This ship is new, compact, tough, and just blocky enough from some angles and not blocky at all from other angles.
Good stats, good guns, rightfully useless console. The fact that its much stronger than other cruisers is not because its OP but rather the other ships are just so far behind.
The Avenger is balanced against what the other factions have. Definite buy.
Which Console do you consider that to be? The V.A.T.A. or the Cloak?
Inertia just means you can do Powerslides in you carrier!
I am Il Shadow and i approve these Shennanigans!
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
Silly situational consoles aside, I am liking what I see.
The turn rate is decent, and the 4 tac consoles make for a nice layout. Unsure if the 5th boff slot is universal (looks that way), and wonder somewhat where the 10th console will end up on the fleet version - but from what i see, this will be a purchase for sure.
Dammit Cryptic - I've held out 6 months without buying anything.
Silly situational consoles aside, I am liking what I see.
The turn rate is decent, and the 4 tac consoles make for a nice layout. Unsure if the 5th boff slot is universal (looks that way), and wonder somewhat where the 10th console will end up on the fleet version - but from what i see, this will be a purchase for sure.
Dammit Cryptic - I've held out 6 months without buying anything.
fleet version is 4 eng, 4 tac and 2 sci (perfect for the 2 consoles....except why it doesnt have an inherent cloak idk)
normal is as above but only 1 sci...these were based on screenshots that are in the dev blog discussion thread. (idk what pages its on anymore lol)
Most hideous ship ive seen in this game so far, even the tal shiar ships look beautiful compared to this.. lolol
True, i already hate the day when we will see hundreds of them in earth orbit (shudder).
I have no idea what the responsible deisgner had in mind when designing this ships, but it couldn't have been something good.
Btw, will it be able to use DHCs?
Just curious.
"...'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
From what we can tell it can use dual cannons, with my Klingon capt using battle cruisers this won't be a problem ( gotta love power sliding and dual cannons ).
True, i already hate the day when we will see hundreds of them in earth orbit (shudder).
I have no idea what the responsible deisgner had in mind when designing this ships, but it couldn't have been something good.
Btw, will it be able to use DHCs?
Just curious.
First of all it looks like DC's unsure of DHC's. Problem is Bran has now stated that those stats in the photo's are no necessarily the finished product stats. Which could be a diversionary tactic.
Secondly i want to find a full group of them, and have them encroach upon your position and encircle you........
Inertia just means you can do Powerslides in you carrier!
I am Il Shadow and i approve these Shennanigans!
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
From what we can tell it can use dual cannons, with my Klingon capt using battle cruisers this won't be a problem ( gotta love power sliding and dual cannons ).
I just love Powersliding in General........(in the game)
Inertia just means you can do Powerslides in you carrier!
I am Il Shadow and i approve these Shennanigans!
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
Which Console do you consider that to be? The V.A.T.A. or the Cloak?
Kind of... the both of them. Cloak is only useful in pvp but as anti-stealth measures mature you'll find less and less use out of it. Would still still keep it around for it though, just not pve.
In pve, I'd use the VATA in a tac-buffed alpha strike or firing it at a horde of shards on my tail... but that's about it. I doubt it even has the bang of a Mega torpedo to justify its 3min cd.
I'm already going to use up 2 eng slots for enh neutrino, and both sci for +pla consoles, so I really lack room for those consoles.
"Last Engage! Magical Girl Origami-san" is in print! Now with three times more rainbows.
Kind of... the both of them. Cloak is only useful in pvp but as anti-stealth measures mature you'll find less and less use out of it. Would still still keep it around for it though, just not pve.
In pve, I'd use the VATA in a tac-buffed alpha strike or firing it at a horde of shards on my tail... but that's about it. I doubt it even has the bang of a Mega torpedo to justify its 3min cd.
I'm already going to use up 2 eng slots for enh neutrino, and both sci for +pla consoles, so I really lack room for those consoles.
So where have you seen the stats for the new console? i havent managed to come across those yet.
Link?
Inertia just means you can do Powerslides in you carrier!
I am Il Shadow and i approve these Shennanigans!
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
According to what's on Tribble this ugly ship invalidates each and every Starfleet cruiser in the game AND the newly introduced mechanics do absolutely nothing to help the pre F2P and neglected cruiser variants in the game.
Great job!
To me, buying this ship means supporting everything that's wrong with it.
^ Memory Alpha.org is not canon. It's a open wiki with arbitrary rules. Only what can be cited from an episode is. ^
"No. Men do not roar. Women roar. Then they hurl heavy objects... and claw at you." -Worf, son of Mogh
"A filthy, mangy beast, but in its bony breast beat the heart of a warrior" - "faithful" (...) "but ever-ready to follow the call of the wild." - Martok, about a Targ
"That pig smelled horrid. A sweet-sour, extremely pungent odor. I showered and showered, and it took me a week to get rid of it!" - Robert Justman, appreciating Emmy-Lou
And whys that? Fleet Assault Cruiser have same console setup, 5/3 and 4/4 its the same from beamboat point of view, 9 or 7 turn for beamboat doesnt matter and Boffs are the same...........so hows copy paste of Fleet Assault Cruiser makes other cruisers absolute?
IF a Galaxy's saucer could reliably land and take off without damage - which is hinted at in the tech manual, but called infeasible - it would be a magnificent way to land troops. That being said, the Galaxy class would still probably be the Federation's premiere troop transport. Three shuttlebays, all of her transporter rooms, fairly heavy shields and armor, decent firepower.
With all of it's saucer space devoted to barracks, supplies, and weaponry instead of schools and science labs, I wouldn't be surprised at all if each Galaxy class could field ten thousand ground troops.
Actually, from what I recall of the manual, it was extremely down on the possibility of ever making the saucer usable again as a flying ship. I could see a downed saucer making a dandy base of operations if they somehow kept it in much better shape than the Enterprise, though. But with the utterly massive transporter capability on the Ent, they wouldn't really need to drop the entire saucer.
That said, replaceable saucers yield a whole range of possibilities, including one built specifically to be able to pull this off.
As per the total number of troops that can be there, if I recall correctly (again from the technical manual), the facilities can house - without stretching - up to 6000 crew members. If it's a saucer that's designed to land, I would imagine they could take out a whole host of other components and double that.
And whys that? Fleet Assault Cruiser have same console setup, 5/3 and 4/4 its the same from beamboat point of view, 9 or 7 turn for beamboat doesnt matter and Boffs are the same...........so hows copy paste of Fleet Assault Cruiser makes other cruisers absolute?
It doesn't, really.
Essentially what this does is it allows considerably more flexibility in terms of potential setups - namely making a true dual-cannon cruiser viable for the first time for Starfleet ships - and helps to encourage this by making the front pack considerably more punch. This also allows for a more nimble cruiser build, at some expense to tanking abilities. This is reflected in the console setup for the non-Fleet version.
So far as the Fleet Assault Cruiser goes, the Fleet Avenger just has different options; I doubt an Aux2Bat beam boat build would be much different, and I'm not sure a Dragon would be much different, either, except possibly being more frail, and less viability for an aft torpedo launcher.
EDIT: Lest anyone think I am unduly dumping on the Gal-X with stating that prior to the Avenger there were no viable DC/DHC cruiser options with Starfleet ships, sad fact of the matter is, IMO, that a real dual cannon setup just isn't workable with the ship. The mix of the sluggish turn rate and the difficulty with getting good cannon buff options with that BOff setup makes a DC or DHC Gal-X a task for only the most determined/devoted players, IMO. It seems to lend itself much more readily to a beam boat, and I think the vast majority of posters agree with me.
While the default coloration and pattern is not something I particularly relish, I note a very distinct resemblance to some elements of Constitution-class and Ambassador-class design in there. I think that it will look a good deal more attractive once people start modifying the colors (possibly somewhat extensively).
If I spring for it, the patterns are going away right off the bat, I know that much.
And whys that? Fleet Assault Cruiser have same console setup, 5/3 and 4/4 its the same from beamboat point of view, 9 or 7 turn for beamboat doesnt matter and Boffs are the same...........so hows copy paste of Fleet Assault Cruiser makes other cruisers absolute?
Fleet avenger has superior turn rate, superior shielding, the capacity to load DHCs (yes, you can very easily make this into a cannon boat with that turn rate), five fore weapons and most importantly isn't gated behind the absurd T5 shipyard requirement.
Fleet avenger has superior turn rate, superior shielding, the capacity to load DHCs (yes, you can very easily make this into a cannon boat with that turn rate), five fore weapons and most importantly isn't gated behind the absurd T5 shipyard requirement.
The only thing the FAC has going for it is looks.
Superior shielding (presumably the modifier) is offset by the lack of shield power buffing and a thinner hull. With current RCS's the turn rate of 7 is not the death knell for a mobile cruiser, either, if they're willing to put an Eng console slot to use for one.
I will, however, grant you the starbase gating is excessive. I wouldn't be a bit surprised if we see a lot more Avenger Fleet versions than FACR's because of this; it's "close enough" for most people, I'll say that much.
Could someone get this guy a napkin for his tears?
Seriously new ship always better, old ship doesnt get changed. Look at the Galaxy. Look at ANY ship. Deal Broseph.
This ship os new, and its ugly as sin. And im gonna LOVE IT.
Wow, sounds like someone wants this game to go to eternal power creep. Sorry to break it to you but that means eventually you and few other who love this will fly your star ships alone.
Superior shielding (presumably the modifier) is offset by the lack of shield power buffing and a thinner hull. With current RCS's the turn rate of 7 is not the death knell for a mobile cruiser, either, if they're willing to put an Eng console slot to use for one.
I will, however, grant you the starbase gating is excessive. I wouldn't be a bit surprised if we see a lot more Avenger Fleet versions than FACR's because of this; it's "close enough" for most people, I'll say that much.
The Avenger has 1,650 less base hull. That's at most a 4% difference (depending on how the comparison is structured), as compared to gaining .11 of a shield modifier. Shield is absolutely king in STO's space combat, and having 1-2k more of it is a huge separation.
As for power levels, if you're not maxing out at least two subsystems without ship specific bonuses, you're not even trying. Anyone with three or more neurons is going to be able to cap out at least three subsystems on the Avenger incredibly easily (possibly four if they opt for a non A2B build).
Turn rate, you're talking about the difference between tooling around in the high teens to low twenties, to being able to push into the 30s range with minimal effort. The propogated change of that additional +2 because of the way the turn rate equations are structured is fairly massive.
Bottom line: Avenger kicks Sovereign's TRIBBLE across the board.
Baseturn 9 is not enough to make a cqnnon boat viable. Only thing 5-3 does is a bit more dmg when flying towards a target but basically its worthless for beam boats.
Baseturn 9 is not enough to make a cqnnon boat viable. Only thing 5-3 does is a bit more dmg when flying towards a target but basically its worthless for beam boats.
One down side to teh 5-3 is the escorts can get behind you and you have fewer weapons to put on them. This is not an escort dig, I personally think escorts are how they should be, and cruisers and science need to be brought up in non-dps ways. I like the 5/3 idea, but I am not sure I how I feel about the overall ship compared to the FAC.
PvE Jem'Hadar motto:Participation Ribbonsare life.
According to what's on Tribble this ugly ship invalidates each and every Starfleet cruiser in the game AND the newly introduced mechanics do absolutely nothing to help the pre F2P and neglected cruiser variants in the game.
Great job!
To me, buying this ship means supporting everything that's wrong with it.
Are you proposing they upgrade the older cruisers to be equivalent to the current and future cruisers? Is there a point to even releasing new ships if they are not better or am I missing your point? I have fought for cruisers to get more relevance without just pumping up the dps, and this is not exactly what I had in mind, but an honest effort. I still don't expect any ship based mechanics to be too retroactive or it will hurt new ship release motivation.
PvE Jem'Hadar motto:Participation Ribbonsare life.
If so it should have more weapons on it, not less on the back... Like a 5 / 4 setup, I remember the ships from Klingon Academy days, anyone remember that game.
With the U.S.S. Yamoto having 4 weapon banks on each side, it was slow as a battle cruiser should be, yet had the fire power to take on multiple foes.
Just seems silly to me calling a ship, a certain name, then making it like every other cruiser in the game, pretty pointless!!!
Its a battlecruiser alright... like the KDF ones, not the others from elsewhere.
As for naming conventions, I reckon my flagship dreadnought cruiser got shafted for commands simply because it was called a dreadnought. Yes it was the first dreadnought but now I really what a dreadnought means to Cryptic, because I sure can't see a pattern...
...beyond BIG.
"Last Engage! Magical Girl Origami-san" is in print! Now with three times more rainbows.
Given all the discussion revolving around the Avenger I seem to have lost the post where one guy said that this thing basically negated the Odyssey as the Starfleet flagship. I just want to refute that a bit, and this place is as good a venue to put the response as any right now.
Putting aside things like gameplay balance and such, a "flagship" need not be the "best" ship in a fleet to be worthy of the honor. Or rather, a flagship doesn't have to be the "strongest" ship in a fighting sense. Rather, the most important quality for a flagship to qualify for the role is to be able to allow fleet commanders to command effectively, not participate in direct combat.
Look at it this way: An F-22 Raptor is far better at shooting down enemy planes the enemy than Air Force One, but if you strapped President Obama into a Raptor, he wouldn't be able to do his job as Commander-in-Chief nearly as well as if you had kept him in Air Force One.
Similarly, while the Avenger is probably a much better fighter than the current Enterprise-F, the Odyssey's multirole capabilities in exploration, science, and even combat are a far better representative of Starfleet's role as not just the Federation's primary defender, but also its primary explorer and researcher. Even in the face of the war-torn reality of 2409, Starfleet picked its flagship with an eye towards upholding its ideals.
Besides, if those tweets are correct, the Avenger's actually pretty small.
--
As to looks, this design reminds me of one of the entries to the contest that spawned the Odyssey and Chimera designs, except hybridized with the Vengeance from Star Trek Into Darkness. It's similarly compact and probably even blockier, and also has that small, armored-looking deflector dish. The only thing it doesn't have is a hole in the saucer, so thank goodness for that.
I'm actually kind of disappointed by this announcement. I am a cruiser fan, as most here know, but I'm kind of annoyed by the clear power creep that continues to propagate with the release of every new ship. It's never game breaking, but it keeps pushing all the older ships back further into obscurity. This Avenger ship is basically what the Galaxy Dreadnought should be. It is just so very sad to see the Galaxy-X, and Galaxy-R for that matter, collecting dust because they've been made completely obsolete by power creep and the evolution of the game into its current state. Soon all my favorite iconic Trek ships will be to weak to fly and I'll be forced into one of these cryptic designed abominations if I want to be competitive.
I'm actually kind of disappointed by this announcement. I am a cruiser fan, as most here know, but I'm kind of annoyed by the clear power creep that continues to propagate with the release of every new ship. It's never game breaking, but it keeps pushing all the older ships back further into obscurity. This Avenger ship is basically what the Galaxy Dreadnought should be. It is just so very sad to see the Galaxy-X, and Galaxy-R for that matter, collecting dust because they've been made completely obsolete by power creep and the evolution of the game into its current state. Soon all my favorite iconic Trek ships will be to weak to fly and I'll be forced into one of these cryptic designed abominations if I want to be competitive.
THIS. This is my point exactly. I don't have a problem with new ships. Hell, I like to enjoy them. At the same time, I still wanna take my memorable favs out and still kick TRIBBLE. I don't want to end up paying out the TRIBBLE for a new ship every year so I can still be competative.
I wanna be able to take my Galaxy out and fly around, support my fleet, so on and so forth.
I wanna take my Galaxy Dreanought out and use its cloak, find a nice position, and terrorize the TRIBBLE out of people with it and blow stuff up.
I wanna fly my Galaxy for fun and not die easy and still kick some TRIBBLE.
I want to take out my Dreadnought when I WANT TO MAKE YOU DIE.
It's bad enough I can't do that because I can't afford the Galaxy-R and my Rep stuff is so far from done, AND getting Dil is a bloody nightmare.
I hate the fact my Dreadnought is largely considered a joke by all except a select few.
I hate being relegated to an Escort because I'm a Tac Captain, and it's the only way I can deal damage...
Weyland-Yutani Joint Space Venture - Always open to new members!
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
My name is Rage, and I too support a revised Galaxy family.
Comments
Which Console do you consider that to be? The V.A.T.A. or the Cloak?
I am Il Shadow and i approve these Shennanigans!
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
The turn rate is decent, and the 4 tac consoles make for a nice layout. Unsure if the 5th boff slot is universal (looks that way), and wonder somewhat where the 10th console will end up on the fleet version - but from what i see, this will be a purchase for sure.
Dammit Cryptic - I've held out 6 months without buying anything.
fleet version is 4 eng, 4 tac and 2 sci (perfect for the 2 consoles....except why it doesnt have an inherent cloak idk)
normal is as above but only 1 sci...these were based on screenshots that are in the dev blog discussion thread. (idk what pages its on anymore lol)
regular http://www.imagebam.com/image/ba4a0f280254576
fleet http://i57.servimg.com/u/f57/14/83/54/34/avenge10.jpg
I have no idea what the responsible deisgner had in mind when designing this ships, but it couldn't have been something good.
Btw, will it be able to use DHCs?
Just curious.
First of all it looks like DC's unsure of DHC's. Problem is Bran has now stated that those stats in the photo's are no necessarily the finished product stats. Which could be a diversionary tactic.
Secondly i want to find a full group of them, and have them encroach upon your position and encircle you........
I am Il Shadow and i approve these Shennanigans!
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
I just love Powersliding in General........(in the game)
I am Il Shadow and i approve these Shennanigans!
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
Kind of... the both of them. Cloak is only useful in pvp but as anti-stealth measures mature you'll find less and less use out of it. Would still still keep it around for it though, just not pve.
In pve, I'd use the VATA in a tac-buffed alpha strike or firing it at a horde of shards on my tail... but that's about it. I doubt it even has the bang of a Mega torpedo to justify its 3min cd.
I'm already going to use up 2 eng slots for enh neutrino, and both sci for +pla consoles, so I really lack room for those consoles.
"Last Engage! Magical Girl Origami-san" is in print! Now with three times more rainbows.
Support the "Armored Unicorn" vehicle initiative today!
Thanks for Harajuku. Now let's get a real "Magical Girl" costume!
So where have you seen the stats for the new console? i havent managed to come across those yet.
Link?
I am Il Shadow and i approve these Shennanigans!
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
Great job!
To me, buying this ship means supporting everything that's wrong with it.
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
Actually, from what I recall of the manual, it was extremely down on the possibility of ever making the saucer usable again as a flying ship. I could see a downed saucer making a dandy base of operations if they somehow kept it in much better shape than the Enterprise, though. But with the utterly massive transporter capability on the Ent, they wouldn't really need to drop the entire saucer.
That said, replaceable saucers yield a whole range of possibilities, including one built specifically to be able to pull this off.
As per the total number of troops that can be there, if I recall correctly (again from the technical manual), the facilities can house - without stretching - up to 6000 crew members. If it's a saucer that's designed to land, I would imagine they could take out a whole host of other components and double that.
It doesn't, really.
Essentially what this does is it allows considerably more flexibility in terms of potential setups - namely making a true dual-cannon cruiser viable for the first time for Starfleet ships - and helps to encourage this by making the front pack considerably more punch. This also allows for a more nimble cruiser build, at some expense to tanking abilities. This is reflected in the console setup for the non-Fleet version.
So far as the Fleet Assault Cruiser goes, the Fleet Avenger just has different options; I doubt an Aux2Bat beam boat build would be much different, and I'm not sure a Dragon would be much different, either, except possibly being more frail, and less viability for an aft torpedo launcher.
EDIT: Lest anyone think I am unduly dumping on the Gal-X with stating that prior to the Avenger there were no viable DC/DHC cruiser options with Starfleet ships, sad fact of the matter is, IMO, that a real dual cannon setup just isn't workable with the ship. The mix of the sluggish turn rate and the difficulty with getting good cannon buff options with that BOff setup makes a DC or DHC Gal-X a task for only the most determined/devoted players, IMO. It seems to lend itself much more readily to a beam boat, and I think the vast majority of posters agree with me.
While the default coloration and pattern is not something I particularly relish, I note a very distinct resemblance to some elements of Constitution-class and Ambassador-class design in there. I think that it will look a good deal more attractive once people start modifying the colors (possibly somewhat extensively).
If I spring for it, the patterns are going away right off the bat, I know that much.
Fleet avenger has superior turn rate, superior shielding, the capacity to load DHCs (yes, you can very easily make this into a cannon boat with that turn rate), five fore weapons and most importantly isn't gated behind the absurd T5 shipyard requirement.
The only thing the FAC has going for it is looks.
Superior shielding (presumably the modifier) is offset by the lack of shield power buffing and a thinner hull. With current RCS's the turn rate of 7 is not the death knell for a mobile cruiser, either, if they're willing to put an Eng console slot to use for one.
I will, however, grant you the starbase gating is excessive. I wouldn't be a bit surprised if we see a lot more Avenger Fleet versions than FACR's because of this; it's "close enough" for most people, I'll say that much.
The Avenger has 1,650 less base hull. That's at most a 4% difference (depending on how the comparison is structured), as compared to gaining .11 of a shield modifier. Shield is absolutely king in STO's space combat, and having 1-2k more of it is a huge separation.
As for power levels, if you're not maxing out at least two subsystems without ship specific bonuses, you're not even trying. Anyone with three or more neurons is going to be able to cap out at least three subsystems on the Avenger incredibly easily (possibly four if they opt for a non A2B build).
Turn rate, you're talking about the difference between tooling around in the high teens to low twenties, to being able to push into the 30s range with minimal effort. The propogated change of that additional +2 because of the way the turn rate equations are structured is fairly massive.
Bottom line: Avenger kicks Sovereign's TRIBBLE across the board.
One down side to teh 5-3 is the escorts can get behind you and you have fewer weapons to put on them. This is not an escort dig, I personally think escorts are how they should be, and cruisers and science need to be brought up in non-dps ways. I like the 5/3 idea, but I am not sure I how I feel about the overall ship compared to the FAC.
Are you proposing they upgrade the older cruisers to be equivalent to the current and future cruisers? Is there a point to even releasing new ships if they are not better or am I missing your point? I have fought for cruisers to get more relevance without just pumping up the dps, and this is not exactly what I had in mind, but an honest effort. I still don't expect any ship based mechanics to be too retroactive or it will hurt new ship release motivation.
That's where my problem lies...
The only way you could make this even would be to turn the Avenger into a skittles turret platform.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
My name is Rage, and I too support a revised Galaxy family.
If so it should have more weapons on it, not less on the back... Like a 5 / 4 setup, I remember the ships from Klingon Academy days, anyone remember that game.
With the U.S.S. Yamoto having 4 weapon banks on each side, it was slow as a battle cruiser should be, yet had the fire power to take on multiple foes.
Just seems silly to me calling a ship, a certain name, then making it like every other cruiser in the game, pretty pointless!!!
www.EliteDefenseStarfleet.com
Best fleet in Star Trek Online...
We even have our own merchandise!!! Come join us today...
www.cafepress.com/elitedefensestarfleet
As for naming conventions, I reckon my flagship dreadnought cruiser got shafted for commands simply because it was called a dreadnought. Yes it was the first dreadnought but now I really what a dreadnought means to Cryptic, because I sure can't see a pattern...
...beyond BIG.
"Last Engage! Magical Girl Origami-san" is in print! Now with three times more rainbows.
Support the "Armored Unicorn" vehicle initiative today!
Thanks for Harajuku. Now let's get a real "Magical Girl" costume!
Putting aside things like gameplay balance and such, a "flagship" need not be the "best" ship in a fleet to be worthy of the honor. Or rather, a flagship doesn't have to be the "strongest" ship in a fighting sense. Rather, the most important quality for a flagship to qualify for the role is to be able to allow fleet commanders to command effectively, not participate in direct combat.
Look at it this way: An F-22 Raptor is far better at shooting down enemy planes the enemy than Air Force One, but if you strapped President Obama into a Raptor, he wouldn't be able to do his job as Commander-in-Chief nearly as well as if you had kept him in Air Force One.
Similarly, while the Avenger is probably a much better fighter than the current Enterprise-F, the Odyssey's multirole capabilities in exploration, science, and even combat are a far better representative of Starfleet's role as not just the Federation's primary defender, but also its primary explorer and researcher. Even in the face of the war-torn reality of 2409, Starfleet picked its flagship with an eye towards upholding its ideals.
Besides, if those tweets are correct, the Avenger's actually pretty small.
--
As to looks, this design reminds me of one of the entries to the contest that spawned the Odyssey and Chimera designs, except hybridized with the Vengeance from Star Trek Into Darkness. It's similarly compact and probably even blockier, and also has that small, armored-looking deflector dish. The only thing it doesn't have is a hole in the saucer, so thank goodness for that.
Shame there isn't an option to have the pylons sweep back and a rounder saucer though.
Daizen - Lvl 60 Tactical - Eclipse
Selia - Lvl 60 Tactical - Eclipse
THIS. This is my point exactly. I don't have a problem with new ships. Hell, I like to enjoy them. At the same time, I still wanna take my memorable favs out and still kick TRIBBLE. I don't want to end up paying out the TRIBBLE for a new ship every year so I can still be competative.
I wanna be able to take my Galaxy out and fly around, support my fleet, so on and so forth.
I wanna take my Galaxy Dreanought out and use its cloak, find a nice position, and terrorize the TRIBBLE out of people with it and blow stuff up.
I wanna fly my Galaxy for fun and not die easy and still kick some TRIBBLE.
I want to take out my Dreadnought when I WANT TO MAKE YOU DIE.
It's bad enough I can't do that because I can't afford the Galaxy-R and my Rep stuff is so far from done, AND getting Dil is a bloody nightmare.
I hate the fact my Dreadnought is largely considered a joke by all except a select few.
I hate being relegated to an Escort because I'm a Tac Captain, and it's the only way I can deal damage...
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
My name is Rage, and I too support a revised Galaxy family.