test content
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc

The Excelsior

mimey2mimey2 Member Posts: 0 Arc User
edited November 2012 in Federation Discussion
I admit, feels like the ole Excelsior is kind of falling behind in the times, as it were. I know it's technically already very out-dated, but still...

It had the most 'teeth' of any Fed cruiser for a long time with that Lt. Cmdr tac slot. It's got a fully functioning Transwarp drive, is quite maneuverable for a Fed cruiser, and so on.

To me, it's always been my favorite Star Trek ship (Negh'var has always been my favorite Klingon ship), it was the first C-store ship I ever bought, and used it for a long time before I moved onto other ships.

I doubt we'll ever see a fleet version (shame really), but I do hope to see at least one thing happen hopefully in season 7 from the ole Excelsior:

The Transwarp will take us to the new sector block.

I think that's pretty fair to be honest. I dunno, we fly an Excelsior for various reasons, and a big bonus of it is that you can Transwarp anywhere, and much more often if you use an Astrometrics DOFF and/or the Transwarp computer.

I know there's so many more ships, but seeing all these Advanced Quantum Slipstreams and such flying around, all the new Transwarp options people have, I just felt like giving this old ship a bit of a small upgrade to keep up a bit, wouldn't be over doing it.
I remain empathetic to the concerns of my community, but do me a favor and lay off the god damn name calling and petty remarks. It will get you nowhere.
I must admit, respect points to Trendy for laying down the law like that.
Post edited by mimey2 on
«1

Comments

  • diotwdiotw Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited October 2012
    It would also be nice to be able to transwarp to the Deferi sectors, and maybe even Gamma Orionis and Pelia. It seems odd that I can transwarp all over the quadrant, except to those places.
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    This character is why I don't play my Romulan any more. Tovan Khev is NOT my BFF! Get him off my bridge!
  • red01999red01999 Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited October 2012
    The Excelsior now fits in better than before. It is quite frankly the most maneuverable of all the Federation end-game cruisers by a fairly significant margin, and the Lt. Cmdr tactical slot is still quite powerful.

    It seems to fit in a spot between the Assault Cruiser classic and the Assault Cruiser refit on the spectrum of tank cruiser to battle cruiser, and it's arguably better qualified to mount cannons than anything except for MAYBE the AC-R and the Odyssey with saucer sep, and the last two have some major caveats that the Excelsior doesn't due to the maneuverability issues.

    It's also the only choice for a RA tactical-heavy cruiser for the Feds, as, unlike the AC-R, it can be obtained at level 40.

    Unfortunately the engineering ensign is still pretty useless, though.
  • yreodredyreodred Member Posts: 3,527 Arc User
    edited October 2012
    It's still way too powerful, for a hundred years old ship. (Giving it more firepower/offensive power than a Galaxy Class is a personal insult IMHO.)

    I always deeply hated that ship since 1984 when i first saw it in ST: III. It's ugly, misshaped and completely bad proportioned. It's Engineering hull is way too Bulky, its Saucer is much too small and the nacelles are totally oversized.
    I have no idea what Leaonard Nimoy has been smoking when choosing that ship.

    I personally hate that the devs made that ugly bucket this powerful compared to other ships, especially compared to the Galaxy Class. It should have been a CMDR level Cruiser, but never a T5 ship. The devs instead should have given the "heavy cruiser" the BOFF & Console Layout of the T5 Excelsior.


    I hope my english is understandable, since most of the time i find it difficult to find the right words in my native language.
    "...'With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured...the first thought forbidden...the first freedom denied--chains us all irrevocably.' ... The first time any man's freedom is trodden on, we're all damaged. I fear that today--" - (TNG) Picard, quoting Judge Aaron Satie

    A tale of two Picards
    (also applies to Star Trek in general)
  • adamkafeiadamkafei Member Posts: 6,539 Arc User
    edited October 2012
    yreodred wrote: »
    It's still way too powerful, for a hundred years old ship. (Giving it more firepower/offensive power than a Galaxy Class is a personal insult IMHO.)

    Oh come on! It's more mobile than the Galaxy class in the real Trek universe and it would therefore be more powerful as it has more phaser banks and has the mobility to use them all which more than makes up for that disproportional saucer mounted thing the Galaxy has (don't get me wrong, the Galaxy is a good ship but that should automatically make it out-match anything in existence)
    yreodred wrote: »
    I always deeply hated that ship since 1984 when i first saw it in ST: III. It's ugly, misshaped and completely bad proportioned. It's Engineering hull is way too Bulky, its Saucer is much too small and the nacelles are totally oversized.
    I have no idea what Leaonard Nimoy has been smoking when choosing that ship.

    Considering it has 24 decks it's not that bulky, I agree the saucer could be a little bigger but I do like the nacelles but that's just a matter of opinion.
    yreodred wrote: »
    I personally hate that the devs made that ugly bucket this powerful compared to other ships, especially compared to the Galaxy Class. It should have been a CMDR level Cruiser, but never a T5 ship. The devs instead should have given the "heavy cruiser" the BOFF & Console Layout of the T5 Excelsior.

    Wanna try my engineer on in 1 on 1 PvP in their T3 Excel? The difference in offensive power between T3 and T5 versions of the ship are barely noticeable the difference is in the defensive capacity but I can do Elite STFs in the T3 version and tank stuff successfully, I think that the third tac console should be more noticeable but I did an entire thread on the subject which established the consoles are misleading, as for the Excelsior not being allowed a T5 version (in your opinion) you would take offence if I then said that the Galaxy shouldn't either. Sometimes the price of flying your favourite ship is that you aren't the most powerful thing on the block... that's something all us cruiser players have to live with.

    With regards to there being no fleet version, If one were to come into existence I would get it as soon as my fleet had the facilities to make one, please can I have one Cryptic?
    ZiOfChe.png?1
  • whamhammer1whamhammer1 Member Posts: 2,290 Arc User
    edited October 2012
    yreodred wrote: »
    It's still way too powerful, for a hundred years old ship. (Giving it more firepower/offensive power than a Galaxy Class is a personal insult IMHO.)

    Why would you take it as a personal insult? Its not like Cryptic sat in the meeting room thinking, "You know what would reall crank Yreodred? Make the Galaxy a slow moving brick with less than average firepower!"
    yreodred wrote: »
    I always deeply hated that ship since 1984 when i first saw it in ST: III. It's ugly, misshaped and completely bad proportioned. It's Engineering hull is way too Bulky, its Saucer is much too small and the nacelles are totally oversized.
    I have no idea what Leaonard Nimoy has been smoking when choosing that ship.

    I respect your opinion on the Excel's design, but other people do like the look of the ship.

    I think they wanted to get away from the Constitution based ships such as the Reliant/Miranda (Avenger for those of us who remember the classification in the mid 80's).

    Because of the advancement of Japanese design at the time the movie was made, they tried to create a starship design in a more "Japanese-like" fashion. I think that they did a good job in that aspect and like the look of the ship. I actually don't know too many people who hate the look of the ship.
    yreodred wrote: »
    I personally hate that the devs made that ugly bucket this powerful compared to other ships, especially compared to the Galaxy Class. It should have been a CMDR level Cruiser, but never a T5 ship. The devs instead should have given the "heavy cruiser" the BOFF & Console Layout of the T5 Excelsior.

    Lets look at the reality of it, the T5 Excel' at least gave a Fed Cruiser that layout and help make cruisers more palatable to more aggressive cruiser players. Personally it made the PvP zone much more enjoyable for me than the T5 Assault Cruiser did and allowed me to support my escort flying fleet-mates at the same time. Instead of downing the ship, can you agree with me that it at least did that?
  • hanoverhanover Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited October 2012
    Excelsiors were still widely in use as late as the Dominion war. It may be the most successful design Starfleet has ever adopted. Sturdier and more versatile than Constitutions and Mirandas ever were. It stands to reason that they might not only continue refitting existing spaceframes with the latest tech, but possibly continue new construction on them. Excelsiors are the work horse of Starfleet.
    Does Arc install a root kit? Ask a Dev today!
  • danquellerdanqueller Member Posts: 506 Arc User
    edited October 2012
    It's important to note that the T3 version is the 'classic' Excelsior design, while the T5 is a complete retrofit of the original (which was capable enough to be Starfleet's standard line cruiser in TNG timeline) with modern systems and up-to-date systems that equal any on the ships being built in the shipyards. Indeed, the T5 is a newly built ship that uses the classic Lakota/Enterprise-B design for layout and hull to hold the systems all modern ships use.

    In that light, it is not at all surprising or unfitting the T5 version would exceed the classic Galaxy-class, and equal the Dreadnaught refit of that class. The ship was ahead of its time when it was sent off the slipways, and built as much a warship as exploration ship (the Federation was facing the real possibility of war with the Klingon Empire, unlike when the Galaxy-class were laid down). That the class remains the only one in the galaxy capable of utilizing the full transwarp drive system says volumes about how unique it remains in design and flexibility.

    However, all that said, the fact is that the ship remains a very limited-production ship. The Assault Cruiser pretty much replaced the Excelsior in tactical missions while using standard systems, while the Exploration class filled in as the workhorse of the fleet. This is illustrated by the availability of these classes to all commanders, with upgraded versions available, while no Excelsior is brought into service without alot of resources (those transwarp engines are not cheap, nor in general supply). Also, many commanders and engineers don't like the different construction philosophies of the ship, and so they will always be looked at as odd birds in the fleet. Useful as fast-reaction ships and very capable cruisers, but not favored by Admirals who like all of the ships in their fleet to use the same spare parts and familiar capabilities.

    If you don't like the role-play reasons why the T5 Excelsior was more capable than the Galaxy, then from a game perspective, the devs decided they needed one cruiser with unique capabilities for combat, and the Galaxy was already established as a very large ship with an emphasis on tanking (Galaxy standard) or upgraded for PVP (the Dreadnaught) or PVE (Galaxy-Refit). Giving the Excelsior the better manueverability filled that niche in the combat spectrum until the AC-R came in. That players considered agility superior to firepower or tanking in the game is what the Devs didn't consider when making it a sub-VA ship, and if the crew system worked as advertised, the Galaxy class(es) would have been much more competative in comparison.

    Ultimately, everyone has their own opinions. A Galaxy-R or Galaxy-DN can stand in any PVE fight an Excelsior can, and each has combat abilities that the Excelsior lacks. The value of those abilities is subjective, but that they do give advantages are not debatable.
  • mimey2mimey2 Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited October 2012
    I'm glad that some others also like the Excelsior as I do. I had a thought, if they made a Fleet Excelsior (and this might tick off a lot of people), but...

    Why not give it those wanted Transwarps? I mean, the fleet ships are 'built to the highest standard', so wouldn't it also apply to the Transwarp Drive itself?

    I know that would probably make a bunch of people mad, though it would make logical sense if that happened.

    Still, having the extra transwarps would be so nice, because I don't think that list has ever been updated to go to other areas. I'd personally even be ok with them not changing that Ensign engineer if we got a fleet version.
    I remain empathetic to the concerns of my community, but do me a favor and lay off the god damn name calling and petty remarks. It will get you nowhere.
    I must admit, respect points to Trendy for laying down the law like that.
  • hereticknight085hereticknight085 Member Posts: 3,783 Arc User
    edited October 2012
    adamkafei wrote: »
    Wanna try my engineer on in 1 on 1 PvP in their T3 Excel...

    DON'T DO IT!!! You guys will be shooting at each other for 20 minutes and nobody will win (speaking from personal experience).


    If you want my response to the topic, skip the next paragraph.

    Anyways, back on topic. I personally rather dislike the excelsior design. In completely honesty I dislike the design of most federation ships. I mean, seriously? A SAUCER??? I don't see ANY reason for that particular design. At all. To speak of. And having the nacelles out on pylons? Something that critical sticking out on those little spindly things (even on your vaunted galaxy those things were skinny as hell)?? It's like saying: Here's our primary power matrix unit, just shoot a few times and blow it off. Cuz you schelak the nacelles of a ship, suddenly their engines are crippled. In one fell swoop. Fed ships functionally speaking, terrible designs. Except for the Defiant. THAT little ship was excellently designed. Small, compact, no unnecessary TRIBBLE on it. Actually now that I think about it, it's probably the only federation design that doesn't make me cringe when I think about functionality (course this is the same mind that cringes when he sees anything that doesn't have it's main command center buried deep inside the center of the ship behind layers of armor and decks... probably why covenant cruisers from halo are my fave design as functionality goes).

    That little rant aside, the excelsior in game is a nice little ship. Yes. Little. But it performs well and can hold it's own with ships of the same class multiple tiers above it (again speaking from personal experience). If they make a fleet version though, I fear you will not see any cruisers out there other than Fleet Excelsiors and Odysseys (and Galors just cuz they are that awesome). That aside, I would support the idea of a fleet excel. Even the two existing excels are excellent ships. =P
    It is said the best weapon is one that is never fired. I disagree. The best weapon is one you only have to fire... once. B)
  • hroothvitnirhroothvitnir Member Posts: 322
    edited October 2012
    Before the regent, there may have been some reason to make a fleet excelsior at some point.
    But now with the Regent you will never see a fleet excelsior as that ship would step all over the market segment that would buy a Regent.

    Also the idea that an ensign engi is useless will disappear as we see more pyro sci builds with the season 7 gear. In the Excel Retro vs a pyro orb weaver the only thing that lets my Excel win every time is I can choose to run a tac team or an engi team to focus on shields or hull. So vs a plasma dot build you can use the Large hull heal to stay ahead of their damage.
  • hicks451hicks451 Member Posts: 98 Arc User
    edited October 2012
    Well it looks like yreodred who is smoking to much!!!!! The Excelior class ship was the back bone for the federation for many years and i really cant see why they cant buff her up a little when most ships get a re-fit or modification at some point in there life span so why not do it for the Excelsior Class, Look at Bridge Comander and you will see many varients of that class of ship. Also Just look at the enterprise and how old she got!!!!! Its a joke and insult not to make her look better and im well pee'd off that they havent done anything for that ship class as thats the only ship i like and use so please keep threads like this going so the people at the top of STO can see it and finely get there finger out and do something for the players who love this ship!!!!!
  • cmdrscarletcmdrscarlet Member Posts: 5,137 Arc User
    edited October 2012
    I'm still new to the game, but I plan ... plan! ... on flying the Excelsior-R for my endgame and I 'm going to make it work for me regardless if there is better out there. And my current main is Science ... I've got to make that work out for me and any teams ... Anyways, I think the boat is beautiful and I'd prefer to use it sooner than later. Patience is a virtue it seems.
  • red01999red01999 Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited October 2012
    A few things.

    1. The Excelsior was a "line ship," yes. It was also a cannon fodder ship. Except for the Lakota, and even then the Defiant had it on the ropes. IIRC the episode the Lakota appeared in, although it took a nasty chunk out of the Defiant, by the end of the battle the only thing the Lakota had going for it were quantum torpedoes (the first ever mention of them, where they were treated as some kind of god weapon).

    2. To be perfectly frank, I hope there is NOT a fleet Excelsior unless it does not stomp all over the other ships' niches. Unfortunately the simple fact of the matter is that it is a 130 year old ship. Myself, I have no problem whatsoever with having an ancient ship T5. I do have a problem with it OUTDOING "modern" ships as opposed to being on par with them, and the Excelsior was the most tactical cruiser until the Regent, which is a role that it is arguably far too old to actually competently perform in.

    3. It is usually this point where people bring up things like the B-52. These are ancient designs that keep kicking. The thing of that is that the B-52 is, so far as I know, limited to certain mission profiles; I recall reading that most B-52 missions had to have the sky already cleared of fighters to be able to operate effectively, which apparently is not the case where more modern bombers are involved. I am not an expert, merely quoting what I read, but that's true.

    While I'd love a boost to the agility of the Regent, I know why it isn't there - so the Excel can have its own niche. And that it does - an agile cruiser with tactical leanings, and with enough speed to be able to be the ship of choice for the cannon cruiser niche for the Federation. That it outperformed more modern ships so grossly in such a high-demand area (tactical cruiser - like it or not the cruiser is probably the most popular ship type, even among tacs) was rather silly to begin with.
  • adamkafeiadamkafei Member Posts: 6,539 Arc User
    edited October 2012
    red01999 wrote: »
    1. The Excelsior was a "line ship," yes. It was also a cannon fodder ship. Except for the Lakota, and even then the Defiant had it on the ropes. IIRC the episode the Lakota appeared in, although it took a nasty chunk out of the Defiant, by the end of the battle the only thing the Lakota had going for it were quantum torpedoes (the first ever mention of them, where they were treated as some kind of god weapon).

    I know you're not interested but the Excelsior has 30 phaser banks, had the Lakota used more than 3 of those the Defiant would have been toast with little to no damage to the Lakota, add the 4 quantum launchers she had (2 per end) then the Defiant would have been spacedust.

    if you're going to use the Defiant vs Lakota argument then please do your research at least.
    ZiOfChe.png?1
  • whamhammer1whamhammer1 Member Posts: 2,290 Arc User
    edited October 2012
    hicks451 wrote: »
    Well it looks like yreodred who is smoking to much!!!!! The Excelior class ship was the back bone for the federation for many years and i really cant see why they cant buff her up a little when most ships get a re-fit or modification at some point in there life span so why not do it for the Excelsior Class, Look at Bridge Comander and you will see many varients of that class of ship. Also Just look at the enterprise and how old she got!!!!! Its a joke and insult not to make her look better and im well pee'd off that they havent done anything for that ship class as thats the only ship i like and use so please keep threads like this going so the people at the top of STO can see it and finely get there finger out and do something for the players who love this ship!!!!!

    Theres no need to insult Yreo, or any other person here. While he and I differ in opinion from time to time, one can disagree much better in the arena of ideas than the arena of insults.
  • shockwave85shockwave85 Member Posts: 1,040 Arc User
    edited October 2012

    Anyways, back on topic. I personally rather dislike the excelsior design. In completely honesty I dislike the design of most federation ships. I mean, seriously? A SAUCER??? I don't see ANY reason for that particular design. At all. To speak of. And having the nacelles out on pylons? Something that critical sticking out on those little spindly things (even on your vaunted galaxy those things were skinny as hell)?? It's like saying: Here's our primary power matrix unit, just shoot a few times and blow it off. Cuz you schelak the nacelles of a ship, suddenly their engines are crippled. In one fell swoop. Fed ships functionally speaking, terrible designs. Except for the Defiant. THAT little ship was excellently designed. Small, compact, no unnecessary TRIBBLE on it. Actually now that I think about it, it's probably the only federation design that doesn't make me cringe when I think about functionality (course this is the same mind that cringes when he sees anything that doesn't have it's main command center buried deep inside the center of the ship behind layers of armor and decks... probably why covenant cruisers from halo are my fave design as functionality goes).

    To understand Fed ship design, you have to go all the way back to Matt Jeffries in 1964 sketching out what a space ship would look like. Flying saucers were basically synonymous with space ships at the time, so they started with that. They also decided it seemed logical that these powerful faster-than-light engines would be in some way radioactive (nuclear fears also big in the 60's!), so they would have to be out away from the crew. So, Jeffries added three cylindrical projections attached by pylons to the saucer. Eventually, the upper two were moved from attaching to the saucer, to being attached to the lower cylinder, and there you have the basic layout of the Enterprise.

    While canon would eventually seem to establish that the nacelles weren't harmful to the crew, as multiple times we'd see people working inside them, the design is what it is. All future designs, especially any slated to be named Enterprise have to pay homage. Alternate explanations are given in sources like the TNG tech manual that have the nacelles positioned for optimal warp field efficiency relative to the overall structure of the ship. This is also supported by the variable wings on the Intrepid-class, which while not obvious in the actual show, were supposed to adjust their position depending on speed and maneuvering requirements.

    The Defiant is unique among capital ships, but not among small craft. While larger ships tend to have outboard nacelles, smaller craft like shuttles have them pulled in close or entirely internal. The Defiant's uniquely compact structure may be what allows its nacelles to pull in so close. This also seems to be true of low performance ships like freighters and transports, which almost never have visible nacelles (Tuffli).

    So, yes, while having the nacelles away from the rest of the ship does make them somewhat vulnerable, it may be necessary to achieve the high performance design goals of a starship (at least with Fed technology, other species may vary). Also, generally you are protected by your shields. With Trek-era weaponry, when your shields go down, you're SOL anyway.

    Also, Excelsior, possibly my favorite ship design. There are very few facts when it comes to aesthetics, it's pretty much 100% opinion. ;)
    ssog-maco-sig.jpg
  • danquellerdanqueller Member Posts: 506 Arc User
    edited October 2012
    It should be noted that the original designs had most of the engine equipment isolated to the nacelles, whereas the movies moved much of this into the interior of the ship.

    In TOS, the Engineering Section was actually at the front of the impulse engines on the primary hull (that is the impulse drive behind the grillwork in Engineering), and about the only part of the matter-antimatter reactor system that was inside the hull was the dilithium matrix (probably due to the need to manually work on that part on a regular basis). Indeed, there was at least one episode where the Enterprise was almost forced to jettison the warp nacelles to prevent the destruction of the ship from a runaway matter-antimatter reaction.

    When the movies came along, the designers brought the Engineering section to the upper part of the Secondary hull, and put almost everything but the actual warp field generation equipment inside the ship. While it no doubt was more for eye-candy ("ooooo....plasma tubes!") than actual reason, it did possibly offer better access for repairs and maintenance. However, as seen quite often in TNG, the perils of putting your warp core -inside- the hull of your ship are pretty obvious (who in their right mind puts the matter-antimatter core -right in the middle of your Engineering control spaces where your crew is standing-???).

    All that aside, it can be surmised that placing the warp field generators away from the hull of your ship is a good idea when you will be generating high-power warp fields, as anything that can warp space will probably do nasty things to the hull of your ship. In the case of some ships (Defiant) the need to protect the warp coils from damage takes priority over the danger of exposure to the warp field by crew and ship, and it can be assumed the drives on such ships are very closely monitored and have special shielding to help drop the risks. Even so, it's almost always obvious that the warp engines are still isolated from the hull, even if they are directly in contact with it.

    Of course, civilian ships don't need high-powered drives, and alien cultures don't necessarily have the same consideration for safety that the Federation (read: Terran) engineers do. So, not all ships in existance use nacelles, or of such size.

    As far as the saucer goes, it's worth noting that a saucer shape is a good natural shape for atmospheric flight, while also offering optimal design for internal organization. It's not unreasonable that a part of the ship meant to be the primary inhabited part of the ship and an emergency lifeboat for the entire crew might end up a saucer. Certainly, it's a very good combat shape that optimizes firing arcs while minimizing target profile to incoming shots from the equatorial direction.

    All in all, in my opinion, the classic Constitution-type design is actually one of the better thought-out ship hulls in Sci-Fi for what it was designed to do.
  • hereticknight085hereticknight085 Member Posts: 3,783 Arc User
    edited October 2012
    Still don't like it. I mean it makes sense that you would want your "let's make a hole in physics" generating field units to be away from the ship, but at least put them on something that doesn't look like a hit from a sneeze will snap it off. And as for a saucer, yes, it's a good design, but only from the horizontal. From the vertical, it's like a giant target. There are multiple examples in the show and in games and other things where the saucer get's blasted from above or below and has a hole drilled right through it.

    However the hole in my argument is as such: All the ships that have that design are not combat ships. They are exploration ships. The reason the Defiant is designed as such is because it was designed to be in a fight or two or thirty and be ok. Hence why it was designed as such.

    But you have to admit, having the bridge where it is on the excel, galaxy, constellation, constitution, and even the sovereign is just tantamount to suicide. I mean, it's there, in the dead center on the top deck. It's as exposed as possible. In fact there are multiple instances of the bridge of one of those ships getting shot. You don't ever see the control center of a covie cruiser getting blasted. It's in the dead center of the ship (actually a little forward, don't want to be too close to the primary plasma reactor), underneath dozens of layers of armored decks and an extremely thick outer hull. And you never see any damage to it as a result of an external source. THAT is good ship design to me. But different universe, so oh wells lol.
    It is said the best weapon is one that is never fired. I disagree. The best weapon is one you only have to fire... once. B)
  • shimmerlessshimmerless Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited October 2012
    Excel is still by far the strongest Fed-side non-lockbox cruiser IMHO, only falls off at high-level play because she's not the best team healer. She was my first real ship and I still love her, nothing else quite captures the balance between firepower, survivability and crowd control, all while looking gorgeous like she does.

    (I also find it hilarious that anyone would compare a beautiful piece of clean, art deco engineering like the Excel with a fat curvy loveboat like the Galaxy. But I digress).
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    vids and guides and stuff

    [9:52] [Zone #11] Neal@trapper1532: im a omega force shadow oprative and a maoc elite camander and here i am taking water samples
  • shimmerlessshimmerless Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited October 2012
    The Defiant also gets a hugely-overrated rep for being a "utilitarian" design when there are a lot of silly choices taken with it (oh, your heavily-armed cannons are strapped to the front of your warp nacelles? I know what I'm aiming at!)

    There was some beautiful concept art for the Defiant that still kept the compact vertical profile, but they seemed to go with the one that looks like a part missing from a He-Man toy. Shame.
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    vids and guides and stuff

    [9:52] [Zone #11] Neal@trapper1532: im a omega force shadow oprative and a maoc elite camander and here i am taking water samples
  • tebsutebsu Member Posts: 372 Arc User
    edited October 2012
    yreodred wrote: »


    I always deeply hated that ship since 1984 when i first saw it in ST: III. It's ugly, misshaped and completely bad proportioned. It's Engineering hull is way too Bulky, its Saucer is much too small and the nacelles are totally oversized.

    I hope my english is understandable, since most of the time i find it difficult to find the right words in my native language.


    sounds like a cadillac and thats what i like about her, she does look like one and i love cadillac
    What ? Calaway.
  • adamkafeiadamkafei Member Posts: 6,539 Arc User
    edited October 2012
    There was some beautiful concept art for the Defiant.

    I could actually be caught flying that if it existed :P
    ZiOfChe.png?1
  • farmallmfarmallm Member Posts: 4,630 Arc User
    edited October 2012
    The Excelsior is a good ship for the Federation over the years. Been in use for over 100 years as well. I used it for my lower tier ship instead of the 4 nacelles ships they offered. And now I'm at end level. I been looking at my options for a big ship purchase. The Excelsior is one choices I'm looking at. Other than the Galaxy R, Galaxy Dreadnaught, or Odyssey. If they hurry and come out the the Ambassador. Then I would be more than happy to buy that one.

    So far looks like the Excelsior, Odyssey, or Galaxy Dreadnaught is my choices.
    Enterprise%20C_zpsrdrf3v8d.jpg

    USS Casinghead NCC 92047 launched 2350
    Fleet Admiral Stowe - Dominion War Vet.
  • whamhammer1whamhammer1 Member Posts: 2,290 Arc User
    edited October 2012
    farmallm wrote: »
    The Excelsior is a good ship for the Federation over the years. Been in use for over 100 years as well. I used it for my lower tier ship instead of the 4 nacelles ships they offered. And now I'm at end level. I been looking at my options for a big ship purchase. The Excelsior is one choices I'm looking at. Other than the Galaxy R, Galaxy Dreadnaught, or Odyssey. If they hurry and come out the the Ambassador. Then I would be more than happy to buy that one.

    So far looks like the Excelsior, Odyssey, or Galaxy Dreadnaught is my choices.

    Of your three choices, the Excelsior is probably the most forgiving hull. Unless you go saucer sep on the "R" (and give up hull and crew), you're not finding a better turning Fed' cruiser that has decent damage potential.
  • whamhammer1whamhammer1 Member Posts: 2,290 Arc User
    edited October 2012
    reyan01 wrote: »
    Tempted to pop my tac toon in one - the only other cruiser I own is the Galaxy-X, and whilst I love that ship I do fancy trying something a little different.

    Saying that, I'll probably get the Vesta too (for my tac) - my sci officer is staying in the Wells class I won - I LOVE that ship and can't bring myself to swap out of it.

    I highly recommend the Excelsior, but I would also recommend trying the Regent as well. The 180' Q' Torp has opened the door to several new setups for my Excelsior and other ships. It works really well on the rear of my new Chimera.
  • esquire1980esquire1980 Member Posts: 152 Arc User
    edited October 2012
    You can get a build in a excel that will PVE just fine. I can run the 20 man and not too much worry about everything spamming FaW1.

    However, in PVP against the bug, it just doesn't stand a chance. There has just been way too many DPS adds, via their Store, and way too many NERFs to tanking/healing to stand up against all the added DPS/P2W 10 console escorts/and consoles.

    Just spent millions on a excel trading my ACCX1 APs to Pol Mk 12 ACCX3 (6) beams, crowd control mini build with healing/DPS/tanking as primary. Could last a bit but the end, the result is always the same.

    I guess I give up. I just do not want to run around in a P2W escort (doesn't feel all that "star treky" to me) even tho I have 1 or 2 on other alts. There really isn't a build to stay up with the P2W escorts now with all the NERFs (and more coming to healing/tanking).

    Cryptic, if you ever decide to do anything for (and not to) Crusiers again, send me a email. Other than that, I'm looking for a new game to spend my time and money in.
  • shimmerlessshimmerless Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited October 2012
    You can get a build in a excel that will PVE just fine. I can run the 20 man and not too much worry about everything spamming FaW1.

    However, in PVP against the bug, it just doesn't stand a chance. There has just been way too many DPS adds, via their Store, and way too many NERFs to tanking/healing to stand up against all the added DPS/P2W 10 console escorts/and consoles.

    Just spent millions on a excel trading my ACCX1 APs to Pol Mk 12 ACCX3 (6) beams, crowd control mini build with healing/DPS/tanking as primary. Could last a bit but the end, the result is always the same.

    I guess I give up. I just do not want to run around in a P2W escort (doesn't feel all that "star treky" to me) even tho I have 1 or 2 on other alts. There really isn't a build to stay up with the P2W escorts now with all the NERFs (and more coming to healing/tanking).

    Cryptic, if you ever decide to do anything for (and not to) Crusiers again, send me a email. Other than that, I'm looking for a new game to spend my time and money in.

    What is/was your BOff build, if you don't mind me asking?
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    vids and guides and stuff

    [9:52] [Zone #11] Neal@trapper1532: im a omega force shadow oprative and a maoc elite camander and here i am taking water samples
  • esquire1980esquire1980 Member Posts: 152 Arc User
    edited October 2012
    What is/was your BOff build, if you don't mind me asking?

    Guess it doesn't matter at all now.

    Tac - FaW1, HY2 (was moving this to Om1), BO3 (I detest having a FoTM like TT1 and fully expect the Cryptic NERF bat to be swung at that 1, fast)
    Com Eng - ET1, RSP1, EjectWP1, APSI3
    Lt Eng - EptS1 and 2
    En Eng - ET1
    Sci - ST1, TSS2

    Doffs - 2 Purple SDO, 3 Purple DCE

    Stats;

    Defence - 60
    Starship Shield Systems - 122 (unbuffed)
    " " Emitters - 114
    Power Transfer Rate - 274%
    Hull - 50,110
    Shields - 11,794
    Resists - Kin 30
    P,D,P,T Resists - 45.3 (unbuffed)
    P/AP - 36.2
    Attack - 3.4 - 59.1

    All weapons Mk XII ACCX3 Purples ( torps Mk 11 ACCX3 )

    I macroed EpTS 1,2 (on all the time) along with TSS2, and APSI3, flying a Tac with ALL the built in resists and 2% DPS adds (1st toon in pre-launch)

    There is just no way to stand up against the 5 tac consoles, 4 Mk12 DHCs, with all the tac alpha buffs. It can stand a few passes but it's just a process of "wear you down" while putting me in defensive/healing mode. And then, the bug is just looking for that large crit to change the tide and it will eventualy get it. The fact that the bug can get more hull resists (as they do not need the PT console) doesn't seem to help at all for any assemblance of balance. I tested against the bug simply because it's the most OP ship in the game and instead of it being outclassed with the fleet ships, they added to it to still make it the best and the brightest. If Cryptic Development would of actualy added to the excel, (I paid for that also just the same as bug owners), I might not be downloading RIFT right now. (at least it will have housing in it next month and it's NOT F2P-P2W.) If anything STO has taught me, I have a very large dislike for DPS in a store while devs NERF healing/tanking so that paid for DPS looks even more attactive. So, moth balls for my toons.

    Crusiers, and the excel, have just been outclassed and NERFed into oblivian with the possible exception of the P2L Oddy and then only as a heal-boat with no DPS to speak of and playing nothing more than a support prof for the 1 who does throw the P2W DPS.

    Any1 who wants the excel, my best advise is to pass and save the money, Get ahold of a bug or at the least the fleet Patrol Escort with a Mk12 purple turn console to even the score with the bug, somewhat. Both of them are viable in this version of P2W STO, crusiers, and sad to say the excel, are not.
  • hroothvitnirhroothvitnir Member Posts: 322
    edited October 2012
    Hmm I've never gone up against a bug ship in 1 on 1 combat but I have reliably pasted the escort carrier, Patrol escort, and Garumba. so not that far out of the league. Garumba did most spike damage with an all out tactical buf and ato3 alpha. Required use of a TT + TSS to overcome. TT is fa fad skill but its a very powerful fad skill to not use it is to nurf yourself intentionally dont be surprised to loose if you do that.

    I fly a canon excelsior on holodeck basicly almost duplicate build to the canon odyssey I posted. Which is a Dontdrunkimshoot build modification with a few lockbox consoles for a more BOP piloting playstyle.

    http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/showpost.php?p=6259791&postcount=10
    http://www.stoacademy.com/tools/skillplanner/index.php?build=BOPOdyssey_0

    That build is basically it. Drop the APO1 for a crf and the engi skills get an added Aux to Dampeners for a pinch maneuverability boost and they basically line up after that.

    killing escorts is simple after that you weather the alpha let their APO# wear off then put them in warp plasma, tac skills, weapon bat, and let rip with your canons. Escorts fold under in about 11 seconds 30 if they have rsp.
  • adamkafeiadamkafei Member Posts: 6,539 Arc User
    edited October 2012
    I have taken an engineer excelsior up against a bug ship, I managed to put a small dent in it's hull while it was getting it's defences sorted I was then forced to break off in very short order and fire off my MW, TSS, RSF and when he chased me RSP... when that wore off I was dead in a matter of seconds.

    My Excelsior build has 99% uptime on EPtS and EPtW, runs aux2SIF and TT every 15 seconds.

    The Bug is the only player ship I can't come to a stalemate with. Even the Chimera is more in tune with the game balance than the bug... the funny thing is that CBS passed that design... it should be a glorified BoP.
    ZiOfChe.png?1
Sign In or Register to comment.