely ADORE the DSDs. I can't care much about the somewhat lacking stats (Which admittedly, holds them back a lot), because I actually do love the way the ships look, and their unique proton damage capabilities and transformation mechanics make them super cool in my eyes.
  • mustrumridcully0mustrumridcully0 Member Posts: 12,963 Arc User
    edited March 2019
    gaevsman wrote: »
    @ambassadorkael#6946 as in the last stream, Jette wanted to know why the DSD's failed, as i was in the game by the time that they where released, i can say this:

    1.- Customization, the ships had zero customization, the different materials where introduced after the uproar in the forums, but it was too late, people lost their interest on the ships before Cryptic reacted.

    2.- Meh statistics, the ships are not bad, but they are not great either, it took me a lot of effort to create a build that was good, once done, the ships handled pretty well.

    3.- The introductory mission, the build was terrible.. you have a proton cannon but phaser/disruptor/plasma???, there is no Sinergy in the build (dont know if they changed that with all the revamps), so killing undine was slow in a very slugish ship, when it was a great oportunity to introduce the protonic polaron weapons from dyson reputation.

    4.- Buggy transformation mechanic, there was a lot of problems with the transformation, sometimes it didnt worked, or changed to different state in the middle of a fight, and that was kinda disorienting.

    I think that that can be fixed, and i think Jette ideas on the Mirror Crossfield would be great for a T6 version of the DSC (also a fix on the T5U), letting us upgrade the protonic "experimental weapon" (That also could be applied to the Fleet Escort rear cannon) gives a lot more customization, more so if you can change the Protonic if you dont like it to some other experimental weapons (that deactivates when you change mode).

    The revisit of the mechanics is great, and i love it, i just hope more people are interested, the design is not ugly (maybe the federation one seems a Little.. uninspired), the Romulan and the Klingon ones are great, so there is a lot of potential..

    I dont remember what other problems those ships had, so feel free to comment more on those ships my dear fórum dwellers! :blush:

    I think you probably covered all the flaws that worked against it. Most fof them are fixable, some even were fixed already.

    I really enjoyed my Romulan Dyson Science Vessels back before Delta Rising. But I deliberately ignored the Tactical Mode, because with it sconstraints, it just wasn't worth building a Science Vessel in that manner.

    The Mirror Discovery model might really be all that is needed to make a viable Tier 6 Dyson Bundle.
    Though I have to say might - it could be that in the end, the Destroyer Mode is still TRIBBLE to use. That doesn't have to ruin the ship, you can just ignore the gimmick, but it is a mark against it.
    Star Trek Online Advancement: You start with lowbie gear, you end with Lobi gear.
  • gaevsmangaevsman Member Posts: 3,190 Arc User
    coldnapalm wrote: »
    gaevsman wrote: »
    3.- The introductory mission, the build was terrible.. you have a proton cannon but phaser/disruptor/plasma???, there is no Sinergy in the build (dont know if they changed that with all the revamps), so killing undine was slow in a very slugish ship, when it was a great oportunity to introduce the protonic polaron weapons from dyson reputation.

    This one is why I will NEVER get a DSD. I use the solanae set on pretty much all my toons and have run that mission so many times that I have come to HATE the DSD that you are forced to use.

    Seems im not alone on that!.. yeah, that was terrible... i try to avoid that mission every time i can! :neutral:
    The forces of darkness are upon us!
  • zerokillcf2011zerokillcf2011 Member Posts: 545 Arc User
    I still think the easiest fix would be to create actual Proton weapons and tactical consoles? I mean, right? Release it as a T6 and add a new proton torpedo (like the nausican disruptor torp) as a 4th piece to the set bonus. Just saying. Loved the look of the ships personally, still have a Sci toon that runs a T5U version primary in fact. But the proton weapon just was annoying. You CAN do a proton build, which is fun....but it would be much easier with dedicated proton Tac consoles and Proton beam arrays/DBB/turrets, etc.
  • seriousdaveseriousdave Member Posts: 2,777 Arc User
    Yeah, the mission with the DSD is awful. Didn't age well either since that garbage build fares even worse against the post lvl50 enemies. It's really just a painful waste of time.

    The ships could have been saved backed then if their stats were't so terribly average in sci mode and underwhelming in tac mode but that ship sailed (, crashed and burned) a long time ago.

    Honestly I'm not sure how good the ISS Discovery will fare. You're either gonna have a sci ship build with a superflous tac mode or an escort build with a superflous sci mode. Trying to make a hybrid build for both just lowers each mode's performance.



  • gaevsmangaevsman Member Posts: 3,190 Arc User
    Yeah, the mission with the DSD is awful. Didn't age well either since that garbage build fares even worse against the post lvl50 enemies. It's really just a painful waste of time.

    The ships could have been saved backed then if their stats were't so terribly average in sci mode and underwhelming in tac mode but that ship sailed (, crashed and burned) a long time ago.

    Honestly I'm not sure how good the ISS Discovery will fare. You're either gonna have a sci ship build with a superflous tac mode or an escort build with a superflous sci mode. Trying to make a hybrid build for both just lowers each mode's performance.



    Well, from what i saw on the stream, looks really good, so we may finally have a good one here, i'll try to get one, because i really like the concept and im willing to give it another chance :smile:
    The forces of darkness are upon us!
  • redvengeredvenge Member Posts: 1,425 Arc User
    gaevsman wrote: »
    Well, from what i saw on the stream, looks really good, so we may finally have a good one here
    Highly unlikely.

    Most builds use Engineering console slots for Universal consoles. However, Science focused builds also use Tactical slots for Universal consoles. That seems unlikely to happen if you are actually going to switch between Science and Tactical mode.

    What is worse, in order to chase the "Tac/Sci hybrid dream", you are going to need very specific powers working in conjunction with very specific consoles in order to make it work. This means build diversity is pretty much out the window. Just check in on Reddit and download the "optimal hybrid build" and there you go.

    If I want a ship that pretty much needs one setup to get the most out of, I'll stick to the Resolute.
  • ltminnsltminns Member Posts: 12,569 Arc User
    Couldn't you just create two Loadouts. One for Science Mode and one for Tac Mode and switch as you changed Modes?
    'But to be logical is not to be right', and 'nothing' on God's earth could ever 'make it' right!'
    Judge Dan Haywood
    'As l speak now, the words are forming in my head.
    l don't know.
    l really don't know what l'm about to say, except l have a feeling about it.
    That l must repeat the words that come without my knowledge.'
    Lt. Philip J. Minns
  • redvengeredvenge Member Posts: 1,425 Arc User
    ltminns wrote: »
    Couldn't you just create two Loadouts. One for Science Mode and one for Tac Mode and switch as you changed Modes?
    So you are combining the unreliable Dyson mode switch with the unreliable loadout switch? Let the shenanigans begin!

    I still prefer the low-shenanigan Resolute. Boring, yet reliable.
  • zerokillcf2011zerokillcf2011 Member Posts: 545 Arc User
    nixboox wrote: »
    redvenge wrote: »
    ltminns wrote: »
    Couldn't you just create two Loadouts. One for Science Mode and one for Tac Mode and switch as you changed Modes?
    So you are combining the unreliable Dyson mode switch with the unreliable loadout switch? Let the shenanigans begin!

    I still prefer the low-shenanigan Resolute. Boring, yet reliable.

    I don't understand what you mean by "unreliable"? If you switch to tactical mode the change is very quick. You get the Proton DHC and access to the fourth tactical ability. I use it all the time. Now, you sometimes have to decide if that tactical ability is going to be more useful than the fourth science ability - its one or the other - but I find the cannons are usually the better choice...especially with proton/antiproton boosting consoles.

    Well, when originally released, there were a LOT of bugs with the switchover mode that turned some people off. It would get stuck in Tac or Sci mode, or switch during combat, etc. The devs fixed those problems YEARS ago, but still a lot a players never got over the initial hate.
  • gaevsmangaevsman Member Posts: 3,190 Arc User
    nixboox wrote: »
    redvenge wrote: »
    ltminns wrote: »
    Couldn't you just create two Loadouts. One for Science Mode and one for Tac Mode and switch as you changed Modes?
    So you are combining the unreliable Dyson mode switch with the unreliable loadout switch? Let the shenanigans begin!

    I still prefer the low-shenanigan Resolute. Boring, yet reliable.

    I don't understand what you mean by "unreliable"? If you switch to tactical mode the change is very quick. You get the Proton DHC and access to the fourth tactical ability. I use it all the time. Now, you sometimes have to decide if that tactical ability is going to be more useful than the fourth science ability - its one or the other - but I find the cannons are usually the better choice...especially with proton/antiproton boosting consoles.

    Well, when originally released, there were a LOT of bugs with the switchover mode that turned some people off. It would get stuck in Tac or Sci mode, or switch during combat, etc. The devs fixed those problems YEARS ago, but still a lot a players never got over the initial hate.

    Absolutly true, but still, i like the concept...
    The forces of darkness are upon us!
  • warpangelwarpangel Member Posts: 9,427 Arc User
    I'd say it's 100% the proton cannon. You'd pretty much have to use +cannon tac consoles on it because nothing else boosts that one, but those are weaker than +damage type consoles (why?). But that's not the end of it, either. Because it's also a science ship it has the built-in subsystem targeting, but subsystem targeting couldn't be used with cannons back then. So you'd have to put a beam on which wouldn't mesh with the +cannon consoles (besides that beam-cannon mix ships are already suboptimal to begin with).

    Basically it was a ship that was impossible to build for, because it's various gimmicks required mutually exclusive things to support. Of course, now you can use SST with cannons, but a bit late for it now. And by now the ship also suffers from the proton DHC being un-upgradeable.

    The irony is, proton damage is pointless in space. It was already a niche gimmick on ground only used against devidians, but in space they didn't create anything you'd specifically want to be shooting with it. Why they pulled it out for the Dyson stuff instead of using a regular damage type I'll never understand.

    If they'd let people put their own dual cannon/beam bank into the transforming slot instead of tacking on a nonstandard gimmick weapon, the ship would've worked beautifully.
  • gaevsmangaevsman Member Posts: 3,190 Arc User
    warpangel wrote: »
    I'd say it's 100% the proton cannon. You'd pretty much have to use +cannon tac consoles on it because nothing else boosts that one, but those are weaker than +damage type consoles (why?). But that's not the end of it, either. Because it's also a science ship it has the built-in subsystem targeting, but subsystem targeting couldn't be used with cannons back then. So you'd have to put a beam on which wouldn't mesh with the +cannon consoles (besides that beam-cannon mix ships are already suboptimal to begin with).

    Basically it was a ship that was impossible to build for, because it's various gimmicks required mutually exclusive things to support. Of course, now you can use SST with cannons, but a bit late for it now. And by now the ship also suffers from the proton DHC being un-upgradeable.

    The irony is, proton damage is pointless in space. It was already a niche gimmick on ground only used against devidians, but in space they didn't create anything you'd specifically want to be shooting with it. Why they pulled it out for the Dyson stuff instead of using a regular damage type I'll never understand.

    If they'd let people put their own dual cannon/beam bank into the transforming slot instead of tacking on a nonstandard gimmick weapon, the ship would've worked beautifully.

    Just replace it with an Experimental Weapon Slot, and problem solved, also, the cannon would be upgradeable…
    The forces of darkness are upon us!
  • zerokillcf2011zerokillcf2011 Member Posts: 545 Arc User
    gaevsman wrote: »
    warpangel wrote: »
    I'd say it's 100% the proton cannon. You'd pretty much have to use +cannon tac consoles on it because nothing else boosts that one, but those are weaker than +damage type consoles (why?). But that's not the end of it, either. Because it's also a science ship it has the built-in subsystem targeting, but subsystem targeting couldn't be used with cannons back then. So you'd have to put a beam on which wouldn't mesh with the +cannon consoles (besides that beam-cannon mix ships are already suboptimal to begin with).

    Basically it was a ship that was impossible to build for, because it's various gimmicks required mutually exclusive things to support. Of course, now you can use SST with cannons, but a bit late for it now. And by now the ship also suffers from the proton DHC being un-upgradeable.

    The irony is, proton damage is pointless in space. It was already a niche gimmick on ground only used against devidians, but in space they didn't create anything you'd specifically want to be shooting with it. Why they pulled it out for the Dyson stuff instead of using a regular damage type I'll never understand.

    If they'd let people put their own dual cannon/beam bank into the transforming slot instead of tacking on a nonstandard gimmick weapon, the ship would've worked beautifully.

    Just replace it with an Experimental Weapon Slot, and problem solved, also, the cannon would be upgradeable…

    If they don't want to release Proton weapons and Tac consoles, I would agree removing the proton cannon would make sense and make it an exp weapon slot as mentioned, or just a 4th forward traditional slot. HOWEVER the problem then is the Dyson reputation weapons and bundle set perk would be useless?

    Which is why I lean towards just revamping proton weapons to make a full proton loadout playable. Easy fix would have been releasing the T6 rep giving access to proton weapons from the rep store. But that didn't happen.
  • titanhoss#9356 titanhoss Member Posts: 36 Arc User
    Two choices would make them a lot more consistent I think... Experimental weapon slot... or if you must have one 'fused' weapon stuck to the ship... make it the Rep weapon... so you can have your Cannon/Beam mode depending on if you are Sci or Tac mode...
  • tyler002tyler002 Member Posts: 1,586 Arc User
    Honestly, I'd probably use a T6 version if they brought one out and let us choose the fixed weapons energy type.

    Also, if they made them actually look like something Starfleet designed; every time I try to use the current one, all I can think is "Why is Starfleet claiming they built what's obviously a salvaged Solanae ship?".
    tumblr_p7auh1JPC61qfr6udo4_500.gif
  • jaephjaeph Member Posts: 77 Arc User
    a) Proton cannon is un-upgradeable.
    b) Proton damage is weak in general, especially when end game is all about things with massive hulls.
    c) modes are too restricted.
    d) Procs are weak in general. I think DSD's were supposed to rely partly on components that proc proton damage.

    - Why not let the proton cannon assume the same mark as the secondary deflector?
    - Remove the cooldown on tac/sci mode switch. Is it really such a game-breaking thing?

    Do something about proton damage in general. Either make penetrating shields really great (which would help transphasic too, another weak damage type), or re-think how these things work some other way.

    -Jeff


  • telbasta7386telbasta7386 Member Posts: 761 Arc User
    I never liked how they looked. The shapes were ok but the texture/colors made them look completely out of place in a star trek game (many other ships/shields/hulls have this same problem, though).
  • rattler2rattler2 Member Posts: 57,973 Community Moderator
    tyler002 wrote: »
    Also, if they made them actually look like something Starfleet designed; every time I try to use the current one, all I can think is "Why is Starfleet claiming they built what's obviously a salvaged Solanae ship?".

    The Klingon and Romulan ones look better, but the Fed one looks like a Solanae version of an Intrepid. Almost like they programmed the design into a Solanae shipyard and the shipyard just adapted the design to match Solanae design philosophy. At least you can make the Klingon and Romulan ones actually LOOK Klingon and Romulan with hull materials. None of the Fed ones look good on the Fed.
    db80k0m-89201ed8-eadb-45d3-830f-bb2f0d4c0fe7.png?token=eyJ0eXAiOiJKV1QiLCJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiJ9.eyJzdWIiOiJ1cm46YXBwOjdlMGQxODg5ODIyNjQzNzNhNWYwZDQxNWVhMGQyNmUwIiwiaXNzIjoidXJuOmFwcDo3ZTBkMTg4OTgyMjY0MzczYTVmMGQ0MTVlYTBkMjZlMCIsIm9iaiI6W1t7InBhdGgiOiJcL2ZcL2ExOGQ4ZWM2LTUyZjQtNDdiMS05YTI1LTVlYmZkYmJkOGM3N1wvZGI4MGswbS04OTIwMWVkOC1lYWRiLTQ1ZDMtODMwZi1iYjJmMGQ0YzBmZTcucG5nIn1dXSwiYXVkIjpbInVybjpzZXJ2aWNlOmZpbGUuZG93bmxvYWQiXX0.8G-Pg35Qi8qxiKLjAofaKRH6fmNH3qAAEI628gW0eXc
    I can't take it anymore! Could everyone just chill out for two seconds before something CRAZY happens again?!
    The nut who actually ground out many packs. The resident forum voice of reason (I HAZ FORUM REP! YAY!)
  • sheldonlcoopersheldonlcooper Member Posts: 4,042 Arc User
    maybe if the protonic weapon did polaron damage. i played with the dyson rep box weapons a lot - for a good year - the protonic polaron ones. and i almost got a decent gimmick out of them with the ship.

    the full dyson space set stinks because of the healing limit on the set bonus.

    as soon as I switched to the Vesta I was about 5x stronger both on offense and defense.

    the dyson ships are just gimmicky garbage. they blow up insanely easily. get a voyager or a vesta instead if you want a decent c-store ship.
    Captain Jean-Luc Picard: "We think we've come so far. Torture of heretics, burning of witches, it's all ancient history. Then - before you can blink an eye - suddenly it threatens to start all over again."

    "With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably."

  • rattler2rattler2 Member Posts: 57,973 Community Moderator
    Probably why most players stayed in one mode or the other and didn't bother with the transform mechanic. Also I think it was semi bugged for a long time too. They were a bit more popular with KDF and Romulan players because of the lack of Science Ships available to them.
    db80k0m-89201ed8-eadb-45d3-830f-bb2f0d4c0fe7.png?token=eyJ0eXAiOiJKV1QiLCJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiJ9.eyJzdWIiOiJ1cm46YXBwOjdlMGQxODg5ODIyNjQzNzNhNWYwZDQxNWVhMGQyNmUwIiwiaXNzIjoidXJuOmFwcDo3ZTBkMTg4OTgyMjY0MzczYTVmMGQ0MTVlYTBkMjZlMCIsIm9iaiI6W1t7InBhdGgiOiJcL2ZcL2ExOGQ4ZWM2LTUyZjQtNDdiMS05YTI1LTVlYmZkYmJkOGM3N1wvZGI4MGswbS04OTIwMWVkOC1lYWRiLTQ1ZDMtODMwZi1iYjJmMGQ0YzBmZTcucG5nIn1dXSwiYXVkIjpbInVybjpzZXJ2aWNlOmZpbGUuZG93bmxvYWQiXX0.8G-Pg35Qi8qxiKLjAofaKRH6fmNH3qAAEI628gW0eXc
    I can't take it anymore! Could everyone just chill out for two seconds before something CRAZY happens again?!
    The nut who actually ground out many packs. The resident forum voice of reason (I HAZ FORUM REP! YAY!)
  • westx211westx211 Member Posts: 42,206 Arc User
    IF they do make T6 Dyson ships they need much better stats, and they need 1 per faction not another one of those giant 9 pack bundles that are way overpriced 99% of the time.
    Men are not punished for their sins, but by them.
This discussion has been closed.