I hope they fix the bridge on the Nebula, so it looks like it should. It still has the error the Galaxy had at launch, and the secondary hull looks nothing like it should, FAIL
I hope they fix the bridge on the Nebula, so it looks like it should. It still has the error the Galaxy had at launch, and the secondary hull looks nothing like it should, FAIL
In all fairness, when they changed over to using CGI models for the Nebula they started using a kit bashed Galaxy hull, I don't mind that too much, I rather prefer the narrower oval Galaxy deflector dish to the larger squarish Nebula one, but I do agree about the bridge area, the way they have it so thick up there is just weird.
If something is not broken, don't fix it, if it is broken, don't leave it broken.
Since a Nebula is a Galaxy hull, there should be a 4/3 weapons setup, or make the mission pod interchangeable, sci or tac
If a cruiser can get sensor analysis, I don't see why a science vessel can't get more weapons or a cruiser command or two.
On a side note I'd like to see more Nebula costumes to correspond to the other Galaxy variants.
As for the Vesta, yes it's a powerful ship, and I don't think the shields need a higher modifier, but the hull is way way too low. Now I know it had to trade something for all the toys, but really they aren't that great. Of course I also think it never should have gotten a hangar bay. In the books the Vesta was pulled from, they carried one runabout and had space for two. Runabout hangars are 4 runabouts. Does not fit at all, ad if we are going to use size as a justification most cruisers should get a hangar.
If a cruiser can get sensor analysis, I don't see why a science vessel can't get more weapons or a cruiser command or two.
On a side note I'd like to see more Nebula costumes to correspond to the other Galaxy variants.
As for the Vesta, yes it's a powerful ship, and I don't think the shields need a higher modifier, but the hull is way way too low. Now I know it had to trade something for all the toys, but really they aren't that great. Of course I also think it never should have gotten a hangar bay. In the books the Vesta was pulled from, they carried one runabout and had space for two. Runabout hangars are 4 runabouts. Does not fit at all, ad if we are going to use size as a justification most cruisers should get a hangar.
That's actually the reason i don't consider the Vesta to be a science ship at all.
I'd love to know what that nebula is getting. I personally am fine with its console arrangement, I would love to see a hanger bay or a 4/3 weapon setup. lets not kid ourselves, this thing is really a cruiser with science boff seating after all
No, bad idea, the best thing about the vesta is power level management. Being able to draw from multiple power for you weapons allows you to over clock each to increase DPS. Having multiple beams arrays using aux would hurt science abilities that use aux.
Wrong
If you cant keep your power level over 100 using 5 or 6 arrays you need to learn power management....i keep mine at 125
There would be no problem keeping aux at 125 ith 6 arrays....None
Jellico....Engineer ground.....Da'val Romulan space Sci
Saphire.. Science ground......Ko'el Romulan space Tac
Leva........Tactical ground.....Koj Romulan space Eng
JJ-Verse will never be Canon or considered Lore...It will always be JJ-Verse
I'd love to know what that nebula is getting. I personally am fine with its console arrangement, I would love to see a hanger bay or a 4/3 weapon setup. lets not kid ourselves, this thing is really a cruiser with science boff seating after all
It will be redundant if they put an hangar bay on it. :rolleyes:
The nebula is a multi-mission ship, it's a mix of cruiser and sci ship. As stated before, Dev won't permit the 4/3 weapon setup with innate subsystem targeting. BUT in "cruiser mode" with the 4/3 setup (or even 4/4) it should gain cruiser commands at the lost of the innate subsystem targeting. A bit like the Solanae but it exchange those 2 capabilities.
I think the 4th fore weapon you gain should be at the players choice, not something like the proton cannon of the solanae that you cannot remove/change. It's a multi-mission ship, the workhorse of the Federation, after all the flexibility should be left at the players discretion. The ensign boff should become universal, for the reasons stated above.
If they're going to update the Vesta, they should just take those aux phaser cannons and give them the patrol escort tail gun treatment, but front facing.
I don't have as much of an issue with the slots being limited, for instance, I'd be fine if you could buy replacement rear cannons for the partol escort and that's all that could be fitted there, or let us fit any DHC to the dyson's 4th slot (though I'd be more happy if any weapon were allowed. I don't see why it's a problem anyways. people are going on about 4/3 can't coexist with subsystem targeting, but activating that last weapon slot deactivates all the science toys so it doesn't violate that rule)
Vesta also doesn't need an extra weapon slot. Vesta damage is fine. the only problem the vesta ever had is low hull.
The whole idea of fixed weapons is a bit of a gimick, it trys to attract people to a certain playstyle and makes them forget how to build their own ship.
With the aux cannons as they are you can have 0 or 1 or 2 or 3, it's your choice and it allows massive flexibility in builds. Forcing players to have them fixed in place would mean they were ignored or that people had to use a build style they don't realy like.
I currently have 2 mounted and a torp, but i have a 3rd set in my inventory to swap out when i want more energy damage or the torp is of no use in the mission.
The Vesta just needs a hull HP buff to bring it in line with the other science ships and it will be fine.
And if the devs were feeling generous they could add in some aux beam weapons too to allow more flexibility and better synergy with the sub-system targeting.
I honestly don't see the point of having aux cannons up front if I can't get any aux turrets in back anyways, since granking your aux means the rest of the weapons aren't doing much damage. better to just use regular cannons, run high wep and maximize your EPS for power transfers when you need to fire off a science ability.
I honestly don't see the point of having aux cannons up front if I can't get any aux turrets in back anyways, since granking your aux means the rest of the weapons aren't doing much damage. better to just use regular cannons, run high wep and maximize your EPS for power transfers when you need to fire off a science ability.
Maybe they're not considering them for use on any min/max builds? *shrug*
I do miss my Nebe, the turn rate was ruining my A, D keys and cramping my hand So a turn rate buff would be great. My Vestia has 35k hull, so a little love there would be good too.
Maybe they're not considering them for use on any min/max builds? *shrug*
They are not considering them for use on any "Good" builds period. Lowering your Aux to fire means you will not get the maximum benefit from your science skills and not having Aux turrets means that at best you have 3 full powered weapons with your others being near useless.
I mean they are fine to use until you can replace them with something else but after that they are pretty much useless.
I also hate fixed weapons that cannot be altered at all for just ONE reason... It sticks you to a particular weapon type. Now with these patrol escorts that weapon type is Phaser and we all know Phasers are the worst weapon type in the game so that is pretty sad and annoying. With the KDF and Romulans it is not a big deal because Disruptors and Plasma (Rom Plasma especially) are both great to begin with.
Fleet Neb's my favorite boat to run around in and play with on a day-to-day basis. It's slow plodding as I fire off SCI skills and perform broadsides fits my play style: lazy.
I wouldn't mind seeing some changes to the Nebbie. The most intriguing one of course is the mission pod types being changed out. I think someone else posited this idea but the pod type could be 'activated' similar to the SCI Destroyer going to a different 'mode' and it opens up another skill.
Perhaps if you have an engineering pod it could be activated and then you get one or more of the cruiser skills (attract fire, defense, etc) opened to you. TAC pod would give you the 4/3 weapon loadout. SCI pod would give you another SCI BO ability or .. something..
What I'd really want to see though is some sort of change to the detection grid console that comes with the ship. In PvE I never use it because it serves no purpose. If that were to be changed to buff the entire team with weapon accuracy or crit hit chance I'd happily slap it back onto my ship.
Otherwise I'm happy with my support/healer role. It's a 50+ year old hull in the game so having it relegated to secondary stuff makes sense.
They are not considering them for use on any "Good" builds period. Lowering your Aux to fire means you will not get the maximum benefit from your science skills and not having Aux turrets means that at best you have 3 full powered weapons with your others being near useless.
I mean they are fine to use until you can replace them with something else but after that they are pretty much useless.
I also hate fixed weapons that cannot be altered at all for just ONE reason... It sticks you to a particular weapon type. Now with these patrol escorts that weapon type is Phaser and we all know Phasers are the worst weapon type in the game so that is pretty sad and annoying. With the KDF and Romulans it is not a big deal because Disruptors and Plasma (Rom Plasma especially) are both great to begin with.
With plasmonic leech, eptx abilities (better if with doffs), proper spec and sets, it is not difficult to achieve 125 weapons power and 130 aux power, and leave more than 75 power in eng and shields. I can easily achieve this during combat and I am sure that others can achieve even higher. A drain build with energy siphon can easily attain max power in all systems easily. The main drawback with using aux phasers lie in the need to settle for phaser energy type, not power management.
In fact using aux phasers provide some really useful benefits:
1) No warp cores will boost weapon power to 130 but nearly all fleet cores provide the aforementioned boost to aux. Obelisk core even boosts it to 135. This means that aux phasers can become the most hard hitting dhc in terms of raw firepower.
2) The power drain from 2 subsystems instead of 1 is more efficient (I can paste link of a very old test if needed)
What the aux weapons need is different energy types, as well as modifiers (accx2 dmg is okay, but does not appeal to pve crowd).
It's just (to put it plainly), if you look at the Nebula Class, it obviously doesn't have a Secondary deflector, anymore than it looks like it should be able to mount DHCs.
But... it does have one distinguishing feature, in the MISSION POD; the triangular structure that sits on the Aft-Dorsal area. It sits there entirely underutilised. It's the promise of a level of ship customisation that ultimately failed to materialise, and I find that sad.
So DEVs, if you're in the process of implementing upgrades to all Science vessels anyway...? Upgrades that don't always make sense to the ship in question...? Upgrades that suggest work is currently being done and this might present the first legitimate opportunity to change this shortcoming since the ship came out....?
1) Remove the [Console - Universal - Tachyon Detection Grid] and [Console - Universal - Tachyon Detection Field] from the game.
2) Implement a Mission Pod slot just under the Tactical Console slots (where the Hanger Bay slot usually is found in other ships)
3) Create a [Mission Pod - Tachyon Detection Grid] and [Mission Pod - Tachyon Detection Field], to be claimed from the C-store, for free, by any player that has already purchased an [Advanced Research Vessel Retrofit] and an [Advanced Research Vessel] from the C-store, respectively.
...and that's it! Well, it's a start anyway. There are a few suggestions as for what to do next:
4) Dilithium Store
Have three additional Mission Pods that can be bought with dilithium. Probably something like:
a) [Mission Pod - Hanger]
When equipped in the Mission Pod slot, acts as a single Hanger. (Comes with no combat pets.)
b) [Mission Pod - Power Plant]
Provides a [+ Pwr] to all/one sub system when equipped (two small buttons on the HUD let you choose). Provides a small boost to power insulators.
c) [Mission Pod - Weapons Platform]
Similar to the saucer section that separates from the Retrofit Exploration Cruiser, with half the hull strength but double the shield modifier difference from 1.0. Equipped with the same weapons. Similarly, when the pod is not attached, the ship gains a boost to turn rate and engines, but looses a little hull strength.
5) Reputation System
A great area for reputation project items, such as:
a) [Mission Pod - Dyson Sphere]
A Mission Pod designed to separate from the rest of the ship and operate in the Dyson atmosphere. Resistant to Voth attacks and weapons.
b) [Mission Pod - Fluidic Space]
Designed to fight against the Undine. When separates, is immune to flying snot balls.
6) Crafting, such as: [Mission Pod - Aegis Set]
[Mission Pod - Subspace Array]
7) Fleet Mission Pods from fleet holdings.
Step 1: because it would give some of us an extra console slot by proxy
Step 2: because it would provide a way of making this ship something people might actually be interested in again. Because it takes it out of the competition to be "more like this ship or that", and have a feature it can call it's own.
Step 3: because they're still useful consoles, and forcing us to choose either them or something else stops people yelling OP-POWERCREEEEP!
etc
NB: All Mission Pods can be swapped out in any social area and any non-mission map.
It's just (to put it plainly), if you look at the Nebula Class, it obviously doesn't have a Secondary deflector, anymore than it looks like it should be able to mount DHCs.
But... it does have one distinguishing feature, in the MISSION POD; the triangular structure that sits on the Aft-Dorsal area. It sits there entirely underutilised. It's the promise of a level of ship customisation that ultimately failed to materialise, and I find that sad.
So DEVs, if you're in the process of implementing upgrades to all Science vessels anyway...? Upgrades that don't always make sense to the ship in question...? Upgrades that suggest work is currently being done and this might present the first legitimate opportunity to change this shortcoming since the ship came out....?
1) Remove the [Console - Universal - Tachyon Detection Grid] and [Console - Universal - Tachyon Detection Field] from the game.
2) Implement a Mission Pod slot just under the Tactical Console slots (where the Hanger Bay slot usually is found in other ships)
3) Create a [Mission Pod - Tachyon Detection Grid] and [Mission Pod - Tachyon Detection Field], to be claimed from the C-store, for free, by any player that has already purchased an [Advanced Research Vessel Retrofit] and an [Advanced Research Vessel] from the C-store, respectively.
...and that's it! Well, it's a start anyway. There are a few suggestions as for what to do next:
4) Dilithium Store
Have three additional Mission Pods that can be bought with dilithium. Probably something like:
a) [Mission Pod - Hanger]
When equipped in the Mission Pod slot, acts as a single Hanger. (Comes with no combat pets.)
b) [Mission Pod - Power Plant]
Provides a [+ Pwr] to all/one sub system when equipped (two small buttons on the HUD let you choose). Provides a small boost to power insulators.
c) [Mission Pod - Weapons Platform]
Similar to the saucer section that separates from the Retrofit Exploration Cruiser, with half the hull strength but double the shield modifier difference from 1.0. Equipped with the same weapons. Similarly, when the pod is not attached, the ship gains a boost to turn rate and engines, but looses a little hull strength.
5) Reputation System
A great area for reputation project items, such as:
a) [Mission Pod - Dyson Sphere]
A Mission Pod designed to separate from the rest of the ship and operate in the Dyson atmosphere. Resistant to Voth attacks and weapons.
b) [Mission Pod - Fluidic Space]
Designed to fight against the Undine. When separates, is immune to flying snot balls.
6) Crafting, such as: [Mission Pod - Aegis Set]
[Mission Pod - Subspace Array]
7) Fleet Mission Pods from fleet holdings.
Step 1: because it would give some of us an extra console slot by proxy
Step 2: because it would provide a way of making this ship something people might actually be interested in again. Because it takes it out of the competition to be "more like this ship or that", and have a feature it can call it's own.
Step 3: because they're still useful consoles, and forcing us to choose either them or something else stops people yelling OP-POWERCREEEEP!
etc
NB: All Mission Pods can be swapped out in any social area and any non-mission map.
The mission pod nor the saucer can't separate from the ship. Knowing the AI, it will probably go hug warp core breaches instead of shooting at stuff anyway.
Non-Combat pets in the Hangar pod.....Not useful at all. LOL
Many people won't be happy if Tachyon Detection Grid is removed. It's useful in PVP but the stats need to be boosted a little bit.
Not sure the Dev will commit time and resources to make multiple mission pods via reputation systems for 1 ship only.
The mission pod nor the saucer can't separate from the ship. Knowing the AI, it will probably go hug warp core breaches instead of shooting at stuff anyway.
Non-Combat pets in the Hangar pod.....Not useful at all. LOL
Many people won't be happy if Tachyon Detection Grid is removed. It's useful in PVP but the stats need to be boosted a little bit.
Not sure the Dev will commit time and resources to make multiple mission pods via reputation systems for 1 ship only.
I like this idea, would be a way to boost the Nebula. One point I can make - it wouldn't necessarily be for one ship only - the Luna has a mission pod as well (and can be customized, unlike the Nebula) - so I would say, mission pods "could" be portable between at least those two.
I like this idea, because I always got the impression in TNG and DS9 that the Nebula was a jack-of-all-trades ship, even more so than the Galaxy and Excelsior. That said, was likely budget constraints on ship models and CGI....
Wondering, what would your thoughts be on the Nebula having an inherent tac grid? Say like Klink and Rommie ships have cloaks. Not a removable console or item. It is just something extra.
"Diplomacy! The best diplomat I know is a fully charged phaser bank!"
+1 for the Nebula buff (and Vesta since I own one ... ). That said The ICONIC ship for science which should be at the center of the delta quadrant expansion has been totally ignored again. Yes, the Intrepid needs some love and badly.
The boff layout is pretty terrible (like the Galaxy one) and the ship graphics could use a refresh too. Also what happened to the 2nd deflector for sci ships? Seems like a great way for Cryptic to sell more gear while boosting the one ship class which needs it (for PvE).
"With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censored, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably."
+1 for the Nebula buff (and Vesta since I own one ... ). That said The ICONIC ship for science which should be at the center of the delta quadrant expansion has been totally ignored again. Yes, the Intrepid needs some love and badly.
The boff layout is pretty terrible (like the Galaxy one) and the ship graphics could use a refresh too. Also what happened to the 2nd deflector for sci ships? Seems like a great way for Cryptic to sell more gear while boosting the one ship class which needs it (for PvE).
I like this idea, would be a way to boost the Nebula. One point I can make - it wouldn't necessarily be for one ship only - the Luna has a mission pod as well (and can be customized, unlike the Nebula) - so I would say, mission pods "could" be portable between at least those two.
I like this idea, because I always got the impression in TNG and DS9 that the Nebula was a jack-of-all-trades ship, even more so than the Galaxy and Excelsior. That said, was likely budget constraints on ship models and CGI....
Well, the mission pod seems to me like it adds flexibility but also shows the ships limitation: it can do any role with the right pod, but it can only do that one role it has the pod for well.
The Galaxy Class is a multi-role ship in the sense that it can really cover all the roles at the same time. You don't need to replace the mission pod, you want a Deep Space Explorer that evacuates a colony under attack while fending of the attackers while conducting a dead-star ignition project testing new shields to fly through a sun's corona, you got it in one neat package. (maybe be asking too much of the crew to do it all at once, though, but in succession, no prob.)
But the Galaxy Class is bigger and more resource-intensive to build then a Nebula class ship plus a pod (or even multiple pods).
Star Trek Online Advancement: You start with lowbie gear, you end with Lobi gear.
Back to the thread, I agree with those doubting the necessity of a buff for the Vesta despite enjoying to fly one.
Many other science ships are in dire need of an overhaul - and I do not think the secondary deflector alone will be the be-all, end-all way of solving that.
I too support a Nebula buff, as long as it isn't a Hangar bay.
Regarding the Vesta, i really don't see the need of making her stronger. The only thing i would like to have where some [aux] phaser beam arrays, but i am 100% sure that's not what Mr. Rivera has in mind.
"...'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
I like the idea someone suggested of utilizing the Mission Pod(such as moving the Tachyon Det. Grid to it)....
Though, mine, going by Gorillachops' ideas, would definitely use the Power Plant mission pod...; as much as I like the idea of a hangar, I try NOT to get noticed by the mobs out there, heh!
p.s.: Gorillachops...our Nebulas will have to meet up sometime!
Comments
If a cruiser can get sensor analysis, I don't see why a science vessel can't get more weapons or a cruiser command or two.
On a side note I'd like to see more Nebula costumes to correspond to the other Galaxy variants.
As for the Vesta, yes it's a powerful ship, and I don't think the shields need a higher modifier, but the hull is way way too low. Now I know it had to trade something for all the toys, but really they aren't that great. Of course I also think it never should have gotten a hangar bay. In the books the Vesta was pulled from, they carried one runabout and had space for two. Runabout hangars are 4 runabouts. Does not fit at all, ad if we are going to use size as a justification most cruisers should get a hangar.
That's actually the reason i don't consider the Vesta to be a science ship at all.
Wrong
If you cant keep your power level over 100 using 5 or 6 arrays you need to learn power management....i keep mine at 125
There would be no problem keeping aux at 125 ith 6 arrays....None
Saphire.. Science ground......Ko'el Romulan space Tac
Leva........Tactical ground.....Koj Romulan space Eng
JJ-Verse will never be Canon or considered Lore...It will always be JJ-Verse
It will be redundant if they put an hangar bay on it. :rolleyes:
The nebula is a multi-mission ship, it's a mix of cruiser and sci ship. As stated before, Dev won't permit the 4/3 weapon setup with innate subsystem targeting. BUT in "cruiser mode" with the 4/3 setup (or even 4/4) it should gain cruiser commands at the lost of the innate subsystem targeting. A bit like the Solanae but it exchange those 2 capabilities.
I think the 4th fore weapon you gain should be at the players choice, not something like the proton cannon of the solanae that you cannot remove/change. It's a multi-mission ship, the workhorse of the Federation, after all the flexibility should be left at the players discretion. The ensign boff should become universal, for the reasons stated above.
That would be perfect.
I don't have as much of an issue with the slots being limited, for instance, I'd be fine if you could buy replacement rear cannons for the partol escort and that's all that could be fitted there, or let us fit any DHC to the dyson's 4th slot (though I'd be more happy if any weapon were allowed. I don't see why it's a problem anyways. people are going on about 4/3 can't coexist with subsystem targeting, but activating that last weapon slot deactivates all the science toys so it doesn't violate that rule)
Vesta also doesn't need an extra weapon slot. Vesta damage is fine. the only problem the vesta ever had is low hull.
The whole idea of fixed weapons is a bit of a gimick, it trys to attract people to a certain playstyle and makes them forget how to build their own ship.
With the aux cannons as they are you can have 0 or 1 or 2 or 3, it's your choice and it allows massive flexibility in builds. Forcing players to have them fixed in place would mean they were ignored or that people had to use a build style they don't realy like.
I currently have 2 mounted and a torp, but i have a 3rd set in my inventory to swap out when i want more energy damage or the torp is of no use in the mission.
The Vesta just needs a hull HP buff to bring it in line with the other science ships and it will be fine.
And if the devs were feeling generous they could add in some aux beam weapons too to allow more flexibility and better synergy with the sub-system targeting.
Helpful Tools: Dictionary.com - Logical fallacies - Random generator - Word generator - Color tool - Extra Credits - List of common English language errors - New T6 Big booty tutorial
They are not considering them for use on any "Good" builds period. Lowering your Aux to fire means you will not get the maximum benefit from your science skills and not having Aux turrets means that at best you have 3 full powered weapons with your others being near useless.
I mean they are fine to use until you can replace them with something else but after that they are pretty much useless.
I also hate fixed weapons that cannot be altered at all for just ONE reason... It sticks you to a particular weapon type. Now with these patrol escorts that weapon type is Phaser and we all know Phasers are the worst weapon type in the game so that is pretty sad and annoying. With the KDF and Romulans it is not a big deal because Disruptors and Plasma (Rom Plasma especially) are both great to begin with.
I wouldn't mind seeing some changes to the Nebbie. The most intriguing one of course is the mission pod types being changed out. I think someone else posited this idea but the pod type could be 'activated' similar to the SCI Destroyer going to a different 'mode' and it opens up another skill.
Perhaps if you have an engineering pod it could be activated and then you get one or more of the cruiser skills (attract fire, defense, etc) opened to you. TAC pod would give you the 4/3 weapon loadout. SCI pod would give you another SCI BO ability or .. something..
What I'd really want to see though is some sort of change to the detection grid console that comes with the ship. In PvE I never use it because it serves no purpose. If that were to be changed to buff the entire team with weapon accuracy or crit hit chance I'd happily slap it back onto my ship.
Otherwise I'm happy with my support/healer role. It's a 50+ year old hull in the game so having it relegated to secondary stuff makes sense.
secondary defl?
yet nothing bout those.
With plasmonic leech, eptx abilities (better if with doffs), proper spec and sets, it is not difficult to achieve 125 weapons power and 130 aux power, and leave more than 75 power in eng and shields. I can easily achieve this during combat and I am sure that others can achieve even higher. A drain build with energy siphon can easily attain max power in all systems easily. The main drawback with using aux phasers lie in the need to settle for phaser energy type, not power management.
In fact using aux phasers provide some really useful benefits:
1) No warp cores will boost weapon power to 130 but nearly all fleet cores provide the aforementioned boost to aux. Obelisk core even boosts it to 135. This means that aux phasers can become the most hard hitting dhc in terms of raw firepower.
2) The power drain from 2 subsystems instead of 1 is more efficient (I can paste link of a very old test if needed)
What the aux weapons need is different energy types, as well as modifiers (accx2 dmg is okay, but does not appeal to pve crowd).
cmon buffs and secondary deflectors come soon we need you :P
But... it does have one distinguishing feature, in the MISSION POD; the triangular structure that sits on the Aft-Dorsal area. It sits there entirely underutilised. It's the promise of a level of ship customisation that ultimately failed to materialise, and I find that sad.
So DEVs, if you're in the process of implementing upgrades to all Science vessels anyway...? Upgrades that don't always make sense to the ship in question...? Upgrades that suggest work is currently being done and this might present the first legitimate opportunity to change this shortcoming since the ship came out....?
1) Remove the [Console - Universal - Tachyon Detection Grid] and [Console - Universal - Tachyon Detection Field] from the game.
2) Implement a Mission Pod slot just under the Tactical Console slots (where the Hanger Bay slot usually is found in other ships)
3) Create a [Mission Pod - Tachyon Detection Grid] and [Mission Pod - Tachyon Detection Field], to be claimed from the C-store, for free, by any player that has already purchased an [Advanced Research Vessel Retrofit] and an [Advanced Research Vessel] from the C-store, respectively.
...and that's it! Well, it's a start anyway. There are a few suggestions as for what to do next:
4) Dilithium Store
Have three additional Mission Pods that can be bought with dilithium. Probably something like:
a) [Mission Pod - Hanger]
When equipped in the Mission Pod slot, acts as a single Hanger. (Comes with no combat pets.)
b) [Mission Pod - Power Plant]
Provides a [+ Pwr] to all/one sub system when equipped (two small buttons on the HUD let you choose). Provides a small boost to power insulators.
c) [Mission Pod - Weapons Platform]
Similar to the saucer section that separates from the Retrofit Exploration Cruiser, with half the hull strength but double the shield modifier difference from 1.0. Equipped with the same weapons. Similarly, when the pod is not attached, the ship gains a boost to turn rate and engines, but looses a little hull strength.
5) Reputation System
A great area for reputation project items, such as:
a) [Mission Pod - Dyson Sphere]
A Mission Pod designed to separate from the rest of the ship and operate in the Dyson atmosphere. Resistant to Voth attacks and weapons.
b) [Mission Pod - Fluidic Space]
Designed to fight against the Undine. When separates, is immune to flying snot balls.
6) Crafting, such as:
[Mission Pod - Aegis Set]
[Mission Pod - Subspace Array]
7) Fleet Mission Pods from fleet holdings.
Step 1: because it would give some of us an extra console slot by proxy
Step 2: because it would provide a way of making this ship something people might actually be interested in again. Because it takes it out of the competition to be "more like this ship or that", and have a feature it can call it's own.
Step 3: because they're still useful consoles, and forcing us to choose either them or something else stops people yelling OP-POWERCREEEEP!
etc
NB: All Mission Pods can be swapped out in any social area and any non-mission map.
First, I have few point to clarify....
The tactical pod of the Nebula can host both sensors and weapons. So it can have a secondary deflector. Source: http://techspecs.acalltoduty.com/nebula.html see appendix A
The mission pod nor the saucer can't separate from the ship. Knowing the AI, it will probably go hug warp core breaches instead of shooting at stuff anyway.
Non-Combat pets in the Hangar pod.....Not useful at all. LOL
Many people won't be happy if Tachyon Detection Grid is removed. It's useful in PVP but the stats need to be boosted a little bit.
Not sure the Dev will commit time and resources to make multiple mission pods via reputation systems for 1 ship only.
I like this idea, would be a way to boost the Nebula. One point I can make - it wouldn't necessarily be for one ship only - the Luna has a mission pod as well (and can be customized, unlike the Nebula) - so I would say, mission pods "could" be portable between at least those two.
I like this idea, because I always got the impression in TNG and DS9 that the Nebula was a jack-of-all-trades ship, even more so than the Galaxy and Excelsior. That said, was likely budget constraints on ship models and CGI....
The boff layout is pretty terrible (like the Galaxy one) and the ship graphics could use a refresh too. Also what happened to the 2nd deflector for sci ships? Seems like a great way for Cryptic to sell more gear while boosting the one ship class which needs it (for PvE).
- Judge Aaron Satie
Secondary deflectors are coming... not sure when.
Well, the mission pod seems to me like it adds flexibility but also shows the ships limitation: it can do any role with the right pod, but it can only do that one role it has the pod for well.
The Galaxy Class is a multi-role ship in the sense that it can really cover all the roles at the same time. You don't need to replace the mission pod, you want a Deep Space Explorer that evacuates a colony under attack while fending of the attackers while conducting a dead-star ignition project testing new shields to fly through a sun's corona, you got it in one neat package. (maybe be asking too much of the crew to do it all at once, though, but in succession, no prob.)
But the Galaxy Class is bigger and more resource-intensive to build then a Nebula class ship plus a pod (or even multiple pods).
Back to the thread, I agree with those doubting the necessity of a buff for the Vesta despite enjoying to fly one.
Many other science ships are in dire need of an overhaul - and I do not think the secondary deflector alone will be the be-all, end-all way of solving that.
Taskforce 47 Falkenwacht (Federation) / Greifenreiter (KDF)
(at) deianirrah
Free Gear and where to get it
Regarding the Vesta, i really don't see the need of making her stronger. The only thing i would like to have where some [aux] phaser beam arrays, but i am 100% sure that's not what Mr. Rivera has in mind.
Though, mine, going by Gorillachops' ideas, would definitely use the Power Plant mission pod...; as much as I like the idea of a hangar, I try NOT to get noticed by the mobs out there, heh!
p.s.: Gorillachops...our Nebulas will have to meet up sometime!
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v615/CapeMike/screenshot_2014-04-03-13-49-34.jpg