Nebula is my favorite ship. I've always liked the way it looks as it reminds me of the Miranda class. There is something about the compact design of those ships that makes me feel as if they were more realistically designed. Maybe I just like the aesthetic of them and I am trying to justify it.
However, I am specced to fly cruisers. I like the versatility my build and loadout give me. I can swap 2 bridge officer stations and go form solo config to group config. So I was really hoping this ship would stay as a cruiser. I did realize it was likely to be made a science vessel as they are currently lacking and the Nebula can fit the description of a science ship as easily as it can a cruiser. It is also good for the game to get more diverse ship classes out that people want to fly.
Because this game doesn't take very long to max out your character, I have a science captain sitting at RA5. He is specced to fly science ships. I haven't played him at all because I don't really like the way the current T5 ships look. I had been considering getting him to VA1 and getting the Intrepid refit. But now I am a little excited that the Nebula class is a science vessel and will look forward leveling my science captain again to get this ship.
So I don't see what all the tears and rage are for. My main is an Engineer in a Cruiser. Though I might be inclined to label myself as a semi-rational adult and maybe that is why I am not flying off the handle quoting obscure canon references and accusing Cryptic of pandering to the majority.
ok, so flying around esd today i noticed that the nebula was rebadged a sci vessel, now my hope is that they are just rying to throw people off cause it is a cruiser. i as a tac officer was actually looking forward to playing my favorite ship, and now that is possibly an impossability... i will not buy it if it is a sci vessel, and i will whine and cry like the sci's for equal right as far as an escort goes... thus the escorts would be the only peeps getting no love...
plz cryptic leave the nebula as a cruiser so we can "all" enjoy it. there is no reason a sci player cannot use a cruiser, they are just being stubborn...
the other problem this brings up with me is the lack of canonality with this move. the nebula was an explorer cruiser, it has the same armaments as a galaxy, and is just a bit smaller. three for and three aft weapons hardly would do it justice, and the fact that only sci peeps would benefit from it (being a multi role ship in canon) further makes me lose the star trek feel. i have been drooling for this ship since the game released and now i feel like because a couple of people complained, (though a far vaster majority wanted it to stay cruiser) u guys caved in. i have baught every cruiser you released, but i have baught no sci vessels, and i will continue to not purchase sci vessels (as i know most tacs and engineers feel the same way..). a vessel loses to much when it is a sci vessel for it to be apealing to tac and engineer.... if your gonna give the sci's something, develop a new ship that no one cares about... but be fair and make the cannon ships (unless otherwise slated like a defient being an escort, or the olympic being a sci for example) cruisers.
again i am disapointed that the devs decided to make it a cruiser, and then caved.... really lame for the rest of us... the disapointment makes me lose interest in the game....
I completely agree with you. The Nebula should be a cruiser, albeit one with good science stations.
What is boils down to is this: The Galaxy is a cruiser. The Nebula is based on the Galaxy. Nebula = Cruiser.
I mean, even the starter ships, Miranda is based on the Constitution, which is a cruiser, and the Centaur is based on the Excelsior, again, also a crusier.
Sorry, but the Nebula has always been a science vessel. Ther was a modified version that wasn't, it had 4 necells, but the standard has always since it first appeared in Generations been a science vessel. My Ships of the Line book lists it as science.
Far fewer people will buy this ship as a sci vessel. I went from interest in the ship from "no way I'll buy a sci vessel that turns like a galaxy and takes forever to kill anything". So you lost my money. We were badly burned buying the underpowered and horribly turning Galaxy x; we wont do it again. There was no reason for the Nebula to get the craptastic turn rate of the Galaxy, and now you give us the worst damaging ship in the game and ask us to pay real money for it, and yes I know it will be available in game, but it's also being offered on the c-store, so that means it will not be easily available to ranking up characters.
Simple...as a cruiser you get people paying real money for the ship, as a sci vessel, far fewer. In one swoop you gave the ship a giant nerf...and I wont play that. I'm really disappointed right now.
Offer the ship in both versions...that will get you c-store purchases and make more people happy. Otherwise I've wasted my time thinking about this ship, and will stop now.
I'd like to chime in here, having had the chance to play around with the Nebula class a bit.
As of this writing, the Nebula is a Science Vessel, with 3 hard points front and 3 back, and stacked with Science consoles. That may be subject to change, but I think it is a good fit.
Why? Because gameplay-wise, the Nebula is a solid support ship. The low-tier version has an impressive scan ability, and the high-tier is able to create a tachyon web amongst nearby ships, which increases stealth detection by a good margin. This is a very effective PVP vessel because it can smoke out cloaked enemies from a wider distance than standard sensor scan, and good timing can shut down a cloak rush before it happens.
This also makes it a high-priority target for teams that use cloak, because if you are able to knock out the Nebula before it uses its ability you are free to use battle cloak more effectively until the Nebula re-enters the fight.
And since the Nebula currently has a universal boff station, there is a large amount of flexibility available. Obviously not as much as a Bird-of-prey, but a skilled Nebula captain will undoubtedly be able to turn fights to his or her advantage by predicting rushes and adjusting accordingly.
And keep in mind that boffs can be traded out during PVP as long as the ship is out of combat, so the amount of flexibility on the Nebula is unparalleled on the Fed side.
Well I say put the ship on Tribble as you have it so players can actually test it. Maybe it works out or maybe it does not and if I do not like the way the ship works someone else might. Not every ship in the game needs to be made just so I can be happy and no matter what is done one group or another will not be satisfied. Of course if I only want to play cruisers I am not going to be happy with the ship being science. :rolleyes: If it is going to be a Science ship than I believe it needs to work at least as well as the other science ships and no player knows if it does or not yet.
All the speculative and preemptive complaining about something nobody has tried is not good feedback in my opinion, but I am sure others will disagree if it means they might not get their way.
I just read some guy saying the Nebula would be BETTER for having only 6 weapon slots instead of 8 because it would cause less weapon drain. This is the defense we have for the sci Nebula? Someone really thinks 6 weapons are better than 8?
This will be a terrible sci vessel because of the galaxy turn rate. Sci vessels were already terrible, and have been nerfed into oblivion. I have 9 Fed characters, none of them fly sci vessels anymore, and I tried a half dozen builds trying to get someone to fly the new Intrepid. They simply suck at killing anything. Add in the Galaxy turn rate and now we have a bad ship and you they hoped to sell it on the c-store. I wont buy any more underpowered ships, and this one will make the Galaxy X look overpowered. But hey, 6 weapons are better than 8 so it's all good!
But its more about the nebula layout, which is imho weak. No real bonuses, plenty of drawbacks wrapped in good look.
As it is, its doomed to be pure healer boat/semi-support ship, with horrible turn rate, 1 BO less because of universal slots, which 99% of players will only choose sci or eng and special ability used mainly in KvF pvp (majority does FvF), which is based upon false assumption that cloak is overpowered and very dangerous Klingon ability.
Im not really asking for it to be cruiser, im asking for it to have better layout to be on comparable power to other ships available.
I really hope you are kidding.
No real bonuses? You do realise how game changing the Tachyon Detection Grid ability could very well prove to be, right?
The ability to cloak and pick a fight is about the only advantage the KDF side has left. We don't have any of these fancy new skills that have come with the new run of fed ships, and from the sounds of the things we're due to get with our new ships liking a BoP that fires while cloaked we'll still have nothing to address the balance gap that ships like the Galaxy X and Excelsior have generated - and so now even cloak will be nullified by ONE ship.
ONE Nebula class can potentialy prevent an entire Klingon group from cloaking.
I have to admit, I find it rather ironic that while all the KDF players are looking at this ship and seing such a potential un-balance to PVP which could very well end FvK, Fed players are looking at it saying its worthless and has no bonuses.
Granted on some maps and some games cloak has less advantages, but considering fed players have spent 8 months whining about how OP cloak is, now that you're getting a ship that will effectively kill off cloak you're complaining?
Because the cruiser folks have no clue how to play a science Ship. It's true that Science ships are not too effective unless you invest heavily in science skills, But when you do, they are more than viable. Engineer and Tactical skill help each other out a good deal, but higher tier science skills don't carry over well at all.
So When a cruiser captain Tries a science ship with their skills all in Weapons and Engineering with a few token science skills, They can't run a Science ship effectively and thus deeming it sucky.
HAHAHA. This is your argument, that all the anti sci vessel players are just poor at flying that ship and it really really does kill stuff as fast as a cruiser! None of them flew sci ships with a sci officer with everything trained up to 9 and lots of level 3 skills? I know I did. I trained every skill to level 3 that could be trained. I played different builds on both Tribble and live. I went from 1 torp, 2, 3, 4, and even 6. I tried different damage types. Oh, and I played sci vessels to top rank before that too. And when I fight the same fight and it takes more than 4 times longer to kill the same ship, it's just poor playing. It's not the 25% less weapons at all. No reason having fewer weapons should make a ship do less damage *snort*. And making another sci ship with the turn rate of a galaxy is a fine idea. Turn rate doesn't matter anymore than weapon slots do! GOOD players can kill ships just as fast.
Get over yourself. You're not simply a better player than the tons of blue names who've flown all the ships since beta.
I know people want more sci ships and there are more new cruisers. But taking a cruiser and losing a quarter of it's firepower and calling it a science ship is a poor bargain for anyone. And that's what the Nebula is; a big cruiser with horrible turn rate just given less weapons and called a science ship.
Un-nerf the science skills and consoles. Fix the TRIBBLE turn rate of the Nebula, then make it a science ship and I'll fly it. If using the top skills fully specced can't make up for the lack of weapons, then it's a bad bargain to fly it. And currently using any level 3 sci skill will not make up for the lack of weapons, I know because I've played them all fully skilled. A given fight that takes 1 minute for an escort takes almost 2 for a cruiser and a sci ship with level 3 skills takes 4. Every fight takes 4 times longer than the escort. And that was with a far superior turn rate than the Nebula will have. Since I play to win fights and not linger on each and every encounter, I quit flying science ships.
No real bonuses? You do realise how game changing the Tachyon Detection Grid ability could very well prove to be, right?
The ability to cloak and pick a fight is about the only advantage the KDF side has left. We don't have any of these fancy new skills that have come with the new run of fed ships, and from the sounds of the things we're due to get with our new ships liking a BoP that fires while cloaked we'll still have nothing to address the balance gap that ships like the Galaxy X and Excelsior have generated - and so now even cloak will be nullified by ONE ship.
ONE Nebula class can potentialy prevent an entire Klingon group from cloaking.
I have to admit, I find it rather ironic that while all the KDF players are looking at this ship and seing such a potential un-balance to PVP which could very well end FvK, Fed players are looking at it saying its worthless and has no bonuses.
Granted on some maps and some games cloak has less advantages, but considering fed players have spent 8 months whining about how OP cloak is, now that you're getting a ship that will effectively kill off cloak you're complaining?
Sheesh.
You look on it too PvP (KvFish). If you do PvE, the ability has no value to you, hence why i said "real". You can saucer separate in both PvE and PvP, you can use ablative armor generator in both PvE and PvP...
You have to look on it from overall perspective, not just your own. Beside, if the ability has 5 min cooldown, there is really nothing to be afraid of.
But as usual, you overvalue cloak too much. Inexperienced feds complain about cloak, inexperienced klingons complain about cloak detection.
I do not understand the cruiser and tactical people complaining, didnt they just release the Excelsior class which is a heavy tactical type cruiser with transwarp capabilities just a few weeks back.
HAHAHA. This is your argument, that all the anti sci vessel players are just poor at flying that ship and it really really does kill stuff as fast as a cruiser! None of them flew sci ships with a sci officer with everything trained up to 9 and lots of level 3 skills? I know I did. I trained every skill to level 3 that could be trained. I played different builds on both Tribble and live. I went from 1 torp, 2, 3, 4, and even 6. I tried different damage types. Oh, and I played sci vessels to top rank before that too. And when I fight the same fight and it takes more than 4 times longer to kill the same ship, it's just poor playing. It's not the 25% less weapons at all. No reason having fewer weapons should make a ship do less damage *snort*. And making another sci ship with the turn rate of a galaxy is a fine idea. Turn rate doesn't matter anymore than weapon slots do! GOOD players can kill ships just as fast.
Get over yourself. You're not simply a better player than the tons of blue names who've flown all the ships since beta.
I know people want more sci ships and there are more new cruisers. But taking a cruiser and losing a quarter of it's firepower and calling it a science ship is a poor bargain for anyone. And that's what the Nebula is; a big cruiser with horrible turn rate just given less weapons and called a science ship.
Un-nerf the science skills and consoles. Fix the TRIBBLE turn rate of the Nebula, then make it a science ship and I'll fly it. If using the top skills fully specced can't make up for the lack of weapons, then it's a bad bargain to fly it. And currently using any level 3 sci skill will not make up for the lack of weapons, I know because I've played them all fully skilled. A given fight that takes 1 minute for an escort takes almost 2 for a cruiser and a sci ship with level 3 skills takes 4. Every fight takes 4 times longer than the escort. And that was with a far superior turn rate than the Nebula will have. Since I play to win fights and not linger on each and every encounter, I quit flying science ships.
Wow.
Well first, having 6 slots doesreduce your DPS, but it is not simply losing two weapon slots, since it also means less of a power drain. Further, if you are judging It's usability by how much weapon damage it does, you are most certainly doing it wrong. You may have tried lots of builds, but you are still flying it like a cruiser with better turning, and that's not how it works.
Plus Science folks have posted that they do very well and i have done it, so it is doable. So how is it you can't do it while others can? Must be Wizards working against you.
No real bonuses? You do realise how game changing the Tachyon Detection Grid ability could very well prove to be, right?
The ability to cloak and pick a fight is about the only advantage the KDF side has left. We don't have any of these fancy new skills that have come with the new run of fed ships, and from the sounds of the things we're due to get with our new ships liking a BoP that fires while cloaked we'll still have nothing to address the balance gap that ships like the Galaxy X and Excelsior have generated - and so now even cloak will be nullified by ONE ship.
ONE Nebula class can potentialy prevent an entire Klingon group from cloaking.
We don't know if it is _that_ good.
But it will be pretty much meaningless in FvF. Which I think still (unfortunately or not) pops more often then FvK. At worst, it will make Defiant-R and Galaxy-X weaker then they already are. No big deal...
And the Klingons will soon get Orion, Gorn and Naucassian ships, which probably won't have cloak either.
That means particularly at tier 5, where most PvP is probably going on, that Cloak's role will be different then it used to be.
Cloak is also somewhat overrated. It provides a first strike advantage, yes. The Klingon team can pick its targets and figure out the weak spots and the Feds have ot wait until the ships uncloak. Depending on the range of this ability, this might still be true. You just might have to do it from 20 km distance rather then 10 and running at 100 Aux instead of 25 for that.
In military theory, having the ability to choose when and where to attack is an advantage, but mliitary theory doesn't apply to arena combat in general. In Arenas you know there is an attack immniment, you don't spread out your troops because you're trying to protect some ground. There are no weakly defended supply convoys en route. There are no guard posts walking their circles and having NATO break at 1000 o'clock and change of posts at 0100 and 1300 and no morning prayer at 0500. All you got are "Fedballs" waiting for the other side to strike.
And it still doesn't help you one bit in PvE. Yes, I know, PvE is easy and all that, but does it make sense that a ship is "for PvP purposes only"? (How well will that sell, considering that despite what us PvPers would like, the majority prefers PvE? At least Cryptic's sales are not my concern...)
Well, let's hope they get it online on Tribble soon and we can see for ourselves. Did they improve the turn rate from the initial proposal? Is the Tachyon Grid a total cloak-breaker?
I do not understand the cruiser and tactical people complaining, didnt they just release the Excelsior class which is a heavy tactical type cruiser with transwarp capabilities just a few weeks back.
Well apparently it isn't fair if every cool ship made for the Fed side isn't made into a cruiser. Heck, they will probably demand the New Klingon ships be made into Fed cruisers too. :rolleyes:
Well first, having 6 slots doesreduce your DPS, but it is not simply losing two weapon slots, since it also means less of a power drain. Further, if you are judging It's usability by how much weapon damage it does, you are most certainly doing it wrong. You may have tried lots of builds, but you are still flying it like a cruiser with better turning, and that's not how it works.
Plus Science folks have posted that they do very well and i have done it, so it is doable. So how is it you can't do it while others can? Must be Wizards working against you.
You dont have to use energy weapons in those extra slots you know ? you can fit torps or mines there and have no impact on your weapon energy. Stop brain farting.
You dont have to use energy weapons in those extra slots you know ? you can fit torps or mines there and have no impact on your weapon energy. Stop brain farting.
That 8 slots is always better than 6 slots...noone forces you to equip weapons anyway, but most people prefer to do it. Although my response wasnt aimed at you it seems. more on the person who said 6 is better than 8.
That 8 slots is always better than 6 slots...noone forces you to equip weapons anyway, but most people prefer to do it.
I never said it wasn't. I was merely pointing out that 25% fewer energy weapons does not mean 25% less DPS. I can see how my last post confused you, i hope i cleared this matter up for you.
They've done the new Cruiser and now the new science ship. Makes one wonder what the new tactical ship will be when they get around to it. Though honestly, speaking as a fed player, they really need to give the Klingons some love here.
ok, so flying around esd today i noticed that the nebula was rebadged a sci vessel, now my hope is that they are just rying to throw people off cause it is a cruiser. i as a tac officer was actually looking forward to playing my favorite ship, and now that is possibly an impossability... i will not buy it if it is a sci vessel, and i will whine and cry like the sci's for equal right as far as an escort goes... thus the escorts would be the only peeps getting no love...
plz cryptic leave the nebula as a cruiser so we can "all" enjoy it. there is no reason a sci player cannot use a cruiser, they are just being stubborn...
the other problem this brings up with me is the lack of canonality with this move. the nebula was an explorer cruiser, it has the same armaments as a galaxy, and is just a bit smaller. three for and three aft weapons hardly would do it justice, and the fact that only sci peeps would benefit from it (being a multi role ship in canon) further makes me lose the star trek feel. i have been drooling for this ship since the game released and now i feel like because a couple of people complained, (though a far vaster majority wanted it to stay cruiser) u guys caved in. i have baught every cruiser you released, but i have baught no sci vessels, and i will continue to not purchase sci vessels (as i know most tacs and engineers feel the same way..). a vessel loses to much when it is a sci vessel for it to be apealing to tac and engineer.... if your gonna give the sci's something, develop a new ship that no one cares about... but be fair and make the cannon ships (unless otherwise slated like a defient being an escort, or the olympic being a sci for example) cruisers.
again i am disapointed that the devs decided to make it a cruiser, and then caved.... really lame for the rest of us... the disapointment makes me lose interest in the game....
there is a lot of stuff in this game that is not cannon we know this .........its a video game and a mmo there must be balance sooooo so things that happen in the show have to be well ...........in other words the rules have to be bent a little bit for gameplays sake......as to the other stuf you were droning on about .....get over your self
But as usual, you overvalue cloak too much. Inexperienced feds complain about cloak, inexperienced klingons complain about cloak detection.
and that my friend is soooo true .......hmmmm im suprised i have not heard anything from fed players that fly cloaked ships as fed pvp will be affected by this ship as well
OK, maybe i should take a turn here. I know my comments are getting a bit hot. Here are my points in a cooler fashion:
1. It's trues that the Nebula has been described as a Cruiser, but so has the Akira, Prometheus, and Intrepid class ships. There has to be some account taken into dividing these up fairly even if they don't make 100% canon sense.
2. I know it was set as a Cruiser, and switched to a Science which was kind of a tease for Cruiser pilots. But i don't think it is simply Popular demand that made this change. In Bridge Commander and ST: Armada it was portrayed more as a support ship, and kind of got that reputation. I also think they realize that while they may or may not make as many sales, they need to show love and support for Science players.
3. While Cruiser captains can't pilot it as effectively, Science captains can. And while you love the ship and are upset you cannot play it, but it isn't fair for you to be able to effectively have access to and play every new ship while everyone else has to respec or just be SOL.
4. the Excelsior Is a cruiser, and the Galaxy-x is a cruiser. there are no C-Store Escorts (aside from skins) and this will be science's First.
5. If you refuse to play it as a science ship, that is not a valid reason to make it a Cruiser. If you refuse to play it as is, then let folks who want to play it and are happy it is a science ship play it. Otherwise it's just plain greed.
6. Remember that it is prone to adjustments when it gets to be tested, so it may yet end up something more to your liking (better turning, or more cruiser-like hull).
Well first, having 6 slots doesreduce your DPS, but it is not simply losing two weapon slots, since it also means less of a power drain. Further, if you are judging It's usability by how much weapon damage it does, you are most certainly doing it wrong. You may have tried lots of builds, but you are still flying it like a cruiser with better turning, and that's not how it works.
Plus Science folks have posted that they do very well and i have done it, so it is doable. So how is it you can't do it while others can? Must be Wizards working against you.
So if using your skills when they're available and shooting your weapons at the other guy isn't how you fly the ship, how do you fly a science vessel so differently than other ships? I really want to know. You say science vessels have "done it and done it well"... done what? Kill stuff as fast as a cruiser or escort? I seriously doubt it. I do not believe you when you state that you have some innate ability to fly this ship that I or others lack. I never said I could not kill anything in a science vessel; I can kill everything and pretty much not take a scratch in pve. But it takes much longer for reasons that are mathematically explainable, whereas your argument sounds a lot like "too bad you aren't elite like me".
Right now I'm not talking about pvp or support. Just killing stuff. 6 weapons with fewer tac consoles will take longer to do the amount of damage needed to kill something. Throwing a tach beam 3 or feedback pulse 3 or jam sensors 3 or scramble sensors 3 or anything else in your toolbox will not make up for that lack of damage because sci skills and consoles have been over-nerfed. That is why it takes longer to kill anything...the skills you gain ability to use do not make up for the fundamental lack of damage. Is it viable to fly science? Sure. But I wont do it when it means I'm still in that mission killing stuff when I could have my daily done already in any other ship. Now if you've got something ground breaking hidden under your hat I'll apologize and adopt your play method. Otherwise I refuse to believe that this is something that I just don't get and that wizards are against me or some other claptrap you made up.
All the arguments about science ships also do not take into account the Nebula's turn rate, which will make using forward arc sci skills more difficult.
Believe me, I want science to be viable. I want those science skills to make up for the lack of weapon slots so that the ship can be a valid choice for solo play. This Nebula will not fit that bill. Saying "too bad you're not elite like me" wont cut it as a counter.
Hrm. How would a frigate differ from an "escort"? Aren't frigates usually the ships that... escort? =P
Usually short range, minimal stores, small crews, good mobility, decent weapons...
Well apparently it isn't fair if every cool ship made for the Fed side isn't made into a cruiser. Heck, they will probably demand the New Klingon ships be made into Fed cruisers too. :rolleyes:
Maybe we both should stop posting here if this is where emotion has led you. You first . This has nothing to do with cruiser love and sci ship hate; in fact 7 of my 9 chars now fly escorts, including my sci officers. I fly them because I have a bunch of dailies to do every day and even with open teaming I'm usually alone when I do them. Adding minutes to each and every fight means it takes a lot longer to get through them. I spend several hours a day in game right now, I'd hate to add more hours because science ships got over-nerfed.
This has to do with the Nebula having a galaxy class turn rate essentially. If you're going to have the worst turn rate in the game (outside carriers which I've never flown) then you ought to get the extra firepower of the cruiser. The secondary factor is that science ships simply aren't as good as the other ships currently because of the nerfs to the consoles and the skills. It has nothing to do with my desires for ships or what I like to fly. I like to fly everything, which is why I have so many alts. It's not my fault that the science ship went from uber to neutered.
I just read some guy saying the Nebula would be BETTER for having only 6 weapon slots instead of 8 because it would cause less weapon drain. This is the defense we have for the sci Nebula? Someone really thinks 6 weapons are better than 8?
This will be a terrible sci vessel because of the galaxy turn rate. Sci vessels were already terrible, and have been nerfed into oblivion. I have 9 Fed characters, none of them fly sci vessels anymore, and I tried a half dozen builds trying to get someone to fly the new Intrepid. They simply suck at killing anything. Add in the Galaxy turn rate and now we have a bad ship and you they hoped to sell it on the c-store. I wont buy any more underpowered ships, and this one will make the Galaxy X look overpowered. But hey, 6 weapons are better than 8 so it's all good!
I did not say it is better ... but people always forget about Targeting subsystems which is build in Science ships. So yes you have less weapon slots BUT you gain subsystemtargeting which is very handy at taking out shields cause 1) it lowers enemies shieldpower or 2) even disables it. So all i wanted to say is you do not really need 8 weaponslots on a scienceship.
The Berkeley was definitely a science ship, and the Nightingale was a support ship/hospital ship.
The Nebula DOES make sense as a science ship.
If its still close to Geckos stats:
Then you can have:
Ltcmdr eng + Lt Eng (in the universal slot) for a total of 5 eng BO skills
3 eng consoles
So you're losing the 1 eng. console, the cmdr eng skill (and I guess an ensign. slot of some sort?) but you gain tons of flexibility.
The cloak thing? Meh. But the Excelsiors special wasnt even combat related. Its transwarp.
Ok, by going with a science ship we are not just losing a cmdr slot which I feel engineers have a MUCH wider array of useful commander abilities than sci does anyway. We are also losing 2 weapons, a useful console being replaced with a crappy console as well as a substantial amount of hull and a new POWER distribution.
I preferred the previous cruiser model since LT cmdr science slots are probably the most useful slot in the game. The commander level science slot however is lacking next ot the option of Aceton Field (50% dmg reduction) Aux to Structural (dmg resist and hull heal every 15 seconds) extend shields (nice dmg resists) Reverse Shield Polarity.
In the Draft post as well there was no mention of changing the turn rate...which without the proper hull and dmg resist abilities makes it fairly unbalanced...which is not in the users favor.
What we do gain: Better shield capacity, innate subsystem targeting, (which is the only thing I find fun about science ships) and a cmdr science slot...which IMO is much less useful than the engineering counterpart.
Science ships just seem to be less friendly to non-science class players. They do not do great DPS compared to the other 2, and they do not have as great survivability to counter that. They have CC abilities, which even as CC abilities are very gimped in comparison to the other two.
What I liked about it being a cruiser was you had the Cmdr eng slot to be the cornerstone of survival while still being able to get the best of science with the Lt cmdr slot. Then based on whatever you were wanting the universal officer to specialize yourself as you see fit.
Instead we have a useless commander ability, less survivability and less weapons and in return we get Target Subsystems Mark 1 abilities =\
I am not happy with the change by a long shot...I'll probably hate the game while flying a nebula, but it is my favorite ship so I guess I'll just deal with it.
I did not say it is better ... but people always forget about Targeting subsystems which is build in Science ships. So yes you have less weapon slots BUT you gain subsystemtargeting which is very handy at taking out shields cause 1) it lowers enemies shieldpower or 2) even disables it. So all i wanted to say is you do not really need 8 weaponslots on a scienceship.
MfG Michael
Subsystem targeting is your awesome trade off?
So I trade probably one of the best cmdr abiltiies, a useful console slot and sacrifice LOTS of hull points in exchange for an underpowered subsystem targeting ability?
So I trade probably one of the best cmdr abiltiies, a useful console slot and sacrifice LOTS of hull points in exchange for an underpowered subsystem targeting ability?
oh god ... useless to argue .... you watch it from a cruisers perpective. And you forget the stronger shieldsystems (combine this with 35% shields-Console ). And you get very usefull Science abilities ... ever tried Charged Particle Burst III ? or Gravity Well III? No? ... well then ... ok.
And i really think you underestimate targeting subsystems.
EDIT: Aux to struct or reverse shieldpolarity doen't help much when i rip it off as a science with subnucleonic beam .
Comments
However, I am specced to fly cruisers. I like the versatility my build and loadout give me. I can swap 2 bridge officer stations and go form solo config to group config. So I was really hoping this ship would stay as a cruiser. I did realize it was likely to be made a science vessel as they are currently lacking and the Nebula can fit the description of a science ship as easily as it can a cruiser. It is also good for the game to get more diverse ship classes out that people want to fly.
Because this game doesn't take very long to max out your character, I have a science captain sitting at RA5. He is specced to fly science ships. I haven't played him at all because I don't really like the way the current T5 ships look. I had been considering getting him to VA1 and getting the Intrepid refit. But now I am a little excited that the Nebula class is a science vessel and will look forward leveling my science captain again to get this ship.
So I don't see what all the tears and rage are for. My main is an Engineer in a Cruiser. Though I might be inclined to label myself as a semi-rational adult and maybe that is why I am not flying off the handle quoting obscure canon references and accusing Cryptic of pandering to the majority.
I completely agree with you. The Nebula should be a cruiser, albeit one with good science stations.
What is boils down to is this: The Galaxy is a cruiser. The Nebula is based on the Galaxy. Nebula = Cruiser.
I mean, even the starter ships, Miranda is based on the Constitution, which is a cruiser, and the Centaur is based on the Excelsior, again, also a crusier.
Simple...as a cruiser you get people paying real money for the ship, as a sci vessel, far fewer. In one swoop you gave the ship a giant nerf...and I wont play that. I'm really disappointed right now.
Offer the ship in both versions...that will get you c-store purchases and make more people happy. Otherwise I've wasted my time thinking about this ship, and will stop now.
All the speculative and preemptive complaining about something nobody has tried is not good feedback in my opinion, but I am sure others will disagree if it means they might not get their way.
I was not interested in the Nebula as a cruiser. But now that it is a science vessel I plan on buying it.
I am excited at the prospect of a new Science vessel to play with, especially one with special powers.
This will be a terrible sci vessel because of the galaxy turn rate. Sci vessels were already terrible, and have been nerfed into oblivion. I have 9 Fed characters, none of them fly sci vessels anymore, and I tried a half dozen builds trying to get someone to fly the new Intrepid. They simply suck at killing anything. Add in the Galaxy turn rate and now we have a bad ship and you they hoped to sell it on the c-store. I wont buy any more underpowered ships, and this one will make the Galaxy X look overpowered. But hey, 6 weapons are better than 8 so it's all good!
You should not take some people too seriously. I smiled when i did read it also. That statement is a proper brain TRIBBLE.
I really hope you are kidding.
No real bonuses? You do realise how game changing the Tachyon Detection Grid ability could very well prove to be, right?
The ability to cloak and pick a fight is about the only advantage the KDF side has left. We don't have any of these fancy new skills that have come with the new run of fed ships, and from the sounds of the things we're due to get with our new ships liking a BoP that fires while cloaked we'll still have nothing to address the balance gap that ships like the Galaxy X and Excelsior have generated - and so now even cloak will be nullified by ONE ship.
ONE Nebula class can potentialy prevent an entire Klingon group from cloaking.
I have to admit, I find it rather ironic that while all the KDF players are looking at this ship and seing such a potential un-balance to PVP which could very well end FvK, Fed players are looking at it saying its worthless and has no bonuses.
Granted on some maps and some games cloak has less advantages, but considering fed players have spent 8 months whining about how OP cloak is, now that you're getting a ship that will effectively kill off cloak you're complaining?
Sheesh.
HAHAHA. This is your argument, that all the anti sci vessel players are just poor at flying that ship and it really really does kill stuff as fast as a cruiser! None of them flew sci ships with a sci officer with everything trained up to 9 and lots of level 3 skills? I know I did. I trained every skill to level 3 that could be trained. I played different builds on both Tribble and live. I went from 1 torp, 2, 3, 4, and even 6. I tried different damage types. Oh, and I played sci vessels to top rank before that too. And when I fight the same fight and it takes more than 4 times longer to kill the same ship, it's just poor playing. It's not the 25% less weapons at all. No reason having fewer weapons should make a ship do less damage *snort*. And making another sci ship with the turn rate of a galaxy is a fine idea. Turn rate doesn't matter anymore than weapon slots do! GOOD players can kill ships just as fast.
Get over yourself. You're not simply a better player than the tons of blue names who've flown all the ships since beta.
I know people want more sci ships and there are more new cruisers. But taking a cruiser and losing a quarter of it's firepower and calling it a science ship is a poor bargain for anyone. And that's what the Nebula is; a big cruiser with horrible turn rate just given less weapons and called a science ship.
Un-nerf the science skills and consoles. Fix the TRIBBLE turn rate of the Nebula, then make it a science ship and I'll fly it. If using the top skills fully specced can't make up for the lack of weapons, then it's a bad bargain to fly it. And currently using any level 3 sci skill will not make up for the lack of weapons, I know because I've played them all fully skilled. A given fight that takes 1 minute for an escort takes almost 2 for a cruiser and a sci ship with level 3 skills takes 4. Every fight takes 4 times longer than the escort. And that was with a far superior turn rate than the Nebula will have. Since I play to win fights and not linger on each and every encounter, I quit flying science ships.
Wow.
You look on it too PvP (KvFish). If you do PvE, the ability has no value to you, hence why i said "real". You can saucer separate in both PvE and PvP, you can use ablative armor generator in both PvE and PvP...
You have to look on it from overall perspective, not just your own. Beside, if the ability has 5 min cooldown, there is really nothing to be afraid of.
But as usual, you overvalue cloak too much. Inexperienced feds complain about cloak, inexperienced klingons complain about cloak detection.
Well first, having 6 slots doesreduce your DPS, but it is not simply losing two weapon slots, since it also means less of a power drain. Further, if you are judging It's usability by how much weapon damage it does, you are most certainly doing it wrong. You may have tried lots of builds, but you are still flying it like a cruiser with better turning, and that's not how it works.
Plus Science folks have posted that they do very well and i have done it, so it is doable. So how is it you can't do it while others can? Must be Wizards working against you.
But it will be pretty much meaningless in FvF. Which I think still (unfortunately or not) pops more often then FvK. At worst, it will make Defiant-R and Galaxy-X weaker then they already are. No big deal...
And the Klingons will soon get Orion, Gorn and Naucassian ships, which probably won't have cloak either.
That means particularly at tier 5, where most PvP is probably going on, that Cloak's role will be different then it used to be.
Cloak is also somewhat overrated. It provides a first strike advantage, yes. The Klingon team can pick its targets and figure out the weak spots and the Feds have ot wait until the ships uncloak. Depending on the range of this ability, this might still be true. You just might have to do it from 20 km distance rather then 10 and running at 100 Aux instead of 25 for that.
In military theory, having the ability to choose when and where to attack is an advantage, but mliitary theory doesn't apply to arena combat in general. In Arenas you know there is an attack immniment, you don't spread out your troops because you're trying to protect some ground. There are no weakly defended supply convoys en route. There are no guard posts walking their circles and having NATO break at 1000 o'clock and change of posts at 0100 and 1300 and no morning prayer at 0500. All you got are "Fedballs" waiting for the other side to strike.
And it still doesn't help you one bit in PvE. Yes, I know, PvE is easy and all that, but does it make sense that a ship is "for PvP purposes only"? (How well will that sell, considering that despite what us PvPers would like, the majority prefers PvE? At least Cryptic's sales are not my concern...)
Well, let's hope they get it online on Tribble soon and we can see for ourselves. Did they improve the turn rate from the initial proposal? Is the Tachyon Grid a total cloak-breaker?
Well apparently it isn't fair if every cool ship made for the Fed side isn't made into a cruiser. Heck, they will probably demand the New Klingon ships be made into Fed cruisers too. :rolleyes:
You dont have to use energy weapons in those extra slots you know ? you can fit torps or mines there and have no impact on your weapon energy. Stop brain farting.
Ok true. Your point?
That 8 slots is always better than 6 slots...noone forces you to equip weapons anyway, but most people prefer to do it. Although my response wasnt aimed at you it seems.
I never said it wasn't. I was merely pointing out that 25% fewer energy weapons does not mean 25% less DPS. I can see how my last post confused you, i hope i cleared this matter up for you.
Edit:
Well that clears that up then
there is a lot of stuff in this game that is not cannon we know this .........its a video game and a mmo there must be balance sooooo so things that happen in the show have to be well ...........in other words the rules have to be bent a little bit for gameplays sake......as to the other stuf you were droning on about .....get over your self
and that my friend is soooo true .......hmmmm im suprised i have not heard anything from fed players that fly cloaked ships as fed pvp will be affected by this ship as well
1. It's trues that the Nebula has been described as a Cruiser, but so has the Akira, Prometheus, and Intrepid class ships. There has to be some account taken into dividing these up fairly even if they don't make 100% canon sense.
2. I know it was set as a Cruiser, and switched to a Science which was kind of a tease for Cruiser pilots. But i don't think it is simply Popular demand that made this change. In Bridge Commander and ST: Armada it was portrayed more as a support ship, and kind of got that reputation. I also think they realize that while they may or may not make as many sales, they need to show love and support for Science players.
3. While Cruiser captains can't pilot it as effectively, Science captains can. And while you love the ship and are upset you cannot play it, but it isn't fair for you to be able to effectively have access to and play every new ship while everyone else has to respec or just be SOL.
4. the Excelsior Is a cruiser, and the Galaxy-x is a cruiser. there are no C-Store Escorts (aside from skins) and this will be science's First.
5. If you refuse to play it as a science ship, that is not a valid reason to make it a Cruiser. If you refuse to play it as is, then let folks who want to play it and are happy it is a science ship play it. Otherwise it's just plain greed.
6. Remember that it is prone to adjustments when it gets to be tested, so it may yet end up something more to your liking (better turning, or more cruiser-like hull).
So if using your skills when they're available and shooting your weapons at the other guy isn't how you fly the ship, how do you fly a science vessel so differently than other ships? I really want to know. You say science vessels have "done it and done it well"... done what? Kill stuff as fast as a cruiser or escort? I seriously doubt it. I do not believe you when you state that you have some innate ability to fly this ship that I or others lack. I never said I could not kill anything in a science vessel; I can kill everything and pretty much not take a scratch in pve. But it takes much longer for reasons that are mathematically explainable, whereas your argument sounds a lot like "too bad you aren't elite like me".
Right now I'm not talking about pvp or support. Just killing stuff. 6 weapons with fewer tac consoles will take longer to do the amount of damage needed to kill something. Throwing a tach beam 3 or feedback pulse 3 or jam sensors 3 or scramble sensors 3 or anything else in your toolbox will not make up for that lack of damage because sci skills and consoles have been over-nerfed. That is why it takes longer to kill anything...the skills you gain ability to use do not make up for the fundamental lack of damage. Is it viable to fly science? Sure. But I wont do it when it means I'm still in that mission killing stuff when I could have my daily done already in any other ship. Now if you've got something ground breaking hidden under your hat I'll apologize and adopt your play method. Otherwise I refuse to believe that this is something that I just don't get and that wizards are against me or some other claptrap you made up.
All the arguments about science ships also do not take into account the Nebula's turn rate, which will make using forward arc sci skills more difficult.
Believe me, I want science to be viable. I want those science skills to make up for the lack of weapon slots so that the ship can be a valid choice for solo play. This Nebula will not fit that bill. Saying "too bad you're not elite like me" wont cut it as a counter.
You forgot expendable and easily destroyed.
Maybe we both should stop posting here if this is where emotion has led you. You first
This has to do with the Nebula having a galaxy class turn rate essentially. If you're going to have the worst turn rate in the game (outside carriers which I've never flown) then you ought to get the extra firepower of the cruiser. The secondary factor is that science ships simply aren't as good as the other ships currently because of the nerfs to the consoles and the skills. It has nothing to do with my desires for ships or what I like to fly. I like to fly everything, which is why I have so many alts. It's not my fault that the science ship went from uber to neutered.
I did not say it is better ... but people always forget about Targeting subsystems which is build in Science ships. So yes you have less weapon slots BUT you gain subsystemtargeting which is very handy at taking out shields cause 1) it lowers enemies shieldpower or 2) even disables it. So all i wanted to say is you do not really need 8 weaponslots on a scienceship.
MfG Michael
Ok, by going with a science ship we are not just losing a cmdr slot which I feel engineers have a MUCH wider array of useful commander abilities than sci does anyway. We are also losing 2 weapons, a useful console being replaced with a crappy console as well as a substantial amount of hull and a new POWER distribution.
I preferred the previous cruiser model since LT cmdr science slots are probably the most useful slot in the game. The commander level science slot however is lacking next ot the option of Aceton Field (50% dmg reduction) Aux to Structural (dmg resist and hull heal every 15 seconds) extend shields (nice dmg resists) Reverse Shield Polarity.
In the Draft post as well there was no mention of changing the turn rate...which without the proper hull and dmg resist abilities makes it fairly unbalanced...which is not in the users favor.
What we do gain: Better shield capacity, innate subsystem targeting, (which is the only thing I find fun about science ships) and a cmdr science slot...which IMO is much less useful than the engineering counterpart.
Science ships just seem to be less friendly to non-science class players. They do not do great DPS compared to the other 2, and they do not have as great survivability to counter that. They have CC abilities, which even as CC abilities are very gimped in comparison to the other two.
What I liked about it being a cruiser was you had the Cmdr eng slot to be the cornerstone of survival while still being able to get the best of science with the Lt cmdr slot. Then based on whatever you were wanting the universal officer to specialize yourself as you see fit.
Instead we have a useless commander ability, less survivability and less weapons and in return we get Target Subsystems Mark 1 abilities =\
I am not happy with the change by a long shot...I'll probably hate the game while flying a nebula, but it is my favorite ship so I guess I'll just deal with it.
Subsystem targeting is your awesome trade off?
So I trade probably one of the best cmdr abiltiies, a useful console slot and sacrifice LOTS of hull points in exchange for an underpowered subsystem targeting ability?
oh god ... useless to argue .... you watch it from a cruisers perpective. And you forget the stronger shieldsystems (combine this with 35% shields-Console
And i really think you underestimate targeting subsystems.
EDIT: Aux to struct or reverse shieldpolarity doen't help much when i rip it off as a science with subnucleonic beam
MfG Michael