Starfleet Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,004
# 71
01-21-2013, 06:45 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by cidstorm View Post
No, the argument still stands, only seeing a ship once is no ground for dismissal. You are adding other points to the issue and I will be happy to address them. The Saratoga is a modification of the Miranda class, which is a modification of constitution parts.
That is a red herring argument. It could just as easily go both ways. We may have never seen another Saratoga type because it was a one off experiment, or a limited run. We may see tons of Mirandas because they are more efficient, or more versatile, or any number of reasons. The bottom line is we never see the Constitution again. One single ship doesn't mean there are dozens more that just happen to never make it on screen in some of the largest ship engagements ever seen in Trek.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cidstorm View Post
The defiant and bug are the smallest escorts in the game, yet they have the most powerful weapons in the game.
You're cherry picking two specialist ships. The Defiant and Bug ships are designed for one purpose and one purpose only - to be flying guns. I've said before in other threads and I'll say again: The Defiant is a flying set of guns with engines and armor glued on, the life support is almost an afterthought. Bashir even comments on how small and ill equipped something as basic and necessary as a sick bay is.

Whereas a cruiser in Trek is a jack of all trades. It does science, it fights, it even does troop transport / colony support / shows the flag, you name it, it does it to some extent. Now in STO specifically, the cruiser is supposedly support and tanking. It doesn't do a lot of damage, its not the best at science stuff, but it does take a beating like no other. (in theory)

Which brings us right back to its size being an issue. It just doesn't have the size to take the body blows an Odyssey or Galaxy can. So you'd just end up with a ship that doesn't do nearly as much damage as an escort, doesn't do science as well as a dedicated science ship, and can't tank nearly as well as it younger siblings.

Beyond that, we're still at the basic issue of CBS said no. Cryptic is not the one to convince, I'm not the one to convince, other players aren't, it CBS. Until they say yes, we can talk about this until the end of time, and it wouldn't make even the slightest bit of difference.
http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/image.php?type=sigpic&userid=91851990000&dateline=  1341951426

Last edited by hravik; 01-21-2013 at 06:49 AM.
Captain
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,070
# 72
01-21-2013, 07:13 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by hravik View Post
That is a red herring argument. It could just as easily go both ways. We may have never seen another Saratoga type because it was a one off experiment, or a limited run. We may see tons of Mirandas because they are more efficient, or more versatile, or any number of reasons. The bottom line is we never see the Constitution again. One single ship doesn't mean there are dozens more that just happen to never make it on screen in some of the largest ship engagements ever seen in Trek.
You are the one who utilized the red herring fallacy by adding the element of modification to only seeing a ship once. I pointed that out and then took it further by saying those are just modifications of the design I asserted was still in use. You're tripping over your own points here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hravik View Post
You're cherry picking two specialist ships. The Defiant and Bug ships are designed for one purpose and one purpose only - to be flying guns. I've said before in other threads and I'll say again: The Defiant is a flying set of guns with engines and armor glued on, the life support is almost an afterthought. Bashir even comments on how small and ill equipped something as basic and necessary as a sick bay is.

Whereas a cruiser in Trek is a jack of all trades. It does science, it fights, it even does troop transport / colony support / shows the flag, you name it, it does it to some extent. Now in STO specifically, the cruiser is supposedly support and tanking. It doesn't do a lot of damage, its not the best at science stuff, but it does take a beating like no other. (in theory)

Which brings us right back to its size being an issue. It just doesn't have the size to take the body blows an Odyssey or Galaxy can. So you'd just end up with a ship that doesn't do nearly as much damage as an escort, doesn't do science as well as a dedicated science ship, and can't tank nearly as well as it younger siblings.

Beyond that, we're still at the basic issue of CBS said no. Cryptic is not the one to convince, I'm not the one to convince, other players aren't, it CBS. Until they say yes, we can talk about this until the end of time, and it wouldn't make even the slightest bit of difference.
Being bigger than the bug, defiant, and nova means it could contain whatever stats any one of them has and then some added on top. Tech in sto is completely modular, ships are just shells.
I'm not saying cryptic should give the Connie dual cannons or science abilities, I'm just saying it could have all around tier 5 stats like they do. I'd even agree that the hit points would be bad even for a cruiser, maybe the engineering consoles too, but there are ways to compensate for that while keeping the ship competitive.

The first step to getting any large organizations attention is through public awareness and advocacy, this is not pointless.
The Somraw, K'tinga, D'Kyr, D7, Kumari, Xindi carrier, Xindi escort, and the T'Varo are all older than the Constitution Refit and yet they are tier 5. The Constellation is made up primarily of Connie refit parts and it is tier 5, there is no logical reason whatsoever for the no tier 5/6 connie rule.

Last edited by cidstorm; 01-21-2013 at 07:15 AM.
Starfleet Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,004
# 73
01-21-2013, 07:24 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by cidstorm View Post
You are the one who utilized the red herring fallacy by adding the element of modification to only seeing a ship once. I pointed that out and then took it further by saying those are just modifications of the design I asserted was still in use. You're tripping over your own points here.
You brought up the Saratoga and Centaur, not me. A red herring argument is a distraction from the main argument, which in this case was the Constitution not showing up pretty much ever again. But you know, Centaur. Or something. Refuting your red herring argument does not a red herring itself make, I just failed to make those particular points in the first refute.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cidstorm View Post
Being bigger than the bug, defiant, and nova means it could contain whatever stats any one of them has and then some added on top. Tech in sto is completely modular, ships are just shells.
So you're agreeing that size does matter? I present Exhibit A: The volume of a Galaxy class is roughly 5,820,983(m^3). Next I present Exhibit B: The volume of a Constitution refit is roughly 211,248(m^3). So whatever you cram into that 'shell' can be done about 27 and a half times over to the Galaxy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cidstorm View Post
I'm not saying cryptic should give the Connie dual cannons or science abilities, I'm just saying it could have all around tier 5 stats like they do. I'd even agree that the hit points would be bad even for a cruiser, maybe the engineering consoles too, but there are ways to compensate for that while keeping the ship competitive.
So you're saying you don't want it to have an escort weapons package, you don't want it to have a science ship science package, and you don't want it to have a tanking package of a standard cruiser, am I correct? You just described a ship that is sub-par in every category that matters in this game. I can hear the die-hard Connie fans crying foul already.

So what exactly DO you want it to do? Be specific, because your one idea of a dual beam bank that can be yanked off and immediately put on a ship that performs better doesn't lend itself to 'I must use this ship and not be a liability to my team'

Quote:
Originally Posted by cidstorm View Post
The first step to getting any large organizations attention is through public awareness and advocacy, this is not pointless.
People have been making these same arguments for nearly three years now, and very few have bothered to take it up directly with the people that matter: CBS.
http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/image.php?type=sigpic&userid=91851990000&dateline=  1341951426

Last edited by hravik; 01-21-2013 at 08:13 AM.
Career Officer
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 229
# 74
01-21-2013, 07:53 AM
Seems like the only way to make TOS fans happy, is to have a TOS game. As in forking STO into the current game and a TOS era game. Take out the 'magic' abilities, gives us full 3D maneuvering... and I won't even care about the content. How about PvP in TOS period ships... perhaps detecting cloaked ships by occlusion or recreating the 'Balance of Terror'. If they wanted content, they could plagiarize the TOS episodes at the rate of once per week (or month) and that would be great.

At least this way, it might be harder for CBS to say no. Every thing's according to canon and it might even attract some new players.

You wouldn't need a 'T5' Connie since all ships would be T1 or T2 anyway.

Yeah, it's a pipe-dream. But I always thought it was a mistake for them to start STO off in 2409.
Starfleet Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,004
# 75
01-21-2013, 08:05 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by asphe View Post
Yeah, it's a pipe-dream. But I always thought it was a mistake for them to start STO off in 2409.
Oh I agree. Personally I prefer the TOS / TMP era, but it isn't what we got, sadly. What we have is some mismash of everything with a story that's incoherent at times. (Seriously, that last FE series had plot holes big enough to sail a Borg cube through)

I think the 'Lost Era' would have fit perfectly. Plenty of wiggle room for events between the end of Kirk's part in Generations and the start of TNG. We'd still see the old guard at or near its height, with some of the newer stuff starting to edge in. We could see the exploits of the B, maybe the introduction and eventual loss of the C, whatever the aftermath of Kirk's apparent death was, Scotty goes missing, various wars hinted at but never explored.

Coulda woulda shoulda and all that.
http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/image.php?type=sigpic&userid=91851990000&dateline=  1341951426
Career Officer
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 163
# 76
01-21-2013, 08:25 AM
If tier 5 TOS ships appeared in the game, I would NEVER sleep. They would have to pry me away from this game.

Joined August 2009
Captain
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,070
# 77
01-21-2013, 08:30 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by hravik View Post
You brought up the Saratoga and Centaur, not me. A red herring argument is a distraction from the main argument, which in this case was the Constitution not showing up pretty much ever again. But you know, Centaur. Or something. Refuting your red herring argument does not a red herring itself make, I just failed to make those particular points in the first refute.
A red herring fallacy brings up unrelated arguments, I merely questioned if the argument could be applied to very similar cases.
If your argument of singular appearance cannot successfully be applied to other extremely similar occurances like the saratoga and curry class ships it cannot be applied to the constitution class. The ships all share components as you pointed out so the comparison is not a distraction.

If you really want to get into fallacies the argument of "I don't see it so it's never there" is an argument from silence, an argument citing lack of evidence, and thus in a league of BS all on its own.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hravik View Post
So you're agreeing that size does matter? I present Exhibit A: The volume of a Galaxy class is roughly 5,820,983(m^3). Next I present Exhibit B: The volume of a Constitution refit is roughly 211,248(m^3). So whatever you cram into that 'shell' can be done about 27 and a half times over to the Galaxy.
You are theoretically correct, but power adages in that scale would make almost all other ships worthless compared to the galaxy and odyssey, even the modern ones. This limiter is in place to make sure gameplay is varried and fun, there is still nothing logical preventing tier 5 tech from being added to the Connie.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hravik View Post
People have been making these same arguments for nearly three years now, and very few have bothered to take it up directly with the people that matter: CBS.
We continue to take it up here for two reasons, the words of cryptic will carry much heavier weight than any sporadically sent emails, and this way more people will send those emails.
The Somraw, K'tinga, D'Kyr, D7, Kumari, Xindi carrier, Xindi escort, and the T'Varo are all older than the Constitution Refit and yet they are tier 5. The Constellation is made up primarily of Connie refit parts and it is tier 5, there is no logical reason whatsoever for the no tier 5/6 connie rule.

Last edited by cidstorm; 01-21-2013 at 08:33 AM.
Republic Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 3,556
# 78
01-21-2013, 08:36 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by hravik View Post
Not really, the Saratoga was just a modification of an already existing frame. Just like the Lantree and Bozeman was a variant on the same basic space frame.

But that aside, my hang up with the Connie is that its a cruiser. A tiny cruiser. By volume, you could fit a Connie refit inside a single Galaxy class nacelle with room to spare. Even an Intrepid class is very nearly three times the volume, even if its roughly the same length. (appearances can be very deceiving)

If a Constitution can function just as well as a cruiser as any of the more modern and larger cruisers, that negates any and all reason for there to have ever been an Excelsior, Ambassador, Galaxy, Sovereign, Odyssey, etc etc. I can't possibly suspend my Trek disbelief enough to accept that a ship a fraction the size can take and give as much of a pounding as ships upwards of 27 times its volume. More for the Odyssey.

You couldn't possibly cram enough structure, shielding, power generation, hull thickness and weaponry in there to make up that massive amount of difference. Any miniaturization you apply to that Connie could be applied to the larger ships in spades.

This is a piece of logic many like to ignore.
Captain
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,070
# 79
01-21-2013, 08:52 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by asphe View Post
Seems like the only way to make TOS fans happy, is to have a TOS game. As in forking STO into the current game and a TOS era game. Take out the 'magic' abilities, gives us full 3D maneuvering... and I won't even care about the content. How about PvP in TOS period ships... perhaps detecting cloaked ships by occlusion or recreating the 'Balance of Terror'. If they wanted content, they could plagiarize the TOS episodes at the rate of once per week (or month) and that would be great.

At least this way, it might be harder for CBS to say no. Every thing's according to canon and it might even attract some new players.

You wouldn't need a 'T5' Connie since all ships would be T1 or T2 anyway.

Yeah, it's a pipe-dream. But I always thought it was a mistake for them to start STO off in 2409.
I would love a tmp era sto as well, but I'm happy with the route they chose. This way they can make everyone happy through upgrade able tech and all the history. Now we can all roam the trek universe together and explore new ideas like trek always tries to. It's just sad some fans are not equal, and the new jj fans are not being welcomed in with open arms.
The Somraw, K'tinga, D'Kyr, D7, Kumari, Xindi carrier, Xindi escort, and the T'Varo are all older than the Constitution Refit and yet they are tier 5. The Constellation is made up primarily of Connie refit parts and it is tier 5, there is no logical reason whatsoever for the no tier 5/6 connie rule.
Starfleet Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,004
# 80
01-21-2013, 09:03 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by cidstorm View Post
If you really want to get into fallacies the argument of "I don't see it so it's never there" is an argument from silence, an argument citing lack of evidence, and thus in a league of BS all on its own.
There's more to back it up than just not seeing it, I point to three key things.

1: We know the Ent-A was retired, and instead of being replaced with another far less resource and crew intensive Connie, she was replaced with the newer and larger Excelsior class. If the Connie was just as effective, why was another one not knocked out for the 1701-B?

2: We know from TOS that there are 'only 12 like her in the fleet' Meaning there were only 12 Constitution classes built. Sure I suppose they could have built more later, but between the newer Excelsior, and cheaper Miranda, why would they?

3: Of those 12 original ships, we know the 1701 was destroyed, the Intrepid was destroyed, the Constellation was destroyed, the 1701-A was heavily damaged and retired, with the possibility of the A being a renamed Yorktown to start with (Roddenberry hinted at this), the one that was destroyed at Wolf 359, and at least one as a museum ship. That's 6, possibly 7 of them gone right off that bat. That doesn't even consider other sources of attrition for the 74 years between the events of Undiscovered Country and Wolf 359 for the 5 or 6 unaccounted for.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cidstorm View Post
You are theoretically correct, but power adages in that scale would make almost all other ships worthless compared to the galaxy and odyssey, even the modern ones. This limiter is in place to make sure gameplay is varried and fun, there is still nothing logical preventing tier 5 tech from being added to the Connie.
The difference here is I'm comparing apples to apples, cruiser to cruiser. Most of the ideas that get tossed about basically boils down to wanting a teeny tiny cruiser to be the equal of the big mamajammas.

I'm not wholly opposed to a Connie being at end game, I just press people hard to come up with something that isn't just there because 'handwavium Q did it' reasons. The ships in this game are already enough of a mess without adding to the problem.

Why not something like a 'destroyer escort'? Something with a weapons package that makes it tricky to handle for any ship in its weight class, but nimble and fast enough to outrun anything it can't outfight. That sounds more Kirk than 'big cruiser smash!'

Even then, I really don't even like my own idea. Its still a ship that doesn't really fill a needed, or even useful role. I can't think of anything the Connie can do that doesn't step on something's toes. Its not a warship, its not really a science ship, and its too small to compete with the other, more massive cruisers.
http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/image.php?type=sigpic&userid=91851990000&dateline=  1341951426

Last edited by hravik; 01-21-2013 at 09:52 AM.
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 10:50 PM.