Go Back   Star Trek Online > Information and Discussion > Galactic News Network
Login

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 61
11-21-2008, 09:13 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BreachAndClear View Post
I respectfully disagree. While I personally would go with the Galaxy class (if I end up wanting a ship that performs like one), there appear to be plenty of people that are hell bent on acquiring ships like the Miranda and Akira and holding onto them as long as possible by refitting them. It appears to me that quite a few people think that they're going to be able to refit a Miranda or Excelsior class ship such that it can perform just as well as the Galaxy or Sovereign classes, which is just wishful thinking in my opinion.

Personally, my favorite ship is the Steamrunner, and if the ship is included in STO, then I'll surely choose it. However, I am not so attached to the Steamrunner that I would be unwilling to pass it up for a less elegant (IMO) ship that performs better.



But I do think that is the general trend that we'll see, with the Defiant and Miranda classes being the only real notable outliers. I wouldn't be surprised that - as far as cruisers go - the progression might go something like:

small one man ship ----> Miranda class ---> saber class ---> Norway ---- > Steamrunner ----> Nebula ----> Intrepid ---> Galaxy

**I'm not sure that all these ships will make it into the game, and I've not included any of the new ships Cryptic is introducing because I don't know their class identifications and can't speculate on how they will perform**

With the general trend being a correlation between size and power. Again, there would have to be some exceptions, such as the Miranda being outperformed by the smaller Saber, and the Excelsior being outperformed by the smaller Defiant.

The trend can definately be seen in the Klingons though, with the better ships in the ST series definitely being of larger size.
breachandclear..... i think your basic concept is pretty sound, but i dont think anyone will have access to a miranda or excelsior class. If you figure on the conservitive side most SF ships have a 100 yr lifespan (maybe 200 if you figure liberally) meaning thses ships were well into the end of there lifecycle durring the TNG era. now add another 30+ years on to that .... they should be long gone.


i have noticed a few other comments that bother me.

1: someone said people would just put the biggest phaser on the smallest ship. hopefully the physics engine is smart enough to handle this correctly. if u overload your spaceframe with too much mass everything will be fine while you are stationary, but the minute you accellerate your ship would crush it self under it own weight and the force of your engines.

2 : some of that new article makes me think there will be no ship classes we are familliar with (no nebula, intrepid, galaxy, sovereign, etc...) instead there will only be generic scout, escort, crusier, explorer types. with each type having a collection of parts to make what ever ship we want. I certianly hope i am wrong in this assumtion. I very much want to see ALL the ships from the TNG era and then have the abillity to change them if we want to, or leave them the same if we choose.

3: upgrading the abillities of your ship is great news !! as someone who like the smaller/ middle weight ships (i am shooting for an Intrepid, Akira, or prometheus) it would be great to keep them reletive in combat with upgraded defenses. Of course there needs to be a limit, bit i am excited about this aspect.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 62
11-21-2008, 09:40 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by THORN74 View Post
breachandclear..... i think your basic concept is pretty sound, but i dont think anyone will have access to a miranda or excelsior class. If you figure on the conservitive side most SF ships have a 100 yr lifespan (maybe 200 if you figure liberally) meaning thses ships were well into the end of there lifecycle durring the TNG era. now add another 30+ years on to that .... they should be long gone.


i have noticed a few other comments that bother me.

1: someone said people would just put the biggest phaser on the smallest ship. hopefully the physics engine is smart enough to handle this correctly. if u overload your spaceframe with too much mass everything will be fine while you are stationary, but the minute you accellerate your ship would crush it self under it own weight and the force of your engines.

2 : some of that new article makes me think there will be no ship classes we are familliar with (no nebula, intrepid, galaxy, sovereign, etc...) instead there will only be generic scout, escort, crusier, explorer types. with each type having a collection of parts to make what ever ship we want. I certianly hope i am wrong in this assumtion. I very much want to see ALL the ships from the TNG era and then have the abillity to change them if we want to, or leave them the same if we choose.

3: upgrading the abillities of your ship is great news !! as someone who like the smaller/ middle weight ships (i am shooting for an Intrepid, Akira, or prometheus) it would be great to keep them reletive in combat with upgraded defenses. Of course there needs to be a limit, bit i am excited about this aspect.
actually, if you watch closely, the galaxy class is in the trailer in its origenal configuration. Also, the trailer is in-game action, so i'll safely bet that the galaxy class is in there
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 63
11-21-2008, 09:41 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by THORN74 View Post
i have noticed a few other comments that bother me.

1: someone said people would just put the biggest phaser on the smallest ship. hopefully the physics engine is smart enough to handle this correctly. if u overload your spaceframe with too much mass everything will be fine while you are stationary, but the minute you accellerate your ship would crush it self under it own weight and the force of your engines.
This is why modularity is the ideal. If you make a ships modular and give each ship x # of slots you restrict the way people can configure their ships. This would work with weapons too, a Nova Class ship should have X slots for weapons, and that # should be smaller than a Galaxy class. To further this make it so it is realistic and that power output is related to weapons capability. So a Nova class can't possibly power some of the weapons a Galaxy can because it can't fit a warp core the same size as a Galaxy.

Quote:
2 : some of that new article makes me think there will be no ship classes we are familliar with (no nebula, intrepid, galaxy, sovereign, etc...) instead there will only be generic scout, escort, crusier, explorer types. with each type having a collection of parts to make what ever ship we want. I certianly hope i am wrong in this assumtion. I very much want to see ALL the ships from the TNG era and then have the abillity to change them if we want to, or leave them the same if we choose.
They have specifically mentioned Galaxy and Sovereign class ships as part of the Cruiser/Explorer roles, so there is no indication that we will have "generics". They have said we will be able to customize these ships, but that does not mean we have to customize them.

Quote:
3: upgrading the abillities of your ship is great news !! as someone who like the smaller/ middle weight ships (i am shooting for an Intrepid, Akira, or prometheus) it would be great to keep them reletive in combat with upgraded defenses. Of course there needs to be a limit, bit i am excited about this aspect.
I think the question is "relative" to what? They seem to have developed a hybrid system for ships here. The first part of the system is "role" so every ship will fit into a "role" (Escort, Science, Cruiser/Explorer for Feds) first. But you can The second part of the system is some form of "role" customization. So I might pick an Intrepid because I want to focus on the "Science" role, but I can customize it to be a little heavier on fire-power thus sacrificing some of the science abilities. That customized Intrepid though should never be as good at combat as an Escort of the same "tier". Because it has a role defined by the class of the ship.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 64
11-21-2008, 09:47 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Varrangian View Post
This is why modularity is the ideal. If you make a ships modular and give each ship x # of slots you restrict the way people can configure their ships. This would work with weapons too, a Nova Class ship should have X slots for weapons, and that # should be smaller than a Galaxy class. To further this make it so it is realistic and that power output is related to weapons capability. So a Nova class can't possibly power some of the weapons a Galaxy can because it can't fit a warp core the same size as a Galaxy.
This pretty much makes sense to me. For those that played SWG, think about how structure placement worked. You want to drop a small house, you only needed to find a smallish flat area and you're in business. Want to drop a huge house, you needed more flat land to accomodate it so your choices were reduced on where you could place it.

Similar idea. Larger weapon capabilities require either more power or more space. Smaller ship classes simply may not be able to accomodate them. There are several fairly simple ways the devs can limit ship upgrades so they don't get out of hand to the point of absurdity.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 65
11-21-2008, 09:56 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Varrangian View Post
This is why modularity is the ideal. If you make a ships modular and give each ship x # of slots you restrict the way people can configure their ships. This would work with weapons too, a Nova Class ship should have X slots for weapons, and that # should be smaller than a Galaxy class. To further this make it so it is realistic and that power output is related to weapons capability. So a Nova class can't possibly power some of the weapons a Galaxy can because it can't fit a warp core the same size as a Galaxy.

I think the question is "relative" to what? They seem to have developed a hybrid system for ships here. The first part of the system is "role" so every ship will fit into a "role" (Escort, Science, Cruiser/Explorer for Feds) first. But you can The second part of the system is some form of "role" customization. So I might pick an Intrepid because I want to focus on the "Science" role, but I can customize it to be a little heavier on fire-power thus sacrificing some of the science abilities. That customized Intrepid though should never be as good at combat as an Escort of the same "tier". Because it has a role defined by the class of the ship.
a nova shouldnt ever be able to have type X phasers .... the galaxy has type X .... Xs would be way to big/heavy for a small nova, not to mention as others have the power requirements.

sorry about "reletive" i ment 'relevent' and yes i agree you should never expect a nova to equal a sovereign (or any other comparison) you should be able to "beef up" a smaller ship so could last more than 10 seconds in a fight. nothing suck more than being the smallest guy in the group and not being able to carry your weight in a fight. you are either ignored, picked on, or trageted.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 66
11-21-2008, 10:04 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Varrangian View Post
So I might pick an Intrepid because I want to focus on the "Science" role, but I can customize it to be a little heavier on fire-power thus sacrificing some of the science abilities. That customized Intrepid though should never be as good at combat as an Escort of the same "tier". Because it has a role defined by the class of the ship.
Can't turn a ho into a housewife A little Ludacris to lighten the mood....lol

In all seriousness though, I totally agree. The Akira, for example, was designed specifically as a combat vessel to counter against threats to the Alpha Quadrant (Dominion, Borg etc), and represented a shift in thinking for Starfleet; less as scientists and explorers with some teeth to scientists and explorers with friends who have lots of really big guns to back them up.

As far as ship customization goes, modular is a very practicle way to go about this. Snubfighter customization in SWG worked within a pool of mass points for a specific chassis. More mass meant larger reactors, larger reactors mean more energy, more energy means better weapons and engines. This concept works fine and dandy in that situation, but Starfleet ships specifically (although Klingons wouldn't have stopped hitting each other with sharp sticks withough science and exploration) require a much wider range of specialization. I think SOE had it right for their purposes, but the system needs refinement to be exceptional, in relation to STO
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 67
11-21-2008, 10:49 AM
Sticking with canon tech is nice and 'modular design' is part of that.

Yet folks are already stating 'total' limitations on interior space for modules and believing that people must upgrade to something bigger at some time while not considering tech manual engineering skills that may allow star ship superstructure construction.

If an engineer has the proper skills/credits/prestige/resources, he/she 'should' be able to strip off the hulls and make adjustments to the superstructure to fit in larger modules.

Not to make things so easy though there should still be a lot of skill sets in between to make it all work properly.

One could 'pay' to have the below done...but if STO allows, it would be better just to be able to do it yourself with some engineering and cross discipline experience (Not a complete list by any means).
  • - Antimatter systems /repair/upgrade/construction
  • ------antimatter production.
  • ------antimatter storage
  • -Coil technology /repair/upgrade/construction
  • -----EM fields, shields, radiation,
  • -Propulsion
  • ----- old technology impulse engines (chemical to ion), MHD impulse propulsion, multi-vector impulse tech( akin to f22 raptor tech.)
  • -Bussard Technology/repair/upgrade/construction
  • -Plasma technology (EPS) conduit. Step up and step down node technology. Wireless energy nodes(not sure if this exist in the tech manuals yet).
  • -Replicator Technology
  • -Hulls
  • -Main computer tech: placing, maintainining, upgrading Data lines. Upgrading computers. wireless communication
  • -Waste/Water systems
  • - Organic and non-organic matter processing systems
  • - Sensor Platform: /repair/upgrade/construction
  • - Physics telescope technology
  • - Modular design
  • ----- connecting module ports (energy, waste/water/replicator lines, data lines)
  • - Superstructures
------------------------
To suggest a few.

If someone does not want to move beyond their dream ship and would rather keep modifying it...let there be some means to do so.

No problems...only solutions - J. Lennon.

Make mine a Connie refit, refit, refit, refit, refit, refit, refit. refit, refit.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 68
11-21-2008, 11:29 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kinneas View Post
Make mine a Connie refit, refit, refit, refit, refit, refit, refit. refit, refit.
HAHAHA awesome

This is the kind of concept I think Cryptic should seriously consider (I am acknowledging the obvious finite nature of any ability to refit BTW), as a customization system which allows, if desired, the ability to tweak your ship right down to the last power coupling (not literally lol). Allowing players to wholesale swap systems based upon mass allocation or whatever gives the casual gamer an ability to customize their ship to their play style, whereas having a more advanced knowledge of Trek and/or engineering in general gives a serious gamer the ability to stretch their class to the max. I think this idea helps avoid the idea of having "leetzor endgame epics", and instead gives players an ability to improve through innovation and experimentation.

Obviously Cryptic wants players to progress through ship classes and whatnot, and there are obvious eventual tech limitations on having refit squared, so apply an efficiency penalty to tech systems which are outdated, but rigged to improve beyond their spec capabilities, or a cost penalty to retrofit old hulls with new parts.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 69
11-21-2008, 11:43 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BreachAndClear View Post
I respectfully disagree. While I personally would go with the Galaxy class (if I end up wanting a ship that performs like one), there appear to be plenty of people that are hell bent on acquiring ships like the Miranda and Akira and holding onto them as long as possible by refitting them. It appears to me that quite a few people think that they're going to be able to refit a Miranda or Excelsior class ship such that it can perform just as well as the Galaxy or Sovereign classes, which is just wishful thinking in my opinion.

Personally, my favorite ship is the Steamrunner, and if the ship is included in STO, then I'll surely choose it. However, I am not so attached to the Steamrunner that I would be unwilling to pass it up for a less elegant (IMO) ship that performs better.



But I do think that is the general trend that we'll see, with the Defiant and Miranda classes being the only real notable outliers. I wouldn't be surprised that - as far as cruisers go - the progression might go something like:

small one man ship ----> Miranda class ---> saber class ---> Norway ---- > Steamrunner ----> Nebula ----> Intrepid ---> Galaxy

**I'm not sure that all these ships will make it into the game, and I've not included any of the new ships Cryptic is introducing because I don't know their class identifications and can't speculate on how they will perform**

With the general trend being a correlation between size and power. Again, there would have to be some exceptions, such as the Miranda being outperformed by the smaller Saber, and the Excelsior being outperformed by the smaller Defiant.

The trend can definately be seen in the Klingons though, with the better ships in the ST series definitely being of larger size.
I do see your point, and anybody who thinks they'll be able to get a Nova to fight like a Galaxy is day dreaming. And while I agree there are folks around here who seem to want that, i think the majority of people who talk about not being forced into a larger ship are people that LIKE the smaller ships because of the things they do better than the larger ships naturally. Smaller ships are generally faster, more agile, and often more flexible than their larger counterparts.

I think what people what most is the ability to upgrade their smaller ships, not necessarily to the point where they can go toe to toe with a Galaxy, but rather so they can continue to excel in the roll that smaller ships play without feeling "hamstrung" because they DIDN'T move on to a bigger ship. That's what I was referring to when I said that it sounds like that's the direction things are going. The ability to upgrade your current, smaller ship so that it becomes better and better at the functions it's supposed to be performing is what I think most people in that category are looking for.

This is very long winded, and I'm not sure if I'm making all that much sense, so if not, I do apologize!
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 70
11-21-2008, 11:48 AM
They really should provide an option to step down from captain of your own ship and allow you to abord a friends ship to take over the role of one of the assigned NPCs. Perhaps your ships second in command could take over the captain role and become a pet like option or return to a startport. This type of system could be used to advance sub roles at a greater rate or something.
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 02:51 PM.