Captain
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 4,244
# 11
04-18-2013, 06:00 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by tpalelena View Post
This. The resemblance is clear.
afaik, its also the canon development of the akira design.
Cryptic.
Figure out and address the players path of least resistance to reward. this one thing is THE consistent factor undermining all your efforts. be that crafting, raids or starbase projects.
Captain
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 3,158
# 12
04-18-2013, 08:46 PM
The reason there's no "T5 Connie", or even T5 Exeter, is simple: Because if you take a smaller ship and upsize to 4/4, it will completely outclass all of its competitors, as there is absolutely no advantage to being a "big" ship. Someone has a sig demonstrating precisely this in their Fleet T5 Exeter. Ask yourself, given those stats, is there any reason to use ANY other cruiser?

THAT is why.

As for a T5 NX, it exists, it's called the Akira.
Starfleet Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 331
# 13
04-18-2013, 08:50 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by doffingcomrade View Post
As for a T5 NX, it exists, it's called the Akira.
Different class, different mission. One is a long range scout or outrider, the other is a carrier. Yes, the NX looks like the Akira, that was done purposefully by the original designers who worked on the show. As has been stated countless times in interview.
Vice Admiral Corris Sprint (@sprint01)
Commanding Officer - 26th Fleet [RP]
Star Trek: Praetorian Official Website
Captain
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 3,332
# 14
04-18-2013, 09:09 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by doffingcomrade View Post
The reason there's no "T5 Connie", or even T5 Exeter, is simple: Because if you take a smaller ship and upsize to 4/4, it will completely outclass all of its competitors, as there is absolutely no advantage to being a "big" ship. Someone has a sig demonstrating precisely this in their Fleet T5 Exeter. Ask yourself, given those stats, is there any reason to use ANY other cruiser?
As already pointed out on this thread, there are precedents. We have T5 versions of T1 and T2 Klingon and Romulan ships; why not Federation?

And really, what difference does it make? If you don't want to fly one, then don't. But let other people fly what they want.

Quote:
Originally Posted by doffingcomrade View Post
As for a T5 NX, it exists, it's called the Akira.
They look similar, but they are two very different starships.
Republic Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 964
# 15
05-03-2013, 12:17 PM
The reason older non-Fed ships are available at T5 is because overall there are a lot less of them.

Star Trek ship designers put things in a strange place why making the "retro" designs for Enterprise look better than some of the more "modern" TOS/TMP era stuff.
Career Officer
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 668
# 16
05-03-2013, 01:01 PM
Using the "old" updated Romulan designs as an excuse for "old" updated Starfleet ships doesn't wash with me from a story perspective...
The Romulan Republic is made up of mostly refugees scavenging what they can and upgrading where possible. The T'Varro is an example of this if you assume their shipyards are also old and mothballed and can only produce a few spaceframe shapes (supposition, I know, but it fits) so they build an old shape with new manufacturing methods and materials.

From the books I've read on Enterprise era (soft canon or not, it's one of the only sources out there now) only 5 NX-class ships were made because it was cheaper and quicker to build and upgrade old Daedalus class ships during the Earth-Romulan wars than it was to build an NX, despite the NX being better in a fight.

Once the war was over, the next generation of ships was probably ready for production so the NX project was discontinued.

I can understand a replica of the NX being at T1 as a sort of "prestige" item, but a T5 ship being produced based on a design which only got 5 ships 200 years earlier? Hmmm...

Arguing that the Vulcans got one, and so did the Andorians is hardly fair... their species had warp-drive 100s of years before humanity so had 100s of years to perfect their designs and come up with a style which had longevity, which is why their endgame ships look the same as they did 100s of years ago.

The real blame lies with making the Excelsior class so damn good at endgame... now we all want our favourite TOS/TMP/ENT era ships up there too. But maybe this is "humanity's" perfect spaceframe?.... god I hope not
Captain
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 510
# 17
05-03-2013, 11:15 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by doffingcomrade View Post
The reason there's no "T5 Connie", or even T5 Exeter, is simple: Because if you take a smaller ship and upsize to 4/4, it will completely outclass all of its competitors, as there is absolutely no advantage to being a "big" ship. Someone has a sig demonstrating precisely this in their Fleet T5 Exeter. Ask yourself, given those stats, is there any reason to use ANY other cruiser?

THAT is why.

As for a T5 NX, it exists, it's called the Akira.
Ya know I gotta preface this statement by saying I don't really mind/care one way or the other, but the idea of making a lower tier ship a 4 slots fore 4 slot aft doesn't guarantee that it will outclass other ships. Theres absolutely no fact behind this statement.
As to what advantage is there of having a big ship if they did this, that argument gets blown out of the water with tini jem'hadar bug ships mopping the floor with mega size cruisers and every other ship that's larger then it with ease.
Captain
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 3,158
# 18
05-04-2013, 02:00 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by astro2244 View Post
Ya know I gotta preface this statement by saying I don't really mind/care one way or the other, but the idea of making a lower tier ship a 4 slots fore 4 slot aft doesn't guarantee that it will outclass other ships. Theres absolutely no fact behind this statement.
Lower-tier ships are nearly always faster-turning and generally more agile than their higher-tier counterparts. T1 Fed Cruisers have turn rates comparable to Sci ships. T5 Fed Cruisers...well, you know. So you take one of those T1 cruisers and give it the same 4/4 gun layout, T5 boff slotting, and 9-10 console setup that a T5 Fed Cruiser does, and you essentially have created a ship that completely outclasses all of its counterparts with similar layouts.

Quote:
Originally Posted by astro2244 View Post
As to what advantage is there of having a big ship if they did this, that argument gets blown out of the water with tini jem'hadar bug ships mopping the floor with mega size cruisers and every other ship that's larger then it with ease.
That is precisely what I said, yes: There is NO advantage to being a bigger ship. So retrofitting a tiny T1/2/3 ship to T5 results in a simply superior ship, as those ships are smaller, but would have the same gun-capacity and power levels.
Survivor of Romulus
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,611
# 19
05-04-2013, 02:09 AM
if CBS said no then this is a moot point but i do like the NX and i would pay for it if it had cannons at T5 other wise im happy with my Jem heavy escort.
Welcome to bugs online were we only fix the bugs you like, and will ignore the ones you hate.
These are the voyages of the USS Farmville. Her 5 year mission is to boldly farm where no one has farmed before.
Say No to ARK
Empire Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 7,178
# 20
05-04-2013, 02:21 AM
according to my head cannon, the BOPs the NX-01 encountered were actually time travelers from the 25th century. they didn't originate in that time at all! there, them being in the game and on enterprise all fits nicely together.
gateway links-->Norvo Tigan, Telis Latto Ruwon, Sochie Heim, Solana Soleus
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 On
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:27 PM.