If this things gets a special 3-pack console that does:
1 element: reduce phaser beam array (PBA) drain by 50%
2 elements: reduce the number of PBA impulses by 50% while keepeing the damage (so more damage per pulse) or increase damage per pulse by 50%
3 elements: all above plus PBA takes energy from sields not weapons
If I get it, I buy this ship as the console set would solve most of beam array problems that cruisers have. Turn rate and anything else is secondary
I am pretty sure it is based on this 2nd place DTNE entry...
Hmmm....you seem to be onto something here.
Out of curiosity, is there a place where we can see all of the entries for the Enterprise -F? I'd like to check on some of them from time to time, I remember some pretty fine designs.
Out of curiosity, is there a place where we can see all of the entries for the Enterprise -F? I'd like to check on some of them from time to time, I remember some pretty fine designs.
We don't want what the Feds have. We want the equivalent. We want fairer treatment. Concern, desire, greed to some extent, and passionate belief that the enough people would buy KDF items to make it worth Cryptic's while.
Well with this new cruiser coming up they could use the next event to make a free Dreadnaught and Exploration cruiser Retrofit giveaway because they are basically obsolete. The Regent has a weaker hull but a better performance all odyssey versions are better and now the Avenger. BTW i am going to get mine as eraly as possible and name it Steve Rogers a.k.a the first Avenger. That said i hope it is a worthy battlecruiser and not a nerfed waste of money with lots of unuseful stuff.
We will see soon enough what it looks like. They said more views will come this week. That I'm waiting on. I won't get the Odyssey ship, cause I don't like the looks. Even though hands down it might be one of the best Federation Cruisers. But I would buy a Galaxy-R all day long over that ugly thing. So at times looks can kill on buying.
USS Casinghead NCC 92047 launched 2350
Fleet Admiral Stowe - Dominion War Vet.
For me ther are two thing deciding if i am going to buy that thing or not.
First: the looks.
Depends, really.
If has roughly the same relations as the Excelsior, Sovereign or Odyssey i will never buy it, especially if it hasn't any alternative parts.Another thing would be a too angular look in general, i hate that on a Starfleet ship.In my opinion it needs to be a good balanced ship design altogether, so it's more a matter of feeling a design has to catch. (sadly, cryptics designers often seem to lack the ability to create good looking starfleet ships.)
TNG design concepts for ships (Galaxy, Nebula, Cheyenne) have long been shelved for newer concepts (Sovy, Intrepid). The odds of you seeing TNG "oldstyle" are very much against you.
Second: playstyle.
If it's too nimble (more than 14) and uses DHC+cloak, it's just an oversized escort and not a Battleship IMO.
Heck, i even don't use my Moebius destroyer or Vesta ships i bought anymore, because i find it just annoying to fly such a ship.
I would hate to spend any money on a ship like that.
Do you mean a base rating of 14, or a turn rate that accounts for (base turn rate + Inertia rating) or (base turn rate + Inertia rating + Engine power)?
Base turn rate rarely shows up as such. My Excel without any turn consoles turns about 16'/sec (21 with 1 RCS and the Lobi console)
Odds of them introing any cruiser type with a base turn rate of 14, especially with a realistic inertial value, is going to have a Z Score in the region of -3.4 , aka not going to happen.
Maybe 8 and a decent interia rating, 9 and a moderate inertia maybe.
Im looking foreword to seeing it. I think Id also like to see a system to make ships a little more customizable. I think they have done a pretty good job so far, clearly no way to make everyone happy.
This ship makes the Regent look good. FACE IT Cryptic. You can't design fed ships. Fix the galaxy, and bring in Century, or Mysnome or any other fan made ship. Why are you releasing this TRIBBLE?
I am still waiting for the constellation. If this monstrosity is an attempt to pay homage to the USS Vengeance then "Mission Not Accomplished" Cryptic. Sorry but leave kitbashing(obvious Vesta rip off) to professionals.
"With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censored, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably."
If u look a this Fed ''Battle'' Cruiser more closely, it's is obviously design by Tom Paris himself... i guess though he fail making the Delta Flyer into a ''Hot Rod'' it did not stop him 30+ years later to design a ship with Fins.
Agreed, Tom paris totally had a hand in this. Pretty sure he helped the Risians with their ship too.....
Now on to the ship looks, from the current standpoint photo.
1. The Nacelles are very very blocky.
2. Why does it look like there are Shuttlebays on the Nacelles?
3. the Trench styled part leading to the Shuttlebay is reminiscient of another ship from another galaxy. I.E. Wing Commander.
4. How many impulse ports does this ship have? From the photo you have 2 on the Saucer, and then a 4-peice strip on each pylon.
5. What is all the random bits in the center? 8 small circles and one big one......missile ports like a submarine?
6. Why the massive nacelle fins?
7. Why is it so blocky?
Overall i kind of like the looks, i just wish the saucer continued the blocky nature of the rest of the ship.
I can't wait to see the rest of the ship and get some stats for her.
Side note i would like a science type cruiser instead of constant underperforming tactical cruisers.
Inertia just means you can do Powerslides in you carrier!
I am Il Shadow and i approve these Shennanigans!
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
TNG design concepts for ships (Galaxy, Nebula, Cheyenne) have long been shelved for newer concepts (Sovy, Intrepid). The odds of you seeing TNG "oldstyle" are very much against you.
Reworking the GCS would be a start.
Cryptic could also give the (fleet) Heavy Cruiser -R, a different more offensive BOFF layout, instead of this Assault Crusier Copy.
Cryptic themselve introduced that ship and yet they decided to ignore it completely.
There are still the (original) Star Cruisers which have also been ignored.
Literary every ship that had potential to look a bit different than Cryptics blocky or ill ratio-ed designs, has been ignored or deliberatley made to be boring by them.
What i want is a big, good looking starfleet Cruiser that does not fly like a Escort, does NOT use DHCs but still has enough firepower to kick some badguys butts and is still considered a exploration type of ship. (and NOT a battleship/escort/carrier/dreadnought/superduper jetzfighter in space)
One should think it shouldn't be a problem to find such a ship in a star trek game, but obviously Cryptic manages to make everyting a problem.:rolleyes:
Do you mean a base rating of 14, or a turn rate that accounts for (base turn rate + Inertia rating) or (base turn rate + Inertia rating + Engine power)?
Base turn rate rarely shows up as such. My Excel without any turn consoles turns about 16'/sec (21 with 1 RCS and the Lobi console)
Odds of them introing any cruiser type with a base turn rate of 14, especially with a realistic inertial value, is going to have a Z Score in the region of -3.4 , aka not going to happen.
Maybe 8 and a decent interia rating, 9 and a moderate inertia maybe.
I was talking about ships roughly as maneuverable as the Moebius.
For me that's already too much and too jetfighter like. I don't care what PvPers say and if they want ships with a turnrate of 113 per second, just to be a bit faster than their enemy.
I'd rather want a slower ship with more offensive and defensive in exchange.
(No kanoe, more a frigate or ship of the line. You get my point)
Originally Posted by capnshadow27
...
Now on to the ship looks, from the current standpoint photo.
1. The Nacelles are very very blocky.
2. Why does it look like there are Shuttlebays on the Nacelles?
3. the Trench styled part leading to the Shuttlebay is reminiscient of another ship from another galaxy. I.E. Wing Commander.
4. How many impulse ports does this ship have? From the photo you have 2 on the Saucer, and then a 4-peice strip on each pylon.
5. What is all the random bits in the center? 8 small circles and one big one......missile ports like a submarine?
6. Why the massive nacelle fins?
7. Why is it so blocky?
Overall i kind of like the looks, i just wish the saucer continued the blocky nature of the rest of the ship.
I can't wait to see the rest of the ship and get some stats for her.
Side note i would like a science type cruiser instead of constant underperforming tactical cruisers.
Regarding 1-7:
Because Cryptics designers don't care if their creations make sense or not. They care even less if their ships are appropriate to a Star Trek game in the first place.
They just slap those things together to make them look as "cool" as possible, so they can sell it to as many kids as possible.
The only (and i really mean ONLY) reason i would buy that thing would be IF it's ship parts would be useable at the Odyssey.
And THEN i would only use the forward facing pylons on the Odyssey (which i would buy then). But i would never ever fly that ship voluntary.
Unless it comes with some really AWESOME looking alternative ship parts (but that chance is rediculusly tiny, lol).
"...'With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured...the first thought forbidden...the first freedom denied--chains us all irrevocably.' ... The first time any man's freedom is trodden on, we're all damaged. I fear that today--"
- (TNG) Picard, quoting Judge Aaron Satie
Regarding 1-7:
Because Cryptics designers don't care if their creations make sense or not. They care even less if their ships are appropriate to a Star Trek game in the first place.
They just slap those things together to make them look as "cool" as possible, so they can sell it to as many kids as possible.
/SNIP
I didnt say they didnt make sense. Or that they where not appropriate to the universe in question.
It was just my musings on the visiual design of this new ship.
I mean in one case you have Enterprise (the show) which you could surmise that there is available space in the nacelles and you could theoretically toss a couple shuttlebays up there.
but seriously simple musings....
Inertia just means you can do Powerslides in you carrier!
I am Il Shadow and i approve these Shennanigans!
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
I mean in one case you have Enterprise (the show) which you could surmise that there is available space in the nacelles and you could theoretically toss a couple shuttlebays up there.
(...)
I don't know if you would want to park a shuttle in there...
^ Memory Alpha.org is not canon. It's a open wiki with arbitrary rules. Only what can be cited from an episode is. ^
"No. Men do not roar. Women roar. Then they hurl heavy objects... and claw at you." -Worf, son of Mogh
"A filthy, mangy beast, but in its bony breast beat the heart of a warrior" - "faithful" (...) "but ever-ready to follow the call of the wild." - Martok, about a Targ
"That pig smelled horrid. A sweet-sour, extremely pungent odor. I showered and showered, and it took me a week to get rid of it!" - Robert Justman, appreciating Emmy-Lou
I don't know if you would want to park a shuttle in there...
*adjusts tinfoil hat*
You could. But remember in Enterprise when they set up the temp bridge and had people hide in the nacelles during the storm? i mean kind of like that.
Now on to the conspiracy parts,
Inverting the warp field with a hangar or port at the back could yeild you an instant warp launch.
imagine you are just puttering about, borg cube pops in. you invert the warp field, launch a quantum torp (or whatever you have in there) And launch it AT WARP SPEED into your target. Hits in the blink of an eye with all that speed translated into concussive force........:eek:
Inertia just means you can do Powerslides in you carrier!
I am Il Shadow and i approve these Shennanigans!
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
Out of curiosity, is there a place where we can see all of the entries for the Enterprise -F? I'd like to check on some of them from time to time, I remember some pretty fine designs.
Reworking the GCS would be a start.
Cryptic could also give the (fleet) Heavy Cruiser -R, a different more offensive BOFF layout, instead of this Assault Crusier Copy.
Cryptic themselve introduced that ship and yet they decided to ignore it completely.
There are still the (original) Star Cruisers which have also been ignored.
Literary every ship that had potential to look a bit different than Cryptics blocky or ill ratio-ed designs, has been ignored or deliberatley made to be boring by them.
What i want is a big, good looking starfleet Cruiser that does not fly like a Escort, does NOT use DHCs but still has enough firepower to kick some badguys butts and is still considered a exploration type of ship. (and NOT a battleship/escort/carrier/dreadnought/superduper jetzfighter in space)
One should think it shouldn't be a problem to find such a ship in a star trek game, but obviously Cryptic manages to make everyting a problem.:rolleyes:
My statement that you responded to was regarding to appearance of a "new" ship, not a fixing of current designs.
I was talking about ships roughly as maneuverable as the Moebius.
For me that's already too much and too jetfighter like. I don't care what PvPers say and if they want ships with a turnrate of 113 per second, just to be a bit faster than their enemy.
I'd rather want a slower ship with more offensive and defensive in exchange.
(No kanoe, more a frigate or ship of the line. You get my point)
So what are you defining as "slower"? Personally, I would welcome a a ship with a base 9' turn rate and a 40 inertial value.
Regarding 1-7:
Because Cryptics designers don't care if their creations make sense or not. They care even less if their ships are appropriate to a Star Trek game in the first place.
They just slap those things together to make them look as "cool" as possible, so they can sell it to as many kids as possible.
The only (and i really mean ONLY) reason i would buy that thing would be IF it's ship parts would be useable at the Odyssey.
And THEN i would only use the forward facing pylons on the Odyssey (which i would buy then). But i would never ever fly that ship voluntary.
Unless it comes with some really AWESOME looking alternative ship parts (but that chance is rediculusly tiny, lol).
What exactly "makes sense" or is appropriate in a Star Trek game? It really depends on the person at that point. Some think its inappropriate, or senseless, to make a game that the vast majority is combat, others disagree. Some like the looks of certain ships, others don't. Some think a ships role should be "X" and others think it should be "Y".
The only thing that they have changed, appears to be the deflector. The rest looks very similar to that ship.
I guess we will fine out soon
I guess what it comes down to is its utility, will it fit the style of play that I prefer. It probably will, especially since I tend to drive ships like I have stolen them.
Agreed, Tom paris totally had a hand in this. Pretty sure he helped the Risians with their ship too.....
Now on to the ship looks, from the current standpoint photo.
1. The Nacelles are very very blocky.
Fed nacelles tend to be rather vulnerable, so my guess it's to make them look armoured. I'm for it, especially after the spindly Odyssey nacelles.
2. Why does it look like there are Shuttlebays on the Nacelles?
Can't see that myself.
5. What is all the random bits in the center? 8 small circles and one big one......missile ports like a submarine?
The big one is probably the warp core or the fusion reactor for the impulse engines (like on the other, more miltaristic, non-TNG starfleet ships).
The 8 small circles reminded me of missile ports as well.
6. Why the massive nacelle fins?
7. Why is it so blocky?
It's a battle cruiser. Looks like the devs had a think about all of Starfleet ships weaknesses and compensated for them. Armoured nacelles, thicker wider pylons etc.
I guess what it comes down to is its utility, will it fit the style of play that I prefer. It probably will, especially since I tend to drive ships like I have stolen them.
Comments
No battlecruiser has a base turnrate more than 14, so there's nothing to worry about there.
Daizen - Lvl 60 Tactical - Eclipse
Selia - Lvl 60 Tactical - Eclipse
"Last Engage! Magical Girl Origami-san" is in print! Now with three times more rainbows.
Support the "Armored Unicorn" vehicle initiative today!
Thanks for Harajuku. Now let's get a real "Magical Girl" costume!
1 element: reduce phaser beam array (PBA) drain by 50%
2 elements: reduce the number of PBA impulses by 50% while keepeing the damage (so more damage per pulse) or increase damage per pulse by 50%
3 elements: all above plus PBA takes energy from sields not weapons
If I get it, I buy this ship as the console set would solve most of beam array problems that cruisers have. Turn rate and anything else is secondary
Hmmm....you seem to be onto something here.
Out of curiosity, is there a place where we can see all of the entries for the Enterprise -F? I'd like to check on some of them from time to time, I remember some pretty fine designs.
Try this link:
http://sto.perfectworld.com/news/?name=sto-node-2415
EDIT: I think only the winner and two runners up are visible on that link. sry
I hope not, its a little too snub nosed for my tastes.
USS Casinghead NCC 92047 launched 2350
Fleet Admiral Stowe - Dominion War Vet.
TNG design concepts for ships (Galaxy, Nebula, Cheyenne) have long been shelved for newer concepts (Sovy, Intrepid). The odds of you seeing TNG "oldstyle" are very much against you.
Do you mean a base rating of 14, or a turn rate that accounts for (base turn rate + Inertia rating) or (base turn rate + Inertia rating + Engine power)?
Base turn rate rarely shows up as such. My Excel without any turn consoles turns about 16'/sec (21 with 1 RCS and the Lobi console)
Odds of them introing any cruiser type with a base turn rate of 14, especially with a realistic inertial value, is going to have a Z Score in the region of -3.4 , aka not going to happen.
Maybe 8 and a decent interia rating, 9 and a moderate inertia maybe.
While I may not think that this new Avenger is amazing, it still looks better than that hunk of half-assed junk.
- Judge Aaron Satie
Agreed, Tom paris totally had a hand in this. Pretty sure he helped the Risians with their ship too.....
Now on to the ship looks, from the current standpoint photo.
1. The Nacelles are very very blocky.
2. Why does it look like there are Shuttlebays on the Nacelles?
3. the Trench styled part leading to the Shuttlebay is reminiscient of another ship from another galaxy. I.E. Wing Commander.
4. How many impulse ports does this ship have? From the photo you have 2 on the Saucer, and then a 4-peice strip on each pylon.
5. What is all the random bits in the center? 8 small circles and one big one......missile ports like a submarine?
6. Why the massive nacelle fins?
7. Why is it so blocky?
Overall i kind of like the looks, i just wish the saucer continued the blocky nature of the rest of the ship.
I can't wait to see the rest of the ship and get some stats for her.
Side note i would like a science type cruiser instead of constant underperforming tactical cruisers.
I am Il Shadow and i approve these Shennanigans!
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
Cryptic could also give the (fleet) Heavy Cruiser -R, a different more offensive BOFF layout, instead of this Assault Crusier Copy.
Cryptic themselve introduced that ship and yet they decided to ignore it completely.
There are still the (original) Star Cruisers which have also been ignored.
Literary every ship that had potential to look a bit different than Cryptics blocky or ill ratio-ed designs, has been ignored or deliberatley made to be boring by them.
What i want is a big, good looking starfleet Cruiser that does not fly like a Escort, does NOT use DHCs but still has enough firepower to kick some badguys butts and is still considered a exploration type of ship. (and NOT a battleship/escort/carrier/dreadnought/superduper jetzfighter in space)
One should think it shouldn't be a problem to find such a ship in a star trek game, but obviously Cryptic manages to make everyting a problem.:rolleyes:
I was talking about ships roughly as maneuverable as the Moebius.
For me that's already too much and too jetfighter like. I don't care what PvPers say and if they want ships with a turnrate of 113 per second, just to be a bit faster than their enemy.
I'd rather want a slower ship with more offensive and defensive in exchange.
(No kanoe, more a frigate or ship of the line. You get my point)
Regarding 1-7:
Because Cryptics designers don't care if their creations make sense or not. They care even less if their ships are appropriate to a Star Trek game in the first place.
They just slap those things together to make them look as "cool" as possible, so they can sell it to as many kids as possible.
The only (and i really mean ONLY) reason i would buy that thing would be IF it's ship parts would be useable at the Odyssey.
And THEN i would only use the forward facing pylons on the Odyssey (which i would buy then). But i would never ever fly that ship voluntary.
Unless it comes with some really AWESOME looking alternative ship parts (but that chance is rediculusly tiny, lol).
I didnt say they didnt make sense. Or that they where not appropriate to the universe in question.
It was just my musings on the visiual design of this new ship.
I mean in one case you have Enterprise (the show) which you could surmise that there is available space in the nacelles and you could theoretically toss a couple shuttlebays up there.
but seriously simple musings....
I am Il Shadow and i approve these Shennanigans!
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
Well, there IS room in the nacelles. But that's where the warp coils and warp plasma is supposed to be http://images.wikia.com/memoryalpha/en/images/f/f6/Galaxy_class_nacelle_tube_%28interior%29.jpg
I don't know if you would want to park a shuttle in there...
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
*adjusts tinfoil hat*
You could. But remember in Enterprise when they set up the temp bridge and had people hide in the nacelles during the storm? i mean kind of like that.
Now on to the conspiracy parts,
Inverting the warp field with a hangar or port at the back could yeild you an instant warp launch.
imagine you are just puttering about, borg cube pops in. you invert the warp field, launch a quantum torp (or whatever you have in there) And launch it AT WARP SPEED into your target. Hits in the blink of an eye with all that speed translated into concussive force........:eek:
I am Il Shadow and i approve these Shennanigans!
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
The only thing that they have changed, appears to be the deflector. The rest looks very similar to that ship.
I guess we will fine out soon
My statement that you responded to was regarding to appearance of a "new" ship, not a fixing of current designs.
So what are you defining as "slower"? Personally, I would welcome a a ship with a base 9' turn rate and a 40 inertial value.
What exactly "makes sense" or is appropriate in a Star Trek game? It really depends on the person at that point. Some think its inappropriate, or senseless, to make a game that the vast majority is combat, others disagree. Some like the looks of certain ships, others don't. Some think a ships role should be "X" and others think it should be "Y".
I guess what it comes down to is its utility, will it fit the style of play that I prefer. It probably will, especially since I tend to drive ships like I have stolen them.
Fed nacelles tend to be rather vulnerable, so my guess it's to make them look armoured. I'm for it, especially after the spindly Odyssey nacelles.
Can't see that myself.
The big one is probably the warp core or the fusion reactor for the impulse engines (like on the other, more miltaristic, non-TNG starfleet ships).
The 8 small circles reminded me of missile ports as well.
It's a battle cruiser. Looks like the devs had a think about all of Starfleet ships weaknesses and compensated for them. Armoured nacelles, thicker wider pylons etc.
Daizen - Lvl 60 Tactical - Eclipse
Selia - Lvl 60 Tactical - Eclipse
Not everything you see on the internet is true - Abraham Lincoln
Occidere populo et effercio confractus
Ha! :P
/10 char