Go Back   Star Trek Online > Feedback > Federation Shipyards
Login

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Captain
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 3,465
# 21
03-01-2013, 07:37 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by cidstorm View Post
Making comparisons isn't going to help because things are different in star trek. A frame has no effect on anything relevant to STO, you can check the size of Bugs, defiants, and Nova class vessels for it if you need a modern comparison of what is needed for the process of upgrading.

You're seriously arguing that size has zero impact on a ship's capabilities in Trek?

Why then did Voyager take priority over the Equinox based on tactical capability?

Why didn't Peregrines carry the same amount of firepower that the Defiant did?

Why didn't the Defiant have the equivalent staying power of a Sovereign-class ship?

I could go on and on and on, but the notion that size is irrelevant is complete bunk.

Secondly, you're using modern designs to argue for an obsolete and ancient design. If ships could be upgraded like you argue, why then didn't the Federation just fight the Dominion Wars with nothing but upgraded ancient Connies?
Ensign
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 29
# 22
03-01-2013, 07:48 AM
Wow, lots to say about this topic.

Meh, it's not a huge concern for me--honestly, it's mostly an aesthetic choice. I like the look of the TOS connie, but I also like the look of the Intrepid and Prometheus, both with better end game options. I can live without the Enterprise.

I love the idea of T1 PvP play though. Maybe I'll have to approach my fleet about that, though I wouldn't buy a Zen store ship just for that. I was actually thinking this morning about a shuttle only queue (can't play the Vault shuttle event yet), but that's another thread entirely.
Republic Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 2,531
# 23
03-01-2013, 08:02 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by cidstorm View Post
Not with STO technology, or did you miss the older vulcan and klingon ships at tier 5?
Yes but they chose to use them and upgrade them because they WORKED, obviously the Constitution class and the refit weren't as efficient as as ships like the Excelsior.
Captain
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 939
# 24
03-01-2013, 08:05 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by stirling191 View Post
You're seriously arguing that size has zero impact on a ship's capabilities in Trek?

Why then did Voyager take priority over the Equinox based on tactical capability?

Why didn't Peregrines carry the same amount of firepower that the Defiant did?

Why didn't the Defiant have the equivalent staying power of a Sovereign-class ship?

I could go on and on and on, but the notion that size is irrelevant is complete bunk.

Secondly, you're using modern designs to argue for an obsolete and ancient design. If ships could be upgraded like you argue, why then didn't the Federation just fight the Dominion Wars with nothing but upgraded ancient Connies?
You need to read between the lines of what I was saying. When I said frame, I meant the shape of a ships shell. Every thing inside of a ship is modular, it can be replaced with systems and consoles and warp cores of any shape and power rating as shown with the various customization elements in game. My proof, as mentioned in earlier posts, is size. Ships smaller than the Connie refit like the Defiant, bug, and nova, are all tier 5 despite their tiny size. This means that HP, shields, and weapons are largely the result of exotic particle field work and digitization. A difference in frame will not make up for the differences in size shown to be able to use tier 5 stats. Whatever mass of armor, force fields, and weapon systems that fit within any of those smaller vessels could be put into the connie refit.
The Somraw, K'tinga, D'Kyr, D7, Kumari, and T'Varo are all older than the Constitution Refit and yet they are tier 5. The rule needs to change.
Captain
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 939
# 25
03-01-2013, 08:12 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by lianthelia View Post
Yes but they chose to use them and upgrade them because they WORKED, obviously the Constitution class and the refit weren't as efficient as as ships like the Excelsior.
Are you implying the constitution class didn't work? It was the ship class with the longest confirmed existing flagship status in star fleet history. It stayed at the top of the food chain longer than any other enterprise. I'm not saying it should tank better than a Sovereign, but there is a role for tier 5 light cruises in combat.
The Somraw, K'tinga, D'Kyr, D7, Kumari, and T'Varo are all older than the Constitution Refit and yet they are tier 5. The rule needs to change.
Career Officer
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,658
# 26
03-01-2013, 08:16 AM
I think a Fleet Exeter, at T5 would satisfy everyone. I say T5 because it would give lip service to keeeping them a rare and valuable prize while in reality allowing easy access to anyone that wanted them.

As far as the original connie goes... I would propose ship costumes for all modern ships, but using the TOS "look". More hard geometric shapes, all white, and with actual dishes as deflectors.
Captain
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 3,465
# 27
03-01-2013, 08:25 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by cidstorm View Post
You need to read between the lines of what I was saying. When I said frame, I meant the shape of a ships shell. Every thing inside of a ship is modular, it can be replaced with systems and consoles and warp cores of any shape and power rating as shown with the various customization elements in game. My proof, as mentioned in earlier posts, is size. Ships smaller than the Connie refit like the Defiant, bug, and nova, are all tier 5 despite their tiny size. This means that HP, shields, and weapons are largely the result of exotic particle field work and digitization. A difference in frame will not make up for the differences in size shown to be able to use tier 5 stats. Whatever mass of armor, force fields, and weapon systems that fit within any of those smaller vessels could be put into the connie refit.
Size and tier are not at all related variables. And the notion that you can magically stuff the capabilities of one ship into another ship of completely different dimensions is again, ludicrous. If it were true, why bother creating new designs at all?

Quote:
Are you implying the constitution class didn't work? It was the ship class with the longest confirmed existing flagship status in star fleet history. It stayed at the top of the food chain longer than any other enterprise. I'm not saying it should tank better than a Sovereign, but there is a role for tier 5 light cruises in combat.

1) The U.S.S. Constitution is still in active service with the US Navy. She's still seaworthy. Should we replace our entire fleet with ships based on her design because she's been in service for nearly two and a half centuries?

2) You're absolutely right about the highlighted portion. That role however, does not equate to a justification for using an incredibly outdated design when modern, superior, designs exist.
Lieutenant
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 44
# 28
03-01-2013, 08:41 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by stirling191 View Post
1) The U.S.S. Constitution is still in active service with the US Navy. She's still seaworthy. Should we replace our entire fleet with ships based on her design because she's been in service for nearly two and a half centuries?
The Excelsior, B'rel, and K'tingas are century and a half old designs and only a couple decades older than the Constitution at that. Oh, and we have Fleet D7s as well.

Quote:
2) You're absolutely right about the highlighted portion. That role however, does not equate to a justification for using an incredibly outdated design when modern, superior, designs exist.
Yet we have the Fleet Excel, the Fleet Galaxy, the Fleet Cheyenne, the Fleet D7, the Fleet B'rel, the Kumari...
Captain
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 3,465
# 29
03-01-2013, 08:46 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by spyralpegacyon View Post
The Excelsior, B'rel, and K'tingas are century and a half old designs and only a couple decades older than the Constitution at that. Oh, and we have Fleet D7s as well.
Which are equally as ridiculous, especially given the current in-game situation where older ships are outperforming newer ones (see Galaxy vs. Excel/Ambassador). But Cryptic is too cheap, or too lazy, to actually create new Klingon ships to fill the vacuum, which makes the D7/B'Rel inclusion a smidge more tolerable.

Quote:
Originally Posted by spyralpegacyon View Post
Yet we have the Fleet Excel, the Fleet Galaxy, the Fleet Cheyenne, the Fleet D7, the Fleet B'rel, the Kumari...
See above for B'Rel, Excelsior and D7. In addition, the Kumari is not the 22nd century design. The Cheyenne and Galaxy are mid/late 24th century designs. A few decades is a far cry from pushing two hundred years.

Last edited by stirling191; 03-01-2013 at 08:50 AM.
Captain
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 928
# 30
03-01-2013, 08:56 AM
it has been establisheds in cannon that the Connie was retired at the beginning of the 24th century with the success of the Excelsior design. THe Excel herself a Connie on steroids so more likely refitted than Connie. And the Klingons don't often make new ships their more a numbers race. And Excel can beat a D7 1 on 1 but 3 maybe not. Tech advancements kept the ship around and it and the B'Rel are the workhorses of the Empire. Excel serves that role so the Connie shouldn't appear here except as a Z store ship.
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:28 AM.