test content
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc

One of the COOLEST ship designs Cryptic ever made...wasted =(

1192022242533

Comments

  • This content has been removed.
  • kodachikunokodachikuno Member Posts: 6,020 Arc User1
    edited April 2016
    ankylon wrote: »
    Oh yes, my bad. I understand the Excalibur class is a new design by Crytpics which should be newer than the original Galaxy. But I mean, a ship that is based on an outdated ship (The Constitution class) just does not have much appeal to me to be an end-game ship. What role will this play? It was one of the strongest cruisers when it first came out (referring to Constitution), but now it is even smaller and looks not as powerful or durable as the avenger. So what purpose will it do? As a battlecruiser it looks too weak, as a cruiser it is way too small, as an escort it is way too slow either. Therefore, making an end-game ship that's basically a re-designed Constitution really doesn't appeal me too much.

    there have been several ideas, I'll just reference mine because Im biased:
    I was thinking more a 1.5x and give her a 'light cruiser' designation, which would slot intel or pilot nicely. As to the size, irrelevant, escorts pack just as much heat as those behemoths in game. Similarly I disagree about nimble or not.
    captaind3 wrote: »
    Keep in mind that light cruiser is the designation for the starter ships the Miranda, Shir'kahr and Centaur.
    Well aware, however, there is no reason it cannot be used for higher tier vessels. In fact its an area sorely lacking in the STO Fed arsenal. They have nimble zippys(escort), wallowing wales(cruisers), and wizards(sci). Something 1/2 way between zippy and whale but with a Eng/Tac focus instead of Sci would be cool imo. If it gets pilot seats, even better. Maybe say Lt Universal/Pilot, Lt and LtCmdr Eng, LtCmdr Tac, Ens Sci? (or even Lt Sci)
    tumblr_mr1jc2hq2T1rzu2xzo1_400.gif
    tacofangs wrote: »
    STO isn't canon, and neither are any of the books.
  • thegrandnagus1thegrandnagus1 Member Posts: 5,166 Arc User
    azrael605 wrote: »
    Therefore, making an end-game ship that's basically a re-designed Constitution really doesn't appeal me too much.

    And that is completely fine. Half of the ships Cryptic makes don't appeal to me personally. But guess what? That doesn't matter, because they appeal to other people. Whether a specific ship appeals to a specific person is pretty much irrelevant in a game that tens of thousands of people play.

    The-Grand-Nagus
    Join Date: Sep 2008

    og9Zoh0.jpg
  • captaind3captaind3 Member Posts: 2,449 Arc User
    edited April 2016
    captaind3 wrote: »
    So I played "Sunrise" again on an under played alt.... Magically a whole new way to shut up people complaining about the size of the Excalibur/Exeter at T6 appeared..... Compactified Subspace Folds... "Its bigger on the inside"

    We ARE after all starting the journey that leads to Dano's shuttle craft with the firepower of a battleship. A workhorse vessel like the Excalibur is the perfect place to begin testing this stuff!

    That's about six hundred years too early to be testing that technology, Kal Dano is from the 31st century. Even the 29th century Wells class doesn't use it.

    BAH!
    1)Whats logic got to do with Cryptic's game? Or its in universe fiction/plot devices?
    2)Its 600 years too early for a battleship the size of a type 8 shuttle.... not too early for much less extreme tests. Consider the Excelsior's transwarp drive. About a hundred years ahead of its time.(at least if we follow STO's use of transwarp)

    1) You may abandon logic and internal consistency, but I won't.
    2) What battleship?
    2a) But it didn't work. (now there are two schools of thought on this, A. The Excelsior project was a failure and the ship was retrofitted with a traditional warp drive and went on to its legendary service since everything by the transwarp engine was stellar and B. The project actually was a success hence the redrawing of the warp curve and the speeds we see in the TNG era. If the former, then the experimenting a century plus ahead of its time went about as well as expected, if the latter, then clearly the definition of what Transwarp is changed. The Transwarp coil the Excelsior has in this game clearly isn't what the original has since they were talking about speed records instead of popping around via conduits.)
    tumblr_mr1jc2hq2T1rzu2xzo9_r1_400.gif
    "Rise like Lions after slumber, In unvanquishable number, Shake your chains to earth like dew, Which in sleep had fallen on you-Ye are many — they are few"
  • seriousxenoseriousxeno Member Posts: 473 Arc User
    captaind3 wrote: »
    captaind3 wrote: »
    So I played "Sunrise" again on an under played alt.... Magically a whole new way to shut up people complaining about the size of the Excalibur/Exeter at T6 appeared..... Compactified Subspace Folds... "Its bigger on the inside"

    We ARE after all starting the journey that leads to Dano's shuttle craft with the firepower of a battleship. A workhorse vessel like the Excalibur is the perfect place to begin testing this stuff!

    That's about six hundred years too early to be testing that technology, Kal Dano is from the 31st century. Even the 29th century Wells class doesn't use it.

    BAH!
    1)Whats logic got to do with Cryptic's game? Or its in universe fiction/plot devices?
    2)Its 600 years too early for a battleship the size of a type 8 shuttle.... not too early for much less extreme tests. Consider the Excelsior's transwarp drive. About a hundred years ahead of its time.(at least if we follow STO's use of transwarp)

    1) You may abandon logic and internal consistency, but I won't.
    2) What battleship?
    2a) But it didn't work. (now there are two schools of thought on this, A. The Excelsior project was a failure and the ship was retrofitted with a traditional warp drive and went on to its legendary service since everything by the transwarp engine was stellar and B. The project actually was a success hence the redrawing of the warp curve and the speeds we see in the TNG era. If the former, then the experimenting a century plus ahead of its time went about as well as expected, if the latter, then clearly the definition of what Transwarp is changed. The Transwarp coil the Excelsior has in this game clearly isn't what the original has since they were talking about speed records instead of popping around via conduits.)

    1. That is up to each of us. Personally, with the crazy stuff they are pumping out, an endgame Vesper/Excalibur/Exeter would be just fine IMO.

    2. I believe he is referring to Kal Dano's timeship. It is the size of a small craft but uses battleship-level weapons, at least to 25th Century standards. Whether or not that is in anyway applicable for playable ships... nah I don't like that idea. The whole "inside is bigger than outside" is one of the least awesome sci-fi concepts I know of, sorry.

    3. Whether the Excelsior's transwarp was different from how it was later was never found out officially, so its all headcanon at best. As for conduits, they aren't needed all the time. The Borg use transwarp without it and even Voyager did after aquiring a transwarp coil from a Sphere. My impression is that transwarp conduits work on any ship, coil or not, and allow even faster travel. After all it took Voyager mere minutes to skip 10.000s of light years in Endgame.
    latest?cb=20090525051807&path-prefix=en
    "Let them eat static!"
  • daveynydaveyny Member Posts: 8,227 Arc User
    There is no 'on screen' evidence that Transwarp was a failure.
    All we saw was Scotty (an exceptional genius of an engineer), muck up the Excelsior's Transwarp engine by tampering with its inner workings.
    The project up to that point, must have been a roaring success for Star Fleet to have invested in building the ship and putting an entire crew on it, ready at a moments notice to leave the spacedock.
    B)
    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
  • captaind3captaind3 Member Posts: 2,449 Arc User
    edited April 2016
    captaind3 wrote: »
    captaind3 wrote: »
    So I played "Sunrise" again on an under played alt.... Magically a whole new way to shut up people complaining about the size of the Excalibur/Exeter at T6 appeared..... Compactified Subspace Folds... "Its bigger on the inside"

    We ARE after all starting the journey that leads to Dano's shuttle craft with the firepower of a battleship. A workhorse vessel like the Excalibur is the perfect place to begin testing this stuff!

    That's about six hundred years too early to be testing that technology, Kal Dano is from the 31st century. Even the 29th century Wells class doesn't use it.

    BAH!
    1)Whats logic got to do with Cryptic's game? Or its in universe fiction/plot devices?
    2)Its 600 years too early for a battleship the size of a type 8 shuttle.... not too early for much less extreme tests. Consider the Excelsior's transwarp drive. About a hundred years ahead of its time.(at least if we follow STO's use of transwarp)

    1) You may abandon logic and internal consistency, but I won't.
    2) What battleship?
    2a) But it didn't work. (now there are two schools of thought on this, A. The Excelsior project was a failure and the ship was retrofitted with a traditional warp drive and went on to its legendary service since everything by the transwarp engine was stellar and B. The project actually was a success hence the redrawing of the warp curve and the speeds we see in the TNG era. If the former, then the experimenting a century plus ahead of its time went about as well as expected, if the latter, then clearly the definition of what Transwarp is changed. The Transwarp coil the Excelsior has in this game clearly isn't what the original has since they were talking about speed records instead of popping around via conduits.)

    1. That is up to each of us. Personally, with the crazy stuff they are pumping out, an endgame Vesper/Excalibur/Exeter would be just fine IMO.

    2. I believe he is referring to Kal Dano's timeship. It is the size of a small craft but uses battleship-level weapons, at least to 25th Century standards. Whether or not that is in anyway applicable for playable ships... nah I don't like that idea. The whole "inside is bigger than outside" is one of the least awesome sci-fi concepts I know of, sorry.

    3. Whether the Excelsior's transwarp was different from how it was later was never found out officially, so its all headcanon at best. As for conduits, they aren't needed all the time. The Borg use transwarp without it and even Voyager did after aquiring a transwarp coil from a Sphere. My impression is that transwarp conduits work on any ship, coil or not, and allow even faster travel. After all it took Voyager mere minutes to skip 10.000s of light years in Endgame.

    1. I don't see the point. I'm not opposed to an endgame Excalibur. Seems a bit retro to me.

    2. I thought as much, which is slightly absurd as it was hardly a battleship. The Tholians beat its TRIBBLE and took it's Tox Uthat. I'm not big on it myself. The producers of Enterprise were paying homage to Doctor Who.

    3. I know that. My favorite variety of transwarp is the Voth's. I know that conduits aren't required, I was referring to the game Excelsior using a transwarp coil clearly based on the Borg's which is absurd. But I wouldn't consider a conduit a valid way of beating a speed record.
    daveyny wrote: »
    There is no 'on screen' evidence that Transwarp was a failure.
    All we saw was Scotty (an exceptional genius of an engineer), muck up the Excelsior's Transwarp engine by tampering with its inner workings.
    The project up to that point, must have been a roaring success for Star Fleet to have invested in building the ship and putting an entire crew on it, ready at a moments notice to leave the spacedock.
    B)

    Like I said...

    B. The project actually was a success hence the redrawing of the warp curve and the speeds we see in the TNG era. If the former, then the experimenting a century plus ahead of its time went about as well as expected, if the latter, then clearly the definition of what Transwarp is changed.

    If you consider that Starfleet based the Excelsior's technology on things like when the Kelvans modified the Enterprise's engines to go warp 14 then it makes sense that the Excelsior was actually a success, and the TNG scale came into effect, with Warp 14 on the old scale becoming about Warp 9.87 (around 2,744c) then the Excelsior project was revolutionary. But what Starfleet calls Transwarp changed.
    tumblr_mr1jc2hq2T1rzu2xzo9_r1_400.gif
    "Rise like Lions after slumber, In unvanquishable number, Shake your chains to earth like dew, Which in sleep had fallen on you-Ye are many — they are few"
  • snoggymack22snoggymack22 Member Posts: 7,084 Arc User
    ankylon wrote: »
    Oh
    ankylon wrote: »
    Never understand what's the hype on the Excalibur. It is such a small ship based on a completely outdated design that won't even able to compete with the Galaxy (which is already way too outdated for me). But I guess someone just love the TOS so much. (To me, even TNG is too old).

    not payin too much attention are you? Its newer than the Galaxy class and not much smaller than the Avenger.
    from this very thread:
    pBPikPf.jpg
    Oh yes, my bad. I understand the Excalibur class is a new design by Crytpics which should be newer than the original Galaxy. But I mean, a ship that is based on an outdated ship (The Constitution class) just does not have much appeal to me to be an end-game ship. What role will this play? It was one of the strongest cruisers when it first came out (referring to Constitution), but now it is even smaller and looks not as powerful or durable as the avenger. So what purpose will it do? As a battlecruiser it looks too weak, as a cruiser it is way too small, as an escort it is way too slow either. Therefore, making an end-game ship that's basically a re-designed Constitution really doesn't appeal me too much.

    What role will it play? Cruiser. There's so many different cruisers in game right now that if you don't like this one, you can use a different one. But they all play the same role.

    The Excalibur isn't the Constitution. So basing any judgement you have (such as "It was one of the strongest cruisers when it first came out") doesn't really apply to the Excalibur at all. Or the Exeter. Or the Vesper.

    It looks big enough to fly next to a Defiant, a Nova, a Rhode Island, an Intrepid, a Pathfinder, a Dauntless, a Horizon, a Gladius, an Avenger ... all endgame ships of the line. It's can pack as much power as they pack, which is all ...end-game levels of power. It's a cruiser and can be a cruiser.

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • angrytargangrytarg Member Posts: 11,005 Arc User
    What role will it play? Cruiser. There's so many different cruisers in game right now that if you don't like this one, you can use a different one. But they all play the same role.

    The Excalibur isn't the Constitution. So basing any judgement you have (such as "It was one of the strongest cruisers when it first came out") doesn't really apply to the Excalibur at all. Or the Exeter. Or the Vesper.

    It looks big enough to fly next to a Defiant, a Nova, a Rhode Island, an Intrepid, a Pathfinder, a Dauntless, a Horizon, a Gladius, an Avenger ... all endgame ships of the line. It's can pack as much power as they pack, which is all ...end-game levels of power. It's a cruiser and can be a cruiser.

    There's only two things you can do. Abandon any sense of logic in the ship line-up, which is what STO does by design with making every ship endgame compatible and there's nothing in the way of a Excalibur at T6. Or you try to apply Cryptic's own lore to it which explicitly states the Excalibur is a modern (last third of the 24th century) starship, but it's essentially a transport and humanitarian vessel. Even if refitted it hardly makes a front line ship or anything of the like. But again, in STO it's a moot point.​​
    lFC4bt2.gif
    ^ 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
  • thegrandnagus1thegrandnagus1 Member Posts: 5,166 Arc User
    edited April 2016
    What role will it play? Cruiser. There's so many different cruisers in game right now that if you don't like this one, you can use a different one. But they all play the same role.

    Right. Like I said before, there is no "need" for half a dozen Galaxy variants. They all fill the same "role". The actual REASON we have so many of them is because...wait for it...wait for it...Cryptic wants people's money. So yeah, it's not really about the role or the need, it's about the money. Because this is a business.

    angrytarg wrote: »
    There's only two things you can do. Abandon any sense of logic in the ship line-up, which is what STO does by design with making every ship endgame compatible and there's nothing in the way of a Excalibur at T6. Or you try to apply Cryptic's own lore to it which explicitly states the Excalibur is a modern (last third of the 24th century) starship, but it's essentially a transport and humanitarian vessel. Even if refitted it hardly makes a front line ship or anything of the like. But again, in STO it's a moot point.​​

    See above.

    The-Grand-Nagus
    Join Date: Sep 2008

    og9Zoh0.jpg
  • kekvinkekvin Member Posts: 633 Arc User
    Im using the t2 exter in isa, kasa and csa and shes great. Roll on t6 varient
  • kodachikunokodachikuno Member Posts: 6,020 Arc User1
    captaind3 wrote: »
    2. I thought as much, which is slightly absurd as it was hardly a battleship. The Tholians beat its TRIBBLE and took it's Tox Uthat. I'm not big on it myself. The producers of Enterprise were paying homage to Doctor Who.
    Call it absurd all you want but the dialogue in game flat out states it has the firepower of a battleship in something the size of a shuttle. Sorry he's not a 'chosen one epic captain' like our characters.
    tumblr_mr1jc2hq2T1rzu2xzo1_400.gif
    tacofangs wrote: »
    STO isn't canon, and neither are any of the books.
  • captaind3captaind3 Member Posts: 2,449 Arc User
    captaind3 wrote: »
    2. I thought as much, which is slightly absurd as it was hardly a battleship. The Tholians beat its TRIBBLE and took it's Tox Uthat. I'm not big on it myself. The producers of Enterprise were paying homage to Doctor Who.
    Call it absurd all you want but the dialogue in game flat out states it has the firepower of a battleship in something the size of a shuttle. Sorry he's not a 'chosen one epic captain' like our characters.

    I do recall. It's performance left a little to be desired however. That said it's a 31st century timeship as well. I would expect a Delta Flyer to be able to sink a carrier battlegroup too.

    But that has nothing to do with modern 25th century ships though.
    tumblr_mr1jc2hq2T1rzu2xzo9_r1_400.gif
    "Rise like Lions after slumber, In unvanquishable number, Shake your chains to earth like dew, Which in sleep had fallen on you-Ye are many — they are few"
  • kodachikunokodachikuno Member Posts: 6,020 Arc User1
    captaind3 wrote: »
    But that has nothing to do with modern 25th century ships though.

    Sure it does, this is the same universe where a zit named the defiant can out shoot vessels designed for war 10x its size and take almost as much damage while darting around like a dragonfly. Realism and logic left the stage a long time ago. My point was, 'compactified subspace folds' just add one more 'in universe' way to technobabble how an Excalibur can be t6 while remaining almost the size of a battlecruiser and having appreciably similar battle potential.
    tumblr_mr1jc2hq2T1rzu2xzo1_400.gif
    tacofangs wrote: »
    STO isn't canon, and neither are any of the books.
  • captaind3captaind3 Member Posts: 2,449 Arc User
    captaind3 wrote: »
    But that has nothing to do with modern 25th century ships though.

    Sure it does, this is the same universe where a zit named the defiant can out shoot vessels designed for war 10x its size and take almost as much damage while darting around like a dragonfly. Realism and logic left the stage a long time ago. My point was, 'compactified subspace folds' just add one more 'in universe' way to technobabble how an Excalibur can be t6 while remaining almost the size of a battlecruiser and having appreciably similar battle potential.

    The Defiant's size isn't some new thing, Bird of Prey were doing it for centuries.

    The Compactified Subspace Folds aren't what made it a matchbox battleship, it was the fact that it was a 31st century Runabout. I'm fairly certain the Delta Flyer could've curbstomped the NX-01 too. That doesn't make it an actual battleship, it means that's orders of magnitude more advanced.

    And that zit as you so inaccurately call it is in the same size class as the Miranda.
    tumblr_mr1jc2hq2T1rzu2xzo9_r1_400.gif
    "Rise like Lions after slumber, In unvanquishable number, Shake your chains to earth like dew, Which in sleep had fallen on you-Ye are many — they are few"
  • voiddweller#2714 voiddweller Member Posts: 114 Arc User
    Sure it does, this is the same universe where a zit named the defiant can out shoot vessels designed for war 10x its size and take almost as much damage while darting around like a dragonfly. Realism and logic left the stage a long time ago. My point was, 'compactified subspace folds' just add one more 'in universe' way to technobabble how an Excalibur can be t6 while remaining almost the size of a battlecruiser and having appreciably similar battle potential.

    Well, battleships is supposed to be slow, and have 360 degree coverage, while escorts have more specific roles, and focus on frontal firepower. Survivability depends on agility just as much as on armor and structural capacity. But i guess you don't need ships that have insane evasion parameters on top of ability to rapidly disengage if things get to hot for them...

  • kodachikunokodachikuno Member Posts: 6,020 Arc User1
    captaind3 wrote: »
    The Defiant's size isn't some new thing, Bird of Prey were doing it for centuries.

    The Compactified Subspace Folds aren't what made it a matchbox battleship, it was the fact that it was a 31st century Runabout. I'm fairly certain the Delta Flyer could've curbstomped the NX-01 too. That doesn't make it an actual battleship, it means that's orders of magnitude more advanced.

    And that zit as you so inaccurately call it is in the same size class as the Miranda.

    Klingon BoP has no where near the firepower of the defiant, unless you're referring to the STO versions. And again, YES the compatified subspace folds are exactly the reason, its pretty much stated as such in the episode dialogue. And while you're commenting on the centuries of developmental differences remember your own 25th century vessel has been 400+ years into the future where it still curbstomps every vessel it fires upon... Realism and STO are not on the same planet here.
    Well, battleships is supposed to be slow, and have 360 degree coverage, while escorts have more specific roles, and focus on frontal firepower. Survivability depends on agility just as much as on armor and structural capacity. But i guess you don't need ships that have insane evasion parameters on top of ability to rapidly disengage if things get to hot for them...

    If we were talkin a game with any level of realism I'd totally be in agreement with ya. Since we're talkin STO however, I'll point out the same to you as I did captaind3 there, realism and STO are not on the same planet. A small, agile, ship with a lot of forward only firepower would be very careful about engaging a battleship. Sure it can deal good damage, and if both lucky and careful, it could bring down that big beast. If, on the other hand, that battleship scores even one solid hit? Bye bye little bug. In STO this just doesn't work the same.

    tumblr_mr1jc2hq2T1rzu2xzo1_400.gif
    tacofangs wrote: »
    STO isn't canon, and neither are any of the books.
  • brian334brian334 Member Posts: 2,216 Arc User
    What's missing here is class roles. In real navies, small ships which carry a big punch are called Destroyers, and their job is to prevent other small ships with similarly large punches from getting close to the big ships where their lethal payload can be brought to bear.

    In STO, since all ships play the same role as a battleship, (to reduce enemy capital ships,) there is no specific role for the escort to play. To make the game 'fair' the escort must be a glass cannon, able to dump tremendous amounts of damage on a target, yet incapable of absorbing that damage.

    Size really isn't the issue here, but MMO role. The cruiser is the tank, the escort is the rogue, and the science ship is the wizard. As for the rest, nobody really gave that too much consideration when designing the game.
  • kekvinkekvin Member Posts: 633 Arc User
    I dnt bout role i was want my t6 exeter
  • snoggymack22snoggymack22 Member Posts: 7,084 Arc User
    brian334 wrote: »
    What's missing here is class roles. In real navies, small ships which carry a big punch are called Destroyers, and their job is to prevent other small ships with similarly large punches from getting close to the big ships where their lethal payload can be brought to bear.

    In STO, since all ships play the same role as a battleship, (to reduce enemy capital ships,) there is no specific role for the escort to play. To make the game 'fair' the escort must be a glass cannon, able to dump tremendous amounts of damage on a target, yet incapable of absorbing that damage.

    Size really isn't the issue here, but MMO role. The cruiser is the tank, the escort is the rogue, and the science ship is the wizard. As for the rest, nobody really gave that too much consideration when designing the game.

    The classic Trinity is Tank (fighter, paladin), Damage Dealer (Rogue, Wizard/Mage) and Healer (Cleric).

    This game sort of has that, but doesn't have content that caters to that type of trinity. And spreads healing out between Engineering and Science.
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • seriousxenoseriousxeno Member Posts: 473 Arc User
    brian334 wrote: »
    What's missing here is class roles. In real navies, small ships which carry a big punch are called Destroyers, and their job is to prevent other small ships with similarly large punches from getting close to the big ships where their lethal payload can be brought to bear.

    In STO, since all ships play the same role as a battleship, (to reduce enemy capital ships,) there is no specific role for the escort to play. To make the game 'fair' the escort must be a glass cannon, able to dump tremendous amounts of damage on a target, yet incapable of absorbing that damage.

    Size really isn't the issue here, but MMO role. The cruiser is the tank, the escort is the rogue, and the science ship is the wizard. As for the rest, nobody really gave that too much consideration when designing the game.

    The classic Trinity is Tank (fighter, paladin), Damage Dealer (Rogue, Wizard/Mage) and Healer (Cleric).

    This game sort of has that, but doesn't have content that caters to that type of trinity. And spreads healing out between Engineering and Science.

    True. My engineer with his tank build is flying cruisers with science slants (Science Odyssey, Geneva, Ambassador,...). Pretty sure I would get similarly decent heals if I ran a science vessel with lots of engineering slots like a Nebula.

    The Exeter would strike me as a balanced cruiser with a bit of everything. That and maybe Pilot spec due to its compact size.
    latest?cb=20090525051807&path-prefix=en
    "Let them eat static!"
  • markhawkmanmarkhawkman Member Posts: 35,236 Arc User
    Actually even Tactical has limited access to healing powers. got Rally Cry? :p
    -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
    My character Tsin'xing
    Costume_marhawkman_Tsin%27xing_CC_Comic_Page_Blue_488916968.jpg
  • This content has been removed.
  • kekvinkekvin Member Posts: 633 Arc User
    The constitution refit is refered to as a battlecruiser in ST3. Maybe a T6 should have more off a tac focus
  • snoggymack22snoggymack22 Member Posts: 7,084 Arc User
    The Exeter would strike me as a balanced cruiser with a bit of everything. That and maybe Pilot spec due to its compact size.

    Oooh. Maybe make the T6 Exeter-Excalibur-Whatever, captained by Akira Sulu in a story mission. And that's why it's got a pilot spec, the Sulu family legacy!

    ;)
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • thegrandnagus1thegrandnagus1 Member Posts: 5,166 Arc User
    The Exeter would strike me as a balanced cruiser with a bit of everything. That and maybe Pilot spec due to its compact size.

    Oooh. Maybe make the T6 Exeter-Excalibur-Whatever, captained by Akira Sulu in a story mission. And that's why it's got a pilot spec, the Sulu family legacy!

    ;)

    Huh? If we're talking about the Sulu family captaining something, shouldn't he be captaining the T6 Excelsior?

    The-Grand-Nagus
    Join Date: Sep 2008

    og9Zoh0.jpg
  • snoggymack22snoggymack22 Member Posts: 7,084 Arc User
    The Exeter would strike me as a balanced cruiser with a bit of everything. That and maybe Pilot spec due to its compact size.

    Oooh. Maybe make the T6 Exeter-Excalibur-Whatever, captained by Akira Sulu in a story mission. And that's why it's got a pilot spec, the Sulu family legacy!

    ;)

    Huh? If we're talking about the Sulu family captaining something, shouldn't he be captaining the T6 Excelsior?

    Eh, that's certainly another path to take. I was more focusing on the pilot aspect. Tom Paris wasn't the only famous pilot in the shows. ;)
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • This content has been removed.
  • psiameesepsiameese Member Posts: 1,650 Arc User
    edited May 2016
    Well now. Today's announcement, IMO, puts a whole new spin on this topic. I'm going to push for this T6 Exeter class based upon the confirmation that if we own the T6 equivalent of a TOS starship design, we will be free to use the TOS costume on that same T6.
    (/\) Exploring Star Trek Online Since July 2008 (/\)
  • starshipserenitystarshipserenity Member Posts: 54 Arc User
    CBS has ordered the persecution of the Constitution-class for years.

    What takes me is they have the gaul to use its model in all of the advertisements -- for a $130 Expansion -- that is itself an entire timeline/storyarc centered around the Constitution-class ship. Every TOS ship is built from the Constitution's look and feel, and the ship is itself the single most iconic ship in the franchise.

    It's like disallowing an X-Wing in a Star Wars MMO, a Roman Helmet in a 3rd Century wwargame, or the Mach-5 in Speed Racer (i know), or a Tardis in Dr. Who....
    Through breaking waves and vicious storms /
    Against lightning's fury and thunder's scorn /
    Only through fire is order forged /
    WIth vibrant glory /
    A sword
    =/\=

    I.S.S. Excalibur NCC-1664
This discussion has been closed.