Commander
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 267
# 41
09-19-2012, 11:43 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by f2pdrakron View Post
The Ambassador was designed as the middle step from the Excelsior class and the Galaxy class, I was averaging the differences of stats of those two ships as they are in game since it pretty what the Ambassador was designed as.

The T5 Excelsior is just too good and the T5 Galaxy is too lacking, this makes the averaging quite close to both ships (500 points of hull of difference) were the main difference comes with turn rate but being the same turn rate as the Sovereign/Assault Cruisers was just what happened when I average it out.

misterde3 already did a good job showing how the Ambassador even if shorter have more mass that the Sovereign, LENGTH does not equal MASS.
So..between the both of you..you're going to play Scientists? 1 is more important than the other? I never said length equals mass or it doesnt. I simply said length. I never, ever, ever, ever said mass.

Case in point: I am 5'11. If I stood next to a man 6'10, most people would say I'm the smaller man correct? Even if I weighed more than the taller man.
Captain
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 3,628
# 42
09-19-2012, 12:25 PM
You are the one saying since the Ambassador is "smaller" that the Sovereign it should have a faster turn rate that the Sovereign.

Using your own example, its like saying because you are smaller that a person you be more nimble, since we are now talking about height/length the statement would be because you are smaller that someone you would be more nimble.

Also you are the one giving a 7.5 turn rate to the Ambassador, I average it out to 7 ... why did you did a 7.5 rate to the Ambassador? The Enterprise B certainly had impulsion engine revisions but the T5 Excelsior still have the exact same turn rate as the T3 and if you are going to bring up the Enterprise B engineering hull increased I will point out the number of impulse ports doubled, it certainly did not doubled in mass (at least in any visible way).
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 159
# 43
09-19-2012, 02:38 PM
Shorter people(lower to the ground) do have an easier time changin direction because of a lower center of gravity.

This does apply to ships. A longer ship turns slower because the sheer. That means the ends of the ship going in opposite directions.

If you are heading west and you turn south you have to wait for the back end or itll break off and keep going west
Career Officer
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 4,046
# 44
09-20-2012, 12:01 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by paragon92518 View Post
Ambassador's length vs. Sovys length (going by even your numbers) still is not even relatively close. Sovy is still considerably longer.
Ambassador has 77% of the Sovereign's length and 150% of her decks.

And the Ambasador class is also 70 meters wider.

Do the math.
In addition:

your own "source material" lists the Excelsior at exactly the same mass as the Ambassador.

http://www.stogeek.com/wiki/Excelsior_class

what kind of random nonsense is this supposed to be?

Did they build the Ambassador out of tinfoil?


Oh and I did a bit more research and I found out where the "info" text on the ships comes from.
Along with the specs like the shield values in terrajoules, it's all just copied over from

ditl.org

But it's all in white text.

And the colour key on the white text is as follows:

"White Text : Anything in white is my own invention. Sometimes this is just extrapolation - I guesstimated that the Nebula class has eight phaser arrays compared to the Galaxy classes twelve, for example, because the Nebula class is slightly smaller so probably slightly less powerful. But here and there I have gone into invention meltdown, inventing entire histories for ships about which we know little. Now and again I have even made up new backgrounds to known events just to make them sound a bit more dramatic. So be warned, if it's in white you can take it or leave it!"

In other words your own facts are all random fanfiction...even by the writer's own admission.

In addition the 2012 "Ships of the Line" calender also lists the Ambassador at 3,710,000 metric tonnes.
So on the one hand we have two sources, one the producers of the show, the other a recent calender signed off on by CBS.
And on the other we have fanfiction that's not even consistent with itself.

Where are your "facts"?

Last edited by misterde3; 09-20-2012 at 12:05 AM.
Empire Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 6,965
# 45
09-20-2012, 12:24 AM
according to this

http://st-v-sw.net/STSWvolumetrics.html

an examination of computer models of both ships shows the the ambassador as indeed being more volumus. difference being about half an excelsior class in favor of the ambassador.

Ambassador 2,871,310m?
Sovereign 2,429,193m?

its the volume really that gives you a true sense for just how large or small these ships are compared to each other. an ambassador and a sovereign's combined volume is still less then that of a single galaxy class, people don't give the galaxy enough credit for just how huge it is.
gateway links-->Norvo Tigan, Telis Latto Ruwon, Sochie Heim, Solana Soleus
Captain
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 3,553
# 46
09-20-2012, 01:04 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by thecosmic1 View Post
For many of us non-PvPers how it looks is far more important then how it operates.
RECANT THAT STATEMENT IMMEDIATELY. I could have the prettiest ship in the fleet, but if I can't even take on a frigate, I don't want it lol. Ok ok, I agree, I am pretty much purely PvE, and since I am a trek fan, aesthetics do matter to me, but I still want my pretty ship to be able to survive and be fun to fly.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dontdrunkimshoot View Post
people don't give the galaxy enough credit for just how huge it is.
That ship. Was freakin. Huge. I mean compared to a borg cube that ALL of us know is just obscenely massive, the Galaxy was still comparatively good sized. And you also saw how it dwarfed virtually EVERY other ship in the series (yes, I mean series). You compare them even to the massive jem'hadar dreadnoughts, and that sucker was still pretty much the same size if not larger.

The Galaxy was meant to be a magnificent ship that could do anything it needed to in the name of Starfleet. So it was huge. And capable. And huge. XD
It is said the best weapon is one that is never fired. I disagree. The best weapon is one you only have to fire... once.
Tired of Wasting EC and Time trying to get Superior Romulan Operative BOffs? Here's a cheap and easy way to get them, with an almost 100% chance of success.
Why the Devs can't make PvE content harder.
Captain
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 7,851
# 47
09-20-2012, 05:14 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by hereticknight085 View Post
RECANT THAT STATEMENT IMMEDIATELY. I could have the prettiest ship in the fleet, but if I can't even take on a frigate, I don't want it lol. Ok ok, I agree, I am pretty much purely PvE, and since I am a trek fan, aesthetics do matter to me, but I still want my pretty ship to be able to survive and be fun to fly.
It would be extremely difficult for any T5 ship with the standard 12 BOFF abilities and 9 Console Slots to not win in PvE Missions. The AI opponents are stupid and don't even use most of their abilities in combat. Heck, there are videos on YouTube where T5 ships with no BOFFs assigned simply flying around in circles auto-firing their targets to death in Missions. PvE encounters, even on Elite setting are very easy.

So do not worry, an Ambassador, even with only an Ensign Tac BOFF and 1 Tac Console Slot, would still pew-pew a Frigate using nothing but its 8 Weapon Slots. The PvE KDF, Roms, Breen, etc will still cower at your feet in defeat.
Captain
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 7,851
# 48
09-20-2012, 06:15 AM
As far as the Mass issue, the Ambassador has more then the Excelsior and less then the Galaxy. So it's turn rate should be somewhere between the two ships. Galaxy is 6, Excelsior is 8, Sovereign is 7. Unless the game starts allowing functional fractional turn rates the Ambassador probably fits well at 7, even though it's heaver then a Sovereign - an Ambassador might be 20% heavier then a Sovereign but it's still over 40% lighter then a Galaxy.
Commander
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 267
# 49
09-20-2012, 06:23 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dontdrunkimshoot View Post
according to this

http://st-v-sw.net/STSWvolumetrics.html

an examination of computer models of both ships shows the the ambassador as indeed being more volumus. difference being about half an excelsior class in favor of the ambassador.

Ambassador 2,871,310m?
Sovereign 2,429,193m?

its the volume really that gives you a true sense for just how large or small these ships are compared to each other. an ambassador and a sovereign's combined volume is still less then that of a single galaxy class, people don't give the galaxy enough credit for just how huge it is.

A difference of 116 meters in length (Galaxy vs. Ambassador) and Ambassador has 1/2 of the Galaxy's mass. 5,820,983 vs. 2,871,310.

Ambassador, despite slightly more mass than a Sovereign, difference in size of 159 meters in length.

What an awesome website! Very cool.

Last edited by paragon92518; 09-20-2012 at 11:45 AM.
Commander
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 267
# 50
09-20-2012, 11:37 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by misterde3 View Post
Ambassador has 77% of the Sovereign's length and 150% of her decks.

And the Ambasador class is also 70 meters wider.

Do the math.
In addition:

your own "source material" lists the Excelsior at exactly the same mass as the Ambassador.

http://www.stogeek.com/wiki/Excelsior_class

what kind of random nonsense is this supposed to be?

Did they build the Ambassador out of tinfoil?


Oh and I did a bit more research and I found out where the "info" text on the ships comes from.
Along with the specs like the shield values in terrajoules, it's all just copied over from

ditl.org

But it's all in white text.

And the colour key on the white text is as follows:

"White Text : Anything in white is my own invention. Sometimes this is just extrapolation - I guesstimated that the Nebula class has eight phaser arrays compared to the Galaxy classes twelve, for example, because the Nebula class is slightly smaller so probably slightly less powerful. But here and there I have gone into invention meltdown, inventing entire histories for ships about which we know little. Now and again I have even made up new backgrounds to known events just to make them sound a bit more dramatic. So be warned, if it's in white you can take it or leave it!"

In other words your own facts are all random fanfiction...even by the writer's own admission.

In addition the 2012 "Ships of the Line" calender also lists the Ambassador at 3,710,000 metric tonnes.
So on the one hand we have two sources, one the producers of the show, the other a recent calender signed off on by CBS.
And on the other we have fanfiction that's not even consistent with itself.

Where are your "facts"?
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?

Last edited by paragon92518; 09-20-2012 at 11:59 AM.
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 02:51 AM.