Go Back   Star Trek Online > Feedback > Federation Shipyards
Login

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Captain
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 938
# 41
03-01-2013, 10:25 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by stirling191 View Post
Again, we're back to "if size and shape doesn't matter, why isn't Starfleet nothing but NX class ships shooting death star beams"?
Because there is a role of tank and healer within the game and canon star trek too, with differences in size and history equating different degree's of usefulness.

Quote:
Originally Posted by stirling191 View Post
So it's either"we can fit anything into anything, unless it's a funny shape", or "bigger ships have different stats than smaller ships". If the former, that makes zero sense. If the latter, you're flat out admitting that you can't magically stuff an unlimited amount of equipment and capability into any size ship.
The size element of ship stats in game follow a double standard, I will freely admit this. Smaller ships are faster and more maneuverable, and usually feature better guns or some other compensating feature, while bigger ships tank better and carry a technically larger amount of weapons or fighters. But the smaller ships do not have a proportionally small amount of hp, shields, or offensive capacity, their other functions like replicators, warp, and general scientific functions do not suffer either.

This is done to make sure the ships are capable at end game, while it doesn't make sense within the rules of traditional trek in most cases, it allows people who love Intrepid, Defiant, Prometheus, and B'rels the chance to contribute. In those categories of ships you can place entire Trek series worth of fans. It ultimately makes the game a richer experience by giving distinct options. More people get to play the ships and style they prefer thanks to the change. If your regid interpretation of Trek technology made it into the game these fans and styles of play would die out. It would be cruisers online.

Thanks to these requirements for making a large group of the fandom happy, and keeping the game alive, the rules I have mentioned were established. Ships of all shapes and sizes can obtain tier 5 status, and if you want to apply any logical filter to the technology, it must go along with the 'size determines' rule. We know for a fact that anything as big as a Defiant can have everything it needs for the basics of star trek, we know it can have everything needed for a tier 5 escort. The Nova can everything it needs for tier 5 status in science vessels, but is smaller than a connie too. Since the game has established that interiors and exteriors are largely interchangeable in their size class it stands to reason that the connie should be able to fit tier 5 tech in it's chasis as well.

Quote:
Originally Posted by stirling191 View Post
You're arguing that, in the era where macro scale replication is not only possibly but the norm, it's more resource friendly to construct entirely new ships than it is to replace the interior components of already existing vessels? I'd like to hear the logic behind that...
Now you're beginning to understand why a varied fleet of old and new ship designs make sense.

Quote:
Originally Posted by stirling191 View Post
1) So you're now saying that you can't put the capabilities of any ship inside any hull?

2) Following that logic, why don't you argue for shuttles to have the same stats of a Fleet Defiant? Since apparently appearance doesn't matter...
1) As long as the ship is a certain size comparable to or larger than ships with similar stats that is indeed what I am claiming.

2) If the shuttle was the size of a defiant or larger, I would say they should give it tier 5 stats.
The Somraw, K'tinga, D'Kyr, D7, Kumari, and T'Varo are all older than the Constitution Refit and yet they are tier 5. The rule needs to change.
Captain
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 3,465
# 42
03-01-2013, 10:34 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by cidstorm View Post
Because there is a role of tank and healer within the game and canon star trek too, with differences in size and history equating different degree's of usefulness.
So you're fully admitting that age is a relevant variable in the utility of a certain ship. That basically blows your entire crusade for a T5 Connie to pieces doesn't it?


Quote:
Originally Posted by cidstorm View Post
The size element of ship stats in game follow a double standard, I will freely admit this. Smaller ships are faster and more maneuverable, and usually feature better guns or some other compensating feature, while bigger ships tank better and carry a technically larger amount of weapons or fighters. But the smaller ships do not have a proportionally small amount of hp, shields, or offensive capacity, their other functions like replicators, warp, and general scientific functions do not suffer either.

This is done to make sure the ships are capable at end game, while it doesn't make sense within the rules of traditional trek in most cases, it allows people who love Intrepid, Defiant, Prometheus, and B'rels the chance to contribute. In those categories of ships you can place entire Trek series worth of fans. It ultimately makes the game a richer experience by giving distinct options. More people get to play the ships and style they prefer thanks to the change. If your regid interpretation of Trek technology made it into the game these fans and styles of play would die out. It would be cruisers online.

Thanks to these requirements for making a large group of the fandom happy, and keeping the game alive, the rules I have mentioned were established. Ships of all shapes and sizes can obtain tier 5 status, and if you want to apply any logical filter to the technology, it must go along with the 'size determines' rule. We know for a fact that anything as big as a Defiant can have everything it needs for the basics of star trek, we know it can have everything needed for a tier 5 escort. The Nova can everything it needs for tier 5 status in science vessels, but is smaller than a connie too. Since the game has established that interiors and exteriors are largely interchangeable in their size class it stands to reason that the connie should be able to fit tier 5 tech in it's chasis as well.
Translation: "Break the rules for the ship I want to be awesome, but apply the rules to ships I don't care about". You can't have it both ways. Also, way to contradict your earlier statement that size is irrelevant.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cidstorm View Post
Now you're beginning to understand why a varied fleet of old and new ship designs make sense.
You didn't answer the question. How is constructing entirely new ships less resource and manpower intensive than upgrading existing ships?

Quote:
Originally Posted by cidstorm View Post
1) As long as the ship is a certain size comparable to or larger than ships with similar stats that is indeed what I am claiming.

2) If the shuttle was the size of a defiant or larger, I would say they should give it tier 5 stats.
And once again we're back to "put everything I want in every ship I want regardless of whether or not it actually makes logical sense".

Last edited by stirling191; 03-01-2013 at 10:36 AM.
Captain
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 938
# 43
03-01-2013, 10:57 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by stirling191 View Post
So you're fully admitting that age is a relevant variable in the utility of a certain ship. That basically blows your entire crusade for a T5 Connie to pieces doesn't it?
The age determines the size, the ship is clearly capable of holding tier 5 equipment in it's spacious corridors.


Quote:
Originally Posted by stirling191 View Post
Translation: "Break the rules for the ship I want to be awesome, but apply the rules to ships I don't care about". You can't have it both ways. Also, way to contradict your earlier statement that size is irrelevant.
I never said size is irrelevant I said it is a requirement, I said shape is irrelevant, please take more time to read the posts.
I am not the one breaking the rules, STO broke them when it decided tiny ships would be comparable in stats to larger ones (but not irrelevant in stat difference). If you really want to fight against that element of the game, then I fully expect you to campaign against the existence and usefulness of science and tactical ships, or ships of any size other than the largest one.


Quote:
Originally Posted by stirling191 View Post
You didn't answer the question. How is constructing entirely new ships less resource and manpower intensive than upgrading existing ships?
I didn't answer the question again because it doesn't make any sense. You are essentially asking why they made the Exeter varient when it would be cheaper to upgrade connies. It's a question who's root issue justifies the continued existence of the connie.


Quote:
Originally Posted by stirling191 View Post
And once again we're back to "put everything I want in every ship I want regardless of whether or not it actually makes logical sense".
If shape and age are so important to star ships in STO, how are they putting exeter nacelles on connies? How are they putting TOS warp cores in Galaxy class vessels? How are they putting dual heavy cannons on the NX-01? How are connies reaching warp 10 or higher? Why are modern Ushaan class escorts getting nacelles without red bussard collectors?
The Somraw, K'tinga, D'Kyr, D7, Kumari, and T'Varo are all older than the Constitution Refit and yet they are tier 5. The rule needs to change.
Commander
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 267
# 44
03-01-2013, 11:52 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by cidstorm View Post
Perhaps you are missing the complete and utterly ridiculous nature of sci fi. STO technology has moved on from the constraints facing today's technology. Making comparisons isn't going to help because things are different in star trek. A frame has no effect on anything relevant to STO, you can check the size of Bugs, defiants, and Nova class vessels for it if you need a modern comparison of what is needed for the process of upgrading.
The reality is (to expound on what you suggested)...A player could fly an old cardboard box as a starship, and assuming it has state-of-the-art technology, is can be just as effective as a brand spankin' new cardboard box right off the assembly line.

Why is downtown traffic coming back across the entire US? The buildings are old, very old, and dilapidated. But WHAT!!!....Those old buildings are rebuilt and upgraded, redesigned inside and out, and the finished product is an old building just as nice and as well made as a new building constructed. The comparison with starships does not change this concept! Not that I'm advocating a T5 Connie, however, it's CBS...NOT technology from making this transition.
http://media.photobucket.com/image/dofftrader/yoreantiques/DOFFtrader.gif
Captain
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 4,279
# 45
03-01-2013, 12:19 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by cidstorm View Post
The age determines the size, the ship is clearly capable of holding tier 5 equipment in it's spacious corridors.
What tier is the Vulcan D'Kyr, you know, the Vulcan ship from Enterprise?

And oh hey, check this sucker out!

That's the Klingon ship from Enterprise.

Age? Size? Do not matter in STO.

For further proof? One of the largest cruisers in the game in terms of size is the Envoy class Exploration cruiser. A captain rank vessel.
Captain
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 3,465
# 46
03-01-2013, 12:25 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by cidstorm View Post
I never said size is irrelevant I said it is a requirement, I said shape is irrelevant, please take more time to read the posts.
I am not the one breaking the rules, STO broke them when it decided tiny ships would be comparable in stats to larger ones (but not irrelevant in stat difference). If you really want to fight against that element of the game, then I fully expect you to campaign against the existence and usefulness of science and tactical ships, or ships of any size other than the largest one.
Except you said the exact opposite.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cidstorm View Post
Every thing inside of a ship is modular, it can be replaced with systems and consoles and warp cores of any shape and power rating as shown with the various customization elements in game. My proof, as mentioned in earlier posts, is size.

So make up your mind. Is it size, or shape that's irrelevant? Or do you somehow equate "modular design" with "we can make this ship do anything we want with any specs we want while making it look like anything we want"?

Quote:
Originally Posted by cidstorm View Post
The age determines the size, the ship is clearly capable of holding tier 5 equipment in it's spacious corridors.
So because the Connie has room it can magically work with any technology you can stuff in there? I'll remember that when I try to make Old Ironsides fly by putting F-22 parts inside her.

In addition there are older ships that are larger than modern ships. Or are you arguing that the Defiant or Saber is bigger than a Constitution or Excelsior?

Quote:
Originally Posted by cidstorm
I didn't answer the question again because it doesn't make any sense. You are essentially asking why they made the Exeter varient when it would be cheaper to upgrade connies. It's a question who's root issue justifies the continued existence of the connie.
You're the one who made the argument that refitting was more resource intensive than new construction when you said this:

Quote:
Originally Posted by cidstorm
There was a whole fleet of star ships around before this became possible in STO. It is still the transition phase, plus, you need to take into account the civillian/resources element. Some places will have an easier time making certain parts, in certain ways. All the different species of the federation will gravitate towards and be better at optimizing different elements of the Star Trek design ethic. The same ideas of aesthetic appreciation in this conversation carry over into real life, some designs will make better recruiting tools, museum pieces, or historically significant morale boosters.
So who's the one not making sense now? And you effectively just torpedoed your own argument (again) with the mention of the Exeter.

Quote:
How are they putting TOS warp cores in Galaxy class vessels?
Find me an example of a Galaxy running with a Constitution's warp core. Go on, I'll wait.

Quote:
How are they putting dual heavy cannons on the NX-01?
1) So anyone flying an NX class is now flying Enterprise?

2) The NX class was specifically armed with canon ports. Putting Dual Heavy Cannons in cannon slots makes a smidge of sense, no?

Quote:
Why are modern Ushaan class escorts getting nacelles without red bussard collectors?
Really? You're down to arguing color now? Because a modern part of a modern design is slightly changed, that's justification for somehow making a two hundred year old ship design equivalent to designs centuries more advanced?
Captain
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 938
# 47
03-01-2013, 01:32 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by stirling191 View Post
Except you said the exact opposite.
Please quote the time I said the exact opposite. Do me a favor and quote the whole section too, I bet you misinterpreted it.


Quote:
Originally Posted by stirling191 View Post
So make up your mind. Is it size, or shape that's irrelevant? Or do you somehow equate "modular design" with "we can make this ship do anything we want with any specs we want while making it look like anything we want"?
Within the the limits of the ships overall size, that is exactly what I am saying, why are you having so much trouble with it? Shape is irrelevant.


Quote:
Originally Posted by stirling191 View Post
So because the Connie has room it can magically work with any technology you can stuff in there? I'll remember that when I try to make Old Ironsides fly by putting F-22 parts inside her.
You are making a boat fly in your comparison, the difference in sto is not so drastic. A more proper one would be to make an old bi-plane fly as you said earlier. Such an impossible feat likely draws attention to the problems faced by making an old plane frame travel at speeds and pressures we know it could not handle. We from the game that an old connie can already hold warp 10 or higher with no problems. They have obviously overcome such limitations. Armor, shields, and weapons are compartmental systems, usually powered by the warp core. The warp core of a Connie could get much larger than that of a bug, defiant, or nova, so it's easy to imagine it could handle the power drain of tier 5 systems. In fact, STO lets us know directly that the connie in un-upgraded form could handle the power requirements of a tier 5 ship, as it has the same power levels as those tier 5 ships. Are you ready to drop this yet?

Quote:
Originally Posted by stirling191 View Post
In addition there are older ships that are larger than modern ships. Or are you arguing that the Defiant or Saber is bigger than a Constitution or Excelsior?
I am seriously lost here, what is the point of the question? The connie being bigger than the defiant has been a major part of my argument, why would you question my stance on the ship sizes?


Quote:
Originally Posted by stirling191 View Post
You're the one who made the argument that refitting was more resource intensive than new construction when you said this:
*QUOTE*
Originally Posted by cidstorm
There was a whole fleet of star ships around before this became possible in STO. It is still the transition phase, plus, you need to take into account the civillian/resources element. Some places will have an easier time making certain parts, in certain ways. All the different species of the federation will gravitate towards and be better at optimizing different elements of the Star Trek design ethic. The same ideas of aesthetic appreciation in this conversation carry over into real life, some designs will make better recruiting tools, museum pieces, or historically significant morale boosters.
Being in a transitional phase where there are old star ships still flying encourages refits. That was part of the point in that post. By actively arguing that refits are cheaper, you are supporting the logic of a cause for the tier 5 connie, I really appreciate it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by stirling191 View Post
Find me an example of a Galaxy running with a Constitution's warp core. Go on, I'll wait
This is the TOS bundle, you can put the TOS warp core in any ship.
http://www.theoldergamers.com/star_t...now-available/

Quote:
Originally Posted by stirling191 View Post
1) So anyone flying an NX class is now flying Enterprise?

2) The NX class was specifically armed with canon ports. Putting Dual Heavy Cannons in cannon slots makes a smidge of sense, no?
1) I used the NX-01 because it was easy, if that's really an issue for you I apologize. It wasn't meant to be taken literally.

2) But it doesn't have a modern escort shape, they weren't the modern cannons being used today. It was a rhetorical question, but thanks for agreeing that an old ship should be able to use similar technology no matter it's age.

Quote:
Originally Posted by stirling191 View Post
Really? You're down to arguing color now? Because a modern part of a modern design is slightly changed, that's justification for somehow making a two hundred year old ship design equivalent to designs centuries more advanced?
To be honest, the Ushaan doesn't even have any visible buzzard collectors, just like the connie refit and the excelsior. I mentioned that part because stylistic aspects of TMP ship design are still being used in modern vessels. The Ushaan has an upper deflector bit that looks just like a reliant component, many ships use straight blue deflectors like the connie refit did, several ships have lit up sensor domes under the saucer just like an old connie. You're acting like the connie refit has no functional similarities to modern star ships and thats just not true.
The Somraw, K'tinga, D'Kyr, D7, Kumari, and T'Varo are all older than the Constitution Refit and yet they are tier 5. The rule needs to change.
Captain
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 928
# 48
03-01-2013, 02:29 PM
Is it possible to put the latest tech in a connie hull? Yes the question becomes why do it. For was is the Excelsior at it's core? A Connie on steroids and it's larger and able to fit more. Thus why she is still in service.
Captain
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 4,279
# 49
03-01-2013, 06:01 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by admiralq1732 View Post
the question becomes why do it.
The Book, Needs of the Many, answers that question.

Bee Tee Dubs ... It's the official Star Trek Online novel.
Captain
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 928
# 50
03-01-2013, 06:36 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by snoggymack22 View Post
The Book, Needs of the Many, answers that question.

Bee Tee Dubs ... It's the official Star Trek Online novel.
Don't have the money to spare so why is the connie back?
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 08:07 AM.