test content
  • Games
  • Social
  • Arc News
  • Support
  • Zen
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc
Forums > Home› Star Trek Online General Discussion

Advanced Research Vessel Retrofit Revamp

pwemetaqpwemetaq Member Posts: 18 Arc User
edited March 2014 in Star Trek Online General Discussion
Dear devs

with the Fed mission revamp coming with Season 8.5 what about a T5 Nebula class revamp?
My main flies it since it first came out in the c-store and its still my favourite ship. I'm now flying the fleet version.

BUT :rolleyes:

now that we have ships with 5 fore weapon slots IMHO the Nebula should finally be on a par with the Galaxy concerning weapons. Little bit more teeth would do good, I mean it's the most cruiser like of all science vessels (read: fast like a brick).
Post edited by pwemetaq on

Comments

  • breygornbreygorn Member Posts: 189 Arc User
    edited January 2014
    I as others have asked about various times, have basically wondered about;
    a 4/3 weapon layout, since it is part cruiser.
    an actual mission pod console.
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • anazondaanazonda Member Posts: 8,399 Arc User
    edited January 2014
    DStahl said a while ago, that old ships would only get the "it's broken" treatment.

    Once a ship is considered generally bug free, they won't work on it again, unless it's something that incidentally falls into another area that is currently being worked on.
    Don't look silly... Don't call it the "Z-Store/Zen Store"...
    pwebranflakes wrote: »
    Let me put the rumors to rest: it's definitely still the C-Store (Cryptic Store) It just takes ZEN.
    Like Duty Officers? Support effords to gather ideas
  • orangeitisorangeitis Member Posts: 5,222 Arc User
    edited January 2014
    I'd like for the Nebula to gain some cruiser commands, seeing as it has Cruiser-like maneuverability already...
    U.S.S.%20Mastermind%20Signature_zpsgsyjxxz1.jpg~original
    Helpful Tools: Dictionary.com - Logical fallacies - Random generator - Word generator - Color tool - Extra Credits - List of common English language errors - New T6 Big booty tutorial
  • misterde3misterde3 Member Posts: 4,195 Arc User
    edited January 2014
    orangeitis wrote: »
    I'd like for the Nebula to gain some cruiser commands, seeing as it has Cruiser-like maneuverability already...

    Only if it gives up sensor analysis for it. And in that case I'm tempted to leave my Fleet Nebula behind beause right now this ship is awesome.
    Seriously what's wrong with it?
  • shpoksshpoks Member Posts: 6,967 Arc User
    edited January 2014
    misterde3 wrote: »
    Only if it gives up sensor analysis for it. And in that case I'm tempted to leave my Fleet Nebula behind beause right now this ship is awesome.
    Seriously what's wrong with it?

    Nothing wrong with the ship. I don't know where these complaints are comming from, the ship fills a niche role of being a science vessel with strong hull and rather nice Boff layout.
    HQroeLu.jpg
  • orangeitisorangeitis Member Posts: 5,222 Arc User
    edited January 2014
    misterde3 wrote: »
    Only if it gives up sensor analysis for it. And in that case I'm tempted to leave my Fleet Nebula behind beause right now this ship is awesome.
    Seriously what's wrong with it?
    My main flies a fleet Magellan, and as far as I can tell... nothing at all. But I get annoyed when story and gameplay segregation are glaringly obvious, and when there's an NPC "Nebula-class Cruiser" and the player version isn't at least a SciVes/Cruiser hybrid, I tend to call shennanigans.
    U.S.S.%20Mastermind%20Signature_zpsgsyjxxz1.jpg~original
    Helpful Tools: Dictionary.com - Logical fallacies - Random generator - Word generator - Color tool - Extra Credits - List of common English language errors - New T6 Big booty tutorial
  • altechachanaltechachan Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited January 2014
    I agree with the sentiment that the Nebula is pretty okay as it is. The only thing I would ask for are ship costume variants for the other versions of the Nebula that we saw.
    Member since November 2009... I think.
    (UFP) Ragnar
  • mirrorchaosmirrorchaos Member Posts: 9,844 Arc User
    edited January 2014
    got the neb retro t5 from the free giveaway last year flew it for a few missions, seemed alright, at some point i want to connect with it and see how to maximize the ships ability a bit. :P
    T6 Miranda Hero Ship FTW.
    Been around since Dec 2010 on STO and bought LTS in Apr 2013 for STO.
  • rinksterrinkster Member Posts: 3,549 Arc User
    edited January 2014
    I've had my engineer in a fleet nebula for a while now.

    It's actually great fun and rather more versatile than i thought it would be.

    To be honest, i see no pressing need for any changes, its a good ship.

    About the only one I could see has been suggested, one cruiser command.

    Shield reinforcing seems appropriate.

    However, it doesn't need it.
  • hawke89305092hawke89305092 Member Posts: 237 Arc User
    edited January 2014
    The only real problem with the Nebula is that it has 2 tac consoles and only a LT tac when, at the moment, killing things as fast as possible is what you want most. It's still an excellent Eng/Sci hybrid and one of the most durable ships in the game.

    Now, if you're talking about polishing up the Nebula ship model as a part of Season 8.5? That I can support... :P
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • questeriusquesterius Member Posts: 8,500 Arc User
    edited January 2014
    I love the nebula. Was reluctant to purchase it, but the giveaway has had some siblings.
    Only thing i would love to see is a mission pod.
    This program, though reasonably normal at times, seems to have a strong affinity to classes belonging to the Cat 2.0 program. Questerius 2.7 will break down on occasion, resulting in garbage and nonsense messages whenever it occurs. Usually a hard reboot or pulling the plug solves the problem when that happens.
  • orangeitisorangeitis Member Posts: 5,222 Arc User
    edited January 2014
    hawke89305092 wrote: »
    The only real problem with the Nebula is that it has 2 tac consoles and only a LT tac when, at the moment, killing things as fast as possible is what you want most. It's still an excellent Eng/Sci hybrid and one of the most durable ships in the game.

    Now, if you're talking about polishing up the Nebula ship model as a part of Season 8.5? That I can support... :P
    No, the problem is the fact that killing things as fast as possible is what you want most. The game shouldn't only encourage that. Each tac/eng/sci combination of 10 consoles and each tac/eng/sci combination of BOFF seatings should be viable.
    U.S.S.%20Mastermind%20Signature_zpsgsyjxxz1.jpg~original
    Helpful Tools: Dictionary.com - Logical fallacies - Random generator - Word generator - Color tool - Extra Credits - List of common English language errors - New T6 Big booty tutorial
  • gofasternowgofasternow Member Posts: 1,390 Arc User
    edited January 2014
    altechachan wrote: »
    I agree with the sentiment that the Nebula is pretty okay as it is. The only thing I would ask for are ship costume variants for the other versions of the Nebula that we saw.

    I'd love to have a "Proto-Nebula"
  • robdmcrobdmc Member Posts: 1,619 Arc User
    edited January 2014
    misterde3 wrote: »
    Only if it gives up sensor analysis for it. And in that case I'm tempted to leave my Fleet Nebula behind beause right now this ship is awesome.
    Seriously what's wrong with it?

    Why would it need to give up sensor analysis? The science oddy has both.
  • baudlbaudl Member Posts: 4,060 Arc User
    edited January 2014
    orangeitis wrote: »
    No, the problem is the fact that killing things as fast as possible is what you want most. The game shouldn't only encourage that. Each tac/eng/sci combination of 10 consoles and each tac/eng/sci combination of BOFF seatings should be viable.

    agreed, personally though a limitation of any console to ONE would make a ship layout with "only" 2 tac consoles slots already competitive compared to a ship with 4 or 5 tac console slots.
    Go pro or go home
  • annemarie30annemarie30 Member Posts: 2,698 Arc User
    edited January 2014
    I think that to bring all of the sci ships to be on par there needs to be at a MINIMUM 3 tac console 4/3 bump, OR a LCDR tac slot.
    We Want Vic Fontaine
  • shpoksshpoks Member Posts: 6,967 Arc User
    edited January 2014
    annemarie30 wrote: »
    I think that to bring all of the sci ships to be on par there needs to be at a MINIMUM 3 tac console 4/3 bump, OR a LCDR tac slot.

    Or maybe a better idea would be to adjust the current and make all future end-game content suitable for the roles of every character as well as ship class, instead of adding more tactical potential, weapons, tactical boffs and more DPS in general to every ship including freighters.
    HQroeLu.jpg
  • misterde3misterde3 Member Posts: 4,195 Arc User
    edited January 2014
    robdmc wrote: »
    Why would it need to give up sensor analysis? The science oddy has both.

    Yeah and because one thing makes no sense we need more of that to make it better.

    To spell it out: the result would be the "do everything, be everything at once" Nebula that has the good stuff from cruisers and Science vesels at once.
    And all the other ones are sitting quietly in the corner crying that the Nebula is special.
    *facepalm*
  • misterde3misterde3 Member Posts: 4,195 Arc User
    edited January 2014
    orangeitis wrote: »
    My main flies a fleet Magellan, and as far as I can tell... nothing at all. But I get annoyed when story and gameplay segregation are glaringly obvious, and when there's an NPC "Nebula-class Cruiser" and the player version isn't at least a SciVes/Cruiser hybrid, I tend to call shennanigans.

    I can tell you why that is.:)
    Originally the Nebula was supposed to be a cruiser with pretty much the same setup that is now available on the Ambassador, then Geko posted an alternate setup in the same thread and people latched on to it and as a result the Nebula was changed.
    At that point the NPC version was probably already set up and thus stays a cruiser to this day.
    Besides the Vo'quv is called battleship, so are the RA Star Cruisers. It happens, does that mean the Star Cruiser should become some kind of science/tactical superhybrid boomboom battleship as a result too?:confused:
  • orangeitisorangeitis Member Posts: 5,222 Arc User
    edited January 2014
    misterde3 wrote: »
    I can tell you why that is.:)
    Originally the Nebula was supposed to be a cruiser with pretty much the same setup that is now available on the Ambassador, then Geko posted an alternate setup in the same thread and people latched on to it and as a result the Nebula was changed.
    At that point the NPC version was probably already set up and thus stays a cruiser to this day.
    Ah, I see now. Interesting bit of info.
    misterde3 wrote: »
    Besides the Vo'quv is called battleship, so are the RA Star Cruisers. It happens, does that mean the Star Cruiser should become some kind of science/tactical superhybrid boomboom battleship as a result too?:confused:
    As I recall, NPC Vo'Quvs are dreadnoughts. And in Vo'Quv's case, it'd do for me if they just renamed it "Klingon Dreadnought Carrier" or something, just to more match the NPC. As for the Star Cruiser, that would be too drastic of a change. But it would be neat if there was an 'alternate' playable ship that was a "battleship".
    U.S.S.%20Mastermind%20Signature_zpsgsyjxxz1.jpg~original
    Helpful Tools: Dictionary.com - Logical fallacies - Random generator - Word generator - Color tool - Extra Credits - List of common English language errors - New T6 Big booty tutorial
  • misterde3misterde3 Member Posts: 4,195 Arc User
    edited January 2014
    orangeitis wrote: »
    Ah, I see now. Interesting bit of info.

    No problem...it also proves I've been playing this game for a long time.
    Oh dear I feel really old sometimes.:)
    Anyway I managed to find the old thread, problem is that it's from the archived part of the forums.

    http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/showthread.php?t=177766

    However as post#27 shows with its quotation box, it was Stahl who posted the stats back then.

    http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/showpost.php?p=2988956&postcount=27

    I still find it interesting because it shows us the Nebula that never was.
    Please note that back then the skill tree was quite different, hence some of the comments about using the "Star Cruiser skill" won't make that much sense. Back then players not only specced into specific weapon types like Phaser and Disruptor but also into specific ships. At the end of the "Cruiser Tree" they specced either into Assault or Star Cruisers.
    orangeitis wrote: »
    As I recall, NPC Vo'Quvs are dreadnoughts. And in Vo'Quv's case, it'd do for me if they just renamed it "Klingon Dreadnought Carrier" or something, just to more match the NPC. As for the Star Cruiser, that would be too drastic of a change. But it would be neat if there was an 'alternate' playable ship that was a "battleship".

    HMMM, I foresee a tiny problem with renaming the Vo'quv to Dreadnought Carrier: some people might think it's the new Klingon anti-Scimitar and demand a turnrate buff and 5 forward weapon slots.:)

    I think the problem is inherent in the way NPC ships are set up. In particular the battleships and dreadnoughts. I'm not sure right now which is which but I think one of them has more weapons while the other has very few weapon slots but tons of hull.
    And the designation simply indicates to the player which one it is.
    It's probably more practical to go the opposite way and rename/redesignate the NPCs than altering the player ships.
    Maybe shuffling the Star Cruisers into the Cruiser slot the Nebula now has would help in their case while the Nebula becomes...well another Science ship, like a reskinned DSSV.

    One thought that just crossed my mind is that by definition that means the NPC Vo'quv can't launch fighters...and I don't recall it ever doing that either,though I might be mistaken there. Maybe it's time to change that too.;)
  • garitasgaritas Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited March 2014
    I don't have any problems with the layouts or functionality of the ship, it's a fine ship,
    I love using it.

    However I would like to see the costume pieces seen on the Exploration cruiser get an adaption for the Advanced Research vessel. ( Celestial, Envoy and even the Venture )
    Since the Nebula is a kit-bash of a Galaxy anyway it seems fitting they share alternate skins.
Sign In or Register to comment.