Why cant sci have larger beam arcs or another weapon slot at least

[Archived Post]

I am sure its been mentioned before but I just dont see why sci ships cant have a additional weapon slot. When you think about it in trying to make it a jack of all trades type of ship is what hinders it the most.

3 fore 3 aft slots,so of the bat it doesnt match any of the damage of the other ship types. But Tac is damage focused only and has many Boff slots for Tac. Engineers make up for lack of Tac Boff slots with having 4 for and 4 aft, this gives a wide range of damage options as well as extreme ability to survive and provide some healing. Sci ships on the other hand when it comes to damage dont have the Boff slots or the weapon slots.

They do have subsystem targeting but is that enough. to me I would allow sci ships to have larger beam arcs on Beam arrays. To me the ship is suppossed to be good for strafing. Thats because its encouraged to use Beam weapons, and it is more manuvarable (nebula excluded, which is a waste) then most cruisers. Thats great but KEEPING ANY SHIP ON YOUR SIDE IS EXTREMELY HARD IN THIS GAME, especially with the large ammounts of speed boosts and other variables such as steering alone.

Keeping a ship on an arc for enough time to give a sustained damage is very difficult. Thats why I think increasing the arcs on beam arrays so they overlap easier, but do make it simple to fire on a ship directly behind you.

If you added another weapon slot what would it really change in the class expect for a slightly higher damage, EVEN IF IT WAS A REAR WEAPON SLOT.

To me the benefits of a SCI ship in terms of SCI abilities arnt even all that great. Healing or Stun skills arnt so amazing. They usually have weak damage outputs and are not all that effective. While you seem to have more options as a SCI captain, that nice, but it doesnt mean you can do more after you have chossen your options.

To me it is a less than Jack of all trades class and ship type. Its hard to be good at any one thing, the job of healing for instance is already a difficult one which requires managment of skills, distance to players, making sure proper player is clicked, managing yourself, managing your aux abilities (Which doesnt make sense to me because no other class has abilities tied to a system), and providing a little bit of offense. All of these things already make it difficult.

I really dont see why the class was given so little in terms of weapons slots in the first place, and I dont see why adding 1 of those 2 types of changes wouldnt be done. But nobody else seems to care enough.

[Archived Post]

I feel science ships do quite well, even with the 6 weapons slots. I have a fleetmate tac officer who uses a sci ship quite efficiently (Recon), and he at times manages to out dps me in my escort.

Science vessels have the manuervering somewhere between the Cruisers and Escorts, have high shields, decent sized crews and repair rate, increased detection, subsystem targeting, and all of the debuffs and confuse and hold tactics of the science bridge officers, which in my opinion are the most useful skills in the game.

Adding more weapon slots, can make this ship much more desireable of course, but it also has the potential to make these ships very over powered.

[Archived Post]

First you really think adding a rear slot would make it OP!? Comon, thats crazy, especially with the special items they put out. Or how about the Oberth universal item. Will everyone have that in PvP? Doubtful that someone who doesnt have time or money but loves the game will?

The majority of people are not playing a TAC officer in a SCI ship. If a Sci ship can do more damage its usually spread out between multiple targets which doesnt really translate to kills. Which means most of the damaged is easily healed by the enemy.

Dont get me wrong the holds and debuffs can do well at times but I still feel its not enough.

[Archived Post]

If you want to deal damage from weapons, you dont' need to fly a Sci ship. Sci ship aren't about damage. They are about crowd control and debuff.

You deal your damage from skills. Your weapons are only a secondary damage dealer. Anotther weapon slot would be overpowered on a Sci Ship. Science can already cause enough damage without weapons. They can do things that are hard to overcome by a ship not prepared, and if they can hit you like an escort...well, that wouldn't be fair at all.

Remember, you CAN run in full weapons just like an escort, and TAC officers can fly a SCI ship. You can't balance for just a SCI in a SCI ship. You have to consider all the classes in that ship. Add a TAC officers damage buffs to a SCI ships debuff capabilities....you get a mean ship, even with less weapon slots.

If you are trying to deal high damage as a Science ship, why fly Science? There are ships designed for that.

Your job in a Science ship is to mess with the enemy. You drain their power, their shields, hold them in place, lower the defenses and keep them from being as effective as they usually would.

Or you can play healer if you choose.

Sci can deal some damage, but not with weapons. Using Gravity Well is nice, add in some resistance debuff, drain power from them. My GW3 does around 2k per second. Tachyon beam eats shields, meaning you can torpedo them to hell and back.

Don't rule out Tractor Beam Repulsors either. At full AUX on my intrepid, I use TBR3. Use a target engines, fly directly toward them till you are within 2k, fire TBR and hit Evasive. You will push them backwards, Ecasive will keep you close enough to keep hitting with it. TBR ignore shields, damages the hull directly. Mine, at full aux, will deal nearly 20k to most ships. It takes some practice to learn to use it right and get the timing down so you can push them constantly for the full effect of TBR, but once you learn it it hurts.

They also end up seperated from the pack. I like to use TB while I am pushing them to drain shields too.

Sure, I can't out damage an Escort. Most Cruisers deal more damage than me. But I cause more chaos, and I make targets that are usually hard to kill much easier to kill.

If you don't find that fun...and you don't want to play medic, fly something else.

I can tell you from experience, a Sci officer in the MVAE is a mean dude.

[Archived Post]

OK maybe not if they only add a rear slot, but adding an extra fore and aft, fitting it like a cruiser, could be. That extra beam on a broad side done right.

I just hate fighting sci vessels, because they always seem to shut me down. Besides, I think that well captained science vessels can pretty much counter any attack.

[Archived Post]

and if they can hit you like an escort...well, that wouldn't be fair at all.

If you are trying to deal high damage as a Science ship, why fly Science? There are ships designed for that.

.

Did I same make it so you can do the damage of an escort? Not to mention dont forget adding to the beam array arcs. I did say add a REAR weapon slot. That doesnt help TAC ships all that much to decide to use tac abilities on a sci ship. Regardless though even if you added 1 fore slot it wouldnt give you the dps because you cant use heavy cannons.

Maybe you could make a small argument for 4 fore weapons slots with a Tac officer in a sci ship. OK but regardless I still feel that most of the damage is so spread out its hard to kill any one ship, no you may be able to get a ship to waste its time if you are speced right. i would say FBP is the real best way to do that. But otherwise its a cannon foder class.

NOT TO MENTION WHY DO YOU NEED TO BE FACING FOWARD TO FIRE GW3? If its for lore reasons, guessing on that, ok. But really that also detracts from the ships abilities.

Oh yeah and something like Tahcyon beam It is one of the worst abilities (For direct attack) and people assume its so great. Biggest misconception is that you can really hurt shields with it. Well 1 that is if you want to hit all of the shields, If your facing a target you want the shield your hitting down. 2. if you want to wait to for it to finish and hit all shields. I cant tell how many times this could be wasted if you move out of range (granted user fault). Its really only useful when multiple targets are attacking from different angles, or especially if you are not currently targeted. So its fine if the enemy isnt after you which means you can stay on him and not need to move away to keep from getting hit on one side. If the ability at the least hit the shield you were focusing on it could be worth it.

TBR are the one really good thing about the class to me and maybe the scramble sensors because you can use those on any angle too. But the abilities that are like PBA types are not good because they a very situational and dont do enough damage to make them worth putting in a high level commander slot.

Not to mention all of the nerfs the class went through since launch which is fine, but give me something in return really!

[Archived Post]

I have a tac, and an engi officer leveled to where I can do PvP matches at a comfortable rate and I got my ass handed to me by a Sci ship while I was in a cruiser desighned to tank so sorry if you feel Sci's need a buff but when I can get man handled drained and then destroyed in a 1 on 1 match I think a compliant Sci captain is far more dangerous than most other captains.

to be honest this sounds like another thread talking about someone with a bad build saying it's the ships fault.

[Archived Post]

to be honest this sounds like another thread talking about someone with a bad build saying it's the ships fault.

No its not a bad build I have had good experiences in pvp with doing well at my job and staying a live. I just think the class take waaay too much skill, and basically perfection and I dont see why it doesnt have the things mentioned in the title to begin with. I have had many bad experiences too where I was the main target and the job of playing healer was destroyed as soon as I comr out of the interpid turtle I was get killed and so does my team.

But I do question if you were speced correctly in your egineering class especially. Maybe you didnt have the right consoles but if its speced to tank, I am sure the sci ship had help.

But to me all of the defense is in how the class can handle its own, but nothing really speaks to why it couldnt have 4 rear slots from beginning. After they nurfed it soo much it really could use another slot IMO or LARGER FIRING ARCS.

[Archived Post]

well if you add one more weapon slot then it got all the buff of science ship with the same number of weapon as escort. So what are you going to give escorts since they die quickly.

If you give it two more slot then you have the same as cruiser. Now you have a cruiser with all those buffs.

The number of weapon slots on science vessel is balance by it other stats.

[Archived Post]

well if you add one more weapon slot then it got all the buff of science ship with the same number of weapon as escort. So what are you going to give escorts since they die quickly.

If you give it two more slot then you have the same as cruiser. Now you have a cruiser with all those buffs.



What did escorts get when they gave Engineers 8 weapon slots. But once again like I said A REAR weapon slot isnt anywhere close to OP, and really adds more balance. How much more damage are you doing with a rear slot. Its not a significant ammount, but it at least helps perception, and like I said healing as well as any type of damage requires a lot of skill. If you are support damage powers only then maybe its not as hard.

Yeah I never said anything about the same as cruiser weapon slots or the same slots as an escort really.

So Unless you know someone skilled enough to shot dual beam banks or dual heavy cannons out their but is isnt worth it. The most someone will use is turrets, beam arrays, mines, or torps.

So I fail to see the argument against a REAR slot. But I guess everyone who doesnt comment about Increasing Firing Arcs for beam array is for them?

[Archived Post]

What did escorts get when they gave Engineers 8 weapon slots. But once again like I said A REAR weapon slot isnt anywhere close to OP, and really adds more balance. How much more damage are you doing with a rear slot. Its not a significant ammount, but it at least helps perception, and like I said healing as well as any type of damage requires a lot of skill. If you are support damage powers only then maybe its not as hard.

So Unless you know someone skilled enough to shot dual beam banks or dual heavy cannons out their but is isnt worth it. The most someone will use is turrets, beam arrays, mines, or torps.

So I fail to see the argument against a REAR slot. But I guess everyone who doesnt comment about Increasing Firing Arcs for beam array is for them?

Escort get to mount cannons. Something the cruisers and science can not. They also have better turn rates. They have less shield and hulls. They get 4 front and 3 rear weapons.

Cruiser get 4 front and 8 rear weapons. Not able to mount cannons (other Galaxy X which has a horrible turn rate). Have more hull then anyone else. They have the worst turn rates.

Science ship get a buffed damage when they target on target so they do more damage. They have better turn rates then cruiser. I believe the have better shields then cruiser and escorts. They have less hull the cruiser but more then escorts. They have beam target systems (ie shield, weapons, Engineering and aux)
They have better turn rates then cruiser but not as good as escorts.

So basicly you have sceince ship which are design to be avg in all sits. Adding additional weapons with out giving curiser and escorts something would make them over powered.

Taking something away from science to give it more weapons would just make it either a cruiser or escort.


Mix a captain of different type incease all the ships.

My engineer fly an escort. She those less damage then a tac office in escort. But she can take far more of punishment.

My Tac officer in science ship has far more damage then my sceince officer in science ship. But he loses some good team buffs.

[Archived Post]

There's no need.

Sensor Analysis is great and is all the buf***e that we needed.

[Archived Post]

So basicly you have sceince ship which are design to be avg in all sits. Adding additional weapons with out giving curiser and escorts something would make them over powered.

Taking something away from science to give it more weapons would just make it either a cruiser or escort.



1st the real benefit to rear slots are an Escort with turrets, now you can use a sci ship and use CRF too. But that renders subsytems useless.

So I dont see how adding a REAR slot is so magnificient that it destroys the game. But if you had to take something away sure go ahead. I still would feel like its a waste in terms of overall fairness.

Lets say for example that Escorts are fair to Cruisers. Are Cruisers fair to Sci ships. Cruisers have great abilities, who needs turning rate for example if your a 8 weapon slot tturret boat. Their are a lot of survivability benefits for tanking. But Sci ships to me have the same benefits in terms of abilities, and yet have 2 less weapon slots. When Escorts and Cruisers have more weapons, and the escorts can do the most with what they have, How does adding a REAR slot make Sci so much better. What are you doing with that one slot that is destroying others with damage output?

What about just adding a turret to every SCI ship is that too much then?

I would be just as happy with increasing FIRING ARCS ON BEAM ARRAYS THOUGH.

[Archived Post]

1st the real benefit to rear slots are an Escort with turrets, now you can use a sci ship and use CRF too. But that renders subsytems useless.

So I dont see how adding a REAR slot is so magnificient that it destroys the game. But if you had to take something away sure go ahead. I still would feel like its a waste in terms of overall fairness.

Lets say for example that Escorts are fair to Cruisers. Are Cruisers fair to Sci ships. Cruisers have great abilities, who needs turning rate for example if your a 8 weapon slot tturret boat. Their are a lot of survivability benefits for tanking. But Sci ships to me have the same benefits in terms of abilities, and yet have 2 less weapon slots. When Escorts and Cruisers have more weapons, and the escorts can do the most with what they have, How does adding a REAR slot make Sci so much better. What are you doing with that one slot that is destroying others with damage output?

What about just adding a turret to every SCI ship is that too much then?

I would be just as happy with increasing FIRING ARCS ON BEAM ARRAYS THOUGH.

We get the damage buff from Sensor Analysis. No other ship type gets that. It's quite fair.

[Archived Post]

There's no need.

Sensor Analysis is great and is all the buf***e that we needed.

Do you mean Sensor Scan? Yeah that helps but oh btw make sure you AUX is all the way up. ITS not meant to be a skill to help your one ship, its meant to help a team. You cant run with AUX AND ATTAC TO THE FULL so its not like you can do both damage outputs at the same time, which people fail to realize is also how the class is significantly nurfed.

[Archived Post]

Do you mean Sensor Scan? Yeah that helps but oh btw make sure you AUX is all the way up. ITS not meant to be a skill to help your one ship, its meant to help a team. You cant run with AUX AND ATTAC TO THE FULL so its not like you can do both damage outputs at the same time, which people fail to realize is also how the class is significantly nurfed.

No, Sensor Analysis. You can get a max of 10 stacks of it for a 33% damage buff and a buff go the drain of BTS. It's free and innate to Sci ships only.

[Archived Post]

Well I admit I didnt know about that, I was too busy jumping off my SCI ship to start an escort. I came back on to get the items from the FE's for that toon. I still dont fully understand it. But I guess that helps.

Still think firing arcs could be better. LOL.

[Archived Post]

Do you mean Sensor Scan? Yeah that helps but oh btw make sure you AUX is all the way up. ITS not meant to be a skill to help your one ship, its meant to help a team. You cant run with AUX AND ATTAC TO THE FULL so its not like you can do both damage outputs at the same time, which people fail to realize is also how the class is significantly nurfed.

I run 100 on weapons and 80 or 90 on aux. No problems on my tac officer.

[Archived Post]

... I just think the class take waaay too much skill, and basically perfection and I dont see why it doesnt have the things mentioned in the title to begin with...

Yes science needs more skill cause it is the most versatile and not so straight forward like tac or eng. See, that's exactly the thing many (or most ?) people like and what makes it more fun. There are many people who just don't understand science, not saying you are one of those, but you can see it often enough ingame (missions and zone chat). But let's keep science as it is: interesting, fun and, most important, different.


1st the real benefit to rear slots are an Escort with turrets, now you can use a sci ship and use CRF too. But that renders subsytems useless.

So I dont see how adding a REAR slot is so magnificient that it destroys the game. But if you had to take something away sure go ahead. I still would feel like its a waste in terms of overall fairness.

Lets say for example that Escorts are fair to Cruisers. Are Cruisers fair to Sci ships. Cruisers have great abilities, who needs turning rate for example if your a 8 weapon slot tturret boat. Their are a lot of survivability benefits for tanking. But Sci ships to me have the same benefits in terms of abilities, and yet have 2 less weapon slots. When Escorts and Cruisers have more weapons, and the escorts can do the most with what they have, How does adding a REAR slot make Sci so much better. What are you doing with that one slot that is destroying others with damage output?

What about just adding a turret to every SCI ship is that too much then?

I would be just as happy with increasing FIRING ARCS ON BEAM ARRAYS THOUGH.

So, if this additional rear weapon slot does not make the ship overpowered or contributes that much, why do you need it? A turret eh? So what can this turret (btw depending on cannon skill) do when I'm specced in beam weapons and not running very high weapons power. Science abilities can be, no they are destructive, they are more destructive than engineering abilities and, due to their uniqueness, can be deadlier than some tactical abilities. A sci ship with 3/4 or 4/4 weapon slots has the same raw damage potential than a cruiser with all the deadly science abilities.

There is no way to deny that a sci ship can render a cruiser helpless in seconds and can finish the job with pretty basic stuff like Quantum torpedoes or Tri-Cobalts. No need for additional weapons. Weapon damage is not the prime design philosphy of science ships and many people are running high auxiliary and not so high weapons power, every additional energy weapon adds to the power drain.

Oh sorry, forgot about the firing arcs. 250 degrees we have, why do we need more? Sci ships have maneuverability, they need to have cause some sci abilities have a front cone. Even the Nebula is not that flying brick some people claim it to be, just get used to it. I never had a problem broadsiding something if necessary.

[Archived Post]

Well I admit I didnt know about that, I was too busy jumping off my SCI ship to start an escort. I came back on to get the items from the FE's for that toon. I still dont fully understand it. But I guess that helps.

Still think firing arcs could be better. LOL.

I guess you want a science ship with 360 arcs, eight weapon slots. Turn rate of escort, Hull of cruiser and plus 50 power to everything.

[Archived Post]

Increasing firing arcs from 200 to 250 makes sense to me. Initially the purpose was for straffing, but that is extremely difficult when you have 2 objects moving, cannon ships trying to move closer.

Incresing arcs to 250 doesnt allow rear weapons to shoot in front or vice versa.it doesnt even increase damage, it just takes a concept and makes it more likely to be successful.

As it is its very difficult to the point that most people just dont use it to the full. Unless a target is far enough away and not attacking you its not an option.

[Archived Post]

Increasing firing arcs from 200 to 250 makes sense to me. Initially the purpose was for straffing, but that is extremely difficult when you have 2 objects moving, cannon ships trying to move closer.

Incresing arcs to 250 doesnt allow rear weapons to shoot in front or vice versa.it doesnt even increase damage, it just takes a concept and makes it more likely to be successful.

As it is its very difficult to the point that most people just dont use it to the full. Unless a target is far enough away and not attacking you its not an option.

The Beam Arrays already have a 250 degree arc.

[Archived Post]

My fault didnt have it in front of me. I thought it was 200 or 250. Had in my head increasing by 50 though. So fromm 250 to 300, even like 290 would be cool.

[Archived Post]

Increasing firing arcs from 200 to 250 makes sense to me. Initially the purpose was for straffing, but that is extremely difficult when you have 2 objects moving, cannon ships trying to move closer.

Incresing arcs to 250 doesnt allow rear weapons to shoot in front or vice versa.it doesnt even increase damage, it just takes a concept and makes it more likely to be successful.

As it is its very difficult to the point that most people just dont use it to the full. Unless a target is far enough away and not attacking you its not an option.

Not sure what game your playing. But STO has all ready had beam array fire at 250 arc. The only beam that has less is Dual beam which fire at 90 arc and can only be in front weapon slot.

[Archived Post]

My fault didnt have it in front of me. I thought it was 200 or 250. Had in my head increasing by 50 though. So fromm 250 to 300, even like 290 would be cool.

Well I still think 250 is good, the area where front and aft weapons share arcs is 70 degree. The only time I had a problem keeping somebody in the broadside arcs was with a Klingon carrier, all the science ships have pretty good turn rates (the Recon almost escort-like).

You can always start a campaign for being able to use the 360 degree shuttle phasers as an equivalent to turrets :)

[Archived Post]

My fault didnt have it in front of me. I thought it was 200 or 250. Had in my head increasing by 50 though. So fromm 250 to 300, even like 290 would be cool.

Or maybe you could learn to play with what we got. Consider you have no clue what is there. That what I would suggest.

Cause it realy sound like you want a science ship with 8 weapon slots, 100 power for Weapons, Shields, Eng, and AUX and have 360 weapons fire.

[Archived Post]

Really it just sounds to me like Science simply isn't the OP's strong suit. It's perfectly understandable. I used to think Cruisers needed some kind of buff, too, until I realized they just weren't my kind of ship.

My advice is to switch to something that better suits your style instead of coming here and starting threads like this. You'll save yourself some typing and squeeze in a little more game time that way.

[Archived Post]

I guess you want a science ship with 360 arcs, eight weapon slots. Turn rate of KDF Bird of Prey, Hull of cruiser and plus 50 power to everything.
Fixed that for you!
Or maybe you could learn to play with what we got. Consider you have no clue what is there. That what I would suggest.

Cause it realy sound like you want a science ship with 8 weapon slots, 100 power for Weapons, Shields, Eng, and AUX and have 360 weapons fire, turnrate of KDF BoP, 4 devices, 4 tac consols, 4 eng consols, 4 sci consols.Forget the first quote, this is the ultimate sci-ship. :rolleyes:

[Archived Post]

Beam firing arcs are balanced with their power.

If you want more firing arc in a weapon, mount a turret. That's 360 degree firing arc. You will shoot all your weapons (minus torpedos if you have any equipped) against your target regardless of position. But obviously you pay for that with reduced damage. You cannot have it all.

In short, IF the devs made a weapon with an arc wider than a beam array, they would reduce their power accordingly.

[Archived Post]

My advice is to switch to something that better suits your style instead of coming here and starting threads like this. You'll save yourself some typing and squeeze in a little more game time that way.

I dont need to worry about my time management, so its no problem, thanks for caring tho. I actually enjoy playing a sci class too, just wish it was better.

But with regard to arcs how do you explain the comparison of dual cannons to dual beam arrays? Dual beams have an arc of 90 with a damage difference of 94 more while the dps difference for dual cannons is only 26 more the dual beams but their arc is only 45!

[Archived Post]

I dont need to worry about my time management, so its no problem, thanks for caring tho. I actually enjoy playing a sci class too, just wish it was better.

But with regard to arcs how do you explain the comparison of dual cannons to dual beam arrays? Dual beams have an arc of 90 with a damage difference of 94 more while the dps difference for dual cannons is only 26 more the dual beams but their arc is only 45!

Yes we know you want a super ship. Like the one I post or most like the one Rvlion posted.

[Archived Post]

Oh good, you know how to say something funny, while completely ignoring the question just because its something you dont like! Bravo, slow clap!

[Archived Post]

Oh good, you know how to say something funny, while completely ignoring the question just because its something you dont like! Bravo, slow clap!

Nope not begin funny. It seems to me you want a super ship.

Beside weapon dps is lot more then looking at what it say in tool tip. You may want to go read this

http://www.freemmoguides.com/star-trek-online/star-trek-online-ship-weapons-guide/

I know from personal experience on my Defiant refit correctly spec in each case Dual Cannon or Dual Heavy Cannon do FAR more damage to target when used correct then Dual beams.

ie. having weapons power set above 125 so even when you fire your next run fire at higher setting. Waiting till I get with 4 to 3km to open fire. If i do that with cannon the ship loses it shield facing. Fire off HYT Quantum and normal there dead in PVE.

If equip with beams it takes more then one pass. Just because you can open fire at 10km those not mean you should.

Just like you should never go into combat while at full impulse. If you drop out full impulse at about 12K and hold your fire till you close and have full weapons you do more damage.

Can my character do as much damage in sceince ship as escort. Nope. But then again there not meant to.

Do science ship need a boast in damage. Nope not since they add the new buff. Sensor Analysis (http://www.stowiki.org/Ability:_Sensor_Analysis)

[Archived Post]

Yes I know all of those things as well, but cannons may only do better with CRF which includes turrets! BFW on the other hand does not include turrets and beams can also come off target.

So I made the comparison because if that is a fair tradeoff, increasing the arc on beam arrays is also fair and doesnt increase damage. As well it still has the same issues if using BFW because of increased arc even more targets can be hit.

Far from a super ship!

[Archived Post]

Yes I know all of those things as well, but cannons may only do better with CRF which includes turrets! BFW on the other hand does not include turrets and beams can also come off target.

So I made the comparison because if that is a fair tradeoff, increasing the arc on beam arrays is also fair and doesnt increase damage. As well it still has the same issues if using BFW because of increased arc even more targets can be hit.

Far from a super ship!

I was not talking about using CRF in my example. With CRF i do not need to fire the torpedos. as the target already dead.

So I guess you think cannon show also have a bigger arc. After all if 250 not good enough why should cannon only have 45?

[Archived Post]

In the end the tacs dont have any problem doing damage, while even most of the stuns or slows for sci seem to be have a wide balance to them. Like when they changed Viral Matrix and added aux aspects to things as well. Everything so that its extremely balanced, I feel like if you dd to the beam array arcs it doesnt change that balance.

But if you add to the arcs for cannons its making it way too easy. Nobody really has a problem doing damage in a tac, so you taking something thats done with no problems and making it easier. With sci your taking something really difficult and making it more of a useful tactic.

I would even decrease power a bit for it tho.

[Archived Post]

In the end the tacs dont have any problem doing damage, while even most of the stuns or slows for sci seem to be have a wide balance to them. Like when they changed Viral Matrix and added aux aspects to things as well. Everything so that its extremely balanced, I feel like if you dd to the beam array arcs it doesnt change that balance.

But if you add to the arcs for cannons its making it way too easy. Nobody really has a problem doing damage in a tac, so you taking something thats done with no problems and making it easier. With sci your taking something really difficult and making it more of a useful tactic.

I would even decrease power a bit for it tho.


You do release that degree of arc are not just left, right front and back but also up and down. It is not easy getting a target in the that at a step angle. It a lot easyer moving a science ship to get more phaser on target.

with 4 phaser beams equip you have always two on target in 360 degree arc.

If you want more punch put 2 dual beam up front or one.

I have run on my science ships

4 beam array and 2 torpedo
4 beam array and 2 dual beams
4 beam array, 1 dual beam and on torpedo (1 beam array up front and 3 in rear)
3 beam array in rear, 2 dual beam array and torpedo up front. I find this gives me personal the best dps in science. I get dual beam punch up front where most of my 90 Degree science power are. Also a torpedo to do major hull damage. And while I moving around getting that 90 degree arc back on target I have 3 beams doing damage. The only down side is you have small window where you doing noting. But then that why the science ship has the turn rate it those. If use the right powers the shields melt before i even get done with the first pass and torpedo takes a chunk of the hull.

I also make sure I spec into efficiency and performance skill so that I have everything running over at least 40 power levels.

[Archived Post]

I'll admit, I never did understand why the Intrepid Retro didn't gain a forward weapon slot, or a rear weapon slot.

Defiant: 4 fore, 2 aft
Defiant R: 4 fore, 3 aft

Galaxy: 4 fore, 3 aft
Galaxy R: 4 fore, 4 aft

Intrepid: 3 fore, 3 aft.
Intrepid R: 3 fore, 3 aft

There's no chance in the weapon load out like the other ships which strikes me as a bit unfair. Plus there's a difference between giving us a fourth fore or aft weapon slot and giving us Warship Voyager. Which I'm sure would be Tier 6, mount dual cannons, and have +10 to weapon power, while costing an arm and a leg in the C-store.

[Archived Post]

Good points alastor, i didnt even think of that.

But yeah I spec with all system abilities, and use a few different attack types. My thing is everything on weapons a sci can do and engi can do better and regardless a tac can do best better than everyone.

It doesnt hurt anyone to add a weapon slot especially if its rear. Okay most sci ships are faster. That helps for sure, but faster turn rates and speed doesnt save you against a full tac assault. Really damage res, outweighs having a good defense anyway. In terms of using it for attack, ok thats fine but its not a big deal if you dont have weap slots. Not to mention with soo many abilities tied to aux unless you play with subsytems perfectly you just can max damage with all abilities and power lvls.

Lastly though look at the Nebula it has horrible speed and the same ammount of slots, oh but you get a universal boff! Wooptydoo!

[Archived Post]

I'll admit, I never did understand why the Intrepid Retro didn't gain a forward weapon slot, or a rear weapon slot.

Defiant: 4 fore, 2 aft
Defiant R: 4 fore, 3 aft

Galaxy: 4 fore, 3 aft
Galaxy R: 4 fore, 4 aft

Intrepid: 3 fore, 3 aft.
Intrepid R: 3 fore, 3 aft

There's no chance in the weapon load out like the other ships which strikes me as a bit unfair. Plus there's a difference between giving us a fourth fore or aft weapon slot and giving us Warship Voyager. Which I'm sure would be Tier 6, mount dual cannons, and have +10 to weapon power, while costing an arm and a leg in the C-store.

defiant T4 Escort which has 4 and 2 weapons slots
Defiant R T5 escort which all have 4 fore and 3 aft weapons. ie just like the another none refit ships of this tier.

Galaxy T4 for and 3 aft
Galaxy R T5 has 4 fore and 4 after just like every T5 curiser those.

Interpid T4 3 and 3
Interpid T5 3 and 3 just like EVERY t5 science vessel has. Nebula, Vuclan, deep space and recon. All have 3 and 3.

So you right there no change from other t5 science vessel but then the Defiant R, MVA and Galaxy R and X all have the same weapons as there other T5 class types.

If the science vessel got another weapon slot it would have the same as Escort, which is suppose to be DPS class. Then they have to give the Escort another weapon slot ass well.

[Archived Post]

I dont get it with people. First a rear slot isnt the same as a fore slot, its just not. So adding a rear slot doesnt increase damage to escort class or engineer class even with a tac officer!

Why is it that people dont get that I dont know. With all the other ships aspects that can really effect gameplay when new escorts and cruisers come out.

The biggest thing a rear slot helps is PERCEPTION! You dont become a tac and it doesnt keep a tac from face rolling when they want.

[Archived Post]

defiant T4 Escort which has 4 and 2 weapons slots
Defiant R T5 escort which all have 4 fore and 3 aft weapons. ie just like the another none refit ships of this tier.

Galaxy T4 for and 3 aft
Galaxy R T5 has 4 fore and 4 after just like every T5 curiser those.

Interpid T4 3 and 3
Interpid T5 3 and 3 just like EVERY t5 science vessel has. Nebula, Vuclan, deep space and recon. All have 3 and 3.

So you right there no change from other t5 science vessel but then the Defiant R, MVA and Galaxy R and X all have the same weapons as there other T5 class types.

If the science vessel got another weapon slot it would have the same as Escort, which is suppose to be DPS class. Then they have to give the Escort another weapon slot ass well.

The flaw in your argument is this. the /other/ Retrofit is not a retrofit but a the same Tier 5 ship you get at RA if you buy the Advanced escort, it just has an overpriced console and an unbalanced BOFF set up (which honestly makes it the best offensive Science vessel in the game).

Another flaw with pointing this out is that the Intrepid is a Tier 4, that is upgraded to Tier 5. Every tier 4 retro gains a weapons plot (not counting the Promie because its not a T4 retro its a T5 into a T5) however the Intrepid does not.

The other flaw is that giving the Intrepid a fourth fore slot does not make it the same as an Escort. It'll never out DPS an escort. It will never mount the dual cannons, or dual heavies, never have the turn rate, never have the weapon power bonus. It'll never, ever, exceed an Escort in doing what an Escort does best because it simply can't. If I fit an Intrepid R with four fore slots with all regular cannons and turrets, an RCS and Plasma Manafold plus tactical consoles to buff the weapons equipped it'll never do the same DPS as a Defiant simply because it can't mount weapons with a high enough DPS to do so.

[Archived Post]

There's no need.

Sensor Analysis is great and is all the buf***e that we needed.

I have to admit, I 've never used Sensor Analysis and I can't find it on my power tray.

I fly the Intrepid Refit and Sensor Analysis does not show up at all for me :confused:

[Archived Post]

I have to admit, I 've never used Sensor Analysis and I can't find it on my power tray.

I fly the Intrepid Refit and Sensor Analysis does not show up at all for me :confused:

Sensor Analysis is a passive ability that starts stacking the longer you are targeting the same ship. So the longer you keep one ship targeted, your damage against it gradually increases.

[Archived Post]

The flaw in your argument is this. the /other/ Retrofit is not a retrofit but a the same Tier 5 ship you get at RA if you buy the Advanced escort, it just has an overpriced console and an unbalanced BOFF set up (which honestly makes it the best offensive Science vessel in the game).

It still a refit vessel. It did not get any additional weapons.


Another flaw with pointing this out is that the Intrepid is a Tier 4, that is upgraded to Tier 5. Every tier 4 retro gains a weapons plot (not counting the Promie because its not a T4 retro its a T5 into a T5) however the Intrepid does not. Guess I had issue with present my argument. The other t4 to t5 refit all gain a weapon because there T5 count parts gain a weapon. Ie a T4 escort has one less weapon then a t5 escort.

Science t4 ships have the same numbers as Science T5 vessels. So by giving a t5 refit an extra weapon you are making one refit more power then any other refit.


The other flaw is that giving the Intrepid a fourth fore slot does not make it the same as an Escort. It'll never out DPS an escort. It will never mount the dual cannons, or dual heavies, never have the turn rate, never have the weapon power bonus. It'll never, ever, exceed an Escort in doing what an Escort does best because it simply can't. If I fit an Intrepid R with four fore slots with all regular cannons and turrets, an RCS and Plasma Manafold plus tactical consoles to buff the weapons equipped it'll never do the same DPS as a Defiant simply because it can't mount weapons with a high enough DPS to do so.

If I chose to fly a Escort with beams. Which by the way I have one. That escort would do about the same damage as science vessel if you gave the science vessel an extra weapon slot. In fact the science vessel because of the 33% damage buff would most likely do More damage if the two are equip with the same weapons. Perhaps a cannon escort would dps a cruiser but not by much. As for turn rate. The Refit escort have turn rate of 17 for the defiant and 15 for MVA. The intrepid refit has a turn rate of 12. that only a 5 turn rate difference.

Also with four cannon up front and four turret in rear you Lose way to much weapons power to do max dps.

[Archived Post]

Sensor Analysis is a passive ability that starts stacking the longer you are targeting the same ship. So the longer you keep one ship targeted, your damage against it gradually increases.

Thanks, I did not know it was a passive skill :D

[Archived Post]

It still a refit vessel. It did not get any additional weapons.
It's a refit in name only, as a marketing ploy and an excuse for its price. It's Console set up is the same, its crew is the same, its hull is the same, its impulse turn rate, and inertia ratings are the same, its weapon set up is the same. It's not a refit. All that is different is the BOFF set up and an overpriced console. Outside that BOFF set up and Console, it remains identical to the other Advanced escort, that means it lacks what makes a Refit a Refit.

Guess I had issue with present my argument. The other t4 to t5 refit all gain a weapon because there T5 count parts gain a weapon. Ie a T4 escort has one less weapon then a t5 escort.

Science t4 ships have the same numbers as Science T5 vessels. So by giving a t5 refit an extra weapon you are not making one refit more power then any other refit. Ok, that does make your point more clear. However you're wording here 'you are not making one refit more powerful than any other refit' is confusing. Are you agreeing that giving it an extra slot is not making it more powerful, did you do a common typo and meant now and typed not? I'm confused.

And lets go back a bit. You pointed out that the T5 retro has the same weapons as the T5 norms. Well the T5 norms has the same weapons as a T4. See that flaw? Cruisers and Escorts all gain an extra weapon slot at the transition of T4 to T5, Science does not. The standard power and maneuverability and other buffs that happen from T4 to T5 happen with it as they do all the other classes of ship, but unlike the others, T5 Science ships gain no extra offensive capabilities to deal with endgame level enemies where as Escorts and Cruisers do.

If I chose to fly a Escort with beams. Which by the way I have one. That escort would do about the same damage as science vessel if you gave the science vessel an extra weapon slot. In fact the science vessel because of the 33% damage buff would most likely do More damage if the two are equip with the same weapons. Perhaps a cannon escort would dps a cruiser but not by much. As for turn rate. The Refit escort have turn rate of 17 for the defiant and 15 for MVA. The intrepid refit has a turn rate of 12. that only a 5 turn rate difference.

Also with four cannon up front and four turret in rear you Lose way to much weapons power to do max dps.

The choice to fly an escort with beams is not part of the equation. Yes if you take an Escort and an Intrepid with a forth fore slot and equipped them with the same weapons they would produce similar DPS. However running an Escort with beams is not going with its maximum DPS potential, so it doesn't invalidate the argument. If a Science could run dual and dual heavies then yes it could match an Escort in DPS potential but since it can't it never will. An escort will always be able to be fitted to do more DPS.

[Archived Post]

To me sensor analysis is the devs way of saying science ships should have been able to do more damage a long time ago!

But lets not get it twisted. Sensor Analysis is a damage over time, that ruins abilities like BFW which will automatically target other enemies. So right of the bat you cannot do the damage of an escort because you cant use cannons, and you likely cant keep a target with dual beams.

2nd Sensor Analysis is basically increased chanelled damage over time. So saying 33% more damage is not really accurate since its very situational. Things like jamming sensors on the tac that is now your 2nd attacker is impossible. Escorts however are built to hit hard and run, major initial damage with stacking buffs and the most tac boffs. Which is great and cant take away from an escorts huge ability to damage fast!

3rd even if you have every sci damage attack ability equiped you still cant have attack and aux power levels both at max so one is ineffective.

But I say just a rear slot woulf be nice.

[Archived Post]

To me sensor analysis is the devs way of saying science ships should have been able to do more damage a long time ago!

But lets not get it twisted. Sensor Analysis is a damage over time, that ruins abilities like BFW which will automatically target other enemies. So right of the bat you cannot do the damage of an escort because you cant use cannons, and you likely cant keep a target with dual beams.

2nd Sensor Analysis is basically increased chanelled damage over time. So saying 33% more damage is not really accurate since its very situational. Things like jamming sensors on the tac that is now your 2nd attacker is impossible. Escorts however are built to hit hard and run, major initial damage with stacking buffs and the most tac boffs. Which is great and cant take away from an escorts huge ability to damage fast!

3rd even if you have every sci damage attack ability equiped you still cant have attack and aux power levels both at max so one is ineffective.

But I say just a rear slot woulf be nice.

accutly it those work with dual beams and beam overload. It those not work with BFW because your CHANGING targets. Every time you change target you drop the buff and have to rebuild it.

That right you CAN not do the damage of escort. BECAUSE escort are glass cannon. They do lots of damage in short period of time, because once under attack they easy to destroy. They not have the shields of science vessel or the hull of cruiser.

Accutly you can get darn close on my one toon in science I have about 100 weapons and 80 aux.

[Archived Post]

It's a refit in name only, as a marketing ploy and an excuse for its price. It's Console set up is the same, its crew is the same, its hull is the same, its impulse turn rate, and inertia ratings are the same, its weapon set up is the same. It's not a refit. All that is different is the BOFF set up and an overpriced console. Outside that BOFF set up and Console, it remains identical to the other Advanced escort, that means it lacks what makes a Refit a Refit.

Ok, that does make your point more clear. However you're wording here 'you are not making one refit more powerful than any other refit' is confusing. Are you agreeing that giving it an extra slot is not making it more powerful, did you do a common typo and meant now and typed not? I'm confused.

And lets go back a bit. You pointed out that the T5 retro has the same weapons as the T5 norms. Well the T5 norms has the same weapons as a T4. See that flaw? Cruisers and Escorts all gain an extra weapon slot at the transition of T4 to T5, Science does not. The standard power and maneuverability and other buffs that happen from T4 to T5 happen with it as they do all the other classes of ship, but unlike the others, T5 Science ships gain no extra offensive capabilities to deal with endgame level enemies where as Escorts and Cruisers do.



The choice to fly an escort with beams is not part of the equation. Yes if you take an Escort and an Intrepid with a forth fore slot and equipped them with the same weapons they would produce similar DPS. However running an Escort with beams is not going with its maximum DPS potential, so it doesn't invalidate the argument. If a Science could run dual and dual heavies then yes it could match an Escort in DPS potential but since it can't it never will. An escort will always be able to be fitted to do more DPS.


Should read

Science t4 ships have the same numbers as Science T5 vessels. So by giving a t5 refit an extra weapon you are making one refit more power then any other refit.


As for escort with out cannon. Well in that case if you put dual beam on your front slots on science ship you do more damage as well.

[Archived Post]

accutly it those work with dual beams and beam overload. It those not work with BFW because your CHANGING targets. Every time you change target you drop the buff and have to rebuild it.

That right you CAN not do the damage of escort. BECAUSE escort are glass cannon. They do lots of damage in short period of time, because once under attack they easy to destroy. They not have the shields of science vessel or the hull of cruiser.

Accutly you can get darn close on my one toon in science I have about 100 weapons and 80 aux.

You are restating everything I said as if it is new to me! Your just making my points, the arguments are science would have the attack of escorts, which I stated and know is not true.

Saying a tac is a glass cannon is close but not totally accurate because of mobility bonuses of defense and escaping almost all situations.

Lastly that seemingly small difference in aux power. Actually really hurts any damage output and other abilities.

I would trade off for all sci ships to have another weapon slot even if it meant an ensign tac ability only!

[Archived Post]

Should read

Science t4 ships have the same numbers as Science T5 vessels. So by giving a t5 refit an extra weapon you are making one refit more power then any other refit.


As for escort with out cannon. Well in that case if you put dual beam on your front slots on science ship you do more damage as well.

You're assuming I'm actually saying that ONLY the Intrepid Retro should get the extra weapon slots, i don't think it should, I think ALL the T-5 science ships should gain a weapon slot, as the cruisers and escorts gained when they increased to tier 5.

And again you're not addressing the point. We are not discussing giving a science ship the ability to do damage on pare with an escort. It just shouldn't happen. Science ships, and cruisers, unless they're KDF or the Gal-X should not mount cannons. Thus they should not, and cannot out DPS an escort. The discussion of dual beams isn't addressing the issue either. We're straying from the point. The point is that when you went from tier 4 to tier five as an escort you gained an extra weapon slot. When you did the same as cruisers you gained an extra weapons slot. but when the Science ships did so, nothing. That is the point we're discussing. Thats the name of the thread. Not if a Science should do more or less DPS than an Escort while equipped with the same energy weapon set up.

[Archived Post]

soecc into sensor array and sensors, get a tachyon deflector, equip 3-4 multi-spectro scanner consoles and use target engines or target shields then use your tac for HY2 and HY1. disabling targets engines will give you MUCh hit andor crit, cause the ship will stand still.

also you could try to fly the MVAM-prometheus just get rid of the mvamconsole and do the above. target engines is really quite good thing.

[Archived Post]

So the question is really whether Science Ships as they are now are balanced towards the other ship classes.
I think they are.
Their limited offensive weaponry is compensated by Sensor Analysis, Target Subsystem and their "Blue" abilities, which can have a far more profound effect on the battlefield (allies and enemis alike) than the "Red" and "Yellow" ones.
To put it in very general terms.

[Archived Post]

SCIENCE ship. Not WAR ship.

Science ships should be minimally armed, at best. If you ask me they're already too heavily armed in general.

[Archived Post]

My Science retrofit kitted out in its current state has more 'Fight' then most of the cruisers and escorts i have seen. So id say i disgaree with the OP.

Not to mention i can call in the Photonic fleet and if my hull goes beneath 50% a federation escort.

Its all a matter of how you kit up your skills and which skills you choose to use on your BOFFs.

Having a good blance of 'heal' and offensive' type skills is key. 1v1 I wont be beaten unless i get to lazy and dont click the ablative armour early enough ^^

*Edit* I will also say this. you need to find the right function of your ship to suit your play style and that is probably the crux of your problem, NOT a lack of weapons.

[Archived Post]

For the OP.

TAC
- Beam Array Overload I
- High Yield Torpedo II

ENG
- Emergency power to Shields I
- Engineering Team II

SCI
- Science Team I
- Hazard Emitters II
- Tractor Beam Repulsors II
- Photonic Shockwave III

SCI
- Tractor Beam I
- Photonic Officer I
- Transfer shield Strength III

SCI
- Polarize Hull.

Now some of my other boffs have other skills which i use seldom (but on occasion) given the right circumstances. About the only thing i cant take down is a Cruiser (with an opponant of equal skill). We just end up circling each other all day and it turns into a heal fest.

In conjuction with this i am using the following consoles.

ENG
-Shield Emitters
-SIF Generator

SCI
-Induction Stabilizer
- Biofunction monitor
- Halon system
- Holomatrix Diode

TAC
- Directed Energy Distribution Manifold
- Warhead yield Chamber

In my skills tree i have teched beam arrays (but no specific type of beam, just the generic). and Quantum Torpedo as i am quite fond of it.

Alot of your combat prowess as a science officer also comes down to your weapons systems and how you use them. I have some other weapons i keep in reserve for the right enemys but my regular loadout is this:

FORE
- Antiproton Beam Array
- Dual Tetryon Beam Bank
- Quantum Torpedo

AFT
- Antiproton Beam array
- Tricobalt Torpedo
- Polaron Turret

Now, this is not the be all and end all of SCI setups, this is the setup that works for me personally (along with my skill choices ofc). If you can get the enemy shields down and get just 1 tricobalt into them it will do anywhere from 20000-35000.

Meanwhilst, you also have at your disposal......

- Science Fleet II
- Starship Dampening Field III
- Sensor Scan III
- Sub Nucleonic Beam III
- Ablative Generator (you can still fire torpedos with this baby active)
- Photonic Fleet III
- Fleet Support II
- Brace for Impact

(these 2 will get you out of trouble 99.99% of the time)
- Evasive Manouvers III
- Ramming speed III

And your 3 Device slots (though i carry an arsenal of consumables to change in different situations)
- Rechargeable Shields (thanks to those pesky klingons)
- Weapons Battery
- Subspace Field Modulator

So....

Keeping in mind you should always have skills, consumables and if neccesary consoles to change and use on different situations, and differnt adversarys, there is no reason you cant go 1v1 against any class of ship.

You just need to find the right setup to suit your style and technique. Once you have a technique that suits your playstyle the rest will fall into place for you.

The only caveat to add, as i allreayd mentioned, is when you go up against an opponant of equal skill to yourself. And it will just end up as a heal fest, even if that opponant has 4fore+4aft weapons he should not be able cripple you to the point of submission if you are always keeping an eye on your shields.

[Archived Post]

For the record, with one more weapon slot even with rear, my Nebula would feel overpowered...

[Archived Post]

For the record, with one more weapon slot even with rear, my Nebula would feel overpowered...

Yeah! My Nebula R is very versatile and powerful, i love it :) The Universal BO let you have a total of 4 Tactical abilities if you want.

Maybe OP could try flying a Nebula. You get more tactical abilities than an Assault cruiser lol.

No need for more than 6 weapon slots when you can spam BO2, FAW, APD1 and Tactical Team. And you even have SubTargeting and Sensor Analysis for free :)


Nebula lover 4ever:D

[Archived Post]

Lastly that seemingly small difference in aux power. Actually really hurts any damage output and other abilities.

I would trade off for all sci ships to have another weapon slot even if it meant an ensign tac ability only!

First of there are skills that will increase you power depending on the setting. Now them and use them. It not an issue.

So know you want an additional weapon slot and ensign tac ability.

Let just cut to the chase. What you realy want is

Super science vessel
* 8 weapon slots able to fire in 360 degree arc regardless weapon sloted. These 8 slot can mount Dual Heavy cannons, Heavy Cannons, Cannons, Dual beams, Beam array, torepdo and mines.
* 200 power levels for Weapons, Shields, Engineering and Aux
* Turn rate of 50%
* 4 Tac Consoles, 4 Engineer Consoles, and 8 Science consoles.
* 4 Universal Commander Bridge Office slots
* 4 Universal Lt Commander Bridge Officer slots
* 4 Universal Lt Bridge Officer Slots
* Sensor Analysis II automatic 200% extra damage if you look at a target
* Automatic Beam Targert Subsystem III that fires off with any weapon. This is combination of Beam Target Weapons, Shields, Engine and Aux. Redux power of the other ship by 20 energy per shot.



Special Power - I win Button in case the above is still not enough. Cool 1 second. Last 5 minutes.

[Archived Post]

I would trade off for all sci ships to have another weapon slot even if it meant an ensign tac ability only!

Really? Hmm.

I wouldn't.

[Archived Post]

sure i would like to have more weapon slots on my retrofit intrepid too :P but then i'd be flying a speed-crusier that'd way too overpowered! 3 fore, 3 aft is just balanced ... besides you have enough abilities that should give you the edge over any enemy on your level you encounter ;)

you can't be a wizard, tank and hitter, all in one ... and if one role doesn't suit you, pick another or pick at least a cruiser/escort ^_^

[Archived Post]

i appologize ahead of time if what im about to say has already been said in other posts in this thread...

i have ZERO problems in a cruiser keeping the enemy on my side for the full broadside dps. I do this with RCS consoles. granted i dont turn as fast as a science ship similarly equipped or even an escort, but i still have ZERO issues broadsiding targets. and since a science ship has a better turn rate than my cruiser, the lack of an engineering slot (or 2 depending on the endgame ship hull you use) should not matter compared to a cruiser.

all the above said, a science ship, since it is science skill oriented with boffs and consoles alike, means your dps is more related to science skills. there is one good actual dps science skill, gravity well II (or III if you have it) as for the rest of the science skills, i look at them this way: if they debuff the enemy's dps output capability, that equals dps on my part, since i am preventing them from killing me faster than i can kill them. tractor beam, repulsor beams, that one space knockback one that looks sort of like a small concussion wave emitted 360 degrees from your ship, etc. all these can prevent the enemy from doing dps on you, which increases your dps by not having to blow science skills on heals.

it is my feeling that a well-played science oriented vessel can, over time, very nearly out-dps even escorts, by preventing escorts from out-dpsing them. prevent the escort from moving/turning, and you can bring your broadside to bear. if you cant prevent him from moving (those skills are now on a cooldown), then the next best thing to prevent him from DPSing you, is the poor-man's cloak, jam sensors. if they cant target you, they cant dps you. this means you can be dpsing on them and they cannot return fire. if you can time all of these properly, you can bring down the target's shields (especially the pesky escorts) and spank em at least once with a tri-cobalt or a high-yield torp barage, or even a plasma torp. heck, if you can bring a shield facing down and drop a transphasic cluster torpedo on top of it, its likely to do alot of damage as well.

there are many tactics to playing this game, you just have to play to the strengths of your loadout.