View Single Post
Captain
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 3,477
# 39
03-01-2013, 10:45 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by spyralpegacyon View Post
The point is, and what you already admit, is that the ship's already sailed. It sailed when we could get a 120 year old Excelsior as a Tier 5. Heck, it sailed when Starfleet trucked out 80 year old Excels and Mirandas at Wolf 359. The only thing holding back a Tier 5 Constitution / Exeter is CBS's notion on keeping 1701 and 1701-A beholden to nostalgia or whatever, nevermind that every other 1701 from B to F and a good deal of 1701's nemesii are available at Tier 5.
I've argued against the T5 Excelsior. I argued against the T5 Ambassador. And you better believe I'm going to continue arguing against a T5 Connie.

Why?

Because it just doesn't make sense.

Also, using Wolf 359, where the only ship to survive was a Cheyenne class, as justification for a Connie to be made on par with ships substantially more advanced than a Cheyenne, doesn't really help your case.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cidstorm View Post
This is the very heart of the matter, tiny warp nacelles of the bug can go warp ten. Their tiny hulls are covered in 3,000 plus HP armor. Tiny Defiant weapon emitters are in the second most powerful category of the game (only recently dethroned), tiny shield generators on the Nova are science ship grade. You could fill the rest of a connie with tribbles and have it be just as powerful. This is not what I am advocating, I am not asking for science grade shields or DHC, I am just saying comparable equipment could fit within a Connie. You are implying there is some mystical connection between the outer hull of a ship and it's inner functions, that just isn't true anymore in STO. A tiny warp core no more than few decks tall can power all of those things in game.

Again, we're back to "if size and shape doesn't matter, why isn't Starfleet nothing but NX class ships shooting death star beams"?

Quote:
Originally Posted by cidstorm View Post
You are saying that size is irrelevant, but shape is not, I want you to think about that for a bit. Think about how the bigger ships have more hp and less turning, and know that size is definitely a factor in the discussion.
So it's either"we can fit anything into anything, unless it's a funny shape", or "bigger ships have different stats than smaller ships". If the former, that makes zero sense. If the latter, you're flat out admitting that you can't magically stuff an unlimited amount of equipment and capability into any size ship.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cidstorm View Post
There was a whole fleet of star ships around before this became possible in STO. It is still the transition phase, plus, you need to take into account the civillian/resources element. Some places will have an easier time making certain parts, in certain ways. All the different species of the federation will gravitate towards and be better at optimizing different elements of the Star Trek design ethic. The same ideas of aesthetic appreciation in this conversation carry over into real life, some designs will make better recruiting tools, museum pieces, or historically significant morale boosters.
You're arguing that, in the era where macro scale replication is not only possibly but the norm, it's more resource friendly to construct entirely new ships than it is to replace the interior components of already existing vessels? I'd like to hear the logic behind that...

Quote:
Originally Posted by cidstorm View Post
1) I never suggested replacing the whole fleet with Connies, it can fill the useful role of light cruiser for those who want it.

2) Again, outward looks mean nothing for STO, you can trade out warp nacelles, saucers, warp cores, and weapons pods while still operating with the same efficiency, as shown by the games customization options.
1) So you're now saying that you can't put the capabilities of any ship inside any hull?

2) Following that logic, why don't you argue for shuttles to have the same stats of a Fleet Defiant? Since apparently appearance doesn't matter...