test content
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc

Design Your Ship!

1235712

Comments

  • swamarianswamarian Member Posts: 1,506 Arc User
    None of them look like carriers to me. Of the designs, I guess I like Delta, then Beta. It won't matter what you give me, if I get Miranda frigate pets.
  • trwarbucktrwarbuck Member Posts: 274 Arc User
    Aquarius hanger pets would be better than Miranda. You are talking about a ship that is 180 meters wide at the widest part of the ship. The Aquarius can fold its nacelles into its body while store on board. Four Aquarius or 12 Peregrine fighters or 6 Runabouts.
  • rahhmirahhmi Member Posts: 145 Arc User
    I'm sorry. But Fire whoever designed these, they're all really terrible, and most of the ships that have come out are equally bad... not the modeling, but the overall designs in general. The Last Cool looking ship you guys had was.. [I'm sorry to say] the Odyssey.
  • welcome2earfwelcome2earf Member Posts: 1,746 Arc User
    Ok guys - help me out here...how is this "Designing (sic) my own ship"? It's more like "vote on your fave ship we are making" really. And must we be stuck with 4 nacelles?
    T93uSC8.jpg
  • thegrandnagus1thegrandnagus1 Member Posts: 5,166 Arc User
    edited September 2015
    orangeitis wrote: »
    sorceror01 wrote: »
    orangeitis wrote: »
    primar13 wrote: »
    Click the Ship Images for Bigger more HQ Images

    There is a Side View too.
    The side view is the bottom image. The top image is the top-down view.

    The Omega design is nothing like the Jupiter-class.

    Are you sure about that?
    a958068791c8c20cc0cb47c30740cf0b1442965765.png
    jupiter-class.jpg

    I can give you a moment to really think it over if you like.
    Look at the images again. After you realize you're looking at it wrong,

    There is no "looking at it wrong". You are talking about a completely subjective opinion about visual similarity. Just because someone else has a different opinion about how something looks does not mean they are wrong. Their opinion is equally as "right" as your own.

    The-Grand-Nagus
    Join Date: Sep 2008

    og9Zoh0.jpg
  • thegrandnagus1thegrandnagus1 Member Posts: 5,166 Arc User
    Ok guys - help me out here...how is this "Designing (sic) my own ship"? It's more like "vote on your fave ship we are making" really. And must we be stuck with 4 nacelles?

    You are right, we aren't actually designing anything. But it does sound more exciting :p

    The-Grand-Nagus
    Join Date: Sep 2008

    og9Zoh0.jpg
  • samt1996samt1996 Member Posts: 2,856 Arc User
    Because the last time they let people design ships for the game we ended up with the Odyssey and the Chimera... Do you really want to do that again!?! I thought not.

    This is better, we are involved in the process but actual experts are doing most of the work.
  • welcome2earfwelcome2earf Member Posts: 1,746 Arc User
    edited September 2015
    rahhmi wrote: »
    I'm sorry. But Fire whoever designed these, they're all really terrible, and most of the ships that have come out are equally bad... not the modeling, but the overall designs in general. The Last Cool looking ship you guys had was.. [I'm sorry to say] the Odyssey.
    Ok guys - help me out here...how is this "Designing (sic) my own ship"? It's more like "vote on your fave ship we are making" really. And must we be stuck with 4 nacelles?

    You are right, we aren't actually designing anything. But it does sound more exciting :p

    Well then that's some sensationalist bullsh!t, really. Trendy, since this is your baby, change this nonsense. I expect more from YOU out of all people; it's not only deceptive, it is grammatically and just plain incorrect and wrong. Untrue at best, intentionally deceptive at worst.

    A completely honest headline would be "Chose the next Federation ship!"


    EDIT: Unless there are features of this program that I'm missing or unawares of.
    T93uSC8.jpg
  • sorceror01sorceror01 Member Posts: 1,042 Arc User
    I imagine it's headlined as "Design Your Ship!" in that it is letting us, the players, (i.e., You and Me!) take part in the design process.
    And in case people haven't noticed yet, it's not just the ship design we'll be picking out. It also seems we'll have a set of ship arms, equipment, and BOff seating to choose from, too.
    ".... you're gonna have a bad time."
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 0 Arc User
    rahhmi wrote: »
    I'm sorry. But Fire whoever designed these, they're all really terrible, and most of the ships that have come out are equally bad... not the modeling, but the overall designs in general. The Last Cool looking ship you guys had was.. [I'm sorry to say] the Odyssey.

    Same here. The last beautiful ship they put out was the Odyssey. The new one's after that are just hideous kit-bashing.
  • sorceror01sorceror01 Member Posts: 1,042 Arc User
    sov42 wrote: »
    rahhmi wrote: »
    I'm sorry. But Fire whoever designed these, they're all really terrible, and most of the ships that have come out are equally bad... not the modeling, but the overall designs in general. The Last Cool looking ship you guys had was.. [I'm sorry to say] the Odyssey.

    Same here. The last beautiful ship they put out was the Odyssey. The new one's after that are just hideous kit-bashing.

    Not.... really? Because kit-bashing implies throwing parts together from other ships to make a "new" one. And that's kinda denigrating the really hard and great work the ship team has done since then.
    Like, you can have your own personal taste in ships, and I guess literally every ship since the Odyssey came out isn't to your liking, and that's fine.
    But don't downgrade the effort put forth by the people who make some really great and creative ship ideas by implying their designs are simply "parts taken from other ships and jumbled together", simply because you do not have a taste for them.

    And frankly, some ships since the Odyssey have taken design cues from it in their own design. I mean, just off the top of my head? The Regeant class Assault cruiser and Avenger class Battlecruiser borrow very heavily from the Odyssey in a myriad of ways.
    ".... you're gonna have a bad time."
  • strathkinstrathkin Member Posts: 2,671 Bug Hunter
    edited September 2015
    I'm surprised how many people agree they are TIRED of seeing all ships with 4 drives. I'm also glad most the starships except Omega also have recognizable hull sections. I wish more detail showed where the Hanger Bay's are located, THETA & BETA appear in the rear of the sauser if its not lighting?

    Carrier doesn't mean ships require carrying hundreds of craft, most Starships carry 6-12 shuttles in 2-3 hanger bays--most captains keep docked during tactical exercises. These Carriers double that capability while supporting higher crew energy requirements & compliment of likely 1250 - 1500.

    We don't require a drastic redesign on Federation Starship design principles. I'd vote for THETA or SIGMA.
    Post edited by strathkin on
    0zxlclk.png
  • breadandcircusesbreadandcircuses Member Posts: 2,355 Arc User
    edited September 2015
    For my vote:
    For a "Science" Carrier, the Delta or Alpha designs
    (I use quotes because "Science" Carriers lack the Secondary Deflector to make proper use of Science abilities)
    For a Dreadnought Carrier, the Omega or Epsilon/Sigma designs
    (With the latter pair looking like different skins for the same ship, especially the side view)

    Of course, before that... will this be a standalone Fed offering, or is this a special event running concurrent to the release of a T6 Vo'quv and an in-house T6 Romulan Warbird Carrier?
    Ym9x9Ji.png
    meimeitoo wrote: »
    I do not like Geko ether.
    iconians wrote: »
    With each passing day I wonder if I stepped into an alternate reality. The Cubs win the world series. Donald Trump is President. Britain leaves the EU. STO gets a dedicated PvP season. Engineers are "out of control" in STO.​​
  • swamarianswamarian Member Posts: 1,506 Arc User
    strathkin wrote: »
    I wish more detail showed where the Hanger Bay's are located, THETA & BETA appear in the rear of the sauser if its not lighting?

    This is my complaint with a lot of carriers. Where are the hangers? I think that non-carriers tend to do a better job with hangers than the carriers do.
  • This content has been removed.
  • daveynydaveyny Member Posts: 8,227 Arc User
    edited September 2015
    I know I'm old school, but I would really like to see a couple of designs included that harken back to the Classic Movie Enterprise...
    I'm tired of ovals and triangles and the neck smooshed into an accordion with multiple pairs of nacelles clamped on.
    Even if They just used an enlarged primary hull from the movie Enterprise with a definitive secondary hull and just two nacelles, I'd be happy.
    None of the designs offered at this point really peak my interest.
    I guess my vote will be to pass.
    <shrug>
    STO Member since February 2009.
    I Was A Trekkie Before It Was Cool ... Sept. 8th, 1966 ... Not To Mention Before Most Folks Around Here Were Born!
    Forever a STO Veteran-Minion
    upside-down-banana-smiley-emoticon.gif
  • sorceror01sorceror01 Member Posts: 1,042 Arc User
    daveyny wrote: »
    I know I'm old school, but I would really like to see a couple of designs included that harken back to the Classic Enterprise...
    I'm tired of ovals and triangles and the neck smooshed into an accordian.
    Even if They just used an enlarged primary hull from the movie Enterprise with a definitive secondary hull, I'd be happy.

    But a large majority of Starfleet ships in-game right now are of that nature. Plus, the features you are disparaging are clearly where ship design was going in the last few TV and movie series, if the Intrepid, Sovereign, Prometheus, and Akira were any indication.
    ".... you're gonna have a bad time."
  • mulgannon2mulgannon2 Member Posts: 14 Arc User
    When I think a carrier, I think of something with a giant runway for planes to take off. Now since we are in space, we need something with huge hangers, and lots of fighter/bombers coming out. As for the overall design though, if you give a big hanger, Beta, it looks like it can carry a dozen fighters, but it looks.... Ugly in my own opinion. The best looking one for a carrier in my opinion is Gamma, it does have the size comparable to the Beta, but will also need a large hanger to make it look more authentic. But based on the size of carriers we are getting, sadly the Alpha, and Epsilon look to only carry 6 fighters, and are in appearance much, much smaller than the Beta and Gamma, with the Omega looking one of the better ones.

    Here is to hoping for a more carrier specific role with a few weapons to help defend itself, but for its main damage and control to be handled through the many, many fighters. Thinking at least 18 Fighters to kind of make what I am thinking work. But then again, not sure what I am thinking other than putting my own thoughts out there.
  • dracounguisdracounguis Member Posts: 5,358 Arc User
    I like Omega, then Theta. Rest are meh.
  • barimanforumsbarimanforums Member Posts: 104 Arc User
    Quick notes:

    1. Beta looks like it only has two necelles, so there IS a two necelle option out there.

    2. What does a FED carrier supposed to look like? There was no dedicated small craft vessel in the shows, and just about every ship in the universe can launch multiple shuttle craft anyway. Sorry for the rant, but this has always been up there with pilot moves only for pilot ships.
  • majortiraomegamajortiraomega Member Posts: 2,214 Arc User
    I'm definitely in favor of Gamma as the choice for the new Federation Carrier. The bulky edges mixed with graceful curves gives the ship a distinctly federation feel. The ship also appears visually as a functional carrier with the saucer section "V" in the middle. Alpha looks like a good skin for the Pathfinder, Beta looks like a Nebula variant, Epsilon is a Patrol Escort, Theta is too much like the Command Cruisers, Sigma is a Stargazer class, and Omega is a Typhoon Cruiser. Delta unique, but it doesn't look at all like a Federation starship.
    --->Ground PvP Concerns Directory 4.0
    --->Ground Combat General Bugs Directory
    Real join date: March 2012 / PvP Veteran since May 2012 (Ground and Space)
  • shadowwraith77shadowwraith77 Member Posts: 6,395 Arc User
    All the designs look appealing for new ships, but picking 1 is quite difficult, as none of them really invoke a sense of hangar vessel IMO.

    tumblr_nq9ec3BSAy1qj6sk2o2_500_zpspkqw0mmk.gif


    Praetor of the -RTS- Romulan Tal Shiar fleet!

  • gethralkin1gethralkin1 Member Posts: 108 Arc User
    ahem... a NX-85808 U.S.S. Typhon update reclass/refit would be awesome and most logical. The lines are in all the right places for a carrier and its size and bulk are favorable for fortress quality fighter-spitting action.

    It's what the Jupiter should be. Doesn't have to be the same design, but something in the neighborhood:

    5e6dcde5f4a09a968492137e6a0d44c7.png
  • picardcrusherpicardcrusher Member Posts: 101 Arc User
    edited September 2015
    sorceror01 wrote: »
    I imagine it's headlined as "Design Your Ship!" in that it is letting us, the players, (i.e., You and Me!) take part in the design process.
    And in case people haven't noticed yet, it's not just the ship design we'll be picking out. It also seems we'll have a set of ship arms, equipment, and BOff seating to choose from, too.

    We should take how it performs in battle into account as we choose the look... Personally I would like to see the missing Fed battlecarrier. B)

    Imagine a Karfi-ish or Xindi-Aquatic weapon, maneuver and B/O layout with piloting stations. That would look more manuverable, so a sleek 4 nacelle design would be best. For that reason I'm voting alpha or gamma. <3

    I guess at T6 that would work out as Commander sci/pilot, Lt. Cdr. Tac/pilot, Lt. Cdr. uni., Lt. Eng, Ensign uni.

    Nerfing is Fraud...
  • szerontzurszerontzur Member Posts: 2,724 Arc User
    (Pardon the MSPaint job.)

    EojD2iy.png
    OMEGA
    Firstly, I generally like the bulkiness and visible hangar bays. Due to its resemblance to the obsolete Jupiter Class, I suspect this is going to be the elephant in the room.

    1.) I assume these are the hangar portions, I like that they're clearly visible and attached to the saucer section.

    2.) Are these impulse engines or traditional aft hangar bays? (if the latter, would it make sense to add impulse engines just behind the main port/starboard hangar bays like more traditional cruisers?)

    3.) Are these weapon locations? One of my main complaints with this variant is the distinct lack of distinguishable defensive weapon hardpoints. Given its size and presumably low agility, one would assume it would be fit with noticible beam array along the main 'saucer' section.

    4.) Where is the deflector located at? I would assume one of these two locations, although it would be a bit silly to have it on the ventral 'nub' for such a, presumably, heavy ship. What purpose the ventral 'nub' serve? Comm Tower/Flight Controller?


    reYSaGW.png
    DELTA
    While the Beta feels a bit closer to the Akira in general saucer shape, I'm not a fan of the massive deflector/engineering section of that variant. I think the Delta is probably the closest to a more traditional Starfleet design that still captures the sense of a work-ship that would function in a support and command role.

    1.) With such a large saucer section, I think it would make sense if the ship is mostly hollowed out(like the Akira) with some visible hangar bays on the sides and aft. I'm not entirely sure where the side bays would go, but I circled some stuff to perhaps play around with as potential areas. I realize those 'squares' on the saucer are probably large escape pods, but I could also see them being refit as diagonal hangars/launching bays.

    2.) I really dig the raised 'pod' on this variant, it reminds me both of the Nebula and Akira - ships that traditionally functioned as support/command ships. I understand that those sections were primarily torpedo systems, but the association is still there.

    3.) One thing I really like about this variant is the very obvious and logical locations for traditional phaser beam arrays. I can easily visually these strips lighting up as the ship cinematically defends itself.

    4.) I like that this forward section feels a bit distinct from the the sides and it makes reasonable sense to visibly consolidate engineering and deflector controls into this portion of the ship
  • picardcrusherpicardcrusher Member Posts: 101 Arc User
    szerontzur wrote: »
    (Pardon the MSPaint job.)

    EojD2iy.png
    OMEGA
    Firstly, I generally like the bulkiness and visible hangar bays. Due to its resemblance to the obsolete Jupiter Class, I suspect this is going to be the elephant in the room.

    Well Szerontzur I agree that the size issue is one we have to come to terms with as a community. I'm going to argue that bulkiness isn't actually required. The number of shuttles in a deployed wing is only 6, so a maximum of 12 per ship. Such a low number doesn't require the hangar space or support crew that a modern sea going carrier does.

    Also if we get the missing Fed Battlecarrier, it will have more in common with an escort, so the layout I've suggested above works well. This really is a good time to correct that particular oversight. Go battlecarrier!

    Nerfing is Fraud...
  • picardcrusherpicardcrusher Member Posts: 101 Arc User
    szerontzur wrote: »
    (Pardon the MSPaint job.)

    OMEGA
    Firstly, I generally like the bulkiness and visible hangar bays. Due to its resemblance to the obsolete Jupiter Class, I suspect this is going to be the elephant in the room.

    Well Szerontzur I agree that the size issue is one we have to come to terms with as a community. I'm going to argue that bulkiness isn't actually required. The number of shuttles in a deployed wing is only 6, so a maximum of 12 per ship. Such a low number doesn't require the hangar space or support crew that a modern sea going carrier does.

    Also if we get the missing Fed Battlecarrier, it will have more in common with an escort, so the layout I've suggested above works well. This really is a good time to correct that particular oversight. Go battlecarrier!


    Nerfing is Fraud...
  • mustrumridcully0mustrumridcully0 Member Posts: 12,963 Arc User
    artan42 wrote: »
    Vote Omega, make it look like the Jupiter Class. I see Gamma as the only other viable choice for a carrier. Alpha and Delta are Science Vessels, Sigma and Epsilon are escorts, and Beta and Theta are cruisers.

    Edit: Not saying I dislike the others (except Omega and Gamma) just they don't look like carriers to me, still lovely though.
    Definitely Omega for me, too. It reminds me of the Jupiter, but maybe in more aethetically pleasing. They should make the saucer higher, however, to resemble it more.

    Star Trek Online Advancement: You start with lowbie gear, you end with Lobi gear.
  • picardcrusherpicardcrusher Member Posts: 101 Arc User
    Definitely Omega for me, too. It reminds me of the Jupiter, but maybe in more aethetically pleasing. They should make the saucer higher, however, to resemble it more.

    I never liked the Jupiter much. The 4 nacelle look is better for a carrier, so Omega works, but the Jupiter looks like it flew through a vice and always struck me as kind of bizzarre. I avoided it just because of the look.

    Battlecarriers aren't particularily small, but I'd still choose Gamma over Omega.

    Nerfing is Fraud...
  • szerontzurszerontzur Member Posts: 2,724 Arc User
    Well Szerontzur I agree that the size issue is one we have to come to terms with as a community. I'm going to argue that bulkiness isn't actually required. The number of shuttles in a deployed wing is only 6, so a maximum of 12 per ship. Such a low number doesn't require the hangar space or support crew that a modern sea going carrier does.

    Also if we get the missing Fed Battlecarrier, it will have more in common with an escort, so the layout I've suggested above works well. This really is a good time to correct that particular oversight. Go battlecarrier!

    That's an entirely fair point, and I agree that the aggressive shape of the Omega certainly does feel like more of an Assault Carrier. However, after looking more closely at the design, it honestly doesn't look very heavily armed. At most, I visualize some heavy forward cannons and maybe some obscure turrets dotted across the hull.

    Conversely, the Delta variant has a very clear Torpedo Pod, ample natural locations to fit (quite large) phaser array strips and it could very easily fit forward cannons/torpedos in that front section.. while still having plenty of area in the main saucer section to house squadrons of fighters and corvette sized craft.
Sign In or Register to comment.