Go Back   Star Trek Online > Feedback > Federation Shipyards
Login

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 31
06-09-2011, 11:38 AM
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.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 32
06-09-2011, 11:38 AM
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.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 33
06-09-2011, 11:38 AM
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.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 34
06-09-2011, 11:38 AM
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.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 35
06-09-2011, 11:38 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by staalker View 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!
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 36
06-09-2011, 11:38 AM
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.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 37
06-09-2011, 11:38 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by arm514ve View 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.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 38
06-09-2011, 11:38 AM
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.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 39
06-09-2011, 11:38 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by RCO
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.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 40
06-09-2011, 11:38 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by V12
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.
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 04:43 AM.