New Ship

posted on August 17th, 2009, 10:17 am

well at least it has same limitations at the warp engines

posted on August 31st, 2009, 1:28 pm

Well, this is what I call a cheap get away of a new class. Put some javalins sticking out of the lower hull and give it a new name.

posted on September 17th, 2009, 3:27 am

If it looks likes a Definat  call it  Defiant class  Version 2.0.0

posted on October 9th, 2009, 3:23 am

Wow amazing. I actually stoped following STO a few years ago after I thought it got scrapped. I guess I was mistaken. I about wet my self when I saw the trailer. It looks like its going to be everything I hoped for and more. I still would like to know more about how ship to ship combat will work. I need to explore the site a little.

posted on November 11th, 2009, 5:21 pm

Either lack of creativity or their going with what works.

Probably a combination of both.... but people tend to bitch when you stray too far from 'normal' ship design. I too am guilty of this... especially when it comes to the ent.-J dear god may we never see that ship anywhere! EVER!

posted on December 2nd, 2009, 1:16 am

Thank god I'm not the only one who finds these "new" ship designs completely disgusting. Starfleet ships have never incorporated these strange curved, wishy-washy shapes; they have always been very clean and very sharp. These designs are weird and un-Starfleet. Leave the sweeping curves to the Romulans and the un-smooths hulls to the Klingons. Besides, all they're doing is taking existing designs and modifying them to be consistent with the design styles seen in the latest movie (which, frankly, I do not accept into the Star Trek cannon) and giving them new names. File these designs along with all the rejected 50s/60s product designs and get back to traditional forms.

posted on December 4th, 2009, 2:20 pm

Part of the probem is they're building on existing designs and up-rating them

Take the galaxy -> Galaxy-X class conversion. All it does is increase power generation capability, add a third warp nacelle to it's back, and throw a big-ass phaser cannon on it

The Vigilant has dual 12cm layers of ablative armor according to the site... 24cm of armor... damn... no wonder it looks funky.!

[navyguy]

posted on January 13th, 2010, 6:14 am

Last edited by navyguy on January 13th, 2010, 6:19 am, edited 1 time in total.

I myself  also like the old stlye of Starfleet ships, like the Galaxy, the Ambassador, etc, does anyone think the Galaxy Class in old mod , look better than the one in this new mod. I saw a game, wont mention the name, but all the ships are rounded and overlaping engines, just cant get use that, i like the traditonal Star Fleet ship. Galaxy Class refit now that was sweet.

[navyguy]

posted on January 21st, 2010, 5:30 am

Last edited by navyguy on January 21st, 2010, 6:42 am, edited 1 time in total.

Why does the Ambassador Class have a "short", WEAPONS RANGE, and yet the Excelsior has a long range, i know the Ambassador Class was a better ship then the Excelsior, and yet its stats are close to a Galaxy Class. Ther ship doesnt seem to hold its own at all?  this ship is better than this. The Ambassador is a heavy cruiser, imagine this if you will, H.M.S. Hood, a heavy battlecruiser with 5' guns, now that would be short. Cruisers are meadium, my point it should be no shorter than meadium range, how does a heavy battle cruiser have a short weapons range? back in the day, during ww2, the smallest gun would have been a 5' the next size you would find on a cruiser 8' and up, and so on. If the upgraded Ambassador Class was on parr with the early Galaxy Class would that not make her weapons range at least meadium, thats all iam trying to clear up?

posted on January 21st, 2010, 5:39 am

The Speed and range changes were because different kinds of vessels got different uses.


Say what you want about which vessel is supposed to be "cooler" or more badass, the reason is because those were chosen by the devs for those purposes.

  And no, I like the New Galaxy model more.