test content
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc

Ships too ugly to buy?

135

Comments

  • theraven2378theraven2378 Member Posts: 5,808 Arc User
    I'm more into utilitarian function over form.

    NMXb2ph.png
      "The meaning of victory is not to merely defeat your enemy but to destroy him, to completely eradicate him from living memory, to leave no remnant of his endeavours, to crush utterly his achievement and remove from all record his every trace of existence. From that defeat no enemy can ever recover. That is the meaning of victory."
      -Lord Commander Solar Macharius
    • trennantrennan Member Posts: 2,839 Arc User
      There are no "ugly ships" in STO. Now, as to ugly players... XD

      I don't know. When I look at the Starfleet ships all I see is the same coffee table that's been redesigned for the 1000th time.

      Unless it the Galaxy class, especially the new one. Then all I see and think with it is.

      1vwryr.jpgvia Imgflip Meme Generator
      Mm5NeXy.gif
    • jcswwjcsww Member Posts: 6,402 Arc User
      coldnapalm wrote: »
      I get ships based on performance not looks

      I buy ships based on looks not performance.

      I do as well! Regardless of how good or poor the stats of a ship are in this game. For PvE, It will easily do the job with some half decent gear. We are probably the minority though, which is why PWE seems content in releasing some of the ugliest ships that Star Trek has ever seen!
    • alcyoneserenealcyoneserene Member Posts: 2,374 Arc User
      Fed Universe Class, those nacelles look like someone took microsoft paint and stretched out the bits (if that's not what actually happened). The saucer also has an optical illusion making it appear bent. Good thing Cryptic made the Valkis as an alternative for Roms, but I dislike the stats when it lacks enough sci consoles to power it, forcing it into a cruiser/carrier role.

      Crossfield, excellent stats but only looks good from certain angles, which means it's a poor CBS design (IMO). It's a shame, it has something going for it, if only they reworked the proportions of existing shapes, and I also like the hollow circle in the saucer, like on the Scryer.

      Dewan ships. Worst of the worst.

      KDF Command Battlecruiser.

      Qul'poH KDF temporal science destroyer.

      Deleth Advanced Light Warbird Battlecruiser. I thought it looked good on release day, but in game I really dislike it.

      Cardassian Intel Sci Dread.

      Many KDF ships, too many to list, and it's not that the styling isn't appealing, it is, but they just fall short.

      Zahl heavy cruiser, poor CBS design.

      Na’kuhl Daemosh Science Vessel, the incessant engine sound doesn't help.

      Sphere Builder Edoulg Science Vessel.

      Son'a Command Science Vessel.
      Y945Yzx.jpg
      · ♥ · ◦.¸¸. ◦'¯`·. (Ɏ) V A N U _ S O V E R E I G N T Y (Ɏ) .·´¯'◦.¸¸. ◦ · ♡ ·
      «» \▼/ T E R R A N ¦ R E P U B L I C \▼/ «»
      ﴾﴿ ₪ṩ ||| N A N I T E S Y S T E M S : B L A C K | O P S ||| ₪ṩ ﴾﴿
    • reyan01reyan01 Member Posts: 15,259 Arc User
      All down to personal taste really. I, for one, LOATHE everything about the Scimitar and, despite it being one of the best performing ships in the game, my hatred of the design means that I have, nor will, ever even consider purchasing it.
    • avoozuulavoozuul Member Posts: 2,948 Arc User
      edited July 2018
      I honestly don't hate the Scimitar at all, It's one of my favorite Romulan aligned designs. :)
    • reyan01reyan01 Member Posts: 15,259 Arc User
      avoozuul wrote: »
      I honestly don't hate the Scimitar at all, It's one of my favorite Romulan aligned designs. :)

      As I said, each to their own.
    • avoozuulavoozuul Member Posts: 2,948 Arc User
      edited July 2018
      I know, I simply saw that many people were expressing how they don't like it and I am merely expressing that I do.
    • ltminnsltminns Member Posts: 12,460 Arc User
      Doesn't bother me in the least as I have all the C-Store Ships.
      'But to be logical is not to be right', and 'nothing' on God's earth could ever 'make it' right!'
      Judge Dan Haywood
      'As l speak now, the words are forming in my head.
      l don't know.
      l really don't know what l'm about to say, except l have a feeling about it.
      That l must repeat the words that come without my knowledge.'
      Lt. Philip J. Minns
    • alcyoneserenealcyoneserene Member Posts: 2,374 Arc User
      ruinthefun wrote: »
      Ships too ugly to buy: The Jupiter. Not only is it aesthetically displeasing, with its unbalanced T-Rex Arm Nacelles, but the stats are rather bad, and, as a single-item ship offering nothing to the other f(r)actions, it has a very poor ship-to-Zen value. Not even a 30% off flash sale on this item ALONE was enough to get me to touch it.
      I'm more into utilitarian function over form.
      This is how I roll also, which is why the winner winner (chicken dinner!) for this is the Jupiter: It's aesthetically displeasing AND of poor functionality. At least the Excelsior which I also passed on was merely dysfunctional rather than hideously ugly, because you can never really give a canonical ship too much flak for its looks no matter how it looks: It's not Cryptic's fault if it isn't to your taste, after all.

      I wasn't all that fond of the Jupiter design for the longest time, and only recently it grew on me along with its stats to get it, and I can't stop flying it on my Fed-Sci Main and Tac-alt. It's like a science-y Odyssey. Yes it would be nice if they gave us the option to remove or modify the small warp nacelles.

      Shield modifier: 1.375 for the fleet variant with 57,200 hull, shield-specific starship mastery & +10% hull hp means it can shield tank better than a cruiser and nearly as good as a Sci ship and still reach the diminishing returns of dmg res using consoles & traits. I built one with tetryons, energy & shield draining, and Aeon timeships, so any big ship that's the choice of focus gets melted real quick, especially if it's console pet focus fire is also off cool-down along with the other science captain buffs.

      The other isn't fleet grade, on a Tac with I think AP and Scorpions, and it seems to do just as well surprisingly with the plasma torps everywhere and focused fire. They are also built to tank with hull & shields so manage to feel like zombies against anything so far.
      Y945Yzx.jpg
      · ♥ · ◦.¸¸. ◦'¯`·. (Ɏ) V A N U _ S O V E R E I G N T Y (Ɏ) .·´¯'◦.¸¸. ◦ · ♡ ·
      «» \▼/ T E R R A N ¦ R E P U B L I C \▼/ «»
      ﴾﴿ ₪ṩ ||| N A N I T E S Y S T E M S : B L A C K | O P S ||| ₪ṩ ﴾﴿
    • ashstorm1ashstorm1 Member Posts: 633 Arc User
      As it's been said above, each to his own, but as far as i'm concerned, the least visually appealing ship in the C-Store has to be the Daedalus class. Now, i know it's supposed to be a somewhat antique design, but honestly, the whole ping-pong-ball-glued-on-milk-bottle design really isn't helping...

      latest?cb=20141202223702

      Now as far as performances go, i cannot pass judgement on it since i didn't buy it anyway. One thing is certain, though, i'd much rather fly a ship that i find visually appealing with average performances, rather than having to cope with some flying eyesore on the account of it being more efficient.
    • meimeitoomeimeitoo Member Posts: 12,367 Arc User
      Fed Universe Class, those nacelles look like someone took microsoft paint and stretched out the bits (if that's not what actually happened).


      Yeah, the fed Universe really is a blight on the system. It looks like a cartoon ship, flattened by a hammer, where you expect a bunny to pop up any time, with a pump, to inflate it again. *insert looney tunes here*

      It was simply a very bad design. The optical illusion kinda works when put in a mission, where Cryptic can show it at predefined angles, so as to fake enormous size. But as a playable ship, it's a downright atrocity. And no, LOL, I'm not really going to call CBS about it, but wouldn't mind at all if they nixed future Cryptic design of this nature.
      ChCDpuh.jpg
    • angrytargangrytarg Member Posts: 10,622 Arc User
      The Universe-Class in canon was literally a placeholder since there were only hours to the deadline and there had to be something. I am annoyed and impressed equally that they stood by it instead of remastering it.​​
      lFC4bt2.gif
      ^ 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
    • neoakiraiineoakiraii Member Posts: 7,464 Arc User
      That's why i drink before i buy a ship
      GwaoHAD.png
    • meimeitoomeimeitoo Member Posts: 12,367 Arc User
      edited July 2018
      "azrael605 wrote: »
      Meimei, the Universe class is a CBS design, not Cryptic.


      Not THAT design. :) The optical illusion technique Cryptic used to make it look massive, from a distance, just worked disastrously on close-up.
      ChCDpuh.jpg
    • storulesstorules Member Posts: 3,197 Arc User
      edited July 2018
      trennan wrote: »
      There are no "ugly ships" in STO. Now, as to ugly players... XD

      I don't know. When I look at the Starfleet ships all I see is the same coffee table that's been redesigned for the 1000th time.

      Unless it the Galaxy class, especially the new one. Then all I see and think with it is.

      1vwryr.jpgvia Imgflip Meme Generator

      Agreed!​​
      tumblr_ncbngkt24X1ry46hlo1_400.gif
    • saber1973asaber1973a Member Posts: 1,220 Arc User
      Meh, I'm more focused on performance than looks.
      And some ships looks can be improved by kit-bashing (I think that's the term) in ships taylor - like the Romulan Command Warbirds.
      That being said I really do not like the looks of the Breen designs - not symetrical, metalic grey monstrosities that looks like it was welded toogether from scrap. And while someone will tell me that symetrics are not important in space, here is my answer: The balance between center of mass of a ship and thrust variables and vectors is very important in space - Breen ships must waste much computational processing resources on balancing the drive… but their performance in-game is rather high - especially for carrier and dread ones.
    • drakethewhitedrakethewhite Member Posts: 1,240 Arc User
      mneme0 wrote: »

      What ships fit this description for you?

      Sort of. I won't buy an ugly ship period. And to me, that's most of the ships in the game.

      But I do like some. For example- Fed side, the Connie, Excelsior, the command battlecruisers. I have a handful of Klingon, Romulan, and others too- but not many.

    • echattyechatty Member Posts: 5,662 Arc User
      edited July 2018
      Just as beauty is in the eye of the beholder, so is ugly.

      Quite a few ships that have been called ugly by some, I don't find ugly. About the only ships I would consider not pretty at all are the Breen ships, though they are also great performers and I fly the Rezreth and the Chel Boalg and my F2P flies the Chel Grett warship that she got from the Phoenix Box.

      So if it performs and I can get it, then looks come secondary.
      Now a LTS and loving it.

      Just because you spend money on this game, it does not entitle you to be a jerk if things don't go your way.

      xp8s7wd.jpg
    • mustrumridcully0mustrumridcully0 Member Posts: 12,949 Arc User
      I think that is almost impossible, because sometimes, ugliness is the point.

      However, based on that I own most C-Store ships and some lockbox/lobi ships, I think the price might go towards the Federation Dyson Science Destroyer. I have the KDF and ROM one, but never bought the FED one. (Yep, that makes me a pack breaker). Maybe I would have if there hadn't been the Vesta or Tier 6 ships at some point, though.
      Star Trek Online Advancement: You start with lowbie gear, you end with Lobi gear.
    • lexusk19lexusk19 Member Posts: 1,383 Arc User
      For me its about 95% of all Cryptic designed ships. I dont know what their artists are smoking. lol The textures and colors all are great, but the hulls just dont flow or look like they belong in Trek.
      gVOTFcj.jpg
    • sistericsisteric Member Posts: 768 Arc User
      I don't buy based on looks, but on how they work with my playstyle. But there is not any ship design I have seen that I would say is ugly. But some are better looking than others.
      Federation: Fleet Admiral Zombee (Alien Tactical)::Fleet Admiral Danic (Vulcan Science)::Fleet Admiral Daniel Kochheiser (Human Engineer)
      KDF: Dahar Master Kan (Borg Klingon Tactical)::Dahar Master Torc (Alien Science)::Dahar Master Sisteric (Gorn Engineer)
      RR-Fed: Citizen Sirroc (Romulan Science)::Fleet Admiral Grell (Alien Engineer)
      RR-KDF: Fleet Admiral Zemo (Reman Tactical)::Fleet Admiral Xinatek (Reman Science)::Fleet Admiral Bel (Alien Engineer)
      TOS-Fed: Fleet Admiral Katem (Andorian Tactical)::Lieutenant Commander Straad (Vulcan Engineer)
      Dom-Fed: Dan'Tar (Jem'Hadar Science)
      Dom-KDF: Kamtana'Solan (Jem'Hadar Science)

      CoHost of Tribbles in Ecstasy (Zombee)
    This discussion has been closed.