Got the avenger earlier today.....its a freaking monster lol
with the stock gear, fresh out of the shipyard, i had 48k hull, 6.5k shields (roughly) the BASE TR is 9...I had 16.5 on balanced and 19.5 with the maneuvers command aura...that being said it doesnt seem like it turns as fast as it says it should lol...currently im running 3 retrofit phasers, quad phaser cannons, and a transphasic torp Fore, with 2 retrofit phasers and a standard mk x photon torp aft....seems to do pretty well, ran it in a foundry mission at advanced difficulty and only blew up due ti being to close to a D'D in a cloud that disabled shields -_-...the thing is a freaking monster....and with the avenger skin (a Dark metallic hull...and i mean DARK) it looks great....imo well worth the zen, the VATA seems alright, though i sort of wish it wasnt as random as it seems.
48k hull is about 7k below what my T5 Excel had, my Fleet Excel has about 10k more. 16.5 w/o toys and balanced power dist. seems low for that ship. You might wan't to check your character skills and make sure you didn't neglect these two areas.
I've been saving up my Zen for the DS9 bundle (mainly for the Belfast bridge)...
Should I keep at it or just get an Avenger and the Defiant Bridge Pack instead?
"If you can't take a little bloody nose, maybe you ought to go back home and crawl under your bed. It's not safe out here. It's wondrous, with treasures to satiate desires both subtle and gross; but it's not for the timid." -- Q, TNG: "Q-Who?"
^Words that every player should keep in mind, especially whenever there's a problem with the game...
What is everone's opinions on looks? Mine is *buy buy buy* so long as the stats arent too messed up.
By the way, anyone have any errant tweets, posts or other on the stats?
totaly P'Oed.not right for them to release a tier 5 ship that can be bought tier 4 makeing all the fleet tactical cruesers obsolete after waiting so long to get to tier 5 to buy them....JUST WRONG
It is a very good ship ,it turns better than my t'varo+mkxii RCS console (from mine holding) and it hits almost like a Defiant when it is used in a decloaking alpha.The VATA projectiles followed and hit my T'varo more than 15 km from launch point.
Probably If I would had been playing fed faction I would had bought this ship.
"There already is a Borg faction, its called the Federation. They assimilate everyone else's technology and remove any biological or technical distinctiveness and add it to their own."
I refuse to be content https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FwI0u9L4R8U
Needs a Hanger Bay
Needs the Typhoon "skin"
Needs 4 Tac Consoles
Needs at least 5 Tac Skill slots
Needs 2 Uni Stations (no Ensign)
Needs 11+ Turn Rate
Needs 1.2+ Shield
Needs 38k+ Hull
Needs Wide Angle Quantum Torpedo Launcher
Of course just having 1/3 of those will probably sell me.
But a hanger is a must, or it won't pull me from my Multi-Mission Recon. Sci (Vesta)
Yup, this baby needs something. It looks mean and such, but when everything is said and done it lacks real punch. 5 tactical consoles, a bay and another LTC universal seat would go a LONG way towards having this ship live up to its billing.
I have bought both versions of the Avenger. She is a good ship, looking like a Battle Duck, but I am not really confident about her.
She has the best that a hybrid can get out of Escorts and Cruisers, but she is still a common 8 Weapons ship.
When I heard a Battlecruiser will be released, I thought about a ship with a heavy weapons assembly. Some advanced and improved beam, cannon or torpedo weapons. Like Rapid Fire Torpedos or Missiles or anything else.
But the Avenger only got a console with a 3? minute cooldown. And in that time she is nothing more than a little buffed up 8 common weapons ship.
So, in other words, make it a Kumari with an Oddy's hull numbers and Typhoon's appearance?
k
Another self-serving, over-the-top characterization of a simple request. Typical. Having bought both versions of the ship, and flown it enough to know, why should I NOT want to see it improved? It's a battlecruiser, they tell us, a NEW approach for the Federation. However, as it sits right now, it's a toy compared to lots of other ships, including the Scimitar or even my F-TER.
So yeah, I'd love to see a bay and a 5th tactical console AT LEAST. No apologies needed or (juvenile) ridicule accepted
Indeed she doesn't need anything else, she already has 5 fore weapons, the ability to use cannons, lt commander tac 4 tac consoles and best turn rate for a end game fed cruiser. Also the advanced com arrays that other cruisers need to wait for.
It's revolting how quickly some of you boys line up to tell perfect strangers that they have no right to want what they want, replete with strawman arguments and other forms of blatant foolishness. Internet has become a truly wondrous place, not at all like reality.
It's revolting how quickly some of you boys line up to tell perfect strangers that they have no right to want what they want, replete with strawman arguments and other forms of blatant foolishness. Internet has become a truly wondrous place, not at all like reality.
do you know what straw man argument is.... Its arguing against a point they don't hold. But its fairly obvious they do hold that the avenger needs more cool stuff to make it more unique but it has plenty.
It would destroy cruiser balance if it had anymore. It doesn't need a hanger, it doesn't need 5 tact slot .
Avenger made every other fed cruiser obsolete. Saying that it need to be even stronger because you cant make it work, that deserves to be shut down. Crying that you got shut down, time for nap and bottle?
It's called an opinion, son. Learn to embrace them, even when they originate somewhere other than in that coconut or yours.
Back OT, it's a good ship, but it needs more to warrant the name BATTLEBRUISER. And Cryptic, I recall that shortly after the release of the Andorian escort, after its stats were fixed, some big wig saying that it's common practice to release ships underpowered and then buff them based on feedback. Was this so in the case of the Avenger?
Sure, it can take a punch and that's good, but in terms of firepower, it simply "feels" utterly underwhelming. With a beam build it's just another often complained about, underpowered cruiser, with cannons its stock turnrate is too slow to be practical. When I say it needs "something" it comes from the fact that I don't balance games for a living, I trust you guys to do that. Surely there's an addition or tweak that can make the Avenger more viable as a heavyweight in comparison, and without breaking the game?
Avenger made every other fed cruiser obsolete. Saying that it need to be even stronger because you cant make it work, that deserves to be shut down. Crying that you got shut down, time for nap and bottle?
My Excel' can, and has, hold (held) its own with the Avenger. Guys who want DHC cruisers don't get much of a chance to shoot them as much as they wish. The Fleet Excel' has not been made obsolete by the Fleet Avenger.
It would destroy cruiser balance if it had anymore. It doesn't need a hanger, it doesn't need 5 tact slot .
EVERYTHING NEEDS A HANGER! GIVE THE MIRNADA A HANGER! GIVE THE NX A HANGER! MUHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAH HANGERS FOR EVERYONE!
No seriously what is with this fandom's obsessions with hangers? They are not even that useful compared to the amount you have to spend to get the max level pets to go in them.
Because technically most ships larger than a frigate (I.E. bigger than a Miranda or BoP) DID have hangers to some degree, they were called 'Shuttlebays'.
"If you can't take a little bloody nose, maybe you ought to go back home and crawl under your bed. It's not safe out here. It's wondrous, with treasures to satiate desires both subtle and gross; but it's not for the timid." -- Q, TNG: "Q-Who?"
^Words that every player should keep in mind, especially whenever there's a problem with the game...
IMO, I don't feel the Avenger needs anything more. I built mine with 4 dhcs and torp on the forward weapon points and equipped consoles to boost the turn rate. I rather like the console setup it has now, as it allows you to run more unique consoles. I don't see the need for a 5th tactical console as it takes away from the ship's best aspect, its versatility. Could the unique console be better, sure but its certainly not a deal breaker for this ship.
If built as a beamboat, it will perform as such. With such a similar BOff layout to my FACR, it was an easy transition. The results were very much like I received with the FACR, except that the Avenger turned a bit better and was more responsive in regards to accelerating and decelerating.
While I have not done so yet, as I have been busy with real life, I am sure that the Avenger would be to use DHCs with very little effort. With the Tachyokinetic Converter, the Dilithium Mine consoles, Auxiliary to Dampeners, and Emergency Power to Engines, and now the Maneuverability command array; there is no reason one shouldn't be able to make DHCs work. (I suddenly flashed on 1955 Doc Brown for a moment).
To paraphrase a certain Klingon Commandant: "Built well, she will treat you well. Built badly, and you will die."
"I'm not big on telepaths myself. I'm not big on guns either. But if everyone else has them, I want to make sure I can get my hands on the biggest one I can."
Visuals.
The top aspect is good. Kind of combines the nicer aspects of the Odyssey's sleek elongated saucer with less stupid nacelles. The nacelle flanges are a little puzzling but at least they aren't dagger-points. Pylons look nice and sturdy instead of being twigs. The row of ports on the top of the hull put me in mind of nuclear missile subs with launch doors.
Front aspect is okay. The split neck is less forced in this design. I like that the ship is visibly packing heat on the sides of the saucer. I'm not sure I've ever seen the likes of the little intakes up on the spine, but they look like they have a purpose and are not out of place. Between the stuff on top of the saucer and the extra bits on the side of the hull near the deflector, the ship looks built-up without being grotesque. I would not have added the "bridge blister", it looks tacked on and unnecessary. For a fighting ship the bridge should be integrated into the front of that central mound where the gray panels are for better protection.
Side aspect is WTF. Continuing the long tradition of almost every Trek ship looking ridiculous from one angle, I present The Slope. It makes the ship look like a fat little fish, and it makes the engines look tacked on as an afterthought. Ship would look much better if the back of the hull were basically flat until it got to the leading edge of the pylons and then sloped upward to meet the crest of the saucer.
Ship stats
5 front weapons: Front weapons are superior to rear weapons. I like it.
Base agility of 9 is fine for a battle cruiser, and make the ship downright agile when supported by skill points into thrusters and fleet equipment with +turn on it.
A little light on hull compared to its peers, but it when considered as the cost of having better agility, 5 front weapons, and the built in command array, I am willing to pay it.
Stations are perfectly acceptable for a battle cruiser. Having a universal bridge station on a ship which isn't Fleet level was a nice bonus. I prefer to put an engineer in that slot so I can have better power bonuses, especially nowadays with the improved EPS Efficiency trait. I know a lot of people are going to be silly and use Aux2Batt shenanigans.
Console layout is okay for a battle cruiser. I might have liked to see 3 eng and 2 sci instead just because science consoles get you shield capacity mods. Becoming 3 eng, 3 sci, 4 tac in the fleet version. This is a somewhat more flexible arrangement.
Cloaking console? I don't care. I don't own either of the ships it comes on, and non-battle cloaks are a waste of a slot anyway. Maybe PVP people disagree with me, but PVP people should be disregarded as irrelevant.
Cruiser command array
I like it.
I like the premise: That the biggest ships in the fleet are coordinating and directing the others. I like the fact that it's a PBAOE and affects my allies. I like the fact that it's a mode instead of yet another cooldown to manage.
Four thoughts.
1.) Because of how arcane the mechanics of weapon power are, it's really hard to tell how much of an effect the weapon efficiency command has.
2.) Because the best defense is almost always a good offense in this game and because an extra 10% shield hardness and regeneration isn't going to save you from the few utterly absurd situations that a ship will be overwhelmed in, I feel like the shield rotation command is not going to see much use.
3.) The icons in the weapon tray should be re-arranged to match the power bars: Weapons on the left, shields in the middle, engines on the right.
4.) Why does Aux power not influence these?
VATA device
No.
Continuing the long tradition of special universal consoles being absolutely terrible, we have VATA.
You have to shoot it from 10km if you want to get its full effect. Except you put it on a ship that can carry dual cannons, which must be fired inside 2km to do proper damage.
The contact detonation damage is weak, and when you look at the rare of fire, you'd be better off with the Hargh'peng if you want something that does AOE kinetic.
You gave it variable onboard weapons, none of which are effective as the Bio-Neural Warhead's weapon since the BNW can damage both shields and hull and scales (quite a lot actually) with your weapon power when you launch it.
Basically it's the worst aspects of a BNW and tric torps in general, with twice the reload time.
Ways to fix: Choose one.
"WMD" fix:
* One minute cooldown
* No AOE detonation
* Launches one warhead for each of current target and 4 other nearest targets in a 360 degree sphere. VATA's onboard weapon attacks only the target it is seeking.
"Pet" fix:
* Makes a free floating turret instead of a torpedo
* Turret has good survivabiity and a lifetime of 2 minutes
"Modifier" fix:
* 45 second cooldown
* Acts as a modifier to other torpedo weapons instead of a standalone weapon
* Adds tachyon damage, high yield AOE detonation, or slow+stun effect, to the next torpedo launched.
Executive summary
A Federation battlecruiser that looks good from some angles, has really outstanding firepower, and has no-cost team support potential. Comes with gimmicky inception torpedo launcher that you can use to make knowledgeable players face-palm.
Comments
48k hull is about 7k below what my T5 Excel had, my Fleet Excel has about 10k more. 16.5 w/o toys and balanced power dist. seems low for that ship. You might wan't to check your character skills and make sure you didn't neglect these two areas.
wow just wow man :O that is sweet
Excel. perfect for eng
Should I keep at it or just get an Avenger and the Defiant Bridge Pack instead?
^Words that every player should keep in mind, especially whenever there's a problem with the game...
/10char
totaly P'Oed.not right for them to release a tier 5 ship that can be bought tier 4 makeing all the fleet tactical cruesers obsolete after waiting so long to get to tier 5 to buy them....JUST WRONG
Probably If I would had been playing fed faction I would had bought this ship.
I refuse to be content https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FwI0u9L4R8U
Yup, this baby needs something. It looks mean and such, but when everything is said and done it lacks real punch. 5 tactical consoles, a bay and another LTC universal seat would go a LONG way towards having this ship live up to its billing.
k
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
My name is Rage, and I too support a revised Galaxy family.
She has the best that a hybrid can get out of Escorts and Cruisers, but she is still a common 8 Weapons ship.
When I heard a Battlecruiser will be released, I thought about a ship with a heavy weapons assembly. Some advanced and improved beam, cannon or torpedo weapons. Like Rapid Fire Torpedos or Missiles or anything else.
But the Avenger only got a console with a 3? minute cooldown. And in that time she is nothing more than a little buffed up 8 common weapons ship.
Another self-serving, over-the-top characterization of a simple request. Typical. Having bought both versions of the ship, and flown it enough to know, why should I NOT want to see it improved? It's a battlecruiser, they tell us, a NEW approach for the Federation. However, as it sits right now, it's a toy compared to lots of other ships, including the Scimitar or even my F-TER.
So yeah, I'd love to see a bay and a 5th tactical console AT LEAST. No apologies needed or (juvenile) ridicule accepted
Yup, a good pilot.
Indeed she doesn't need anything else, she already has 5 fore weapons, the ability to use cannons, lt commander tac 4 tac consoles and best turn rate for a end game fed cruiser. Also the advanced com arrays that other cruisers need to wait for.
do you know what straw man argument is.... Its arguing against a point they don't hold. But its fairly obvious they do hold that the avenger needs more cool stuff to make it more unique but it has plenty.
It would destroy cruiser balance if it had anymore. It doesn't need a hanger, it doesn't need 5 tact slot
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
My name is Rage, and I too support a revised Galaxy family.
It's called an opinion, son. Learn to embrace them, even when they originate somewhere other than in that coconut or yours.
Back OT, it's a good ship, but it needs more to warrant the name BATTLEBRUISER. And Cryptic, I recall that shortly after the release of the Andorian escort, after its stats were fixed, some big wig saying that it's common practice to release ships underpowered and then buff them based on feedback. Was this so in the case of the Avenger?
Sure, it can take a punch and that's good, but in terms of firepower, it simply "feels" utterly underwhelming. With a beam build it's just another often complained about, underpowered cruiser, with cannons its stock turnrate is too slow to be practical. When I say it needs "something" it comes from the fact that I don't balance games for a living, I trust you guys to do that. Surely there's an addition or tweak that can make the Avenger more viable as a heavyweight in comparison, and without breaking the game?
My Excel' can, and has, hold (held) its own with the Avenger. Guys who want DHC cruisers don't get much of a chance to shoot them as much as they wish. The Fleet Excel' has not been made obsolete by the Fleet Avenger.
Well peace thru superior firepower.
+1
The Federation Security Council has reported: "peace with klingons is like war with ayone else"
So yes its about time the Fed started making warships again..
EVERYTHING NEEDS A HANGER! GIVE THE MIRNADA A HANGER! GIVE THE NX A HANGER! MUHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAH HANGERS FOR EVERYONE!
No seriously what is with this fandom's obsessions with hangers? They are not even that useful compared to the amount you have to spend to get the max level pets to go in them.
^Words that every player should keep in mind, especially whenever there's a problem with the game...
If built as a beamboat, it will perform as such. With such a similar BOff layout to my FACR, it was an easy transition. The results were very much like I received with the FACR, except that the Avenger turned a bit better and was more responsive in regards to accelerating and decelerating.
While I have not done so yet, as I have been busy with real life, I am sure that the Avenger would be to use DHCs with very little effort. With the Tachyokinetic Converter, the Dilithium Mine consoles, Auxiliary to Dampeners, and Emergency Power to Engines, and now the Maneuverability command array; there is no reason one shouldn't be able to make DHCs work. (I suddenly flashed on 1955 Doc Brown for a moment).
To paraphrase a certain Klingon Commandant: "Built well, she will treat you well. Built badly, and you will die."
Visuals.
The top aspect is good. Kind of combines the nicer aspects of the Odyssey's sleek elongated saucer with less stupid nacelles. The nacelle flanges are a little puzzling but at least they aren't dagger-points. Pylons look nice and sturdy instead of being twigs. The row of ports on the top of the hull put me in mind of nuclear missile subs with launch doors.
Front aspect is okay. The split neck is less forced in this design. I like that the ship is visibly packing heat on the sides of the saucer. I'm not sure I've ever seen the likes of the little intakes up on the spine, but they look like they have a purpose and are not out of place. Between the stuff on top of the saucer and the extra bits on the side of the hull near the deflector, the ship looks built-up without being grotesque. I would not have added the "bridge blister", it looks tacked on and unnecessary. For a fighting ship the bridge should be integrated into the front of that central mound where the gray panels are for better protection.
Side aspect is WTF. Continuing the long tradition of almost every Trek ship looking ridiculous from one angle, I present The Slope. It makes the ship look like a fat little fish, and it makes the engines look tacked on as an afterthought. Ship would look much better if the back of the hull were basically flat until it got to the leading edge of the pylons and then sloped upward to meet the crest of the saucer.
http://momaw.kikaimegami.com/stoavenger-fixed.png
Ship stats
5 front weapons: Front weapons are superior to rear weapons. I like it.
Base agility of 9 is fine for a battle cruiser, and make the ship downright agile when supported by skill points into thrusters and fleet equipment with +turn on it.
A little light on hull compared to its peers, but it when considered as the cost of having better agility, 5 front weapons, and the built in command array, I am willing to pay it.
Stations are perfectly acceptable for a battle cruiser. Having a universal bridge station on a ship which isn't Fleet level was a nice bonus. I prefer to put an engineer in that slot so I can have better power bonuses, especially nowadays with the improved EPS Efficiency trait. I know a lot of people are going to be silly and use Aux2Batt shenanigans.
Console layout is okay for a battle cruiser. I might have liked to see 3 eng and 2 sci instead just because science consoles get you shield capacity mods. Becoming 3 eng, 3 sci, 4 tac in the fleet version. This is a somewhat more flexible arrangement.
Cloaking console? I don't care. I don't own either of the ships it comes on, and non-battle cloaks are a waste of a slot anyway. Maybe PVP people disagree with me, but PVP people should be disregarded as irrelevant.
Cruiser command array
I like it.
I like the premise: That the biggest ships in the fleet are coordinating and directing the others. I like the fact that it's a PBAOE and affects my allies. I like the fact that it's a mode instead of yet another cooldown to manage.
Four thoughts.
1.) Because of how arcane the mechanics of weapon power are, it's really hard to tell how much of an effect the weapon efficiency command has.
2.) Because the best defense is almost always a good offense in this game and because an extra 10% shield hardness and regeneration isn't going to save you from the few utterly absurd situations that a ship will be overwhelmed in, I feel like the shield rotation command is not going to see much use.
3.) The icons in the weapon tray should be re-arranged to match the power bars: Weapons on the left, shields in the middle, engines on the right.
4.) Why does Aux power not influence these?
VATA device
No.
Continuing the long tradition of special universal consoles being absolutely terrible, we have VATA.
You have to shoot it from 10km if you want to get its full effect. Except you put it on a ship that can carry dual cannons, which must be fired inside 2km to do proper damage.
The contact detonation damage is weak, and when you look at the rare of fire, you'd be better off with the Hargh'peng if you want something that does AOE kinetic.
You gave it variable onboard weapons, none of which are effective as the Bio-Neural Warhead's weapon since the BNW can damage both shields and hull and scales (quite a lot actually) with your weapon power when you launch it.
Basically it's the worst aspects of a BNW and tric torps in general, with twice the reload time.
Ways to fix: Choose one.
"WMD" fix:
* One minute cooldown
* No AOE detonation
* Launches one warhead for each of current target and 4 other nearest targets in a 360 degree sphere. VATA's onboard weapon attacks only the target it is seeking.
"Pet" fix:
* Makes a free floating turret instead of a torpedo
* Turret has good survivabiity and a lifetime of 2 minutes
"Modifier" fix:
* 45 second cooldown
* Acts as a modifier to other torpedo weapons instead of a standalone weapon
* Adds tachyon damage, high yield AOE detonation, or slow+stun effect, to the next torpedo launched.
Executive summary
A Federation battlecruiser that looks good from some angles, has really outstanding firepower, and has no-cost team support potential. Comes with gimmicky inception torpedo launcher that you can use to make knowledgeable players face-palm.