test content
Logo
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc
Nebula Class Cost in CStore
System
Member, NoReporting Posts: 178,019 Arc User
I'm just wondering...
...how much will the darn ship cost anyway?
the excelsior was worth the 1200 points. the TOS constituion is over priced at 800 for a t1 not to mention the overpriced/overrated galaxy-x.
i really want to buy the nebula. i just wont pay for it if its galaxy-x money.
...how much will the darn ship cost anyway?
the excelsior was worth the 1200 points. the TOS constituion is over priced at 800 for a t1 not to mention the overpriced/overrated galaxy-x.
i really want to buy the nebula. i just wont pay for it if its galaxy-x money.
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
http://img407.imageshack.us/img407/580/screenshot2010092915402.jpg
As to whether or not they will increase that price remains to be seen.
dont forget the awsome weapons that come with the TOS con. those phasers scale with you.
The most important thing about those phasers is that they are dark blue phasers.
The turtle is a better "no weapon power" debuff-only ship, and a cruiser like the excelsior is significantly more durable than even the turtle, doing a lot more damage.
It baffles the mind really, from it's graphic this is THE ship that would look like a 4-2 configuration - Just add turning rate to that, and voila, fixed. But whatever. Let's have another 125 aux 25 weapon power ship, just less powerful and on the cstore, that'll sell well.
I think the other retrofits cost 500 *emblems*
that would make her a t 4.5?
A Science ship with a great turn rate and some teeth would be nice.
I think I'll settle for 4-2 for balance purposes and a 12 base turn ratio (which the turtle currently has!). But we need a decent 125 weapon power science ship, which we currently don't have.
And they're never going to make a 125 science ship. That's not the purpose of science ships, or the science class.
It is a tier 5. Maybe they will bring the 500 mark ships down to a more reasonable price. *crosses fingers*
I didn't know that it already had a turn rate based at 12. I have been reading the tribble forums and it was my understanding that the turn rate was around 8. Glad to know they bumped it to 12. The issue about having a 4/3 weapons layout still stands. There is hard cannon in the TNG episode I already referenced with the U.S.S. Phoenix blowing the hell out of cardassian war ships and even an outpost; as the Nebula is currently armed on tribble, it is a far cry from it's cannon predicessor. One more issue from tribble I forgot to mention earlier is the loss of the 9th console slot. The general consensus on tribble is that the 9th console slot needs to be added for a 3/3/3 layout to make the Nebula a great ship. I hope cryptic is reading tribble and implementing the suggestions being made by the community; failing that I fear that it will be craptasitc and no one will want it because a star cruiser can do what the nebula does, only better.
Tell that to my science BoP.
Also, with a 12 base turn rate, the ship WOULD be able to bring it's nose to bear.
Err..
I wasn't mistaken, I was misunderstood. I suppose I could have been clearer:
Intrepid (Voyager) Retrofit:
3-3 weapon slots
12 turn rate
ablative turtle mode
So, I was calling the Intrepid-R the turtle, and clearly the reference was lost. So, now all I am asking for from the new ship is:
4-2 weapon slots
12 turn rate
Does not seem like a stretch really. Amusingly enough, I don't want a WORSE ship than one already easily available, nor do I foresee paying anything to get one.
....are you a bit dense? Did I not say that the ship required BOTH to be useful? Of course it doesn't have a 12 turn rate. It ALSO doesn't have 4-2. However, the statement was that with BOTH together, the setup would be viable, and what's more, it would be powerful.
I also gave the example of a science bop to show a science ship that typically runs 125 weapon power. I think NOT having an option for a ship that can do that and not suck takes a lot from the gameplay of the federation.
I was irked about the TR as well until I stepped back and looked at the concept. The Intrepid R is a combat medic, able to fight and heal while shrugging off some damage. The Nebula is pure support. Revealing cloaked ships at a long distance and throwing heals.
something similar to the british invincible class. it should act as a cloak detector plus carry a few fighter style ships. lighter armor than a klingon cruiser and carries less.
it would be an interesting ship nonetheless.
As someone smartly said; PURPOSE. It is not the role of a SCIENCE ship to make combat and be destructive. How is it so hard to understand? I dunno about you, but if you know how to use your scientific powers correctly, you may not be dispatching ennemies as fast as an escort, but you can be nearly invulnerable too. Use jam sensor, scramble sensors and powers like these and you'll see how much more easy it is to deal with 10 ships at once compared to any escort out there... The role of a science hship in combat is a SUPPORT role. Not the one to deal damage. You don't like it? Then change your vessel class and stop whining about it. In my humble opinion, if this ship lacks something, it is about not having enough science goodies (consoles, and BO,s). And it is true that the turn rate is really ridiculous. And even so, you don't need big turn rate to use beam arrays or even cannons!!!
But i'd gladly pay 1200 points for it, just to avoid piloting those ugly. hideous deep space designs. To my own taste anyway. It really think it is a good substitute until you can get your hands on the retrofit. Cause I really hate tacticals BO,s powers. So I don't want anything to do with recon vessels (wich is a shame cause they don't look so bad).
If a have a suggestion still to make to cryptic, is to let captain's choose their own BO,s configuration as they see fit, and not being stupidly bound to the preset numbers of post. It is completely illogical to send into combat, a captain with tools and crew he is not confortable with. You'r gonna loose ships (billions), and crew (very costly to train) for the little cost of refitting some BO's consoles.... Come on get real! What'S the point of not letting me have 5 science officers if I want to? Or 4 science and one engineer?. Ok to regulate the rank, but not class.