And this is where we're stuck at an impasse: an Ambassador-R (T5 incarnation) should be better than the Excelsior-R and weaker than the Galaxy-R...except that the game is rigged since the Excelsior-R is already stronger than the Galaxy-R.
Which is why my idea of just trashing the whole Ambassador BS and making a new ship is best out of all of them :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.
Which is why my idea of just trashing the whole Ambassador BS and making a new ship is best out of all of them :P
That must be the first time I agree about something you have said.
"Cryptic Studio’s Jack Emmert (2010): Microtransactions are the biggest bunch of nonsense. I like paying one fee and not worrying about it – like my cellphone. The world’s biggest MMO isn’t item based, even though the black market item GDP is bigger than Russia … microtransactions make me want to die.”
Well I could imagine, changing galaxy, to better reflect it's status, and add ambassador, but no way in current situation.
Proposal:
Give Fleet Galaxy-R, ensign universal, and give it sensor analysis
Add Fleet Ambassdor, that has lt.cmd science, no universal, and no sensor analysis and is basically the science copy of excelsior stat-wise.
"Cryptic Studio’s Jack Emmert (2010): Microtransactions are the biggest bunch of nonsense. I like paying one fee and not worrying about it – like my cellphone. The world’s biggest MMO isn’t item based, even though the black market item GDP is bigger than Russia … microtransactions make me want to die.”
Which is why my idea of just trashing the whole Ambassador BS and making a new ship is best out of all of them :P
Not sure I agree with that, it would not solve two problems:
the absence of the Ambassador and the horrific performance of the Galaxy-R.;)
I think it would be better if Cryptic simply made the Galaxy-R not s**k any more.
I was responding to the guy above me. And my idea was similar to yours so saying mine is overpowering is like saying yours is too.
That said, its anyone's game with the T5. I could be worse than the Excelsior but better than the Galaxy. Give it a console that cheats death and it may be better than the Excelsior.
Not sure I agree with that, it would not solve two problems:
the absence of the Ambassador and the horrific performance of the Galaxy-R.;)
I think it would be better if Cryptic simply made the Galaxy-R not s**k any more.
The only catch here being that I personally (speaking for myself and nobody else) have no issue at all with the Ambassador not being there, mostly because in Canon it's role was... minimal at best, and it's not a horribly attractive ship. And as for the Galaxy sucking? I honestly don't really mind that either, since there are other far more viable options (like the Odyssey and Regent, both of which look far better IMO) available so it's not necessary to change it.
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.
The only catch here being that I personally (speaking for myself and nobody else) have no issue at all with the Ambassador not being there, mostly because in Canon it's role was... minimal at best, and it's not a horribly attractive ship. And as for the Galaxy sucking? I honestly don't really mind that either, since there are other far more viable options (like the Odyssey and Regent, both of which look far better IMO) available so it's not necessary to change it.
In other words your approach to ships is not that different from Gecko's, which is bascially "as long as the ships I like are okay, there's no need to do anything about the rest".
In Geko's eyes. Escort > Everything else. TNG = trash. Galaxy = especially trash. DS9 = Love. Pretty simple.
"Cryptic Studio’s Jack Emmert (2010): Microtransactions are the biggest bunch of nonsense. I like paying one fee and not worrying about it – like my cellphone. The world’s biggest MMO isn’t item based, even though the black market item GDP is bigger than Russia … microtransactions make me want to die.”
In other words your approach to ships is not that different from Gecko's, which is bascially "as long as the ships I like are okay, there's no need to do anything about the rest".
No, my approach is: as long as there are ships that can do the job you're looking for, you don't need to unnecessarily change ships just because you like them better than others, instead you should go and get the already existing ships and do that job with them.
Rather different methinks.
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.
My thoughts on the Ambassador she should be very well rounded in all fields, remembering that a cruiser is the jack of all trades and should be able to handle all situations.
as for the layout I'd make it a blend of the Excelsior and the Nebula with larger crew.
Lt Tactical, Cdr Engineering, Ens Engineering, LCdr Science,
Lt Universal - this gives you the ability to adapt to the required mission
Consoles - 3 of each (with the Fleet version getting the extra Engineering console)
as for a refit version well don't give it a special console that takes up valuable space, just give it the target subsystems similar to most Science ships.
Its basically a Engineering equivalent of the Nebula.
I would make it the science mirror of excelsior personally.
lt cmd.science instead tac
4/3/2 console setup
"Cryptic Studio’s Jack Emmert (2010): Microtransactions are the biggest bunch of nonsense. I like paying one fee and not worrying about it – like my cellphone. The world’s biggest MMO isn’t item based, even though the black market item GDP is bigger than Russia … microtransactions make me want to die.”
No, my approach is: as long as there are ships that can do the job you're looking for, you don't need to unnecessarily change ships just because you like them better than others, instead you should go and get the already existing ships and do that job with them.
Rather different methinks.
I'm not quite sure given that you said the Ambassador should be scrapped because...well you didn't even say because you think she's unattractive but because she's unattractive like it's the absolute truth because you think she is.
And we don't even know yet what her job is yet.
So since you say the only determining factor in your thinking is a ship's function (while also saying she should be scapped because of her looks)...how does that work?
Besides, I don't even want to fly the Galaxy-R.
I am very satisfied with my Star Cruiser, which does the job I chose it for quite well: soak up damage like a sponge.
However I don't really see the point in the inclusion of ships that are basically useless.
It's a waste on several levels, including effort on Cryptic's part to introduce them.
So if each ship has its own nice (however small it may be) where it's actually useful Cryptic should end up with a more ven distribution of revenue so it should be in their onw interest to make them not s**k like the Galaxy-R does.
Until we get something useful for Ensign Engineer **** it and make it Tac or Uni.
I don't know about that, with a Dragon style EPtS and EPtW chain or an AtB build you run out of space fast. The ensign engineer gives you room to run ET or A2SIF, RSP, and a support power like EWP or Extend Shields. Without it you can't have them all, and have to sacrifice either tanking or support. Of course, you do get the LtC Sci slot, which can help with that, but I still wouldn't consider the ensign engineer useless.
Science mirror of the Excelsior would be quite cool, although a 3pack of 'bassies might be interesting, I think a fleet version would be more likely, unless we got some more 2409 style skins to put on it. Less work for Cryptic, and there are only so many console and boff set ups that could work.
That said, making a cruiser mirror of the Nebula could also make sense for the C-store one:
"Cryptic Studio’s Jack Emmert (2010): Microtransactions are the biggest bunch of nonsense. I like paying one fee and not worrying about it – like my cellphone. The world’s biggest MMO isn’t item based, even though the black market item GDP is bigger than Russia … microtransactions make me want to die.”
Yeah everything is better than the Galaxy.R until they make the ensigns on the Galaxy, Defiant and Intrepid R universal **** everything is better than them.
I'm just pointing out the obvious-obviously. Galaxy class is the one of the stample item of Star Trek franchise. I'm really curious why CBS let them handle TNG with such ignorance. I understand that most Cryptic's devs are DS9 fanboys, but that should not excuse them.
Galaxy > Ambassador > Excelsior is what one would expect, simpley because of their age and technology used.
In STO, it's most likely going to be the exact opposite. :rolleyes:
"Cryptic Studio’s Jack Emmert (2010): Microtransactions are the biggest bunch of nonsense. I like paying one fee and not worrying about it – like my cellphone. The world’s biggest MMO isn’t item based, even though the black market item GDP is bigger than Russia … microtransactions make me want to die.”
Comments
Which is why my idea of just trashing the whole Ambassador BS and making a new ship is best out of all of them :P
That must be the first time I agree about something you have said.
Proposal:
Give Fleet Galaxy-R, ensign universal, and give it sensor analysis
Add Fleet Ambassdor, that has lt.cmd science, no universal, and no sensor analysis and is basically the science copy of excelsior stat-wise.
Not sure I agree with that, it would not solve two problems:
the absence of the Ambassador and the horrific performance of the Galaxy-R.;)
I think it would be better if Cryptic simply made the Galaxy-R not s**k any more.
No. My boff slots are sufficient. Yours are overpowering.
Like my fanpage!
https://www.facebook.com/CaptainBMoney913
Join Date: August 29th 2010
That said, its anyone's game with the T5. I could be worse than the Excelsior but better than the Galaxy. Give it a console that cheats death and it may be better than the Excelsior.
The only catch here being that I personally (speaking for myself and nobody else) have no issue at all with the Ambassador not being there, mostly because in Canon it's role was... minimal at best, and it's not a horribly attractive ship. And as for the Galaxy sucking? I honestly don't really mind that either, since there are other far more viable options (like the Odyssey and Regent, both of which look far better IMO) available so it's not necessary to change it.
In other words your approach to ships is not that different from Gecko's, which is bascially "as long as the ships I like are okay, there's no need to do anything about the rest".
Like my fanpage!
https://www.facebook.com/CaptainBMoney913
Join Date: August 29th 2010
Like my fanpage!
https://www.facebook.com/CaptainBMoney913
Join Date: August 29th 2010
No, my approach is: as long as there are ships that can do the job you're looking for, you don't need to unnecessarily change ships just because you like them better than others, instead you should go and get the already existing ships and do that job with them.
Rather different methinks.
My thoughts on the Ambassador she should be very well rounded in all fields, remembering that a cruiser is the jack of all trades and should be able to handle all situations.
as for the layout I'd make it a blend of the Excelsior and the Nebula with larger crew.
Crew 800
device slots 4 (same as Cruisers)
Weapons 4 forward - 4 aft
Bridge Officers
Lt Tactical, Cdr Engineering, Ens Engineering, LCdr Science,
Lt Universal - this gives you the ability to adapt to the required mission
Consoles - 3 of each (with the Fleet version getting the extra Engineering console)
as for a refit version well don't give it a special console that takes up valuable space, just give it the target subsystems similar to most Science ships.
Its basically a Engineering equivalent of the Nebula.
Crysystems
lt cmd.science instead tac
4/3/2 console setup
I'm not quite sure given that you said the Ambassador should be scrapped because...well you didn't even say because you think she's unattractive but because she's unattractive like it's the absolute truth because you think she is.
And we don't even know yet what her job is yet.
So since you say the only determining factor in your thinking is a ship's function (while also saying she should be scapped because of her looks)...how does that work?
Besides, I don't even want to fly the Galaxy-R.
I am very satisfied with my Star Cruiser, which does the job I chose it for quite well: soak up damage like a sponge.
However I don't really see the point in the inclusion of ships that are basically useless.
It's a waste on several levels, including effort on Cryptic's part to introduce them.
So if each ship has its own nice (however small it may be) where it's actually useful Cryptic should end up with a more ven distribution of revenue so it should be in their onw interest to make them not s**k like the Galaxy-R does.
Like my fanpage!
https://www.facebook.com/CaptainBMoney913
Join Date: August 29th 2010
I normally just use Emergency Power to Shields/Weapons with and Ens Eng Slot
I don't know about that, with a Dragon style EPtS and EPtW chain or an AtB build you run out of space fast. The ensign engineer gives you room to run ET or A2SIF, RSP, and a support power like EWP or Extend Shields. Without it you can't have them all, and have to sacrifice either tanking or support. Of course, you do get the LtC Sci slot, which can help with that, but I still wouldn't consider the ensign engineer useless.
Amen... this is just not right.
That said, making a cruiser mirror of the Nebula could also make sense for the C-store one:
Commander: Engineering
Lt Commander: Sci
Lt: Tac
Lt: Universal
Ens: Eng
CM ENG
LTCM SCI
LT ENG
LT TAC
ENS UNI OR TAC
Like my fanpage!
https://www.facebook.com/CaptainBMoney913
Join Date: August 29th 2010
Better than Galaxy-R = NO!
Everything is better than the Galaxy-R, but you probably already know that.
Yeah everything is better than the Galaxy.R until they make the ensigns on the Galaxy, Defiant and Intrepid R universal **** everything is better than them.
Like my fanpage!
https://www.facebook.com/CaptainBMoney913
Join Date: August 29th 2010
Galaxy > Ambassador > Excelsior is what one would expect, simpley because of their age and technology used.
In STO, it's most likely going to be the exact opposite. :rolleyes:
Like my fanpage!
https://www.facebook.com/CaptainBMoney913
Join Date: August 29th 2010