The KDF ship looks too passive, too friendly. The head is too bulbous and lumpy, like a... Child's toy. >.> KDF designs should be really aggressive looking (like the raptor beak stylings of several of the raptors and birds of prey or hammer head stylings of the Vor'kang, K't'inga and Negh'var), or sleek (like the classic Bird of Prey).
As already stated by branflakes, this anniversary will not be a grindfest. On completion of the FE once, you will be rewarded with 400 free marks, leaving only 600 more to get. Q's mission on averageon an underpopulated in-house test server will take no more than 3 - 5 minutes to complete where upon completion you will receive a further 40 marks, meaning it will only take 15 out of the 25 days of the event.
Reality may trump in house testing when thousand of players try to get into the limited number of Academy instances to run the Mini-Q mission, hopefully the other mission will not be at the academy also.
Grinfest maybe the wrong word but Limited-time availability to receive the ship means scheduling time to run the necessary missions on as many characters as you want the ship on before it is no longer available. though there usually is the option to spend real money and obtain the ship if say you were unable to log in for 2 weeks which has happened recently due to game glitches I believe. Honestly if the ship was available anytime during the next couple of months using the quoted criteria I don't think most people would be so annoyed by it.
like this currently randomly occurring Glitch kinda hard to run any mission when that occurs.
After thinking about it for a while, I now realize the 2nd deflector effectively serves as the 10th console so I'm feeling better about the 9 regular console slots, especially if -- as another poster suggested -- we can load up something awesomesauce like the Borg deflector along with say the MACO.
That actually...
Makes no sense.
The point of the secondary deflector idea was to give back a leg to the powers used by science vessels.
If it replaces a console, there's been no net gain.
The point of the secondary deflector idea was to give back a leg to the powers used by science vessels.
If it replaces a console, there's been no net gain.
This is probably true, and why I'm thinking it's not a likely scenario - and the ship is in fact comparable in 'tier' to other 9-console ships. There are still unknown factors though - like, how does the secondary deflector compare to extra console slot?
Since the slot itself is named 'Secondary Deflector', and the only case we've so far seen it in, is the new set of ships, I believe it will in fact be a separate item type - and regular deflectors cannot be installed into that slot. This would be likely because deflectors were not originally planned with consideration to being able to use two at once, and so this might lead to unpredictable combinations.
This would also allow different, and potentially significantly more powerful abilities to be implemented through the secondary deflector, while ensuring that this new deflector line can also only be utilized one per ship. t's possible that a sci ship with 9 consoles and 1 secondary deflector would be more powerful than the old setup of 10 consoles without secondary deflector. This though, might still cause trouble if/when the old sci ships also get the secondary console slot.
Based on this I think if the ship is intended to be in line with 10-console ships, it's more likely that the transformation feature is built-in with the ship, thus effectively freeing a console slot like suggested earlier on the thread, and supported by the screenshots in the blog.
The only reason I see for the awkward way the ship special abilities are tied to 'universal consoles', is to sell those consoles with the ship acting as a wrapping. And that doesn't work so well with abilities that are specific to particular ship.
The point of the secondary deflector idea was to give back a leg to the powers used by science vessels.
If it replaces a console, there's been no net gain.
That's wrong. A deflector usually gives you a lot more of bonusses then any console, even the fleet-consoles (SCI, ENG or now TAC) are worth much less. For example: There is an Elite Fleet Deflector that gives you a Bonus of 17.5 to targeting-system, 17.5 to maneuvers, 8.8 to eps, 8.8 to flow-caps, 8.8 to power-insulators, 17.5 to sensors and on top of that a 10% cooldown-reduction on all science-abilities.
The results are: You can use Science abilities more frequently (heals as well as anything else), drains are stronger, EP2X is slightly stronger, you can detect cloaks a little better and Fire on my Mark/Sensor-Scan is slightly stronger, you've got slightly higher defense and bonus accuracy.
And now we take a look at your statement: "A second deflector is not worth as much as a 10th console." For the second deflector they could make it a 8 console ship - for free - , if you compare it to current Science-Ships.
There are other deflectors that would also give you some benefits, but I think the Elite Fleet is the best choice here.
EDIT: We should wait for more announcements first: If the secondary deflector is coming for all Science-Ships, then the anniversary Ship might be woth much less compared to them. We should also wait for the stats of the new Science-Destroyer.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
If Star Trek Online was an Open-Source (GPL) Game, we would have a low-grind fork.
The normal vet ship has the console too, not just the fleet version.
Anyway, I think it will probably have it built-in, since there's no console in the screenshot where you see the button for the transformation. That might be because it was a test build, but it could indicate that the ability is built into the ship by design.
I know ... what I was doing was trying to compare these ships to a fleet level ship that has a transformation ability and 10 console slots. It's transformation is a console which takes up one of the 10 slots and leaving 9.
If these ships have the ability built in but no console for it and 9 console slots ... it equals that vet fleet ship.
If it only has 9 and the ability becomes a console .... then it does not.
After thinking about it for a while, I now realize the 2nd deflector effectively serves as the 10th console so I'm feeling better about the 9 regular console slots, especially if -- as another poster suggested -- we can load up something awesomesauce like the Borg deflector along with say the MACO.
Two points ...
1) It is being assumed and expected that all science ships will be upgraded to have a second deflector slot. They would be retrofitted at some point just like how Birds of Prey are supposed to get flanking. ... Not removes it as a 10th console = .... or do you want all sci ships that get them and are fleet to lose a console slot?
2) We are not sure yet if it will be a full deflector it takes or specifically designed "secondary deflectors" ... which if introduced would give them something new they can put into a future fleet holding .... new line of secondary deflectors. etc.
I am just thinking about the 2nd Deflector thing. IF the other Sci Vessels will get that Update too, will there be unique Deflectors available just for this Slot?
Because I don't believe we can slot 2 regular/Fleet Deflector items. Maybe those n.Ds will rather act as some kind of support/small boost.
I know you wanted to create something that looked different. But still don't understand the necessity of incorporating the Dyson appearance to the different ships?
And "hy don?t we make a Science ship that can transform between a full-on Science ship and a Destroyer with Science ship stats?" I'm trying to figure out what in the Dyson sphere technology we've seen lead to that?
This isn't Borg tech. The technology can be adapting and still sticking better to the core faction looks.
Definitely not a fan of the new appearances that diverge too far for no reason.
That the Federation, Klingons, Romulans would completely throw away tradition cultural styling of their ships this much. Yeah someone one will argue that the shapes are the same. The bare minimum core shape is the same sure. The coloration, and the details are not. Those are pretty well gone.
Example Nacelle shapes. The extreme pointed design. That is purely artistic and cultural, not technological.
It seems the artists have confused cultural or species style with technology.
For this type of testing, we look for players who have a history of testing new additions on Tribble and/ or providing succinct, constructive (positive and negative) feedback regarding additions.
In other words, yes men that don't really care about the setting and mostly sign off with thumbs up on what is given them.
Because I have a hard time believing a real Star Trek fan would go along with how much this diverges.
I know all of you want cool designs, new content and a lot of things, but just 1 important issue -> This is no star trek anymore.
Yeah its gone from the early story lines and missions where there was a nice variety of focus that fit with the Trek universe exploration and discovery with some conflict, to pretty much everything is about a new conflict now.
They're a mix of standard ship design of the three factions and Dyson Tech, then again, to each their own. I think the ships looks purely awesome.
No they aren't. The only mix is in the base core shape. Everything else that made Federation ships that, or Klingon ships, or Romulan ships that are gone.
And again why? Technology adaptation wouldn't call for these extreme of a change. The core Cultural / species decisions on the designs wouldn't be lost.
A saucer and 2 nacelles isn't all that made a Federation ship a Federation ship.
I'm not a fan of the skin swapping like the Reman prototype or how the ships skin changes with Voth tech either. Especially when there is no choice in the matter. My ship appearance is part of what I like to control also, and that really weakened.
In other words, yes men that don't really care about the setting and mostly sign off with thumbs up on what is given them.
Because I have a hard time believing a real Star Trek fan would go along with how much this diverges.
You are so far from the truth. I have been around STO for quite a while and have been invited to closed beta testings. The feedback given has always been constructive, fair and there has been feedback highlighting flaws in missions, ship designs, ship mechanics etc.
The feedback has alway been truthful and honest. Feedback I have given in the past that was critical of certain things, was taken onboard, and changes I suggested were implemented. I am proud of the fact that the feedback I gave was actually valued.
I am not a yes man as you say. I believe in seeing things as they are, if they are flawed I will say so, again if something is good I will say so.
Feedback I have given in the past that was critical of certain things, was taken onboard, and changes I suggested were implemented. I am proud of the fact that the feedback I gave was actually valued.
You do realize you are likely not the only one to provide that feedback so it isn't "YOUR" feedback that was implemented. But a groups feed back that was.
I am not a yes man as you say. I believe in seeing things as they are, if they are flawed I will say so, again if something is good I will say so.
Well the people in this round sure didn't put forth tough questions on these ship designs.
You do realize you are likely not the only one to provide that feedback so it isn't "YOUR" feedback that was implemented. But a groups feed back that was.
Actually feedback that I only gave was implented. Something I feel honored about.
I think, depending on how they do it, it might be one of the best sci hips in the game even without the tenth console.
Assuming (and I dearly hope it is so) that all Science ships will get a second deflector slot, this ship will still have an extra fore weapon slot (a DHC with a nigh unresistable weapon type at that) a fantastic BOFF layout and the flexibility of changing modes.
It might even be that the Proton DHC is removable for a different weapon, such as a Phaser DHC or suchlike. The very fact it can run DHC's is a step above most science ships (bar the Vesta of course).
Extra weapon slot certainly equals more DPS than a fourth Tac console, and we havent even seen the final turn, hull or shield values yet (they may well be fleet level).
The in built secondary deflector and weapon may well be further boons, and may only be equippable on this ship type.
Comparing it to the Vesta fed side (since there arent exactly many Rom or KDF sci ships I dont think theres much comparison), it loses a single console and hangar slot in exchange for an extra weapon slot, mode changing, possibly more turn (assuming its roughly in line with other destroyers) and a special deflector.
This is just my opinion, and I confess I spend most of my game-time in cruisers or escorts/raiders. Only recently rolled a sci.
Got a cat? Have 10 minutes to help someone make the best degree dissertation of all time?
Then please fill out my dissertation survey on feline attachment, it'd be a massive help (-:
I think, depending on how they do it, it might be one of the best sci hips in the game even without the tenth console.
Assuming (and I dearly hope it is so) that all Science ships will get a second deflector slot, this ship will still have an extra fore weapon slot (a DHC with a nigh unresistable weapon type at that) a fantastic BOFF layout and the flexibility of changing modes.
It might even be that the Proton DHC is removable for a different weapon, such as a Phaser DHC or suchlike. The very fact it can run DHC's is a step above most science ships (bar the Vesta of course).
Extra weapon slot certainly equals more DPS than a fourth Tac console, and we havent even seen the final turn, hull or shield values yet (they may well be fleet level).
The in built secondary deflector and weapon may well be further boons, and may only be equippable on this ship type.
Comparing it to the Vesta fed side (since there arent exactly many Rom or KDF sci ships I dont think theres much comparison), it loses a single console and hangar slot in exchange for an extra weapon slot, mode changing, possibly more turn (assuming its roughly in line with other destroyers) and a special deflector.
This is just my opinion, and I confess I spend most of my game-time in cruisers or escorts/raiders. Only recently rolled a sci.
Just make sure you remember that when this ship is in sci mode, that fourth weapon port will be hidden.
My question is ... Will it fit cannons beyond that one and can that one be swapped out?
Gonna be interested in seeing the ship stats this week.
Hey, is it a carrier that in one of the images in the blog, it said science/pets but in the image that shows the "U" tab, there are no hangars. I was also wondering that in the aforementioned image, the one that shows the "U" tab, there was a very rare singularity core. does that come with the ship?
Hey, is it a carrier that in one of the images in the blog, it said science/pets but in the image that shows the "U" tab, there are no hangars. I was also wondering that in the aforementioned image, the one that shows the "U" tab, there was a very rare singularity core. does that come with the ship?
No, it's not a carrier. The singularity core might be unique to the ships. Then again, it could be the Dyson Singularity core (from the rep).
I'm really excited about the new science destroyers, but I'd personally rather have a new science ship with two deflector dishes, 4 fore and 3 aft weapons (permanent, not a transformation mode), and a permanent sci commander BOff station that doesn't magically transform into a tac commander.
I hope we will some day get a "tactical science ship" with sci commander BOff and 4 weapons in the front.
In the immortal words of Captain Sisko: "It may not be what you believe, but that doesn't make it wrong."
Don't believe the lies in this forum. I am NOT an ARC user. I play STO on Steam or not at all.
No. There are special Q ones. You will get 400 free on completion of the FE once only then it will take a further 15 days there after to obtain the other 600 by completing a Q mini game.
With the Tactical mode, I think you will be able to slot cannons, however with the Science mode, I think you'll only be able to slot beams/dual beams.
There in is the interesting bit about this beast ... you don't swap it to tac for one run and then sci for another mission. This ship switches on the fly which means (I think) that you can't change the weapons.
NOW with that said ... it would be rather cool if it had two different weapon profiles between the two modes ... but I doubt it.
Comments
Reality may trump in house testing when thousand of players try to get into the limited number of Academy instances to run the Mini-Q mission, hopefully the other mission will not be at the academy also.
Grinfest maybe the wrong word but Limited-time availability to receive the ship means scheduling time to run the necessary missions on as many characters as you want the ship on before it is no longer available. though there usually is the option to spend real money and obtain the ship if say you were unable to log in for 2 weeks which has happened recently due to game glitches I believe. Honestly if the ship was available anytime during the next couple of months using the quoted criteria I don't think most people would be so annoyed by it.
like this currently randomly occurring Glitch kinda hard to run any mission when that occurs.
That actually...
Makes no sense.
The point of the secondary deflector idea was to give back a leg to the powers used by science vessels.
If it replaces a console, there's been no net gain.
This is probably true, and why I'm thinking it's not a likely scenario - and the ship is in fact comparable in 'tier' to other 9-console ships. There are still unknown factors though - like, how does the secondary deflector compare to extra console slot?
Since the slot itself is named 'Secondary Deflector', and the only case we've so far seen it in, is the new set of ships, I believe it will in fact be a separate item type - and regular deflectors cannot be installed into that slot. This would be likely because deflectors were not originally planned with consideration to being able to use two at once, and so this might lead to unpredictable combinations.
This would also allow different, and potentially significantly more powerful abilities to be implemented through the secondary deflector, while ensuring that this new deflector line can also only be utilized one per ship. t's possible that a sci ship with 9 consoles and 1 secondary deflector would be more powerful than the old setup of 10 consoles without secondary deflector. This though, might still cause trouble if/when the old sci ships also get the secondary console slot.
Based on this I think if the ship is intended to be in line with 10-console ships, it's more likely that the transformation feature is built-in with the ship, thus effectively freeing a console slot like suggested earlier on the thread, and supported by the screenshots in the blog.
The only reason I see for the awkward way the ship special abilities are tied to 'universal consoles', is to sell those consoles with the ship acting as a wrapping. And that doesn't work so well with abilities that are specific to particular ship.
That's wrong. A deflector usually gives you a lot more of bonusses then any console, even the fleet-consoles (SCI, ENG or now TAC) are worth much less. For example: There is an Elite Fleet Deflector that gives you a Bonus of 17.5 to targeting-system, 17.5 to maneuvers, 8.8 to eps, 8.8 to flow-caps, 8.8 to power-insulators, 17.5 to sensors and on top of that a 10% cooldown-reduction on all science-abilities.
The results are: You can use Science abilities more frequently (heals as well as anything else), drains are stronger, EP2X is slightly stronger, you can detect cloaks a little better and Fire on my Mark/Sensor-Scan is slightly stronger, you've got slightly higher defense and bonus accuracy.
And now we take a look at your statement: "A second deflector is not worth as much as a 10th console." For the second deflector they could make it a 8 console ship - for free - , if you compare it to current Science-Ships.
There are other deflectors that would also give you some benefits, but I think the Elite Fleet is the best choice here.
EDIT: We should wait for more announcements first: If the secondary deflector is coming for all Science-Ships, then the anniversary Ship might be woth much less compared to them. We should also wait for the stats of the new Science-Destroyer.
If Star Trek Online was an Open-Source (GPL) Game, we would have a low-grind fork.
I know ... what I was doing was trying to compare these ships to a fleet level ship that has a transformation ability and 10 console slots. It's transformation is a console which takes up one of the 10 slots and leaving 9.
If these ships have the ability built in but no console for it and 9 console slots ... it equals that vet fleet ship.
If it only has 9 and the ability becomes a console .... then it does not.
U.S.S. Maelstrom, NCC-71417 (Constitution III-class/flagship) --- Fleet Admiral Hauk' --|-- Dahar Master Hauk --- I.K.S. qu'In 'an bortaS (D7-class / flagship)
Two points ...
1) It is being assumed and expected that all science ships will be upgraded to have a second deflector slot. They would be retrofitted at some point just like how Birds of Prey are supposed to get flanking. ... Not removes it as a 10th console = .... or do you want all sci ships that get them and are fleet to lose a console slot?
2) We are not sure yet if it will be a full deflector it takes or specifically designed "secondary deflectors" ... which if introduced would give them something new they can put into a future fleet holding .... new line of secondary deflectors. etc.
U.S.S. Maelstrom, NCC-71417 (Constitution III-class/flagship) --- Fleet Admiral Hauk' --|-- Dahar Master Hauk --- I.K.S. qu'In 'an bortaS (D7-class / flagship)
Because I don't believe we can slot 2 regular/Fleet Deflector items. Maybe those n.Ds will rather act as some kind of support/small boost.
And im really concerned as well for the skills try when you switch to modes. I had enough skill try bugs right now to be worried about something more.
And "hy don?t we make a Science ship that can transform between a full-on Science ship and a Destroyer with Science ship stats?" I'm trying to figure out what in the Dyson sphere technology we've seen lead to that?
This isn't Borg tech. The technology can be adapting and still sticking better to the core faction looks.
Definitely not a fan of the new appearances that diverge too far for no reason.
That the Federation, Klingons, Romulans would completely throw away tradition cultural styling of their ships this much. Yeah someone one will argue that the shapes are the same. The bare minimum core shape is the same sure. The coloration, and the details are not. Those are pretty well gone.
Example Nacelle shapes. The extreme pointed design. That is purely artistic and cultural, not technological.
It seems the artists have confused cultural or species style with technology.
In other words, yes men that don't really care about the setting and mostly sign off with thumbs up on what is given them.
Because I have a hard time believing a real Star Trek fan would go along with how much this diverges.
Yeah its gone from the early story lines and missions where there was a nice variety of focus that fit with the Trek universe exploration and discovery with some conflict, to pretty much everything is about a new conflict now.
No they aren't. The only mix is in the base core shape. Everything else that made Federation ships that, or Klingon ships, or Romulan ships that are gone.
And again why? Technology adaptation wouldn't call for these extreme of a change. The core Cultural / species decisions on the designs wouldn't be lost.
A saucer and 2 nacelles isn't all that made a Federation ship a Federation ship.
I'm not a fan of the skin swapping like the Reman prototype or how the ships skin changes with Voth tech either. Especially when there is no choice in the matter. My ship appearance is part of what I like to control also, and that really weakened.
You are so far from the truth. I have been around STO for quite a while and have been invited to closed beta testings. The feedback given has always been constructive, fair and there has been feedback highlighting flaws in missions, ship designs, ship mechanics etc.
The feedback has alway been truthful and honest. Feedback I have given in the past that was critical of certain things, was taken onboard, and changes I suggested were implemented. I am proud of the fact that the feedback I gave was actually valued.
I am not a yes man as you say. I believe in seeing things as they are, if they are flawed I will say so, again if something is good I will say so.
However it is the most iconic design of a Federation ship
You do realize you are likely not the only one to provide that feedback so it isn't "YOUR" feedback that was implemented. But a groups feed back that was.
Well the people in this round sure didn't put forth tough questions on these ship designs.
Not the only iconic part of federations ships. Look at the movies, the shows. The cultural style of each faction is there.
These ships they are gone except for those bare bones. And for no reason.
The ship designers in the federation are not going to start using Iconian cultural styles for their ships. Neither are the Klingons nor Romulans.
Actually feedback that I only gave was implented. Something I feel honored about.
As it appears that you are so anti these ships, I can only summise you won't be getting them then. The feedback has been more than positive.
Assuming (and I dearly hope it is so) that all Science ships will get a second deflector slot, this ship will still have an extra fore weapon slot (a DHC with a nigh unresistable weapon type at that) a fantastic BOFF layout and the flexibility of changing modes.
It might even be that the Proton DHC is removable for a different weapon, such as a Phaser DHC or suchlike. The very fact it can run DHC's is a step above most science ships (bar the Vesta of course).
Extra weapon slot certainly equals more DPS than a fourth Tac console, and we havent even seen the final turn, hull or shield values yet (they may well be fleet level).
The in built secondary deflector and weapon may well be further boons, and may only be equippable on this ship type.
Comparing it to the Vesta fed side (since there arent exactly many Rom or KDF sci ships I dont think theres much comparison), it loses a single console and hangar slot in exchange for an extra weapon slot, mode changing, possibly more turn (assuming its roughly in line with other destroyers) and a special deflector.
This is just my opinion, and I confess I spend most of my game-time in cruisers or escorts/raiders. Only recently rolled a sci.
Then please fill out my dissertation survey on feline attachment, it'd be a massive help (-:
https://www.surveymonkey.co.uk/r/87XKSGH
Just make sure you remember that when this ship is in sci mode, that fourth weapon port will be hidden.
My question is ... Will it fit cannons beyond that one and can that one be swapped out?
Gonna be interested in seeing the ship stats this week.
U.S.S. Maelstrom, NCC-71417 (Constitution III-class/flagship) --- Fleet Admiral Hauk' --|-- Dahar Master Hauk --- I.K.S. qu'In 'an bortaS (D7-class / flagship)
No, it's not a carrier. The singularity core might be unique to the ships. Then again, it could be the Dyson Singularity core (from the rep).
I hope we will some day get a "tactical science ship" with sci commander BOff and 4 weapons in the front.
Don't believe the lies in this forum. I am NOT an ARC user. I play STO on Steam or not at all.
No. There are special Q ones. You will get 400 free on completion of the FE once only then it will take a further 15 days there after to obtain the other 600 by completing a Q mini game.
There in is the interesting bit about this beast ... you don't swap it to tac for one run and then sci for another mission. This ship switches on the fly which means (I think) that you can't change the weapons.
NOW with that said ... it would be rather cool if it had two different weapon profiles between the two modes ... but I doubt it.
U.S.S. Maelstrom, NCC-71417 (Constitution III-class/flagship) --- Fleet Admiral Hauk' --|-- Dahar Master Hauk --- I.K.S. qu'In 'an bortaS (D7-class / flagship)