Ambassador vs. Vesta vs. Nebula - open discussion
Here are 3 different starships. IF ship size (width, length, & mass) are UBER IMPORTANT...then perhaps someone can point out WHY the turn of the Ambassador a (Science oriented) Cruiser is not higher than it currently is (7).
If length, width, height, or mass were the determining factor, than the Devs royally screwed up the Nebula's and the Vesta's turn rates, OR just neglected to up the Ambassador's.
height: 128 meters
width: 195 meters
length: 672 meters
height: 130.43 meters
width: 560 meters
length: 442.44 meters
decks: 34 (42 including pod)
height: 125 meters
width: 330 meters
length: 526 meters
What do you players think?? Agree?? Disagree?? I sincerely want to hear your answer. Just a yes and a WHY, or a no and a WHY. Do not want to get into a debate thread. Thanks.
+ Ambassador is a older ship then the other 2 so it should not perform as well
The Ambassador class. You got a free ship. Didn't pay a dime for it. Vestas and refit Nebulas/Magellans cost money. Why complain? It looks cool. Can't have everything on a free ship.
Typically the way Cryptic does it, is Escorts turn the best, followed by Science Ships, and lastly cruisers. The Vesta and the Nebula are both Sci ships. The Ambassador is a cruiser. Compare the Galaxy to the Ambassador, or even the Oddy and that would make more sense i'm sure. The Galaxy is a point less at 6, and the Oddy is also 6.
I'm fine with them increasing the Ambassador's turn rate if it loses 2 of it's 8 weapon mounts. Come on man, comparing the Fatbassador cruiser's turn rate with that of a science ship?
I get that some people are in love with the Ambassador, why I don't know, but I am mystified as to why people think they should get a give away ship made better than the store bought ones.
So to get it straight ? you first compare a cruiser to two science ships...then complain that one of the science ships (that is pretty much obsolete by other ships) does have better turn rate ? :confused: seriously ?
Let me show you something else....
Excelsior > Galaxy
Ambassador > Galaxy
Any other ship > Galaxy
On a side note, my Fleet heavy cruiser has the inertia of a Galaxy class, despite beeing 8x smaller.
Rule #27 of the STO official forum: someone, somewhere, will always be hand-wringing about cruiser turn rates.
Larger, bulkier ships should never be as nimble as smaller, lighter ones. STO isn't a flight sim, but it's also not an arcade shooter. A good thing; raise your hand if you enjoyed Star Trek: DAC. Anyone? Anyway, for the most part, ships like the Ambassador and Galaxy in STO move exactly like they did on TNG: poorly. :D
As usual, my advice would be to either mix up your tactics, research equipment that can help maneuverability, or jump into a different ship.
For Cryptic: consider making beam arrays more viable somehow. Cruisers shouldn't be zipping around like fighters (or the Enterprise is early New Voyages episodes, ugh!) but their vaguely-canonical reactor power advantage means that perhaps they should be getting a damage bonus of some kind when using arrays. Dominion War episodes of DS9 are a good example. I can remember one shot where a Galaxy was actually sitting still, unleashing with its forward phaser array like a stationary artillery unit.
Also, if warp cores do indeed become a new equipment type, perhaps there should be versions that boost particular power levels, including engines. "Cruiser Warp Core MK XI [Eng]x2," or whatever. That would help cruiser turn rates the same way a [Turn] impulse engine does, while stacking with other equipment. That could just enough of an edge to put a lot of these discussions to bed. For a while.
Had the Nebula been a cruiser she would not have a turnrate of 9.
She would have had a turnrate of 6.
"Turn Rate = Galaxy"
And she would have had 39,000 hull with a shield mod of 1.0
"Any other stats not mentioned are the same as a Star Cruiser."
The turnrate she has now is entirely based on the innate bonus to turnrate science ships get.
So is the hull to shield ratio she has.
It's that simple.
Oh, BTW it's 3.7 million tons for the Ambassador per the TNG Technical Manual and the "Ships of the Line" Calender.
And the ratio between length and width is only relevant in hydrodynamics, but then these are not wet navy ships.
|All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:26 AM.|