test content
Logo
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc
Options
The Avenger Class Battle Cruiser
flash525
Member Posts: 5,441 Arc User
Just a quick curious question about the Avenger Class, but was such a design / ship type requested by a group of people, or was it something that the Devs figured we might need so they made it for us short of anyone actually requesting it?
Post edited by flash525 on
0
Comments
That too hence the rename to Avenger.
Heh, that has always been the case. I remember when the level cap was raised to 50, the Federation got the Defiant, Galaxy and Intrepid retrofits. The Klingons got the Fek'lhr Kar'Fi battle carrier because the Devs loved it.:D
Sometimes, if you want to bury the hatchet with a Klingon, it has to be in his skull. - Captain K'Tar of the USS Danu about J'mpok.
And of course the main reason
You just hit one of the biggest gripes among the KDF community for years.
People ask for X, Cryptic gives them Y, which has little to do with what people asked for.
Result: people don't buy what they didn't ask for and KDF stuff doesn't sell well...and it's all the evul Klingunz fault.
I hated that ship as it was. Glad to know they weren't allowed to use it.
What I don't get is why, primarily, all cruisers (at least for the Blue Team) need to focus on a Tactical element. Where is the love for Science? We've got what, two cruisers that are science heavy, and about five or six cruisers that are tactical heavy.
Edit: I'm not too sure how well this move of theirs is paying off either. I know when the Vesta went live, everyone was flying one. The same when the Scimitar launched. This Avenger Class launched yesterday right? I've seen a grand total of three (inc one Fleet Version) in the past two days.
And I thought players flying around in alien vessels (via a lock box) was a bad move. :rolleyes:
for starters: Cryptic doesnt go back and mess with old releases anymore, so you wont be seeing beefed up ships like the galaxy unless they make an entirely new ship that just looks like one.
2. CBS has a say in what ships get released or not. so if CBS says ":don't do this" or "don;t waste yoru time on that" the dev's gotta listen.
just because a ship is asked for (Beefed up Galaxy, T5 Connie.) doesnt mean it'll happen. If thew ones with the license dont want them doing it.... they wont be doing it.
after all, it took 3 years to get one canon ship in, and almost a year of negotiations to get the Vesta in.
Remember: CBS only owns stuff seen in the TV shows, the movies are owned by Paramount, and the JJ Verse is strictly off limits. just becasue players say "I want" doesnt mean the Devs will be "Ok"
Back with Season 5 or 6 (the Fleet System Season) Cryptic did a number on several old designs; removing their skins from the C-Store and in some cases (Assault Cruiser) changing their Boff Layout. More recently, they released that new Romulan ship, only to shortly after update it with a hanger bay.
Still, I'm all for a new Galaxy-looking ship, provided I can use a Galaxy skin. Heck, I could even live without that, I'd just like another non-trashy looking cruiser that is sci-heavy for a change.
This I know. However, this only makes CBS a bunch of hypocrites; no T5 Constitution cause it's an old ship from the 23rd Century, but it's fine to use a 22nd Century Romulan Bird of Prey which is even older. :rolleyes:
I wasn't disputing that, I was just asking whether people asked for this battlecruiser or whether the Devs made it because they wanted it.
kind of. the players have been asking for cruisers that didnt have the turning radius of a solar system pretty much every time a new fed cruiser was announced. plus one of the real main reasons they likely released the avenger was the testbed of the new cruiser commands.
also,we dont know for sure that those 22nd century birds of prey were actually built in the 22nd century. throughout the TV shows and such, klingons at least liked to re-use designs and just stick new tech on them, possibly could be the same thing for the romulans, starfleet however, prefers to make new ships.
The Constitution was launched in the 2240's, refitted in the 2270's. As there is a 30 year gap there, it would be a safe bet to say they continued into the 2290's at least. The Narendra III incident (Enterprise-C) was in 2344; some 45/50 years later. The last we saw of an Ambassador Class was 2368 (TNG: Redemption). If we say the Ambassador was launched in 2340, they'd likely be running into 2370 (again, a 30 year lifespan, if not more).
STO is set in 2409, and we have a Fleet Version of the Ambassador. That's a good 40 years after a supposed retirement. If we've got a Fleet Ambassador, then we should at the very least have a Tier #4 Constitution. May I also remind that the Exeter Class isn't the Constitution Class. It's suppose to be a new ship (that's why it was made(, so why can't Cryptic/CBS green-light the Exeter as a high-end cruiser that isn't customizable (at the very least)?
Then we come to your argument on the Romulans. Respectfully I think that's clutching st straws. The Klingons come across as barbaric and not as technologically advanced, sure they have technology, but didn't they acquire a lot of that from the Hur'Q? The Romulans aren't like that. The Romulans are technological, they are advanced, and they're not likely to stick with century old ship designs. Considering their nature, I'd imagine they'd upgrade their ships quite often. It wasn't shown in shows likely due to budgeting reasons, but I'm sure it happened behind the scenes.
Regardless of that, it still doesn't answer the previous question as to why CBS/Cryptic say no to a 23rd Century Federation design, but they say yes to a 22nd Century Romulan design. The only conclusive response is simply a lazy excuse for a lack of imagination (the BoP design was already there, and by using it, they saved time on another concept); that doesn't help the argument against a T5 Constitution however. It's merely a convenient excuse.
Even better example is the presence of a T3 K'Tinga and a T5 K'Tinga refit. The K'Tinga is little changed (just a bit of texture detail) from the TOS D-7. So, the Klingons are able to slap new tech on a 150 year old hull, but the Federation cannot? Just ask the Vulcans, they did it with an even older ship!
Honestly, I really do not mind the Constitution refit skin over the Exeter hull, those stats and using a cannon and photorp up front and turrets in the rear give the most accurate canon (TMP era) look on it. I plan on making a char just to take her as far as she can go; about the only thing I can see her not going in is any sort of PUG queue content (which I do not do anyway). With all the rep powers and other bits and bobs you can add to it, you can address her survivability pretty well. But the rational (such as it is) for no T5 Exeter when there is a T5 version of the T2 escort and science vessel refits (along with the other faction examples) is so annoyingly inconsistent that is it will constantly generate threads and discussions about it until Cryptic addresses the issue.
I myself would like to see a cruiser turn rate pass. things are far too slow. so just give all cruisers +2-3.
it's not what any asked for exactly you could say and many kdf players are wondering what are we getting? sadly seem like as always sweet fa
also the creative dev team bless them seem to be turning the romulans into the federation. since they aren't allowed to be bad guys of any kind and turning the federation into the kdf. by giving them BATTLE cruisers called AVENGER. not very federation if you ask me. just in official language used. also this ship can use a cloak. really it shouldn't. galaxy-x and defiant used them for cannon/novelty sake.
so don't that go against the stance on use of federation cloaking technology set out by the federation president/council?? what's changed? since we are still stuck in 2409
Over the years there have been numerous suggestions for replacing the tiers with a system in which players choose their preferred ship and upgrade it. I want that. Let everyone enjoy playing whichever ship they favor and let them upgrade its performance to end-game quality.
But, you can do that now with the Exeter at T2. And really, the closest you can come to the JJPrise using the Exeter/Vesper/Excalibur/Connie refit parts is really not that close at all.
My guess? They're too drunk on blood wine that when they look at the design of a D7 they think it's new, and create a new ship then realize the error of their ways once sobered up, and just strap the latest tech on it.
I theorize we will be waiting a very long time for that rational explanation. For what it's worth, I'd never fly a T5 Constitution (it doesn't appeal to me) but one of my pet peeves in life is hypocrites, and this whole argument has got me frustrated. Blame my genetics for me sticking up for the Connie Fanboys.
I'm going to get shot for saying this, buy why does the Gal-X need saucer separation? Unlike the traditional Galaxy, the Gal-X is built for combat. Why would it have been designed with a safety saucer separation mode when it's been outfitted with a third warp nacelle, a spinal lance and the option of cannons. It's like making something extremely dangerous with a safety feature. What logic is there in that?
This is something else that I'm going to get shot for, but (for the most part) I think cruisers are fine. Sure, some ships (such as the Galaxy and Deridex) could use a +1 on turn, but they're the ships they are for a reason. They're suppose to be tanks, and tanks don't turn all that well.
They'll have a job doing that with my Romulan. He joined the Red Team.
The problem I'd guess is that now the game works around the current system. I wouldn't imagine it an easy fix to completely overhaul said system so that it accommodates this suggestion. It sucks I know, but that's what we've got. Besides that, from a business point of view, if players can just choose one ship from the get-go, there would likely be a reduction in ship purchases.
Honestly, I doubt that. There are a fair few kitbash-able options with the T2 Cruiser, and whilst some of them resemble the JJprise, there isn't as significant a resemblance as there already is to the typical Constitution. If there was, they'd not allow the kitbash option in the first place.
I support the Star Trek Battles channel.
+1 licensing... AANNDDD a T5 Connie is kind of well dumb.. a 300 year old light weight cruiser should not be on par with a 2000 manned ODDY..
If new Constitution Class ships are built with new materials and has the top of the line technology their is nothing that should stop it from being competitve with a Odyssey class starship. Also in game their are already ships like Excelsior that are considered by many to be better then the newer Odyssey class.
A very valid point. And yeah, if an Excelsior can outdo the Odyssey, I guess we should all be using old designs. :P