test content
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc

DRAFT - The Nebula

1141517192025

Comments

  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited August 2010
    superchum wrote: »
    I'd just recommend anyone looking to build a decent science build ...
    Go Here

    And get tips on effective builds from experts. I might recommend you do that too.

    Good that I play like I want not like others want me to play ;). ... But I'll have a look.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited August 2010
    AlgoMike wrote:
    Good that I play like I want not like others want me to play ;). ... But I'll have a look.

    All well and good, but remember the focus of this discussion hinges on effective use of game mechanics in a particular ship.

    Like I said, I concede that your build won't be affected by the DSSV version that Gecko posted. But that's because you're taking a build that doesn't play well in PVP due to its choices and putting it on a ship that won't play well in PVP due to its stats. So you won't notice much difference.

    A lot of effective PVP builds utilize powers you're not using.

    That's all I'm saying.

    You can grind through almost the entirety of the game's PVE in a runabout. So you know ... discussing builds and game mechanics in PVE terms really is somewhat limited in scope.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited August 2010
    superchum wrote: »
    All well and good, but remember the focus of this discussion hinges on effective use of game mechanics in a particular ship.

    Like I said, I concede that your build won't be affected by the DSSV version that Gecko posted. But that's because you're taking a build that doesn't play well in PVP due to its choices and putting it on a ship that won't play well in PVP due to its stats. So you won't notice much difference.

    A lot of effective PVP builds utilize powers you're not using.

    That's all I'm saying.

    You can grind through almost the entirety of the game's PVE in a runabout. So you know ... discussing builds and game mechanics in PVE terms really is somewhat limited in scope.

    Well ok that now a little off topic but I don't have problems in PvP as I play with a group and it works. I do not care if you do not believe me :).
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited August 2010
    AlgoMike wrote:
    Well ok that now a little off topic but I don't have problems in PvP as I play with a group and it works. I do not care if you do not believe me :).

    /sigh

    The difference between the build you're running and one of the more effective PVP builds ... in a team ... is pretty noticeable.

    And that's just going off of the builds and tactics posted by the most avid PVPers on the forums who play in the most organized and hardcore PVP fleets.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited August 2010
    AlgoMike wrote:
    I use at Commander BO:
    Jam Targeting Sensors , Hazard Emitters II, Scramble Sensors II and Tykens's Rift III
    On my LT Commander BO i use:
    Polarize hull, Transfer Schield Strenght II and SCience Team III

    The only 90 degree skill is tzken's Rift there. Additional there is Subnukleonic beam which gets every science charater. I could change Tyken's Rift to feedback pulse for example. So there is not really a need for high turn rate.

    You have two offensive powers, the rest are defensive. Of those offensive powers, only 1 would be useful in the Nebula, and scramble sensors isn't really that good to begin with. As for defensive powers, cruisers do it better, and the cruiser version of the Nebula would still let you use the majority of your setup.

    AlgoMike wrote:
    I have three chars at VA1:
    Engeneer, Science and Tactical

    I never had problems with my Galaxy Refit to use extend shield and stay in range. And the science skills are all at maxrange of 10k .. There is absolutely no problem.


    Well of course, the refit is the most maneuverable cruiser in the game.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited August 2010
    I think the main problem is...

    Cryptic shows us an new ship that coming out for cruisers class. And doesn't tell us or give us any idea of other ship classes. This cause every one to want the Nebula to be a Engineer, Science, or Tactical ship.

    The Nebula is 3 types in one. Because the series shows the ship doing 3 roles.

    Nebula is a multi-purpose ship that is built differently at space dock for it's task or able to refit easily for different duties.

    Exactly so switch the Science and unversal slots round add in a tac console and we are ready to go.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited August 2010
    Foxrocks wrote:
    (...)



    Well of course, the refit is the most maneuverable cruiser in the game.

    ?? The galaxy retrofit has the slowest turn rate 6, star cruiser and assaultcruiser 7 and excelsior class has the fastest of 8.

    But I say you and superchum are right I am wrong and perhaps people can now discuss again about the nebula ;).
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited August 2010
    Everyone knows you can see the Nebula flying around Spacedock or parked in one of the berths, right?
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited August 2010
    It's not just about bridge officers.

    When I fly science ships, I can set myself to the offensive preset and do decent damage while having solid shields I might have to reinforce once or twice in any given engagement.

    If I fly a Cruiser that way, my shields fall with every shot, because they're little more than a sneezeguard. The only option is to fly with the defensive preset, which means instead of this, my shields only need reinforced every second.

    I don't care for flying around continuously pressing the redistribute key. It got to the point that I rebound it to C so I could keep pressing it throughout every battle. Thus, I gave up on Cruisers. Thus, I'd be disappointed to see yet ANOTHER Cruiser when it's equally arguable it should be a Science ship.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited August 2010
    dstahl wrote: »
    THIS IS ALL SUBJECT TO CHANGE!!! (unless you forgot what happened with the Excelsior) but better to start talking about it now than weeks from now.

    Also keep in mind this ship has been in development for some time (pre-dates the new KDF ships being worked on)

    Ok... here it is

    Nebula
    A StarCruiser variant (Its not a Retrofit. It utilizes the StarCruiser Skill).

    Requires:
    Rear Admiral

    Weapons:
    4 Fore
    4 Aft

    Boff seats (4 Boffs, 11 Powers):
    1 Lt Tact
    1 Cm Eng
    1 LC Science
    1 Lt Universal

    Mods:
    4 Eng
    3 Sci
    2 Tact

    3 Device Slots

    750 Crew

    Unique Ability:
    Tachyon Detection Grid: PBAoE buff that increases your, and allies w/in 10k, Starship Sensor Stat and Cloak Detection. Each buffed ally in turn will buff more allies within 10k of them - thus extending the grid.

    Turn Rate = Galaxy
    Any other stats not mentioned are the same as a Star Cruiser.

    Screenshots attached - the second is one of the mission pod swap out configuration options

    You could make it really cool and make it:
    Boff seats :
    1 LC Tact
    1 LC Eng
    1 LC Science
    1 CMDR Universal

    And make it the first of the T6 ships. The layout allows any pilot to use it to there strengths, Science would more then likely make the commander slot a Science officer, Engineers would make CMDR slot Engi. and Tacs would probably make the CMDR slot a TAC.

    I would actually like to see that officer layout on all ships but wish in one hand and ***t in the other....

    The only thing I would like to add is if you go with this idea make a Klingon Equivalent. I don't play klingon at all, I hate them, but I'm SICK AND TIRED of seeing things nerfed just because someone was to lazy to make a klingon version...
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited August 2010
    Dunno if this is really news to anybody but there's a Nebula sitting in one of the spacedocks at ESD #10 right now. Looks bigger than I'd imagined.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited August 2010
    How about Cryptic just takes and releases 3 variants to the C-store. One with each type of pod mounted. In canon there are several different pod looks to the Nebula they can easily use these for distinguishing types. Plus they're already playing around with different pod looks so it'd be cake for them. Just let us buy the type we want.

    Nebula (Science Pod)
    A DeepSpace Science Vessel variant (Its not a Retrofit. It utilizes the DeepSpace Science Vessel Skill).

    Requires:
    Rear Admiral

    Weapons:
    3 Fore
    3 Aft

    Boff seats (4 Boffs, 11 Powers):
    1 Lt Tact
    1 LC Eng
    1 Cm Science
    1 Lt Universal

    Mods:
    3 Eng
    4 Sci
    2 Tact

    3 Device Slots

    750 Crew

    Unique Ability:
    Tachyon Detection Grid: PBAoE buff that increases your, and allies w/in 10k, Starship Sensor Stat and Cloak Detection. Each buffed ally in turn will buff more allies within 10k of them - thus extending the grid.

    Turn Rate = 8
    Any other stats not mentioned are the same as a DeepSpace Science Vessel.

    Nebula (Engineer Pod)
    A StarCruiser variant (Its not a Retrofit. It utilizes the StarCruiser Skill).

    Requires:
    Rear Admiral

    Weapons:
    4 Fore
    4 Aft

    Boff seats (4 Boffs, 11 Powers):
    1 Lt Tact
    1 Cm Eng
    1 LC Science
    1 Lt Universal

    Mods:
    4 Eng
    3 Sci
    2 Tact

    3 Device Slots

    750 Crew

    Unique Ability:
    Tachyon Detection Grid: PBAoE buff that increases your, and allies w/in 10k, Starship Sensor Stat and Cloak Detection. Each buffed ally in turn will buff more allies within 10k of them - thus extending the grid.

    Turn Rate = 7
    Any other stats not mentioned are the same as a Star Cruiser.

    Nebula (Tactical Pod)
    An Assault Cruiser variant (Its not a Retrofit. It utilizes the Assault Cruiser Skill).

    Requires:
    Rear Admiral

    Weapons:
    4 Fore
    4 Aft

    Boff seats (4 Boffs, 11 Powers):
    1 CM Tact
    1 LC Eng
    1 Lt Science
    1 Lt Universal

    Mods:
    3 Eng
    2 Sci
    4 Tact

    3 Device Slots

    750 Crew

    Unique Ability:
    Tachyon Detection Grid: PBAoE buff that increases your, and allies w/in 10k, Starship Sensor Stat and Cloak Detection. Each buffed ally in turn will buff more allies within 10k of them - thus extending the grid.

    Turn Rate = 9
    Any other stats not mentioned are the same as an Assault Cruiser.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited August 2010
    In the Above post i added the Tactical pod since the Nebula classes were all front line ships and damn key in all Federation encounters with both the Dominion, the Borg, and everyone else. They can use the Phoenix as the pod model since that ship was a beast.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited August 2010
    Release variants of all three. I have never bought the argument that ships must look a certain way so players in PvP have some idea of what to expect. In the HUD target box, put the level equivalent and some two letter prefix to indicate if its a cruiser sci or tac and I am happy. I would like to see all ships more customizable and having three variants of the neb would at least be a start.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited August 2010
    Why does EVERY ship have to be for RA only??? I know, we will all eventually end of there and most longtime players have reached that rank by now (I have been playing since headstart and am still only just a Captain 4) Not sure why every new ship has to be RA only....

    Anyway, I love the ship and like the stats. I really think you guys have a unique ship that can cater to ALL classes being a true modular ship. If you guys really want to make some C-Store bucks, you really should create THREE versions of the Nebula and have a Science pod, Tactical pod, and Engineering/Cruiser pod. (Or have the option to switch out the pods, all available to purchase?) The Unique Ability would be the pod itself!

    I look forward to this ship very much!
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited August 2010
    at the moment, RA and up is the meaty part of ST:O. If they ever get around to raising max rank again then new ship offers will be at the higher tier, I'm sure.

    Just the way it's gonna play out. The lower tiers are jsut too temporary for anything substantial.

    Now, if there was in-game reason to dust off old ships you'd have a case for new lower tier ships. I've made the suggestion that Fleet Actions should "gate" you based on the tier of the ship you're piloting, not your actually rank . . . never got any support so the thread died off quick.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited August 2010
    There's also that apparently since you can't get emblems at RA, that justifies not including an in-game way of obtaining a RA ship.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited August 2010
    [X] Vote for Nebula Starcruiser

    [X] Vote for 1200 CP for account-wide access to the ship
    [X] Vote for 400 CP to unlock it on just one character on your account
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited August 2010
    Can you imagine how much a new faction is going to cost?

    Five tiers of ships at three ships a tier plus new sectors, plus new bridge officers and uniforms...

    It's a crapshoot the Romulans will even get a Warbird with a cloaking device without having to shell out extra for it.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited August 2010
    I wouldn´t mind any update on the current plans. :)
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited August 2010
    Taken from www.ufstarfleet.org

    == Starship Design Statistics ==

    *Length :: 442 Meters
    *Beam :: 318 Meters
    *Draft :: 114 Meters
    *Displacement :: 3.300.000 Metric Tons
    *Cargo Capacity :: Mission Dependent
    *Hull Type :: Duranium & Tritanium Composite
    *Decks :: 30
    *Officers :: 200
    *Crew :: 550
    *Evacuation Capacity :: 9800


    == Tactical Strength and Systems ==

    === Phasers ===
    *Type :: X
    *Number of arrays :: 8
    *Strength and Power Output :: 65 Gigawatts
    *Effective Range :: 1.500.000 Kilometers
    **When equipped with a Weapons Pod the Phaser Count rises to 11
    **These extra phasers are calibrated to act as Point Defense, shooting down incoming torpedoes.


    === Torpedo Systems ===
    *Compliment :: 250 Torpedoes
    *Torpedo Types :: Photon
    *Number of Forward Launchers :: 1
    *Number of Forward Tubes :: 10
    *Number of Aft Launchers :: 1
    *Number of Aft Tubes :: 10
    *Range :: 3.500.000
    **With a Weapons Pod outfitted, the Nebula can carry 200 Additional Torpedoes
    **The Weapons Pod also adds 8 Torpedo Launchers
    ***With Weapons Pod Forward Tubes :: 14
    ***With Weapons Pod Aft Tubes :: 14


    === Shields ===
    *Type :: Symmetrical Subspace Graviton Field
    *Number of Grids :: 10
    *Power Output :: 2304 Gigawatts
    *Shield Range :: 12 Meters from Hull
    *Frequency Range :: 23% of EM Spectrum
    **Can also operate in "Bubble Mode".


    == Propulsion Systems ==

    === Warp ===
    *Warp Reactor Type :: TPG Dilithium Focus Chamber
    *Power Output :: 103 Petawatts
    *Nacelle Configuration :: Inverted Formation
    *Maximum Velocity :: Warp 9.6 for 12 Hours
    *Maximum Cruising Velocity :: 6
    *Maximum Velocity Following Speed Restrictions :: 5

    === Impluse Systems ===
    *Number of Engines :: 3
    *Power Source :: HighMPact Specialty Mass Drivers
    *Number of Reactors :: 3
    *Power Output :: 68 Gigawatts
    *Maximum Impulse Velocity :: 0.75 Speed of Light
    *Maximum Standard Impulse Velocity :: 0.25 Speed of Light

    === Thruster Systems ===
    *Type :: Version 3 Magneto-Hydrodynamic Gas-Fusion
    *Number :: 14
    *Output :: 5.5 Million Newtons
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited August 2010
    if any devs like dstahl are peaking in on here lately ild also like you guys to consider our new proposal of the level 51 refit neghvar, now with disruptor lances! http://forums.startrekonline.com/showthread.php?t=178111
    enjoy them nebulas feddiebears hehe
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited August 2010
    My overall direction (I gather from what I posted and others wrote) is to say
    1) I would love it to be a science ship.
    2) I don't think it would work as a science ship.

    I guess 2 wins over 1 and it should be the Cruiser build.
    2 needs further pondering, maybe - why does it not work as a science ship:

    1) It has a low turning rate. The DSSV is already bad and disliked for that. The Nebula would be worse.
    2) The Universal Slot is neat, but there is little reason to use it for a tactical officer if you got innate target subsystems (conflicting cooldowns) and only 6 weapons to begin with.

    I think it also contains some information for the DSSV and the Recon:
    1) The DSSV could use a better turn.
    2) 6 weapon slots are not that hot and an extra tractical BO Ensign is weak here. Maybe one should consider the possibility of adding one weaopn slot to _all_ science ships? The way I see it, they get hit hardest.
    A Cruiser has 8 weapon slots but cannot use dual cannons. So he has high damage potential, but not the top. An Escort has only 7 weapon slots, but he can use dual cannons. So he has top damage potential (despite using one weapon less then the Cruiser.
    The Science ship has 6 weapons slots and cannot use dual cannons. Even with cannons, it would have a lower damage potential then Escorts. With 7 weapon slots and beams it would have a lower damage potential than a cruiser. So, it still pays a fine trade-off for that innate subsystem targeting.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited August 2010
    The balance for Science ships comes from the science BO abilities, a lot of which either cripple an enemy or do easily as much damage as another weapon would (while the ability lasts). However, most of these require you to point more or less right at the target to use the deflector, and all share a cooldown. So this wouldn't work on a slow turning ship, leaving it further gimped than a normal science vessel. If it's going to be a science vessel, and turn like a cruiser, it still needs the guns of a cruiser to compensate for its inability to bring the deflector to bear.

    Also, as for the 3 versions on the C-Store idea, they could just as easily have one purchase that unlocks all three ships, and make it so you can only have one version in your inventory at any given time. But even that's not important, since you can only fly one at a time.

    They also, back in Beta, made a big point about not tying ship abilities/weapons/performance with major customization options (like the mission pod). Some people (like me) simply don't want to fly a ship they don't like the looks of, and forcing them to use a particular look to gain the ability they want detracts from that. It also leads to same-ness, where everyone's ship looks the same cause they're all using the same (best) equipment.

    As for differentiation of the types by the module.. why? Yes, this may have been important for most ships, but the Nebula is supposed to be modular. It's role is supposed to be flexible. Part of the basis of the ship is you look at it and say 'Oh, that's a Nebula. TRIBBLE. I have no idea what it might throw at me.'. That's part of the charm of multi-role ships. Don't tie any sort of specialization to the outer appearance.

    Again, it's a multi-role ship. That's what cruisers are. Yeah, it'd be nice to have it a science ship and fit the canon roles a little more, but game-mechanics wise, it wouldn't work well. Keep it a cruiser, make it truly modular and multi-role with different variants or just an innately flexible design.

    PS: Also, canon-wise, it did not have the firepower of a Galaxy, stock. Yes, the weapons pod would bring it back in line, but not much more. So there's lots of canon reasons it should be science. I just don't think it would be a useful ship. It'd be like an even more crippled DSSV. That looks real pretty. And I'd be sad, cause I wouldn't want to fly such a gimped ship, despite it being my favorite.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited August 2010
    My overall direction (I gather from what I posted and others wrote) is to say
    1) I would love it to be a science ship.
    2) I don't think it would work as a science ship.

    I guess 2 wins over 1 and it should be the Cruiser build.
    2 needs further pondering, maybe - why does it not work as a science ship:

    1) It has a low turning rate. The DSSV is already bad and disliked for that. The Nebula would be worse.
    2) The Universal Slot is neat, but there is little reason to use it for a tactical officer if you got innate target subsystems (conflicting cooldowns) and only 6 weapons to begin with.

    I think it also contains some information for the DSSV and the Recon:
    1) The DSSV could use a better turn.
    2) 6 weapon slots are not that hot and an extra tractical BO Ensign is weak here. Maybe one should consider the possibility of adding one weaopn slot to _all_ science ships? The way I see it, they get hit hardest.
    A Cruiser has 8 weapon slots but cannot use dual cannons. So he has high damage potential, but not the top. An Escort has only 7 weapon slots, but he can use dual cannons. So he has top damage potential (despite using one weapon less then the Cruiser.
    The Science ship has 6 weapons slots and cannot use dual cannons. Even with cannons, it would have a lower damage potential then Escorts. With 7 weapon slots and beams it would have a lower damage potential than a cruiser. So, it still pays a fine trade-off for that innate subsystem targeting.

    I agree that it wouldn't work as a science and would limit Tac Officers from being able to use it. I don't agree that most people think the overall direction should be to make it a science ship. About a third do. But then a third want it as a cruiser and the other third have completely different ideas. Cryptic have their work cut out trying to make everyone happy. All I wouldd say is that the Nebula being a canon ship means it should follow canon and not what some people want it to be due to what other ship choices are.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited August 2010
    Reading through the various reasoned arguments (and ignoring the flames), I've had my mind changed.

    It turns far too slowly for a science captain, and as a science ship, would have too little dps to make up for its low turn rate.

    As a cruiser with an engineer captain, it would be a great addition to options for healing. So I have to go with the cruiser crowd now; science version would be a lame duck out of the gate.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited August 2010
    Plette wrote: »
    Reading through the various reasoned arguments (and ignoring the flames), I've had my mind changed.

    It turns far too slowly for a science captain, and as a science ship, would have too little dps to make up for its low turn rate.

    As a cruiser with an engineer captain, it would be a great addition to options for healing. So I have to go with the cruiser crowd now; science version would be a lame duck out of the gate.

    I think that a multi-use spec would be the best, followed by them releasing one of each/Modular idea. If they decide not to go with those then the cruiser is easily better than the science especially from a Tac point of view.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited August 2010
    Just adding my two cents, i haven't read the last 50 odd pages but i assume other people have brought up the turn rate ( in fact i see it now further down on this page lol) I'd of thought considering this is just a galaxy saucer it really should have a higher turn rate, and also i think it should be a science class, mostly because theres alot of cruisers and secondly that special ability is very sciency in nature plus stick it as a science ship but with a greater turn rate should balance out the lack of weapons nicely, in fact it probably should have a better turn rate than either the science options at that level but i'll leave that to cryptic to finalise but i think having it set at the galaxy level of turn rate is definatly a mistake

    Terra~
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited August 2010
    KhansWrath wrote:
    if any devs like dstahl are peaking in on here lately ild also like you guys to consider our new proposal of the level 51 refit neghvar, now with disruptor lances! http://forums.startrekonline.com/showthread.php?t=178111
    enjoy them nebulas feddiebears hehe

    Lances need to be a weapon slot type...
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited August 2010
    Boff seats (4 Boffs, 11 Powers):
    1 Lt Tact
    1 LC Eng
    1 Cm Science
    1 Lt Universal

    It's great to see the universal BO slot in there. Hopefully they make it into more ships... like the T5 Refit Constitution when it's released :D
Sign In or Register to comment.