Vengeance class. Just because there are STILL so many of them. In the STO universe there are more Vengeances than shuttlecraft.
Cause it's fairly cheap to get is why ya see so many of them.
Personally, I avoid the things because they are such a horribly impractical (and ugly) design. Ugly proportions and angles aside, who would design a ship with a hole in the middle of the saucer which serves no purpose except the undesirable one of making the bridge directly targetable from both the dorsal and ventral directions?
0
rattler2Member, Star Trek Online ModeratorPosts: 58,596Community Moderator
Personally, I avoid the things because they are such a horribly impractical (and ugly) design. Ugly proportions and angles aside, who would design a ship with a hole in the middle of the saucer which serves no purpose except the undesirable one of making the bridge directly targetable from both the dorsal and ventral directions?
“but even then one of the 10s mines will be back up in a couple seconds anyway. So pretty much global mine drop anyway even though you only have 3 mines.”
Do you not use the two consoles that reduce global mine drop rate? Although one of them was broken for a while not sure if its been fixed. My preferred layout at least when running a full mine layer theme build is Modulating Competition, Advanced Quantum, Quantum Thoron Infused, Black Ops, Tricobalt or sometimes remove the Black ops for x2 Tricobalt. Personally, I don’t use or like Hidden Payload. In the front I tend to go for Tricobalt Cluster, Transphasic Cluster and that Chronotron one who’s name I forgot that turns into Cluster on high yield. Plus the pet on the Vorgon which is generating more mines for you.
Yes I use the gamma and lobi console. My point on global was just that with the 20% cool down reduction (So 10s, 10s, 12s) on mines. (Or sometimes I run a Comp Quantum/Crafted Quantum/Thorion Quantum... so 12 12 12) is that with 2 mine doffs I'm dropping at global cool down. (with the consoles). So having 4 or 5 rear slots would make basically zero difference in the number of mines dropping.
For what its worth on mine speed... ya I don't really want my mines being any faster anyway. I want to have all the mines out when I warp them on the big things. I normally turn the creep effect off from the lobi console. With Intel Attaché I can warp all my mines every 20-30s... and that is enough to have 2 drops + a Disperal 3 out to warp every time its up. (so what is that 28-32 mines somewhere in there depending)
Anyway I didn't mean the na na in the last post to sound so crappy. haha It is cool to hear about your vorgon setup. Nice to hear about different niche builds. Thanks.
who would design a ship with a hole in the middle of the saucer which serves no purpose except the undesirable one of making the bridge directly targetable from both the dorsal and ventral directions?
Though, according to Discovery, Section 31 seems to love its ships with a big hole in the saucer (and putting a huge bright light source right on top of their bridges).
No such thing as a bad ship, just ships that are bad for what certain people want to do,
"Someone once told me that time was a predator that stalked us all our lives. I rather believe that time is a companion who goes with us on the journey and reminds us to cherish every moment, because it will never come again." - Jean Luc Picard in Star Trek Generations
Vengeance class. Just because there are STILL so many of them. In the STO universe there are more Vengeances than shuttlecraft.
Cause it's fairly cheap to get is why ya see so many of them.
Personally, I avoid the things because they are such a horribly impractical (and ugly) design. Ugly proportions and angles aside, who would design a ship with a hole in the middle of the saucer which serves no purpose except the undesirable one of making the bridge directly targetable from both the dorsal and ventral directions?
I guess the gap is there to make it appear larger. Negative space can have that effect.
Personally I always liked it. Instead of looking at a flat disc, you get to look at something that consists of many decks. It's as if you're looking at a small tower or apartment building.
In that sense, it does kind of the same thing as the many windows on other ships' saucers do, just in a different way. A more impactful way, I'd say.
But yes, overall, it's not a great design, especially with those large nacelles. Had they been angled a bit differently, more to behind instead of straight up, it would probably have looked better.
Though I also find that these design choices are mostly only irritating when looking at the ship from the side. Not so much when looking slightly down on it from the rear, the way you see your ship most of the time while playing.
No such thing as a bad ship, just ships that are bad for what certain people want to do,
Except the D'Deridex, apparently.
Homies hate the D'Deridex, she's a big fat loser.
There are a few ships that are just bad at what you would assume they should be good at. IMO that is what makes a ship bad.
With the old T6 DD the Fleet D'Khellra... it just not good at what you would assume its good for. I think most TNG fans think o the DD as the Romulan flag ship. (not the silly shim which was just another massive movie villain ship) So its a bit disappointing when it can't really do anything all that well... and to top it of its less maneuverable then 99% of the carriers in the game. lol (really 5 turn rate and 30 inertial. There is only one ship in the game with less turn rate... and I think 4 or 5 carriers with worse inertia ratings)
Its also why I hate the Laeosa Research Warbird. Its a sci ship that is a terrible at doing sci things, while also being less maneuverable then some of the games carriers.
I think beyond a few outlier though its true that most ships can be made to be decent. Its just some are disappointments as their stats seem to be a complete mismatch to the expected playstyle most people would have in mind for them. One other ship I dislike for that reason is the Fleet Goomba (Fleet Nausicaan Guramba Siege Destroyer) I LOVED the T5 version... it was so unique it was a solid escort setup with a cool special ability built in had a cool name cool animations it was just cool. The T6.... has the animations and looks, but just doesn't hold up vs any of the games newer releases. Its still 4/3 weapons, it has a useless for energy builds Lt Cmd Engi/Command seat... they put a hanger on it for some reason that makes no logical sense. That ship should have been 5/2 Lt Cmd pilot. What sucks about the Guramba is now that its clear they will add T6-Xinfinty tokens... the chances of an updated version are probably pretty low. I don't think the T6 version sold well... here is hoping though a Legendary Guramba would be cool, as long as they don't make it some silly hanger pet thing.
0
rattler2Member, Star Trek Online ModeratorPosts: 58,596Community Moderator
The issue with the D'Deridex is the Turn Rate. In order to counter that LOW turn rate you have to invest in a LOT of resources to counter it. I think its base turn rate is 5, which is even lower than the T4 Galaxy (base 6).
The issue with the D'Deridex is the Turn Rate. In order to counter that LOW turn rate you have to invest in a LOT of resources to counter it. I think its base turn rate is 5, which is even lower than the T4 Galaxy (base 6).
The D'D can do some mighty interesting stuff, but it is mainly associated with tanking and BFAW while those are considered less desirable in today's meta due to the power creep.
I prefer the D'D on my Romulan characters in 90+ percent of the content.
@husanakx
The Guramba is an absolute master for drain builds. If it had a secondary deflector my klingon/orion/nausican Characters would fly it all the time. Come to think of it, perhaps the console of the Augur can breath in new life into Klingon Drain builds.
Console – Universal – Enforced Timeline Primacy https://www.playstartrekonline.com/en/news/article/11549583
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.
The issue with the D'Deridex is the Turn Rate. In order to counter that LOW turn rate you have to invest in a LOT of resources to counter it. I think its base turn rate is 5, which is even lower than the T4 Galaxy (base 6).
It's not that difficult to compensate.
Still going to burn a console or two and maybe a trait or two... just to equal equivalent ships. There really is no excuse for the Romulan Flag ship to have a turn rate and inertia lower then 3/4 of the games full carriers. Here is a small list... but we could go on, only one carrier in the game has a turn rate lower then 5. A few have 20 inertia ratings.... but the majority actually handle better then the DD. The DD movement stats never made sense... it should move more on par with the best KDF Battle cruisers.
No such thing as a bad ship, just ships that are bad for what certain people want to do,
Except the D'Deridex, apparently.
Homies hate the D'Deridex, she's a big fat loser.
Out of warbirds that's probably my strongest tank is the DD. Just because alot of folks don't know how to treat her doesn't make her a bad ship.
"Someone once told me that time was a predator that stalked us all our lives. I rather believe that time is a companion who goes with us on the journey and reminds us to cherish every moment, because it will never come again." - Jean Luc Picard in Star Trek Generations
Star Trek Online volunteer Community Moderator
0
rattler2Member, Star Trek Online ModeratorPosts: 58,596Community Moderator
I agree she can be a good tank, but that turn rate still takes a lot of work to counter.
Vengeance class. Just because there are STILL so many of them. In the STO universe there are more Vengeances than shuttlecraft.
This makes no sense. The OP wants to know what the worst ship is, so that they can have a go at making a build with one.
You say that a ship is the worst, because so many people use it - but by replying in this thread, you are implying that you want the OP to use it - thereby adding to your problem.
The Romulan Laeosa Research Warbird is even worse.
Its a sci ship that is a terrible at doing sci things
But why? It's a Sutherland with a battle cloak that forces you into a TorpSci build. The only thing it's lacking is a full temporal spec, but it and its sister ships have the best boff layout for anomaly/SIA spamming in the game. It may not be the absolute top notch science ship and build anymore, but I don't get why it would be outright bad at doing sci things, or even a worse ship than the D'D. It's fairly good.
As to OP's request, because I think it has not been mentioned yet: the Resolute
The issue with the D'Deridex is the Turn Rate. In order to counter that LOW turn rate you have to invest in a LOT of resources to counter it. I think its base turn rate is 5, which is even lower than the T4 Galaxy (base 6).
It's not that difficult to compensate.
Still going to burn a console or two and maybe a trait or two... just to equal equivalent ships. There really is no excuse for the Romulan Flag ship to have a turn rate and inertia lower then 3/4 of the games full carriers. Here is a small list... but we could go on, only one carrier in the game has a turn rate lower then 5. A few have 20 inertia ratings.... but the majority actually handle better then the DD. The DD movement stats never made sense... it should move more on par with the best KDF Battle cruisers.
It does make sense in the context of early TNG before Paramount started inflating the ship sizes in their quest to turn Star Trek into an ersatz Star Wars to hijack that other brand's fans. So yes, nowadays it does not make sense anymore.
In early TNG the Galaxy class was said to be the largest ship class in Starfleet and that at that size it pushed the capability of the warp technology of the time (though nowadays it is rather smallish compared to other cruisers), and the D'Deridex was even bigger (and could only pull it off by using an artificial quantum singularity) which meant it had some severe tradeoffs in speed and maneuverability (a D'Deridex is not much faster than a Cardassian ship for instance).
With all the size inflation in the shows (even if we ignore NuTrek) neither ship is pushing warp envelope size technology limits, so the abysmal handling on the D'D is no longer justified (though I doubt the devs will change it much, if at all).
Vengeance class. Just because there are STILL so many of them. In the STO universe there are more Vengeances than shuttlecraft.
Cause it's fairly cheap to get is why ya see so many of them.
Personally, I avoid the things because they are such a horribly impractical (and ugly) design. Ugly proportions and angles aside, who would design a ship with a hole in the middle of the saucer which serves no purpose except the undesirable one of making the bridge directly targetable from both the dorsal and ventral directions?
Same, and for the same reasons. It's the Kim Kardassian of spaceships.
"The meaning of victory is not to merely defeat your enemy but to destroy him, to completely eradicate him from living memory, to leave no remnant of his endeavours, to crush utterly his achievement and remove from all record his every trace of existence. From that defeat no enemy can ever recover. That is the meaning of victory."
-Lord Commander Solar Macharius
Can i nominate the protostar for no other reason that i cannot stand Prodigy.
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.
0
rattler2Member, Star Trek Online ModeratorPosts: 58,596Community Moderator
Stat wise the Protostar looks like she'd be very good as a Megawell build, but as she's brand new and no one's really gotten to fly her... probably unfair to call her anything.
Can i nominate the protostar for no other reason that i cannot stand Prodigy.
I hope a moopsy drops on your shoulder for saying that.
:P
Had to google that one. Have not yet caught up with new season lower decks
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.
Also, since you can't stand Prodigy, I suggest you don't go to ESD for a while.
Because:
I'll be gambing at either quarks or Drozanna
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.
Comments
Cause it's fairly cheap to get is why ya see so many of them.
Personally, I avoid the things because they are such a horribly impractical (and ugly) design. Ugly proportions and angles aside, who would design a ship with a hole in the middle of the saucer which serves no purpose except the undesirable one of making the bridge directly targetable from both the dorsal and ventral directions?
Section 31 wanting a warship?
Yes I use the gamma and lobi console. My point on global was just that with the 20% cool down reduction (So 10s, 10s, 12s) on mines. (Or sometimes I run a Comp Quantum/Crafted Quantum/Thorion Quantum... so 12 12 12) is that with 2 mine doffs I'm dropping at global cool down. (with the consoles). So having 4 or 5 rear slots would make basically zero difference in the number of mines dropping.
For what its worth on mine speed... ya I don't really want my mines being any faster anyway. I want to have all the mines out when I warp them on the big things. I normally turn the creep effect off from the lobi console. With Intel Attaché I can warp all my mines every 20-30s... and that is enough to have 2 drops + a Disperal 3 out to warp every time its up. (so what is that 28-32 mines somewhere in there depending)
Anyway I didn't mean the na na in the last post to sound so crappy. haha It is cool to hear about your vorgon setup. Nice to hear about different niche builds. Thanks.
Though, according to Discovery, Section 31 seems to love its ships with a big hole in the saucer (and putting a huge bright light source right on top of their bridges).
Star Trek Online volunteer Community Moderator
I guess the gap is there to make it appear larger. Negative space can have that effect.
Personally I always liked it. Instead of looking at a flat disc, you get to look at something that consists of many decks. It's as if you're looking at a small tower or apartment building.
In that sense, it does kind of the same thing as the many windows on other ships' saucers do, just in a different way. A more impactful way, I'd say.
But yes, overall, it's not a great design, especially with those large nacelles. Had they been angled a bit differently, more to behind instead of straight up, it would probably have looked better.
Though I also find that these design choices are mostly only irritating when looking at the ship from the side. Not so much when looking slightly down on it from the rear, the way you see your ship most of the time while playing.
Homies hate the D'Deridex, she's a big fat loser.
There are a few ships that are just bad at what you would assume they should be good at. IMO that is what makes a ship bad.
With the old T6 DD the Fleet D'Khellra... it just not good at what you would assume its good for. I think most TNG fans think o the DD as the Romulan flag ship. (not the silly shim which was just another massive movie villain ship) So its a bit disappointing when it can't really do anything all that well... and to top it of its less maneuverable then 99% of the carriers in the game. lol (really 5 turn rate and 30 inertial. There is only one ship in the game with less turn rate... and I think 4 or 5 carriers with worse inertia ratings)
Its also why I hate the Laeosa Research Warbird. Its a sci ship that is a terrible at doing sci things, while also being less maneuverable then some of the games carriers.
I think beyond a few outlier though its true that most ships can be made to be decent. Its just some are disappointments as their stats seem to be a complete mismatch to the expected playstyle most people would have in mind for them. One other ship I dislike for that reason is the Fleet Goomba (Fleet Nausicaan Guramba Siege Destroyer) I LOVED the T5 version... it was so unique it was a solid escort setup with a cool special ability built in had a cool name cool animations it was just cool. The T6.... has the animations and looks, but just doesn't hold up vs any of the games newer releases. Its still 4/3 weapons, it has a useless for energy builds Lt Cmd Engi/Command seat... they put a hanger on it for some reason that makes no logical sense. That ship should have been 5/2 Lt Cmd pilot. What sucks about the Guramba is now that its clear they will add T6-Xinfinty tokens... the chances of an updated version are probably pretty low. I don't think the T6 version sold well... here is hoping though a Legendary Guramba would be cool, as long as they don't make it some silly hanger pet thing.
It's not that difficult to compensate.
I prefer the D'D on my Romulan characters in 90+ percent of the content.
@husanakx
The Guramba is an absolute master for drain builds. If it had a secondary deflector my klingon/orion/nausican Characters would fly it all the time. Come to think of it, perhaps the console of the Augur can breath in new life into Klingon Drain builds.
Console – Universal – Enforced Timeline Primacy
https://www.playstartrekonline.com/en/news/article/11549583
Still going to burn a console or two and maybe a trait or two... just to equal equivalent ships. There really is no excuse for the Romulan Flag ship to have a turn rate and inertia lower then 3/4 of the games full carriers. Here is a small list... but we could go on, only one carrier in the game has a turn rate lower then 5. A few have 20 inertia ratings.... but the majority actually handle better then the DD. The DD movement stats never made sense... it should move more on par with the best KDF Battle cruisers.
Romulan T6 DD. 5 turn 30 inertia
Tzenkethi Tzen-tar Dreadnought Carrier 7.5 turn 50 inertia
Herald Vonph Dreadnought Carrier 6 turn 40 inertia
Voth Bastian Carrier 6 turn 40 inertia
Tholian Jorogumo Carrier 5.5 turn 30 inertia
Terran Monitor Carrier 8 Turn 35 inertia
Tellarite Pralim Flight Deck Assault Carrier 9 turn 40 inertia
Out of warbirds that's probably my strongest tank is the DD. Just because alot of folks don't know how to treat her doesn't make her a bad ship.
Star Trek Online volunteer Community Moderator
Non-bugged Vengeance for sure. The bugged Vengeance is great though.
This makes no sense. The OP wants to know what the worst ship is, so that they can have a go at making a build with one.
You say that a ship is the worst, because so many people use it - but by replying in this thread, you are implying that you want the OP to use it - thereby adding to your problem.
-K
As to OP's request, because I think it has not been mentioned yet: the Resolute
It does make sense in the context of early TNG before Paramount started inflating the ship sizes in their quest to turn Star Trek into an ersatz Star Wars to hijack that other brand's fans. So yes, nowadays it does not make sense anymore.
In early TNG the Galaxy class was said to be the largest ship class in Starfleet and that at that size it pushed the capability of the warp technology of the time (though nowadays it is rather smallish compared to other cruisers), and the D'Deridex was even bigger (and could only pull it off by using an artificial quantum singularity) which meant it had some severe tradeoffs in speed and maneuverability (a D'Deridex is not much faster than a Cardassian ship for instance).
With all the size inflation in the shows (even if we ignore NuTrek) neither ship is pushing warp envelope size technology limits, so the abysmal handling on the D'D is no longer justified (though I doubt the devs will change it much, if at all).
Same, and for the same reasons. It's the Kim Kardassian of spaceships.
-Lord Commander Solar Macharius
:P
Had to google that one. Have not yet caught up with new season lower decks
Because:
I'll be gambing at either quarks or Drozanna