Off the bat, this is unbelievably closer than most others... interesting.. yesssss..
/cackle
Anyway, Theta is the last hope for a dual nacelle. But it appears I'll be 0-3. I can't wait to reach 0-4.
I'll likely be joining many of the others in the 0 for 4 club as I've noticed more than a few that have consistently voted for the carrier choice that ends up loosing.
I'll actually be 2 to 1 if the Theta loses. Though it's a bit closer this time around...
Christian Gaming Community Fleets--Faith, Fun, and Fellowship! See the website and PM for more. :-) Proudly F2P.Signature image by gulberat. Avatar image by balsavor.deviantart.com.
I've gone for Epsilon because, in my eyes, Theta has too much of a command cruiser vibe going on (although when it gets to Sigma versus Omega, I'll go for the latter considering how visually similar Sigma and Epsilon are).
Also, to those who say "round saucers are classic Trek, stick with them [insert obligatory design-based insult here]", have you heard of the Defiant?
Epsilon and Omega have the same top-down hull, just with different nacelles/pylons, though their profiles are substantially different.. But omega or sigma, there's going to be a battle of the similar. I just really don't see a federation ship in omega, perhaps once it gets more detail/drawn from different angles or something should it make it to the next bracket, but barring that...
I think technically "classic" would mean the original series, of which the defiant was not a part. I am uncertain as to whether or not Gene Roddenberry got to sign off on the defiant's design or not. I believe I read somewhere that he was at least alive when DS9 was getting started in production or something, so maybe. Though the defiant didn't come along until rather late in the series, so very possibly not.
But you bring up a good point that occasionally federation design has taken some rather drastic, perhaps experimental deviations from the usual, and for a new carrier vessel that would be the opportunity to throw out something completely different and see how it fares. And the compact design of epsilon/sigma definitely seems rather in line with the compact defiant/four nacelle combat ship lineage we have from the defiant and prometheus respectively.
The Nebula-configured Odyssey needs to be a thing.
Okay so I'm going to ask the obvious question. With more ships coming with 1 hanger, others with 2, and I'd argue we should reserve 3 for dreadnoughts--with 3/2 weapons. When will Hanger Pet's be able to upgrade quality at least?
Okay so I'm going to ask the obvious question. With more ships coming with 1 hanger, others with 2, and I'd argue we should reserve 3 for dreadnoughts--with 3/2 weapons. When will Hanger Pet's be able to upgrade quality at least?
When will we be able to upgrade kits and kit modules? Nobody knows.
Slight divergence... does anyone know if the name of this new class has already been decided or if, later on in the process, we'll be voting on that as well?
"If you can't take a little bloody nose, maybe you ought to go back home and crawl under your bed. It's not safe out here. It's wondrous, with treasures to satiate desires both subtle and gross; but it's not for the timid." -- Q, TNG: "Q-Who?"
^Words that every player should keep in mind, especially whenever there's a problem with the game...
Nacelles do not generate the ship's power. Nacelles generate the ship's warp field. The ship's main power is produced by the matter/antimatter reaction in the warp core. At most, having more than two nacelles simply produces redundancy in case one or more nacelles take damage so the ship remains warp capable despite losing a nacelle or two. They could possibly be used to stay at warp longer/be more energy efficient by using all four nacelles at lower power consumption to produce a more powerful warp field (if warp physics work that way, though technical manuals in the past have stated that it was found two nacelles are most efficient, but that could have changed due to some technological advancements.) or cycling between using pairs to generate the warp field so that neither pair is overtaxed. So while there are potential advantages to having four nacelles, none of those benefits are improved power generation.
From what I have read, extra power can and is produced by the nacelles when the ship is not in warp. According to what I've read and talked about with other star trek fans is that it is pretty much accepted that power is not directly harvested from the warp core but is converted from the warp plasma in the nacelles. Otherwise a ship not at warp could completely shut down its nacelles to not risk them during combat. But that is not what we see in the episodes or books. Whenever a ship in combat gets its nacelles badly damaged, there is quite often a feed back loop that causes a warp core breach and destroys the ship (think the Enterprise D when they were stuck in that time loop with the Bozeman). If they aren't using the nacelles outside warp, why are they powered at all when at sublight or especially when in battle? And yes, only two nacelles are needed for the most efficient creation of the warp field. So why do some ships have more than two if not for power? They can't be used to go any faster and as for endurance, look at Voyager. She did just fine long distance wise with just two. New technologies make it even better for just having two for warp speeds. So once again, I ask, why do some ships then have more than two nacelles if not for power?
edit: Sorry, I'm a technical trek fan. I look closely as to why they do what they do technologically in the episodes. I tear it a apart and then analyze it. And I'm not alone. We look at things like this (like having more than two nacelles even when they useless for warp, a ship being destroyed because its nacelle it hit when its hull is fine, or that the nacelles are even powered at all during sublight) and they scream to us that the nacelles are what are being used to generate extra power from the warp drive when the ship is not at warp.
Been Playing STO as much as I can for 11+ Years!
"Never Surrender! Never give up Hope!"
"Prosperity and Success in everything you do."
"To Boldly go.........well punch it already!"
"To Be or Not To Be"....Alas, the Foundry is Not To Be. We Shall miss Thee, dear Friend!
"Does anyone remember when we used to be explorers?"- Captain Jean-Luc Picard
Thank You, Cryptic......even when I don't agree with all your decisions....Thank You for Star Trek Online!
Theta for the classic look, but it's a hard call for this pair because (IMO) they're the least compelling of all the proposed designs. Given that both Beta and Delta have been knocked out (for shame), I am desperately hoping that the Omega design is the final victor.
Okay so I'm going to ask the obvious question. With more ships coming with 1 hanger, others with 2, and I'd argue we should reserve 3 for dreadnoughts--with 3/2 weapons. When will Hanger Pet's be able to upgrade quality at least?
Three hangars for a Dreadnought? What madness is this proposal? Existing Dreadnought Carriers have two hangars at most which is fine, and the regular Dreadnoughts don't need to have their firepower diluted in exchange for pets. A tier 6 "super-carrier" with three hangars; this could be acceptable with a 3/3 weapons layout, but it definitely shouldn't be categorised as a Dreadnought.
Forget the possibility of PvP, for so much has become pay-to-win, never to be balanced. Forget the promise of exploration and research, for in the grim dark future of Star Trek Online there is only war. There is no peace amongst the stars, only an eternity of carnage and slaughter, and the laughter of thirsting publishers.
It looks like what i would expect a federation carrier to look like after the lesson they learned during the iconian war and the progressive thinking of ship designs as the federation moves further towards the era of the ent J.
#TeamEpsilon
Yes, for me Theta Looks way too much like a Command Battle-cruiser with a weird saucer. Epsilon, while at first it struck me as a bit of an odd look for a carrier, it's quickly grown on me. It's quite chunky but for some reason I keep imagining it being the size of Voyager however I believe that if it became the size of an Odyssey class it would look very good- a chunky, meaty powerful Federation Carrier.
"Cryptic Studio’s Jack Emmert (2010): Microtransactions are the biggest bunch of nonsense. I like paying one fee and not worrying about it – like my cellphone. The world’s biggest MMO isn’t item based, even though the black market item GDP is bigger than Russia … microtransactions make me want to die.”
^ Memory Alpha.org is not canon. It's a open wiki with arbitrary rules. Only what can be cited from an episode is. ^
"No. Men do not roar. Women roar. Then they hurl heavy objects... and claw at you." -Worf, son of Mogh
"A filthy, mangy beast, but in its bony breast beat the heart of a warrior" - "faithful" (...) "but ever-ready to follow the call of the wild." - Martok, about a Targ
"That pig smelled horrid. A sweet-sour, extremely pungent odor. I showered and showered, and it took me a week to get rid of it!" - Robert Justman, appreciating Emmy-Lou
I chose Epsilon. It's secondary hull come across as supporting more than just shuttles, fighters or runabouts. Theta appears to me as a mini-command cruiser. So I think it's a bad choice to make the finals.
(/\) Exploring Star Trek Online Since July 2008 (/\)
I might have gone Theta if it didn't have that belly sticking out on the profile view. It's not like a two nacelle ship design can't be sleek. Make the hull slimmer like on a Galaxy Class, and I could see that design taking it all the way.
Theta, Theta, Theta. LOVE Theta. #TeamTheta for me. Oddly enough, I actually like epsilon a lot, but Theta is probably my top pick for the whole group. Beatiful, plus I love the drop hull design. The saucer shape is lovely. Love, Love, Love it. It would be perfect for a carrier.
Comments
I'll actually be 2 to 1 if the Theta loses. Though it's a bit closer this time around...
Christian Gaming Community Fleets--Faith, Fun, and Fellowship! See the website and PM for more. :-)
Proudly F2P. Signature image by gulberat. Avatar image by balsavor.deviantart.com.
Yay! Glad to see you're on the right side of logic.
Epsilon and Omega have the same top-down hull, just with different nacelles/pylons, though their profiles are substantially different.. But omega or sigma, there's going to be a battle of the similar. I just really don't see a federation ship in omega, perhaps once it gets more detail/drawn from different angles or something should it make it to the next bracket, but barring that...
I think technically "classic" would mean the original series, of which the defiant was not a part. I am uncertain as to whether or not Gene Roddenberry got to sign off on the defiant's design or not. I believe I read somewhere that he was at least alive when DS9 was getting started in production or something, so maybe. Though the defiant didn't come along until rather late in the series, so very possibly not.
But you bring up a good point that occasionally federation design has taken some rather drastic, perhaps experimental deviations from the usual, and for a new carrier vessel that would be the opportunity to throw out something completely different and see how it fares. And the compact design of epsilon/sigma definitely seems rather in line with the compact defiant/four nacelle combat ship lineage we have from the defiant and prometheus respectively.
The Nebula-configured Odyssey needs to be a thing.
When will we be able to upgrade kits and kit modules? Nobody knows.
^Words that every player should keep in mind, especially whenever there's a problem with the game...
From what I have read, extra power can and is produced by the nacelles when the ship is not in warp. According to what I've read and talked about with other star trek fans is that it is pretty much accepted that power is not directly harvested from the warp core but is converted from the warp plasma in the nacelles. Otherwise a ship not at warp could completely shut down its nacelles to not risk them during combat. But that is not what we see in the episodes or books. Whenever a ship in combat gets its nacelles badly damaged, there is quite often a feed back loop that causes a warp core breach and destroys the ship (think the Enterprise D when they were stuck in that time loop with the Bozeman). If they aren't using the nacelles outside warp, why are they powered at all when at sublight or especially when in battle? And yes, only two nacelles are needed for the most efficient creation of the warp field. So why do some ships have more than two if not for power? They can't be used to go any faster and as for endurance, look at Voyager. She did just fine long distance wise with just two. New technologies make it even better for just having two for warp speeds. So once again, I ask, why do some ships then have more than two nacelles if not for power?
edit: Sorry, I'm a technical trek fan. I look closely as to why they do what they do technologically in the episodes. I tear it a apart and then analyze it. And I'm not alone. We look at things like this (like having more than two nacelles even when they useless for warp, a ship being destroyed because its nacelle it hit when its hull is fine, or that the nacelles are even powered at all during sublight) and they scream to us that the nacelles are what are being used to generate extra power from the warp drive when the ship is not at warp.
"Never Surrender! Never give up Hope!"
"Prosperity and Success in everything you do."
"To Boldly go.........well punch it already!"
"To Be or Not To Be"....Alas, the Foundry is Not To Be. We Shall miss Thee, dear Friend!
"Does anyone remember when we used to be explorers?"- Captain Jean-Luc Picard
Thank You, Cryptic......even when I don't agree with all your decisions....Thank You for Star Trek Online!
I could see the top three designs being other ships, like how there is 4 skins for the Galaxy class.
Three hangars for a Dreadnought? What madness is this proposal? Existing Dreadnought Carriers have two hangars at most which is fine, and the regular Dreadnoughts don't need to have their firepower diluted in exchange for pets. A tier 6 "super-carrier" with three hangars; this could be acceptable with a 3/3 weapons layout, but it definitely shouldn't be categorised as a Dreadnought.
It looks like what i would expect a federation carrier to look like after the lesson they learned during the iconian war and the progressive thinking of ship designs as the federation moves further towards the era of the ent J.
Yes, for me Theta Looks way too much like a Command Battle-cruiser with a weird saucer. Epsilon, while at first it struck me as a bit of an odd look for a carrier, it's quickly grown on me. It's quite chunky but for some reason I keep imagining it being the size of Voyager however I believe that if it became the size of an Odyssey class it would look very good- a chunky, meaty powerful Federation Carrier.
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
LT. Commander Lightning of TacWind 1