test content
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc

At Last, the Eisenberg

fleetcaptain5#1134 fleetcaptain5 Member Posts: 5,051 Arc User
"This year’s Grand Prize for participating in the Event will be none other than one of the many unique and innovative Federation starship designs pulled across time from the distant future. But this time only, this Federation vessel is being made accessible to all captains, regardless of their original allegiance.

We’re thrilled to be offering all captains the opportunity to earn their way to flying their very own Eisenberg Star Cruiser [T6]."

https://www.arcgames.com/en/games/star-trek-online/news/detail/11503803-at-last,-the-eisenberg
Post edited by baddmoonrizin on

Comments

  • fleetcaptain5#1134 fleetcaptain5 Member Posts: 5,051 Arc User
    I'm not sure yet whether or not I like the ship. I'll have to see it in-game.

    It's nice though that they're giving everyone a chance to earn a 32nd century ship.
  • arabaturarabatur Member Posts: 410 Arc User
    A free ship is a free ship, but damn it's one ugly looking freebie.
    Definitely not an Arc User.
  • questeriusquesterius Member Posts: 8,485 Arc User
    To summarize what i have said about this ship so far:
    - The design is not my cup of tea.
    - The trait and console may be of use on my tanking characters. Shame they are based on shield power.
    - Not too worried about builds on this ship since i will most likely level it for its mastery and then dismiss it.

    I once skipped the event for an event ship (Risa party boat T5) because it had better stats than my beloved T5 ambassador, but in hindsight the card would have been useful.

    So I'll get the ship, but most likely bin it after leveling its mastery.
    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.
  • warmonger360warmonger360 Member Posts: 524 Arc User
    why oh why can't they stay with what's canon, and $7d isn't canon
    WE SURVIVE!

    aut vincere aut mori pro imperio
    either to conquer or to die for the Empire
  • edited December 2021
    This content has been removed.
  • jonsillsjonsills Member Posts: 10,460 Arc User
    why oh why can't they stay with what's canon, and $7d isn't canon
    The definition of Star Trek canon is "that which has been filmed, either for TV or movies." DSC is canon. You may not like it - I never watched most of VOY after the second season, because I couldn't get past an entire species smart enough to steal, fly, and maintain starships but too stupid to mine comets for water - but it's still what it is.

    IMO, the Eisenberg is one of the more elegant 32C designs produced by the show. Not what I'd call "cool" or anything, but it anyway looks like a starship, with a definable fore and aft, and everything but the nacelles actually attached. At least it doesn't look like a giant spacegoing toilet seat, or feature a giant bottle opener for a tail, or reverse direction based on what it's doing at the moment...
    Lorna-Wing-sig.png
  • starshine#7408 starshine Member Posts: 127 Arc User
    Effectively this is the only future ship for most people so it's brilliant it's one of the best.
    TOS>LDS>DSC>VOY>DS9>PRO>ENT>TNG>PIC

    Bring the Enterprise XCV-330 to STO
  • phoenixc#0738 phoenixc Member Posts: 5,838 Arc User
    edited December 2021
    This particular design has a few features that could make sense working off the assumption that the free-floating warp nacelles actually do produce a more tunable and efficient warp field. One of the problems with the show is that they don't bother showing anything that would demonstrate that principle in action (no, simply floating them in a static way does not get the idea across) like having the nacelles adjust their position while doing different things (for instance have the nacelles shift one slightly forward, one slightly back when turning or whatever).

    Sending energy back and forth between the detached parts and the main hull is not a problem, they did that at least as far back as the 2250s as shown in The Cage with the dismounted phaser used on the ground.

    The biggest problem is sending matter between them efficiently. Sure, they have transporters which can send matter around, but the fact that it takes a lot of energy has been one of the pillars of Star Trek storytelling that keep them interesting by not allowing the characters to simply teleport away at the first sign of danger, or to circumvent enemy defenses too much.

    The Eisenburg looks like it takes care of that problem by having tiny bussards on the ends of the nacelles which could serve the needs of the nacelles themselves, and a big glowy thing that could be another bussard (or perhaps combined bussard/deflector array or whatever) up on the front of the engineering section at the top of the main hull. In essence it would allow the system to work with the nacelles acting as a sort of a tug drone pair and avoid the matter transport problem with little or no need for the slush streams moving between the hulls.

    I was not at all impressed with the ship when I first saw it in DSC, but looking at the detailed features on the STO model for it has me rethinking that. It might just be the best design of the whole bunch of DSC s3 and s4 ships (not a high bar by any means, but that is another subject).
  • sthe91sthe91 Member Posts: 5,970 Arc User
    This ship reminds me of a handheld phaser only with magnetically connected nacelles due to futuristic technology. Compared with the rest of the designs from the 32nd century, I like it. RIP Aron Eisenberg. :'(
    Where there is a Will, there is a Way.
  • howtorhowtor Member Posts: 194 Arc User
    i will be honest not the best looking ship out there but it has been growing on my. Might look better if you use a vanity shield or reputation shield on it.
  • shadowkoshshadowkosh Member Posts: 1,688 Arc User
    Well I just bought the 33c uniforms so this gives me a excuse to get the ship
  • redeyedravenredeyedraven Member Posts: 1,297 Arc User
    arabatur wrote: »
    A free ship is a free ship, but damn it's one ugly looking freebie.

    I think this is one of the best-looking freebies we have yet received.
  • joshmauljoshmaul Member Posts: 519 Arc User
    For 32nd century, it's not too bad looking, actually. It's not a giant bottle opener or garden spade (or an Ithorian herd ship like the Angelou class - I'm fairly sure they stole that look from Star Wars, fight me).
    TW1sr57.jpg
    "There's No Way Like Poway!"

    Real Join Date: October 2010
  • avoozuulavoozuul Member Posts: 3,215 Arc User
    I generally like generic ships designs without saucers but this isn't one of them, it's the ugliest ship I've seen for the game so far.
    I stream on Twitch, look for Avoozl_
  • This content has been removed.
  • saurializardsaurializard Member Posts: 4,404 Arc User
    westmetals wrote: »
    avoozuul wrote: »
    I generally like generic ships designs without saucers but this isn't one of them, it's the ugliest ship I've seen for the game so far.

    At least it's symmetrical, which is more than can be said for the Breen and Lethean ships and the Borg Juggernaut.
    What's wrong with assymmetrical ships?
    #TASforSTO
    Iconian_Trio_sign.jpg?raw=1
  • lnbladelnblade Member Posts: 410 Arc User
    I wouldn't mind the Eisenberg so much if it didn't have that awkward tail sticking out the back. IMO it looks tacked on and disrupts the visual flow of the ship. I can't figure out what it's meant to accomplish aesthetically
This discussion has been closed.