Ensign
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4
# 1 Concerning Escorts...
04-03-2013, 10:22 AM
Lately I've been noticing, at least around the people I tend to see, that escorts seem to be on the decline....

I see more and more Tac officers in cruisers and in a few baffling cases in Science ships. I often hear people saying escorts are OP... Colossally OP in some cases. which brings me to my question.... Why do tac officers seem to COMPLETELY waste so much damage potential by flying something other then an escort?
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 203
# 2
04-03-2013, 10:29 AM
sometimes you need a tank? How do you come to this hypothesis that there is a decline in escort usage?
***
Growing old is inevitable. Growing up is optional.
Captain
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,063
# 3
04-03-2013, 10:51 AM
For a few reasons.
  • Even with superior damage potential, and "adequate" tanking, an escort's still flimsier than a cruiser.
  • This is Star Trek, not Star Wars. I want to use the Enterprise, not a fighter.
  • My reflexes aren't the best (see previous point).
  • I prefer the cruiser playstyle.
  • I already play an engineer on another toon - playing an engineer in a cruiser and a tac in a cruiser are different experiences for me.
  • Unless you play exclusively with hyper-optimized players (many of whom often berate anyone who does not follow their plans for the One True Build - not all or even most of them, but enough to grate on nerves), you're probably going to do alright in a cruiser with a tac.
  • I like having diversity in my options for both offense and defense.

As such, while I have purchased and occasionally use escorts, my tac is going to be remaining in his fleet assault cruiser for the foreseeable future.

Last edited by red01999; 04-03-2013 at 10:54 AM.
Ensign
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4
# 4
04-03-2013, 11:21 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by sasheria View Post
sometimes you need a tank? How do you come to this hypothesis that there is a decline in escort usage?
the problem with that statement is that there's no such thing as "Tanking" in STO. I just seems to be seeing ALOT of tacs in things other then escorts. I may be totally off base I'm just having trouble understanding why a tac would squander Damage potential. I mean you play a tac officer to do damage. I'm a firm believer that if you'd like to fly cruisers you should be an engineer. I just use to running with people that expect NOTHING less then the ABSOLUTE best and putting a tac officer in a cruiser just seems silly to me.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 173
# 5
04-03-2013, 11:25 AM
They could just be doing it for that elusive experience called "fun".
Vice Admiral Elaron, USS Sky Road
Career Officer
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 139
# 6
04-03-2013, 11:32 AM
That's why I do it. Fun.

Sure, my Defiant will always be my main ship, but not for the "leet DPS" but because it my absolute favorite ship from my favorite series.

I can take out enemies just fine in an Armitage, a cruiser, even a science ship. Sometimes it's fun to play in a different way.

Not everyone in the game is a min-maxer.

Join AIE Today! http://forum.myextralife.com/forum/6...r-trek-online/
Empire Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 6,764
# 7
04-03-2013, 11:43 AM
My Fleet Vor'cha thinks its an escort.
Richard Hamilton (1975-2014)
goodbye good friend. We will see you in the DMZ in the sky oneday, save a shot for us.
Captain
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 3,376
# 8
04-03-2013, 11:52 AM
Heh, my Kamarag crew remembers when I flew an escort, but they have more fun with the increased challenge of a cruiser.
KBF Lord MalaK
Awoken Dead

You're gonna upgrade my Chel Grett for FREE but charge me $30 to upgrade my Kamarag ?
Captain
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 688
# 9
04-03-2013, 12:02 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by doaga1 View Post
the problem with that statement is that there's no such thing as "Tanking" in STO. I just seems to be seeing ALOT of tacs in things other then escorts. I may be totally off base I'm just having trouble understanding why a tac would squander Damage potential. I mean you play a tac officer to do damage. I'm a firm believer that if you'd like to fly cruisers you should be an engineer. I just use to running with people that expect NOTHING less then the ABSOLUTE best and putting a tac officer in a cruiser just seems silly to me.
Find a mirror. Look at the surface. Notice yourself.

Answer a question - why are our Captains stratified between "Tactical", "Science", and "Engineering" when there is no evidence within the fiction to suggest that such divergence exists, let alone in the manner and to the extent it does in this game?
Captain
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 688
# 10
04-03-2013, 12:05 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by doaga1 View Post
Lately I've been noticing, at least around the people I tend to see, that escorts seem to be on the decline....

I see more and more Tac officers in cruisers and in a few baffling cases in Science ships. I often hear people saying escorts are OP... Colossally OP in some cases. which brings me to my question.... Why do tac officers seem to COMPLETELY waste so much damage potential by flying something other then an escort?
Why do tac/sci captains put points into threat control?
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:52 AM.