test content
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc

KDF T6 Dreadnaught why a non Klingon design?

2

Comments

  • dalnar83dalnar83 Member Posts: 2,420 Arc User
    LOL at OP, people were asking for viable non-klingon designs for ages. We have no really good T5U/T6 non-klingon options, this will be the first step. Now a nice science battleship for gorn and some kind of cool carrier for Orions and I'm happy.
    "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.”
  • seaofsorrowsseaofsorrows Member Posts: 10,918 Arc User
    I knew this thread was going to happen..

    For years people have wanted a Fleet Guramba and then a T6 Guramba. That and a T6 BoP are the most requested KDF ships by far. They release the first one.. and someone complains.

    Just further proof that it's impossible to please everyone.

    That T6 Guramba looks awesome.
    Insert witty signature line here.
  • jbmaverickjbmaverick Member Posts: 935 Arc User
    edited October 2015
    It's being called the Dreadnought pack mostly because the most recognizeable ship in it is the upgraded Galaxy-X Dreadnought. If you look at the other 2 ships, neither of them are actually called Dreadnoughts. The Kolasi is specifically called a Destroyer, which we know is a completely different classification from Dreadnought. The Kara is just called an Advanced Warbird, not Dreadnought Warbird (which I remind you is the specific classification of the Scimitar).

    It is a rather poor name choice IMO to call it a set of Dreadnoughts when only 1/3 of the ships are actually that type of vessel. The focus was on the Lance weapons, but calling it the Lance pack might have been a bit silly. But don't pay too much attention to the conglomeration title they gave it, just look at the ships themselves. The Garumba was way too small and nimble to be a Dreadnought. The Ha'apax could have possibly qualified given its size, but it's still not being called such.

    The universe has a wonderful sense of humor. The trick is learning how to take a joke.
  • This content has been removed.
  • warmaker001bwarmaker001b Member Posts: 9,205 Arc User
    kyrrok wrote: »
    This is a welcome trio in my book, including the Nausicaan ship. That is assuming they do better with the stats. I would hate to think that my Nausicaan won't get a proper home because they ruined the boff/console/etc layouts.

    You can already make a very fair guess on the basic overall stats, even though it never had a T5U Fleet version.

    Since it has "Destroyer" in its name and it already had a decent ENG layout (for its time, Ens & Lt ENG was very generous for an Escort). You can expect the Lt ENG to become LtCmdr. Combine that with the default Cmdr & LtCmdr TAC stations, it's a pretty hard hitting, sturdy ship. Not a 5/2 Escort though.

    T5U Consoles are 3 ENG, 2 SCI, 5 TAC. Reminder, this ship NEVER had a T5 Fleet version so it's missing out on a console slot. Fleet T6 should take her to 4 ENG, 2 SCI, 5 TAC.

    Up in the air however with what station Cryptic designates to be Hybrid. My bet is the SCI station for a "FFS" type of deal.
    XzRTofz.gif
  • markhawkmanmarkhawkman Member Posts: 35,236 Arc User
    kyrrok wrote: »
    This is a welcome trio in my book, including the Nausicaan ship. That is assuming they do better with the stats. I would hate to think that my Nausicaan won't get a proper home because they ruined the boff/console/etc layouts.
    Define "ruined" I can't see them making significant changes. So it'll be slightly improved versions of the t5 ships.
    -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
    My character Tsin'xing
    Costume_marhawkman_Tsin%27xing_CC_Comic_Page_Blue_488916968.jpg
  • sinn74sinn74 Member Posts: 1,149 Arc User
    ssbn655 wrote: »
    Seriously Cryptic foisting a Nausican design off on the Klingon Community as a Klingon Dreadnaught was not a well thought out move. I wish you had asked the Klingon Player base before you decided to do this. A Dreadnaught Bortas or Mogh would have been a far better choice. But no you assume that the Klingon players will choose non Klingon ships. I for one will NEVER buy with my hard earned cash a Nausican ship for my Klingon. I don't give a Rat's rear how great the sats are it is not a Klingon Ship PERIOD!

    The Klingon playerbase HAS been asking for this. I, for one, was pleasantly surprised when I heard of it. It's a pretty cool ship, and there have been numerous "When are we getting..." threads about it since Dilithium Rising hit. Even before that, actually. So, I have no idea what you're talking about.

    It's one of those "Thank you, Cryptic!" moments.
  • questeriusquesterius Member Posts: 8,481 Arc User
    edited October 2015
    sinn74 wrote: »
    ssbn655 wrote: »
    Seriously Cryptic foisting a Nausican design off on the Klingon Community as a Klingon Dreadnaught was not a well thought out move. I wish you had asked the Klingon Player base before you decided to do this. A Dreadnaught Bortas or Mogh would have been a far better choice. But no you assume that the Klingon players will choose non Klingon ships. I for one will NEVER buy with my hard earned cash a Nausican ship for my Klingon. I don't give a Rat's rear how great the sats are it is not a Klingon Ship PERIOD!

    The Klingon playerbase HAS been asking for this. I, for one, was pleasantly surprised when I heard of it. It's a pretty cool ship, and there have been numerous "When are we getting..." threads about it since Dilithium Rising hit. Even before that, actually. So, I have no idea what you're talking about.

    It's one of those "Thank you, Cryptic!" moments.

    Also not unwelcome is a unique nausicaan fighter introduced alongside the Gurumba mk2.

    The stats are unknown at this time, but cryptic has to put the T6 Gurumba through a lot of abuse with stats, console slots and boff layout to keep me from eventually purchasing this ship.​​
    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.
  • sinn74sinn74 Member Posts: 1,149 Arc User
    questerius wrote: »

    Also not unwelcome is a unique nausicaan fighter introduced alongside the Gurumba mk2.
    ​​

    I totally agree. It was something I wouldn't have expected. I'm pleasantly surprised, even though I'm waiting to see the actual stats first.
  • jbmaverickjbmaverick Member Posts: 935 Arc User
    coldnapalm wrote: »
    jbmaverick wrote: »
    It's being called the Dreadnought pack mostly because the most recognizeable ship in it is the upgraded Galaxy-X Dreadnought. If you look at the other 2 ships, neither of them are actually called Dreadnoughts. The Kolasi is specifically called a Destroyer, which we know is a completely different classification from Dreadnought. The Kara is just called an Advanced Warbird, not Dreadnought Warbird (which I remind you is the specific classification of the Scimitar).

    It is a rather poor name choice IMO to call it a set of Dreadnoughts when only 1/3 of the ships are actually that type of vessel. The focus was on the Lance weapons, but calling it the Lance pack might have been a bit silly. But don't pay too much attention to the conglomeration title they gave it, just look at the ships themselves. The Garumba was way too small and nimble to be a Dreadnought. The Ha'apax could have possibly qualified given its size, but it's still not being called such.

    So...since attacking people getting what they have been asking for isn't working out so well, you want to attack what the bloody MARKETING NAME FOR A PACK IS?!? Give me a break. Yeah cryptic sucks in oh so many ways...but seriously, this is stupid.

    I am not attacking anyone, and if anything I'm supporting your position. I think the naming of the pack is silly but I do not think there's any problem with releasing the ships themselves. I'm just telling people to ignore the name of the pack to avoid the misconception that Cryptic is favoring the Nausicans by providing their ship as an official KDF Dreadnought when that's clearly not the case.

    The universe has a wonderful sense of humor. The trick is learning how to take a joke.
  • toivatoiva Member Posts: 3,276 Arc User
    edited October 2015
    jbmaverick wrote: »
    It's being called the Dreadnought pack mostly because the most recognizeable ship in it is the upgraded Galaxy-X Dreadnought. If you look at the other 2 ships, neither of them are actually called Dreadnoughts. The Kolasi is specifically called a Destroyer, which we know is a completely different classification from Dreadnought. The Kara is just called an Advanced Warbird, not Dreadnought Warbird (which I remind you is the specific classification of the Scimitar).

    It is a rather poor name choice IMO to call it a set of Dreadnoughts when only 1/3 of the ships are actually that type of vessel. The focus was on the Lance weapons, but calling it the Lance pack might have been a bit silly. But don't pay too much attention to the conglomeration title they gave it, just look at the ships themselves. The Garumba was way too small and nimble to be a Dreadnought. The Ha'apax could have possibly qualified given its size, but it's still not being called such.

    The Kara really could be a 'dreadnought cruiser' if there weren't this trouble with warbirds. Warbird cruisers/battlecruisers don't get cruiser commands and different starship masteries from their FED/KDF counterparts.
    Similarly, the Kara wouldn't get dreadnought cruiser commands and masteries like the other 'Dreadnought cruisers': Bulwark, Galaxy-X, Sheshar and Ateleth.

    It however shares all other attributes: 1 hangar bay, D(H)C capability and being a cruiser-like ship.

    (Note that the Annorax is a dreadnought science ship while the Scimitar and Jem'Hadar Dreadnought are tactical based ships.)

    EDIT: Otherwise I'm glad the Guramba finally gets an update. Sadly it looks still as ugly as before and so I won't be able to use it.
    TOIVA, Toi Vaxx, Toia Vix, Toveg, T'vritha, To Vrax: Bring in the Allegiance class.
    Toi'Va, Ti'vath, Toivia, Ty'Vris, Tia Vex, Toi'Virth: Add Tier 6 KDF Carrier and Raider.
    Tae'Va, T'Vaya, To'Var, Tevra, T'Vira, To'Vrak: Give us Asylums for Romulans.

    Don't make ARC mandatory! Keep it optional only!
  • jbmaverickjbmaverick Member Posts: 935 Arc User
    toiva wrote: »
    jbmaverick wrote: »
    It's being called the Dreadnought pack mostly because the most recognizeable ship in it is the upgraded Galaxy-X Dreadnought. If you look at the other 2 ships, neither of them are actually called Dreadnoughts. The Kolasi is specifically called a Destroyer, which we know is a completely different classification from Dreadnought. The Kara is just called an Advanced Warbird, not Dreadnought Warbird (which I remind you is the specific classification of the Scimitar).

    It is a rather poor name choice IMO to call it a set of Dreadnoughts when only 1/3 of the ships are actually that type of vessel. The focus was on the Lance weapons, but calling it the Lance pack might have been a bit silly. But don't pay too much attention to the conglomeration title they gave it, just look at the ships themselves. The Garumba was way too small and nimble to be a Dreadnought. The Ha'apax could have possibly qualified given its size, but it's still not being called such.

    The Kara really could be a 'dreadnought cruiser' if there weren't this trouble with warbirds. Warbird cruisers/battlecruisers don't get cruiser commands and different starship masteries from their FED/KDF counterparts.
    Similarly, the Kara wouldn't get dreadnought cruiser commands and masteries like the other 'Dreadnought cruisers': Bulwark, Galaxy-X, Sheshar and Ateleth.

    It however shares all other attributes: 1 hangar bay, D(H)C capability and being a cruiser-like ship.

    (Note that the Annorax is a dreadnought science ship while the Scimitar and Jem'Hadar Dreadnought are tactical based ships.)

    The Scimitar is specifically a Dreadnought Warbird, so the designation already exists. Cryptic did not use that designation for the Kara for some reason, though I do agree it would be an appropriate designation given the new features. They are likely saving the Dreadnought Warbird for an eventual T6 Scimitar upgrade.

    The universe has a wonderful sense of humor. The trick is learning how to take a joke.
  • starswordcstarswordc Member Posts: 10,963 Arc User
    Because some of us would rather play species that don't bother pretending to be "honorable" for committing systematic war crimes. NON-KLINGONS, REPRESENT!
    "Great War! / And I cannot take more! / Great tour! / I keep on marching on / I play the great score / There will be no encore / Great War! / The War to End All Wars"
    — Sabaton, "Great War"
    VZ9ASdg.png

    Check out https://unitedfederationofpla.net/s/
  • toivatoiva Member Posts: 3,276 Arc User
    edited October 2015
    jbmaverick wrote: »
    toiva wrote: »
    jbmaverick wrote: »
    It's being called the Dreadnought pack mostly because the most recognizeable ship in it is the upgraded Galaxy-X Dreadnought. If you look at the other 2 ships, neither of them are actually called Dreadnoughts. The Kolasi is specifically called a Destroyer, which we know is a completely different classification from Dreadnought. The Kara is just called an Advanced Warbird, not Dreadnought Warbird (which I remind you is the specific classification of the Scimitar).

    It is a rather poor name choice IMO to call it a set of Dreadnoughts when only 1/3 of the ships are actually that type of vessel. The focus was on the Lance weapons, but calling it the Lance pack might have been a bit silly. But don't pay too much attention to the conglomeration title they gave it, just look at the ships themselves. The Garumba was way too small and nimble to be a Dreadnought. The Ha'apax could have possibly qualified given its size, but it's still not being called such.

    The Kara really could be a 'dreadnought cruiser' if there weren't this trouble with warbirds. Warbird cruisers/battlecruisers don't get cruiser commands and different starship masteries from their FED/KDF counterparts.
    Similarly, the Kara wouldn't get dreadnought cruiser commands and masteries like the other 'Dreadnought cruisers': Bulwark, Galaxy-X, Sheshar and Ateleth.

    It however shares all other attributes: 1 hangar bay, D(H)C capability and being a cruiser-like ship.

    (Note that the Annorax is a dreadnought science ship while the Scimitar and Jem'Hadar Dreadnought are tactical based ships.)

    The Scimitar is specifically a Dreadnought Warbird, so the designation already exists. Cryptic did not use that designation for the Kara for some reason, though I do agree it would be an appropriate designation given the new features. They are likely saving the Dreadnought Warbird for an eventual T6 Scimitar upgrade.

    As I noted, the Scimitar, as a Dreadnought warbird, is a tactical based ship (Commander tac), the Kara is at its base a cruiser, like the Ha'apax and the Haakona.

    I however omitted the Xindi-Aquatic Narcine dreadnought among the tac based ones in my previous post.

    Basically at this point, we have 4 categories that have 'dreadnought' in their name:
    1) dreadnought cruiser (Ateleth, Galaxy-X, Bulwark, Sheshar): Commander eng, specific cruiser commands and ship mastery, 1 hangar bay, D(H)C capability.
    2) dreadnought warbird (Scimitars): Commander tac, 1 hangar bay, D(H)C capability.
    3) dreadnought science ship (Annorax): Commander sci, 1 hangar bay, subsystem target abilities, sensor analysis, D(H)C capability.
    4) dreadnought carrier (Narcine and Jem'hadar): Commander tac, 2 hangar bays, subsystem target abilities, D(H)C capability, 4/3 wep slots.

    EDIT: And I'm curious if they make out of the Kolasi a new type of dreadnought (similar to scimitars, only not a warbird) or if it'll rather end up being an 'escort carrier' or 'flight-deck raptor' or whatever.
    TOIVA, Toi Vaxx, Toia Vix, Toveg, T'vritha, To Vrax: Bring in the Allegiance class.
    Toi'Va, Ti'vath, Toivia, Ty'Vris, Tia Vex, Toi'Virth: Add Tier 6 KDF Carrier and Raider.
    Tae'Va, T'Vaya, To'Var, Tevra, T'Vira, To'Vrak: Give us Asylums for Romulans.

    Don't make ARC mandatory! Keep it optional only!
  • jbmaverickjbmaverick Member Posts: 935 Arc User
    edited October 2015
    toiva wrote: »
    jbmaverick wrote: »
    toiva wrote: »
    jbmaverick wrote: »
    It's being called the Dreadnought pack mostly because the most recognizeable ship in it is the upgraded Galaxy-X Dreadnought. If you look at the other 2 ships, neither of them are actually called Dreadnoughts. The Kolasi is specifically called a Destroyer, which we know is a completely different classification from Dreadnought. The Kara is just called an Advanced Warbird, not Dreadnought Warbird (which I remind you is the specific classification of the Scimitar).

    It is a rather poor name choice IMO to call it a set of Dreadnoughts when only 1/3 of the ships are actually that type of vessel. The focus was on the Lance weapons, but calling it the Lance pack might have been a bit silly. But don't pay too much attention to the conglomeration title they gave it, just look at the ships themselves. The Garumba was way too small and nimble to be a Dreadnought. The Ha'apax could have possibly qualified given its size, but it's still not being called such.

    The Kara really could be a 'dreadnought cruiser' if there weren't this trouble with warbirds. Warbird cruisers/battlecruisers don't get cruiser commands and different starship masteries from their FED/KDF counterparts.
    Similarly, the Kara wouldn't get dreadnought cruiser commands and masteries like the other 'Dreadnought cruisers': Bulwark, Galaxy-X, Sheshar and Ateleth.

    It however shares all other attributes: 1 hangar bay, D(H)C capability and being a cruiser-like ship.

    (Note that the Annorax is a dreadnought science ship while the Scimitar and Jem'Hadar Dreadnought are tactical based ships.)

    The Scimitar is specifically a Dreadnought Warbird, so the designation already exists. Cryptic did not use that designation for the Kara for some reason, though I do agree it would be an appropriate designation given the new features. They are likely saving the Dreadnought Warbird for an eventual T6 Scimitar upgrade.

    As I noted, the Scimitar, as a Dreadnought warbird, is a tactical based ship (Commander tac), the Kara is at its base a cruiser, like the Ha'apax and the Haakona.

    I however omitted the Xindi-Aquatic Narcine dreadnought among the tac based ones in my previous post.

    Basically at this point, we have 4 categories that have 'dreadnought' in their name:
    1) dreadnought cruiser (Ateleth, Galaxy-X, Bulwark, Sheshar): Commander eng, specific cruiser commands and ship mastery, 1 hangar bay, D(H)C capability.
    2) dreadnought warbird (Scimitars): Commander tac, 1 hangar bay, D(H)C capability.
    3) dreadnought science ship (Annorax): Commander sci, 1 hangar bay, subsystem target abilities, sensor analysis, D(H)C capability.
    4) dreadnought carrier (Narcine and Jem'hadar): Commander tac, 2 hangar bays, subsystem target abilities, D(H)C capability.

    The problem is that you're attributing "Warbird" as always having a strong tactical focus. Dreadnought is an overall classification of ships to which several subdivisions can exist, eg. Dreadnought Cruiser. Warbird is the generic term for all Romulan vessels regardless of size and configuration, thus Dreadnought Warbird would simply be a Warbird with Dreadnought characteristics such as size and armament.

    The universe has a wonderful sense of humor. The trick is learning how to take a joke.
  • toivatoiva Member Posts: 3,276 Arc User
    edited October 2015
    I can always name the Scimitar dreadnought category just 'dreadnought'. Doesn't change the fact it stands apart since the Scimi isn't a dreadnought cruiser, nor a dreadnought carrier, nor a dreadnought science ship.
    TOIVA, Toi Vaxx, Toia Vix, Toveg, T'vritha, To Vrax: Bring in the Allegiance class.
    Toi'Va, Ti'vath, Toivia, Ty'Vris, Tia Vex, Toi'Virth: Add Tier 6 KDF Carrier and Raider.
    Tae'Va, T'Vaya, To'Var, Tevra, T'Vira, To'Vrak: Give us Asylums for Romulans.

    Don't make ARC mandatory! Keep it optional only!
  • markhawkmanmarkhawkman Member Posts: 35,236 Arc User
    toiva wrote: »
    EDIT: Otherwise I'm glad the Guramba finally gets an update. Sadly it looks still as ugly as before and so I won't be able to use it.
    REPENT HERETIC!

    :p
    -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
    My character Tsin'xing
    Costume_marhawkman_Tsin%27xing_CC_Comic_Page_Blue_488916968.jpg
  • questeriusquesterius Member Posts: 8,481 Arc User
    toiva wrote: »
    EDIT: Otherwise I'm glad the Guramba finally gets an update. Sadly it looks still as ugly as before and so I won't be able to use it.
    REPENT HERETIC!

    :p

    Indeed.​​
    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.
  • delerouxdeleroux Member Posts: 478 Arc User
    edited October 2015
    Isn't the Ravager the Nausicaan Dreadnought? Is that what the Kolasi is supposed to be?
  • ksathra2ksathra2 Member Posts: 40 Arc User
    I've been wanting a fleet level Gurumba for years as it was one of my favorite KDF ships hands down for a long time. Also while I did like the Gal-X that LT Tac slot always drove me away from that ship as for a ship that was supposed to pack more of a offensive punch it felt like it lacked it unless you had the Marion Doff and the 2 VR Aux2batt doffs.
  • markhawkmanmarkhawkman Member Posts: 35,236 Arc User
    edited October 2015
    deleroux wrote: »
    Isn't the Ravager the Nausicaan Dreadnought? Is that what the Kolasi is supposed to be?
    no. It's a very different shape of ship.
    -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
    My character Tsin'xing
    Costume_marhawkman_Tsin%27xing_CC_Comic_Page_Blue_488916968.jpg
  • toivatoiva Member Posts: 3,276 Arc User
    toiva wrote: »
    EDIT: Otherwise I'm glad the Guramba finally gets an update. Sadly it looks still as ugly as before and so I won't be able to use it.
    REPENT HERETIC!

    :p

    And I generally hate the idea of 'transforming' ships. I'd actually much rather have the Scourge or Vandal in this new ship pack.
    TOIVA, Toi Vaxx, Toia Vix, Toveg, T'vritha, To Vrax: Bring in the Allegiance class.
    Toi'Va, Ti'vath, Toivia, Ty'Vris, Tia Vex, Toi'Virth: Add Tier 6 KDF Carrier and Raider.
    Tae'Va, T'Vaya, To'Var, Tevra, T'Vira, To'Vrak: Give us Asylums for Romulans.

    Don't make ARC mandatory! Keep it optional only!
  • samt1996samt1996 Member Posts: 2,856 Arc User
    Because KDF players wanted a ship that didn't look like an alien vibrator.
  • orangeitisorangeitis Member Posts: 5,222 Arc User
    edited October 2015
    svindal777 wrote: »
    There is already a T6 Mogh.
    Hopefully that won't stop them from making more if the KDFs run out of Battlecruisers to update to T6.
  • vonhellstingvonhellsting Member Posts: 543 Arc User
    I think it's a nice change to see the other races ships. Although in my mind Nausican don't really come off as the type of species that would build top of the line dreadnoughts , Fersan or Gorn probably would have fit better.
    The Lobi Crystals are Faaaakkkkee!
  • atrebatesatrebates Member Posts: 26 Arc User
    Although in my mind Nausican don't really come off as the type of species that would build top of the line dreadnoughts , Fersan or Gorn probably would have fit better.
    In my headcanon, the Ferasan built the Mat'ha - explaining why its default appearance is kind of jungle-y.

    Also in my headcanon, the Letheans built the Qib, hence its neon red trim. Because frankly Letheans need something to their name, and no one else wants to take the blame claim responsibility for the Qib anyway.

    My headcanon also explains the dark blue alloys and non-Starfleet designs of the Eclipse/Phantom/Scryer, as those ships being of Caitian origin. Phantom is pure Caitian, the Eclipse was a collab with the Saurians, and the Scryer was a joint effort with the Vulcans. So one could say..... they're kitty-bashes.

    That's my headcanon and I'm sticking to it. ¬_¬

    But that reasoning does mean it was time for either the Nausicaan or Gorn to get a new ship, and we know how much our overlords dislike science ships.
  • seriousxenoseriousxeno Member Posts: 473 Arc User
    ssbn655 wrote: »
    ssbn655 wrote: »
    KDF T6 Dreadnaught why a non Klingon design?

    Because it's based on the T5 ship that already exists with an equivalent "lance" weapon.
    The Matha has the lance so your point is really invalid and Bortas has the Rapid fire Disruptor Cannon module so again invalid point.

    No, you are mistaken. The abilities you listed are tied to CONSOLES* that's the difference here. The ships in the upcoming bundle all have these "lances" inbuilt, hence they are tied to the ships themselves. Cryptic merely took the Ha'apax, gave it a much needed overhaul and made it the Romulan equivalent with a plasma lance. The Garumba does have a disruptor javelin and its inbuilt. Mechanics wise, that's the closest thing the KDF has so far to the Dreadnought cruiser.

    A T6 Matha already exists... in fact its the only Matha so I don't see your point on that one. Bortasqu? Gonna be part of a flagship bundle.

    *Put it this way, go and buy the fed dreadnought at fleet level. What does it have? Phaser lance, just like the Garumba will have a javelin. They can both use this whether or not you bought the C-Store version. Now, do the same with the Matha. Its fleet version has no disruptor lance because the console is tied to the C-Store version, hence making it a totally different deal.
    latest?cb=20090525051807&path-prefix=en
    "Let them eat static!"
  • vonhellstingvonhellsting Member Posts: 543 Arc User
    atrebates wrote: »
    Although in my mind Nausican don't really come off as the type of species that would build top of the line dreadnoughts , Fersan or Gorn probably would have fit better.
    In my headcanon, the Ferasan built the Mat'ha - explaining why its default appearance is kind of jungle-y.

    Also in my headcanon, the Letheans built the Qib, hence its neon red trim. Because frankly Letheans need something to their name, and no one else wants to take the blame claim responsibility for the Qib anyway.

    My headcanon also explains the dark blue alloys and non-Starfleet designs of the Eclipse/Phantom/Scryer, as those ships being of Caitian origin. Phantom is pure Caitian, the Eclipse was a collab with the Saurians, and the Scryer was a joint effort with the Vulcans. So one could say..... they're kitty-bashes.

    That's my headcanon and I'm sticking to it. ¬_¬

    But that reasoning does mean it was time for either the Nausicaan or Gorn to get a new ship, and we know how much our overlords dislike science ships.

    Suppose that's possible but I still want to see the other species play a greater role in ship construction.
    The Lobi Crystals are Faaaakkkkee!
  • forcemajeureforcemajeure Member Posts: 212 Arc User
    I've suggested in the past that Cryptic please take some of the beautiful, under-used ship designs and re-work them for late game. Ships such as the Scourge, Vandal and Guramba, the Fed Olympic/Horizon/Hope class, Romulan Valdore.

    There are a lot of awesome ship designs in STO that we basically blow past in 3 hours on the super-fast path to level 50, it would be great to see them in end-game useable versions.
  • ssbn655ssbn655 Member Posts: 1,894 Arc User
    edited October 2015
    svindal777 wrote: »
    There is already a T6 Mogh.
    Duh if you read my comment I was refering to a DREADNAUGHT VERSION!
Sign In or Register to comment.