Does not matter wether its nice or not.
Deflector powers should be leaving the ship by the deflector, nowhere else.

So for those who find it disagreeable for a phaser strip to be placed along a nacelle, can you explain why it is wrong to you? Is it because you just haven't seen it done before? Perhaps, because 'it just looks wierd'?

TrekTech-wise, it's entirely plausible - in the TV show starships - for the proper conduits which feed such a strip to easily fit in a nacelle designed for that purpose. Remember, that bussard collector on the front end doesn't need to be mounted there, either. Yet, it is.

Edited to add: with the Odyssey, the nacelle is brand new. Designed to mount the phaser as is. Not modified to pre-existing nacelle design like the Venture.

Eh, I just think the hardpoint would be better for turret fire. It does look weird to me for beams to emit from there.

They already did that on the Sovereign

http://www.madmaniakid.co.uk/images/...ss_section.jpg

but the question is:
since the rear or the Odyssey's nacelles is so slim, how the heck did they manage to get both a phaser array and the off axis field controller into that nacelle?

Forty years down the line it is highly probable that the off axis field controller can be produced as a smaller unit. Even the Intrepid-class had small field controllers.

For whatever my voice is worth, I'm fine with ONE of my phaser blasts coming from the tip of the nacelle. It's certainly a bit strange - normally I'd feel like the most logical place for weapons is on the main body of the ship.

My problem is that a lot of the time, fully half of my firepower is coming from the very tip of my nacelle, about as far as one can get from my ship's power plant. The contrast between the vast number of very logically placed beam firing points on the ventral area of the odyssey and the lone rear dorsal mount on the tip of the nacelle is what gives me a beef.

Moving the beam firing point closer to the bussard collector, and perhaps adding some firing points on the back of the saucer, would make it a bit more diverse and interesting IMO.

Here is how I would have done the firing points for the Odyssey.

This would ideally give a variety of firing points for both shooting directly aft and to the sides, and with the interesting dynamic of the firing points switching from the nacelle to the saucer as the target moves from the side to the rear. It can also switch from the nacelle side to the nacelle top as the target moves from alongside to above.

It's nice of you to so easily, and arbitrarily, dismiss my opinion as irrelevant.

I'd rather think of it as why it could be that way, rather than why not. The Rhode Island has a very small and mostly inbuilt secondary deflector - something like that could be installed at the very front of the Odyssey saucer's edge.

No visible deflector there aside from a semi-rectangular texture? That's fine - I can interpret it as it being covered up. After all, the Constitution Refit's deflector dish was covered up too.

I suppose there is something to be said about multiple phaser beams emitting from the same spot along a single phaser strip. And that is a strip of multiple emitters - not just a single emitter. If the animation for multiple beams could be fine-tuned to not so obviously overlap their points of origin, the nacelle strip may be easier to accept.

It's also possible that there was no need for larger ones due to the variable geometry engines neither the Sovereign not the Odyssey are using.

That is true, but examination of the Enterprise-D MSD and various cutaways, doesn't show any off axis field controller contained within the nacelles at all. The Enterprise-B didn't have one either, so we could assume that there's other components that can perform this task.