RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 140,067
Posts: 5,432,151
Members: 24,926
Currently online: 550
Newest member: wod_freak

TrekToday headlines

The Red Shirt Diaries #8
By: T'Bonz on Oct 20

IDW Publishing January Comics
By: T'Bonz on Oct 20

Retro Review: Chrysalis
By: Michelle on Oct 18

The Next Generation Season Seven Blu-ray Details
By: T'Bonz on Oct 17

CBS Launches Streaming Service
By: T'Bonz on Oct 17

Yelchin In New Indie Thriller
By: T'Bonz on Oct 17

Saldana In The Book of Life
By: T'Bonz on Oct 17

Cracked’s New Sci-Fi Satire
By: T'Bonz on Oct 16

Beltran Introduces Shakespeare To Theater Group
By: T'Bonz on Oct 16

Burton To Be Honored at Facets Boo! Bash
By: T'Bonz on Oct 16


Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.


Go Back   The Trek BBS > Misc. Star Trek > Trek Gaming

Trek Gaming Program Complete - Enter When Ready.

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old January 13 2013, 06:36 AM   #2971
intrinsical
Fleet Captain
 
intrinsical's Avatar
 
Location: Singapore
Re: Star Trek Online Discussion Thread (now free to play!)

The screenshot for the Ambassador looks great, but in general I agree with you. Its 70 years after TNG/DS9/VOY and I wish there were more new starship designs and less of the old starships. But STO is a game driven by what players want and sadly, a lot of players want to be Kirk, Picard, Sisko, Janeway so the Constitutions, Galaxies, Defiants, Intrepids will always be popular. And sometimes, I do wish I can field a line of Enterprises from the NX-01 to the 1701-F on the battlefield. XD
__________________
USS Sentinel, Luna Class (STO)
intrinsical is offline  
Old January 13 2013, 10:01 AM   #2972
Timelord Victorious
TARDIS Janitor
 
Timelord Victorious's Avatar
 
Location: Germany, Earth, the Solar System
Re: Star Trek Online Discussion Thread (now free to play!)

The Ambassador will be the science answer to the tactical excelsior.
Timelord Victorious is offline  
Old January 13 2013, 10:17 PM   #2973
CorporalClegg
Admiral
 
CorporalClegg's Avatar
 
Location: Land of Enchantment
Re: Star Trek Online Discussion Thread (now free to play!)

I'm pretty excited for the Ambassador. It's always been one of my favorite ships.

But it does seem kind of tacked on in an attempt to appease fans, especially if it's a T5 ship. Honestly, it's something that should have been included originally as a mid-level ship.

I also agree with intrinsical that it would be nice if they started looking more outside the box. Though I say that with the condition they do so with different artists. IMO most of the game-only (non canon?) ships leave something to be desired. They're not terrible by any means, but are certainly inferior to the canon ships.
CorporalClegg is offline  
Old January 14 2013, 12:04 AM   #2974
Blamo
Fleet Captain
 
Location: UK
Re: Star Trek Online Discussion Thread (now free to play!)

CorporalClegg wrote: View Post
They're not terrible by any means, but are certainly inferior to the canon ships.
Fed wise a lot of STO's original ships do look pretty rubbish. That's partly due to them trying to make Fed ships look more and more "aerodynamic", which really really doesn't work for the generic fed-ship configuration.

Meanwhile most of the new KDF ships look pretty awesome.
Blamo is offline  
Old January 14 2013, 02:59 AM   #2975
intrinsical
Fleet Captain
 
intrinsical's Avatar
 
Location: Singapore
Re: Star Trek Online Discussion Thread (now free to play!)

Xhiandra wrote: View Post
intrinsical wrote: View Post
The end result is a very impressive torpedo boat that is high on damage and crits very often. Set all weapons on auto-fire and what you have is a torpedo boat that continuously spew deadly torpedo after deadly torpedo, both fore and aft.
Frankly, I doubt it. Torpedoscorts usually perform terrible, maybe even worse than Beamscorts.
Got any parse?

Survivability-wise: on one hand you can run very high Shields, on the other hand you've got a weak Shield & Deflector.
I haven't done any parses since my combat log parsers all broke down at the same time and are giving me nonsensical dps values. In terms of subjective experiences, I have seen my ship can take an ISE generator from full hitpoints to 50% hitpoints in a single volley from my 4 forward torpedo bays, so I'm pretty sure its dps is 5k or more. Definitely much more than that of a beamscort.
__________________
USS Sentinel, Luna Class (STO)
intrinsical is offline  
Old January 14 2013, 11:11 AM   #2976
Rocketeer
Captain
 
Rocketeer's Avatar
 
Location: Wiesbaden, Germany
Re: Star Trek Online Discussion Thread (now free to play!)

TheRoyalFamily wrote: View Post
Am I the only one not excited about the Ambassador? It just seems silly to me at this point. I really liked the Oddy, as an anniversary ship, as it was very STO. But the Ambassador? Old and busted I hear there's both a T3 ship (where the Ambassador would logically belong) and a T5 ship. Maybe different?

At least I have some KDF toons this time. I missed out on the ship last year because I was so new I didn't have a second character.
We needed the Ambassador as a mid-tier ship at launch, not now. All my chars are max level and I don't know when I'll start a new one. Plus it's an ugly ship IMHO.
Rocketeer is offline  
Old January 14 2013, 08:35 PM   #2977
Noname Given
Vice Admiral
 
Location: None Given
Re: Star Trek Online Discussion Thread (now free to play!)

Rocketeer wrote: View Post
TheRoyalFamily wrote: View Post
Am I the only one not excited about the Ambassador? It just seems silly to me at this point. I really liked the Oddy, as an anniversary ship, as it was very STO. But the Ambassador? Old and busted I hear there's both a T3 ship (where the Ambassador would logically belong) and a T5 ship. Maybe different?

At least I have some KDF toons this time. I missed out on the ship last year because I was so new I didn't have a second character.
We needed the Ambassador as a mid-tier ship at launch, not now. All my chars are max level and I don't know when I'll start a new one. Plus it's an ugly ship IMHO.
To each his own. IMO - the Ambassador Class design is way better looking then the modern art monstrosity (at least for it time in the 1980ies) that we call the 1701-D Galaxy Class.

I've NEVER liked the look of the Galaxy Class 1701-D since I first saw it in 1987. I probably would have liked TNG a little better if they had gone with the Ambassador Class as the hero ship for that show.

[And actually, while I still dislike the stock Galaxy Class, I actually find the 'Venture Class' skin variant Cryptic came up with tolerable; and like that look in place of the original Galaxy Class. YMMV. ]
Noname Given is offline  
Old January 14 2013, 09:04 PM   #2978
CorporalClegg
Admiral
 
CorporalClegg's Avatar
 
Location: Land of Enchantment
Re: Star Trek Online Discussion Thread (now free to play!)

Noname Given wrote: View Post
To each his own. IMO - the Ambassador Class design is way better looking then the modern art monstrosity (at least for it time in the 1980ies) that we call the 1701-D Galaxy Class.

I've NEVER liked the look of the Galaxy Class 1701-D since I first saw it in 1987. I probably would have liked TNG a little better if they had gone with the Ambassador Class as the hero ship for that show.

[And actually, while I still dislike the stock Galaxy Class, I actually find the 'Venture Class' skin variant Cryptic came up with tolerable; and like that look in place of the original Galaxy Class. YMMV.
I know it's heresy, but I kind of agree with you. I never cared for the Galaxy. It's bloated and not very organic. Of the seven official Big Es, it's my least favorite.

And despite what I said in previous post, I also agree that some of Cryptic's variants are quite lovely. I for one love the Bellerophon which I assume is a Cryptic original. It's been a really long time since I've seen IAESL, but I'm pretty sure Ross's ship was just a standard Intrepid. Not to mention there was usually an Intrepid docked at DS9 which makes the most sense to have been the Bellerophon.

In any case, I've contemplated paying the 1500 Zen just for the skin. I know it's a total waste, but I just love it. Maybe if we ever get the fleet to T5--or at least before 2020.
CorporalClegg is offline  
Old January 14 2013, 09:40 PM   #2979
Timelord Victorious
TARDIS Janitor
 
Timelord Victorious's Avatar
 
Location: Germany, Earth, the Solar System
Re: Star Trek Online Discussion Thread (now free to play!)

I like the Ambassador.

It is a perfect blend of old and new design aesthetics.

I think many negative opinions come from the fact, that the model was low on detail and up until now was only seen in low rez fuzzy pictures.

Cryptic's version lost all the fuzziness and has more details but is even more low rez.

Keep the general shape, photograph it in HD and use a model with the detail levels of the Ent-D and it is a very good design.

I like the D as well and wish we could fly high rez versions of it like the spacedock one in game.

I don't think it's bloated at all, it's just damn big. What the filming model needed was a better sense of the materials to give it scope: windows that seemed to be real back lit glass, a deflector that looked like a different kind of metal/alloy than the hull, more details for the bussards...
Timelord Victorious is offline  
Old January 15 2013, 02:12 AM   #2980
TheRoyalFamily
Commodore
 
TheRoyalFamily's Avatar
 
Re: Star Trek Online Discussion Thread (now free to play!)

Rocketeer wrote: View Post
TheRoyalFamily wrote: View Post
Am I the only one not excited about the Ambassador? It just seems silly to me at this point. I really liked the Oddy, as an anniversary ship, as it was very STO. But the Ambassador? Old and busted I hear there's both a T3 ship (where the Ambassador would logically belong) and a T5 ship. Maybe different?

At least I have some KDF toons this time. I missed out on the ship last year because I was so new I didn't have a second character.
We needed the Ambassador as a mid-tier ship at launch, not now. All my chars are max level and I don't know when I'll start a new one. Plus it's an ugly ship IMHO.
Agreed, on both counts. It would have made sense as the T3 cruiser instead of the Cheyenne-family (along with the Excelsior; imagine the frakenships ), or maybe one of the T4 skins - the Celestial is pretty much Not-Ambassador anyways.

As far as looks, the Ambassador just looks like a pudgy version of the Galaxy and the Galaxy is not my favorite Starfleet ship, not by a long shot (though the beauty shots of the Ent-D were the only good parts of TATV).
__________________
You perceive wrongly. I feel unimaginable happiness wasting time talking with women. I'm that type of human.
TheRoyalFamily is offline  
Old January 15 2013, 02:48 AM   #2981
intrinsical
Fleet Captain
 
intrinsical's Avatar
 
Location: Singapore
Re: Star Trek Online Discussion Thread (now free to play!)

TheRoyalFamily wrote: View Post
Rocketeer wrote: View Post
TheRoyalFamily wrote: View Post
Am I the only one not excited about the Ambassador? It just seems silly to me at this point. I really liked the Oddy, as an anniversary ship, as it was very STO. But the Ambassador? Old and busted I hear there's both a T3 ship (where the Ambassador would logically belong) and a T5 ship. Maybe different?

At least I have some KDF toons this time. I missed out on the ship last year because I was so new I didn't have a second character.
We needed the Ambassador as a mid-tier ship at launch, not now. All my chars are max level and I don't know when I'll start a new one. Plus it's an ugly ship IMHO.
Agreed, on both counts. It would have made sense as the T3 cruiser instead of the Cheyenne-family (along with the Excelsior; imagine the frakenships ), or maybe one of the T4 skins - the Celestial is pretty much Not-Ambassador anyways.

As far as looks, the Ambassador just looks like a pudgy version of the Galaxy and the Galaxy is not my favorite Starfleet ship, not by a long shot (though the beauty shots of the Ent-D were the only good parts of TATV).
Ahem. There are no good parts in TATV.

As for the Big-D, I tend to agree with you guys. I always found the saucer section to be way too big compared to the battle section, making the ship feel like a beached whale.
__________________
USS Sentinel, Luna Class (STO)
intrinsical is offline  
Old January 15 2013, 04:00 AM   #2982
CorporalClegg
Admiral
 
CorporalClegg's Avatar
 
Location: Land of Enchantment
Re: Star Trek Online Discussion Thread (now free to play!)

intrinsical wrote: View Post
Ahem. There are no good parts in TATV.
The credits?
CorporalClegg is offline  
Old January 15 2013, 09:41 AM   #2983
JRS
Fleet Captain
 
JRS's Avatar
 
Location: Brno, Czech Republic
Send a message via Yahoo to JRS
Re: Star Trek Online Discussion Thread (now free to play!)

Looking forward to try out the Ambassador, too
I guess is too much to hope that it would come with the Enterprise-C bridge layout, right? (I personally doubt it, since the Vesta did not get a unique bridge either..somewhat lazy from Cryptic, IMHO).

I would also like to know more about the KDF anniversary ship soon. Lets hope we see something really cool. Some totally new BOP might be pretty nice to have
__________________
"Always give your best, never get discouraged, never be petty; always remember, others may hate you, but those who hate you don't win unless you hate them, and then you destroy yourself " - Richard Nixon
JRS is offline  
Old January 15 2013, 02:29 PM   #2984
Trek
Fleet Captain
 
Trek's Avatar
 
Re: Star Trek Online Discussion Thread (now free to play!)

Timelord_Victorious wrote: View Post
I like the Ambassador.

It is a perfect blend of old and new design aesthetics.

I think many negative opinions come from the fact, that the model was low on detail and up until now was only seen in low rez fuzzy pictures.

Cryptic's version lost all the fuzziness and has more details but is even more low rez.

Keep the general shape, photograph it in HD and use a model with the detail levels of the Ent-D and it is a very good design.
This is why I'm looking forward to watching Yesterday's Entrprise when it's shown in HD next month. The Ambassador should look fantastic.

I think I'll see how much it is before I try flying one - I think I want the Vesta-class first.
__________________
TrekBBS Armada
STO Captains (@Trek88): Lex, Foxton, Zylah, Sh'Rrth, Riku, Saundra
Author: The Adventures of Argus
Twitter: @Trek88
Trek is offline  
Old January 15 2013, 03:04 PM   #2985
ProwlAlpha
Fleet Captain
 
ProwlAlpha's Avatar
 
Location: Florrum
Re: Star Trek Online Discussion Thread (now free to play!)

On the STO forums, they are having Ambassador-gasms. Honestly, this ship should've been in the game in the first year, but the Devs think we would have been fooled in thinking it was an Galaxy-class, because they have similar look and Geko doesn't like the ship.

Yet, they can monstrosities such as the Envoy and Gallant classes. However, I, for one, will enjoy having the last member of the Enterprise team.

Now, only we can dispel the K'vort rumors. If Cryptic gives an 2409 K'vort that looks nothing like a BOP on miracle grow, I would be happy or I have been advocating the D-5 class from ENT.
__________________
"As my sweet mother always said, 'son, if one hostage is good, two are better, and three, well, that's just good business!'"
ProwlAlpha is offline  
Closed Thread

Bookmarks

Tags
mmorpg, onlne, star trek online, sto

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:00 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.