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.
Let me try to explain what happened.
The stats of the Avenger that everyone discussed about were ones taken from people participating in the Redshirt test server. (I'm not on it btw)
Now as it is with every ship - when a ship makes it to the test server, especially Redshirt server and not Tribble server they usually have some wonky non-realistic stats. I'm not sure why is this, I personally assume because it's of primary concern for the designers to see how a new ship interacts with the environment of the game before they resort to tweaking the stats.
So like I said, this ship has some ridiculous stats. It had 5 tac.consoles 5 engi.consoles and 2 science consoles. It also had a strange shield mod. of 1.21 for the fleet version. I mean, why not round it at 1.20, why 1.21?
So what happened is the devs. after testing the ship and seing that it interacts with the game environment in STO without any issues and bugs, decided that it's ready for release and than tweaked those strange stats. Not because anyone complained, be it KDF, Feds or Roms, but because they intended to do it anyway before they release it.
They wouldn't release a ship with 12 consoles under no circumistances and the shield mod of 1.21 was putting it over all the rest of Starfleet cruisers. I don't understand the reasoning behind decreasing the crew though, the devs. probably felt that 500 is more apropriate for a cruiser of this size.
Being a battlecruiser, the Avenger is not suposed to be shield tanking, but have other perks that she has - like the best cruiser turn rate on the Fed. side, 5/3 weapon layout and ability to mount DHC.
So all I'm trying to say is - you got the wrong impression about this. The ship didn't get nerfed, it got reasonably adjusted before release. Yes, people complained (as always), but this didn't happen because anyone complained, but because it was planned before and the right thing to do.
Don't get me wrong, I was loving the 1.21 shield mod. as well, but I'm being realistic and when i saw it I already knew that the chances of it being released on holodeck with 1.21 shield mod were like 1%.
I'd like to see a one vs one PVP fight between this Battle cruiser and the mighty Scimitar.
One day Cryptic will be free from their Perfect World overlord. Until that day comes, they will continue to pamper the whales of this game, and ignore everyone that isn't a whale.
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.
what ships?
last thing added was a dead whale bortasq even the oddy has better turning
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 guess i dont understand why you care at all, if you just reject canon as nonsense. why debate someone who is citing canon and practically canon information if all your going to say is its all BS? there is no discussion to be had at all. trek is trek, its not what you think they should have done.
also, no ship had arrays as big or bigger then the galaxy and nebula, because no canon ship is bigger then the galaxy. in fact, no canon ship is even half the volume of a galaxy. longer arrays would be impossible
LMAO!! I love it hove you say "cowardly". I invite you to enter Ker'rat with any BoP, but not to use the cloak. Let's see where that gets you.
And I think complaining about "cowardly" Klingons that cloak is so last season now that we have Romulans that can battlecloak anyhting, don't you agree?
i guess i dont understand why you care at all, if you just reject canon as nonsense. why debate someone who is citing canon and practically canon information if all your going to say is its all BS? there is no discussion to be had at all. trek is trek, its not what you think they should have done.
also, no ship had arrays as big or bigger then the galaxy and nebula, because no canon ship is bigger then the galaxy. in fact, no canon ship is even half the volume of a galaxy. longer arrays would be impossible
First of all, I care because I see silly things like this being repeated ad nauseam on the boards as if they were somehow "true", and I think in general it's bad practice to claim that untruths and opinions are somehow objective facts. More personally, I find that Trek is at its best when it tries to hew more closely to what is scientifically possible/known, and at its worst when it indulges in inane magical thinking in the guise of technobabble. That's not to say I won't suspend disbelief, because I will, especially when doing so allows for better, more interesting stories. I won't beef about warp drive, for example, because the show would be obviously impossible without it.
Thus, I don't just reject canon as nonsense out of hand, I reject the parts of canon that I think are stupid. For example, did you know that if you go too fast, you turn into a lizard? Yeah. I didn't know that, because that whole episode may as well not exist, as far as I'm concerned. To me, "canon" only matters when it serves the needs of the story (and that story is good). Otherwise, I'm apathetic, unless it crosses a certain *ahem* threshold of stupidity, then I simply ignore it, in exactly the same way Star Trek writers do. I would argue that in this sense, my loose, flexible understanding of canon is probably closer to the actual practice of the show than a more doctrinaire approach. I mean, heck, what are we, Voth?
As for the arrays thing, two things immediately occur to me. First, volume =/= surface area (In fact, volume doesn't necessarily mean much of anything - not necessarily more power, not necessarily more durability, not even necessarily more mass). Critically, though, phaser length is actually a function of available surface area, and not volume in any case. Certainly there are ships which could conceivably have a longer strip on a "smaller" chassis. They just don't.
And that bring up point two, which is that you missed my point completely. You asserted that strips must be better than the previous ball turret model (which you assume means more powerful, I guess), and used the tautological reasoning of "they switched to them because they are better, because if they weren't better they wouldn't have switched to them". My point is that same "reasoning" applies to later ships - they certainly COULD design bigger ships with longer strips, or longer strips on smaller ships (especially for ships that are intended for a main-line combat role), but they don't. Why? I submit that it must be true that shorter strips are now better (which I guess means more powerful), because later designs switched to them, because if they weren't better they wouldn't have done that. It's obviously terrible logic, I know. That was my point.
I know it's hard to get PWE to invest money into designing new Klingon ships, but wouldn't it be possible to convert some of the existing Orion, Fek'iri and nausican NPC ships into player ships, instead?
Also. It would be nice to have 'neck' variants for the Avenger, or at least remodel it. That's the only part of the ship I think makes no since at all when considering what Starfleet supposedly said about starship vulnerability. (Including the men that designed Sovereign class for the First Contact movie and so on). With the ship being so compact in design, the spit neck just kills the purpose of why the ship was built in the first place aesthetically and practically. Just my opinion. (Not sure if this was said many time before or not.)
Also. It would be nice to have 'neck' variants for the Avenger, or at least remodel it. That's the only part of the ship I think makes no since at all when considering what Starfleet supposedly said about starship vulnerability. (Including the men that designed Sovereign class for the First Contact movie and so on). With the ship being so compact in design, the spit neck just kills the purpose of why the ship was built in the first place aesthetically and practically. Just my opinion. (Not sure if this was said many time before or not.)
There is a neck variant that's singular as far as I know.
Also. It would be nice to have 'neck' variants for the Avenger, or at least remodel it. That's the only part of the ship I think makes no since at all when considering what Starfleet supposedly said about starship vulnerability. (Including the men that designed Sovereign class for the First Contact movie and so on). With the ship being so compact in design, the spit neck just kills the purpose of why the ship was built in the first place aesthetically and practically. Just my opinion. (Not sure if this was said many time before or not.)
I fully agree with you.
After looking at the ships design for a while i have noticed that the neck not just doesn't make much sense it also makes the ship too high and to compressed (=short) looking.
I think if there would be a option to remove the neck and connect Engineering hull and saucer directly the ship could look much better.
Additionally from a side long drawn-out neck makes the ship look like a coal brick which is totally unneeded.
Another thing are the pylons, althrough the nacelles ar on the right position for being fore swept, the pylons themselves are placed to far to the bow (at least when using the swept up version).
"...'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
First of all, I care because I see silly things like this being repeated ad nauseam on the boards as if they were somehow "true", and I think in general it's bad practice to claim that untruths and opinions are somehow objective facts. More personally, I find that Trek is at its best when it tries to hew more closely to what is scientifically possible/known, and at its worst when it indulges in inane magical thinking in the guise of technobabble. That's not to say I won't suspend disbelief, because I will, especially when doing so allows for better, more interesting stories. I won't beef about warp drive, for example, because the show would be obviously impossible without it.
Thus, I don't just reject canon as nonsense out of hand, I reject the parts of canon that I think are stupid. For example, did you know that if you go too fast, you turn into a lizard? Yeah. I didn't know that, because that whole episode may as well not exist, as far as I'm concerned. To me, "canon" only matters when it serves the needs of the story (and that story is good). Otherwise, I'm apathetic, unless it crosses a certain *ahem* threshold of stupidity, then I simply ignore it, in exactly the same way Star Trek writers do. I would argue that in this sense, my loose, flexible understanding of canon is probably closer to the actual practice of the show than a more doctrinaire approach. I mean, heck, what are we, Voth?
As for the arrays thing, two things immediately occur to me. First, volume =/= surface area (In fact, volume doesn't necessarily mean much of anything - not necessarily more power, not necessarily more durability, not even necessarily more mass). Critically, though, phaser length is actually a function of available surface area, and not volume in any case. Certainly there are ships which could conceivably have a longer strip on a "smaller" chassis. They just don't.
And that bring up point two, which is that you missed my point completely. You asserted that strips must be better than the previous ball turret model (which you assume means more powerful, I guess), and used the tautological reasoning of "they switched to them because they are better, because if they weren't better they wouldn't have switched to them". My point is that same "reasoning" applies to later ships - they certainly COULD design bigger ships with longer strips, or longer strips on smaller ships (especially for ships that are intended for a main-line combat role), but they don't. Why? I submit that it must be true that shorter strips are now better (which I guess means more powerful), because later designs switched to them, because if they weren't better they wouldn't have done that. It's obviously terrible logic, I know. That was my point.
its bad form to recite what the tech manual says, that must be what you mean, because the basic function of arrays are explained how i have described, with no opinion added in to spice it up. theres the glowing effect in the show, the description of the emitters and their components, the bit about how they are all individually powered and act as capacitors, and how they shunt their power down the array to the point that actually fired. that is in the book, that is seen on screen, that is not embellished.
if theres going to be any sort of serious debate about ships and their capabilities, this is the information you have to adhere too or all your doing is saying this ships the best because its my favorite. theres not that much good solid info to benchmark anything, what there is frankly sucks and makes no sense, but this is what there is, and im not going to just dismiss it.
volume gives you the best idea of how much room there is for stuff. the sovereign is longer then a galaxy class, but it has less volume, or space for stuff, then just a galaxy's saucer section alone. no ship has the vast surface, or % of total ship devoted to the saucer that the galaxy has too, so its the only thing that can mount an array that long. a ship would need to have an even larger saucer to have a larger array, and if it was smaller then the galaxy, an even higher % of the ship would have to be the saucer. why arent there any zig zag arrays? why are they all a soft curve? these are actual good questions. why arent there longer arrays is answered by the fact that there are no larger ships or ships with more array mountable surface.
and why isn't there a ship bigger then the galaxy with an even longer array by the end of canon? because the galaxy was built to last 100 years as a class, and for at least 50 years serve as the largest class in the fleet. there was no need, and they didn't, build anything aproching its size. instead, throughout tng, ds9 and voy, you saw smaller and mid sized ships created, filling out the fleet. this here is the reasoning of least resistance.
However at even the lowest estimate its still mush bigger that the Galaxy class, unless we discount DS9 as non-canon.
i am of course referring to federation ships, theres a laundry list of ships bigger, and MUCH bigger then the galaxy. none of which are federation made and use phaser arrays though.
Regarding Beam Array shape and specifications, STO already broke other "rules" like "Nacelles must see each other" to generate the warp field (this was the lore reason for the odd shape of the Enterprise Nacelles and also why D'Deridex Warbirds had the hole in the center, to allow the Nacelles to "see" each other) and so on.
I am all for taking liberties when it adds to gameplay, but some more respect to Trek tech and lore would really enhance the experience for Trekkies and those who might become fans through STO. It is not as if it would be impossible for artists to do that or too much limiting them.
STO didn't break that rule, DS9 did...actually they murdered it by placing the entire ship between the nacelles.
Frankly as that rule was just something Roddenberry inserted to kick Franz Joseph out, I choose to ignore that. That and the even number of nacelles rule (Which All Good Things killed).
The nacelles are there to produce a warp field. Seeing as how that warp field has to envelope the whole ship, the idea that it's impossible to design a ship with anything between them is a little weird. Especially when the Bird of Prey doesn't even have any obvious nacelles (I know it's the wings, which is awesome). That said, I love the unique design it created in the D'Deridex to follow that rule. On that note, I would like to beg Cryptic to put the Vertically aligned Warbird into the game, it's looks so AWESOME http://i508.photobucket.com/albums/s330/Back_Alley_Brawler/verticalwarbird1.jpg
I was just about to buy c-store and fleet Defiant when Avenger's stats showed up.
Comparing this ships I can tell that Av is just escort with more hull than turn rate.
C-store version is in my opinion fine, only one sci console - it's this ship major flaw - and it's ok, every ship should have it's week point. On the other hand, fleet Av has 2 sci slots, so (again, only in my own opinion) is slightly overpowered. Comparing to Def - it has same stats, except +/- hull and turn , but has 5-th DHC slot. Good thing it has not cmd tactical station.
The edge is: is VATA something like Bio Warhead or is it effective weapon? In my case it could be "to buy or not to buy" :rolleyes:
Other Av disadvantage is (again: ONLY IN MY OPINION) it's look. I don't like it, and here is why. Av has been designed as one of new "odyssey line" ship. I feel like it is not a good direction. Ody is not quite 'star trek design" (I know it's fun-made, it's not the point). All Fed cruisers (but not only) line since Constitution to Sovereign has flat saucer and Ody has some wird bulk on top of it. It looks kinda made from plasticine. It's the same with Av and she has even split neck!
In ST canon there was not-quite-standard-design ships, like Constellation or Cheyenne Class (I know, that many people loves them). But it was brief trend in early 24th century.
I hope that "split neck" and "bulked 2 hull" is only brief trend of 25th century, not main line.
Don't get me wrong - Oddy and Av are acceptable, but I think that main future design direction should be Regent. Despite fact I'm hardcore TNG fan, I see Regent as natural succesor (in way she looks) of all Fed cruisers line. Comparied to that Oddy and Av looks to me as funfic (not far from truth). I'm not saing we should throw them away, but my hope is, that their design line is result of Fed eng serching for new tech, (some like beta testers of new tech) not standard matrix for 25th century ships.
P.s. sorry for my english
I'm not a fan of the split neck design theory (and I really don't see how it's supposed to be transitionary between the Enterprise-E and on the path to the Enterprise-J) {Truthfully I'm not a huge fan of the J to begin with though :rolleyes:}, but I can forgive that. But as a matter of visual design I don't see the point of the chunky deflector dish section. It looks almost Hirogen in style.
The weird bulk that appears on the top of the hull of the Odyssey and Avenger are also present on the Sovereign class, it's just more subtle. That type of bulk goes back to the Galaxy, where the Bulk on top of the saucer that flared out to the aft was the Main Shuttlebay. It's the same on the Sovereign, though on the Sovereign I feel it's an aesthetic that resembles old school battleship command towers. The two connection points of the neck on the saucer on either side of the bridge are actually a design decision from the Akira, where it was decided (If I recall correctly Alex Jaeger designed the Akira) that the pontoons/pylons were placed there to provide side protection to the bridge.
It's very closely related to an approved Sovereign draft. (It was pulled because Eaves and the Producers realized that it looked kind of like a chicken...I still like it though).
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
That basically means that they got the Scimitar perfect. It was in Nemesis a flying curbstomp machine. We should consider ourselves fortunate that crew has so little impact on the game. If it was, then based on the fact that they are half organic and incapable of functioning without their organic parts, the Scimitar should be more than capable of one shotting every Borg vessel that gets in its way, Thalaron style.
"Rise like Lions after slumber, In unvanquishable number, Shake your chains to earth like dew, Which in sleep had fallen on you-Ye are many they are few"
its bad form to recite what the tech manual says, that must be what you mean, because the basic function of arrays are explained how i have described, with no opinion added in to spice it up. theres the glowing effect in the show, the description of the emitters and their components, the bit about how they are all individually powered and act as capacitors, and how they shunt their power down the array to the point that actually fired. that is in the book, that is seen on screen, that is not embellished.
No, what I'm saying is your claim to authority (or to the authority of the Tech Manual) doesn't hold water. I'm not saying it doesn't say what you claim. I'm saying it has no authority to make that claim in the first place. Certainly it doesn't have the authority to make that claim in the face of the obvious reasons why it's nonsense, especially when it adds absolutely nothing to the quality of the Star Trek universe to believe it.
I'm not espousing random anarchy here, I'm saying we as fans always choose what to accept and what to discard (see "Threshold"), and that's our right. You don't have the authority to say otherwise, because nobody does. Not Okuda, not Berman, or Braga, not even Gene Roddenberry's ghost.
Furthermore, I'm saying acting like what's in the tech manual is somehow reasonable is actively spreading anti-knowledge. I feel like the fact that more people don't just shake their heads and laugh at that bit of "canon" is sad, because it's so bad.
all your doing is saying this ships the best because its my favorite.
This right here is exactly what you are doing. You are acting like we must accept the Tech manual, and therefore we must accept the nonsense within, and not coincidentally that means we must accept your view of the Galaxy's combat power etc. You are pretending that you have a rational basis for your position, but you don't. You have an arbitrary standard for what information we must and must not use, based on your desire to end up with a conclusion that matches your preferences.
I don't care that you like the Galaxy, or whatever. If all you said was "I like version X of the canon, and I wish the game were more like that", I would have no problem with that - it's honest, and more to the point unassailably true. You feel that way, who am I to argue. If you further explained that you like X because it better matches your personal preferences, I would be find with that as well. The problem comes in when you start to assert that your preferences are somehow "right", and that doing it elsewise means Cryptic got it "wrong". Stop doing that last bit, and you're fine.
This is not the reasoning of least resistance. This is "reasoning" by assuming your viewpoint is correct and then rationalizing reasons why it "makes sense". I've pointed this out to you multiple times. I flat out don't care what pretend reasons you make up to justify your opinions about pretend star ships. My only point is that I can easily make up pretend reasons going the other way that are just as valid as yours (which really means not at all), so there's no reason to keep doing this. As soon as you realize that people who view the ships/shows/movies/games differently than you do are neither "wrong" nor "uninformed", you will realize that different interpretations do not, in any way, diminish yours. You don't have to agree with my opinion about canon, you just have to agree that my opinion is equally valid.
There are very few canon ships missing from this game, and the ones that ARE missing are either kitbashes, or Wolf 359 Wreckage models. That said - I, personally, would love to see the New Orleans class in-game.
As for the Avenger's looks.... well, I don't love it - but I don't hate it either. I pretty much feel that it's appearance reflects it's role; a tough ship, made for battle and more than ready for exactly that.
Frankly, I'm not certain that I understand why some have a problem with the Avenger's design/appearance but are fine with the likes of:
The Imperial Class, from which the Avenger appears to have taken a few design cues.
The Majestic class, which looks as if it were designed by a baffled drunk who put the primary hull on back-to-front and then stuck a deflector where the shuttlebay would have been if the hull had been attached correctly.
The Defiant class (and to again emphasise, this is only my personal opinion) simply looks like someone couldn't be bothered and stuffed nacelles, and a stupid nose, on a flat saucer section. Mind you, it WAS designed by a Commander grieving for his wife, so little wonder that he wasn't bothered about making it looking very interesting. And, like the Avenger, it's another case of "designed to blow things up, not look nice".
The Golf-ball science ships. Enough said.
So, anyway, each to their own - it's not, in my opinion, the best looking ship in the shipyard - but it's not the worst either. And as I said, I consider it's design to reflect it's purpose, and I can live with that.
So, the Avenger is finally released. It's the third ship of the Federation that could be equiped with a cloaking device, this and the new cruiser-commands make it a little dangerous:
I can almost imagine a random-PvP, Ker'rat or maybe some of the more difficult PvE-Content, I can imagine the "U.S.S. No DPS-No Heals" stays cloaked the whole time, maybe set to follow somebody... If you are asking that player, what he is doing, using Team-chat, you get the answer "I'm not afk, I'm buffing the Team.".
-> I'd call this behaviour Epic-Fail.
Please, let a friendly Klingon or Romulan Player explain you how to use the cloaking-device first. You loose a console slot, if you choose to use that device and you get only a basic cloak, not a battlecloak.
This means, you can't activate your cloak, while you are in red alert. Once you are cloaked, you can simply bypass some of your enemies - don't get too close to them, they might be able to see you for half a second and decloak you by hitting you with a weapon.
While you are cloaked, you don't have shields. Any hit you take, will decloak you and hit directly your hull.
So much for the basic instructions, have fun :P
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
If Star Trek Online was an Open-Source (GPL) Game, we would have a low-grind fork.
There are very few canon ships missing from this game, and the ones that ARE missing are either kitbashes, or Wolf 359 Wreckage models. That said - I, personally, would love to see the New Orleans class in-game.
As for the Avenger's looks.... well, I don't love it - but I don't hate it either. I pretty much feel that it's appearance reflects it's role; a tough ship, made for battle and more than ready for exactly that.
Frankly, I'm not certain that I understand why some have a problem with the Avenger's design/appearance but are fine with the likes of:
The Imperial Class, from which the Avenger appears to have taken a few design cues.
The Majestic class, which looks as if it were designed by a baffled drunk who put the primary hull on back-to-front and then stuck a deflector where the shuttlebay would have been if the hull had been attached correctly.
The Defiant class (and to again emphasise, this is only my personal opinion) simply looks like someone couldn't be bothered and stuffed nacelles, and a stupid nose, on a flat saucer section. Mind you, it WAS designed by a Commander grieving for his wife, so little wonder that he wasn't bothered about making it looking very interesting. And, like the Avenger, it's another case of "designed to blow things up, not look nice".
The Golf-ball science ships. Enough said.
So, anyway, each to their own - it's not, in my opinion, the best looking ship in the shipyard - but it's not the worst either. And as I said, I consider it's design to reflect it's purpose, and I can live with that.
I've finally been able to nail down what about this ship looks so off:
She needs a more traditional length-to-height ratio.
Simply stated, the Avenger has too many decks for it's length. This is easily fixed by giving it a longer saucer and longer warp nacelles. Even an overall length extension of 50-75 meters would be all it should take to make the ship look a bit more in line with the other 2409 designs.
So yeah, that's all that's wrong with it in my opinion. She looks great from all above angles and looks too squat from below angles due to her length-to-height ratio.
So, the Avenger is finally released. It's the third ship of the Federation that could be equiped with a cloaking device, this and the new cruiser-commands make it a little dangerous:
I can almost imagine a random-PvP, Ker'rat or maybe some of the more difficult PvE-Content, I can imagine the "U.S.S. No DPS-No Heals" stays cloaked the whole time, maybe set to follow somebody... If you are asking that player, what he is doing, using Team-chat, you get the answer "I'm not afk, I'm buffing the Team.".
-> I'd call this behaviour Epic-Fail.
Please, let a friendly Klingon or Romulan Player explain you how to use the cloaking-device first. You loose a console slot, if you choose to use that device and you get only a basic cloak, not a battlecloak.
This means, you can't activate your cloak, while you are in red alert. Once you are cloaked, you can simply bypass some of your enemies - don't get too close to them, they might be able to see you for half a second and decloak you by hitting you with a weapon.
While you are cloaked, you don't have shields. Any hit you take, will decloak you and hit directly your hull.
So much for the basic instructions, have fun :P
The new Avenger class doesn't come with a cloak. In order to get the cloak for it you have to own the Dreadnaught Cruiser (Galaxy-X) or the Tactical Escort Retrofit (Defiant). The cloak comes as a console with those 2 ships, so this means you need to pay an extra 2500 zen just for a cloak console to put on your Avenger. Keep in mind that the fleet versions of these ships don't come with the cloak console. It only comes with the c-store ships I mentioned.
So unless you plan to use either of those ships, it's not worth the cost of 2500 zen just for a console that isn't even a battle cloak. I do plan to get the defiant retrofit and switch it for a fleet version for 1 of my characters. But so far I haven't decided if I'm going to waste a console slot on a NON-combat cloak console. I want the c-store version first in case I do decide to use the console.
The new Avenger class doesn't come with a cloak. In order to get the cloak for it you have to own the Dreadnaught Cruiser (Galaxy-X) or the Tactical Escort Retrofit (Defiant). The cloak comes as a console with those 2 ships, so this means you need to pay an extra 2500 zen just for a cloak console to put on your Avenger. Keep in mind that the fleet versions of these ships don't come with the cloak console. It only comes with the c-store ships I mentioned.
So unless you plan to use either of those ships, it's not worth the cost of 2500 zen just for a console that isn't even a battle cloak. I do plan to get the defiant retrofit and switch it for a fleet version for 1 of my characters. But so far I haven't decided if I'm going to waste a console slot on a NON-combat cloak console. I want the c-store version first in case I do decide to use the console.
Thanks, I knew that... I've written that the console can be equipped on that ship.
You loose a console slot, if you choose to use that device and you get only a basic cloak, not a battlecloak.
Isn't that clear enough about the "beeing a console"-part?
EDIT: Owning the console and beeing able to use it on that ship doesn't hurt you. Think about Vault-Ensnared, even a basic cloak is a big advantage for every Teammember, since you don't need to clear all the mobs, you can focus on the Vault-Weavers and intercept them.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
If Star Trek Online was an Open-Source (GPL) Game, we would have a low-grind fork.
The new Avenger class doesn't come with a cloak. In order to get the cloak for it you have to own the Dreadnaught Cruiser (Galaxy-X) or the Tactical Escort Retrofit (Defiant). The cloak comes as a console with those 2 ships, so this means you need to pay an extra 2500 zen just for a cloak console to put on your Avenger. Keep in mind that the fleet versions of these ships don't come with the cloak console. It only comes with the c-store ships I mentioned.
So unless you plan to use either of those ships, it's not worth the cost of 2500 zen just for a console that isn't even a battle cloak. I do plan to get the defiant retrofit and switch it for a fleet version for 1 of my characters. But so far I haven't decided if I'm going to waste a console slot on a NON-combat cloak console. I want the c-store version first in case I do decide to use the console.
Your TAC will absolutely LOVE that Defiant. But I can agree with you on being in the air as to weather to use the console on the Avenger and waste the slot.
To the posters in the thread freaking out about said cloaking device, or lack thereof, fortunately the devs made it VERY clear and obvious that this ship was not meant to be for just cloaking strategy. The thing a lot of players are missing, especially in that sad state of ESD zone chat last night, is that the devs gave us an extra ability that we can conveniently use at our leisure should we CHOOSE to use it. For those of us who already have the Defiant (or Gal X if you have that), it was an extra convenience to have the cloaking console handy. I didn't bother using it, though. I chose to use the slot instead for engineer related gear and my ship kicked bloody balls in on the CE - both elite and normal.
I have to shake my head at why people are so up-in-arms over the stupid clocking bit. you do NOT have to buy another ship to get the cloak. you do NOT have to even HAVE the cloak. It is an option that the devs were nice enough to include for those who may want to use it. Pretty much everyone I know plays every class in STO, so they have ships of other classes and switch out gear at their choosing. key word in that last sentence, should anyone have missed it, was CHOOSING.
If anyone thinks that because this ship CAN equip a cloaking device that you are being forced to buy another ship to do so, and you cannot play this ship without said device, then you really should not be playing a tank or anything Engineer related . . . and on that I have doubts you should be playing STO at all.
It is not a big deal. Either you want the cloak, so you go buy the other ship (which will benefit your Tac officer anyway) or you don;t want the cloak and still use this ship for what it is . . . a cruiser. "battle" or not in the name, it's still a cruiser, and quite a deadly one at that as i found out last night
Do the devs play the game or keep tags on their past ship designs?
As their is already an Avenger Class that u can get for free in the form of a Star Cruiser from shipyards. It has an Avenger class Skin. So essentially it is a class of ship the Federation already uses.
Seems really bad to me that when the devs at PWE/Cryptic named the new class that they didn't already know this. Didn't they design the old Avenger skin for the Star Cruisers?
So what is happening on this issue is my qeustion?
Is AVenger gonner be re-named or is the Avenger Star Cruiser's skin being re-named?
Mirror even have an existing Avenger Star Cruiser that they use & is often seen being used in mirror missions by the mirror uni & again is the star Cruiser in game. Not the new z-store class Avenger.
Not very professional to not know the ships classes, that already exist within the game is it?
So what is happening on this issue regarding Avenger class & there already being an Avanger class in the Star Cruiser lines?
So, the Avenger is finally released. It's the third ship of the Federation that could be equiped with a cloaking device, this and the new cruiser-commands make it a little dangerous:
I can almost imagine a random-PvP, Ker'rat or maybe some of the more difficult PvE-Content, I can imagine the "U.S.S. No DPS-No Heals" stays cloaked the whole time, maybe set to follow somebody... If you are asking that player, what he is doing, using Team-chat, you get the answer "I'm not afk, I'm buffing the Team.".
-> I'd call this behaviour Epic-Fail.
The Cruiser Commands only affect you while cloaked, not the team. I tested that.
Formerly Known as Protector from June 2008 to June 20, 2012
Please enable us to buy a token with Zen to faction change a 25th Century FED to a TOS FED.
Do the devs play the game or keep tags on their past ship designs?
As their is already an Avenger Class that u can get for free in the form of a Star Cruiser from shipyards. It has an Avenger class Skin. So essentially it is a class of ship the Federation already uses.
Seems really bad to me that when the devs at PWE/Cryptic named the new class that they didn't already know this. Didn't they design the old Avenger skin for the Star Cruisers?
So what is happening on this issue is my qeustion?
Is AVenger gonner be re-named or is the Avenger Star Cruiser's skin being re-named?
Mirror even have an existing Avenger Star Cruiser that they use & is often seen being used in mirror missions by the mirror uni & again is the star Cruiser in game. Not the new z-store class Avenger.
Not very professional to not know the ships classes, that already exist within the game is it?
So what is happening on this issue regarding Avenger class & there already being an Avanger class in the Star Cruiser lines?
They addressed this in the Dev blogs a few times. The answer is there
So we get a federation Battlecruiser that can emulate a Klingon and cloak as well. So much for even trying to stick to lore or giving each race a unqiue feel.
So it is not enough you make the Romulans a fraction instead of a faction, now lets just make everyones ships the same with different skins. Yet another game goes down the tubes for the cheap shots at quick money items.
Ever ask a halfling to watch over your stuff while you visit the privy? Was it there when you returned?
@fazemladaiya. Where is the Dev blog refering to this name issue. LOL.
I looked through the dev blogs talking about the new avenger class but didn't see it mentioned in any of them. I could have sworn I saw it in a dev blog.
Can't wait for you to see her other side next week So epic. Also, that shot is using the Type 6 material. Just wait till you see its special material, "Avenger"!
P.S. I believe the current Avenger class ships is being renamed to "Sentinel".
Cheers,
Brandon =/\=
I can confirm this. It's a mirror assault cruiser but it has the star cruiser skins. The old star cruiser avenger class skin was renamed to sentinel.
Comments
Let me try to explain what happened.
The stats of the Avenger that everyone discussed about were ones taken from people participating in the Redshirt test server. (I'm not on it btw)
Now as it is with every ship - when a ship makes it to the test server, especially Redshirt server and not Tribble server they usually have some wonky non-realistic stats. I'm not sure why is this, I personally assume because it's of primary concern for the designers to see how a new ship interacts with the environment of the game before they resort to tweaking the stats.
So like I said, this ship has some ridiculous stats. It had 5 tac.consoles 5 engi.consoles and 2 science consoles. It also had a strange shield mod. of 1.21 for the fleet version. I mean, why not round it at 1.20, why 1.21?
So what happened is the devs. after testing the ship and seing that it interacts with the game environment in STO without any issues and bugs, decided that it's ready for release and than tweaked those strange stats. Not because anyone complained, be it KDF, Feds or Roms, but because they intended to do it anyway before they release it.
They wouldn't release a ship with 12 consoles under no circumistances and the shield mod of 1.21 was putting it over all the rest of Starfleet cruisers. I don't understand the reasoning behind decreasing the crew though, the devs. probably felt that 500 is more apropriate for a cruiser of this size.
Being a battlecruiser, the Avenger is not suposed to be shield tanking, but have other perks that she has - like the best cruiser turn rate on the Fed. side, 5/3 weapon layout and ability to mount DHC.
So all I'm trying to say is - you got the wrong impression about this. The ship didn't get nerfed, it got reasonably adjusted before release. Yes, people complained (as always), but this didn't happen because anyone complained, but because it was planned before and the right thing to do.
Don't get me wrong, I was loving the 1.21 shield mod. as well, but I'm being realistic and when i saw it I already knew that the chances of it being released on holodeck with 1.21 shield mod were like 1%.
what ships?
last thing added was a dead whale bortasq even the oddy has better turning
ps only t5 ships count.
i guess i dont understand why you care at all, if you just reject canon as nonsense. why debate someone who is citing canon and practically canon information if all your going to say is its all BS? there is no discussion to be had at all. trek is trek, its not what you think they should have done.
also, no ship had arrays as big or bigger then the galaxy and nebula, because no canon ship is bigger then the galaxy. in fact, no canon ship is even half the volume of a galaxy. longer arrays would be impossible
LMAO!!
And I think complaining about "cowardly" Klingons that cloak is so last season now that we have Romulans that can battlecloak anyhting, don't you agree?
Thus, I don't just reject canon as nonsense out of hand, I reject the parts of canon that I think are stupid. For example, did you know that if you go too fast, you turn into a lizard? Yeah. I didn't know that, because that whole episode may as well not exist, as far as I'm concerned. To me, "canon" only matters when it serves the needs of the story (and that story is good). Otherwise, I'm apathetic, unless it crosses a certain *ahem* threshold of stupidity, then I simply ignore it, in exactly the same way Star Trek writers do. I would argue that in this sense, my loose, flexible understanding of canon is probably closer to the actual practice of the show than a more doctrinaire approach. I mean, heck, what are we, Voth?
As for the arrays thing, two things immediately occur to me. First, volume =/= surface area (In fact, volume doesn't necessarily mean much of anything - not necessarily more power, not necessarily more durability, not even necessarily more mass). Critically, though, phaser length is actually a function of available surface area, and not volume in any case. Certainly there are ships which could conceivably have a longer strip on a "smaller" chassis. They just don't.
And that bring up point two, which is that you missed my point completely. You asserted that strips must be better than the previous ball turret model (which you assume means more powerful, I guess), and used the tautological reasoning of "they switched to them because they are better, because if they weren't better they wouldn't have switched to them". My point is that same "reasoning" applies to later ships - they certainly COULD design bigger ships with longer strips, or longer strips on smaller ships (especially for ships that are intended for a main-line combat role), but they don't. Why? I submit that it must be true that shorter strips are now better (which I guess means more powerful), because later designs switched to them, because if they weren't better they wouldn't have done that. It's obviously terrible logic, I know. That was my point.
Makes perfect sense to me.
Also. It would be nice to have 'neck' variants for the Avenger, or at least remodel it. That's the only part of the ship I think makes no since at all when considering what Starfleet supposedly said about starship vulnerability. (Including the men that designed Sovereign class for the First Contact movie and so on). With the ship being so compact in design, the spit neck just kills the purpose of why the ship was built in the first place aesthetically and practically. Just my opinion. (Not sure if this was said many time before or not.)
There is a neck variant that's singular as far as I know.
I fully agree with you.
After looking at the ships design for a while i have noticed that the neck not just doesn't make much sense it also makes the ship too high and to compressed (=short) looking.
I think if there would be a option to remove the neck and connect Engineering hull and saucer directly the ship could look much better.
Additionally from a side long drawn-out neck makes the ship look like a coal brick which is totally unneeded.
Another thing are the pylons, althrough the nacelles ar on the right position for being fore swept, the pylons themselves are placed to far to the bow (at least when using the swept up version).
its bad form to recite what the tech manual says, that must be what you mean, because the basic function of arrays are explained how i have described, with no opinion added in to spice it up. theres the glowing effect in the show, the description of the emitters and their components, the bit about how they are all individually powered and act as capacitors, and how they shunt their power down the array to the point that actually fired. that is in the book, that is seen on screen, that is not embellished.
if theres going to be any sort of serious debate about ships and their capabilities, this is the information you have to adhere too or all your doing is saying this ships the best because its my favorite. theres not that much good solid info to benchmark anything, what there is frankly sucks and makes no sense, but this is what there is, and im not going to just dismiss it.
volume gives you the best idea of how much room there is for stuff. the sovereign is longer then a galaxy class, but it has less volume, or space for stuff, then just a galaxy's saucer section alone. no ship has the vast surface, or % of total ship devoted to the saucer that the galaxy has too, so its the only thing that can mount an array that long. a ship would need to have an even larger saucer to have a larger array, and if it was smaller then the galaxy, an even higher % of the ship would have to be the saucer. why arent there any zig zag arrays? why are they all a soft curve? these are actual good questions. why arent there longer arrays is answered by the fact that there are no larger ships or ships with more array mountable surface.
and why isn't there a ship bigger then the galaxy with an even longer array by the end of canon? because the galaxy was built to last 100 years as a class, and for at least 50 years serve as the largest class in the fleet. there was no need, and they didn't, build anything aproching its size. instead, throughout tng, ds9 and voy, you saw smaller and mid sized ships created, filling out the fleet. this here is the reasoning of least resistance.
i am of course referring to federation ships, theres a laundry list of ships bigger, and MUCH bigger then the galaxy. none of which are federation made and use phaser arrays though.
Is That a typo or do they really fire a quantum every second?
This Post May Cause damage to unEPIC people...
If you have trouble while reading this post. You are not EPIC enough to read it.
Frankly as that rule was just something Roddenberry inserted to kick Franz Joseph out, I choose to ignore that. That and the even number of nacelles rule (Which All Good Things killed).
The nacelles are there to produce a warp field. Seeing as how that warp field has to envelope the whole ship, the idea that it's impossible to design a ship with anything between them is a little weird. Especially when the Bird of Prey doesn't even have any obvious nacelles (I know it's the wings, which is awesome). That said, I love the unique design it created in the D'Deridex to follow that rule. On that note, I would like to beg Cryptic to put the Vertically aligned Warbird into the game, it's looks so AWESOME
http://i508.photobucket.com/albums/s330/Back_Alley_Brawler/verticalwarbird1.jpg
I'm not a fan of the split neck design theory (and I really don't see how it's supposed to be transitionary between the Enterprise-E and on the path to the Enterprise-J) {Truthfully I'm not a huge fan of the J to begin with though :rolleyes:}, but I can forgive that. But as a matter of visual design I don't see the point of the chunky deflector dish section. It looks almost Hirogen in style.
The weird bulk that appears on the top of the hull of the Odyssey and Avenger are also present on the Sovereign class, it's just more subtle. That type of bulk goes back to the Galaxy, where the Bulk on top of the saucer that flared out to the aft was the Main Shuttlebay. It's the same on the Sovereign, though on the Sovereign I feel it's an aesthetic that resembles old school battleship command towers. The two connection points of the neck on the saucer on either side of the bridge are actually a design decision from the Akira, where it was decided (If I recall correctly Alex Jaeger designed the Akira) that the pontoons/pylons were placed there to provide side protection to the bridge.
I can see why you like the Regent.
http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20070615020425/memoryalpha/en/images/a/af/Enterprise-E_design_sketch.jpg
It's very closely related to an approved Sovereign draft. (It was pulled because Eaves and the Producers realized that it looked kind of like a chicken...I still like it though).
That basically means that they got the Scimitar perfect. It was in Nemesis a flying curbstomp machine. We should consider ourselves fortunate that crew has so little impact on the game. If it was, then based on the fact that they are half organic and incapable of functioning without their organic parts, the Scimitar should be more than capable of one shotting every Borg vessel that gets in its way, Thalaron style.
No, what I'm saying is your claim to authority (or to the authority of the Tech Manual) doesn't hold water. I'm not saying it doesn't say what you claim. I'm saying it has no authority to make that claim in the first place. Certainly it doesn't have the authority to make that claim in the face of the obvious reasons why it's nonsense, especially when it adds absolutely nothing to the quality of the Star Trek universe to believe it.
I'm not espousing random anarchy here, I'm saying we as fans always choose what to accept and what to discard (see "Threshold"), and that's our right. You don't have the authority to say otherwise, because nobody does. Not Okuda, not Berman, or Braga, not even Gene Roddenberry's ghost.
Furthermore, I'm saying acting like what's in the tech manual is somehow reasonable is actively spreading anti-knowledge. I feel like the fact that more people don't just shake their heads and laugh at that bit of "canon" is sad, because it's so bad.
This right here is exactly what you are doing. You are acting like we must accept the Tech manual, and therefore we must accept the nonsense within, and not coincidentally that means we must accept your view of the Galaxy's combat power etc. You are pretending that you have a rational basis for your position, but you don't. You have an arbitrary standard for what information we must and must not use, based on your desire to end up with a conclusion that matches your preferences.
I don't care that you like the Galaxy, or whatever. If all you said was "I like version X of the canon, and I wish the game were more like that", I would have no problem with that - it's honest, and more to the point unassailably true. You feel that way, who am I to argue. If you further explained that you like X because it better matches your personal preferences, I would be find with that as well. The problem comes in when you start to assert that your preferences are somehow "right", and that doing it elsewise means Cryptic got it "wrong". Stop doing that last bit, and you're fine.
This is not the reasoning of least resistance. This is "reasoning" by assuming your viewpoint is correct and then rationalizing reasons why it "makes sense". I've pointed this out to you multiple times. I flat out don't care what pretend reasons you make up to justify your opinions about pretend star ships. My only point is that I can easily make up pretend reasons going the other way that are just as valid as yours (which really means not at all), so there's no reason to keep doing this. As soon as you realize that people who view the ships/shows/movies/games differently than you do are neither "wrong" nor "uninformed", you will realize that different interpretations do not, in any way, diminish yours. You don't have to agree with my opinion about canon, you just have to agree that my opinion is equally valid.
Preach it.
I can almost imagine a random-PvP, Ker'rat or maybe some of the more difficult PvE-Content, I can imagine the "U.S.S. No DPS-No Heals" stays cloaked the whole time, maybe set to follow somebody... If you are asking that player, what he is doing, using Team-chat, you get the answer "I'm not afk, I'm buffing the Team.".
-> I'd call this behaviour Epic-Fail.
Please, let a friendly Klingon or Romulan Player explain you how to use the cloaking-device first. You loose a console slot, if you choose to use that device and you get only a basic cloak, not a battlecloak.
This means, you can't activate your cloak, while you are in red alert. Once you are cloaked, you can simply bypass some of your enemies - don't get too close to them, they might be able to see you for half a second and decloak you by hitting you with a weapon.
While you are cloaked, you don't have shields. Any hit you take, will decloak you and hit directly your hull.
So much for the basic instructions, have fun :P
If Star Trek Online was an Open-Source (GPL) Game, we would have a low-grind fork.
I've finally been able to nail down what about this ship looks so off:
She needs a more traditional length-to-height ratio.
Simply stated, the Avenger has too many decks for it's length. This is easily fixed by giving it a longer saucer and longer warp nacelles. Even an overall length extension of 50-75 meters would be all it should take to make the ship look a bit more in line with the other 2409 designs.
So yeah, that's all that's wrong with it in my opinion. She looks great from all above angles and looks too squat from below angles due to her length-to-height ratio.
The new Avenger class doesn't come with a cloak. In order to get the cloak for it you have to own the Dreadnaught Cruiser (Galaxy-X) or the Tactical Escort Retrofit (Defiant). The cloak comes as a console with those 2 ships, so this means you need to pay an extra 2500 zen just for a cloak console to put on your Avenger. Keep in mind that the fleet versions of these ships don't come with the cloak console. It only comes with the c-store ships I mentioned.
So unless you plan to use either of those ships, it's not worth the cost of 2500 zen just for a console that isn't even a battle cloak. I do plan to get the defiant retrofit and switch it for a fleet version for 1 of my characters. But so far I haven't decided if I'm going to waste a console slot on a NON-combat cloak console. I want the c-store version first in case I do decide to use the console.
Thanks, I knew that... I've written that the console can be equipped on that ship.
Isn't that clear enough about the "beeing a console"-part?
EDIT: Owning the console and beeing able to use it on that ship doesn't hurt you. Think about Vault-Ensnared, even a basic cloak is a big advantage for every Teammember, since you don't need to clear all the mobs, you can focus on the Vault-Weavers and intercept them.
If Star Trek Online was an Open-Source (GPL) Game, we would have a low-grind fork.
Hate to break it to you, but that stuff your drinking, it isn't tears ;D
Regards, O.S.S. Debauchery.
Your TAC will absolutely LOVE that Defiant. But I can agree with you on being in the air as to weather to use the console on the Avenger and waste the slot.
To the posters in the thread freaking out about said cloaking device, or lack thereof, fortunately the devs made it VERY clear and obvious that this ship was not meant to be for just cloaking strategy. The thing a lot of players are missing, especially in that sad state of ESD zone chat last night, is that the devs gave us an extra ability that we can conveniently use at our leisure should we CHOOSE to use it. For those of us who already have the Defiant (or Gal X if you have that), it was an extra convenience to have the cloaking console handy. I didn't bother using it, though. I chose to use the slot instead for engineer related gear and my ship kicked bloody balls in on the CE - both elite and normal.
I have to shake my head at why people are so up-in-arms over the stupid clocking bit. you do NOT have to buy another ship to get the cloak. you do NOT have to even HAVE the cloak. It is an option that the devs were nice enough to include for those who may want to use it. Pretty much everyone I know plays every class in STO, so they have ships of other classes and switch out gear at their choosing. key word in that last sentence, should anyone have missed it, was CHOOSING.
If anyone thinks that because this ship CAN equip a cloaking device that you are being forced to buy another ship to do so, and you cannot play this ship without said device, then you really should not be playing a tank or anything Engineer related . . . and on that I have doubts you should be playing STO at all.
It is not a big deal. Either you want the cloak, so you go buy the other ship (which will benefit your Tac officer anyway) or you don;t want the cloak and still use this ship for what it is . . . a cruiser. "battle" or not in the name, it's still a cruiser, and quite a deadly one at that as i found out last night
Do the devs play the game or keep tags on their past ship designs?
As their is already an Avenger Class that u can get for free in the form of a Star Cruiser from shipyards. It has an Avenger class Skin. So essentially it is a class of ship the Federation already uses.
Seems really bad to me that when the devs at PWE/Cryptic named the new class that they didn't already know this. Didn't they design the old Avenger skin for the Star Cruisers?
So what is happening on this issue is my qeustion?
Is AVenger gonner be re-named or is the Avenger Star Cruiser's skin being re-named?
Mirror even have an existing Avenger Star Cruiser that they use & is often seen being used in mirror missions by the mirror uni & again is the star Cruiser in game. Not the new z-store class Avenger.
Not very professional to not know the ships classes, that already exist within the game is it?
So what is happening on this issue regarding Avenger class & there already being an Avanger class in the Star Cruiser lines?
The Cruiser Commands only affect you while cloaked, not the team. I tested that.
Please enable us to buy a token with Zen to faction change a 25th Century FED to a TOS FED.
And a good thing this is, too.
They addressed this in the Dev blogs a few times. The answer is there
So it is not enough you make the Romulans a fraction instead of a faction, now lets just make everyones ships the same with different skins. Yet another game goes down the tubes for the cheap shots at quick money items.
I looked through the dev blogs talking about the new avenger class but didn't see it mentioned in any of them. I could have sworn I saw it in a dev blog.
However I did find this:
I can confirm this. It's a mirror assault cruiser but it has the star cruiser skins. The old star cruiser avenger class skin was renamed to sentinel.
Edit: And someone has already updated the STOwiki http://sto.gamepedia.com/Star_Cruiser#Sentinel_class