Thoughts about too much ? surely they must Keep their Balance for pvp, only for pvp, but new Content must bring an Advantage with it otherwise it is nothing new. I dont Need more ships of the same stuff, i Need an raise in Advantage. A shield modifier from 0.1 doenst make much difference but gives room for a Little Advantage for new Content.
The game Needs space to grow, if the Players start everytime to cry on new ship releases we have still the same ships after years. The community must accept that this isnt the right way and stop to get jealous or whatever on each ship release.
I dont think that Players want to Play with the same ships, the same Content only in a new Color, with the same abilities, with the same stats, weapons and layouts for the rest of their lifes. If this trend doesnt stop the future of this game doesnt look well.
What if you see that book cover all the time when reading the booK?
(in the figurative sense, of course)
My point is that a ship with such a radical different and polarizing design should have at least SOME alternatves , since it is not just a new ship.
It is the ship, most Cruiser Captains have been waiting for years and now Crpyitc presents us such a ugly bucket?
I just wonder why they made themsleves so much work, they already have the Excelsior as most offensive and ugliest Starfleet ship in the game, lol.
Why make another ugly offensive ship?
Just a reminder, Starfleet ships don't need to look ugly in order to be capable in combat, but maybe that's too complicated for some ppl.
My point is not that the Avenger is a ugly design, it is that we don't get any choices with it. Cryptics idea of starfleet ships goes into a complete wrong direction. They don't have to look like a Bulldog or a agricultural tractor. I am ok with it looking Armored and sturdy, but Cryptic exexaggerated its designs AGAIN and making it look almost cartoonish. (and they didn't even do that right, at least they should have made its saucer really wide to make it look impressive.)
As i said, i am ok with the ship looking bad, as long as we could have got some alternatives with it. Just look at the Intrepid variants we have in game, some look really bulky some do not, and that's what i do criticise here (the lack of choice).
Are Cryptics resources really that small nowadays compared to the times when they where making the Intrepid, for example?
Or is it just the lack of interest for Cruisers or the opinion that people will buy the new super ship anyways, no matter how it looks like?
"...'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
Thoughts about too much ? surely they must Keep their Balance for pvp, only for pvp, but new Content must bring an Advantage with it otherwise it is nothing new. I dont Need more ships of the same stuff, i Need an raise in Advantage. A shield modifier from 0.1 doenst make much difference but gives room for a Little Advantage for new Content.
The game Needs space to grow, if the Players start everytime to cry on new ship releases we have still the same ships after years. The community must accept that this isnt the right way and stop to get jealous or whatever on each ship release.
I dont think that Players want to Play with the same ships, the same Content only in a new Color, with the same abilities, with the same stats, weapons and layouts for the rest of their lifes. If this trend doesnt stop the future of this game doesnt look well.
Of course You are right!
But it is T4/T5 ship, so she has to be compared with T4/T5 ships.
It should has previous stats, but then it will be T6 ship (or overpowered T5).
I agree, that game needs to grow, but not in 50th level. It's crowded allready.
In overpowered matter: compare fleet Av with fleet Galaxy (or any other cruiser):
Boff - Av has better
consoles - Av has better (in DPS game which STO is)
turn - Av has better
inertia - Av has better
shield - same
hull - well Av has 6.25% less hull (!)
weapons - please...
Well, i'll give you that, this is a new record, a nerf even before official release, from 700 crew and 1.21 shield mod to 500 crew and 1.1 shield mod for fleet version. Old record was 3-4 days after release a release. But i guess it may not be over yet lol.
Its really sad that a few players, wich most play KDF anyway, manage to ruin it for the majority of fed players. And even more sad that the fed players cant see this. Probably they had a good laugh sliping this nerf so easy. But no matter, the ship suck with or without the nerf and its barely on par with KDF battlecruisers no matter how much propaganda they will do. And to think i've see, in-game, someone calling this aka fed engie scimitar lol.
A reduction in hull wouldve been way better and the 1.2 mod to be left alone thus it wouldve made good synergy with the Command ? Shield Frequency Modulation for shield tanking.
So thanks but no thanks, i'll pass this one, for the above thing and the fact that it looks ugly, at least to me. It seems Cryptic's latest designs on fed ships favor forward swept nacell pylons and a "ridged" back and neck, like the Regent, wich i am not to fond of them. I wish they wouldve include along with the ones on fleet version, at least some backward swept pylons and a smooth back/neck, much like the Sovereign. Also it seems there is some armor animations that goes on and off upon entering or exiting combat. I hate the flip-flops on BoPs so i wouldnt like this new feature aswell, since i doubt there will be a switch on/off option to turn it off. I just hope future ships wont have this thing.
Ohh and kudos for that new fed bridge, really looks awesome.
No, just no. First, all factions whine. Second, most KDF PvP and have to fight this ship. When it A) takes their typical style of play (battlecruisers) and then hands it to the enemy, only the Fed version outclasses ALL KDF battlecruisers; and shafts the KDF ship project till at least 2014, there is going to be some resentment. I know you want your OP I win buttons unblemished but the original stats were better than everything out there. 1.21 shield mod, seriously? Honestly, come on thats a silly shield mod and you know it. The inertia is also too much, but I can tell that stat isn't going anywhere. :mad:
Lastly, KDF will never grow as a faction if their play styles are given to the enemy (battlecruisers) and their other ships are antiquidated beyond any hope of salvation (BOP line). Point in fact, a previous poster said he was going to invest in a KDF toon to play battlecruisers and now he doesn't have to. Power to him for being honest. It's the truth. I know I get my BOP playstyle fix with Romulans now. All KDF had were battlecruisers and Aceton Assimilator. Note I won't touch AAs, I find them way too cheesy.
Please stop to nerf ships into the ground including the avenger. Everytime People start to cry because one side gets a new ship with the result that the ships Advantage gets decreased. The Avanger Battlecruiser was fine as it was and if you downgrade it more and more only the design is left.
Thats an MMO new stuff removes the old with a Little Advantage, thats like things should be. I really dont want to Play this game in 3 years and fly ships with the same stats like the actual ships. People get jealous because of an Advantage of a 0.1 shield modifer, thats ridiculous foolish.
All sides have really good ships and even the avenger doesnt reach the scimitar, the starfleet doesnt have any cruiser with commander tactical or 5 tactical Slots like the KDF and romulan has. The starfleet deserves this ship and now they get a nerfed ship thanks to this. The KDF gets a new ship aswell, every side gets new ships from time to time, dont get jealous.
I grant every side new ships because the game Needs new Content but this nerfing on each side only deceased the Quality of new Content for all sides and all Players. Cryptic know what they are doing and if you criticize them they start to Change the stats, the design and else, result = you are unhappy because of the changes.
Btw: dont say it is overpowered, you really dont know what you are saying, if this ship is overpowered then whats the scimitar ? Ultra powered only because of the layout.....
**Nerf=Decreasing Ships Advantages
What 5 tac KDF ship? Only the Bortas has that and its a blimp. Feds have several 5 tac ships. And sorry but this is Star Trek. A Galaxy cruiser isn't supposed to suck TRIBBLE.
My point is not that the Avenger is a ugly design, it is that we don't get any choices with it. Cryptics idea of starfleet ships goes into a complete wrong direction. They don't have to look like a Bulldog or a agricultural tractor. I am ok with it looking Armored and sturdy, but Cryptic exexaggerated its designs AGAIN and making it look almost cartoonish. (and they didn't even do that right, at least they should have made its saucer really wide to make it look impressive.)
Yo dawg! I heard you like torpedoes, so we put a warhead in a warhead, so you can shoot torpedoes while you shoot torpedoes.
Ok i must correct myself, it's not as ugly as the Excelsior.
But still it looks deformed...
EDIT: is it just me, but from this angle the ship looks HUGE.
Maybe Cryptic should have made it equal in size as the Odyssey. I think that would have fit to it's bulky design much better IMO.
"...'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
Please stop to nerf ships into the ground including the avenger. Everytime People start to cry because one side gets a new ship with the result that the ships Advantage gets decreased. The Avanger Battlecruiser was fine as it was and if you downgrade it more and more only the design is left.
Thats an MMO new stuff removes the old with a Little Advantage, thats like things should be. I really dont want to Play this game in 3 years and fly ships with the same stats like the actual ships. People get jealous because of an Advantage of a 0.1 shield modifer, thats ridiculous foolish.
All sides have really good ships and even the avenger doesnt reach the scimitar, the starfleet doesnt have any cruiser with commander tactical or 5 tactical Slots like the KDF and romulan has. The starfleet deserves this ship and now they get a nerfed ship thanks to this. The KDF gets a new ship aswell, every side gets new ships from time to time, dont get jealous.
I grant every side new ships because the game Needs new Content but this nerfing on each side only deceased the Quality of new Content for all sides and all Players. Cryptic know what they are doing and if you criticize them they start to Change the stats, the design and else, result = you are unhappy because of the changes.
Btw: dont say it is overpowered, you really dont know what you are saying, if this ship is overpowered then whats the scimitar ? Ultra powered only because of the layout.....
**Nerf=Decreasing Ships Advantages
Interesting points.
I think, however, the whole desire for balance piece, is that if ships become too off balance from each other, then everyone will fly the token ship, for the faction they play, unless desiring a strong RP plot for their character.
As for contrasting this Avenger ship to the Scimitar, they are not in the same class, literally. The Scimitar is a "dreadnought", and the Avenger is a battle "cruiser." If the Avenger was a dreadnought, then I suppose it would not be able to equip the new "advanced communication array" which is for "cruisers." So for a cruiser, yeah, it's pretty OP.;)
What if you see that book cover all the time when reading the booK?
As I said in a previous post, the world of art and entertainment is translated subjectively. Even though I can appreciate the works of Expressionists and Impressionists, the next person in line could view them in an entirely different manner. Jackson Pollock's technique was all about motion, expression, and non representational work. If you didn't know the historical context of his pieces, you may not be able to appreciate Pollock's style.
I know people do not think game elements are art forms. When I went to college for web and graphic design, I learned part of my trade along side digital animators. We were all taught art history, color theory, elements of design, etc...
Within my personal and subjective perspective, I think the Avenger represents an anthology of different ship designs. You can see how the ship's design was influenced by the Armitage, Reconnaissance Science Vessel, and Intrepid. Seeing those qualities pulled together and fused by color makes the Avenger sing.
Does the Avenger need a variety of options? I am not sure. Some of the ships in "Star Trek: Online" do not have customizable options. Even though I think it would be neat to mix and match parts, I also do not think that such customization is absolute necessary.
"Beauty in things exists merely in the mind which contemplates them."
~ David Hume's Essays, Moral and Political, 1742
Well, I'm not sure. Somehow I don't really like the whole concept.
The design seems a bit uninspired and dull. Vesta'ish saucer, regent neck and pylons, fleet assault'ish hull and some new nacelles. Kinda meh frankenstein cruiser. But that's probably just me.
More importantly I don't find it well balanced. It does many things better, compared to competing ships, and only a few things worse. That's power creep in my book. Not as obvious as with the Scimitar, but still.
Instead of selling 'different', Cryptic is selling 'better'. That just won't work forever. And at some point it's going to be too ridiculous to ignore (for me the Scimitar is borderline already).
Still I have to admit I'm gonna be happy to see a few more starfleet vessels around again, instead of alien ships commanded by starfleet captains. Yes, it really bothers me a bit and damages whatever little bit of immersion is left. Again, that's probably just me.
In case you're wondering, I'm not talking from a competitive point of view. I couldn't care less about PvP.
I simply need well balanced and interesting content and game mechanics with lots of variety to enjoy a game and have fun. Some additions in the recent past weren't exactly helping with that.
You have railed so heavily against the ship's aesthetics, and how terrible Cryptic and its designers are, how else is anyone suppose to take that?
I can get being disappointed, I don't think either of their 2409 redux designs for the Akira quite hit the mark of the essence of that ship, and I said as much here, but I never responded with the level of unmitigated rage you have displayed over the issue.
The only person I think I have ever seen freak out more over a ship was that guy who about had a coronary over the Odyssey. That guy was pretty wound up, claiming it was the doom of the game and some other dire predictions. I don't think I have seen him post in forever, I hope he didn't kill himself over it. :rolleyes:
So what you are saying is that you are so butt-hurt that not everybody likes the ship to the point of insulting them and that you are insulted other people's opinions do not coincide with your own. Noted. I hope you don't kill yourself over it. :rolleyes:
You know why the Enterprise-D was destroyed at Generations? because some people hated the design ... in fact there was a Enterprise-D new refit design planned but since the ship was crashed we moved to the E.
... which just proves that ppl which are in charge of Star Trek (or STO in this case) have no taste (or idea about the philosophy behind it) when it comes to Starships.
Star Trek (starfleet) ships are different in design as generic human sci fi spaceships, but cryptics designers just throw elements of other sci fi universes together and think they made somethig "cool".
Star Trek is differnt to other Sci fi universes, because humans and the Federation is are based on a peaceful premise, which does directly reflect in their ship designs. THATS what most ppl in charge of Star Trek didn't catch. Maybe because there are always other ppl in charge and they seem to adopt their precursors mistakes and make them even worse.
My point was that since this design is so radical different, they should have come up with some alternatives for it, that's all i want.
Previous released ships got at least one alternative ship design, but if this "thing" is going to be the new standard of how Starfleet ships are supposed to look in STO, then Cryptics devs really haven't understood anything about Star Trek at all.
"...'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
the avenger hall is in about the same weight class as the old consitution and constelation classes. by the pictures of the new avenger that she is not much larger then the old constitution class but smaller then both the excelsior and the ambassador. the avenger's saucer look like the avertine's saucer with the exposed weapon ports of the defiant class. the deflector dish is one of a kind and the center was inspired be the early nx class. the bottom of engineering looks like a hybird of galaxy class and excelsior. the top look like ambassador class. the avenger's necells look tough then the ambassador necells avenger's slit neck looks different than any single neck. the slit neck is inspired be the oddy flag ship also the our side of the avenger's neck feel a a curved wall inspired front the deadulas and the consititution classes engineering halls. the 5 forward weapong slot feel like the frontal arc is the strongest weapons arc.
the aventer i see being a ship that starfleet wanted to have historical rote connections to all the major starfleet ships the nx class, the deadulas, the consititution, the excelior class, the ambaddador class, galaxy class, difiant class, avertine class, oddy class.
while the role of the avenger is that of a battle cruiser fills in in most the missing hole that starfleet has been missing ever since the retirement constitution class but there starfleet cruiser classes with more heavy halls and are tougher with more fedball 4x4 weapons layout. also the limited science 1 slot and officer on the cstore avenger and 2 slot and one officer in the fleet avenger does not completely replace the role of the old constitution role in the science department.
the avenger is not a constitution class but in the star trek online world that avenger is about as close to getting a tier 5 constitution class as cryptic was able to be allowed to make with a lot of inspiration from other class and one of i king or first of i kind deflector and necells.
thank you cryptic for designing the battle cruiser avenger class. a bigger to cbs for allowing star trek online to have then battle cruiser avenger class into star trek online.
ps the avenger battle cruiser needs to have a a klingon counter part how about adding the ka'vort battle cruiser maybe with the same weapon adn console layot but have a more kdf feel like commander engineering and commander tac and an enign sci and a universal lt?
Star Trek is differnt to other Sci fi universes, because humans and the Federation is are based on a peaceful premise, which does directly reflect in their ship designs.
...but, this is a video game.
Imagine playing a game in which the sole idea is peace keeping? rofl... As several Borg cubes fire on everyone's ship, I can only imagine players opening hailing frequencies and saying, "How about a hug?"
"Resistance is futile. We will add your infinite styles of hugs to our own."
Imagine playing a game in which the sole idea is peace keeping? rofl... As several Borg cubes fire on everyone's ship, I can only imagine players opening hailing frequencies and saying, "How about a hug?"
"Resistance is futile. We will add your infinite styles of hugs to our own."
Imagine playing a game in which the sole idea is peace keeping? rofl... As several Borg cubes fire on everyone's ship, I can only imagine players opening hailing frequencies and saying, "How about a hug?"
"Resistance is futile. We will add your infinite styles of hugs to our own."
oohh i would i would *jumps up and down* i would give them hug oh yes lots and lots of torpedo hugs ^_^
Sure the Scimitar is a Dreadnought but for such a big ship it is Op in this categorie comparable to all other ships. Good turnrate, Commander Tactical, 5 front weapons, 5 tactical Slots, 1 Hangar bay, cloaking device, talaron burst and good defense. This ship outdamaging escorts in no time if you know what you are doing but thats not part of the discussion.
If you start to talk about op in different ship classes such discussions never take an end.
Im talk about cryin because of shield modifer of 0.1 Advantage a discussion that starts because starfleet gets a new ship and kdf not. Players get jealous and search for Advantages then the word Overpowerd raises to the sky and nerfs getting started.
Like i said before every faction has their ships with their own Advantages and get new ones with new advanteges. If they get nerfed because of such reasons, ruins the Quality of game Content for all Players. And yes as a Starfleet Cruiser it is really strong but Overall not class specific no, Overall it has only an Advantage like many other ships. Thats like it should be if all where the same it goes boring.
Btw: I dont like some parts of the design aswell, mainly the nacelles but its ok. I dont like eve onlines ships because of the asymmetric design but you learn to like it
they arent using copper wires, they are using plasma magnetically contained in a conduit. bleed? clearly not much, at doesn't take many watts to create light like that, and the heat is magnetically contained. its the 24th century, they dont got to explain TRIBBLE. it works the way they outlined, period. it makes sense considering thier tech, you just dont like it. go ahead and come up with an explanation that makes more sense.
it is described that each emitter holds its own energy, and is its own capacitor. that is why they are able to hand it off. they dont generate it, but theres a large EPS trunk every ~10 or so emitters, and from there each emitter gets piped its own power. with such an unrestricted flow of plasma, its easy to see why they have the rate of fire that they do. they can only pass down what they first store per shot, they cant store an unlimited amount, thats why the more emitters hooked together the better. thats why smaller arrays cant compete, and we know they cant compete because they are never used if a larger array has a shot.
I don't really care about the rest of this, because basically my only point was that you can't know one way or the other how Star Trek ships are "really" built, since they aren't, you know, real. Broadly, my point is (as it has always been) that you aren't "right" about the "facts" you make up, because they are just assumptions in service to your aesthetic preferences. You are entitled to those, of course, they just have no more cachet than my opinions, especially since I'm at least as good at rationalizing my assumptions as you are.
That said, what you are NOT entitled to is spreading bad science. This whole phaser strip thing is literally anti-science. This isn't even a case of "well, it's plausible either way, so we can agree to disagree". It's simply a provably nonsensical proposition, exactly as if Okuda had said the Enterprise D is "faster in a dive" because of its front-heavy construction. Seriously, it's that bad.
Let me break it down -
First, the nature of the energy system is totally irrelevant to my point here. ANY energy transfer is going to be less than 100% efficient - meaning at least a tiny fraction of the energy is lost as heat. This is basic thermodynamics, and we know from events on the show that this still holds true. They talk about overheating and burning out conduits and emitters, LaForge is always trying to improve the eps efficiency, etc. We know that the power transfer isn't perfect, in other words. Even if the transfer was 100% efficient, that doesn't ADD power, it merely keeps it at the same level. The fact that they are described as capacitors just makes this even more clear - as I said, the only way more phaser emitters actually adds power is if each emitter is a generator, which you've already said is not the case. (As an aside, here's how ludicrous this is - if they have 100% or greater efficiency in their energy transfers, they have either perpetual motion machines, or an infinitely capable energy source.)
Second, the idea that each emitter is a capacitor with a limited capacity to hold charge again doesn't make a longer array more powerful than (say) building one really high capacity capacitor and pushing all that power through a single emitter. In fact, assuming the internal resistance of the capacitor was lower than the resistance of the eps conduits (which seems almost certain, since otherwise why are you using that material as a capacitor in the first place?), then you actually get more energy my way, since you lose less to bleed off and resistance. Again, even if there was no resistance at all, it means a larger array is merely equal to, not greater than, my alternative.
Third, you may come up with theoretical reasons why a single large capacitor wouldn't be feasible. Here are a few I can think of, and my pre-emptive responses:
"The power grind can't handle that much power all at once." This one sounds plausible, but is provably false, since the firing emitter manifestly CAN handle all the power being dumped through it, which means the underlying power systems must be able to handle that throughput, at least for a short duration. In other words, there's no good reason why the last emitter would be able to handle a big dump of power from many small sources any better than a single dump of power from a single source - when it gets to the last emitter, it's still just a large, instant burst of power.
"Large capacitors like that aren't feasible because..." This one is less good, but likely to come up. First it seems tough to argue that it is impossible to store that much energy, when that's already how the array is described as working - there's really no good reason I can think of why it wouldn't be equally possible to store the same amount of energy in a single capacitor of roughly the same volume (if not the same shape). Now, as was noted, we don't really know what the materials and engineering limitations are in Star Trek, so it's possible to invent a reason this won't work, but that would really just boil down to "I don't want to be wrong, so I techno-babbled up an objection". On face, there's no reason it couldn't work.
"The power system can't refill a large capacitor fast enough to maintain the rate of fire we see on the show". Okay, I apologize if this didn't occur to you, because it's pretty bad, but I'm trying to cover my bases. If you DO think this makes sense, I have an algebra riddle for you - assuming you have ten faucets that each pour a gallon a minute, how long will it take to fill ten one gallon balloons? Now, if you ran those ten faucets into a single ten gallon balloon, how long would it take to fill? Right.
I think you are making the same mistake that Okuda made when he wrote the tech manual. You are calling the emitters capacitors, but treating them like batteries or generators, both of which are problematic for different reasons. In any case, the science simply doesn't back up what was written, and it seems clear that it was less about providing a hard science basis for the weapon's function, and more about providing a "golly-gee ain't that cool" feeling. On the flip side, you did throw down the reasonable challenge to come up with an alternate explanation that makes as much sense, so here we go:
Fire arc. Nothing more, nothing less. The longer strip gives a wider fire arc, and thus makes sense. Why do they use the main arrays more often? Habit, probably. If they are only planning on firing a limited barrage, why muck about with anything else? If the main array has arc, just use that. It's sort of like asking why I use one route to go to work, when another is equally good - since there's no reason to prefer either one, I just go with the one I'm used to. There really doesn't have to be any more complicated reason than that.
Star Trek is differnt to other Sci fi universes, because humans and the Federation is are based on a peaceful premise, which does directly reflect in their ship designs.
Not anymore. in XXV Federation shipyards are building tac ships only
But to be serious: I started playing STO just half year ago. There was LoR coming and I was all happy, until about 30 lvl.
I assumed that there are major differences between fractions: Fed eng, KDF tac, Rom sci,
and that every fraction has core playable content, that allows players to take advantage of fraction specific. But there is no difference in way You play...
I know people do not think game elements are art forms. When I went to college for web and graphic design, I learned part of my trade along side digital animators. We were all taught art history, color theory, elements of design, etc...
Within my personal and subjective perspective, I think the Avenger represents an anthology of different ship designs. You can see how the ship's design was influenced by the Armitage, Reconnaissance Science Vessel, and Intrepid. Seeing those qualities pulled together and fused by color makes the Avenger sing.
Well, I agree... Your "reverse design" is quite accurate. But Av doesn't look like smooth extention of these concepts, more like eclectic freak...
You are probably correct, I see these inspirations, but as You should know, art is not math and in this case it just havn't gone well.
Sure the Scimitar is a Dreadnought but for such a big ship it is Op in this categorie comparable to all other ships. Good turnrate, Commander Tactical, 5 front weapons, 5 tactical Slots, 1 Hangar bay, cloaking device, talaron burst and good defense. This ship outdamaging escorts in no time if you know what you are doing but thats not part of the discussion.
If you start to talk about op in different ship classes such discussions never take an end.
Im talk about cryin because of shield modifer of 0.1 Advantage a discussion that starts because starfleet gets a new ship and kdf not. Players get jealous and search for Advantages then the word Overpowerd raises to the sky and nerfs getting started.
Like i said before every faction has their ships with their own Advantages and get new ones with new advanteges. If they get nerfed because of such reasons, ruins the Quality of game Content for all Players. And yes as a Starfleet Cruiser it is really strong but Overall not class specific no, Overall it has only an Advantage like many other ships. Thats like it should be if all where the same it goes boring.
Btw: I dont like some parts of the design aswell, mainly the nacelles but its ok. I dont like eve onlines ships because of the asymmetric design but you learn to like it
Ok, at first I did not consider replying, but since you repeated this a couple of times I somehow feel inclined to.
First of all get your facts straight - The ship was not nerfed. The Avenger got its test stats adjusted to the level the rest of the Starfleet T5 cruisers by the devs. even before it hit holodeck. Therefore it isn't a nerf, you can only nerf something that already has been released.
Also worth noting is that the ship had 12 consoles on the redshirt server. I assume you'd want that as well?
Second - the KDF players were not complaining about the ship having 1.2 shield mod. The KDF players are rightfully complaining about having their promised ship delayed due to ship artists being focused on S8 and Voth ships, while the Federation gets a new one out of the blue. It has nothing to do with the shield mod of the Avenger.
Third - if someone's complaints would have been influential for the so called "nerf" of this ship, which didn't happen, it would have been the complaints of Federation players and not KDF ones. Yes, the Federation players that felt this ship with that shield mod would make their cruisers obsolete, and to a certain point rightfully so.
But all of this doesn't matter because the ship didn't get nerfed, it's test stats got adjusted by the devs themselves. And frankly, anyone following the game for a longer time would know that Redshirt/Tribble test stats rarely make it out to Holodeck without being adjusted. That's the whole point of having a test server.
KDF doesn't seem to want ships, Cryptic added a bunch, hardly anyone purchased them. And then of course the KDF whine that its because their faction is so small. Then the even smaller Romulan faction comes out and the Scimitar is the best selling ship of all time, so that blows that out of the water.
all those kdf ships were sub tier 5, with no end game version that could even use the low level costume those ships came with. of course they didnt sell well. and becase of that they have been to scared to put any effort in to an end game kdf ship, that people would actually have a reason to buy. the bortas was TRIBBLE too, its turn rate due to its far to large a size ruined it
Here comes another punch into the KDF players faces.
No new KDF T5/Fleet ships since when?
Also i would like to ask when you developers think to release the KDF Version of Escort Carrier / Ar'Kif Tactical Carrier Warbird or maybe a 5 Fore Weapons ship?
I don't really care about the rest of this, because basically my only point was that you can't know one way or the other how Star Trek ships are "really" built, since they aren't, you know, real. Broadly, my point is (as it has always been) that you aren't "right" about the "facts" you make up, because they are just assumptions in service to your aesthetic preferences. You are entitled to those, of course, they just have no more cachet than my opinions, especially since I'm at least as good at rationalizing my assumptions as you are.
That said, what you are NOT entitled to is spreading bad science. This whole phaser strip thing is literally anti-science. This isn't even a case of "well, it's plausible either way, so we can agree to disagree". It's simply a provably nonsensical proposition, exactly as if Okuda had said the Enterprise D is "faster in a dive" because of its front-heavy construction. Seriously, it's that bad.
Let me break it down -
First, the nature of the energy system is totally irrelevant to my point here. ANY energy transfer is going to be less than 100% efficient - meaning at least a tiny fraction of the energy is lost as heat. This is basic thermodynamics, and we know from events on the show that this still holds true. They talk about overheating and burning out conduits and emitters, LaForge is always trying to improve the eps efficiency, etc. We know that the power transfer isn't perfect, in other words. Even if the transfer was 100% efficient, that doesn't ADD power, it merely keeps it at the same level. The fact that they are described as capacitors just makes this even more clear - as I said, the only way more phaser emitters actually adds power is if each emitter is a generator, which you've already said is not the case. (As an aside, here's how ludicrous this is - if they have 100% or greater efficiency in their energy transfers, they have either perpetual motion machines, or an infinitely capable energy source.)
Second, the idea that each emitter is a capacitor with a limited capacity to hold charge again doesn't make a longer array more powerful than (say) building one really high capacity capacitor and pushing all that power through a single emitter. In fact, assuming the internal resistance of the capacitor was lower than the resistance of the eps conduits (which seems almost certain, since otherwise why are you using that material as a capacitor in the first place?), then you actually get more energy my way, since you lose less to bleed off and resistance. Again, even if there was no resistance at all, it means a larger array is merely equal to, not greater than, my alternative.
Third, you may come up with theoretical reasons why a single large capacitor wouldn't be feasible. Here are a few I can think of, and my pre-emptive responses:
"The power grind can't handle that much power all at once." This one sounds plausible, but is provably false, since the firing emitter manifestly CAN handle all the power being dumped through it, which means the underlying power systems must be able to handle that throughput, at least for a short duration. In other words, there's no good reason why the last emitter would be able to handle a big dump of power from many small sources any better than a single dump of power from a single source - when it gets to the last emitter, it's still just a large, instant burst of power.
"Large capacitors like that aren't feasible because..." This one is less good, but likely to come up. First it seems tough to argue that it is impossible to store that much energy, when that's already how the array is described as working - there's really no good reason I can think of why it wouldn't be equally possible to store the same amount of energy in a single capacitor of roughly the same volume (if not the same shape). Now, as was noted, we don't really know what the materials and engineering limitations are in Star Trek, so it's possible to invent a reason this won't work, but that would really just boil down to "I don't want to be wrong, so I techno-babbled up an objection". On face, there's no reason it couldn't work.
"The power system can't refill a large capacitor fast enough to maintain the rate of fire we see on the show". Okay, I apologize if this didn't occur to you, because it's pretty bad, but I'm trying to cover my bases. If you DO think this makes sense, I have an algebra riddle for you - assuming you have ten faucets that each pour a gallon a minute, how long will it take to fill ten one gallon balloons? Now, if you ran those ten faucets into a single ten gallon balloon, how long would it take to fill? Right.
I think you are making the same mistake that Okuda made when he wrote the tech manual. You are calling the emitters capacitors, but treating them like batteries or generators, both of which are problematic for different reasons. In any case, the science simply doesn't back up what was written, and it seems clear that it was less about providing a hard science basis for the weapon's function, and more about providing a "golly-gee ain't that cool" feeling. On the flip side, you did throw down the reasonable challenge to come up with an alternate explanation that makes as much sense, so here we go:
Fire arc. Nothing more, nothing less. The longer strip gives a wider fire arc, and thus makes sense. Why do they use the main arrays more often? Habit, probably. If they are only planning on firing a limited barrage, why muck about with anything else? If the main array has arc, just use that. It's sort of like asking why I use one route to go to work, when another is equally good - since there's no reason to prefer either one, I just go with the one I'm used to. There really doesn't have to be any more complicated reason than that.
dude, im not Okuda, go email him this rant if you want to vent. im simply laying out the closest thing to a canon explanation for arrays. weather they make sense to you or not makes no difference. these are not my opinions, i dont have the luxury to come up with my own version of how they work, because its already plainly stated in a source book. thats good enough for me, because star trek is a piece of fiction anyway.
i try to make sense of 1 large capacitor, like you try to make sense of arrays. 1 large central capacitor for the whole system is the old way they did things with the ball turrets. they went to arrays because, well they must be better? 1 large capacitor would be a single point of failure too, and proboly something that generates a lot of heat in 1 concentrated area. with an ever growing need for more firepower, a central capacitor to run the weapons proboly became prohibitive for any number of reasons. needed to be to large, gave off to much heat, the tech didn't scale well after a point, etc. so they might have gone to multiple small and mid sized capacitors next. and before you know it, arrays themselves, made of 10, 20, 100, 200 emitters that each had a small capacitor in addition to their own ability to fire.
in addition to fireing at anything they have line of sight with, arrays arent going to have an overheating problem because they act as a giant heat sink, and they can just fire the next shot from a cooler location on the array.
they are from the future, their technology is magic to us. they bypass the rules of physics every day, dont have a coronary trying to disprove canon by apply modern science to it.
Miranda class, no engineering hull or Deflector Array and that is just Star Trek II, you can stubborn hold unto what you call "different in design as generic himan si fic spaceships" yet you are pushing exactly the same, all Star Trek Ships must look like the Enterprise and by Enterprise I mean the no Letter, A, C or D ... not the B, E or F ... oh no, not "those".
The miranda was a kitbash.
It didn't look like a battlestar or a ship from Star Wars. It still was consistent with the rest of Starfleet designs, but if you don't see the difference, i won't help you.
Oh really ... lets see, Ambassador? NOPE! ... Kamarag? NOPE! ... The entire Romulan Shipyard? NOPE!
Ah but you are going to say "but there are 2 variants on Romulan ships" thats bull, there is a C-Shop costume that exists so people dont confuse the 2 ships and even that doesnt apply to T5 Retrofits that look the same as the lower tiered ships.
3 Packs you say? again ... visual diferences so people dont confuse them, in fact I can go back and point out the Atrox that lacks "some alternatives", using older costumes is one thing ... attempting to make a T5 ship look like another T5 that have completely different specs is another and its been damn clear to me you just want to make this ship look like the Galaxy-X.
This ISNT the Galaxy-X, deal with it.
I was talking about older STO ships that came with STOs launch.
I know why i am so upset about that ship, but since you like that dung beetle what's your excuse to be so agressive?
"...'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
Actually this is what KDF battle cruisers should look like.
A lot of fore weapons, agile and with cloak. In general Klingons should be offensively oriented and the Federation defensively. But now the fed cruisers are pretty much more offensive than the kdf ones (Negh'Var or Vor'Cha). That's just wrong.
And I have to agree that some new KDF content is overdue. The Klingons could use more episodes, more uniforms, more ships/costumes.
I get my Facts from informations you People post and things what going on, on this Forum.
I dont talk about things what happened, rather the Kind how things get handled. You are if If i say nerf you know what i mean i said decreased aswell so dont turn this into ridicule. I dont tested the ship on the testservers and dont said anything that let you think that i do so.
**If you read clearly i said that the discussion of the decreasing stats starts because the kdf dont get their ship what you confirmed now. The same for your third i never said anything about that the kdf says anything about the "decrease" i repeated it many times that a few kdf Players are frustrated because they dont get their ship a discussion that surely starts on every ship release.
My english isnt the best but i repeated this aswell as clear as i can, im not interested in the changes itself, only how things get handled. I dont know which faction every Player is in but there where many many threads about the ship is too op to strong shields, before you guys changed the News and everything Yesterday. Then i read on sto gamepedia, in this Forum, and i heard from a discussion on the testserver through my fleet that the stats get changed because of some sort of community stuff.
Nevermind good to hear that shes ready and please im not the best in english but i read my writen words from the last Posts again and it says exactly that what i said again above.
dude, im not Okuda, go email him this rant if you want to vent. im simply laying out the closest thing to a canon explanation for arrays. weather they make sense to you or not makes no difference. these are not my opinions, i dont have the luxury to come up with my own version of how they work, because its already plainly stated in a source book. thats good enough for me, because star trek is a piece of fiction anyway.
I guess I simply don't see a single reason to consider that book to be canon, above and beyond the fact that I don't see a single reason to consider "canon" to be an important concept in the first place. Basically, you are arguing from a standpoint that we are "forced" to accept a nonsensical explanation because it's canon, and I can't understand why that should be so. It is actively anti-science, isn't needed to explain the existence of longer arrays, never becomes a plot point in the show, and begs more questions than it answers. So why keep it? In what way does it make Star Trek better?
i try to make sense of 1 large capacitor, like you try to make sense of arrays. 1 large central capacitor for the whole system is the old way they did things with the ball turrets. they went to arrays because, well they must be better? 1 large capacitor would be a single point of failure too, and proboly something that generates a lot of heat in 1 concentrated area. with an ever growing need for more firepower, a central capacitor to run the weapons proboly became prohibitive for any number of reasons. needed to be to large, gave off to much heat, the tech didn't scale well after a point, etc. so they might have gone to multiple small and mid sized capacitors next. and before you know it, arrays themselves, made of 10, 20, 100, 200 emitters that each had a small capacitor in addition to their own ability to fire.
Remember when I said you could come up with theoretical reasons why the engineering doesn't work, but that would be you just using technobabble to rationalize why you aren't wrong? Yeah, that's what this is. We aren't debating the science here, you are just making up reasons why the fake engineering might have to work in the fake way you want it to. We could play that game back and forth, but that sounds exhausting, especially since it would just boil down to who can imagine harder.
Here's a zinger for you, though. You assert that they went from turrets to strips, so that must mean the strips are better, right? Well, after the Galaxy, they went from longer strips to shorter ones, so, by the same logic, shorter must be better now, right? Note that again, for all that you can come up with reasons why that shouldn't be true, I can counter them with rationalizations of my own, but I'm not going to, because I'm not interested in proving you "wrong". I'm saying that I think the view you are supporting here is irrational magical thinking, and I feel like it does you and everyone else a disservice to say that we are incapable of using our reason to decide what makes sense.
they are from the future, their technology is magic to us. they bypass the rules of physics every day, dont have a coronary trying to disprove canon by apply modern science to it.
This. This is exactly what I was talking about - why should I sell myself short like this, when there's no reason to. Why should I accept this "magic" when it isn't an integral part of the show and runs actively counter to all established understanding of thermodynamics for no good reason? It's just like the Voyager episode "Threshold". It's so bad it actively diminishes the quality of the franchise, so I just do what Star Trek writers do - I ignore it, and pretend it never happened.
Comments
The game Needs space to grow, if the Players start everytime to cry on new ship releases we have still the same ships after years. The community must accept that this isnt the right way and stop to get jealous or whatever on each ship release.
I dont think that Players want to Play with the same ships, the same Content only in a new Color, with the same abilities, with the same stats, weapons and layouts for the rest of their lifes. If this trend doesnt stop the future of this game doesnt look well.
Yo dawg! I heard you like torpedoes, so we put a warhead in a warhead, so you can shoot torpedoes while you shoot torpedoes.
(in the figurative sense, of course)
My point is that a ship with such a radical different and polarizing design should have at least SOME alternatves , since it is not just a new ship.
It is the ship, most Cruiser Captains have been waiting for years and now Crpyitc presents us such a ugly bucket?
I just wonder why they made themsleves so much work, they already have the Excelsior as most offensive and ugliest Starfleet ship in the game, lol.
Why make another ugly offensive ship?
Just a reminder, Starfleet ships don't need to look ugly in order to be capable in combat, but maybe that's too complicated for some ppl.
My point is not that the Avenger is a ugly design, it is that we don't get any choices with it. Cryptics idea of starfleet ships goes into a complete wrong direction. They don't have to look like a Bulldog or a agricultural tractor. I am ok with it looking Armored and sturdy, but Cryptic exexaggerated its designs AGAIN and making it look almost cartoonish. (and they didn't even do that right, at least they should have made its saucer really wide to make it look impressive.)
As i said, i am ok with the ship looking bad, as long as we could have got some alternatives with it. Just look at the Intrepid variants we have in game, some look really bulky some do not, and that's what i do criticise here (the lack of choice).
Are Cryptics resources really that small nowadays compared to the times when they where making the Intrepid, for example?
Or is it just the lack of interest for Cruisers or the opinion that people will buy the new super ship anyways, no matter how it looks like?
Of course You are right!
But it is T4/T5 ship, so she has to be compared with T4/T5 ships.
It should has previous stats, but then it will be T6 ship (or overpowered T5).
I agree, that game needs to grow, but not in 50th level. It's crowded allready.
In overpowered matter: compare fleet Av with fleet Galaxy (or any other cruiser):
Boff - Av has better
consoles - Av has better (in DPS game which STO is)
turn - Av has better
inertia - Av has better
shield - same
hull - well Av has 6.25% less hull (!)
weapons - please...
There we go. I was waiting for that to pop up. I am not disappointed. I tip my hat to you, sir.
/tip_hat
Mine Trap Supporter
No, just no. First, all factions whine. Second, most KDF PvP and have to fight this ship. When it A) takes their typical style of play (battlecruisers) and then hands it to the enemy, only the Fed version outclasses ALL KDF battlecruisers; and
Lastly, KDF will never grow as a faction if their play styles are given to the enemy (battlecruisers) and their other ships are antiquidated beyond any hope of salvation (BOP line). Point in fact, a previous poster said he was going to invest in a KDF toon to play battlecruisers and now he doesn't have to. Power to him for being honest. It's the truth. I know I get my BOP playstyle fix with Romulans now. All KDF had were battlecruisers and Aceton Assimilator. Note I won't touch AAs, I find them way too cheesy.
What 5 tac KDF ship? Only the Bortas has that and its a blimp. Feds have several 5 tac ships. And sorry but this is Star Trek. A Galaxy cruiser isn't supposed to suck TRIBBLE.
cartoonish - that was that word i'm looking for
Ok i must correct myself, it's not as ugly as the Excelsior.
But still it looks deformed...
EDIT: is it just me, but from this angle the ship looks HUGE.
Maybe Cryptic should have made it equal in size as the Odyssey. I think that would have fit to it's bulky design much better IMO.
Interesting points.
I think, however, the whole desire for balance piece, is that if ships become too off balance from each other, then everyone will fly the token ship, for the faction they play, unless desiring a strong RP plot for their character.
As for contrasting this Avenger ship to the Scimitar, they are not in the same class, literally. The Scimitar is a "dreadnought", and the Avenger is a battle "cruiser." If the Avenger was a dreadnought, then I suppose it would not be able to equip the new "advanced communication array" which is for "cruisers." So for a cruiser, yeah, it's pretty OP.;)
I know people do not think game elements are art forms. When I went to college for web and graphic design, I learned part of my trade along side digital animators. We were all taught art history, color theory, elements of design, etc...
Within my personal and subjective perspective, I think the Avenger represents an anthology of different ship designs. You can see how the ship's design was influenced by the Armitage, Reconnaissance Science Vessel, and Intrepid. Seeing those qualities pulled together and fused by color makes the Avenger sing.
Does the Avenger need a variety of options? I am not sure. Some of the ships in "Star Trek: Online" do not have customizable options. Even though I think it would be neat to mix and match parts, I also do not think that such customization is absolute necessary.
The design seems a bit uninspired and dull. Vesta'ish saucer, regent neck and pylons, fleet assault'ish hull and some new nacelles. Kinda meh frankenstein cruiser. But that's probably just me.
More importantly I don't find it well balanced. It does many things better, compared to competing ships, and only a few things worse. That's power creep in my book. Not as obvious as with the Scimitar, but still.
Instead of selling 'different', Cryptic is selling 'better'. That just won't work forever. And at some point it's going to be too ridiculous to ignore (for me the Scimitar is borderline already).
Still I have to admit I'm gonna be happy to see a few more starfleet vessels around again, instead of alien ships commanded by starfleet captains. Yes, it really bothers me a bit and damages whatever little bit of immersion is left. Again, that's probably just me.
In case you're wondering, I'm not talking from a competitive point of view. I couldn't care less about PvP.
I simply need well balanced and interesting content and game mechanics with lots of variety to enjoy a game and have fun. Some additions in the recent past weren't exactly helping with that.
So what you are saying is that you are so butt-hurt that not everybody likes the ship to the point of insulting them and that you are insulted other people's opinions do not coincide with your own. Noted. I hope you don't kill yourself over it. :rolleyes:
Star Trek (starfleet) ships are different in design as generic human sci fi spaceships, but cryptics designers just throw elements of other sci fi universes together and think they made somethig "cool".
Star Trek is differnt to other Sci fi universes, because humans and the Federation is are based on a peaceful premise, which does directly reflect in their ship designs. THATS what most ppl in charge of Star Trek didn't catch. Maybe because there are always other ppl in charge and they seem to adopt their precursors mistakes and make them even worse.
My point was that since this design is so radical different, they should have come up with some alternatives for it, that's all i want.
Previous released ships got at least one alternative ship design, but if this "thing" is going to be the new standard of how Starfleet ships are supposed to look in STO, then Cryptics devs really haven't understood anything about Star Trek at all.
the aventer i see being a ship that starfleet wanted to have historical rote connections to all the major starfleet ships the nx class, the deadulas, the consititution, the excelior class, the ambaddador class, galaxy class, difiant class, avertine class, oddy class.
while the role of the avenger is that of a battle cruiser fills in in most the missing hole that starfleet has been missing ever since the retirement constitution class but there starfleet cruiser classes with more heavy halls and are tougher with more fedball 4x4 weapons layout. also the limited science 1 slot and officer on the cstore avenger and 2 slot and one officer in the fleet avenger does not completely replace the role of the old constitution role in the science department.
the avenger is not a constitution class but in the star trek online world that avenger is about as close to getting a tier 5 constitution class as cryptic was able to be allowed to make with a lot of inspiration from other class and one of i king or first of i kind deflector and necells.
thank you cryptic for designing the battle cruiser avenger class. a bigger to cbs for allowing star trek online to have then battle cruiser avenger class into star trek online.
ps the avenger battle cruiser needs to have a a klingon counter part how about adding the ka'vort battle cruiser maybe with the same weapon adn console layot but have a more kdf feel like commander engineering and commander tac and an enign sci and a universal lt?
Imagine playing a game in which the sole idea is peace keeping? rofl... As several Borg cubes fire on everyone's ship, I can only imagine players opening hailing frequencies and saying, "How about a hug?"
"Resistance is futile. We will add your infinite styles of hugs to our own."
You didn't watch the show very much did you?
oohh i would i would *jumps up and down* i would give them hug oh yes lots and lots of torpedo hugs ^_^
If you start to talk about op in different ship classes such discussions never take an end.
Im talk about cryin because of shield modifer of 0.1 Advantage a discussion that starts because starfleet gets a new ship and kdf not. Players get jealous and search for Advantages then the word Overpowerd raises to the sky and nerfs getting started.
Like i said before every faction has their ships with their own Advantages and get new ones with new advanteges. If they get nerfed because of such reasons, ruins the Quality of game Content for all Players. And yes as a Starfleet Cruiser it is really strong but Overall not class specific no, Overall it has only an Advantage like many other ships. Thats like it should be if all where the same it goes boring.
Btw: I dont like some parts of the design aswell, mainly the nacelles but its ok. I dont like eve onlines ships because of the asymmetric design but you learn to like it
rofl...
*gives it to beerxhyper*
Put it in the torpedo chamber and fire when ready.
I don't really care about the rest of this, because basically my only point was that you can't know one way or the other how Star Trek ships are "really" built, since they aren't, you know, real. Broadly, my point is (as it has always been) that you aren't "right" about the "facts" you make up, because they are just assumptions in service to your aesthetic preferences. You are entitled to those, of course, they just have no more cachet than my opinions, especially since I'm at least as good at rationalizing my assumptions as you are.
That said, what you are NOT entitled to is spreading bad science. This whole phaser strip thing is literally anti-science. This isn't even a case of "well, it's plausible either way, so we can agree to disagree". It's simply a provably nonsensical proposition, exactly as if Okuda had said the Enterprise D is "faster in a dive" because of its front-heavy construction. Seriously, it's that bad.
Let me break it down -
First, the nature of the energy system is totally irrelevant to my point here. ANY energy transfer is going to be less than 100% efficient - meaning at least a tiny fraction of the energy is lost as heat. This is basic thermodynamics, and we know from events on the show that this still holds true. They talk about overheating and burning out conduits and emitters, LaForge is always trying to improve the eps efficiency, etc. We know that the power transfer isn't perfect, in other words. Even if the transfer was 100% efficient, that doesn't ADD power, it merely keeps it at the same level. The fact that they are described as capacitors just makes this even more clear - as I said, the only way more phaser emitters actually adds power is if each emitter is a generator, which you've already said is not the case. (As an aside, here's how ludicrous this is - if they have 100% or greater efficiency in their energy transfers, they have either perpetual motion machines, or an infinitely capable energy source.)
Second, the idea that each emitter is a capacitor with a limited capacity to hold charge again doesn't make a longer array more powerful than (say) building one really high capacity capacitor and pushing all that power through a single emitter. In fact, assuming the internal resistance of the capacitor was lower than the resistance of the eps conduits (which seems almost certain, since otherwise why are you using that material as a capacitor in the first place?), then you actually get more energy my way, since you lose less to bleed off and resistance. Again, even if there was no resistance at all, it means a larger array is merely equal to, not greater than, my alternative.
Third, you may come up with theoretical reasons why a single large capacitor wouldn't be feasible. Here are a few I can think of, and my pre-emptive responses:
"The power grind can't handle that much power all at once." This one sounds plausible, but is provably false, since the firing emitter manifestly CAN handle all the power being dumped through it, which means the underlying power systems must be able to handle that throughput, at least for a short duration. In other words, there's no good reason why the last emitter would be able to handle a big dump of power from many small sources any better than a single dump of power from a single source - when it gets to the last emitter, it's still just a large, instant burst of power.
"Large capacitors like that aren't feasible because..." This one is less good, but likely to come up. First it seems tough to argue that it is impossible to store that much energy, when that's already how the array is described as working - there's really no good reason I can think of why it wouldn't be equally possible to store the same amount of energy in a single capacitor of roughly the same volume (if not the same shape). Now, as was noted, we don't really know what the materials and engineering limitations are in Star Trek, so it's possible to invent a reason this won't work, but that would really just boil down to "I don't want to be wrong, so I techno-babbled up an objection". On face, there's no reason it couldn't work.
"The power system can't refill a large capacitor fast enough to maintain the rate of fire we see on the show". Okay, I apologize if this didn't occur to you, because it's pretty bad, but I'm trying to cover my bases. If you DO think this makes sense, I have an algebra riddle for you - assuming you have ten faucets that each pour a gallon a minute, how long will it take to fill ten one gallon balloons? Now, if you ran those ten faucets into a single ten gallon balloon, how long would it take to fill? Right.
I think you are making the same mistake that Okuda made when he wrote the tech manual. You are calling the emitters capacitors, but treating them like batteries or generators, both of which are problematic for different reasons. In any case, the science simply doesn't back up what was written, and it seems clear that it was less about providing a hard science basis for the weapon's function, and more about providing a "golly-gee ain't that cool" feeling. On the flip side, you did throw down the reasonable challenge to come up with an alternate explanation that makes as much sense, so here we go:
Fire arc. Nothing more, nothing less. The longer strip gives a wider fire arc, and thus makes sense. Why do they use the main arrays more often? Habit, probably. If they are only planning on firing a limited barrage, why muck about with anything else? If the main array has arc, just use that. It's sort of like asking why I use one route to go to work, when another is equally good - since there's no reason to prefer either one, I just go with the one I'm used to. There really doesn't have to be any more complicated reason than that.
Not anymore. in XXV Federation shipyards are building tac ships only
But to be serious: I started playing STO just half year ago. There was LoR coming and I was all happy, until about 30 lvl.
I assumed that there are major differences between fractions: Fed eng, KDF tac, Rom sci,
and that every fraction has core playable content, that allows players to take advantage of fraction specific. But there is no difference in way You play...
Well, I agree... Your "reverse design" is quite accurate. But Av doesn't look like smooth extention of these concepts, more like eclectic freak...
You are probably correct, I see these inspirations, but as You should know, art is not math and in this case it just havn't gone well.
That are only opinions!
Ok, at first I did not consider replying, but since you repeated this a couple of times I somehow feel inclined to.
First of all get your facts straight - The ship was not nerfed. The Avenger got its test stats adjusted to the level the rest of the Starfleet T5 cruisers by the devs. even before it hit holodeck. Therefore it isn't a nerf, you can only nerf something that already has been released.
Also worth noting is that the ship had 12 consoles on the redshirt server. I assume you'd want that as well?
Second - the KDF players were not complaining about the ship having 1.2 shield mod. The KDF players are rightfully complaining about having their promised ship delayed due to ship artists being focused on S8 and Voth ships, while the Federation gets a new one out of the blue. It has nothing to do with the shield mod of the Avenger.
Third - if someone's complaints would have been influential for the so called "nerf" of this ship, which didn't happen, it would have been the complaints of Federation players and not KDF ones. Yes, the Federation players that felt this ship with that shield mod would make their cruisers obsolete, and to a certain point rightfully so.
But all of this doesn't matter because the ship didn't get nerfed, it's test stats got adjusted by the devs themselves. And frankly, anyone following the game for a longer time would know that Redshirt/Tribble test stats rarely make it out to Holodeck without being adjusted. That's the whole point of having a test server.
all those kdf ships were sub tier 5, with no end game version that could even use the low level costume those ships came with. of course they didnt sell well. and becase of that they have been to scared to put any effort in to an end game kdf ship, that people would actually have a reason to buy. the bortas was TRIBBLE too, its turn rate due to its far to large a size ruined it
No new KDF T5/Fleet ships since when?
Also i would like to ask when you developers think to release the KDF Version of Escort Carrier / Ar'Kif Tactical Carrier Warbird or maybe a 5 Fore Weapons ship?
dude, im not Okuda, go email him this rant if you want to vent. im simply laying out the closest thing to a canon explanation for arrays. weather they make sense to you or not makes no difference. these are not my opinions, i dont have the luxury to come up with my own version of how they work, because its already plainly stated in a source book. thats good enough for me, because star trek is a piece of fiction anyway.
i try to make sense of 1 large capacitor, like you try to make sense of arrays. 1 large central capacitor for the whole system is the old way they did things with the ball turrets. they went to arrays because, well they must be better? 1 large capacitor would be a single point of failure too, and proboly something that generates a lot of heat in 1 concentrated area. with an ever growing need for more firepower, a central capacitor to run the weapons proboly became prohibitive for any number of reasons. needed to be to large, gave off to much heat, the tech didn't scale well after a point, etc. so they might have gone to multiple small and mid sized capacitors next. and before you know it, arrays themselves, made of 10, 20, 100, 200 emitters that each had a small capacitor in addition to their own ability to fire.
in addition to fireing at anything they have line of sight with, arrays arent going to have an overheating problem because they act as a giant heat sink, and they can just fire the next shot from a cooler location on the array.
they are from the future, their technology is magic to us. they bypass the rules of physics every day, dont have a coronary trying to disprove canon by apply modern science to it.
The miranda was a kitbash.
It didn't look like a battlestar or a ship from Star Wars. It still was consistent with the rest of Starfleet designs, but if you don't see the difference, i won't help you.
The Defiant was a lame try to make Star Trek different, by ppl wanting to imitate another show.
Yeah, bullets. very common in the 24th cenutry... lol
No i just want a ship that doesn't look like a dung beetle. But cryptics "Designers" obviously seem to think the uglier the stronger in battle.
I was talking about older STO ships that came with STOs launch.
I know why i am so upset about that ship, but since you like that dung beetle what's your excuse to be so agressive?
A lot of fore weapons, agile and with cloak. In general Klingons should be offensively oriented and the Federation defensively. But now the fed cruisers are pretty much more offensive than the kdf ones (Negh'Var or Vor'Cha). That's just wrong.
And I have to agree that some new KDF content is overdue. The Klingons could use more episodes, more uniforms, more ships/costumes.
I get my Facts from informations you People post and things what going on, on this Forum.
I dont talk about things what happened, rather the Kind how things get handled. You are if If i say nerf you know what i mean i said decreased aswell so dont turn this into ridicule. I dont tested the ship on the testservers and dont said anything that let you think that i do so.
**If you read clearly i said that the discussion of the decreasing stats starts because the kdf dont get their ship what you confirmed now. The same for your third i never said anything about that the kdf says anything about the "decrease" i repeated it many times that a few kdf Players are frustrated because they dont get their ship a discussion that surely starts on every ship release.
My english isnt the best but i repeated this aswell as clear as i can, im not interested in the changes itself, only how things get handled. I dont know which faction every Player is in but there where many many threads about the ship is too op to strong shields, before you guys changed the News and everything Yesterday. Then i read on sto gamepedia, in this Forum, and i heard from a discussion on the testserver through my fleet that the stats get changed because of some sort of community stuff.
Nevermind good to hear that shes ready and please im not the best in english but i read my writen words from the last Posts again and it says exactly that what i said again above.
I guess I simply don't see a single reason to consider that book to be canon, above and beyond the fact that I don't see a single reason to consider "canon" to be an important concept in the first place. Basically, you are arguing from a standpoint that we are "forced" to accept a nonsensical explanation because it's canon, and I can't understand why that should be so. It is actively anti-science, isn't needed to explain the existence of longer arrays, never becomes a plot point in the show, and begs more questions than it answers. So why keep it? In what way does it make Star Trek better?
Remember when I said you could come up with theoretical reasons why the engineering doesn't work, but that would be you just using technobabble to rationalize why you aren't wrong? Yeah, that's what this is. We aren't debating the science here, you are just making up reasons why the fake engineering might have to work in the fake way you want it to. We could play that game back and forth, but that sounds exhausting, especially since it would just boil down to who can imagine harder.
Here's a zinger for you, though. You assert that they went from turrets to strips, so that must mean the strips are better, right? Well, after the Galaxy, they went from longer strips to shorter ones, so, by the same logic, shorter must be better now, right? Note that again, for all that you can come up with reasons why that shouldn't be true, I can counter them with rationalizations of my own, but I'm not going to, because I'm not interested in proving you "wrong". I'm saying that I think the view you are supporting here is irrational magical thinking, and I feel like it does you and everyone else a disservice to say that we are incapable of using our reason to decide what makes sense.
This. This is exactly what I was talking about - why should I sell myself short like this, when there's no reason to. Why should I accept this "magic" when it isn't an integral part of the show and runs actively counter to all established understanding of thermodynamics for no good reason? It's just like the Voyager episode "Threshold". It's so bad it actively diminishes the quality of the franchise, so I just do what Star Trek writers do - I ignore it, and pretend it never happened.