the odyssey isn't larger then a galaxy, its just longer. based on the pictures ive seen comparing it to a sovereign and a negvar. its turn rate being low, and its hitpoints being higher because its supposedly so big is invalid.
not all console types are equal, science consoles are completely worthless to non science ships. a cruiser with more science consoles then tactical consoles isnt worth using, the user is handy caped by using such a ship.
Can the extra science console slot be replaced with one universal console slot?
yeah i explained that in the other thread: we get a versatile ship. the entF is clearly working as intended .. but:
a versatile ship can only have one purpose: to suck in all purposes, because it cant maximize itself in one of them.
its like the classic wow-paladin: you can do everything, but you cant do it successfully.
the ship will be horrible in dps, cause it lacks tac consoles, even if i equip a com tac ... so i wont ...
it also lacks in science, because a) sci itself was nerfed to hard and b) we can only have many sci abilities, but no good ones (like a sciship does). for example: a ltcom uni ONLY (leaving out the en uni) would have had allowed us to use feedbackpulse 3! a nice counter for the bortas' alphasstrike!)
the purpose of this ship is to be the incarnation of total average ...
i must say: it FITS startrek, but its bad for the gameplay were faced with in the game!
in a rpg (where different roles are working together) a versatile ship has "no specific" role, and so its just like a classic-paladin in wow.
while the bortas is some kind of superdurable dps ship ... 4 tac +com tac ... well. faw3+beta1+tacteam and 4 engineering mods with either resist or weaponpower. and you dont even need auxpower: just put sciteam 1 and pol hull (its very good even at 50 power) and you have a super-bug ( compared to the bug with the same consolemods, this ship is a horrible imbalance, cause it has double hull and shields than the bug ...)
note: you cant make 2/2/2 and 3 uni slots ... that would open up the thing to heaving 5 tac consoles ^^. i think 3/3/2 +1uni would be sufficient. the other alternative would be to make the BOs different:
intead of com uni + en uni you could do ltcom uni, drop the ensign away, AND lock the commander to engineering and keep the layout of consoles. so we would have
2tac consoles with a ltcom tac while the bortas would have 4tac consoles with a com tac maximum. the bortas would still ahve a better tac output. but therefore the entF would have the option to build a 3sciconsoles with a sci-ltcom, but having 1 en less than the bortas all the time.
note: you cant make 2/2/2 and 3 uni slots ... that would open up the thing to heaving 5 tac consoles ^^. i think 3/3/2 +1uni would be sufficient.
Left something out of that post, what I get for rushing.
Originally Posted by DKeith2011
I've said it before and I'll say it again, the only prblem I have with the Odyssey is the console arrangement.
The Odyssey is supposed to be the top of the line, long-term, multirole exploration cruiser. Multi-role means flexible. Locking 4 consoles into Engineering only makes sense if the ship is intended for a more narrow mission profile.
Spreading the consoles to a 3/3/3 arrangment opens up options without min/maxing the design. This keep the ship flexible and while it won't do one thing extremely well, it will do most things reasonably well.
True flexibility would be achieved by an arrangment of 2/2/2 and 3 universal slots. With this the ship can be specialized for any job at hand and cater to the needs of the player regardless of class. However, this could be unbalancing by allowing too much on-the-fly gear swapping.
Forgot to include limiting the consoles to a max of 4 in any one area with the 2/2/2/3 option.
I think the current version of the Odyssey and Bortas on Tribble may have reduced HP and turn rate. I can't remember what went live, so I am just summarizing below to be safe.
We have spent a lot of time thinking about what the final stats will be. The turn rate was a big issue. We honestly wanted to make it slower so they don't compete with existing ships. Instead, we decided to change the Boff seating a little
Here are some change coming:
BOff: Changed Ensign_Universal to an Ensign_Science
Now comes with Advanced Slipstream Drive (can stay active twice as long before shutting down, but has same recharge time and other stats like standard slipstream)
BOff: Changed Ensign_Universal to an Ensign_Engineering
Everything else should remain the same.
We also are changing Engineering Shield HP and Shield Regen consoles to be Science consoles, and increasing the effectiveness of all science consoles by about 50%.
Wow just wow. You took all these suggestions and actual made the ship less desirable then it was originally. You guys are amazing. Ive seen some weird moves but this is gotta be high for topping the list. You are making whats suppose to be the flagships and you actually want to make it so they dont compete with current ships. Grats on a job well done. You made not only the ship that will be the new enterprise but also a VA lvl ship less viable then the rear admiral ships. What are you all thinking. Should have a turn rate of 7 atleast with the universal ensign slot back. Thanks to the console change guess ill be needing the science slots instead of the tac. Gearing up for this ship and you make it a joke.
I do want to think you cause i was actually considering going with lifetime sub for this game. But now theres no chance that will ever happen. Why even put it up for testing if you knew what you wanted the ship to be in the first place.
Again tell all the devs on a job well done, the flagship of the federation in a time with more war then probably any other time in federation history and you made a ship that a over hyped healbot. Make sure you all put in a mission to go check James T Kirks grave so we can take reading of his dead corpse flipping in it. Picard facepalm these guys plz.