Go Back   Star Trek Online > Feedback > Federation Shipyards
Login

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 11
07-27-2011, 10:07 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord-Ice
...But there's a problem with this.

The Soyuz-class was too old for service 40 years before this game. It's a Tier 5 Constitution situation - There's only so much you can do with a ship before it's just too old. And the Light Cruisers, primarily the Miranda, were old when the Constellation-class was new, and you don't ever see Constellations.

It's just too old, especially for a T3 or T4 ship.
People still use that "too old for service" argument? Even after the T5 B'Rel, the T5 T'kyr and the T5 Excelsior?

Huh, weird.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 12
07-27-2011, 11:06 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jermbot View Post
People still use that "too old for service" argument? Even after the T5 B'Rel, the T5 T'kyr and the T5 Excelsior?

Huh, weird.
Considering the D'kyr (a ship roughly the volume of an Ambassador) in this game is a Science ship while the D'kyr on "Enterprise" was their version of a superbattleship, meaning it was appearently reevaluated as no longer viable in its original function and extensively redesigned...

Considering the other ships have at least the fact they were still in srvice in the latest TV shows going for them while the Soyuz was retired before Praxis blew up...

The T5 Excelsior is still a lot less BS than a T3 Soyuz.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 13
07-27-2011, 12:09 PM
Actually, I think the T5 Excelsior is the reason for the complaints about lower Tier ships being available. People hate that Excelsiors beat out their favorite, the Sovereign. The truth is, the Tier 2 ships, if not Tier 1, are as modern as Tier 5.

Personally, I feel that the problem is not that the ships are in Tiers, it's that the Tiers are too extreme. It is a byproduct of the RPG structure. Leveling in a computer RPG usually entails large jumps in power, so that Admirals are not going around hunting in and crowding out Lieutenants in their own sectors. Of course, that happens anyway in DSEs, but there you go...

The problem is not that a Constitution class is not balanced for a Lieutenant, it is. But it is not balanced for an Admiral. And Admiral in the same ship doesn't get the same performance out of it because the ship limits his capabilities. Team a Lt. in a Constitution with an Admiral in a Constitution to see. The Lt will get a boost to hit points and damage due to Squad Support, while the Admiral will be stuck with the base Hull and damage based on a lower skill point allocation. (Because only Tier 1 and 2 ship skills apply to the Constitition)

If the Tier system was based on ship size, and not age, and it remained proportionate in strength to the players level, while still having an increasing order of strength based on available space, with allowances made for class (Escorts being naturally smaller) then there would be no problem. But the devs do not seem interested in such a system.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 14
07-28-2011, 02:47 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by NeilCell View Post
Of course you don't. You are not playing at those leves anymore. I sometimes go back and create a new character and using the same old designs only at specific levels over and over again gets kind of old.
In that exact part that you quotet I mentioned that I have 9 toons so I went back several times.
There are still AT LEAST 3 ships on every Level, with 3 Ship-skins for each. And at Commander we have on fed side more Ships then the KDF had as end-content for a LONG TIME.
And I believe that is more then enough considering that, as I said, the lower tier ships are just used a few hours while the T5s are theoretical used for YEARS.

But the best would be to remove the f**** Tier system anyway....

Quote:
Originally Posted by mister_dee
Considering the D'kyr (a ship roughly the volume of an Ambassador) in this game is a Science ship while the D'kyr on "Enterprise" was their version of a superbattleship, meaning it was appearently reevaluated as no longer viable in its original function and extensively redesigned...
Well I always considered the D'kyr more or less working like the BoP; having nothing in common with its "old" version beside the look.
The TNG/DS9 BoPs were no 100 years old ships, they just happened to keep the basic design because it simply WORKED, I dont know why everybody believes that technical progession has to show in optical changes every way. May be external designs simply ARE already optimal?
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 15
07-28-2011, 03:03 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by mister_dee
Considering the D'kyr (a ship roughly the volume of an Ambassador) in this game is a Science ship while the D'kyr on "Enterprise" was their version of a superbattleship, meaning it was appearently reevaluated as no longer viable in its original function and extensively redesigned...

Considering the other ships have at least the fact they were still in srvice in the latest TV shows going for them while the Soyuz was retired before Praxis blew up...

The T5 Excelsior is still a lot less BS than a T3 Soyuz.
No, I'm very familiar with the debate in regards to each of these specific ships. The problem is that each of these specific ships has been justified in a particular way that also applies to any other ship you want to refit.

Take the B'Rel, the current thinking on the B'Rel is that it shares a shape and function with the hundreds year old original, and that's it. These are not actually Refits. These are new ships, manufactured with modern technologies and loaded out with modern systems.

Or the D'kyr, as you point out, all it shares with the original hundred something year old design is shape. It doesn't even meet the same function, and it's certainly not an actual Refit. It's also a new ship, manufactured with modern technologies and loaded out with modern systems.

So, what would be the technical reason to not do this with a Miranda? Don't get bogged down in questions of why they would, or why the developers should bother, that's actually a separate, far more interesting, discussion. Right now, in a game where "refit" means both a ship that's been upgraded from it's original specifications AND a ship who's hull shape has been coopted for use on a modern craft, why do we still see the "it's too old to be a Tier5 craft" argument?
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 16
07-28-2011, 03:39 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jermbot View Post
So, what would be the technical reason to not do this with a Miranda? Don't get bogged down in questions of why they would, or why the developers should bother, that's actually a separate, far more interesting, discussion. Right now, in a game where "refit" means both a ship that's been upgraded from it's original specifications AND a ship who's hull shape has been coopted for use on a modern craft, why do we still see the "it's too old to be a Tier5 craft" argument?
There is obviously a clear-cut reason in this case.
The ship in question was from the "Connie-refit" era but was retired from service well before the 2290's.
The original hull config, the Miranda was kept in service.
Meaning it was less useful than the Miranda.
It was not retired because it was too old, otherwise the entire Miranda line would have been retired as well.
It was retired because it was a failure compared to the Miranda.

So why "refit" a Miranda to the new incarnation of a hull variant of the Miranda that was clearly a failure and in some manner inferior the conventional Miranda hull design?

In addition the Soyuz clearly and oviously sacrificed its weapons module for additional sensor pods while the ship proposed here is a cruiser with a tactical inclination.
Meaning it is supposed to have combat capabilites superior to the Miranda.
That makes no sense at all, how is a variant with less weapons and more sensors capable ot outgunning a ship that has more guns?
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 17
07-28-2011, 04:09 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by FirstAngelus View Post
Well I always considered the D'kyr more or less working like the BoP; having nothing in common with its "old" version beside the look.
The TNG/DS9 BoPs were no 100 years old ships, they just happened to keep the basic design because it simply WORKED, I dont know why everybody believes that technical progession has to show in optical changes every way. May be external designs simply ARE already optimal?
If it was perfect, then why have we not seen ships using that shape more often?
I'll try to explain what I mean.
Ignoring for a moment the terracentristic attitude of Trek authors that seem to think only human design should influence Starfleet (Akiraprise) and that without Earth the Federation would be crippled beyond repair ("Nemesis"):

If the design was that good, either as a combat ship or as some kind of reseach vessel like it's used in this game, why did the new United Federation Starfleet not adopt the design to a far greater degree?
Why were Vulcan hulls, especially the by your idea "perfect" D'Kyr not the new look of Starfleet instead of the "Saucer'n Nacelles" we know toady?
And why do Vulcan ships of the 24th century look so very different?

http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/__..._freighter.jpg

http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/__...udio_model.jpg

should they not at least be derived from the D'kyr instead of only having a passing resemblance, omitting the rotating component of the propulsion system in favor of the more "amored" look the ring engine has?
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 18
07-28-2011, 04:22 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by mister_dee
There is obviously a clear-cut reason in this case.
The ship in question was from the "Connie-refit" era but was retired from service well before the 2290's.
The original hull config, the Miranda was kept in service.
Meaning it was less useful than the Miranda.
It was not retired because it was too old, otherwise the entire Miranda line would have been retired as well.
It was retired because it was a failure compared to the Miranda.

So why "refit" a Miranda to the new incarnation of a hull variant of the Miranda that was clearly a failure and in some manner inferior the conventional Miranda hull design?

In addition the Soyuz clearly and oviously sacrificed its weapons module for additional sensor pods while the ship proposed here is a cruiser with a tactical inclination.
Meaning it is supposed to have combat capabilites superior to the Miranda.
That makes no sense at all, how is a variant with less weapons and more sensors capable ot outgunning a ship that has more guns?
Not what I was asking, but okay, here goes. The Soyuz sacrificed its weapons module for additional sensor pods how long ago? It was retired in 2208 and it is now 2408, it's possible the technology has progressed to the point where a ship with an identical sized and shaped hull can have its cake and eat it too.

Rephrasing my question in light of the reasoning used in your last argument. "Why do you believe technical requirements 200 years ago would apply to a ship today?"
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 19
07-28-2011, 09:22 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jermbot View Post
Not what I was asking, but okay, here goes. The Soyuz sacrificed its weapons module for additional sensor pods how long ago? It was retired in 2208 and it is now 2408, it's possible the technology has progressed to the point where a ship with an identical sized and shaped hull can have its cake and eat it too.
I strongly suggest you get your numbers right, it's 2279.
I understand what you're saying but it makes you look like you don't know what you're talking about to others.
The question I'd ask then is: when advanced technology makes is possible to get additional weapons into the hull without the weapons "rollbar" the Miranda has: would the Miranda not have dropped it if it was not needed?
Or even more to the point, the same upgrades could be applied to the Miranda as well.
Yet the Miranda has the rollbar in addition to that upgraded weaponry.
So the Miranda would end up being better armed in any case.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jermbot View Post
Rephrasing my question in light of the reasoning used in your last argument. "Why do you believe technical requirements 200 years ago would apply to a ship today?"
Unless the laws of physics are reversed, meaning "less" is suddenly "more" I don't see how the timeframe is relevant.
Weapons traded for sensors will mean the same no matter which century you're in.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 20
07-28-2011, 12:40 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by mister_dee
I strongly suggest you get your numbers right, it's 2279. I understand what you're saying but it makes you look like you don't know what you're talking about to others.
My bad, I even checked on that when I first posted. I wonder how I made that mistake. Ohwell.

Quote:
The question I'd ask then is: when advanced technology makes is possible to get additional weapons into the hull without the weapons "rollbar" the Miranda has: would the Miranda not have dropped it if it was not needed?
Or even more to the point, the same upgrades could be applied to the Miranda as well.
Yet the Miranda has the rollbar in addition to that upgraded weaponry.
So the Miranda would end up being better armed in any case.
Perhaps the Miranda's that we see are "refits" in the truest sense of the word, in that they have been in use well past their expected service life and still need the rollbar for those weapon mounts. Where as the "Suyez" being suggested is only a "refit" in the Da'Kyr or B'Rel sense of having the same hull configuration but built from the ground up with fully modern technology, it did not require a "rollbar" to get, not just the same results, but far better results. Does it strain credibility? Yes. But no more than the B'Rel and Da'Kyr refits.

Quote:
Unless the laws of physics are reversed, meaning "less" is suddenly "more" I don't see how the timeframe is relevant.
Weapons traded for sensors will mean the same no matter which century you're in.
Nah, the laws of physics can stay the same, but if our understanding of the laws of physics become more precise, then maybe we don't need to trade sensors for weapons or mount silly rollbars.
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 06:10 PM.