Up your game Cryptic!
View Single Post
Join Date: Dec 2012
01-09-2013, 02:24 PM
I half agree and half disagree with you...
Ships have to look practical and belong to their class (such as tactical, science etc.). Both the armitage and thunderchild look similar structurally and if one looks foppish, then the other one looks it too.
The Oslo however, well it looks bulky like a carrier, not really that threatening, and if you've seen alot of the fan art I have seen of ships from the late 24th, early 25th, then the oslo looks like it was developed a decade after the Akira. DO some research on when certain ship classes were developed in the ST universe and you'll find the designs become more advanced rather quickly as technology and knowledge is developed further.
Another thing; a lot (if not the majority) of STO users will agree that the canon ships are the nicest and most eye catching ships in the game. That is because the structure of the ship had already been pre-developed by the original veteran developers of star trek. Cryptic didn't redesign the ships, they already had the work done for them, they just had to gain the rights to use them.
Now the reason why they are so popular both in the game and tv series and movies is because the original team based them on practicality and they tried to make them generally eye catching and belonging to their genre of ships. In the mid 24th century when developing the galaxy they wanted a large ship. That would require a large warp core which would require large nacelles etc. The sovereign, required a streamlined hull to achieve higher warp speeds with less power consumption and more efficiency. Streamlined hulls in space are similar to streamlined boats in water, so you know how it works...
Now in the year 2409 it has been 30 years after the last movie. They're not going to take a step back and make the ships bulky again. They can't because slipstream technology requires a ship to look sleek, made out of sleekness in order to function as efficiently as possible, unless they're going to write out slipstream technology altogether (which I doubt).
Also another thing to note with differences with the canon and non canon vessels is that there are little to no added bits on the hulls of the canon ships which gives them the slightly sleek outlook (if you don't know what bits im talking about, look at the abomination that was the imperial class).
There aren't a lot if any forward facing bits on any of the vessels that are big either, such as deflectors and the saucer sections edging. If the features are big then they slope them to retain the sleek profile and if required they recessed them into the hull (great example is the Akira and sovereigns deflector). Many of the non canon vessels however have done the opposite. In my architect's opinion the Oslo and Chimera's deflector ruins it, the cochrane's secondary hull and nacelles while a good idea don't fit the science profile or overall look.
Seriously I could ramble on about all of the problems with the non canon ships but this post is already long enough as it is.