test content
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc

Command the First Klingon/Federation Ship!

1235»

Comments

  • ikonn#1068 ikonn Member Posts: 1,418 Arc User
    edited January 2020
    Dunno about this ship from the standpoint of looks... To me, the saucer looks too small in width in proportion to the back half of the ship. 2/3 of the ship is nacelles and engineering section. The neck needs to be longer and the saucer needs to be flattened by about 33% and 25%-50% wider in diameter. This is the same issue I have with the Vor'ral. It's a great ship, but the proportions "look" wrong, to me at least, on the front half (or 1/3rd in the case of this new ship) of the ship.

    I do like the look overall, though... reminds me of the Akira/Thunderchild/Alita, etc. line of ships, which I do love from an aesthetics standpoint.

    But, to each their own.
    -AoP- Warrior's Blood (KDF Armada) / -AoP- Qu' raD qulbo'Degh / -AoP- Project Phoenix
    Join Date: Tuesday, February 2, 2010
  • sanatobasanatoba Member Posts: 142 Arc User
    edited January 2020
    You know, I wasn't very fond of this ship design at first, because it is just too different from what you would normally expect for ships in Star Trek. But the more I look at it, the more I am growing to like it. The design would look right at home in a number of other scifi universes. Still will probably look better with a darker or more Klingon style hull material though. Maybe I can find some uses for the ship itself after all, not just the console and trait.

    And where did the nickname toilet brush ships come from for the Dewan ships? It is a huge insult to the developers who spent long hours designing them. Maybe the reason they haven't been making very many more Romulan ships for the game is because of the overly negative response and horrible nicknames people have thrown around on the forums about the Dewan ships. Perhaps they had wanted to start taking Romulan ship designs in a more Dewan style direction (which may have actually looked really cool if done right), but don't dare now until they change their design plans. Just a thought.

    I always thought the the Dewan ship designs looked more like fish and/or shrimp. And for an alien designed ship that would be just fine. I never thought they were truly ugly, just too different a design for my tastes (the Breen ships qualify under this for me as well, but I got all of them for free, so I use them anyway).

    Back to this ship, thank you Cryptic for another free anniversary ship this year (which you don't have to do, but do anyway), and for all you have done with this game over the years, trying to make it more enjoyable for all of us. I may still not be happy with you for letting go of the Foundary and the random cluster exploration missions (and a few other minor things), but there are many other thing you have done that have improved the game in my eyes. Plus, you took over and created this game in the first place, after the former company failed. Where would we be without Star Trek Online? Again, thank you.
    Been Playing STO as much as I can for 11+ Years!

    "Never Surrender! Never give up Hope!"
    "Prosperity and Success in everything you do."
    "To Boldly go.........well punch it already!"
    "To Be or Not To Be"....Alas, the Foundry is Not To Be. We Shall miss Thee, dear Friend!
    "Does anyone remember when we used to be explorers?"- Captain Jean-Luc Picard
    Thank You, Cryptic......even when I don't agree with all your decisions....Thank You for Star Trek Online!
  • robert#4620 robert Member Posts: 118 Arc User
    I like it. I look forward to have this ship be the main ship for my Discovery Faction.
  • spacecatz#6038 spacecatz Member Posts: 68 Arc User
    what they didn't mention is that it follows discovery designs, I think they should've followed the designs from the games own timeline
  • seaofsorrowsseaofsorrows Member Posts: 10,742 Arc User
    what they didn't mention is that it follows discovery designs

    It isn't mentioned because it isn't true.
    animated.gif
    Discovery is good, it's you that sucks.
  • strathkinstrathkin Member Posts: 2,350 Bug Hunter
    edited January 2020
    Parts of it are very nice looking, and other parts are hideous ... sounds about right for a Federation + Klingon hybrid ship, lol. At least this will give me a decent looking ship to fly with a klingon character.

    When I started a thread about the 10th Anniversary ship I had hoped maybe we'd see the first of a mergering of ship building across the alliance. The dyson T5 ships were really the first 'partial' merging of design principles, and they used a more common material type, with options then more specific to their own Navy.

    I remember commenting yesterday to a friend, like yourself parts of the ship in fact look very good! <3

    The Saucer is very Federation looking, and while I very much love the hull behind it, I was quite surprised by the larger fully round saucer section. I thought they'd use a more Dyson or new style material, in addition to various materials across various Navy's.
    lordmerc22 wrote: »
    It looks like a KDF Qib, with Fed Saucer, Fed Painting and Fed colors on all light sources including the Nascelles. I think due to the aerodynamic design of KDF ship bodies a more pointy saucer like voyagers would had fit better. It will take a bit to get used to but overall, it does look fairly good

    I'd very much agree with your statement here! The saucer on that beautiful Hull just looks a 'bit' out-of-place, then again it's not designed to look typical. I know the nacelles were quite wide, and placed largely below the center of mass; yet warp travel isn't propulsion or pushing the center of mass! It is simply bending space/time to rapidly expand the area behind it, while contracting that in front of the warp bubble.

    Still mostly overall happy about this, just wished they took more inspiration from the T5 Dyson Ships, as they first tried to incorporate joint design 'from Iconian technologies' learning some common principles. o:)
    Post edited by strathkin on
    Sa328Qp.png
  • foxrockssocksfoxrockssocks Member Posts: 2,461 Arc User
    Statwise this looks like a slightly better Europa so that isn't really saying a lot. The trait seems interesting, but the details matter. I still don't understand the point of 5/3 ships with such poor turn rate. Klingon BCs typically have better turn rates that let them actually use their DHCs with some effort. This isn't one of those ships.

    With all the buffs available now, turn rate hardly matters anymore for using DHC's. I honestly care more about the Inertia Rating for cannons then I do turn rate, and a 5/3 with a 40 inertia makes this ship very usable for DHC. I would actually prefer it statistically over the Europa which also (in my opinion) isn't a bad ship.

    Looks wise.. well, no point arguing there because it's all subjective and personal. But stat wise, while this ship won't be the 'top dog' in the game.. it's certainly not bad. It supports a wide variety of builds and is actually quite versatile.


    I don't quite agree with your point on turn rate. Anything you do to improve it is something taken away from something else, so it is a big opportunity cost issue to make this or the Europa work.

    Many other ships are better suited to being DHC cruisers as well, from the old Arbiter/Kurak, to the Scimitars, and even 4/4 ships like the Vor'ral, command battle cruisers, or even a Yamato, I think I'd rather run over this one as DHC ships. And why? Those ships either have higher base turn rate or console sets that significantly improve turn rate that can be used in addition to whatever you'd already be using on this ship to fix its turn rate.

    Yeah its free. If that is someone's only option then I understand that. I'd like to find a niche for it though, and I don't see one that isn't filled better by other ships.
  • keppabar42keppabar42 Member Posts: 60 Arc User
    edited January 2020
    I think the trait looks like it should be useful, so it'll at least be worth getting for that.
    As others have said it would have worked better with a more tapered ovoid saucer. Specifically, an intrepid style saucer would have worked well as it could have been made to taper seamlessly into the neck. I hope that future hybrid designs of this sort look a little more integrated and less like a cut and shut.
    Still, At least be thankful they didn't do it the other way around and put a Klingon fore-hull onto a federation engineering hull!
  • questeriusquesterius Member Posts: 7,716 Arc User
    keppabar42 wrote: »
    Still, At least be thankful they didn't do it the other way around and put a Klingon fore-hull onto a federation engineering hull!

    Gotta be grateful for small blessings.
    I doubt the discussion on the visuals will end soon. Personally i am quite interested to see which customization options there are. E.g. if the nacelles can be made to face upwards the design looks IMO a lot better.

    The design looks like the front end is far heavier than the rear section with all the drawbacks which go with that.
    Let's wait and see.

    This program, though reasonably normal at times, seems to have a strong affinity to classes belonging to the Cat 2.0 program. Questerius 2.7 will break down on occasion, resulting in garbage and nonsense messages whenever it occurs. Usually a hard reboot or pulling the plug solves the problem when that happens.
  • kronin#4685 kronin Member Posts: 325 Arc User
    claudiusdk wrote: »
    So what are the other ships we are getting? ;)
    LicpEIT.jpg
    This. I wasn't waiting for the KAB. The Ross looks as good as any other Galaxy (to me), but if the stats are better, especially that turn rate, then the Ross may qualify as something I've been waiting for. I know, the game doesn't revolve around me, but no one else asked for these ships, either. So, what else are we getting? Something the community asked for? The fact that this is the ten year anniversary and the hype from the blog about the new alliance and the pic above really seemed to indicate we were getting something far grander. I didn't expect to get ten free T6 ships. More than one would've been cool, or even some lower tier ones for admiralty. At this point, I hope there will at least be something interesting going into the Z-store. If it weren't for the hype, then I would've said "cool, thanks for the free ship". I will also concede that the event hasn't started yet, so, hopefully a good surprise or two await.
  • phoenixc#0738 phoenixc Member Posts: 3,884 Arc User
    keppabar42 wrote: »
    I think the trait looks like it should be useful, so it'll at least be worth getting for that.
    As others have said it would have worked better with a more tapered ovoid saucer. Specifically, an intrepid style saucer would have worked well as it could have been made to taper seamlessly into the neck. I hope that future hybrid designs of this sort look a little more integrated and less like a cut and shut.
    Still, At least be thankful they didn't do it the other way around and put a Klingon fore-hull onto a federation engineering hull!

    They may have stayed away from ovoid saucers to avoid it looking like a Romulan Sparrowhawk variant from Star Fleet Battles.
    On the other hand, they could have turned the ovoid sideways like a Galaxy-class saucer, but if they made the ovoid too narrow it would loose all resemblance to Federation ships (except for the nacelles) and just look like a Klingon hammerhead-style command pod.

    I am not really fond of the simple dome-shape of the saucer top, I know it is similar to the Galaxy one but rounded out more (both in length and height) but it has none of the grace of the TOS saucer with its golden-spiral curves and while it looks cool from the front it reminds me more of Mass Effect than Star Trek. The fact that it is round when seen from the top is good though, and the ship looks good overall.

  • captainbrian11captainbrian11 Member Posts: 588 Arc User
    what they didn't mention is that it follows discovery designs

    It isn't mentioned because it isn't true.

    I mean in fairness when I first saw discovery literally the first thing I said was "it looks like a klingon battle cruiser with a saucer attached" so I can see why someone might say it has a discovery look to it, but it's really more of a coincidance"
  • keppabar42keppabar42 Member Posts: 60 Arc User
    edited January 2020
    I've been playing a bit of TABS lately, I'm planning on naming my BC the Fan Bearer because that's what it reminds me of most atm! LOL
    It just occured to me that another reason they didn't want to do an ovoid saucer on this ship was to prevent it looking like USS Yeager v2.0
    Post edited by keppabar42 on
  • phoenixc#0738 phoenixc Member Posts: 3,884 Arc User
    A Yeager-class would have been a good one to do (perhaps as one of the other ships mentioned in the graphic) though it might be too difficult to get the polys down to a reasonable level since it is a rather complex ship.

    I don't see how Khitomer would look like one even with an elongated saucer though since the "spine" of the Khitomer is flat horizontal while the Yeager's is tilted at an angle like a number of the flattened 'S' Sternbach ships. I guess if you look at it as a generic "two different ships slapped together" idea it could, though design wise they are totally different. If you pull the option pallets off the Sparrowhawk, remove the dorsal nacelle, and elongate and tilt the struts of the lower two outward a bit the Khitomer would be somewhat more reminiscent of that modified Sparrowhawk than the Yeager.
  • zedbrightlander1zedbrightlander1 Member Posts: 14,501 Arc User
    WOW! I am so off my game that completely forgot to post the obligatory $FREE$ Anniversary ship clip...

    f5cc65bc8f3b91f963e328314df7c48d.jpg
    Sig? What sig? I don't see any sig.
  • gaevsmangaevsman Member Posts: 3,097 Arc User
    A Yeager-class would have been a good one to do (perhaps as one of the other ships mentioned in the graphic) though it might be too difficult to get the polys down to a reasonable level since it is a rather complex ship.

    I don't see how Khitomer would look like one even with an elongated saucer though since the "spine" of the Khitomer is flat horizontal while the Yeager's is tilted at an angle like a number of the flattened 'S' Sternbach ships. I guess if you look at it as a generic "two different ships slapped together" idea it could, though design wise they are totally different. If you pull the option pallets off the Sparrowhawk, remove the dorsal nacelle, and elongate and tilt the struts of the lower two outward a bit the Khitomer would be somewhat more reminiscent of that modified Sparrowhawk than the Yeager.

    If it was the Yeager, it would be the first ship to let it pass... that kitbash is so.... urgh!... also is the least inspired kitbash i have seen.... Intrepid saucer glued to a Maquis raider... wow!, if i do something like that in my work, i would get fired... :lol:
    The forces of darkness are upon us!
  • phoenixc#0738 phoenixc Member Posts: 3,884 Arc User
    edited January 2020
    gaevsman wrote: »
    A Yeager-class would have been a good one to do (perhaps as one of the other ships mentioned in the graphic) though it might be too difficult to get the polys down to a reasonable level since it is a rather complex ship.

    I don't see how Khitomer would look like one even with an elongated saucer though since the "spine" of the Khitomer is flat horizontal while the Yeager's is tilted at an angle like a number of the flattened 'S' Sternbach ships. I guess if you look at it as a generic "two different ships slapped together" idea it could, though design wise they are totally different. If you pull the option pallets off the Sparrowhawk, remove the dorsal nacelle, and elongate and tilt the struts of the lower two outward a bit the Khitomer would be somewhat more reminiscent of that modified Sparrowhawk than the Yeager.

    If it was the Yeager, it would be the first ship to let it pass... that kitbash is so.... urgh!... also is the least inspired kitbash i have seen.... Intrepid saucer glued to a Maquis raider... wow!, if i do something like that in my work, i would get fired... :lol:

    It is a matter of taste, you don't like the looks of the ship but some others (me included) do.

    Whatever the hull is that was used as the secondary hull in the Yeager kitbash isn't the raider (which was made from a small courier), it is at least twice the length of the typical raider seen in DS9 assuming the saucer and nacelles are not considerably smaller than those of the Intrepid-class. It could possibly be the similar looking Ju'day-class like Chakotay's ship (which, going by the 37 named crewmembers in various VOY episodes and the percentage of casualties mentioned in the pilot episode puts the crew complement at around fifty, which is about right for a large frigate or small destroyer, or it could very easily be a civilian freighter or some other type of ship that shares the same look (like the many sizes of BoP-style ships the Klingons field).

    And the whole point of the kitbash ships is that they were slapped together from whatever they could scrape together in a hurry, similar to what the US did in WWII, taking half-built freighters, liners, yachts, and whatnot and finishing them as warships. It makes even more sense with the on-the-fly automated constructions techniques the Federation uses which would make connecting everything up between the hulls a snap.

    In the case of the Intrepid class, which has a very advanced, intricate, and therefore probably slower to build propulsion system it is probably even a big time (and cost) savings to slap the nacelles on a simpler fixed geometry engine system (perhaps even one already installed in the ship that was pressed into becoming the secondary hull) which trades the stock Intrepid's enhanced performance for quick building. And the design must have been at least moderately successful, shots of DS9 would sometimes show two of the things prowling around in the background (and yes, the real world explanation was probably sloppy compositing work, but it still showed two of them a time or two).
Sign In or Register to comment.