Parliament Class coming to STO

1235

Comments

  • livinlifejb90#4082
    livinlifejb90#4082 Member Posts: 218 Arc User
    rattler2 wrote: »
    Ok... Som and everyone arguing with Som... please just let it go. Its going nowhere.

    As you can see from his posts after yours, he doesn't care what you or any other mod says. He is never going to "stop" or "let it go". Unless you actually do something every other post on this forum will always be Som screaming at the wind disagreeing with everyone who has any criticism of this game. We've reached the point of "put up, or shut up". Either do something, or don't bother telling him to "stop". He won't listen.

    oh please, as if the mods here are impartial and capable of enforcing the rules equally lmfao.
    gQytlm7.jpg
  • miqe#7825
    miqe#7825 Member Posts: 3 Arc User
    Yeah, that honestly makes no sense to me why things that are literally the same age as the game are still the same price they were back then - physical things depreciate in value as they age - a thing being digital is no excuse to not follow that same practice.​​
    Sure it is.

    Digital items don't decay in the first place, and attempts to add decay to digital items, like digital books you can only read 20 items before you have to buy it again, have been met with STIFF resistance, and large scale internet rioting, by people.

    They do depreciate in value, as newer more powerful ships are released making the older ones less worth the price they had when the old ships were the most powerful ships.

  • joshmaul
    joshmaul Member Posts: 516 Arc User
    Yep, the Enterprise MACO, TWoK Excursion, TWoK era Engineer vest, and TWoK era Captain's vest uniforms were all initially in the dilithium store for 1-2 MILLION dilithium depending on the uniform (MACO was the most expensive). The pricing was laughably bad, to this day I have no idea what the hell they were thinking when they chose those numbers.

    And then the TWoK goods (along with the TWoK phaser pistol) got added as an account-unlock to the New Genesis bundle.
    TW1sr57.jpg
    "There's No Way Like Poway!"

    Real Join Date: October 2010
  • skepicool
    skepicool Member Posts: 19 Arc User
    edited September 2021
    They really need to change the stats on Parliament Class they are just plain underpowered for a lockbox ship end of story. I'm not going to get into it as how far as how bad they are but its just disappointing to say the least...

    On a lighter note the Class looks beautiful and the art team nocked it out of the park as far as the space barbie goes I would say!

    Its just sad that its such a weak "standard mastery package" 4/4 cruiser. The seating is bad, the sub-class is bad, its just plain bad, after more bad & energy builds are not even the overpowered meta!

    They coulda done Lower Decks better, a lot of people were really looking forward to this class as well. It coulda been an amazing seller for Cryptic, now its just a fast joke & skip past.

    I'm also now worried what they are going to do with the stats of the California Class when it comes out after seeing this.

    Why would Cryptic want to make a popular Class from a popular show a very weak lockbox starship?! FYI the lockbox is not a problem for me just to make that clear for the record, weak "newer" lockbox starships are a big problem for me...

    And sorry in advance, I don't want to just rip on Cryptic but I really needed to get this off my chest...
    Post edited by skepicool on
  • saurializard
    saurializard Member Posts: 4,228 Arc User
    joshmaul wrote: »
    Yep, the Enterprise MACO, TWoK Excursion, TWoK era Engineer vest, and TWoK era Captain's vest uniforms were all initially in the dilithium store for 1-2 MILLION dilithium depending on the uniform (MACO was the most expensive). The pricing was laughably bad, to this day I have no idea what the hell they were thinking when they chose those numbers.

    And then the TWoK goods (along with the TWoK phaser pistol) got added as an account-unlock to the New Genesis bundle.
    As they should have because the dil pricing was outright ridiculous since each was just ONE piece of clothing (the top) with only the MACO outfit having more. And the rigging is quite awful (all uniforms have this, but those are particularly noticeable because of the price) if you either use a stance other than the default one or your character doesn't have a flat bust.
    #TASforSTO
    Iconian_Trio_sign.jpg?raw=1
  • foxrockssocks
    foxrockssocks Member Posts: 2,479 Arc User
    Yeah, that honestly makes no sense to me why things that are literally the same age as the game are still the same price they were back then - physical things depreciate in value as they age - a thing being digital is no excuse to not follow that same practice.​​
    Sure it is.

    Digital items don't decay in the first place, and attempts to add decay to digital items, like digital books you can only read 20 items before you have to buy it again, have been met with STIFF resistance, and large scale internet rioting, by people.

    People have made it clear that they don't want, or consider, digital items to decay. So there should be neither actual decay of the item itself, and thus, no equal decay on its price.

    The word used is depreciation. Arguing against decay is a textbook definition of strawman argument.

    The fact is T5s are not the same value as they were prior to T6 ships. That value has sunk even lower since then due to all the free T6s that have been offered over the years, even the bundle deals that include various T5s, or the console they offer. T5 ships have no business being the same price as they were ten years ago.

    Further, you can end up spending more money on a T5 versus a T6 for less benefit! All those suckers who bought the T5 Intrepid, then T5U upgrades for it once Delta Rising happened, only to have the Pathfinder come out shortly after, yeah they got royally screwed by Cryptic. They spent more on the T5 Intrepid and could have just waited a few months to get the Pathfinder cheaper.
  • chastity1337
    chastity1337 Member Posts: 1,564 Arc User
    Yeah, that honestly makes no sense to me why things that are literally the same age as the game are still the same price they were back then - physical things depreciate in value as they age - a thing being digital is no excuse to not follow that same practice.​​
    Sure it is.

    Digital items don't decay in the first place, and attempts to add decay to digital items, like digital books you can only read 20 items before you have to buy it again, have been met with STIFF resistance, and large scale internet rioting, by people.

    People have made it clear that they don't want, or consider, digital items to decay. So there should be neither actual decay of the item itself, and thus, no equal decay on its price.

    The word used is depreciation. Arguing against decay is a textbook definition of strawman argument.

    The fact is T5s are not the same value as they were prior to T6 ships. That value has sunk even lower since then due to all the free T6s that have been offered over the years, even the bundle deals that include various T5s, or the console they offer. T5 ships have no business being the same price as they were ten years ago.

    Further, you can end up spending more money on a T5 versus a T6 for less benefit! All those suckers who bought the T5 Intrepid, then T5U upgrades for it once Delta Rising happened, only to have the Pathfinder come out shortly after, yeah they got royally screwed by Cryptic. They spent more on the T5 Intrepid and could have just waited a few months to get the Pathfinder cheaper.

    Just playing Devil's Advocate here, I have a couple toons flying T5u-X Science Vessels, one a Vesta class and the other a Fleet Retro Olympic/Horizon class. Both of those romp and stomp. They are perhaps not quite the equal of a T-6X, but in functional terms there isn't a lot of difference that CLR can see.
  • kiralyn
    kiralyn Member Posts: 1,559 Arc User
    Also, some of those old ships, you're buying for the costume. Which maintains value, somewhat.
    (and they were even bought for the costume back when they were 'current' ships.)
  • reyan01
    reyan01 Member Posts: 15,510 Arc User
    Yeah, that honestly makes no sense to me why things that are literally the same age as the game are still the same price they were back then - physical things depreciate in value as they age - a thing being digital is no excuse to not follow that same practice.​​
    Sure it is.

    Digital items don't decay in the first place, and attempts to add decay to digital items, like digital books you can only read 20 items before you have to buy it again, have been met with STIFF resistance, and large scale internet rioting, by people.

    People have made it clear that they don't want, or consider, digital items to decay. So there should be neither actual decay of the item itself, and thus, no equal decay on its price.

    The word used is depreciation. Arguing against decay is a textbook definition of strawman argument.

    The fact is T5s are not the same value as they were prior to T6 ships. That value has sunk even lower since then due to all the free T6s that have been offered over the years, even the bundle deals that include various T5s, or the console they offer. T5 ships have no business being the same price as they were ten years ago.

    Further, you can end up spending more money on a T5 versus a T6 for less benefit! All those suckers who bought the T5 Intrepid, then T5U upgrades for it once Delta Rising happened, only to have the Pathfinder come out shortly after, yeah they got royally screwed by Cryptic. They spent more on the T5 Intrepid and could have just waited a few months to get the Pathfinder cheaper.

    Just playing Devil's Advocate here, I have a couple toons flying T5u-X Science Vessels, one a Vesta class and the other a Fleet Retro Olympic/Horizon class. Both of those romp and stomp. They are perhaps not quite the equal of a T-6X, but in functional terms there isn't a lot of difference that CLR can see.

    This.

    As many will know, my main ship on my main/oldest character is a FT5 Rhode Island. Granted it's actually a FT5U-X now, but nonetheless, I can still hold my own perfectly well in that little ship.
  • reyan01
    reyan01 Member Posts: 15,510 Arc User
    edited September 2021
    skepicool wrote: »
    They really need to change the stats on Parliament Class they are just plain underpowered for a lockbox ship end of story. I'm not going to get into it as how far as how bad they are but its just disappointing to say the least... .

    Whilst I don't disagree per-se, we shouldn't really be that surprised really - not after Borticus said this:


    Besides, the class is described, in 'Cupid's Errant Arrow' as "designed to engage in large, complex engineering projects".
    So unfortunately, there is some basis in canon for it not to be a particularly tactical-focused class of Starship.
  • foxrockssocks
    foxrockssocks Member Posts: 2,479 Arc User
    edited September 2021
    Yeah, that honestly makes no sense to me why things that are literally the same age as the game are still the same price they were back then - physical things depreciate in value as they age - a thing being digital is no excuse to not follow that same practice.​​
    Sure it is.

    Digital items don't decay in the first place, and attempts to add decay to digital items, like digital books you can only read 20 items before you have to buy it again, have been met with STIFF resistance, and large scale internet rioting, by people.

    People have made it clear that they don't want, or consider, digital items to decay. So there should be neither actual decay of the item itself, and thus, no equal decay on its price.

    The word used is depreciation. Arguing against decay is a textbook definition of strawman argument.

    The fact is T5s are not the same value as they were prior to T6 ships. That value has sunk even lower since then due to all the free T6s that have been offered over the years, even the bundle deals that include various T5s, or the console they offer. T5 ships have no business being the same price as they were ten years ago.

    Further, you can end up spending more money on a T5 versus a T6 for less benefit! All those suckers who bought the T5 Intrepid, then T5U upgrades for it once Delta Rising happened, only to have the Pathfinder come out shortly after, yeah they got royally screwed by Cryptic. They spent more on the T5 Intrepid and could have just waited a few months to get the Pathfinder cheaper.

    Just playing Devil's Advocate here, I have a couple toons flying T5u-X Science Vessels, one a Vesta class and the other a Fleet Retro Olympic/Horizon class. Both of those romp and stomp. They are perhaps not quite the equal of a T-6X, but in functional terms there isn't a lot of difference that CLR can see.

    I don't disagree that T5UX can be quite viable, and never claimed they weren't, but it is in the same way a used 2008 Toyota can be quite viable. That's totally fine. But you shouldn't be paying the same $15K for that Toyota when it was priced as a new car in 2008 either.

    T5U ships actually lack capabilities that T6 have with the extra BOFF power, and to get the same consoles and scaling it costs more because of the overpriced T5U tokens. It should be noticeably less for the total package, versus a T6 so that they are budget options. 2k total zen for a T5U ship would be more reasonable, not 3200 that it is now.
  • skepicool
    skepicool Member Posts: 19 Arc User
    reyan01 wrote: »
    skepicool wrote: »
    They really need to change the stats on Parliament Class they are just plain underpowered for a lockbox ship end of story. I'm not going to get into it as how far as how bad they are but its just disappointing to say the least... .

    Whilst I don't disagree per-se, we shouldn't really be that surprised really - not after Borticus said this:


    Besides, the class is described, in 'Cupid's Errant Arrow' as "designed to engage in large, complex engineering projects".
    So unfortunately, there is some basis in canon for it not to be a particularly tactical-focused class of Starship.

    The Class could and should of been engineering & tactical focused. Drop the sci & bring up the tac... They also talk about the ship traveling to the past in "1920s Chicago" so its clearly a "hero ship". They shoulda done this Class better. I also remind you its in lockbox, & thats fine but it should have lockbox stats...
  • skepicool
    skepicool Member Posts: 19 Arc User
    edited September 2021
    skepicool wrote: »
    They also talk about the ship traveling to the past in "1920s Chicago" so its clearly a "hero ship".
    Time travel is not limited to just hero ships.

    The beginning of the TOS episode "Assignment Earth" suggests that the Federation sending ships back in time to observe the past is routine.

    I have seen every episode & movie of Star Trek more then once, thank you.

    You're also deflecting the conversation, so back on topic this is one of the worst tier 6 starships they have ever made, it under performs in all the stats that count for a cruiser. It has 2 tac cons, it would only have beam overload II or fire at will II... so its very weak at dps, tanking it would also be weak as well.

    They also talk about in the episode how advanced it was for its time.

    Now STO does more of a appreciation of the time line, so you can play TOS next to 32c ships & they are about the same. What they did with this Class is just plain bad. Its also in a lockbox so it should have that level of performance.
  • skepicool
    skepicool Member Posts: 19 Arc User
    edited September 2021
    You could try to make a sci build on it, but with no secondary deflector it would be weak as well...

    If Cryptic wants to make this a meme lockbox starship then "make it so."
    Post edited by skepicool on
  • phoenixc#0738
    phoenixc#0738 Member Posts: 4,185 Arc User
    The thing is, the Parliament class is not a warship, it is a utility ship like the California class. And as a utility ship it is rather advanced, according to dialog it could do a lot of things the less advanced California class could not. It was meant to do a lot of things adequately, not specialized for combat (which in a game that is so combat oriented could be a problem, but it is realistic).
  • doctorstegi
    doctorstegi Member Posts: 925 Arc User
    The visual is great of the ship I like it. What I don't like is the medioca bridge officers stations. The ship is Zen Store non Legendary Quality at best. There is nothing what really justify it to be a lock box ship.
    C-Store Inc. is still looking for active members on the fed side. If you don't have a fleet feel free to contact me in game @stegi.
  • reyan01
    reyan01 Member Posts: 15,510 Arc User
    edited September 2021
    skepicool wrote: »
    skepicool wrote: »
    They also talk about the ship traveling to the past in "1920s Chicago" so its clearly a "hero ship".
    Time travel is not limited to just hero ships.

    The beginning of the TOS episode "Assignment Earth" suggests that the Federation sending ships back in time to observe the past is routine.

    I have seen every episode & movie of Star Trek more then once, thank you.

    You're also deflecting the conversation, so back on topic this is one of the worst tier 6 starships they have ever made, it under performs in all the stats that count for a cruiser. It has 2 tac cons, it would only have beam overload II or fire at will II... so its very weak at dps, tanking it would also be weak as well.

    They also talk about in the episode how advanced it was for its time.

    Now STO does more of a appreciation of the time line, so you can play TOS next to 32c ships & they are about the same. What they did with this Class is just plain bad. Its also in a lockbox so it should have that level of performance.

    I'm not sure I quite understand this idea where a ship is defined by how many tactical console slots it has - at least, not anymore. Not with the plethora of Universal consoles we have access to. Okay, so this ship has give Eng console slots? Fine - put the Domino, Priors World Elite Defense Satellite, Bioneural Infusion Circuits and whatever other universal consoles your can think of that improve tactical performance either directly or passively. There is NO lack of them.

    And lets keep in mind, whilst it only has two tactical console slots, it gets a universal console slot due to being a Miracle worker ship. And apply an X-upgrade (several of which have been given away for free) and it'd have two universal console slots. That gives the oportunity to apply four tactical consoles to the ship.
  • skepicool
    skepicool Member Posts: 19 Arc User
    reyan01 wrote: »
    skepicool wrote: »
    skepicool wrote: »
    They also talk about the ship traveling to the past in "1920s Chicago" so its clearly a "hero ship".
    Time travel is not limited to just hero ships.

    The beginning of the TOS episode "Assignment Earth" suggests that the Federation sending ships back in time to observe the past is routine.

    I have seen every episode & movie of Star Trek more then once, thank you.

    You're also deflecting the conversation, so back on topic this is one of the worst tier 6 starships they have ever made, it under performs in all the stats that count for a cruiser. It has 2 tac cons, it would only have beam overload II or fire at will II... so its very weak at dps, tanking it would also be weak as well.

    They also talk about in the episode how advanced it was for its time.

    Now STO does more of a appreciation of the time line, so you can play TOS next to 32c ships & they are about the same. What they did with this Class is just plain bad. Its also in a lockbox so it should have that level of performance.

    I'm not sure I quite understand this idea where a ship is defined by how many tactical console slots it has - at least, not anymore. Not with the plethora of Universal consoles we have access to. Okay, so this ship has give Eng console slots? Fine - put the Domino, Priors World Elite Defense Satellite, Bioneural Infusion Circuits and whatever other universal consoles your can think of that improve tactical performance either directly or passively. There is NO lack of them.

    And lets keep in mind, whilst it only has two tactical console slots, it gets a universal console slot due to being a Miracle worker ship. And apply an X-upgrade (several of which have been given away for free) and it'd have two universal console slots. That gives the oportunity to apply four tactical consoles to the ship.

    Yes with a MW commander & a X-upgrade it can have 4 tac cons, but with only a Lt Tac seat it will only have beam overload II or beam fire at will II. Thats really bad for dps or tank players.

    It should be a battle cruiser with the better mastery packge & should be topping out with about 6 maybe 5 tac cons after a MW & X-upgrade in mind. Energy builds need the support, keep inmind this is still just a 4/4 weapon layout. Overload III or fire at will III are also a must have for a lockbox. The hull, the shields etc are fine, but the ship is just gimp, there is no way around it. Can you play the game with it? Yes, but why would you want to when its so weak...
  • skepicool
    skepicool Member Posts: 19 Arc User
    A bad platform is a bad platform... It doesn't have to be the best in the game breaking the meta or anything "but it should at least be able to defend it self well"...
  • reyan01
    reyan01 Member Posts: 15,510 Arc User
    skepicool wrote: »
    reyan01 wrote: »
    skepicool wrote: »
    skepicool wrote: »
    They also talk about the ship traveling to the past in "1920s Chicago" so its clearly a "hero ship".
    Time travel is not limited to just hero ships.

    The beginning of the TOS episode "Assignment Earth" suggests that the Federation sending ships back in time to observe the past is routine.

    I have seen every episode & movie of Star Trek more then once, thank you.

    You're also deflecting the conversation, so back on topic this is one of the worst tier 6 starships they have ever made, it under performs in all the stats that count for a cruiser. It has 2 tac cons, it would only have beam overload II or fire at will II... so its very weak at dps, tanking it would also be weak as well.

    They also talk about in the episode how advanced it was for its time.

    Now STO does more of a appreciation of the time line, so you can play TOS next to 32c ships & they are about the same. What they did with this Class is just plain bad. Its also in a lockbox so it should have that level of performance.

    I'm not sure I quite understand this idea where a ship is defined by how many tactical console slots it has - at least, not anymore. Not with the plethora of Universal consoles we have access to. Okay, so this ship has give Eng console slots? Fine - put the Domino, Priors World Elite Defense Satellite, Bioneural Infusion Circuits and whatever other universal consoles your can think of that improve tactical performance either directly or passively. There is NO lack of them.

    And lets keep in mind, whilst it only has two tactical console slots, it gets a universal console slot due to being a Miracle worker ship. And apply an X-upgrade (several of which have been given away for free) and it'd have two universal console slots. That gives the oportunity to apply four tactical consoles to the ship.

    Yes with a MW commander & a X-upgrade it can have 4 tac cons, but with only a Lt Tac seat it will only have beam overload II or beam fire at will II. Thats really bad for dps or tank players.

    It should be a battle cruiser with the better mastery packge & should be topping out with about 6 maybe 5 tac cons after a MW & X-upgrade in mind. Energy builds need the support, keep inmind this is still just a 4/4 weapon layout. Overload III or fire at will III are also a must have for a lockbox. The hull, the shields etc are fine, but the ship is just gimp, there is no way around it. Can you play the game with it? Yes, but why would you want to when its so weak...

    Why does it "need" to be a battle cruiser? The canon ship it was based on was nothing of the sort?

    I, sorta, agree with Borticus here - why does every cruiser in STO HAVE to be a 5/6 Tactical console powerhouse? So far a canon is concerned the Parliament class wasn't a Battlecruiser - it was "designed to engage in large, complex engineering projects".
  • skepicool
    skepicool Member Posts: 19 Arc User
    reyan01 wrote: »
    skepicool wrote: »
    reyan01 wrote: »
    skepicool wrote: »
    skepicool wrote: »
    They also talk about the ship traveling to the past in "1920s Chicago" so its clearly a "hero ship".
    Time travel is not limited to just hero ships.

    The beginning of the TOS episode "Assignment Earth" suggests that the Federation sending ships back in time to observe the past is routine.

    I have seen every episode & movie of Star Trek more then once, thank you.

    You're also deflecting the conversation, so back on topic this is one of the worst tier 6 starships they have ever made, it under performs in all the stats that count for a cruiser. It has 2 tac cons, it would only have beam overload II or fire at will II... so its very weak at dps, tanking it would also be weak as well.

    They also talk about in the episode how advanced it was for its time.

    Now STO does more of a appreciation of the time line, so you can play TOS next to 32c ships & they are about the same. What they did with this Class is just plain bad. Its also in a lockbox so it should have that level of performance.

    I'm not sure I quite understand this idea where a ship is defined by how many tactical console slots it has - at least, not anymore. Not with the plethora of Universal consoles we have access to. Okay, so this ship has give Eng console slots? Fine - put the Domino, Priors World Elite Defense Satellite, Bioneural Infusion Circuits and whatever other universal consoles your can think of that improve tactical performance either directly or passively. There is NO lack of them.

    And lets keep in mind, whilst it only has two tactical console slots, it gets a universal console slot due to being a Miracle worker ship. And apply an X-upgrade (several of which have been given away for free) and it'd have two universal console slots. That gives the oportunity to apply four tactical consoles to the ship.

    Yes with a MW commander & a X-upgrade it can have 4 tac cons, but with only a Lt Tac seat it will only have beam overload II or beam fire at will II. Thats really bad for dps or tank players.

    It should be a battle cruiser with the better mastery packge & should be topping out with about 6 maybe 5 tac cons after a MW & X-upgrade in mind. Energy builds need the support, keep inmind this is still just a 4/4 weapon layout. Overload III or fire at will III are also a must have for a lockbox. The hull, the shields etc are fine, but the ship is just gimp, there is no way around it. Can you play the game with it? Yes, but why would you want to when its so weak...

    Why does it "need" to be a battle cruiser? The canon ship it was based on was nothing of the sort?

    I, sorta, agree with Borticus here - why does every cruiser in STO HAVE to be a 5/6 Tactical console powerhouse? So far a canon is concerned the Parliament class wasn't a Battlecruiser - it was "designed to engage in large, complex engineering projects".

    Because if I am going to pay money for a ship I want to fly in something that is at least respectable. This is the worst starship put in a lockbox in years. Its one of the worst T6 ships in the game being frank about it. Its a shame because its also one coolest looking that we have been waiting a year for...
  • nommo#5819
    nommo#5819 Member Posts: 1,105 Arc User
    reyan01 wrote: »
    skepicool wrote: »
    reyan01 wrote: »
    skepicool wrote: »
    skepicool wrote: »
    They also talk about the ship traveling to the past in "1920s Chicago" so its clearly a "hero ship".
    Time travel is not limited to just hero ships.

    The beginning of the TOS episode "Assignment Earth" suggests that the Federation sending ships back in time to observe the past is routine.

    I have seen every episode & movie of Star Trek more then once, thank you.

    You're also deflecting the conversation, so back on topic this is one of the worst tier 6 starships they have ever made, it under performs in all the stats that count for a cruiser. It has 2 tac cons, it would only have beam overload II or fire at will II... so its very weak at dps, tanking it would also be weak as well.

    They also talk about in the episode how advanced it was for its time.

    Now STO does more of a appreciation of the time line, so you can play TOS next to 32c ships & they are about the same. What they did with this Class is just plain bad. Its also in a lockbox so it should have that level of performance.

    I'm not sure I quite understand this idea where a ship is defined by how many tactical console slots it has - at least, not anymore. Not with the plethora of Universal consoles we have access to. Okay, so this ship has give Eng console slots? Fine - put the Domino, Priors World Elite Defense Satellite, Bioneural Infusion Circuits and whatever other universal consoles your can think of that improve tactical performance either directly or passively. There is NO lack of them.

    And lets keep in mind, whilst it only has two tactical console slots, it gets a universal console slot due to being a Miracle worker ship. And apply an X-upgrade (several of which have been given away for free) and it'd have two universal console slots. That gives the oportunity to apply four tactical consoles to the ship.

    Yes with a MW commander & a X-upgrade it can have 4 tac cons, but with only a Lt Tac seat it will only have beam overload II or beam fire at will II. Thats really bad for dps or tank players.

    It should be a battle cruiser with the better mastery packge & should be topping out with about 6 maybe 5 tac cons after a MW & X-upgrade in mind. Energy builds need the support, keep inmind this is still just a 4/4 weapon layout. Overload III or fire at will III are also a must have for a lockbox. The hull, the shields etc are fine, but the ship is just gimp, there is no way around it. Can you play the game with it? Yes, but why would you want to when its so weak...

    Why does it "need" to be a battle cruiser? The canon ship it was based on was nothing of the sort?

    I, sorta, agree with Borticus here - why does every cruiser in STO HAVE to be a 5/6 Tactical console powerhouse? So far a canon is concerned the Parliament class wasn't a Battlecruiser - it was "designed to engage in large, complex engineering projects".

    I agree with that idea that not every ship should be tactical pew pew pew focused too, but the other side of the coin which imo Cryptic has been recently spitting on is calling something a "multi-mission" or "warship" or "battlecruiser" then not following up with the normal fittings of weapons, consoles, & stats for that ship's classification.

    Cryptic classified the Parliament as a Miracle Worker Surveyor cruiser & imo did the stats & fittings really well. I'm impressed with its look too. I'm just tired of the one right after the other big price & gamble ships with nothing else.
  • skepicool
    skepicool Member Posts: 19 Arc User
    reyan01 wrote: »
    skepicool wrote: »
    reyan01 wrote: »
    skepicool wrote: »
    skepicool wrote: »
    They also talk about the ship traveling to the past in "1920s Chicago" so its clearly a "hero ship".
    Time travel is not limited to just hero ships.

    The beginning of the TOS episode "Assignment Earth" suggests that the Federation sending ships back in time to observe the past is routine.

    I have seen every episode & movie of Star Trek more then once, thank you.

    You're also deflecting the conversation, so back on topic this is one of the worst tier 6 starships they have ever made, it under performs in all the stats that count for a cruiser. It has 2 tac cons, it would only have beam overload II or fire at will II... so its very weak at dps, tanking it would also be weak as well.

    They also talk about in the episode how advanced it was for its time.

    Now STO does more of a appreciation of the time line, so you can play TOS next to 32c ships & they are about the same. What they did with this Class is just plain bad. Its also in a lockbox so it should have that level of performance.

    I'm not sure I quite understand this idea where a ship is defined by how many tactical console slots it has - at least, not anymore. Not with the plethora of Universal consoles we have access to. Okay, so this ship has give Eng console slots? Fine - put the Domino, Priors World Elite Defense Satellite, Bioneural Infusion Circuits and whatever other universal consoles your can think of that improve tactical performance either directly or passively. There is NO lack of them.

    And lets keep in mind, whilst it only has two tactical console slots, it gets a universal console slot due to being a Miracle worker ship. And apply an X-upgrade (several of which have been given away for free) and it'd have two universal console slots. That gives the oportunity to apply four tactical consoles to the ship.

    Yes with a MW commander & a X-upgrade it can have 4 tac cons, but with only a Lt Tac seat it will only have beam overload II or beam fire at will II. Thats really bad for dps or tank players.

    It should be a battle cruiser with the better mastery packge & should be topping out with about 6 maybe 5 tac cons after a MW & X-upgrade in mind. Energy builds need the support, keep inmind this is still just a 4/4 weapon layout. Overload III or fire at will III are also a must have for a lockbox. The hull, the shields etc are fine, but the ship is just gimp, there is no way around it. Can you play the game with it? Yes, but why would you want to when its so weak...

    Why does it "need" to be a battle cruiser? The canon ship it was based on was nothing of the sort?

    I, sorta, agree with Borticus here - why does every cruiser in STO HAVE to be a 5/6 Tactical console powerhouse? So far a canon is concerned the Parliament class wasn't a Battlecruiser - it was "designed to engage in large, complex engineering projects".

    Because if I am going to spend money on a starship it should be at least respectable. Its the worst starship put in a lockbox ever. Being frank about it is one of the worst T6 starships in the game.

    And that is a shame considering we have been waiting a year for it to come into the game... Now its just a fast pass, because the stats are a meme. Most people that spend money don't want to fly meme starships!
  • evilmark444
    evilmark444 Member Posts: 6,762 Arc User
    reyan01 wrote: »
    So far a canon is concerned the Parliament class wasn't a Battlecruiser - it was "designed to engage in large, complex engineering projects".

    Ship layouts don't need to follow canon, it's a game and players want to have fun with the ships they love instead of being forced to use something else due to performance. Look at the NX, it's an ancient exploration ship that in canon only had what, three phase cannons and two torpedo tubes? Yet in STO it's a 5/2 escort with 5 tac consoles. If they REALLY stuck to canon for the Parliament and California they wouldn't be higher than T4 or T5, obviously players wouldn't be happy about that though.
    Lifetime Subscriber since Beta
    eaY7Xxu.png
  • skepicool
    skepicool Member Posts: 19 Arc User
    reyan01 wrote: »
    So far a canon is concerned the Parliament class wasn't a Battlecruiser - it was "designed to engage in large, complex engineering projects".

    Ship layouts don't need to follow canon, it's a game and players want to have fun with the ships they love instead of being forced to use something else due to performance. Look at the NX, it's an ancient exploration ship that in canon only had what, three phase cannons and two torpedo tubes? Yet in STO it's a 5/2 escort with 5 tac consoles. If they REALLY stuck to canon for the Parliament and California they wouldn't be higher than T4 or T5, obviously players wouldn't be happy about that though.

    And the "J" on your pic would be T11 orT12, 32c ships would be something like T20...

    There are T5s that are better then the Parliament, its bad if you know what you are really looking at....
  • skepicool
    skepicool Member Posts: 19 Arc User
    As interesting as this all has been I think I'm done here...
  • phoenixc#0738
    phoenixc#0738 Member Posts: 4,185 Arc User
    The Parliament does not excel in any one area, to make it work well probably takes making it a wide based blended threat using synergies and interactions in a different way than the usual, like a hybrid magicka/stamina character in ESO. If I could afford one I think it would be a very interesting puzzle to figure out and would probably get it for that tinkering (and it does look nice which helps too).
  • reyan01
    reyan01 Member Posts: 15,510 Arc User
    The Parliament does not excel in any one area, to make it work well probably takes making it a wide based blended threat using synergies and interactions in a different way than the usual, like a hybrid magicka/stamina character in ESO. If I could afford one I think it would be a very interesting puzzle to figure out and would probably get it for that tinkering (and it does look nice which helps too).

    To be fair, it'd be excellent Tank.

    If only tanks were relevant anymore.