Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 21
02-21-2012, 03:30 PM
Umm, actually can we have it as an excelsior skin, please?
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 22
02-21-2012, 03:32 PM
i think it needs to be in own ship. I'm fine with it just being a tier 3 ship.

i know they are not over joyed with adding that ship right now, but the fans want it, just add it please and let people worry about if they want the ship or not.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 23
02-21-2012, 03:34 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katic View Post
I would prefer it be it's own ship and follow the Nebula model.

A 3.5 version (better than the T3 Excelsior) with a T5 version with a Cryptic Alternate skin and a Unique Ability Console.

The reason being, an alternate skin for the Galaxy would mean that instead of having a Galaxy and an ambassador in my 'barn", I could only switch my Galaxy from Galaxy to Ambassador, which just doesn't sit well with the ship collector in me.
that last line is a really good point, actually. I don't think i'd be happy with it just being a skin.

I like the 3.5 idea though. Heck, they should add a whole new tier in there so that T5 is captains [/grumble]
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 24
02-21-2012, 03:35 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by GT01 View Post
I'm a little surprised that the devs are having trouble placing the Ambassador with appropriate abilities. I mean, the suggestions of making it faster but with less hull, are a good start. Maybe reinforce it's tactical capabilities somewhat? The Venture class that is available at that level has enhanced science capabilities, while the regular Galaxy class has a good spread of Engineering slots.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katic View Post
I would prefer it be it's own ship and follow the Nebula model.

A 3.5 version (better than the T3 Excelsior) with a T5 version with a Cryptic Alternate skin and a Unique Ability Console.

The reason being, an alternate skin for the Galaxy would mean that instead of having a Galaxy and an ambassador in my 'barn", I could only switch my Galaxy from Galaxy to Ambassador, which just doesn't sit well with the ship collector in me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katic View Post
Oddly enough, me. I've never had a toon with more than 10M EC, and that was a long time ago, i don't think I have one with 500K now..

I'm not a grinder, so I tend not to get tons of drops and loot to sell. :/
All this

I would love it so much if the Ambassador was a Tac Cruiser
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 25
02-21-2012, 03:40 PM
They're all too willing to put in cardassian and dominion ships no one asked for, but they have trouble with adding a canon ship that has a huge demand? Am I the only one finding that weird? The ambassador class could easily have similar attributes to a galor.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 26
02-21-2012, 03:41 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SierraBishop
All this

I would love it so much if the Ambassador was a Tac Cruiser
so another sovereign then??
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 27
02-21-2012, 03:42 PM
I bet Cryptic has the number of cheap ships it wants and, if they add it, probably want it to be 1600+ C-Points. I think it's also hard to place by tier.

My inclination would be to make it a level scaling ship that stops at Tier 4.5.

That way it doesn't FULLY compete at endgame, it isn't awkwardly shoehorned as the second cruiser in a tier, and it has Tier 5.5 value without being Tier 5.

From the perspective of systemizing this for the factions, have every faction get one level scaling ship for, say, 2k Cryptic Points. It opens up BO and console stations with player level. In exchange for that, it's an expensive ship.

It's also done up as the iconic ship class of a faction with hybrid-y elements. So that's naturally a BoP for Klingons and a small cruiser with a high turnrate and sci-style bonuses for Feds, So it's a less durable cruiser. High turnrate. Sci-style passive buffs. But clearly cruiser style console loadout.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 28
02-21-2012, 03:45 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cosmic_One View Post
What "war" are you referring to? The Federation wasn't fighting any wars during the time of the Enterprise C - I don't consider the Klingon/Romulan cold wars as wars.
I think that your right on the Klingon one (mostly) but not on the Romulan one. The Federation and Romulans had the huge war that was supposed to have been shown in Enterprise"s season 5. Ever since they agreed to "peace" every Romulan encounter has involved them attacking throughout TOS. It also seems that between TOS and DS9, the Federation were the only ones who considered the peace treaty to be legitimate (the Romulans certainly didnt through their constant attacks on Federation or Klingon space).

The way I see it, the Ambassador class while not in a time of "war" , was built in a time it had to be prepared for one or at the very least, heavy combat. The Enterprise-C was destroyed because of a Romulan excursion into Klingon space. While maybe it was'nt a war, it was definitly a shoot on sight policy by the Romulans, and a shoot if shot on policy for the Federation.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 29
02-21-2012, 03:47 PM
I want it at tier 5...
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 30
02-21-2012, 03:50 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leviathan99
It's also done up as the iconic ship class of a faction with hybrid-y elements. So that's naturally a BoP for Klingons and a small cruiser with a high turnrate and sci-style bonuses for Feds, So it's a less durable cruiser. High turnrate. Sci-style passive buffs. But clearly cruiser style console loadout.
I could go for that. Essentially make it a tactical/science ship, with a cruiser console and stuff.
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

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 -7. The time now is 09:15 AM.