They dont mount 5/3 like all battlecruisers so far. And the way weapons was implemented was one of the main factors to clasify a ship, since ever. Cruisers always had 4/4. Escorts always had 4/3 5/2. Science ships always had 3/3. Battle carriers always had 4/3. And so on. So, suddenly things changed about this?
Ah, I see this is more about symantics for you. Well in that case I won't try to argue rationally but as this is cryptic's game and they call them battlecruisers, I think I will take their word for it. And yes, things often do suddenly change in games, especially ageing ones, as they evolve. If you want another example just look at SWTOR's upcoming expansion, it pretty much changes the whole nature of the game with the whole "Outlander" character convergence thing and companion reboot.
As the ships have everything else that makes them a battlecruiser, I think it's well within cryptic's right to have certain ships that don't fit the perfect mold. Not to mention that the K'Tinga BATTLECRUISER has a 4/4 layout. Yes it's a KDF ship, but they are still classified in this game as a Battlecruiser; not to mention called as such in real Trek, which immediatley trumps anything in game anyway. As such yes, there has been a precident for a 4/4 battlecruiser since the very start of the game. Further, the Scimitar has a 5/3, but its a dreadnought not a battlecruiser, while the Galaxy-X, also a dreadnought, only has a 4/4. The D'Deridex also has a 4/4, but is called a "warbird battlecruiser." And I won't even start about the Mat'ha or Kumari which have the otherwise unique 5/2 layout (Are they destroyers?, raiders?, raptors?, battlecruisers?, escorts?, attack ships? Who knows because none, and yet all, of those classes could fit). In essence, and just like how the famous tank/heal/DPS "trinity" has been rendered moot, the divisions between weapon mount layouts got fuzzy a long time ago.
Post edited by zarato4218 on
As Zephram Cochrane once said, "That'll do, pig. That'll do." - April 1st 2015.
Still hoping that a certain Excelsior captain, by the name of Captain Sulu (through the magic of time travel), would make a STO voice-over debut in a Resolute-class starship....
I can say I don't care for a chevron saucer, and the pylons are attached too far to the middle. To me the three defining things looks wise about an Excelsior was the round saucer, the thick neck/deflector combo, and how low, long and to the rear the nacelles were.
For me this only hits one out of three, and I don't know how well the old and new parts will mix looks wise until we get our hands on it. But as it looks, I'm not sure I'll buy it to find out.
They dont mount 5/3 like all battlecruisers so far. And the way weapons was implemented was one of the main factors to clasify a ship, since ever. Cruisers always had 4/4. Escorts always had 4/3 5/2. Science ships always had 3/3. Battle carriers always had 4/3. And so on. So, suddenly things changed about this?
The 5/3 Battlecruisers are the outliers, not the 4/4s. There are three Battlecruisers with the 5/3 weapon arrangement, the Avenger, the Mogh (plus their T6 and Fleet variants), and the Vaadwaur Astika. Every single other Klingon T5 or T6 Battlecruiser has 4/4 weapons, from the Vor'cha and Negh'var to the Qib and Bortasqu', as well as the other cross-faction Battlecruisers (Ferengi Marauder, Hirogen Apex, Elachi Monbosh, Tal Shiar Adapted Battlecruiser, and Malon Battlecruiser). 5/3 Battlecruisers only look like the norm to Fed players because the Avenger was the only "Battlecruiser" in the Federation fleet before the CBCs were released.
However, it is true that the Command Battlecruisers aren't standard Battlecruisers (and neither is the Qib), it's just not the weapon arrangement that marks them as different. It's the selection of Cruiser Commands (Shield Frequency Modulation and Attract Fire, while normal Battlecruisers have Weapon Systems Efficiency, Shield Frequency Modulation, and Strategic Maneuvering), Device Slots (4 instead of the usual 3), a Hangar Bay, and the Inspiration mechanic. However, this doesn't change the fact that they're Battlecruisers, it just makes them a Battlecruiser variant--they still have the Battlecruiser Starship Mastery package, and can use Dual Cannons. The Qib is also a variant on the Battlecruiser, with only 2 Cruiser Commands (Weapon Systems Efficiency and Strategic Maneuvering), the Gather Intel mechanic, and a Battle Cloak instead of a standard Cloak (in this manner, the Eclipse Intel Cruiser could also be considered as a variant Battlecruiser, as its traits are closer to such than to a standard Cruiser).
Actually, if you look at any of the promotional material, the blogs, the wikis, etc... you would know quite well that they are battlecruisers. First, they can equip cannons, second they have the gimped cruiser communications array of a battlecruiser, third they have the battlecruiser mastery package and fourth "Battlecruiser" is literally in their name.
They dont mount 5/3 like all battlecruisers so far. And the way weapons was implemented was one of the main factors to clasify a ship, since ever. Cruisers always had 4/4. Escorts always had 4/3 5/2. Science ships always had 3/3. Battle carriers always had 4/3. And so on. So, suddenly things changed about this?
The Neg'Var was the first Tier 5 Battleruiser in the game, and it had a 4/4 layout. What made it battlecruiser was the abiity to carry DHCs and probably a better turn rate.
Star Trek Online Advancement: You start with lowbie gear, you end with Lobi gear.
I'm sure the first Federation Cruiser with Pilot hybrid will probably be the T6 Sovereign. This is just a nice alternative for those that don't want the Andromeda or Presidio for whatever reason.
Ok i will keep it short and simple, i DISLIKE the design.
the Exelsior allways was about its Sleak clean design, clear strong lines and all that...
this one is way to ... rounded, just looks like a fat, bloatet old exelsior that ate to much ....
now to the statside! ....
3 tactic consoles?
did the exelsior seriously LOSE one tac console from its t5-fleet version up to T6?
come on?
a Tactical based cruiser ... one of the few with 4 tacs ... aaaaaaand we get a upgrade-downgrade.... i will keep to fly my K5-U just for its better console layout....
here the wiki link to the t5-fleet version and the new versions stats.
The name "Resolute" has been given to three British ships over the last couple of centuries, one of which was never built. The other two were survey ships, mainly famous for failing miserably and being turned into furniture for diplomatic purposes.
The "Resolution" on the other hand has been given to a dozen vessels, including the flagship of James Cook's fleet, two twentieth-century battleships (one of them a Sovereign-class...), and the lead vessel of Britain's first ballistic-missile submarine class.
Not a huge deal. Just personally annoyed at the shallowness of the choice. I'll live.
Comments
Ah, I see this is more about symantics for you. Well in that case I won't try to argue rationally but as this is cryptic's game and they call them battlecruisers, I think I will take their word for it.
As the ships have everything else that makes them a battlecruiser, I think it's well within cryptic's right to have certain ships that don't fit the perfect mold. Not to mention that the K'Tinga BATTLECRUISER has a 4/4 layout. Yes it's a KDF ship, but they are still classified in this game as a Battlecruiser; not to mention called as such in real Trek, which immediatley trumps anything in game anyway. As such yes, there has been a precident for a 4/4 battlecruiser since the very start of the game. Further, the Scimitar has a 5/3, but its a dreadnought not a battlecruiser, while the Galaxy-X, also a dreadnought, only has a 4/4. The D'Deridex also has a 4/4, but is called a "warbird battlecruiser." And I won't even start about the Mat'ha or Kumari which have the otherwise unique 5/2 layout (Are they destroyers?, raiders?, raptors?, battlecruisers?, escorts?, attack ships? Who knows because none, and yet all, of those classes could fit). In essence, and just like how the famous tank/heal/DPS "trinity" has been rendered moot, the divisions between weapon mount layouts got fuzzy a long time ago.
For me this only hits one out of three, and I don't know how well the old and new parts will mix looks wise until we get our hands on it. But as it looks, I'm not sure I'll buy it to find out.
The 5/3 Battlecruisers are the outliers, not the 4/4s. There are three Battlecruisers with the 5/3 weapon arrangement, the Avenger, the Mogh (plus their T6 and Fleet variants), and the Vaadwaur Astika. Every single other Klingon T5 or T6 Battlecruiser has 4/4 weapons, from the Vor'cha and Negh'var to the Qib and Bortasqu', as well as the other cross-faction Battlecruisers (Ferengi Marauder, Hirogen Apex, Elachi Monbosh, Tal Shiar Adapted Battlecruiser, and Malon Battlecruiser). 5/3 Battlecruisers only look like the norm to Fed players because the Avenger was the only "Battlecruiser" in the Federation fleet before the CBCs were released.
However, it is true that the Command Battlecruisers aren't standard Battlecruisers (and neither is the Qib), it's just not the weapon arrangement that marks them as different. It's the selection of Cruiser Commands (Shield Frequency Modulation and Attract Fire, while normal Battlecruisers have Weapon Systems Efficiency, Shield Frequency Modulation, and Strategic Maneuvering), Device Slots (4 instead of the usual 3), a Hangar Bay, and the Inspiration mechanic. However, this doesn't change the fact that they're Battlecruisers, it just makes them a Battlecruiser variant--they still have the Battlecruiser Starship Mastery package, and can use Dual Cannons. The Qib is also a variant on the Battlecruiser, with only 2 Cruiser Commands (Weapon Systems Efficiency and Strategic Maneuvering), the Gather Intel mechanic, and a Battle Cloak instead of a standard Cloak (in this manner, the Eclipse Intel Cruiser could also be considered as a variant Battlecruiser, as its traits are closer to such than to a standard Cruiser).
the Exelsior allways was about its Sleak clean design, clear strong lines and all that...
this one is way to ... rounded, just looks like a fat, bloatet old exelsior that ate to much ....
now to the statside! ....
3 tactic consoles?
did the exelsior seriously LOSE one tac console from its t5-fleet version up to T6?
come on?
a Tactical based cruiser ... one of the few with 4 tacs ... aaaaaaand we get a upgrade-downgrade.... i will keep to fly my K5-U just for its better console layout....
here the wiki link to the t5-fleet version and the new versions stats.
http://sto.gamepedia.com/Advanced_Heavy_Cruiser_Retrofit // Fleet version
http://sto.gamepedia.com/Advanced_Heavy_Cruiser_(T6) // T6 version!
that means i HAVE to buy the FLEET VERSION of the t6 ship to get stats the ZENSTORE ship is useless!
The name "Resolute" has been given to three British ships over the last couple of centuries, one of which was never built. The other two were survey ships, mainly famous for failing miserably and being turned into furniture for diplomatic purposes.
The "Resolution" on the other hand has been given to a dozen vessels, including the flagship of James Cook's fleet, two twentieth-century battleships (one of them a Sovereign-class...), and the lead vessel of Britain's first ballistic-missile submarine class.
Not a huge deal. Just personally annoyed at the shallowness of the choice. I'll live.
Somehow.