Ok, Look....imma Carrier Driver.....just started actually. i can honestly say it's not all that one would think it is, unless they've done it. the only thing keepin them bloated warthogs flyin around for as long as they do IS the pets. because they sure aren't much for dmg without em. A really effective carrier driver cares less about dealing dmg, and more about keeping his hull intact for at least 3 min and healing in the process.
I can easily still get my hiney wiped for me in PvP, you kill the carrier, you kill the pets. There are some really effective counters that greatly hinder my ability to keep max number of fighters out and maintain my own health at the same time.
Carriers are far from OP, and easily defeatable......if all you play is fed, dont believe the hype.
No. Because the chart still served as a reference, and I would think that the FX guys did stick to it most of the time. If you have proof for the opposite, let me know.
As for the deck structure, that's a leftover of the Akira's first designer's megalomania. The ship model was constructed for a size of about ~400-500 meters, but got scaled down for the movie and the series. This kind of re-scaling happens all the time in Trek, and it always looks messy, but that doesn't change anything about the facts.
And still a series' creators overrule the thoughts and preferrences of a ship's designers, for the latter are subordinate employees of the former. Also, canon usually is defined by how something ends up on the big screen, is it not? Mr. Jaeger's personal opinion has zero influence on this.
Which I'm actually glad about. As much as I love the Akira's looks and adore him for designing her that way (my human Tac is flying one right now!), I absolutely cannot stomach his crazy idea about the whole "torpedo-overkill-fighter-carrier-wondership" stuff. Honestly, how much over the top can you go? Only thing missing is a phase cloak and transwarp.
Retcon - happens all the time. But maybe you have the size chart for First Contact? That would certainly be helpful in this discussion.
Look, there are only two solutions to this debate. Either we go by the size chart and the comments of the people who put the ship on screen, or we accept the fact that scaling in Star Trek is messed up, which would leave the question of the Akira's size unanswered. Either way, a ship's original designer's personal opinion is completely irrelevant.
And here we have the thing you still don'd quite get:
The Akira was only supposeldy scaled this way for DS9, never before, never again.
The size chart for First Contact shows her at nearly 500 meters in relation to the Enterprise-E
Voyager clearly shows her to be larger than 250 meters.
But even the folks who did the DS9 FX did not really end up using the size chart you're so fond when you look at the actual DS9 episodes.
The Encyclopedia is the "official" source material when you with to use the term official in this topic.
The Stipes chart is an internal document.
When you look at the Akira in relation to the Excelsior in DS9, they're of the same length.
So is the Excelsior retconned into a frigate too?
Starfleet sure has tons of frigates flying around these days.
(Lets not forget Kirk's 200 meter-Constitution class frigate in the Wrath of Khan, since the Miranda is only 150 meters long in DS9 and everything must now be retconned to account for that)
Besides then you'd run into some very intersting problems with episodes like "Paradise Lost" where we can see the Defiant in relation to the Lakota so when the Lakota is now an Excelsior class frigate the Defiant would once again only be some 50 meters or less.
Besides of you really want to put retconning into this, you'd put yourself into some additional trouble there:
"Message in a Bottle" is newer than the DS9 battle scenes.
So if the Akira is shown there at a size clearly larger than 250 meters would this not mean that at that point the ship would be re-retconned into 450 meters again after being retconned into 250 meters in the Stipes chart?
Or does the retconning you mentioned above only apply when you think it should apply?
As for the ability thing you might want to keep something in mind:
A certain size does not automatically mean a ship has a certain ability.
Tha Akira might have a large number of torpedo launchers, but she would still have those if she were smaller.
What does make more sense to you: A ship smaller than a Constitution armed with 15 torpedo launchers or a ship the size of an Excelsior that may of may not be the modern replacement for the Excelsior armed with 15 torpedo launchers?
Also we don't know what kind of launcers those would be.
Everyone assumes those must be that same as the Galaxy, of which one launcer is 35 meters long and 3 decks high and would not fit into the ship regardless of the size.
Additionally the Akira would still not have any kind of fighter ability because even at the larger size the fighters would not fit through the doors.
So she would still not be some kind of supercruiser.
Just a ship with a larger number of torpdo launcers than most ships we see and less phaser banks than most ships we see.
On topic... I wonder if the OP knows the guy from this thread... Just sayin'...
You...youyou mentioned TR71777...you mentioned him.
That's already a crime in itself.
TR71777 will be insulted that you mentioned him in such a disrespetcful way.
Remember he's got two "collage degrees", so you must be very respectful when you talk about him. http://forums.startrekonline.com/sho...6&postcount=48
Also don't forget this thread, where we learn in the 4th post that Klingons are too dumb to build a carrier...and we also learn that Klingons are dunb in general and with the exception of a select few have no clue how to develop their own tech.
No one needs a Carrier. What we all need is an option to tab target through player ships only, ignoring NPC and objects. We also need to adjust the pet aggro so that they lose hate, return to the carrier, or despawn when their target exceeds a certain distance or cloaks.