Author Topic: Star Trek Online | Excalibur Class - Is ours better?! (Read 17163 times)

Mark · « **Reply #40 on:** September 02, 2009, 09:07:34 PM »

Nope, its a redesigned vessel since then

zzz · « **Reply #41 on:** September 02, 2009, 09:59:48 PM »

has some similarities to the original as it still has that unique Bussard collector shape and a secondary hull of similar height to the saucer section, judging by the angle of the nacelle struts.

More screens for people who haven't seen it.
http://bridgecommander.filefront.com/file/Excalibur_Screens;24591
also had a bridge:
http://bridgecommander.filefront.com/screenshots/File/85196/1

I think the BC one is better than STO's, but I can't help but feel it shares a lot of similarities to the Luna class, which I think is aesthetically better.

Luiz · « **Reply #42 on:** September 02, 2009, 11:16:22 PM »

Well, Steven Davis which originally designed the excalibur ship i've made for bc created the excalibur about 10 years ago, much before the Luna ever come to exist, but to be honest i don't think they share much.
Anyway, that is a matter of opinion.

As for the excalibur you'll see in ST: E, yes, it's a different ship from the bc version, yet, a natural evolution of the model; remember that the BC version was the prototype of the class, NX-90000.
All spoiler i can give you so far is that this model won't be a prototype anymore, therefore bearing the NCC registry.

And, the reason it was not entirely show so far is because we are giving it a very special treatment, to become one ship that people will surely remember.

zzz · « **Reply #43 on:** September 03, 2009, 12:33:08 AM »

Oh I wasn't implying lack of originality, just that I prefer Luna over BC Excalibur. Hopefully the new design will be better. I wasn't that big a fan of the flat-topped secondary hull or the amount of black hull plating on the underside.

farseerWraith07 · « **Reply #44 on:** September 03, 2009, 02:10:42 AM »

I would have to agree, the BC Excalibur was a bit....whaleish looking. Too much mass, not enough elegance.
I'm hoping the new Excalibur will look beyond awesome.
As far as the STO Excalibur... well I dislike STO in general, so my opinion would be wholly biased.

MajorD · « **Reply #45 on:** September 03, 2009, 06:03:14 AM »

The rest of a class always looks exactly like the NX ships. For the new Excalibur to look noticeably different would involve a new NX ship for a new series of ships. Unless the BC Excalibur was such a huge failure that they had to completely redesign the ship and were confident enough in those redesigns that they made the first new version the first NCC, instead of another NX.

One change the old Excalibur needed was more phaser arrays, even with a proper firing model that allows the arrays to fire flat, the engine cowling and nacelles get in the way of the primary arrays since the ship is so flat. With a limited firing model that forces narrow firing cones, the ship needs arrays facing every direction. Practically and aesthetically, I think it should have solid saucer arrays, too.

I've never liked the Luna.

szekeres2008 · « **Reply #46 on:** September 03, 2009, 07:58:31 PM »

I don't know why the Luna was mentioned here anyway booth the Excalibur and the Luna are cool ships, I can't wait to see each of them in the final game, but I'm sure we will not be dissapointed.

Luiz · « **Reply #47 on:** September 03, 2009, 08:02:04 PM »

MajorD: Actually both real life and trek show moments where prototypes are improved before getting at the production line, otherwise, there would be no much point into build a testebed unit.
A good example is the excelsior class, that had a lot of changes between the prototype and the final NCC seen in ST VI.
Anyway, we have a good history to explain the differences.

MajorD · « **Reply #48 on:** September 04, 2009, 02:14:33 AM »

Quote from: Legacy on September 03, 2009, 08:02:04 PM

MajorD: Actually both real life and trek show moments where prototypes are improved before getting at the production line, otherwise, there would be no much point into build a testebed unit.
A good example is the excelsior class, that had a lot of changes between the prototype and the final NCC seen in ST VI.
Anyway, we have a good history to explain the differences.

You're right on both counts. If the F-22 testbed and production model were stood side by side, the kind of differences between the grainy Excalibur picture and the BC Excalibur would stand out. The differences stood out more to me in this case because of the different nacelles position.

A good story would be nice for once, too. The STO stories they've been doing for their histories have been interesting, but there is always something off about them. They always seem to reach a point where they get internally or externally inconsistent, or illogical, or something seems omitted, or assumed without clarification. That kind of thing really gets to me.

MR_7 · « **Reply #49 on:** September 04, 2009, 04:11:59 AM »

From what i can tell your design has on sleek looking hull around the impulse engines, Or maybe im just imagining it, I prefer these warp nacelles at that angle. Much better than the original.
And no offence to STO but all there ships seem to cartoony, there excalibur isn't my cup of tea really.

tnathan475 · « **Reply #50 on:** September 08, 2009, 04:28:50 AM »

I like ST:Online's Excalibur far better. I'm sorry, but I've never cared for the Excalibur Class.

Superfrog2378 · « **Reply #51 on:** September 17, 2009, 04:45:57 AM »

Looking at some of the ST:O videos (even though they're only demos), I'd have to say that ST:E looks far better graphically - and more broadly speaking. The models I've seen so far look amazing; for instance, the Intrepid Class that you guys've created is truly stunning! (No discredit to the guy(s) behind the Excalibur model, but the Intrepid is and will always remain my favourite starship.)

szekeres2008 · « **Reply #52 on:** September 17, 2009, 06:45:03 PM »

You aren't the only one, I love thet ship too, and yes I think the nano FX engine makes the ships look much more realistic than any other game I've seen.

zzz · « **Reply #53 on:** October 04, 2009, 03:31:25 AM »

http://www.startrekonline.com/ships

*whistles* Pretty good lineup there.

Starting ships: Miranda, Centaur, Soyuz

szekeres2008 · « **Reply #54 on:** October 04, 2009, 03:37:34 AM »

Not bad at all, this list is put together in a more clever way.

Aresius · « **Reply #55 on:** October 04, 2009, 03:58:46 AM »

Most of them are new ship-classes I guess.
Cerberus...
Ushaan...

Oh well, the known classes seem wel distributed though.

Darkthunder · « **Reply #56 on:** October 04, 2009, 09:37:33 AM »

Ships that should be on the list:

Ambassador
Excelsior
Nebula

Ships that should NOT be on the list:

Soyuz
Stargazer
Constitution

- Soyuz is a Miranda-variant, and has been out of service for over 100 years (can be built using the customisation options on the Miranda Class)
- Stargazer is a named Constellation Class (which by the time of 2409 should be decommissioned as a class)
- Constitution (assuming the TMP refit, it would be over 130 years old by the start of the game)

Only reason i'd believe the Excelsior to remain during the early 25th century, is because it's proven to be a sturdy ship class, and most likely been refitted by 2409.

Some good ships, some not so good. Some missing. All in all, I need to see more info on the "non-canon" ships before passing final judgement.

MajorD · « **Reply #57 on:** October 04, 2009, 09:49:00 AM »

One of the reasons they have some old ships is because they want to make a wide range of era styles available, which is somewhat commendable but misguided. Also, unless they screwed up, I think the Stargazer will probably be a new class variant of the Constellation.

Most of all, what I don't like is the level progression. I still think they should have had it so we start as an ensign attached to an NPC ship, occasionally getting missions where we command a runabout with some non-commisioned officers to lead. You work your way up to more and more freedom and responsibility for the first part of the game.

szekeres2008 · « **Reply #58 on:** October 04, 2009, 02:10:46 PM »

Who knows what will they do with those old ships just to fit in, anyway it was shocking for me to discover they will have the ENT era klingon raptor and romulan BOP in the line, after that I feel they can't suprise me any more.

zzz · « **Reply #59 on:** October 04, 2009, 05:11:47 PM »

from reading the forums, ships of the same rank and career are alomst identical, except for a different model and the types of officers you can add (e.g. escorts can have more tactical officers to boost stats). There's also customisation. The names of each section each have a common theme. Seems the first of each section is the canon ship class.

It's a little pandering to put in TMP ships but I'm fine with no Ambassador or Nebula. Given the date it takes place they should favour new ships over the old.

If I actually played MMOs I'd go with Escort. First of every class is the ship I'd choose even if there were no limits.