Well done Cryptic

[Sivar]

I'd like to say well done to Cryptic on the way the Tiers have been organized, and before any of yall jump up and scream at me for the positioning of different ship, hear me out first please.

Now we've all seen and probably posted in the different debate threads, be them about the Galaxy/Sovereign, the Akira/Defiant, the Intrepid, etc. and one of the main things that we all assumed was that the higher tier translated into unquestioned superiority.

However it looks like Cryptic didn't go that route, instead of going with cut-and-dry superiority, they separated the ships into their respective roles, and while Tier does look like it plays an indication role more than anything about the abilities of the ship, it doesn't look like it's the end all of the better ships, and here is why I say that:

Escorts

-With the Defiant it's listed as a T3 'Tactical Escort' and that is exactly what the ship is; a small, quick vessel built to deliver maximum firepower and press an attack quickly then get out if needed.

-With the Akira, it's listed as the T2 'Heavy Escort' and again that is precisely what the ship is, a combat platform designed to stick it out with the enemy, and in Naval terminology it would be a Heavy Cruiser, but since Cruisers are engineering in STO, Heavy Escort fits the bill.

Neither ship is particularly better than the other, they are designed for different purposes.

Cruisers

To add to the list in what was (I think) the more hotly debated topic of the Galaxy and the Sovereign:

-The Galaxy is listed as the T3 'Exploration Cruiser' and guess what? That is the exact role that we hear quoted over and over again throughout TNG, that the Galaxy is a ship of exploration that can handle herself in deep space without the aid of an escort.

-The Sovereign is the T4 'Battle Cruiser.' I'll probably get flamed a little for this, but one of the main arguments in the threads was that the Galaxy had higher versatility and that the Sovereign was more built for combat than a standard Galaxy. Description fits like a glove to me.

Again, neither ship is better than the other, and likely both will be perfectly usable in endgame content, and we definitely know that there will be duels between the two.


Want more? The Intrepid was classified as a Long-Range Science Vessel, what role does the ship fill?

--

Now I, like others I'm sure, am a little surprised by some of the ships that were/weren't listed in the game (I think the big ones are the Ambassador, the Nebula, the Cheyenne, and the Constellation), but on the whole I think that Cryptic did a good job trying to meet Canon roles of ships as much as possible.

Thank you Cryptic for trying to stay true to the Star Trek universe rather than putting a game together with duct tape and chicken wire :)

[Banar]

All I can say is, I hope you are right... If this is how it turns out, there isn't much of a problem. Sadly though, I have my doubts.

[Neligahn]

I'm with you on that.

I for one was hoping that they wouldn't treat getting new ship classes like, and pardon the phrasing, exchanging your blue armor for purples. It's nice to see that they thought out how each class will fit into the fleet role. While I at no point ever expected my Excalibur to win a duel with a Sovereign, I at least wanted survivability and longevity of the ships and I think we're gonna see that.

Edit: @ Sivar

[erriku]

It doesn't really matter. I will own them all eventually. Ha!

[Nerresand]

I am one sad panda that the Steamrunner wasn't on that list, especially after hearing it specifically mentioned at one point. And I'll admit to a little perplexed head-scratching at seeing the Constitution-class. But I can understand that you can't please everybody, and to be fair, nothing's necessarily stopping them from adding more ship classes in the future.

[Sivar]

And I'll admit to a little perplexed head-scratching at seeing the Constitution-class. But I can understand that you can't please everybody, and to be fair, nothing's necessarily stopping them from adding more ship classes in the future.

Yeah I know what you mean, can't get everything perfect, by they did a good job I think.

[mach789]

I agree, I like the list. I'm going to say what I've said in another thread: If they include all the classes of ships now, what will be left for expansion?

[knightofhyrule730]

I am one sad panda that the Steamrunner wasn't on that list, especially after hearing it specifically mentioned at one point. And I'll admit to a little perplexed head-scratching at seeing the Constitution-class. But I can understand that you can't please everybody, and to be fair, nothing's necessarily stopping them from adding more ship classes in the future.

good thing about MMOs? they can add in ships at a later time. Like....lets say once the game launches and they actually put up a poll asking for an extra ship we want to see. talk about supporting your player base.

PS: Constitution is in there to feed off the new movie fans. we've already seen the JJprise in one of the movies, so you know you can make it look like that. and of course, if you preorder from gamestop, you get the TOS Enterprise.

[SelorKiith]

PS: Constitution is in there to feed off the new movie fans. we've already seen the JJprise in one of the movies, so you know you can make it look like that. and of course, if you preorder from gamestop, you get the TOS Enterprise.

We did see the JJprise? In which Vid? I only saw "normal" Primetime Connies O_o

[The.Grand.Nagus]

Escorts

-With the Defiant it's listed as a T3 'Tactical Escort' and that is exactly what the ship is; a small, quick vessel built to deliver maximum firepower and press an attack quickly then get out if needed.

-With the Akira, it's listed as the T2 'Heavy Escort' and again that is precisely what the ship is, a combat platform designed to stick it out with the enemy, and in Naval terminology it would be a Heavy Cruiser, but since Cruisers are engineering in STO, Heavy Escort fits the bill.

Neither ship is particularly better than the other, they are designed for different purposes.

Sorry, but thats wrong. If you were comparing different categories of ships, then perhaps you would have a valid point. However, when you compare two ships that are in the same category(escorts), the higher the tier, the stronger the ship. And from a firepower POV, the Akira is stronger than the Defiant, meaning it should be a higher tier.

[The.Grand.Nagus]

We did see the JJprise? In which Vid? I only saw "normal" Primetime Connies O_o

We havent. The person who posted that is mistaken.

[Sivar]

Sorry, but thats wrong. If you were comparing different categories of ships, then perhaps you would have a valid point. However, when you compare two ships that are in the same category(escorts), the higher the tier, the stronger the ship. And from a firepower POV, the Akira is stronger than the Defiant, meaning it should be a higher tier.

You missed the entire point of what I said, the Cryptic has said the lower tier ships will not be instantly outclassed by higher tier, and you're taking tier to instantly mean that the ship is cut and dry bigger and better. That's not the case here from what I'm seeing and I tried to explain that point in my post.

[The.Grand.Nagus]

You missed the entire point of what I said, the Cryptic has said the lower tier ships will not be instantly outclassed by higher tier, and you're taking tier to instantly mean that the ship is cut and dry bigger and better. That's not the case here from what I'm seeing and I tried to explain that point in my post.

I understand what your saying, but its still wrong. The fact that you have the connie as a teir 1 "cruiser" and the sovereign as a tier 4 "cruiser" makes it pretty clear that as far as the same categories go, the higher the tier the stronger the ship. Since the Defiant and Akira are both in the same category(escorts), that means that by the current setup, the Defiant would be more powerful than the Akira, which is wrong.

[JacobFlowers]

However it looks like Cryptic didn't go that route, instead of going with cut-and-dry superiority, they separated the ships into their respective roles, and while Tier does look like it plays an indication role more than anything about the abilities of the ship, it doesn't look like it's the end all of the better ships, and here is why I say that

Good to see you again Sivar. I truly from the bottom of my heart hope that Cryptic chimes in and gives their input unlike their silence with the recent thread-naught that recently was alive.

I would beg to differ from you slightly in that Cryptic has indeed gone the way of making certain ships better than others. I will elaborate on this throughout.


Escorts

-With the Defiant it's listed as a T3 'Tactical Escort' and that is exactly what the ship is; a small, quick vessel built to deliver maximum firepower and press an attack quickly then get out if needed.

-With the Akira, it's listed as the T2 'Heavy Escort' and again that is precisely what the ship is, a combat platform designed to stick it out with the enemy, and in Naval terminology it would be a Heavy Cruiser, but since Cruisers are engineering in STO, Heavy Escort fits the bill.

Neither ship is particularly better than the other, they are designed for different purposes.

To say that 'neither ship is particularly better than the other' then that is to also assume that the number of bridge officers positions for each ship is arbitrary and that the number of open seats doesn't matter. However I myself, and I would venture to think that many others feel that 'the more bridge officers a ship can have at once... THE BETTER'. Please correct me if I am wrong.

It has been stated that while T3 and T4 ships will be close in capability, one will have the upper hand in a) amount of modifiable/customizable module space a b) number of bridge officers a ship can have.

I have to disagree with your 'Good Job cryptic' pat on the back sentiments. NOT that I am feeling negatively towards them... but rather that I am highly skepitcal at the moment. Here is why:

A Heavy Escort is by definition a heavier ship that generally can carrier heavier/larger weapons. It is larger, and thus able to 'pack more'. With this in mind, the Akira... being a MUCH larger ship than the Defiant... should it be the ship to have more module space available than a Defiant? I think that would logically fit. Rather, I believe Cryptic may be trying to tend to favoring ship classes 'seen as hero classes' rather than staying closer to what the ST universe might actually have. They may also be under pressure from CBS/Paramount, or who knows.

A Tactical Escort in the very name would connote that it is smaller, lighter, and more maneuverable , albeit less sturdy than a 'Heavy Escort'. I'm not stating fact (someone else with more knowledge can clarify) but merely specifying what the connotations would be.


Cruisers

To add to the list in what was (I think) the more hotly debated topic of the Galaxy and the Sovereign:

-The Galaxy is listed as the T3 'Exploration Cruiser' and guess what? That is the exact role that we hear quoted over and over again throughout TNG, that the Galaxy is a ship of exploration that can handle herself in deep space without the aid of an escort.

-The Sovereign is the T4 'Battle Cruiser.' I'll probably get flamed a little for this, but one of the main arguments in the threads was that the Galaxy had higher versatility and that the Sovereign was more built for combat than a standard Galaxy. Description fits like a glove to me.

Again, neither ship is better than the other, and likely both will be perfectly usable in endgame content, and we definitely know that there will be duels between the two.

We have not heart over and over a specific designation for the Galaxy class. It has been called a 'Ship of Exploration', but I have never heard it designated with the naval classification of 'Cruiser'. Please correct me if I am wrong. Ths may be semantics, but I wont get too much into a debate over words. :p

I will say however, that again... Cryptic is following in reverse to what should actually go hand in hand with Canon and the game mechanics. I will be concise, by putting the Galaxy in the T3 position Cryptic is effectively denying a MUCH larger ship the greater module customization it should have over the Sovereign. Please correct me if I am wrong. If you want to name the Sovereign as tactically 'superior' and have it's 'role' be defined as a 'battlecruiser', then by all means, let it have more tactical seats open than a Galaxy class, but with less officer space, and less module space and put the Galaxy at T4. We've seen what the latest and greatest Sovvy design is in 25th century standards are in the NX 91001. I find it very questionable if Starfleets 'remake' of the Galaxy up to 25th century standards are sub par compared to the Sovereigns.

I am not criticizing you or Cryptic, but expressing out right confusion over their stated Game mechanics systems thus far, and how they justify giving the Defiant more bridge officer space over an Akira. It doesnt.make.sense.

i am all for designating ships according to 'roles', I'd be very interested in seeing how this plays out in game, but currently... things are not adding up in my head. I openly and freely admit this.:eek:


Want more? The Intrepid was classified as a Long-Range Science Vessel, what role does the ship fill?

Again, confused. The intrepid was built for short range excursions, it was by no means a long range vessel. With a crew of 120 something, a compliment of 38 torpedos, and their constantly stopping at planets and starbases for resupply and refueling (yes, i know they were 70k+ away from home) the Intrepid class never seemed long range to me. The ingenuity of the crew is what pulled it off. Again, a case of 'hero ship status'. Does anyone disagree with me? It was stated in VOY that it was a ship designed to patrol borders, that is to say... to stay within 'Empire space'. The Galaxy class (an example of a long range explorer) was a ship that was freely tasked to go 'outside of federation territory and known star systems).

This classification again conflicts with Cryptic's own game mechanic system. The Olympic class ship was a newer ship and larger, much larger ship than the Intrepid. But again... the little ol' intrepid magically has more bridge officer positions and more space for module customizations.

Do you understand my confusion Sivar, and the concern of a great many others?

--


Now I, like others I'm sure, am a little surprised by some of the ships that were/weren't listed in the game (I think the big ones are the Ambassador, the Nebula, the Cheyenne, and the Constellation), but on the whole I think that Cryptic did a good job trying to meet Canon roles of ships as much as possible.

I would love for someone to explain to me how the Constellation Class is Separate from the Stargazer Class, when we know from Canon that the Stargazer was a Constellation class starship. Is the federation now getting into the habit of con-fuddling ship class names?

Also, there were only 13 configurations given. It has been stated by the Dev's there are 16 configs (not spread out evenly. hmm... another reason to make it A-OKAY to put the Galaxy and Sovvy in the same Tier ) :p so likely the Ambassador, Excelsior, and Nebula classes are all in there.

As a side note, I believe the Cheyenne is a class variant of the Constellation configuration.


Thank you Cryptic for trying to stay true to the Star Trek universe rather than putting a game together with duct tape and chicken wire :)

[JacobFlowers]

You missed the entire point of what I said, the Cryptic has said the lower tier ships will not be instantly outclassed by higher tier, and you're taking tier to instantly mean that the ship is cut and dry bigger and better. That's not the case here from what I'm seeing and I tried to explain that point in my post.

Yes, but you are embellishing there point dear Sivar. While they willl not be 'instantly outclassed' it has been admitted that both Tiered ships outfitted to 'max' spec... one would definitely have an edge over another. Someone find that quote for me please. (all of the information is just so disorganized. major kudos to those posters who have tried to gather an organize for us)

[JacobFlowers]

I understand what your saying, but its still wrong. The fact that you have the connie as a teir 1 "cruiser" and the sovereign as a tier 4 "cruiser" makes it pretty clear that as far as the same categories go, the higher the tier the stronger the ship. Since the Defiant and Akira are both in the same category(escorts), that means that by the current setup, the Defiant would be more powerful than the Akira, which is wrong.

You are correct Nagus. This has been stated by the Dev's also.

The higher you go in a Tier, the more bridge officers a ship is able to mount, and the more module space for customization it has.

[ransomwk]

We did see the JJprise? In which Vid? I only saw "normal" Primetime Connies O_o

I've only seen the movie era version. If the JJprise is actually in, I just found a new #1 on my KOS list.

[The.Grand.Nagus]

I've only seen the movie era version. If the JJprise is actually in, I just found a new #1 on my KOS list.

It has not been shown. However, I'm hoping that we will be able to customize the connie to resemble it :D

[Drovaron]

I agree also with the OP.

I also wouldnt be supprised if the Ship of the Line list was changed in one way or another before game release.

[ransomwk]

It has not been shown. However, I'm hoping that we will be able to customize the connie to resemble it :D

First, good
Second, don't go into the neutral zone with one, I'll hunt down any JJprise with a pvp flag on.



In addition, it occurs to me that BO slots are not quite cut and dry. I think it was one of the asks that cryptic said that a BO slot has a rank. Meaning that just having 3 tactical BO slots doesn't say much about what you can do with that ship. Regarding the Galaxy vs. Sovereign debate, even if the two ships have the same BO seat counts, if the Galaxy's Engineer and Science seats are higher rank, while the Sovereign's tactical seats are higher rank, then they should be correctly represented.

[JacobFlowers]

First, good
Second, don't go into the neutral zone with one, I'll hunt down any JJprise with a pvp flag on.



In addition, it occurs to me that BO slots are not quite cut and dry. I think it was one of the asks that cryptic said that a BO slot has a rank. Meaning that just having 3 tactical BO slots doesn't say much about what you can do with that ship. Regarding the Galaxy vs. Sovereign debate, even if the two ships have the same BO seat counts, if the Galaxy's Engineer and Science seats are higher rank, while the Sovereign's tactical seats are higher rank, then they should be correctly represented.

I agree with your last statement. The 'debate' thread wasn't meant to be a debate at all, but rather a concession and outline relaying how the two ships could occupy the top tier.

You can read my updated 'OP' of that thread, let me know your thoughts.

[Loekii]

In addition, it occurs to me that BO slots are not quite cut and dry. I think it was one of the asks that cryptic said that a BO slot has a rank. Meaning that just having 3 tactical BO slots doesn't say much about what you can do with that ship. Regarding the Galaxy vs. Sovereign debate, even if the two ships have the same BO seat counts, if the Galaxy's Engineer and Science seats are higher rank, while the Sovereign's tactical seats are higher rank, then they should be correctly represented.

The Bridge Officer Seats have 'Rank Caps' - meaning that the seat will only allow abilities up to the rank of the seat.

So if you put a LT. Commander in an Ensign Tactical Seat, your LT Comdr can only use their Ensign abilities, but not their Lt. Comdr abilities.

[Cohas]

looking good

[Sivar]

Good to see you again Sivar. I truly from the bottom of my heart hope that Cryptic chimes in and gives their input unlike their silence with the recent thread-naught that recently was alive.

Why hello there JacobFlowers, I look forward to debating you again :cool:

To say that 'neither ship is particularly better than the other' then that is to also assume that the number of bridge officers positions for each ship is arbitrary and that the number of open seats doesn't matter. However I myself, and I would venture to think that many others feel that 'the more bridge officers a ship can have at once... THE BETTER'. Please correct me if I am wrong.

It has been stated that while T3 and T4 ships will be close in capability, one will have the upper hand in a) amount of modifiable/customizable module space a b) number of bridge officers a ship can have.

Your points are fair, but there are still a lot of unanswered questions that will need to have answered before we really can make the decision on which is better. Two of those questions are your points in mod options and Bridge Officers; but there are other questions such as armor HPs, armor types, system vulnerability, weapon tracking effectiveness, shield strength, shield options, speed, and special abilities given by the BOs, and the layout of the BOs, among others that I'm probably forgetting as I write this.

Until we get answers as to how these will be laid out and how they affect combat, we cant say who is better or make a truly fair determination on how ships will perform.

I have to disagree with your 'Good Job cryptic' pat on the back sentiments. NOT that I am feeling negatively towards them... but rather that I am highly skepitcal at the moment. Here is why:

A Heavy Escort is by definition a heavier ship that generally can carrier heavier/larger weapons. It is larger, and thus able to 'pack more'. With this in mind, the Akira... being a MUCH larger ship than the Defiant... should it be the ship to have more module space available than a Defiant? I think that would logically fit. Rather, I believe Cryptic may be trying to tend to favoring ship classes 'seen as hero classes' rather than staying closer to what the ST universe might actually have. They may also be under pressure from CBS/Paramount, or who knows.

A Tactical Escort in the very name would connote that it is smaller, lighter, and more maneuverable , albeit less sturdy than a 'Heavy Escort'. I'm not stating fact (someone else with more knowledge can clarify) but merely specifying what the connotations would be.

Well you're kinda going along with the points that I made to an extent. I look at this as being alright from more of an RP standpoint and the ranks associated with the Tiers. The Akria is a ship built to stand an fight, take a pounding and give one back, and what kind of CO do you need in command of a ship like that? Not the most experienced one, don't get me wrong you need a lot of skill and composer to get your ship through a fight, but to quote 'M' from Casino Royale, "Any thug can kill."

The Defiant and her sisters on the other hand are tactical vessels, used in hit and run or surgical strike style missions (among others of course). Where the Akira is a sledgehammer, the Defiant is a scalpel and to use it's deadly power effectively take a CO with a bit more experience, otherwise you end up with the U.S.S. Valiant, and that is where the higher tier comes into play from an RP standpoint.

We have not heart over and over a specific designation for the Galaxy class. It has been called a 'Ship of Exploration', but I have never heard it designated with the naval classification of 'Cruiser'. Please correct me if I am wrong. Ths may be semantics, but I wont get too much into a debate over words. :p

I think it's semantics, the term Cruiser, while a Naval term, in this game describes Engineering ships, and towards that end 'Ship of Exploration' does translate to being 'Exploration Cruiser.'

Again, confused. The intrepid was built for short range excursions, it was by no means a long range vessel. With a crew of 120 something, a compliment of 38 torpedos, and their constantly stopping at planets and starbases for resupply and refueling (yes, i know they were 70k+ away from home) the Intrepid class never seemed long range to me. The ingenuity of the crew is what pulled it off. Again, a case of 'hero ship status'. Does anyone disagree with me? It was stated in VOY that it was a ship designed to patrol borders, that is to say... to stay within 'Empire space'. The Galaxy class (an example of a long range explorer) was a ship that was freely tasked to go 'outside of federation territory and known star systems).

You're right, the Intrepid did have an original role different than what Cryptic has given it in the game, however the angle that I am coming from is to how the ship performed in Voyager, and from that angle, no matter how much you liked/hated the show you have to give it credit for proving itself as a long range platform for surviving 7 years and traveling ~25-30,000 light years before finding the Borg nebula. The description of the Discovery sheds a bit more light on this angle.

Do you understand my confusion Sivar, and the concern of a great many others?

Absolutely :)

I would love for someone to explain to me how the Constellation Class is Separate from the Stargazer Class, when we know from Canon that the Stargazer was a Constellation class starship. Is the federation now getting into the habit of con-fuddling ship class names?

No idea here....

Also, there were only 13 configurations given. It has been stated by the Dev's there are 16 configs (not spread out evenly. hmm... another reason to make it A-OKAY to put the Galaxy and Sovvy in the same Tier ) :p so likely the Ambassador, Excelsior, and Nebula classes are all in there.

As a side note, I believe the Cheyenne is a class variant of the Constellation configuration.

Well this is sort of a side point, but the NX-91001 is listed as a separate ship, presumably as it is not a production vessel yet, perhaps it will be changed at some point....

[sir_theodorik]

Thank you Cryptic and well done on the ships in the line. I am not sure why people are nit-picking the choices you made, it seems simple enough that most people will be able to learn the differences and perhaps even all the names (with the article up a guy like me wouldn't have any idea what a Tier really means). I am sure this article is useful to a vast majority of your players and I beg you to ignore the criticism and keep releasing details.

Peregrine said it best, the biggest fans are the biggest problems for STO. Average Joe trekkie like myself needs things spelled out and presented in a cool format before it really makes sense, I'm sure I'm not alone in this in appreciating this kind of web page.
Thanks!

[lajkalove]

thank you cryptic for the list i personaly havent got an isue with it and just hope for an enjoyable game thats all :) and to fly in my miranda as long time as posible kind of like the litle ship :D

[Ravensshadow]

the Akira is stronger than the Defiant, meaning it should be a higher tier.

I disagree in STO the Defiant is more technologicaly advanced and should be in the higher tier. Bigger does not always mean better (or more powerful).

Also Great job Cryptic. Everything is where is should be!!!!!

[tenchi314]

Just a nod of support to the OP and to Cryptic for the current setup. Ya Sovereign for example would clearly have the superior firepower and passive defensive ability than a 2409 Constitution. However, the Constitution being a smaller ship will potentially be a little faster, agile, and harder to hit than the much larger Sovereign. This would allow the Constitution captain to be better able to avoid the firing arcs of the more powerful, less agile ship while being able to keep his firing arcs on target. So in the hands of a capable captain who uses the strengths of his ship to the fullest while knowing about it's limitations can and should be abel to make any ship lethal to another (within reason). I'm not saying that it would be wise for a Conny to tangle with a Sovereign, since that is a huge gap of potential firepower and defense of course. I'm just saying that if you fly the ship like it's meant to be flown then you should be able to make any ship a threat. So if you try to make your Cruiser fight like a Battle Cruiser, then you might have a bad day. Instead use the strengths of a ship and know it's weaknesses. Then apply those strengths against the weaknesses of the opposing ship, then you'll have a good shot of victory.

[TheRealNaveed]

I think the ship list is just fine as it is.

[KirksOtherSon]

good thing about MMOs? they can add in ships at a later time. Like....lets say once the game launches and they actually put up a poll asking for an extra ship we want to see. talk about supporting your player base.

PS: Constitution is in there to feed off the new movie fans. we've already seen the JJprise in one of the movies, so you know you can make it look like that. and of course, if you preorder from gamestop, you get the TOS Enterprise.

A good point, Knight, especially since Cryptic has a strong history of adding things into their games "just because" and for free.

Few people seem to remember it now, but Cryptic was the dev house that initially popularized giving away free content patches to the fans in A-list MMORPG games.

Everyone does it now (because it proved popular, and gained subscriber good will) but when Cryptic first announced they were doing it, there were no shortage of "industry opinions" claiming that the process was foolish, insupportable, and would fail.

Jack Emmertt himself has talked about the NC Soft suits giving Cryptic grief for giving away free City of Heroes content, instead of saving it for the City of Villains retail expansion box, as originally intended -- a process which pushed back the release of CoV by at least six months as new content was created and added.

So, this tier list for Star Trek Online starships is a good starting list, but I wouldn't expect it to be the final say on the matter, by any means. More will come, and probably sooner than we think -- and no, it won't all be micro-transactioned stuff, either.

My sense of it, anyway,

KOS

[The.Grand.Nagus]

I disagree

Thats ok, you dont have to be right if you dont want to be :o

[ExAstris]

Basically JacobFlowers has the exact same concerns I do. For all intents and purposes thusfar, higher tier seems to be directly proportional to maximum effectiveness. And that means there are several thorough headscratchers on their list. Galaxy=Intrepid + Galaxy<Sovereign + Defiant>Akira are prominent ones.

Now, Cryptic is known for making some pretty involved costomization systems, and the mention of Bridge Officer seat ranks gives me some hope. This gives them room to fudge the total effectiveness of the ships by alot by restricting (or not) the caps some Bridge Officer seats have.

For example, the Akira and Galaxy might have very high engineering seat caps that are even higher than the vessel in the tier above them, but have lower tactical officer seat caps. Thus as your character advances, if you like having more engineering abilities your current ship will be more effective, if you want more tactical abilities switching to a new option (not a superior one, just a different one) might work better for you.

So basically, I'm really hoping that tiers do not strickly = maximum effectiveness and are instead just what rank you need to initially gain access to a ship, not what effectiveness that ship is limited to (though I fear they do).

[Swea]

This is just my thoughts on the whole tier at endgame stuff and just my opinions.

I have been thinking of the tiers more as roles moreso now after the list being posted finally :) JOY

Anyway, I've been planning on goin the cruiser route so I'll jus explain my thoughts on how it might work from that point of view. Taking the Galaxy and Sov part of it. At admiral lvl or whatever I pretty much garontee you'll see me in a galaxy when I'm doin exploration or episodic content. I tend to think of a Sov as a more tactial cruiser therefore yes may be better dps wise in a fight but I still believe the galaxies size will affect how well I can perfom emergency evacs, send out repair, medical and repair teams and other such things. Again the Sov seems better dps wise but the galaxy will still have other advantages to factor in depending on what content your doing. So I'll definatly bein a Galaxy alot more than a Sov but Ima "carebear as it were" will I use a Sov def, I jus think there will be alot of situations a galaxy would perform better in, as far as my playstyle. Now if I'm galavanting in the nutral zone specifically for Klingon hunting, prolly be in a Sov, but I'm sure I'll be there in a Galaxy as well. Thers alot more comparisons I could make between the Galaxiy and Sov and each would win over there other I'm willing to bet about 50/50 when factoring in more than the pure combat aspecs required in duties of a Starship Captain.

Now if I'm doing fleet content with say the borg, if we dont have alot of dps type ships I may take out a Sov, but if we are a little light on support ships I'll take out my Galaxy, thinking more room for repair and medical teams so i can perform more of a suport role.

I dont think we can look at tier as better but more by role they will play in a fleet type battle. Just my thoughts I do really hope I'm right because that does sound amazing. Again just my interpritation of the stuff I've seen and could very well be wrong. sorry for any bad spelling :)

[JPJappic]

This is how the Tier List should / could have been distributed to us instead of the text format.

http://zetafleet.guildlaunch.com/custom.php?page_id=52597&gid=108655


And just for the record I support Akira = Defiant.

[JacobFlowers]

Your points are fair, but there are still a lot of unanswered questions that will need to have answered before we really can make the decision on which is better. Two of those questions are your points in mod options and Bridge Officers; but there are other questions such as armor HPs, armor types, system vulnerability, weapon tracking effectiveness, shield strength, shield options, speed, and special abilities given by the BOs, and the layout of the BOs, among others that I'm probably forgetting as I write this.

Until we get answers as to how these will be laid out and how they affect combat, we cant say who is better or make a truly fair determination on how ships will perform.

You are correct Sivar in bringing those other considerations to the table. However, if these are the only considerations left with which to deduce which ship belongs in which tier... then you are effectively saying that Combat prowess is the determining factor. I hoooooopppppe that not every episode/mission involves fighting. I'm really looking for something more involved than just an MMO version of SFC. Additionally, 'tactical superiority' is not the 'definitive' characteristic of Cruiser type ships... which are meant to be larger, and more versatile (whereas the escort ship tree is more defined by tactical superiority).

I am not trying to perpetuate the Sovvy/Galaxy debate, but their decisions are less true to the ST Universe. The Sovvy has replaced the Excelsior class in the ST Universe. We know that Galaxy clss ships were due to be decommission in the 2390's... thus it is time to see a 'replacement' for the Galaxy class around the time this game takes place. To our knowledge, there is no ship that has come to replace the role of the Galaxy (Comand Cruiser, Battleship, Troop Transport, Heavy Emergency Response Unit, Long Range Extended Deployment Exploration Ship).

The Sovvy maay have uber armor, HPs, maneuverability, etc. but it is less 'effective' at the 'Cruiser role'.


Well you're kinda going along with the points that I made to an extent. I look at this as being alright from more of an RP standpoint and the ranks associated with the Tiers. The Akria is a ship built to stand an fight, take a pounding and give one back, and what kind of CO do you need in command of a ship like that? Not the most experienced one, don't get me wrong you need a lot of skill and composer to get your ship through a fight, but to quote 'M' from Casino Royale, "Any thug can kill."

That actually made me laugh. :p However... I see a potential flaw in your reasoning. Hear me out. I would venture to say that it may be better to have the Defiant and Akira in the same tier. I have to go against the 'any thug can kill' mentality because the very role of a "heavy escort' is not necessary what you describe. You are describing a 'strike' or 'assult cruiser'. Heavy Escorts are rather ships made to punch with severe firepower and are used for more serious engagements, or for protecting 'precious cargo'. I would venture to say that you should be of a higher rank to procure a 'Heavy Escort' in order to be assigned to the more important/delicate missions such as protecting a sensitive convoy, or escorting an important capital ship. Such tasks would fall to more seasoned captains, where as 'Defiant Captains' need to just to fight. Heavy Escrots are more capable. Shouldn't a ship which is more capable be left to the hands of a captain more experienced?


You're right, the Intrepid did have an original role different than what Cryptic has given it in the game, however the angle that I am coming from is to how the ship performed in Voyager, and from that angle, no matter how much you liked/hated the show you have to give it credit for proving itself as a long range platform for surviving 7 years and traveling ~25-30,000 light years before finding the Borg nebula. The description of the Discovery sheds a bit more light on this angle.

The way the intrepid performed in VOY is a point I've made already. It is not due to the capability of the ship itelf but rather due to the resourcefulness and ingenuity of its crew. If ALL Intrepid configuration ships were stocked with THAT kind of crew, then by all means, Tier 3 FTW. However, the intrepid is simply not suited for that role. I mean come on... making the intrepid = to the galaxy in long range terms...

Forgive me for saying this, but it simply seems the people at Cryptic are not doing their homework. This isn't a slam, because I (and a good many others) would be willing to help out (WITHOUT PAY!). :D

It just doesn't fit. My confusion still stands, and Cryptic has some explaining to do. Not that this isn't a game breaker to me... but it makes for a less genuine experience.


No idea here....
I can venture a guess as to the Constellation/Stargazer mix up. Either it was a typo, CBS/Paramount are part of teh decision making process and are trying to confuse us, whoever made the list at Cryptic is not well informed as to the Star Trek universe (my guess), or Berman/Braga are trying to sabotage EVERYTHING. :p



Well this is sort of a side point, but the NX-91001 is listed as a separate ship, presumably as it is not a production vessel yet, perhaps it will be changed at some point....

Correct. I am waiting for them to release the Galaxy NX or whatever the Galaxy's proper replacement would be for the 25th century.

Basically JacobFlowers has the exact same concerns I do. For all intents and purposes thusfar, higher tier seems to be directly proportional to maximum effectiveness. And that means there are several thorough headscratchers on their list. Galaxy=Intrepid + Galaxy<Sovereign + Defiant>Akira are prominent ones.

Now, Cryptic is known for making some pretty involved costomization systems, and the mention of Bridge Officer seat ranks gives me some hope. This gives them room to fudge the total effectiveness of the ships by alot by restricting (or not) the caps some Bridge Officer seats have.

For example, the Akira and Galaxy might have very high engineering seat caps that are even higher than the vessel in the tier above them, but have lower tactical officer seat caps. Thus as your character advances, if you like having more engineering abilities your current ship will be more effective, if you want more tactical abilities switching to a new option (not a superior one, just a different one) might work better for you.

So basically, I'm really hoping that tiers do not strickly = maximum effectiveness and are instead just what rank you need to initially gain access to a ship, not what effectiveness that ship is limited to (though I fear they do).

Good points Ex, didn't consider this. I reaaaaaaally wish Cryptic would comment on this. When we found out a 'ship list' was pending approval, I grew so apprehensive, and unfortunately it has proven to 'fall short'. Using the presentation of how a GUILD/FANSITE (http://zetafleet.guildlaunch.com/custom.php?page_id=52597&gid=108655) presents the STO ships sort of up stages Cryptic's efforts. Perhaps they need to hire more people, or they are still busy with Champions :(

[JacobFlowers]

This is how the Tier List should / could have been distributed to us instead of the text format.

http://zetafleet.guildlaunch.com/custom.php?page_id=52597&gid=108655


And just for the record I support Akira = Defiant.

Agreed. Hopefully their 'busyness' will uber pay off in the coming months however.

[majicebe]

Can't disagreed with the OP over the Galaxy T3 and Sovereign T4 argument. There's a reason they gave the Enterprise-D crew a Sovereign for the Enterprise-E rather than just another Galaxy (cuz we all know they're still all over the place) -- it's an upgrade. Faster, more powerful weapons, bigger ship. Pragmatically, it's better suited for the front-lines, can still handle all the same missions the D could, and it's newer, better technology.

I gotta disagree with you about the Defiant T3 vs. Akira T2, though. I'd imagine there's a reason that by the end of the second Borg invasion there were several Akiras, Norways, and Steamrunners flying about (even after the battle concluded), while a lone Defiant (the Defiant, no less) was left -- yet completely disabled. Seeing as how the Defiant class was built to go up against the Borg specifically, the Akira (despite the lack of quantum torpedoes) served as a greater mainstay in the battle.

I love the Defiant, and I'll be sure to be flying one, but I have a hard time believing a warship (Akira) couldn't best an escort (Defiant). Plus, where's your whole crew gonna fit when you 'upgrade' from an Akira (450 people) to a Defiant (few dozen?). I think Cryptic's made a lot of good choices, but I'm not sure if this is one of them, but it's certainly not a deal breaker.

[Deltaop]

Ship listings have been discussed to death in numerous threads

This is how i see it.

Interpid is fine where it is, it may be in same teir as galaxy but its science ship so it fits a different role and would lose in a 1v1 vs galaxy

Galaxy is fine where it is. Sovereign > Galaxy

Defiant should stay at Teir3, it being a modern warship it just doesn't fit into Teir2

Excelsior and ambassador belong in Teir2, they are missing at the moment.
i would love to see the ability to give the excelsior and a lakota refit and bring it up to Teir3. See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WRrJqMFEJhM :)

The only major problem i see in the list is the akira

The general Consensus seems to be that the akira needs to get moved up to Teir3
I'm sure if a community poll was done this would be reflected in that.

wtf akira !?!?!111 :eek:

[ryuto]

My big problem is feeling 'forced' to command a limited selection highest tier ships when I reach Admiral. I understand that you can upgrade a ship to make it equal to a starting ship of the next tier. I.E. A Galaxy could be upgraded to be equal to a starting Sovereign. However, I still feel this is pretty limiting, especially for a game made by a company that prides itself on customization. I'm not a big fan of the Sovereign, for example, I'd rather keep a Galaxy or upgrade to a Tier 4 ship similar to it. Unfortunately, what it's looking like to me is that each Tier has a set of three ships with two of those ships simply being re-imaginings of the 'core' ship in the tier. For example, we reach the Intrepid Tier and we have the Intrepid as the 'Base' class with the Discovery as a modified Intrepid. Now, unless the Cochrane is a totally different hull design, chances are it'll be another Intrepid-like design. This means for me that if I go the cruiser route I'll be stuck with some variation on the Sovereign and I'm not happy about being forced into that. The system should be more open in allowing players to play the kind of character they feel like they should be playing and not strap them into one class or another at higher tiers.

[ransomwk]

The Sovvy has replaced the Excelsior class in the ST Universe. We know that Galaxy clss ships were due to be decommission in the 2390's...

Where are you getting these? According to the notes I found on the Sovereign (http://www.starshipdatalink.net/art/1701-e.html), she was made to fight the Borg, no mention of replacing the Excelsior. I've also never heard anything about the Galaxy being set for retirement.

i would love to see the ability to give the excelsior and a lakota refit and bring it up to Teir3. See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WRrJqMFEJhM :)

A Lakota style refit for the lower tiers would be effective at opening up more ships for end game, but I would expect it to carry a steep price.


The only major problem i see in the list is the akira

The general Consensus seems to be that the akira needs to get moved up to Teir3
I'm sure if a community poll was done this would be reflected in that.


Interesting point, it's my perception that the consensus, such as it is, is that a 1v1 between the Defiant and Akira would be decided by the equipment, BOs, skills trained, and the human at the keyboard, while in a fleet action, the two play too differently to be effectively compared. In a fleet action, it would be like asking which weapon is better in a fight, a knife or a cannon....the answer depends greatly on the circumstances of the fight.

what it's looking like to me is that each Tier has a set of three ships with two of those ships simply being re-imaginings of the 'core' ship in the tier.

I'm seeing the same thing. It's my impression that for gameplay sake, each group of ships will have the core class, and two secondary classes that specialize in one or another strength held by the core class.

[rabidchocobo]

I'd say the difference between the Akira and Defiant is pretty simple. The Defiant was made solely to end a fight quickly. That's all it can realistically do. You can't really expect it to take an ambassador from planet to planet; its executive suite is the size of a closet, if it had one. There's no hope of making cargo runs or evacuations in a ship with, what, 6-7 decks? The Akira can conceivably do these things. Defiants really can't. They are one of the few Federation ship designs with a single role, and one of the even rarer designs whose primary role is combat. That's certainly not to say the Akira can't sling a phaser, or even that it's not meant as a fighting ship specifically. It is. But it has options, the Defiant simply has none. All that nasty forward facing firepower may put it over the top in a one-on-one, I wouldn't care to venture a guess (though I'd love to see the duel on Youtube someday!). But that's no reason that it should be seen as more valuable, because I'm sure the Akira will fill it's slightly more versatile role well.

I'd make the same argument for the Galaxy and Sovereign. Both are designed to do almost anything, almost as a jack-of-all-trades, and a master of a few of them. They can fulfill any role with their numerous modules, labs, weapons, officers, power plants, etc. There is no situation where you don't want one of these powerhouses at your side. But where the Galaxy is heavier and was made to literally do anything, the Sovereign was made in a post Wolf-359 era, and I'd suggest that it was indeed made to defend against the Borg. Again, the Galaxy puts up a fight, all right. Type X phasers are good stuff, by any Starfleet standard. But post-Borg technology is not the same by a long shot.

Should this make the Sovereign more valuable? Not for me to say. However, an MMOs bread and butter is combat. If it weren't it wouldn't be a very interesting game. I'm not even sure how you'd design an MMO without combat, unless you're making a game called "Third Life." Maybe that means the edge goes to unadulterated firepower. Not proper Trek, sure. But the gameplay mechanic had to give the edge to someone. And every MMO I've known gives the edge to the one with the most guns.

Edit: Incidently, I support both Ak & Def being of the same tier, as well as Gal & Sov. But I'd prefer to not have tiers. I'd rather have something like . . . you need specific skills, say "Heavy Escort 1" to access the appropriate ship classes. In this case, the "Heavy Escort 1" skill can by no means be obtained as a Lt. If it were numerically possible only after sufficient numbers and levels of skills had been learned that you must inherently be at least Lt Cmdr to obtain that skill, it might theoretically solve the problem of different tiers and ship types therein.

[Sivar]

You are correct Sivar in bringing those other considerations to the table. However, if these are the only considerations left with which to deduce which ship belongs in which tier... then you are effectively saying that Combat prowess is the determining factor. I hoooooopppppe that not every episode/mission involves fighting. I'm really looking for something more involved than just an MMO version of SFC. Additionally, 'tactical superiority' is not the 'definitive' characteristic of Cruiser type ships... which are meant to be larger, and more versatile (whereas the escort ship tree is more defined by tactical superiority).

I am not trying to perpetuate the Sovvy/Galaxy debate, but their decisions are less true to the ST Universe. The Sovvy has replaced the Excelsior class in the ST Universe. We know that Galaxy clss ships were due to be decommission in the 2390's... thus it is time to see a 'replacement' for the Galaxy class around the time this game takes place. To our knowledge, there is no ship that has come to replace the role of the Galaxy (Comand Cruiser, Battleship, Troop Transport, Heavy Emergency Response Unit, Long Range Extended Deployment Exploration Ship).

The Sovvy maay have uber armor, HPs, maneuverability, etc. but it is less 'effective' at the 'Cruiser role'.

While I don't believe that combat prowess is the strict determinant of the placement of a ship, with regards to a ship in the Tactical vessel I think it should be seeing that it is their purpose to fight. I think there are should be other things that determine the tier/rank placement for other ships such as sensor range, advanced labs, deflector strength, etc; but when you're talking about combat vessels I think/hope that it's determined by the abilities of a ship's role.

That actually made me laugh. :p However... I see a potential flaw in your reasoning. Hear me out. I would venture to say that it may be better to have the Defiant and Akira in the same tier. I have to go against the 'any thug can kill' mentality because the very role of a "heavy escort' is not necessary what you describe. You are describing a 'strike' or 'assult cruiser'. Heavy Escorts are rather ships made to punch with severe firepower and are used for more serious engagements, or for protecting 'precious cargo'. I would venture to say that you should be of a higher rank to procure a 'Heavy Escort' in order to be assigned to the more important/delicate missions such as protecting a sensitive convoy, or escorting an important capital ship. Such tasks would fall to more seasoned captains, where as 'Defiant Captains' need to just to fight. Heavy Escrots are more capable. Shouldn't a ship which is more capable be left to the hands of a captain more experienced?

Well I really think that getting them in the same tier won't happen so I'll work off the premise that they won't. What I was saying is that it would take a more experienced captain to be able to pull off a surgical mission without a hitch, and it would work out better with a platform built like the Defiant.

Don't get my wrong, I actually like the Akira more than the Defiant, but I'm really ok with the setup here.

The way the intrepid performed in VOY is a point I've made already. It is not due to the capability of the ship itelf but rather due to the resourcefulness and ingenuity of its crew. If ALL Intrepid configuration ships were stocked with THAT kind of crew, then by all means, Tier 3 FTW. However, the intrepid is simply not suited for that role. I mean come on... making the intrepid = to the galaxy in long range terms...

Forgive me for saying this, but it simply seems the people at Cryptic are not doing their homework. This isn't a slam, because I (and a good many others) would be willing to help out (WITHOUT PAY!).

It just doesn't fit. My confusion still stands, and Cryptic has some explaining to do. Not that this isn't a game breaker to me... but it makes for a less genuine experience.

It almost sounds like you don't even think that the Intrepid should be T3? (sorry if I'm misinterpreting you)

I know the point you're making, but the point that I'm trying to make is that the ship did perform as a long range vessel without support and because of that ships like the Discovery (and presumably the Cochrane) were designed to be capable of serving as long range science vessels.

I can venture a guess as to the Constellation/Stargazer mix up. Either it was a typo, CBS/Paramount are part of teh decision making process and are trying to confuse us, whoever made the list at Cryptic is not well informed as to the Star Trek universe (my guess), or Berman/Braga are trying to sabotage EVERYTHING. :p

No idea here, again :(

Correct. I am waiting for them to release the Galaxy NX or whatever the Galaxy's proper replacement would be for the 25th century.

Maybe there will be a mission where you get sent to an alternate reality where it's present, or get to assist in the testing of a potential new platform for Starfleet...:cool:


I've said it in another thread that I started, but we really need to be patient and wait for more information to come out before we can really start to make the proper views on which ships are placed properly.

[loogawa]

yes i agree welldone cyptic!