Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Empire Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 5,028
# 51
09-20-2012, 12:43 PM
Quote:
 Originally Posted by paragon92518 Wouldn't it rather suggest that the Excelsior's base turn should be higher than what it currently is?.. Not that the Ambassador is made from tin foil. I'm suggesting, that... at 685 meters (which is very large), the Sovereign has a base turn of (7) and is 2.4 M (volume) when compared to the Ambassador which, is only is 526 meters and 2.8 M (volume). The difference in volume between Ambassador/Sovy is fairly-close when compared to the vast difference in length between them being 159 meters. Insert the specs on a Galaxy: 642 Meters and 5.8 M (volume) in mass and has the base turn of (6). The length + mass are far more than an Ambassador. That's how I came up with the notion that I could not see the Ambassador having below a 7 for its' base turn. But...to completely throw everything off...which might suggest otherwise...consider this:, when Ambassador is compared to say, a Nebula Class, at 4.4M (volume), has the base turn of a 9, and, is 440 meters in length, (only a difference of 86 meters).....perhaps the Nebula's base turn is too high??? I don't think anything is written in stone concerning the turn rate of a ship. The Nebula, being a whopping 4.4M (volume) should have a base turn closer to say... 7.5, wouldn't it make more sense if this was how the Devs properly calculated out this formula? Anyone else think there's more to it than that?
the volume difference between the nebula and galaxy on that site cant be right, they should be the same size. the lack of neck and slightly shrunk secondary hull should more then be made up for by the sensor pod imo. they would have to not count that thing or something.

cryptic should calculate the volume of their ship models and re assign inertia and turn values based on that.
______________________________________
Quote:
 Originally Posted by lordlalo I just wanted to say, I've never seen a more disturbing avatar
the pvp build and help thread
gateway links -->Norvo Tigan, Telis Latto Ruwon, Sochie Heim, Solana Soleus
Rihannsu
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,298
# 52
09-20-2012, 01:51 PM
Quote:
 Originally Posted by paragon92518 ...consider this:, when Ambassador is compared to say, a Nebula Class
The Nebula Class is a science ship, its turn rate that is the lowest of all Science ships outside the Atrox that is a carrier.

If you lower the turn base you are gripping the Nebula, also we know little about the Nebula propulsion systems to even make a informed statement about it.

The Ambassador MUST be compared with the other cruisers because it what it is, not a science ship and we also know what it was meant to be, the intermediary step from the Excelsior class to the Galaxy class.
Commander
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 267
# 53
09-20-2012, 02:14 PM
Quote:
 Originally Posted by f2pdrakron misterde3 already did a good job showing how the Ambassador even if shorter have more mass that the Sovereign, LENGTH does not equal MASS.
But that doesn't explain the Nebula. Changing stance? Science ship or not, the size/mass don't equal a 9 base turn. Perhaps that theory has been debunked
Rihannsu
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,298
# 54
09-20-2012, 02:49 PM
Quote:
 Originally Posted by paragon92518 But that doesn't explain the Nebula.
No.

Quote:
 Changing stance?
No, the argument was the Ambassador was shorter that the Sovereign and so it had to be more maneuverable.

Quote:
 Science ship or not, the size/mass don't equal a 9 base turn. Perhaps that theory has been debunked
There is more that mass to determine how maneuverable a ship is, I believe I point out the Enterprise B was a Excelsior refit were the amount of impulse thrusters double, there is no indication the ship mass also doubled meaning the ship should theoretical be far more maneuverable (check the location of the new thrusters) but in the game the Advanced Heavy Cruiser have the exact same turn rate at T3 and T5, a possible explanation is the T5 is more armored and so have far more mass meaning the extra thrusters are just compensating.

In the Nebula case you dont even know were the impulse thrusters are since the Nebula by design have no visible thrusters.

I make no statements on the Nebula because, simply put, there is not enough data for me to make a informed statement, the only argument I made on the Ambassador is what it was designed as and I will just not repeat myself.

Considering the damn blasted thing is not even out yet having arguments seems to be some people want to have their cake, eat it and have seconds since you are going to get the damn thing but it appears unless it can run circles on a B'rel and destroy a Bortas in a single shot its clearly broken.

Edit:

Yes, I do hate the damn ship because after months of reading about it I simply cannot stand it ... and you people did it, not the ship itself and by God I cannot wait until its out and this arguments die out.
Captain
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,113
# 55
09-22-2012, 10:25 PM
I LOVE the Ambassador class design.

I absolutely WILL buy one when it comes out. Which also means I'll need to buy a few more ship slots.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 101
Quote:
 Originally Posted by killjoy4all I am probably alone in this but I have always wanted to see the Enterprise C in action really think a retrofit Ambassador class would be awesome maybe let it except but not come with the saucer separation

The Ambassador class has been my favorite Trek (canon) heavy cruiser since the TNG episode "Yesterday's Enterprise". Truly once of the most graceful and alluring designs of the TNG era. The fact that it has never been introduced, in the years, since Cryptic's STO launch is just dumbfounding. Hopefully, the dev team will follow up on player requests to bring the Ambassador class into the game, either as a Tier 5 premium, or a Tier 4/5 standard.
Commander
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 471
# 57
11-24-2012, 01:07 PM
Quote:
 Originally Posted by azyurion The Ambassador class has been my favorite Trek (canon) heavy cruiser since the TNG episode "Yesterday's Enterprise". Truly once of the most graceful and alluring designs of the TNG era. The fact that it has never been introduced, in the years, since Cryptic's STO launch is just dumbfounding. Hopefully, the dev team will follow up on player requests to bring the Ambassador class into the game, either as a Tier 5 premium, or a Tier 4/5 standard.
Probably because for every person who thinks the Ambassador looks good you will find 3 or 4 who think its a damn fugly ship. Fat ass belly is the same reason the Chimera looks rubbish.
Commander
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 312
# 58
11-24-2012, 01:16 PM
I like the chimera
And the Ambassador is an ugly duck like the Excelsior because of this throat
http://www.startrekdesktopwallpaper....16001280.shtml

Hopefully the Ambassador Retrofit will have a redesigned throat :-)

But the overall design is ok enough for STO http://drexfiles.files.wordpress.com...assador_08.jpg

Last edited by luxchristian; 11-24-2012 at 01:18 PM.
Ensign
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 19
# 59
12-03-2012, 06:18 PM
While the throat might not be the prettiest it is much better on the Ambassador and excelsior then the butt ugly Galaxy class of ships when it comes to neck, and actually everything, IMHO.
Captain
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 933
# 60
12-03-2012, 06:36 PM
I don't care if the Ambassador is slow. I will be using her regardless! That will be my main ship for my Eng. Capt. I will buy it so fast my computer will lock up trying to process the purchase. lol

 Thread Tools Display Modes Linear Mode

 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 Off HTML code is Off

All times are GMT -8. The time now is 07:59 AM.