Fixing all the Federation Hero Ships in Star Trek Online
Вставка
- Опубліковано 12 вер 2024
- I go over all the Federation hero ships in Star Trek Online and what changes I'd make to make them better suited to recreating their vibe from the shows and movies.
________________________________________________________
Epic Game Creator Tag: STU1701
Real Merch Discount Code: STU1701
Volante Design Referral Link: refrr.app/PLi7...
Follow me everywhere: linktr.ee/stu1701
Merch Store: stu1701-shop.f...
Join this channel to get access to perks:
/ @stu1701
Discord: kyuu.cc/discord
________________________________________________________
Music:
'Master Systems' and 'Hyperier' by Popskyy. popskyy.bandca...
#StarTrekOnline #GXA #StarTrek #STO #theorycraft
If this video does well, I'll do one for non-Federation hero ships.
Romulan hero ships please. TOS BoP, D'deridex, Valdore, Scimitar, etc.
Klingon BoP needs so much love...
Do it!
D'deridex should have had a hangar(s), that's all. 😄
Or at least something what would make the ship a flying base and mother ship like it is in the tv series (DS9). I'd also rather see a command spec instead of a temporal seat, it makes more sense for me (and a plasma torp build).
Please
Since you're on this Theory Crafting kick, as you say, what would you think about doing a crafting video based on Juggernauts? I think it's time for the Federation, Romulan Republic, KDF, and Dominion forces to have access to there own Juggernaut Flagships.
With how everything has advanced both technologically and relationship wise in STO and with the continued and always more deadlier combat encounters. I think it's time for the Flagships of the various factions to move up from simple Dreadnoughts to the almighty Juggernauts.
Dreadnoughts still work out better since u get hangar bay with 5/3 vs just having Juggernaut 5/3 the array while strong with the buffing of pets I don't think it's enough nowadays for juggernauts to reign.
FDC is better since 8 weapons and 2 hangars and oddly enough there's one ship already for the Fed that is u can make a flagship of theirs. It's the Freedom class FDC.
I actually really like the Ambassador class. They quickly became my favorite ship design and the very first time I saw the ship was in the mission in Star Trek online where you have to free it from the prisoner camp. Which I believe is a mission that is temporal in nature. I want a full spec temporal ambassador really badly.
I think 4/4 is more of a balance configuration and I agree with it. Broadside is what I think of for cruisers. If it's a 5/3 it's a battle cruiser
Anything 4/4 can do, 5/3 can do better. That includes broadsiding.
The Odyssey tier 5 consoles need to be innate powers like the Juggernaut arrays. Then maybe give it one hanger. Since the Aquarius is acting as your second one. It doesn't need to be a full Flight Deck cruiser.
Enterprise D, 💯 needs a hangar. The second lieutenant Commander seat I would make science. You seem to be too fond of that second seat being universal. I know you just want 2 lieutenant Commander tactical seats on everything! 😏
Not everything. You really just want one minimum, but there is also such a thing as too much Tac seating.
You're not wrong, a higher Sci seat could work for Galaxy.
But it also needs attract fire, mutli mission cruisers do not get this. So for me that leaves dreadnought cruiser and flight deck.
With my magic wand. Nothing but escorts and destroyers would be able to use Dual or dual heavy cannons. Everything else single cannons. Only the ODD ship would be allowed real cannons. Ships like the Arbiter. Disco Connie get utterly stripped of being a FDC. One ep and some secret drones that Una just happened to load up for the fight. FDCs return to single hangers. Bigger ships like Galaxy and up get more power than smaller ships. Smaller ships get less.
Mastery packages. Each ship get two to choose from. Two options for this. Either pick one whole mastery package for good on that toons ship. Or pick and choose parts of either mastery package. The kicker is its and either or deal. If you pick, say cruiser Rapid repairs. The same level of mastery in the other package is locked out to you. This pick and mix can bring some variety to many ships.
More changes would need a lot of how the game work would have to be redone. Which is not feasible. Like how accuracy and defence works. Ditching the base 25% hit chance no matter the defence, a target has.
Off topic for a moment, I am loving the Achilles, I am tearing through Tzenkethi ships like a hot Bat'leth through butter.
I'm more traditional. Fed cruisers should be 4/4. Klingon and Romulan ones should be 5/3. As their ships are more aggressively designed.
It's an argument. Except for Fed tactical cruisers maybe. But yeah, Klingon and Romulan ships tend to have their weaponry concentrated in their frontal arc for more aggressive and concentrated firepower.
This would be horrible for game balance.
@@Stu1701 if the game still had a robust PVP I would care about balance. But like Axel said, tactical and assault cruisers... sure 5/3 would be fine. But not every basic cruiser needs to be. If your only concern is _MAX DEEPS!_ then you might have to drive a Klingon or Romulan ship more often. 🤷
@@Stu1701 Then I think the weapons should be rebalanced in order to make broadsiding as viable as forward cannon builds. Just spitballing here, but open up engagement range to 20km and have cannon dps drop off much more with range than beams such that they're only close to optimal at less than 10km and have beams much more effective than cannons beyond say 12km.
But that reminds me of a bigger point in that STO basically stopped developing actual game content years ago. We should have more specializations by now, new game mechanics, so that all the dozens of ships they release actually feel and play like different ships. This kind of theory crafting video just illustrates the point... There are too few variables to play with such that way too many ships are insignificant variations on other. There needs to be way more outside the box thinking because the current design box has been too small for years and too many "new" ships have been made recycling old content.
4/4 would be better with 3 things happen:
Removing Omni restriction
Buffing FaW
Single cannon rework( broadside option with cannons/CSV)
For the Oddessey, I think it should have frigate pets. (Like the Schimitar and similair ships) as the flagship of the STO Federation, it makes sense that it would have an escort like that
If Cryptic could let you have two different sets of consoles when you change the science destroyer, then it might be good. Hell even if only one console of each type changed, that would make a world of difference.
4:16 - in Discovery, it was a literal plot point that Pike and his crew STRAPPED everything they could carry to the exterior of the hull slash loaded it into their cargo and shuttle bay and almost flew the ship apart GETTING to the battle with Control. The fact that STO had a version that doesn't even struggle to launch fighters is one of the *weirdest* ass pulls xD
Multi-Mission Cruiser for the Galaxy Class, also fits the USS Odyssey from DS9, which had the 2 Runabouts from DS9 along for the mission. 1 hangar, max 2 Runabouts.
Intrepid class should of been fast cruiser that heavy focused on sciene and good balance between engineering and tactal
I really loved your take on the intrepid. That would be my primary ship if it actually existed!
Since you're theory crafting, maybe you could theory craft an Khitomer Alliance Juggernaut? Take design philosophies from all 4 factions and blend them into a single powerhouse of a ship!
here's an idea, how about give Hero Ships Uni Commander Seat or Dual Commander Seats.
The Enterprise C accidentally time traveled. Not sure why that would make it a temporal ship. 😆
It's the only thing we saw it do! The only other thing it's known for is getting destroyed by the Romulans, and there isn't a Specialization for that!
@@Stu1701 it's special console could have been calling in three Romulan or Klingon ships. 50/50 chance. The Romulan ships attack you, the Klingon ships assist you! 😆
For the Gal-X, I wish we could use the World Razer parts on it. The third nacelle would have been fitting on that ship along with the lance weapon under the saucer.
Defiant being Pilot/Intel makes sense, as it was originally used for intel missions into the Gamma quadrant.
Trying for that 15th Anniversary bundle eh?
Honestly, it seems odd that none of the Hero ships are considered the best in dps/tanking.
Do you think with your changes that those ships would be higher on the list of "meta" ships? even though I will never be one of those tip of the spear dps chasers, I still want to do well. To be fair, I fly what I love and try to make the builds good.
What would be your top 5 hero ships in the game now? Not thinking from DPS charts but just really good ships?
Definitely some great ideas! I always thought larger ships should have side weapon slots too. That would be weird though I guess. Idk.
TOS Connie only had four Type F shuttles in total. And In Star Fleet battles table top you could use its shuttles as combat pets.
I'm fine with the battle cloak being a set bonus because it means I can get it on my nova lol. For the Intrepid I think science could be tied to how it was kind of a testbed for a lot of stuff like bioneural gel packs
I would love to see this for the underperforming ships that really ought to get some love.
I LOVE the Titan A... it just should never have been rechristened as the Enterprise!! Besides, it's NO WHERE near as bad as the Enterprise J🤣
Not every cruiser has to be 5/3. Or is it just because these are the hero ships?
It's easier to sit in one spot and spam all five of your uber weapons than it is to be tactical about combat. This is all Cryptic's fault for going Pay for Power with their ships, but at least it matches their Endless Zerg Waves style of encounter design they've adopted.
@@williamgeorge2580 I can kind of respect that they gave up on balancing things once PVP essentially died. 😆
Finally, someone who hates the Enterprise G as much as I do!
They disrespected the E by killing it off to wedge in the F fifteen+ years early, then disrespected the F by retiring it ten years before it should have even been built. Then, they did the Titan dirty *twice* by dismantling it to build the Titan A, an ugly, anachronistic remake of a fan design, and then said that the name “Titan” wasn’t good enough for it and renamed it to the Enterprise.
Screw the Enterprise G, all my homies hate the Enterprise G.
that was that show and most of live action nutrek in a nutshell, shitting on everything good, and missing the point, even the better parts. like look I dont hate that show's titan, as its look is ok, but nothing memorable. But remaining it the G is like you said an insult to BOTH names
I too hate the Enterprise-G. They completely disrespected the -F AND us STO fans, they disrespected the Titan, they disrespected the Enterprise-D, they disrespected all of TNG, and they disrespected the entire legacy of the name Enterprise.
All of Star Trek Picard needs to get the [Delete] treatment. The ONLY people who like the Enterprise-G are internet trolls.
The way they're going about destroying Star Trek, Star Trek Legacy is probably going to be all about how the Federation have always been the villains of every story rather than the heroes.
@@TheOneTrueDragonKing honestly they did ok with the D, yeah the D was the treat they used to convince people to come to the show like the STO ships were used in season 2. This isnt defending the show cause ive ONLY watched the clips for obvious reasons. And please the only half decent stuff of NUtrek was the animated stuff and new worlds and compared to the older series they are just around voyager and enterprise at best, harmless. Picard is a shiny fishing lure, while STD is well you can read it.
@@SuperGamefreak18 Picard is antithetical to all things Star Trek. It promotes bigotry, slavery, and hate.
The message of Star Trek Picard is "It's OK to be hateful and bigoted towards an entire race of sentient humanoids if a small subsection of said humanoids does something to you first."
They use the terrorist attack on Utopia Planitia as an excuse to turn the entire Federation bigoted and hateful towards all synthetic life.
And they conveniently forget that Starfleet's charter and the language of the United Earth Government's own charter (which was carried over into the UFP's charter) clearly state that all sentient life, no matter their origin, is afforded equality and identical rights under their law.
As soon as a species is identified as sentient, they have the same rights as any other sentient species.
Star Trek Picard is a case of Star Trek ignoring all previous Trek. Including TNG, which it was meant to follow on to.
If they had followed their own previous story, then Picard never would have been on television.
Admiral Picard could have simply quoted the UFP charter, and the entire show would have been aborted before it ever got started in a simple flip of the switch.
Picard was a bad show, with an evil message and a disgusting case of massive disrespect for everything all of Star Trek stood for.
Protostar was done insanely dirty in the lockbox version. it should have been Pilot/Temp, it should have had better than equinox manuverability, it should have been fast and nimble and filled with science and engineering. the ship was poorly armed in the show, compared to other starfleet ships anyways as it was not really ment for fighting. why should it fight when it can GTFO like nothing else?
also, i just wanna say that Miracle worker also really fits the OG connie.. given it bore the OG miracle worker himself.
I would love a 5/3 Odyssey...maybe even make it a Jug that deletes the negative space on the neck. Call it the CSS Star Razer...or some ridiculous name like that.
I would pay real money, for a 5-3 or 5-2 Intel Voyager XD
Given that the Ambassador Class was used as a substitute for the Galaxy Class when they were not available during the Dominion War, I could see a secondary Command seat being appropriate for that ship. The Galaxy Class has that massive hangar on the saucer and the game does nothing with it... the ship needs a carrier variant. I could see the Intrepid Class warranting a science spearhead designation with all the experimental equipment aboard and STO's total misevaluation of the ship's role, but then there is no good excuse to introduce Type 9 pets.
Also, on all these hypothetical new Hero Ship variants... put them in the Z-Store! Base the setups on the Mirror-Universe Bundle so they are not just mixed in with everything else but are also not unobtanium for a large portion of the player base!
On another theory crafting tangent... given the current ships and equipment of the Alliance, what makes most sense for them to create next in that line of ships and what groups should be the most influential in its design? I think it should be a mid-size multi-mission ship of some variety, equipped with new Alliance Shuttles, and the Federation and Republic should be the primary designers.
Titan should've been Luna-class in Picard s3, Protostar should've been like Nova/Equinox on steroids in STO and yes, please do hero (and villain) ships of other factions too.
Deleting the Constitution III is the best improvement.
Great video. All of these ships are beautiful, and I don't think I disagree with anything you said there.
cryptic either needs to rework engineer so it can be more offensive or make so tanking is actually viable in random TFO and other content where you don't have an organized group
Going through this, I'd figured I'd share my thoughts along with yours. Here are my Notes:
NX - Frigate makes more sense. At least to me. 5/3, no experimental weapon.
Connie - no notes
Konnie - no notes
Donnie - no notes
Excelsior - being 'The Great Experiment", it should have an experimental weapon. 5/2/X or a 4/3/X
Ambassador - 4/4 would be ok
Galaxy - I would have to say MW Primary and CMD secondary. This ship was pulling off some really impressive miracles when in service. MMCruiser is best
Gal-X - No notes
Sovereign - CMD/INT is an awesome layout. Needed to be an aggressive ship. Should have the oddity of 5 tac consoles. Also why an additional Uni console? Typo?
Oddy - Make another version and make it weird and have a science variant with a secondary deflector! Why not!
Defiant - I like! Not a fan of the ship, but I like PLT/INT
Intrepid - Yes! TMP/INT would be awesome!
Luna - I like this change
Crossfield - this is ok
California - This would make it playable! And yes, needs to be MW because this ship should've been destroyed on more than 1 occasion
Protostar - would be fun to use pilot maneuvers. Maybe have an experimental weapon AND a second deflector, but then it would be a 3/3
Connie III - ANYTHING other than pilot secondary would be fine. It's just a Legendary Sovereign.
Generally most starfleet ships in the 150 meter and larger shlukd be able to luanch shuttles not just limited to certain ships.
Would love to hear your stats tweak on the Prometheus class!
Imho it needs 5/3 , MW seating and 5 tac consoles.
Perhaps if they made a TOS Enterprise thats a multi mission explorer? That would feel thematicly right. She was built well to be an explorer not to tank enemies :D
As I said in the video, you could argue Multi-Mission Cruiser for every Enterprise, but I didn't want to overuse it.
I think the Legendary Ambassador is good as is, except maybe some more console slots, because legendary. I still use mine from time to time, one of my character's daily driver is the legendary ambassador with an SS3 build.
The number of console slots a ship has isn't random. The average tier 6 ship has 11 console slots. The exceptions to this are most C-store ships, which come with 10, their fleet versions comes with the 11th (its part of the incentive to use fleet ship modules). The other exception is Miracle Worker ships, which always get an additional universal console slot, giving them a total of 12. This is all before the application of T6-X upgrades, which can give give your ship up to two additional universal console slots.
If you start giving Legendary ships extra slots, then it leaves little incentive to use your other T6 ships (or to buy new ones).
@@Stu1701 fair point.
I wish they'd do something about Romulan ships.
TOS cruiser fits the MW spec more then temporal, so I say MW primary and temporal secondary. Also multi-mission cruiser lacks attract fire, flight deck carrier makes way more sense for the galaxy class. Cruiser tanks work best with attract fire aura. Sovereign MW makes more sense then command, enterprise-e wasn't the command ship during first contact etc. MW/pilot fine, but I agree battlecruiser. Legendary Oddy just needs a secondary spec seat intel is my choose, it still doesn't have one unlike every other ship in the bundle, so unfortunately I don't fly it even if I love the ship for this very reason.
I think cryptic made the intrepid a science vessel because Janeway is a scientist before she became a captain I doubt they just made her one by default.
I'm sure Janeway's background was a factor, too, yes.
i would say have the Vengeance classed as a Juggernaut that thing is big enough to be one.
They literally call it a Dreadnought in the movie
Intrepid should definitely be a light cruiser.
If you really want a theorycrafting challenge, try and come up with a ship mechanic and set of Boff abilities for Strategist if it were made a full specialisation
I don't think Strategist needs to be a full specialization. Honestly, I'd rather make a whole new one from scratch. Probably something pet focused.
Now the real challenge - how would you fix the fuckin Jupiter??? xD
We don't talk about the Enterprise-G
Nice video! I still would like Intel Command on Sov. class however as it appears in the movie more tactical heavy. We do need a Galaxy and Odyssey flight deck carrier. Defiant I would prefer Intel\Temporal it would be a beast and needs a 32c battle cloak dont care how we get it lets get it!
I'm still up in the air about Sovereign. Yeah, Intel/Command sounded better for it, thematically, but looking at the seating, I liked the reverse better.
Miracle Worker wouldn't be as bad for science if Null Pointer Flood was an uncon trigger like it should be...
Please don't change the Disco FDC! I am using that as my pet main right now. 5/3, good hull points, 2 hangars... granted double temp is overkill, and the consoles could be miracle worked into being more engie... but those are minor annoyances and I am having fun with my tiny connie with more space on the inside than is available from the outside. (YES! The fuselage is ALL hangar space, and then some!)
Just seeing ships makes me happy!
I want a pilot/command sovereign. I think it will be funny.
on a scale of up to 4 stars, i rate this video a solid 5/3
Ah, hold on. What if the Defiant had an experimental weapon instead of a 5/3? I ask this because what if you got to throw on the hexacannons or quantum torpedoes there? That'd fit the vibe even better.
Then it wouldn't be a Warship
@@Stu1701 Well. Maybe not. But, it'd be pretty cool.
the intrepid class is said to be a science class in the show... also miracle worker is the obvious choice for it following the theme of the show... and piloting was also a huge part of it, just look at it's battle scenes, also Tom Paris was a huge part on that too...
Yeah, but Miracle Worker and Pilot are both shit for science builds.
@@Stu1701 isn't the whole point to follow the theme of the ship? that's the approach you took for the others, if that wasn't the point for you it was for cryptic, and if that particular combo doesn't suit sci vessels, they're the only ones to blame.
that doesn't justify going agaisnt the theme for me.
the idea was to try to balance both. you want the ship to feel thematic to the show, but at the same time, you don't want it to suck.
@@Stu1701 I see where you're coming from - and you're not wrong - but as I said previously, the point with cryptic was to make as close to the theme as possible with the intrepid, and it THEIR fault that the combo doesn't work, and theirs alone.
by concept it should work, pilot has a few control abilities, but what kills this combo is the lack of control abilities on MW's side, gravitic induction platform SHOULD BE an uncon proc, so is the case with null pointer flood, but they aren't and that's what kills it's synergy, on the other hand tho, the legendary intrepid has 4 eng slots and a commander MW seat: great for a isomag DEW platform - and I even believe that's accurate to the show as most of the time voyager solved stuff with *freedom and democracy* if u know what I mean XD and yes I know anything but a sci vessel would work better for that specific play style but still, theme, and if you want to run it as a pure sci vessel, nothing stops you from slapping on that sci seat a grab well 3, vcs 3, po1 and jam targeting sensors 1 or something, it'll still do great.
Tldr: the theme of the ship was the point for cryptic, the combo doesn't work for their fault and they should fix that not the ship, but the ship isn't bad because of that, quite the opposite, it's rather flexible.
The oddy is a mystery and but i agree i want my oddy cv
Command Miracle worker was what I hoped the Ross would have been.
Legendary Ships should NOT have have 2 Spec Seats of the same Spec.
And the secondary one should always be LtCdr.
I don't get why the devs did NOT stick to that.
*points at the Leg Odyssey*
And what the hell is that?!? No Secondary Spec seat whatsoever? What the?
So yeah. A lot of them need a boost.
Even if I don't agree with all of Stu's choices, I get where he's coming from.
100% agree with Sovereign. Just facts. Please read this DECA!!!!!
We need new Romulan ships.
Stu how do you feel about support carriers could you improve those?
They're decent ships with all the pet stuff we've been getting lately. But I'd want to make them full spec and give them a secondary seat. So move the Command seat to the Cmdr Sci seat, and really you could give it any spec for the secondary. Command/MW has already been done enough on carriers. I'd probably say Intel or Pilot for the secondary and put that on the Lt Cmdr Eng or Uni seat.
Hypothetically, as long as there would be another Excelsior after (your theory version). I would want an Excelsior that is a Flightdeck-Carrier, for my 'Shattered Universe' wish. lol
28:33
'Lower Decks' Sequoyah 'hot-rod' shuttles.
No weapons. Why?
Abilities:
- Ramming Speed
- (Shax) Boarding Party __ seconds after Ramming Speed, affecting (ship systems and/or bridge officer cooldowns).
- __ seconds after (Shax) Boarding Party, explosive damage.
No notes on the Titan-A/Ent-G.
Sequoia
easy to remember as it has every English vowel in it.
I agree with the Enterprise G. As it stands now I would prefer it to not exist. I'm fine with the Shangri-La class and how it looks. But the entire story of how it came to be is very silly. (Concocted by the showrunner just because he wanted to squeeze the Shangri-La class in the show and make it an Enterprise.) And seeing how the next flagship tends to be bigger than the previous one, this is a big step backwards. And like you I really like the Odyssey and don't appreciate that the only time we see it in canon is it being retired!
We already had ambassador which has Temp seating primary. Check Captain Yolo video on the 11 th anniversary bundle.
Yes, the Narendra is a Temporal ship, but it doesn't have a secondary spec seat. It's also 4/4.
@@Stu1701 I think the feeling was it was too simliar so it was changed yet again.
Honestly Galaxy X one of them should in the case Terran would be TO/CMD or CMD/TO cause it was from a mirror ep.
The idea that the Legendary would've been too similar to the original doesn't make sense because they've definitely done that before. Legendary Galaxy, for example, has nearly the same seating as the original Andromeda, they just made it full Command.
As for the Odyssey the Lexington fits it fine since it was supposed to be multiple purpose vessel so MW and INT fits. Just Bump up INT/Lt for INT/Lt Cmdr. That's the only way to make it even better imo.
Odyssey Class - Wasted Potential Would have loved to see this ship in action.
I would say that the Defiant should have an experimental wrapon slot
The Terran Adamant has one and you can make it look like a standard Defiant
Absotively Posilutely!
Wouldn't be a warship then
Need a TOS omni
On the Titanprise....
What Titanprise. Season 3 of Picard NEVER HAPPENED. I'm not in denial. YOU'RE in denial. NEVER! HAPPENED! My fan was NOT serviced.
Hate calling it constitution 3..... it has more in common size with the Ambassador class, why not call it ambassador III? or was it called neo constitution in picard?
Officially it's called the Constitution III. Neo Constitution was meant to a sort of nickname, but the way it's said in the show just created more confusion than anything else as to what the ship is called.
Honestly? I love 4/4 because it allows a greater variation of weapons than 5/3.
4/4 allows you to have cannons, torpedoes, and phasers in your forward array, while you have two omni beams (one crafted, one set) or an omni and a turret, plus a torpedo launcher and a minelayer in your aft slots. (Never underestimate the power of a few well-placed mines, power that has been amplified with the Relocate Mines captain ability.)
Broadsiding is cool, but it's not very useful. Torpedoes do much heavier damage and most torpedo launchers don't fire broadside.
5/3 simply has less weapons flexibility. You have to sacrifice a weapons slot for no change in stats, meaning you can't mount all the weapons you want. Plus, it means you have to make a choice for your rear arc: You can either mount mines OR torpedoes (mines are rear arc only just like cannons are forward arc only) or you have to sacrifice an omni beam or turret (which can fire in a 360-degree arc) if you want both mines and torpedoes.
There is simply no advantage to flying 5/3 over 4/4. You'd be better off running 2/2.
Also, we need the freaking TMP bridge! And I definitely agree with you about the Enterprise-G, that's a case of [Delete]. And can you please push that same delete button for all of Star Trek Picard too?
Seriously? I find the exact opposite to be true. 4/4 is too restrictive.
5/3 is better in everything outside minelayer build.
Broadside? The same power on side as 4/4 but better forward arc.
Mixing wepons in most cases isn't very optimal. How many times you can put 3 firing modes on Cruiser? Better stick to beams or cannons plus 1 torp. Torp at the back is ,most of the time, waste of slot becouse enemy have to be behind you. Maybe old school torp build is better on 4/4 if you dont have access to maelstrom torp
@@adrewadrew5860 How often can I have three firing modes up on a cruiser... How about nearly-constantly? In my current build I have the Overload-Linked quad phaser cannons that treat Beam Overload as Cannon: Rapid Fire, so I get two modes for one activation. Then I have my torpedo modes, spread and high yield.
And I pair up the fire modes to utilize the fact that activating a fire mode while another is on cooldown instantly reduces that cooldown to the minimum global.
I pair Beam Overload with High Yield Torpedo and Beam Fire at Will with Torpedo Spread. Whenever I activate one in a pair, I also activate the other. By doing this, by the time one linked pair of firing modes is finished, the other is ready and can be activated immediately.
In this way I can at least two firing modes up at all times, and if I'm using Beam Overload I automatically get Cannon: Rapid Fire. When this happens, I have three.
Therefore, I have two firing modes up all the time, and three firing modes every fifteen seconds.
As for my current build I use the trifloride maelstrom torpedoes in the front and have the Nexus tricobalt torpedo in the rear. I also run the Nexus phaser turret in the rear to get around the two-omni limit and gain the full benefit of the Nexus set. The other weapons I run depend on what kind of damage I have to do for accolades. If I'm not trying for a damage accolade that day, I default to Disruptor.
Additionally, I run the full Protostar set including the omni. All of this on the Odyssey.
Anything 5/3 can do, 4/4 can do better.
@@Stu1701 I completely disagree.
I can have three firing modes up on my odyssey nearly-constantly. In my current build I have the Overload-Linked quad phaser cannons that treat Beam Overload as Cannon: Rapid Fire, so I get two modes for one activation. Then I have my torpedo modes, spread and high yield.
And I pair up the fire modes to utilize the fact that activating a fire mode while another is on cooldown instantly reduces that cooldown to the minimum global.
I pair Beam Overload with High Yield Torpedo and Beam Fire at Will with Torpedo Spread. Whenever I activate one in a pair, I also activate the other. By doing this, the time one pair of firing modes finish, the other is ready.
In this way I can at least two firing modes up at all times, and if I'm using Beam Overload, I automatically get Cannon: Rapid Fire, which is my third. This means I have two firing modes up all the time, and three every fifteen seconds.
As for my current build I use the trifloride maelstrom torpedoes in the front and have the Nexus tricobalt torpedo in the rear. I also run the Nexus phaser turret in the rear to get around the two-omni limit and gain the full benefit of the Nexus set. Additionally, I normally run the full Protostar set including the omni. (I only ever change out the Protostar omni if I have to get a Tetryon damage accolade in which case I swap loadouts to use the Tholian set.)
The other weapons I run depend on what kind of damage I have to do for accolades. If I'm not trying for a damage accolade that day, I default to Disruptor.
And I usually have a weapons slot free to just throw on whatever I have spare, usually another omni. This means technically I'm only running 4/3.
All of this on the Odyssey.
So, anything 5/3 can do, 4/4 can do better.
@@TheOneTrueDragonKing no you don't have 3 firing modes. Your turret recive no firing mode and nexsus Omni better combine with console and you can put turret for more chance to triger haste buff and cutting beam plus console for another proc. With 5/3 I swaping your torpedo for set pice only to another dual beam which benefits much more or if you rly need that torp i can put it at front so it can also fire.. This is why 5/3 is more versitile and power full. You can do the same build on 4/4 and 5/3(i don't count minelayer build becuose pure minelayer build is just meme) and on 5/3 will perform most of the time better sometimes the same and newer worse. Sorry you defending impossible to defend position. In current state 5/3 is just better then 4/4.
How do you reconcile that Star trek the ships are supposed to be exploratory focused and weapons are only supposed to be for defense only? Anyway it seems that many of your changes are based upon bridge seating and because so many of your choices are based because so many of the specializations lower abilities suck. Maybe we should focus on fixing crappy bridge officer powers/abilities that allow for greater play styles rather than types of seating. Anyway it is an almost silly exercise as ships are designed for their role. Scout, Support, Frontliner, Fast Attack, Defense, Stealth, Command & Control. That doesn't really work in STO sadly. but nobody wants to fly the re-fueling ship hehe.
First this isn't EvE.Secind Power Creep almost completely destroy DPS Tank Support triangle wchich never truly worked in STO.
What, no J? 🤣
Nice vid Stu! Just one question: where's the La Sirena? Or are you taking a que what Picard season 3 did with that ship? LOL
Kinda forgot about La Sirena, but honestly, its stats, as they are in-game) fit well for its theme if you're gonna stick to it being a T6 ship (which, honestly, I don't think it should've been, but I see why it ended up being one).
They need to update older ships or reduce the pricing, old shit is way too dated yet still priced as if they're new, it's ridiculous.
make a review about the prizes from the campaing
Way ahead of you. I made these in March.
Here's the promo ships video: ua-cam.com/video/c_V0cFRYtW0/v-deo.htmlsi=Ru8TOnv-8QsISro6
and the c-store ships video: ua-cam.com/video/yRw3df7rEzc/v-deo.htmlsi=CU8oGg-p3OkmgDIM
The adament being mirror universes answer to the defiant well it’s not the mirror defiant, so let’s say it’s discoverse mirror defiant, o let’s pack it with as much death as possible give it the discoprise tactical flyers so give it two hangers if it’s the tactical flyers it’s small enough and we’ll it’s got a bridge window it’s not prime so either kelvin or disco becuz the large bridge window
Honestly I think all ships having a shuttle bay should have one hanger luckily there’s a console from the discoprise that that gives you a squadron of tactical flyers, I use that on my adament since I feel it needs a hanger but especially use it on this years anniversary carrier my current fave carrier
I was literally just chatting with a friend and said when they add the Obena class from lower decks needs to be a 5/3 battlecrusier.
Connie 3 😂😂😂 I love the LOOK... that's about all.
Funny, the look of it is what i like the least about it. Too uninspired and regressive. I mean, this is a ship supposed to be designed and commissioned AFTER both the Galaxy and Odyssey classes, yet it looks more primitive than both.
@@axelhopfinger533 It was originally a fan design to be somewhere pre-Excelsior... I think Paramount was smoking something to place it post-Odyssey though. Like I said, I like the LOOK, not the lore, cause you're right, it makes zero sense in the time period they made it.
@@antarfodoh Afaik, it's based on the Shangri-La class design. But tbh i don't like the look of any of the Discovery or Picard ships really, except for the Dailkhina maybe. Once Kurtzman took over Trek, it all regressed greatly visually and design wise.
There's just no elegance or originality in those newer designs anymore. The Cryptic guys did a much better job of iterating on the classic Star Trek design language and modernizing it imho.
@@axelhopfinger533 Agreed! I love the STO look!
Dont get me started on how STO does ship classes. As they are names only. As everything can carry MK XV weapons. Its pointless. When an escort or destroyer is carrying the ST equivelant of 16 inch battleship guns, instead of the normal 4-5 inch Destroyer guns. STOs legacy Champions engine carries a lot of blame. When T6 was launched, that would have been the final chance to sort out the class problems. Ships like Destroyers would need a special mechanic to make them dangerous to capital ships. The torpedo of WWII. Note mechanic, not trait or console.
Destroyers in space sci fi are not the small ships that do massive damage to capital ships.
They are always medium sized cruisers that have a weapons trick up their sleeves to do huge damage, but can be destroyed before using it, and sacrifice plenty of speed. The Defiant comes to mind as an example for these. It was destroyed twice doing its job, but it shredded before it was each time.
Science ships are the medium sized cruisers that always have that speed to escape damage, can do huge damage with exotic attacks, but cannot last long in a straight up weapons fight.
Voyager is the ship I think of as the case for these.
5/3 OG Shangri-la class (and would proudly name it U.S.S. Saavik o7) and not the 4/4 Constitution III bs
Hopefully when the Obena Finally gets added it will be an Excelsior Variant with 5/3 weapons layout.
Galaxy dreadnuaght should be bumped into cruiser becaise she is cruisee sized tactial crusier flight deck attact cruiser
I am on record for saying I despise cruisers with 8 weapons having two hangars. All of them need to only have one hangar, or true carriers need 4 hangars, or maybe for fun three hangers and the experimental weapon. 😆
I find 4/4 layout better for all starfleet ship.
Anything 4/4 can do, 5/3 can do better.
Ooh, talk about a tall order, what else do you do for fun jam your fingers in the car door repeatedly? Goodluck on this mammoth task, I await it's outcome.
I will never understand Fed ships being 4/4 layouts unless they are unmanageable behemoths, the whole point of a saucer is that it gives the greater field of fire, so Fed ships are supposed to have their weapons mostly up front so 5/3 as you said rather than 4/4.
Here are some of my fixes.
1). Not everything can be a 5/3; regardless of how the game is currently played, some ships are meant to be sort of large presences in space - imposing their will on areas. 4/4 fits cruisers/assault cruisers/battlecruisers.
2). Like someone else mentioned, I’d give 4/4 ships a significant boost to beams in their inherent stats, particularly in side arcs. Something like +5% crth, +40% crtd, +75% cat1, and extend the engagement range to 15km. Something has got to be done about beam damage on those builds.
3). STO should come to terms with canon reality. In canon, big ships win 95% of the time and small ships lose. I know the dominion took down some capital ships with their little escorts and the defiant was a beast, but cruisers and battleships ALWAYS outmatch little ones. In STO, there is no consideration given toward the class of ships when it comes to power delivery. Cruisers get the same amount of weapon and console slots as escorts. That’s preposterous. Smaller ships are more nimble, and rightly so. But a little escort shouldn’t be engaging an elite tac cube on its own and remotely standing a chance. Nor should it be conjuring a series of gigantic, super-powerful science anomalies destroying 10s of ships at once. STO has a problem with canon reality in that sense.
4). Along the same lines, beams maybe shouldn’t be ultra powerful, but what has been going on with cannons is preposterous. A ship shouldn’t be able to go into ISA, set up in front of the opening three targets (assimilators), hit CSV, and have bucketloads of cannons firing at all of them. There is ZERO evidence in canon that such firepower exists. We might see some CSV, but not the sort of confetti-ish distribution of so much firepower. Even the Scimitar - which had 52 disruptor banks - wasn’t able to park in front of the theee other ships and unleash such firepower. It’s ridiculous. We DO have canon evidence of cruisers using FAW to great effect. In the same battle, Picard ordered the E to fire a zero-elevation full phaser spread. As a cruiser, it CAN “fire at will” from every facing.
Like I have more of an issue with the way STO has treated ship classes and the preposterous abilities certain classes are able to yield than the seating and/or weapon layouts on specific ships
no. 4/4 is ass
Excelsior II is a good excelsior class ship
I get that you really hate the Enterprise G (I disagree, I quite like it and it thematically made sense to me), I really would have liked to see your true take on how to fix that ship, it's a decently laid out ship, but it's not as good as some of the other Federation cruisers in the game.
The G does not work with previous history of the Enterprise.
Every ship got bigger, until the F gave us what fans always wanted since Kirk showing us the first refit in TMP: an Enterprise that was also a Dreadnought.
The G is a tantrum to that history of not just the Enterprise, but the simple fact that the ship always faces galactic ending events every other week, and those threats are getting bigger and bigger.
@@shauntempley9757 Couple things: One, I don't think a lot of people care either way if the Enterprise is a big ship or not, as long as it isn't a shuttlecraft. Two, Just because the G is smaller than the F doesn't mean it can't handle galaxy-ending threats because if that were the case, the NX-01 would have failed, the TOS and TMP Enterprises would have failed, and so on. Three, I would venture to state that the producers for Picard S3 and even lore-wise in the show that the G is seen as an homage to the golden age of Federation exploration. Back in Kirk's time, the Constitution-class was seen as a technological marvel that was pushing the boundaries of Starfleet with each passing moment. The creators behind Picard probably wanted to pay tribute to the Kirk era of Trek by making the third iteration of the Connie be the new flagship to go explore. Lore wise, it also makes sense because we've seen in Picard S2 that Starfleet was making ship classes based off old designs, but with new tech and a era-appropriate look (See the Excelsior-II for example). Star Trek Onlines own lore for the newer ships also lines up with that way of thinking such as the Reliant-Class, the Sutherland-class, etc. IMO making the Enterprise-G is the culmination of this mentality.
@@seanc9401 I get that. It is just that the F shows a design concept based on history the previous ship dealt with.
Just like the E was based on history her predecessor dealt with.
The G is a total reversal of that history in story form.
Dude 4 4 configuation is perfect for us RPers. That way we can fire torpedoes aft like was done in the shows. You DPSers are not the majority of who plays STO. Casuals and Rpers are.
You can still put an aft torp on a 5/3. That's why there are still 3 weapon slots in the back. But the fact still is that anything 4/4 can do, 5/3 will do better.
@@Stu1701 Not everything is about DPS sometimes you just want a good ship to RP in. And I also run a forward torpedo because in TNG the Enterprise had For and aft torpedoes. I am just giving you the Rpers perspective.
I'll always disagree with you regarding the Enterprise G, and yes that is mostly for my dreaming of Star Trek Legacy. Other than that it was an interesting watch as always.
The enterpise g is good being a neo consitution class but shluld of been a new built ship because the titian A shluld of kept its own name it earned
dude...just come up with something for the Neo-connie instead of saying "Delete It"...I mean come on. I know people don't like it, still it's pretty fitting for a Hero Ship.
No
Why do you hate the constitution 3 class so much ?
Not long after Picard S3 ended, I criticized the ending on twitter. Terry Matalas responded to it with some snide remarks, and as soon after, hundreds of people were yelling at me about it. I was accused of attacking him (despite never having brought up is name), of "having the wrong take", of being "that sort of fan". I received hate messages and even a few death threats for a few days before I finally deleted the post. I have several issues with the Constitution III, but my main one is that any time I see it, I'm just reminded about how that while shit show felt, which is why I hate it.
@Stu1701 ah, I understand sorry for reminding you this
Your love of temp is just to much absolutely my least favorite spec