I hate to say this but, let's not. You know they are going to disappoint in the end.
For some.. sure.
It's impossible to give it stats that please absolutely everyone. I am not in the market for this particular ship either way, but I am sure there will be the usual group of disappointed players once the final stats are released.
I hate to say this but, let's not. You know they are going to disappoint in the end.
For some.. sure.
It's impossible to give it stats that please absolutely everyone. I am not in the market for this particular ship either way, but I am sure there will be the usual group of disappointed players once the final stats are released.
Especially if ships don't follow the "We need 5/3 cruisers" line people sometimes say. If the ship is 4/4 you can bet your bottom dollar there is going to be massive rage. Especially considering the TOS Connie being 5/3.
I hate to say this but, let's not. You know they are going to disappoint in the end.
For some.. sure.
It's impossible to give it stats that please absolutely everyone. I am not in the market for this particular ship either way, but I am sure there will be the usual group of disappointed players once the final stats are released.
Especially if ships don't follow the "We need 5/3 cruisers" line people sometimes say. If the ship is 4/4 you can bet your bottom dollar there is going to be massive rage. Especially considering the TOS Connie being 5/3.
I don't know that there will be 'rage,' per say.. but it would be a little odd considering that the Temporal Connie has already set a precedent. Obviously, they are different ships.. so Cryptic is under no obligation to follow the 5/3 layout previously set, but I think many are probably expecting it.
To be honest though, if the ship can't mount cannons, then 5/3 or 4/4 really doesn't make any difference. The only thing that 5/3 would afford in a beam build is the ability to run Dual Beam Banks which not many people do these days.
I just want to point out one thing though.. while it might be easy to blame players for being disappointed when a ship doesn't follow the '5/3' rule.. lets remember that this desire exists because of the meta that Cryptic established. They're the ones that made beams vastly inferior to cannons which is what sparked the demand for 5 forward weapons in the first place. If they hadn't pushed beam builds so far behind cannons then you would see far less demand for that particular layout.
I am totally in favor of Cannons being more powerful then beams.. they definitely should be. The only reason that the demand is so previlant though is because as usual, Cryptic went too far with their 'adjustments.'
I guess the old saying is true, "ignorance is bliss". I've played the game since beta and know how to play it well enough to do any content in the game. But I've never actually gotten down in the weeds of the numbers or specific builds. If I like a ship I learn how to use it well regardless of the boff layout or stats. I honestly don't know what is considered best, only what works for me. I guess I am happier this way than if I knew all the details that might make me not want to use a ship I like.
I wouldn't say ignorance is bliss exactly but it is sometimes best for one's overall enjoyment not to get hung up on the specifics of stats and layouts. Some are very into that and that is one of the main reasons they play, but I'd hazard a guess that most are not that way.
I fall prey to wanting to max out a build every now and then in order to fulfill a bit of power fantasy if I'm honest but most of the time I get ships well because they look pretty. As the saying goes: "Space Barbie is the real endgame." XD That or the ship is the perfect fit for a specific character I've made roleplay-wise.
In any case, I think this will be a 4/4 layout cruiser. I make all of my predictions are under the assumption of not wanting to step on the toes of those that shelled out for the T6 TOS Connie. Make them unique from each other but not have one be overall better than the other.
So with the T6 TOS being 5/3 then the DSC Connie should probably be 4/4. Of course the Kelvin Connie is also a 4/4 so (to entertain a wild idea for a second) how about having her be the the only cruiser with 4/3 + Experimental weapon? I don't think it'll happen but it's fun to think about.
I almost lost it seeing the name come up in Disco. Nice touch, and of course, I want one. The simple fact that they are still alive, means it has to be lean and mean, as in a tough and deadly SOB.
However, I don't do lobi ships, unless the EC price is right. Cash money, make life easy, and life is good.
Come on people. 6/1 with Experimental Weapon. Secondary Deflector, Subsystem Targeting, Enhanced Raider, Crusier Commands, Miracle Worker Mechanics. Twelve Console Slots, all Universal Universal Seating (any Specialization), Commander, Commander, Lieutenant Commander, Lieutenant seating. Can load Dual Cannons. +10 Power each Subsystem.
Anything else?
'But to be logical is not to be right', and 'nothing' on God's earth could ever 'make it' right!'
Judge Dan Haywood
'As l speak now, the words are forming in my head.
l don't know.
l really don't know what l'm about to say, except l have a feeling about it.
That l must repeat the words that come without my knowledge.'
There's always a tradeoff - ultimate cosmic power, itty-bitty living space. In this case, the DPS is certainly higher - but the firing arc is far more narrow, making it difficult to keep the cannons pointed at the target unless your ship is highly maneuverable, and they can only be mounted on the fore end of your ship. Beams, while offering less DPS, can spend more actual time shooting at your target, because they can be mounted both fore and aft and have a far wider firing arc (270 degrees, IIRC, and I may not). So if your ship turns more slowly, say like a cruiser, beams are more useful as weapons because they spend more seconds utilizing their "lower" DPS, especially when you can broadside (which brings both fore and aft beams into play - I always reserve one forward slot for a torp and one aft for a mine, so when I broadside things with the Lorna Wing or the Time Bandit I'm hitting the enemy with seven or eight weapons at a time, between six beams, self-deploying mines, and the torps if I'm at the correct angle).
I guess what I'm saying here is that for the DSC Connie, I'd be happy with a 4/4 layout. Maybe we get really fancy, and go for a 5/4?
Come on people. 6/1 with Experimental Weapon. Secondary Deflector, Subsystem Targeting, Enhanced Raider, Crusier Commands, Miracle Worker Mechanics. Twelve Console Slots, all Universal Universal Seating (any Specialization), Commander, Commander, Lieutenant Commander, Lieutenant seating. Can load Dual Cannons. +10 Power each Subsystem.
Anything else?
You missed 5 tac slots so the universal mw one could be another tac. and you forgot 2 hangar bays taking frigates with beam arrays and high yield torpedoes and a kick TRIBBLE cannon boosting trait like while CSV is active +30 critH and +100 crtD
edit: oh and it will unlock a new class of weapons, the experimental Phaser Antiproton class. like spiral wave it will have full suffix's, crtX will also be available to it. This ship will also be Cryptics test bed for a ship with an independent torpedo slot, never to be placed on a c-store ship
If they're smart.. they'll make it a 5/3 layout and make it a full Miracle Worker ship.
If they add a powerful trait on top of that they'll likely make enough to sustain them the rest of the year.
I won't buy it either way, I am just not a fan of the Constitution class.. but I am expecting that much like it's temporal cousin.. it will be a DPS oriented ship to drive that demand up even higher.
Yep, that sounds about right.
A year or two back I made the mistake to get the Constitution in the hope of mixing DPS with some “style” or at least “vanity” flair to it for the Temporal (TOS) recruit. The ship turned out to be a disappointment as it was unable to slot dual cannons when the meta (rules) shifted (changed).
I’m really curious if they feel eager to make it another blunt DPS release ala Juggernaut or bet only on the Trek nerd canon card as they did with the Mirror Crossfield.
My wealth in game permits me to go for it if I want to, my past experience however does not make want to.
Good part for us is that if it aims to outperform our Gargarin/Sheppard or the Vanguard Warship it will need to be damn good.
You know.. I have always wondered why I didn't see more Temporal Connies out there in the queues.. and now I know why. I just always assumed that the ship could use Cannons.. I honestly never even considered that it can't.
This is a tough one, because the Constitution Class has an established canon.. and as we all know, that class ship does not use Cannon style weapons, it uses beams and torps.
However, they have nerfed beams to the point where ships that can't mount dual cannons are far less desirable.. so it will be interesting to see what direction Cryptic goes here. There are canon ships that don't run Dual Cannons on screen that can do it in game (Yamato, Shepard, Europa) it will be interesting to see if they break with canon here to make the ship more desirable.
Actually, the TOS Connie DOES have a 'Burst' Phaser mode that one could consider cannon-like (or say that it's a 'Phaser Cannon' mode). (Go watch TOS S1 "Errand of Mercy" and "Balance of Terror"<--- Either the original or remastered versions as the 'Phaser' VFX are different (for the original version it's because the production staff hadn't nailed down/made the weapon effects or capabilities either hard or consistent as yet.)
.
So yeah, in STO, the ONLY reason the TOS T6 Connie can't use a Cannon is because Cryptic says so. In the series it does appear they had a Cannon capacity.
Formerly known as Armsman from June 2008 to June 20, 2012 PWE ARC Drone says: "Your STO forum community as you have known it is ended...Display names are irrelevant...Any further sense of community is irrelevant...Resistance is futile...You will be assimilated..."
Watching the season finale, wouldn't surprise me if the Disco Constitution will be a 7 weapon slot, 2-hangar Carrier. Cmdr ENG station and LtCmdr TAC would be the general BOFF layout.
Leading into that episode's battle, I assumed we'd have a few shuttles launched from both Discovery and Enterprise, what we got were massive wings of shuttles, fighters that made me wonder where in the hell did both ships store that many craft. Which is why I see the Disco Connie being a true 2-hangar Carrier. Other than the usual aesthetics difference between Disco Connie and the previous versions we've seen, Carrier version of this ship would make her stand apart, differently from the regular T6 Connie we already have.
There is another thing that Discovery showed was the Klingon D7, or more exactly the version closer to what we know as the traditional D7 and not the abomination we saw briefly in Season 1.
We don't see them spawning things like fighters, so if we see Disco D7's, they're going to be traditional Battlecruisers.
'But to be logical is not to be right', and 'nothing' on God's earth could ever 'make it' right!'
Judge Dan Haywood
'As l speak now, the words are forming in my head.
l don't know.
l really don't know what l'm about to say, except l have a feeling about it.
That l must repeat the words that come without my knowledge.'
Miracle Worker type so Scotty can finally get some recognition as he was the original miracle worker on that ship, introducing slightly updated phaser beams,... and 10 hangar bays, half filled with special tactical flyers.
I don't know if they'll make the ship a carrier.. I don't think that would make sense since it was clear that the shuttles were modified for this one specific instance.
I can however, see them making some type of Tactical Flyer Swarm as the 'clicky' power on it's special console.
Watching the season finale, wouldn't surprise me if the Disco Constitution will be a 7 weapon slot, 2-hangar Carrier. Cmdr ENG station and LtCmdr TAC would be the general BOFF layout.
Leading into that episode's battle, I assumed we'd have a few shuttles launched from both Discovery and Enterprise, what we got were massive wings of shuttles, fighters that made me wonder where in the hell did both ships store that many craft. Which is why I see the Disco Connie being a true 2-hangar Carrier. Other than the usual aesthetics difference between Disco Connie and the previous versions we've seen, Carrier version of this ship would make her stand apart, differently from the regular T6 Connie we already have.
There is another thing that Discovery showed was the Klingon D7, or more exactly the version closer to what we know as the traditional D7 and not the abomination we saw briefly in Season 1.
We don't see them spawning things like fighters, so if we see Disco D7's, they're going to be traditional Battlecruisers.
And they say a 60's look won't look good. *blows raspberry to them*
I guess the old saying is true, "ignorance is bliss". I've played the game since beta and know how to play it well enough to do any content in the game. But I've never actually gotten down in the weeds of the numbers or specific builds. If I like a ship I learn how to use it well regardless of the boff layout or stats. I honestly don't know what is considered best, only what works for me. I guess I am happier this way than if I knew all the details that might make me not want to use a ship I like.
That's true.. i dont have a "standard build", i toy with my ships until i found what i like best, and then upgrade.. i'm now entering in the Pilot ships, my good they are difficult to fly, always used cruisers and simple escorts...
Honestly while the D-7 update looks nice I like the classic nacelles more, those nacelles look a bit too busy to me.
I admit, that's probably the only part I don't like it. But otherwise, the Discovery D7 looks really similar to the Undiscovered Country's K'tinga, and that was an update of the D7 just as beautiful as the TMP Constitution was for the TOS Constitution. It eliminated the aging (even if creative) 60s Television aesthetics of TOS.
Star Trek Online Advancement: You start with lowbie gear, you end with Lobi gear.
Honestly while the D-7 update looks nice I like the classic nacelles more, those nacelles look a bit too busy to me.
I admit, that's probably the only part I don't like it. But otherwise, the Discovery D7 looks really similar to the Undiscovered Country's K'tinga, and that was an update of the D7 just as beautiful as the TMP Constitution was for the TOS Constitution. It eliminated the aging (even if creative) 60s Television aesthetics of TOS.
It just seems like an attempt to reinvent the wheel, design wise the orginal TOS D-7 had certain simple elegance in the design of the nacelles and the K'tinga kept that elegance there. This new version keeps the simple elegant design of the orginal D-7 for the most only to drop the ball when comes to the nacelles.
Honestly while the D-7 update looks nice I like the classic nacelles more, those nacelles look a bit too busy to me.
I admit, that's probably the only part I don't like it. But otherwise, the Discovery D7 looks really similar to the Undiscovered Country's K'tinga, and that was an update of the D7 just as beautiful as the TMP Constitution was for the TOS Constitution. It eliminated the aging (even if creative) 60s Television aesthetics of TOS.
It just seems like an attempt to reinvent the wheel, design wise the orginal TOS D-7 had certain simple elegance in the design of the nacelles and the K'tinga kept that elegance there. This new version keeps the simple elegant design of the orginal D-7 for the most only to drop the ball when comes to the nacelles.
The nacelles are not my favorite either, but at least it's close enough in the timeline to be swapped out over the next couple years.
'But to be logical is not to be right', and 'nothing' on God's earth could ever 'make it' right!'
Judge Dan Haywood
'As l speak now, the words are forming in my head.
l don't know.
l really don't know what l'm about to say, except l have a feeling about it.
That l must repeat the words that come without my knowledge.'
Honestly while the D-7 update looks nice I like the classic nacelles more, those nacelles look a bit too busy to me.
I admit, that's probably the only part I don't like it. But otherwise, the Discovery D7 looks really similar to the Undiscovered Country's K'tinga, and that was an update of the D7 just as beautiful as the TMP Constitution was for the TOS Constitution. It eliminated the aging (even if creative) 60s Television aesthetics of TOS.
It just seems like an attempt to reinvent the wheel, design wise the orginal TOS D-7 had certain simple elegance in the design of the nacelles and the K'tinga kept that elegance there. This new version keeps the simple elegant design of the orginal D-7 for the most only to drop the ball when comes to the nacelles.
The nacelles are not my favorite either, but at least it's close enough in the timeline to be swapped out over the next couple years.
I'm just happy that the D7 is now no longer "that other D7" Discovery showed in S1.
Honestly while the D-7 update looks nice I like the classic nacelles more, those nacelles look a bit too busy to me.
I admit, that's probably the only part I don't like it. But otherwise, the Discovery D7 looks really similar to the Undiscovered Country's K'tinga, and that was an update of the D7 just as beautiful as the TMP Constitution was for the TOS Constitution. It eliminated the aging (even if creative) 60s Television aesthetics of TOS.
It just seems like an attempt to reinvent the wheel, design wise the orginal TOS D-7 had certain simple elegance in the design of the nacelles and the K'tinga kept that elegance there. This new version keeps the simple elegant design of the orginal D-7 for the most only to drop the ball when comes to the nacelles.
The nacelles are not my favorite either, but at least it's close enough in the timeline to be swapped out over the next couple years.
I'm just happy that the D7 is now no longer "that other D7" Discovery showed in S1.
I think the worst part of that design is that on its own it's not that bad, it just doesn't look anything like the classic D-7 so it should have been a no-brainer that those who care would reject it as a D-7.
Honestly while the D-7 update looks nice I like the classic nacelles more, those nacelles look a bit too busy to me.
I admit, that's probably the only part I don't like it. But otherwise, the Discovery D7 looks really similar to the Undiscovered Country's K'tinga, and that was an update of the D7 just as beautiful as the TMP Constitution was for the TOS Constitution. It eliminated the aging (even if creative) 60s Television aesthetics of TOS.
It just seems like an attempt to reinvent the wheel, design wise the orginal TOS D-7 had certain simple elegance in the design of the nacelles and the K'tinga kept that elegance there. This new version keeps the simple elegant design of the orginal D-7 for the most only to drop the ball when comes to the nacelles.
The nacelles are not my favorite either, but at least it's close enough in the timeline to be swapped out over the next couple years.
I'm just happy that the D7 is now no longer "that other D7" Discovery showed in S1.
I think the worst part of that design is that on its own it's not that bad, it just doesn't look anything like the classic D-7 so it should have been a no-brainer that those who care would reject it as a D-7.
Personally, I feel the Disco staff did not give a damn, only changing it when they realized viewers and fans actually CARE about this.
I still don't like the angled pylons on the Connie. o.o
Honestly while the D-7 update looks nice I like the classic nacelles more, those nacelles look a bit too busy to me.
I admit, that's probably the only part I don't like it. But otherwise, the Discovery D7 looks really similar to the Undiscovered Country's K'tinga, and that was an update of the D7 just as beautiful as the TMP Constitution was for the TOS Constitution. It eliminated the aging (even if creative) 60s Television aesthetics of TOS.
It just seems like an attempt to reinvent the wheel, design wise the orginal TOS D-7 had certain simple elegance in the design of the nacelles and the K'tinga kept that elegance there. This new version keeps the simple elegant design of the orginal D-7 for the most only to drop the ball when comes to the nacelles.
The nacelles are not my favorite either, but at least it's close enough in the timeline to be swapped out over the next couple years.
I'm just happy that the D7 is now no longer "that other D7" Discovery showed in S1.
I think the worst part of that design is that on its own it's not that bad, it just doesn't look anything like the classic D-7 so it should have been a no-brainer that those who care would reject it as a D-7.
Personally, I feel the Disco staff did not give a damn, only changing it when they realized viewers and fans actually CARE about this.
I still don't like the angled pylons on the Connie. o.o
Nah they did give a damn as there's a lot of minor trivia they didn't need to include but not only did but got it right. However the Klingon designs (both the ships and the species itself) was a case of trying to fix something that didn't need fixing. part of the reason why the connie and D7 reworks are generally not hated is that they didn't really try to re-invent the wheel so to speak instead took the old designs and modernized them while still keeping the essence of the old design. Hell the D7 bridge looks like it could be from TNG if it weren't for the hologrammic displays.
Honestly while the D-7 update looks nice I like the classic nacelles more, those nacelles look a bit too busy to me.
I admit, that's probably the only part I don't like it. But otherwise, the Discovery D7 looks really similar to the Undiscovered Country's K'tinga, and that was an update of the D7 just as beautiful as the TMP Constitution was for the TOS Constitution. It eliminated the aging (even if creative) 60s Television aesthetics of TOS.
It just seems like an attempt to reinvent the wheel, design wise the orginal TOS D-7 had certain simple elegance in the design of the nacelles and the K'tinga kept that elegance there. This new version keeps the simple elegant design of the orginal D-7 for the most only to drop the ball when comes to the nacelles.
The nacelles are not my favorite either, but at least it's close enough in the timeline to be swapped out over the next couple years.
I'm just happy that the D7 is now no longer "that other D7" Discovery showed in S1.
I think the worst part of that design is that on its own it's not that bad, it just doesn't look anything like the classic D-7 so it should have been a no-brainer that those who care would reject it as a D-7.
Personally, I feel the Disco staff did not give a damn, only changing it when they realized viewers and fans actually CARE about this.
I still don't like the angled pylons on the Connie. o.o
I always figured it was more the original showrunner, Fuller, that wanted to leave his own mark and change things around. But clearly, there were plenty of Star Trek people in the staff that did care, and as he left and new showrunners came along that also cared, they got the chance to make changes. It certainly helped that many fans didn't like the original DSC aesthetics.
It feels a bit of wasted opportunity for STO, though. A few of the Discovery Klingon designs I think work well, but many look too out there, and I fear the won't sell as well as more "traditionally" styled variations of Klingon design. STOs Klingon and Romulan faction will always suffer from there being too few canon ship designs. Discovery added so many new designs, but so many seem to speak a different design language, so the won't work as well. And since they are KDF ships, Cryptic won't waste resources on creating 25th century alternate skins that would also more customization or even kitbashing, which could increase the popularity of these ships. Even then it probably would be profitable enough (or at all?) for Cryptic.
Star Trek Online Advancement: You start with lowbie gear, you end with Lobi gear.
Comments
For some.. sure.
It's impossible to give it stats that please absolutely everyone. I am not in the market for this particular ship either way, but I am sure there will be the usual group of disappointed players once the final stats are released.
Especially if ships don't follow the "We need 5/3 cruisers" line people sometimes say. If the ship is 4/4 you can bet your bottom dollar there is going to be massive rage. Especially considering the TOS Connie being 5/3.
I don't know that there will be 'rage,' per say.. but it would be a little odd considering that the Temporal Connie has already set a precedent. Obviously, they are different ships.. so Cryptic is under no obligation to follow the 5/3 layout previously set, but I think many are probably expecting it.
To be honest though, if the ship can't mount cannons, then 5/3 or 4/4 really doesn't make any difference. The only thing that 5/3 would afford in a beam build is the ability to run Dual Beam Banks which not many people do these days.
I just want to point out one thing though.. while it might be easy to blame players for being disappointed when a ship doesn't follow the '5/3' rule.. lets remember that this desire exists because of the meta that Cryptic established. They're the ones that made beams vastly inferior to cannons which is what sparked the demand for 5 forward weapons in the first place. If they hadn't pushed beam builds so far behind cannons then you would see far less demand for that particular layout.
I am totally in favor of Cannons being more powerful then beams.. they definitely should be. The only reason that the demand is so previlant though is because as usual, Cryptic went too far with their 'adjustments.'
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
I fall prey to wanting to max out a build every now and then in order to fulfill a bit of power fantasy if I'm honest but most of the time I get ships well because they look pretty. As the saying goes: "Space Barbie is the real endgame." XD That or the ship is the perfect fit for a specific character I've made roleplay-wise.
In any case, I think this will be a 4/4 layout cruiser. I make all of my predictions are under the assumption of not wanting to step on the toes of those that shelled out for the T6 TOS Connie. Make them unique from each other but not have one be overall better than the other.
So with the T6 TOS being 5/3 then the DSC Connie should probably be 4/4. Of course the Kelvin Connie is also a 4/4 so (to entertain a wild idea for a second) how about having her be the the only cruiser with 4/3 + Experimental weapon? I don't think it'll happen but it's fun to think about.
However, I don't do lobi ships, unless the EC price is right. Cash money, make life easy, and life is good.
and blowing up Klingons is priceless.
Anything else?
l don't know.
l really don't know what l'm about to say, except l have a feeling about it.
That l must repeat the words that come without my knowledge.'
There's always a tradeoff - ultimate cosmic power, itty-bitty living space. In this case, the DPS is certainly higher - but the firing arc is far more narrow, making it difficult to keep the cannons pointed at the target unless your ship is highly maneuverable, and they can only be mounted on the fore end of your ship. Beams, while offering less DPS, can spend more actual time shooting at your target, because they can be mounted both fore and aft and have a far wider firing arc (270 degrees, IIRC, and I may not). So if your ship turns more slowly, say like a cruiser, beams are more useful as weapons because they spend more seconds utilizing their "lower" DPS, especially when you can broadside (which brings both fore and aft beams into play - I always reserve one forward slot for a torp and one aft for a mine, so when I broadside things with the Lorna Wing or the Time Bandit I'm hitting the enemy with seven or eight weapons at a time, between six beams, self-deploying mines, and the torps if I'm at the correct angle).
I guess what I'm saying here is that for the DSC Connie, I'd be happy with a 4/4 layout. Maybe we get really fancy, and go for a 5/4?
Universal Console - DOT-7
Activatable repair power with a passive boost to Engine Power lvls and Hull Regeneration.
You missed 5 tac slots so the universal mw one could be another tac. and you forgot 2 hangar bays taking frigates with beam arrays and high yield torpedoes and a kick TRIBBLE cannon boosting trait like while CSV is active +30 critH and +100 crtD
edit: oh and it will unlock a new class of weapons, the experimental Phaser Antiproton class. like spiral wave it will have full suffix's, crtX will also be available to it. This ship will also be Cryptics test bed for a ship with an independent torpedo slot, never to be placed on a c-store ship
Actually, the TOS Connie DOES have a 'Burst' Phaser mode that one could consider cannon-like (or say that it's a 'Phaser Cannon' mode). (Go watch TOS S1 "Errand of Mercy" and "Balance of Terror"<--- Either the original or remastered versions as the 'Phaser' VFX are different (for the original version it's because the production staff hadn't nailed down/made the weapon effects or capabilities either hard or consistent as yet.)
.
So yeah, in STO, the ONLY reason the TOS T6 Connie can't use a Cannon is because Cryptic says so. In the series it does appear they had a Cannon capacity.
PWE ARC Drone says: "Your STO forum community as you have known it is ended...Display names are irrelevant...Any further sense of community is irrelevant...Resistance is futile...You will be assimilated..."
Leading into that episode's battle, I assumed we'd have a few shuttles launched from both Discovery and Enterprise, what we got were massive wings of shuttles, fighters that made me wonder where in the hell did both ships store that many craft. Which is why I see the Disco Connie being a true 2-hangar Carrier. Other than the usual aesthetics difference between Disco Connie and the previous versions we've seen, Carrier version of this ship would make her stand apart, differently from the regular T6 Connie we already have.
There is another thing that Discovery showed was the Klingon D7, or more exactly the version closer to what we know as the traditional D7 and not the abomination we saw briefly in Season 1.
We don't see them spawning things like fighters, so if we see Disco D7's, they're going to be traditional Battlecruisers.
l don't know.
l really don't know what l'm about to say, except l have a feeling about it.
That l must repeat the words that come without my knowledge.'
With the amount of spam the Discovery and Enterprise sent out, you could make a case for 8 or something like that
I can however, see them making some type of Tactical Flyer Swarm as the 'clicky' power on it's special console.
And they say a 60's look won't look good. *blows raspberry to them*
That's true.. i dont have a "standard build", i toy with my ships until i found what i like best, and then upgrade.. i'm now entering in the Pilot ships, my good they are difficult to fly, always used cruisers and simple escorts...
I admit, that's probably the only part I don't like it. But otherwise, the Discovery D7 looks really similar to the Undiscovered Country's K'tinga, and that was an update of the D7 just as beautiful as the TMP Constitution was for the TOS Constitution. It eliminated the aging (even if creative) 60s Television aesthetics of TOS.
The nacelles are not my favorite either, but at least it's close enough in the timeline to be swapped out over the next couple years.
>It eliminated the aging (even if creative) 60s Television aesthetics of TOS.
Blasphemer!!!
l don't know.
l really don't know what l'm about to say, except l have a feeling about it.
That l must repeat the words that come without my knowledge.'
I'm just happy that the D7 is now no longer "that other D7" Discovery showed in S1.
Personally, I feel the Disco staff did not give a damn, only changing it when they realized viewers and fans actually CARE about this.
I still don't like the angled pylons on the Connie. o.o
Beat me to it. To me, the TOS style is like what I call the Aubrey Hepburn style.
Classy.
Nah they did give a damn as there's a lot of minor trivia they didn't need to include but not only did but got it right. However the Klingon designs (both the ships and the species itself) was a case of trying to fix something that didn't need fixing. part of the reason why the connie and D7 reworks are generally not hated is that they didn't really try to re-invent the wheel so to speak instead took the old designs and modernized them while still keeping the essence of the old design. Hell the D7 bridge looks like it could be from TNG if it weren't for the hologrammic displays.
I always figured it was more the original showrunner, Fuller, that wanted to leave his own mark and change things around. But clearly, there were plenty of Star Trek people in the staff that did care, and as he left and new showrunners came along that also cared, they got the chance to make changes. It certainly helped that many fans didn't like the original DSC aesthetics.
It feels a bit of wasted opportunity for STO, though. A few of the Discovery Klingon designs I think work well, but many look too out there, and I fear the won't sell as well as more "traditionally" styled variations of Klingon design. STOs Klingon and Romulan faction will always suffer from there being too few canon ship designs. Discovery added so many new designs, but so many seem to speak a different design language, so the won't work as well. And since they are KDF ships, Cryptic won't waste resources on creating 25th century alternate skins that would also more customization or even kitbashing, which could increase the popularity of these ships. Even then it probably would be profitable enough (or at all?) for Cryptic.