Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 81
11-26-2010, 12:39 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hravik
Told you that in a few posts time you'd be supporting refits of the Connie and NX, didn't I? It always comes back to these, doesn't it? You can't lock them out of pvp anyway, the people that want this would cry too hard.

Just like people are crying now that a ship they know has no business competing with the new designs isn't up to their expectations.

Cryptic hasn't commented on any of these discussions in any capacity since this argument cropped up months ago. I honestly think they're scared to, or at least have a hands off policy concerning this. No matter what they do, they're going to **** a lot of people off.
Yes, I've decided to throw my full weight into the support camp, because I'm sick and tired of the objectors not being willing to compromise an inch.

People conviently ignore reasonable proposals because all they care about is objecting to one or two ships. It's foolish. The B'Rel didn't face these issues, no one is complaining about it, yet, several ships get held back, because of a few people that have to go absolutely nuts when it comes to 2 Historical ships.

So in my mind, everything is game. I was willing to compromise and find solutions which made sense. However, it seems that isn't good enough for the objectors, so now I will not be happy until EVERY ship gets a T5 Equivalent, including the TOS Connie and the NX.

Apparently this is the way it has to be, because some people just can't compromise.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 82
11-26-2010, 01:01 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Feanor12345 View Post
This makes no sense at all, just because the game is not canon they should not draw on the canon of the shows? Can we add wings to Romulans then? Can we bring back Kirk as a 50m tall robot? Can we get Daleks added to the game? None of this is canon, and neither is the game!
This isn't an actual show, nor is it real life. It is a game, meant to entertain. It is also meant for profit. Profit is found in attracting the most customers possible. In a franchise that is 50 years old, has 6 series (including TAS) and 11 movies, which span several distinct eras, it means the devs have to find ways to speak to that many different fans. And it's not like 90% of the fans like one era, and the other 10% like another. The divisions in Star Trek fandom are pretty even.

You may not think so because you can't seem to see past your canon box, but including as many things possible from the litany of Star Trek in it's many versions and forms, is a good thing. It brings people in, it makes more people happy. And in a game that is already hurting for customers, that's pretty darn important.


Quote:
Granted, but it would probably require a redesign of the ships to use new materials, and that redesign would be taking time away from other important things they could be doing.


And every old design built would be taking up space in the shipyards that could be better used building new designs.
Obviously, the work has already been done, because we see the ships out there flying around.

Bearing 91000 and above series NCC numbers.

That means these are brand new, state of the art ships, which just happen to look like the ships they are based on. In the case of the Connie, it's probably as simple as saying "It's really an Excalibur, which has been made to look like an old Connie, because people love those classic designs."
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 83
11-26-2010, 01:20 PM
The fact is, having stuff like NX and TOS Connie in the game at T1 is the compromise until such time as the entire ship system is overhauled. The two extremes are "Not at all" and "T5 Ship." T1 is a good compromise because while the ships do not belong in the setting, people do want to have them available. Further, it is consistent with the general ship progression from oldest to newest.

Since the game does not prevent anyone from taking their T1 ship out for a spin at max level, this works quite well as the ship will inevitably be weaker than ships it should be weaker than but nobody is prevented from using it if they want to have some fun.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 84
11-26-2010, 01:25 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by LotD
The fact is, having stuff like NX and TOS Connie in the game at T1 is the compromise until such time as the entire ship system is overhauled. The two extremes are "Not at all" and "T5 Ship." T1 is a good compromise because while the ships do not belong in the setting, people do want to have them available. Further, it is consistent with the general ship progression from oldest to newest.

Since the game does not prevent anyone from taking their T1 ship out for a spin at max level, this works quite well as the ship will inevitably be weaker than ships it should be weaker than but nobody is prevented from using it if they want to have some fun.
B'Rel is a T1 ship.

Guess it should have stayed at T1 as well, right?

T1 is not a compromise. Currently, other fan favorite ships (Nebula, Excelsior) get a T3/5 treatment.

A compromise would be a T1/3 treatment for the TOS Connie and NX, then allow a full T5 Refit for Tier 2 based on the B'Rel.

However, the objectors don't believe in compromise, so now it's driving moderates such as myself to the other side.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 85
11-26-2010, 01:26 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by LotD
The fact is, having stuff like NX and TOS Connie in the game at T1 is the compromise until such time as the entire ship system is overhauled. The two extremes are "Not at all" and "T5 Ship." T1 is a good compromise because while the ships do not belong in the setting, people do want to have them available. Further, it is consistent with the general ship progression from oldest to newest.

Since the game does not prevent anyone from taking their T1 ship out for a spin at max level, this works quite well as the ship will inevitably be weaker than ships it should be weaker than but nobody is prevented from using it if they want to have some fun.
This!

/10char
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 86
11-26-2010, 01:34 PM
I never understood the issue here.

A design is just that: a design. It's not the internal components and unless the design had some kind of flaw, it's perfectly alright to use it again.

An example was used with wooden ships. This is a poor example. The reason being is that it has more friction in the water and thus can't move as fast. (no pointed ends).

Cars are the same thing. As we learn more and more, we find that air resistance needs to be as low as possible.

Space has neither of those things.
Therefore, the design of the ship itself is irrelevant.
Unless you want it to perform a specific task such as landing or using the saucer as an emergency escape ship.


Here, I'll give you a better example:

I can take an old 8088 computer case and put my current computer hardware in it. Bam! 30 year old computer case with 2 year old computer hardware.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 87
11-26-2010, 01:40 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by LordDave View Post
I never understood the issue here.

A design is just that: a design. It's not the internal components and unless the design had some kind of flaw, it's perfectly alright to use it again.

An example was used with wooden ships. This is a poor example. The reason being is that it has more friction in the water and thus can't move as fast. (no pointed ends).

Cars are the same thing. As we learn more and more, we find that air resistance needs to be as low as possible.

Space has neither of those things.
Therefore, the design of the ship itself is irrelevant.
Unless you want it to perform a specific task such as landing or using the saucer as an emergency escape ship.


Here, I'll give you a better example:

I can take an old 8088 computer case and put my current computer hardware in it. Bam! 30 year old computer case with 2 year old computer hardware.

But the hull will still be easy to one shot!
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 88
11-26-2010, 01:40 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bsranger View Post
But the hull will still be easy to one shot!
Why?
It's not like you're going to make it out of the same material.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 89
11-26-2010, 01:42 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by LordDave View Post
Why?
It's not like you're going to make it out of the same material.
I was talking about your computer case.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 90
11-26-2010, 01:44 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bsranger View Post
But the hull will still be easy to one shot!
That doesn't stop the B'Rel from being one of the most popular ships on the Klingon side.

This is what I don't get. The answer to this debate, about what to do with the lower tier ships, is so incredibly simple. And it's already been done, with the B'Rel.

No one complains about the B'Rel. So take that template, make a few tweaks to compensate for lack of cloak, and voila', you have a believeable T5 version of your favorite lower tier ships. And it makes the purists happy because it won't be 1 shotting Sovereigns.

It's absolutely perfect.
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 12:28 PM.