test content
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc

Ah Hah! I found it!

2

Comments

  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2011
    CapnBludd wrote: »
    You keep only seeing what you want to, modern meaning today's real world things are meant to last longer and longer, so in the imaginary world of star trek with the imaginary new metals and other things available, things will last even longer. Ding!:rolleyes:

    Ignoring the fact that in the real world we do not have interstellar space travel and warp drive... :p

    Yet the Constitution was obsolete and canned after only a few decades, replaced by the excelsior that was still being built into the mid 24th century. :cool:
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2011
    Brozan wrote: »
    Color me ignorant but that makes no sense to me, while I love battleships and hope to one day visit one of the museums I don't understand why Congress would ever want to bring them back into active service. What can an Iowa do that can't be accmplished with fighters bombers and guided missiles?

    ANYWAY that has nothing to do with this discussion really. Why the heck would Starfleet spend resources to build a new version of an old ship when they have dozens of new very capable models to fill any role under the sun? On the flipside why would they spend those same resources to refit an old ship like that when they ahve newere designs that are far more capable.

    I hope to never see a tier five connie but cryptic will do what they want. That's just my personal opinion.

    Nothing that exists today can deliver the constant barrage of fire that 9 16 inch guns can.
    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2e/Uss_iowa_bb-61_pr.jpg
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2011
    Brozan wrote: »

    ANYWAY that has nothing to do with this discussion really. Why the heck would Starfleet spend resources to build a new version of an old ship when they have dozens of new very capable models to fill any role under the sun? On the flipside why would they spend those same resources to refit an old ship like that when they ahve newere designs that are far more capable.

    I hope to never see a tier five connie but cryptic will do what they want. That's just my personal opinion.

    That post was for Alaxraptor in regard to using old military equipment.

    As for making something new based on something old, they already did it with the NX. It's a brand new ship. Till any anti T5 Connie people can explain how the D'kyr (being a hundred years older than the Connie) can be T5 but the Connie can't, I will still post in favor of building one (heck I'll still post even if they can). Plus...they have that whole modular design now, you can take a piece of this, a piece of that and make it look any way you want.

    The Klingons have proved that you can use an older design and upgrade it to be effective.

    *added*

    Almost forgot! The T5 Orion Marauder is at least a 100 years older than the Connie as well. No one seems to make a big deal about these ships being here. Let me rephrase that...I haven't seen any threads on it and if any have been posted, I doubt they get the same heat as Pro T5 Connie threads do.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2011
    Alexraptor wrote: »
    Ignoring the fact that in the real world we do not have interstellar space travel and warp drive... :p

    Yet the Constitution was obsolete and canned after only a few decades, replaced by the excelsior that was still being built into the mid 24th century. :cool:

    Canned accrding to you, and I'm not ignoring anything, I'm saying it's imaginary and extrapolating real world platform lifespan durability into the imaginary world means imaginary stuff lasts longer. Sure they still build bigger newer things but they can keep older things running longer too. It's imaaaaaginnnnaryyyy;)
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2011
    Well that's certainly ture! LMAO the klinks wrote the book on reusing antiquated hulls.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2011
    I have seen both sides of these arguments for about a month now. People want these ships at end-game. It isn't going to change. You nay sayers have been given explanations and reasons to help you believe these ships should be here and you refuse to be accommodating. You would rather just say now and have the game cater to your limited viewpoint excluding anyone who thinks differently. THIS IS A GAME. Do I want this ship YES. Will I pay money for this ship. YES. Will I be discouraged in my pursuit of acquiring the ship. NO. I can think of reasons why it can be viable. This is after all a science FICTION GAME. Be tolerant of others. Only worry about yourself. If you don't think it should be there well then don't use it. If having these ships in the game is really that game breaking to you, then I'm sorry, but there is a lot more to STO than what ships are flying around sector space and maps. Like every other ship or component that comes out it'll be the flavor of the week until something else releases. Wouldn't you all rather see the older stuff come out first, get the nostalgia of it all over with and move on. This game is an MMO. Massive Multiplayer Online Game. Lots of players. Lots of opinions. Lots points of view. Lets be tolerant of others view points and not shoot them down because its not something you like. There are lots of things in game that I don't like and you don't see me saying No to the fanboys of them.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2011
    Lets just change the name of the game to "Space Online".
    As people obviously have "zero" interest in a Star Trek experience. :rolleyes:

    Really makes me laugh though how people keep saying its inevitable, and yet the T5 Connie which was previously planned was canned. :rolleyes:
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2011
    The Tier system is limiting to begin with. We should start out with a ship, and "unlock" cosmetic items, bridge officer stations, and consol slots as we advance through the game.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2011
    Alexraptor wrote: »
    Lets just change the name of the game to "Space Online".
    As people obviously have "zero" interest in a Star Trek experience. :rolleyes:

    Really makes me laugh though how people keep saying its inevitable, and yet the T5 Connie which was previously planned was canned. :rolleyes:

    Star Trek isn't just TNG/DS9/VOY. I don't see how adding a T5 Connie will make it un-trek.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2011
    Bobservo wrote:
    Star Trek isn't just TNG/DS9/VOY. I don't see how adding a T5 Connie will make it un-trek.

    Because the game is set in 2409? :rolleyes:

    Connie is perfectly fine where it is, in the lower tiers.
    Thats where it belongs and that is where it should stay.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2011
    Alexraptor wrote: »
    Because the game is set in 2409? :rolleyes:

    Connie is perfectly fine where it is, in the lower tiers.
    Thats where it belongs and that is where it should stay.

    Well, it isn't exactly canon, but it is a Star Trek ship! :D
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2011
    Bobservo wrote:
    Well, it isn't exactly canon, but it is a Star Trek ship! :D

    Which is why it is in game and in the lower tiers where it fits nice and snug.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2011
    Alexraptor wrote: »
    Which is why it is in game and in the lower tiers where it fits nice and snug.

    Yup, just like the B'rel.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2011
    Aww, Hell! Let's just scrap the timeline altogether and just let people fly whatever they damn-well please and call it 'Trek Fan Online'.

    So you found a quick shot of the ST III Enterprise in an episode of TNG. Congrats! You found an Easter Egg.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2011
    Bobservo wrote:
    Yup, just like the B'rel.

    The B'rel which is a ship much larger than a Connie, and has been canonicly proven to be able to overpower a Galaxy Class starship in an ambush with a pair. :rolleyes:
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2011
    Brozan wrote: »
    Color me ignorant but that makes no sense to me, while I love battleships and hope to one day visit one of the museums I don't understand why Congress would ever want to bring them back into active service. What can an Iowa do that can't be accmplished with fighters bombers and guided missiles?

    ANYWAY that has nothing to do with this discussion really. Why the heck would Starfleet spend resources to build a new version of an old ship when they have dozens of new very capable models to fill any role under the sun? On the flipside why would they spend those same resources to refit an old ship like that when they ahve newere designs that are far more capable.

    I hope to never see a tier five connie but cryptic will do what they want. That's just my personal opinion.

    They say nothing is truly as terrifying as being bombarded by a fully decked out Iowa Class battelship. Plus, It's weapons have some awesome penetrating power for such low tech.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2011
    Alexraptor wrote: »
    The B'rel which is a ship much larger than a Connie, and has been canonicly proven to be able to overpower a Galaxy Class starship in an ambush with a pair. :rolleyes:

    Not true. The B'rel happens to be the small Bird of Prey seen in STIII (where the original 1701 was supposed to outgun it 10 to 1 according to the BoP's captain), STIV, STV, STVI and Generations. Almost of the Birds of Prey seen in TNG the series were of the much bigger (though it looks exactly the same) K'vort class.

    The only time a B'rel has been shown to have any success against a Galaxy class is in Generations, where the Duras sisters had The D's shield frequencies, with everyone in engineering having an off day and forgot that changing them was standard practice, and to finish it all off, Worf had too many Klingon TRIBBLE popups on his console to be able to find the "return fire" button. And I'm not even going to get into mentioning someone putting Troi in the driving seat...

    Picard must have been royally upset, leave your ship alone for a minute and the crew manages get half of it exploded and then crashes the other half into a planet :p
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2011
    I dunno if Gul du kat was able to use a crappy cardie freighter armed with an orbital weapon to board a bird of prey and capture it useing a bit of deception.. I dont think Its impossible that a lower quality ship couldnt stand up do the same given a bit of ingenunity a decent captain and some what favorable circimstances.. however I have no idea as to the age of the cardassian freighter oh and the freighter was destroyed...

    http://memory-alpha.org/wiki/Return_to_Grace_%28episode%29
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2011
    This is the same kind of thread the NX-01 was spawning everywhere....

    That ship as well as the Connie are perfectly fine where they are now, no sense making them a T5 at all.

    Let's not beat this old dead horse plz?
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2011
    Alexraptor wrote: »
    Why do people keep pulling up the pointless examples of recreational cars. :rolleyes:

    Let me know when the army starts building new or retrofitting Sherman tanks. :rolleyes:

    Ive got dibs on the first retrofit B-52 :D
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2011
    Sloan_S31 wrote: »
    This is the same kind of thread the NX-01 was spawning everywhere....

    That ship as well as the Connie are perfectly fine where they are now, no sense making them a T5 at all.

    Let's not beat this old dead horse plz?

    I'm gonna raise a point I raised elsewhere. In addition to the Klingons using the same design for hundreds of years, we have people like Scotty (in "Relics") admitting that they falsified numbers and specs to make TOS-era ships seem less capable than they were and buy engineers more room to shine. This idea was alien to Geordi... and we know he took the design specs and manuals at their word without independent testing.

    So it's entirely possible that the ships are not actually all that more advanced from TOS days but that the design docs have become more honest, with designers simply BELIEVING that they were designing upgrades when, in fact, the old ships were just as capable but the old specs were written with falsified, artificially low numbers and tolerances.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2011
    I'm gonna raise a point I raised elsewhere. In addition to the Klingons using the same design for hundreds of years, we have people like Scotty (in "Relics") admitting that they falsified numbers and specs to make TOS-era ships seem less capable than they were and buy engineers more room to shine. This idea was alien to Geordi... and we know he took the design specs and manuals at their word without independent testing.

    So it's entirely possible that the ships are not actually all that more advanced from TOS days but that the design docs have become more honest, with designers simply BELIEVING that they were designing upgrades when, in fact, the old ships were just as capable but the old specs were written with falsified, artificially low numbers and tolerances.

    Why is everthing you write always in need of over complication a a vast stretch of imagination.

    Even Scotty wouldn't say the Ent-A held a candle to the Ent-D. All it may have is manuverability. Not speed, firepower or energy.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2011
    I'm gonna raise a point I raised elsewhere. In addition to the Klingons using the same design for hundreds of years, we have people like Scotty (in "Relics") admitting that they falsified numbers and specs to make TOS-era ships seem less capable than they were and buy engineers more room to shine. This idea was alien to Geordi... and we know he took the design specs and manuals at their word without independent testing.

    So it's entirely possible that the ships are not actually all that more advanced from TOS days but that the design docs have become more honest, with designers simply BELIEVING that they were designing upgrades when, in fact, the old ships were just as capable but the old specs were written with falsified, artificially low numbers and tolerances.

    I think you totally misconstrue that scene between Geordi and Scotty. Scotty was conservative when he wrote those specs. Any engineer worth his salt is conservative when writing up specs. I should know. My brother is a structural engineer. He deals with the steel structural members that go into making building and bridges and the like. It's not falsifying number at all.

    And I, at times, am a systems architect. When putting together a set of specs for a project. I don't including just enough CPU, RAM , disk space and other resources based upon the projected normal workloads. Because workloads can and do vary. So I have to engine to peaks to the work load, otherwise I'll have hundreds or throusands of users screaming the system's too slow and they can't get any work done.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2011
    Brozan wrote: »
    Color me ignorant but that makes no sense to me, while I love battleships and hope to one day visit one of the museums I don't understand why Congress would ever want to bring them back into active service. What can an Iowa do that can't be accmplished with fighters bombers and guided missiles?

    You cant shoot down an Iowa Class Battleship. :p

    I love the Connie. That said, I do not think it should be a T5. Will it break the gaming or immersion value for me if it is? No. You all are using the argument that the Connie should be excluded as a T5 due to its age. Well, what of the other two variants you get with it? They are obviously not as old. Also, if you look at the saucer, you see beam arrays. I do not recall seeing beam arrays in any of ST TMP thru UDC. :eek:
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2011
    Alexraptor wrote: »
    There still exists no Precedent for a T5 Constitution. :rolleyes:
    But it does justify the constitutions existance as a T2 ship. :p

    It also doesn't explain what all those T1 connies are doing out there.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2011
    fuzun wrote: »
    I think you totally misconstrue that scene between Geordi and Scotty. Scotty was conservative when he wrote those specs. Any engineer worth his salt is conservative when writing up specs. I should know. My brother is a structural engineer. He deals with the steel structural members that go into making building and bridges and the like. It's not falsifying number at all.

    And I, at times, am a systems architect. When putting together a set of specs for a project. I don't including just enough CPU, RAM , disk space and other resources based upon the projected normal workloads. Because workloads can and do vary. So I have to engine to peaks to the work load, otherwise I'll have hundreds or throusands of users screaming the system's too slow and they can't get any work done.


    sorry say what lol, i was a design and maintenance engineer for years before i got ill, and i can say that in the field of materials testing and knowldege we do not make conservative or even guess what something can do, something is stress tested to the limits of destruction and we get an exact figure when using a specific batch of materials, this is why when something is made it is always quality tested and the variables are slim and they figures give a optimum value with a + or - value that is allowed with a specific material for its tolerences.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2011
    My link was merely an example of taking an older design and bringing it back to the present. The military Humvee is still in use today and is based on a 30 year old design. The USS Iowa was commissioned in 1943 and although now part of the reserve fleet it is still ready for battle.

    "On 17 March 2006, the Secretary of the Navy exercised his authority to strike Iowa and Wisconsin from the NVR, which has cleared the way for both ships to be donated for use as museum ships, but the United States Congress remains "deeply concerned" over the loss of the naval surface gunfire support that the battleships provided, and has noted that "navy efforts to improve upon, much less replace, this capability have been highly problematic." As a partial consequence, Congress passed Pub.L. 109-163, the National Defense Authorization Act 2006, requiring that the battleships be kept and maintained in a state of readiness should they ever be needed again. Congress has ordered that the following measures be implemented to ensure that, if need be, Iowa can be returned to active duty:

    1. Iowa must not be altered in any way that would impair her military utility;
    2. The battleship must be preserved in her present condition through the continued use of cathodic protection, dehumidification systems, and any other preservation methods as needed;
    3. Spare parts and unique equipment such as the 16-inch (410 mm) gun barrels and projectiles must be preserved in adequate numbers to support Iowa, if reactivated;
    4. The Navy must prepare plans for the rapid reactivation of Iowa should she be returned to the Navy in the event of a national emergency."

    *added*

    Either way, none of this matters cause the T5 Connie will be a brand new ship.
    I am sorry to say that, but this argument is not not applicable, because Starfleet did not abandon the concept of cruiser ships with the constitution.
    Starfleet did develop mainly cruiser class ships over the last two hundred years and still does on the contrary to the US Navy, which prefers other ship classes than the one Iowa is.
    My point is that your argument was only applicable if the constitution where one of the last cruiser ships and Starfleet did not build others after it, so there would be some need to get some firepower this class could supply into battle, but this is not the case at all.

    Thank you for reading.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2011
    Sovereign is dated in voyager the promethous was its replacment it is more advanced nedded less crew and had more firepower. as for the constution class i agree it is underpowerd. it should have 2 front phaser slots and 2 torp slots as it did in the serise and movies and of course 1 rear torp and phaser. yes you can add the dule phaser bank to give the allusion of having 2 but you get my point. at least adding another tolrp slot would make it look like the tos ship. and excalcer as everyone said was refit many times over the years and still in service gotta rember it was the first transwarp ship to even thow it would fly apart when using it.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2011
    It also doesn't explain what all those T1 connies are doing out there.

    Originally they did not need explaining at all, since they were "only" a Pre-Order perk, a fun toy, nothing more and nothing less.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2011
    luther349 wrote: »
    Sovereign is dated in voyager the promethous was its replacment it is more advanced nedded less crew and had more firepower. as for the constution class i agree it is underpowerd. it should have 2 front phaser slots and 2 torp slots as it did in the serise and movies and of course 1 rear torp and phaser. yes you can add the dule phaser bank to give the allusion of having 2 but you get my point. at least adding another tolrp slot would make it look like the tos ship. and excalcer as everyone said was refit many times over the years and still in service gotta rember it was the first transwarp ship to even thow it would fly apart when using it.

    Ummm that is so entirely not true.
    Ships do not get dated after a couple of years, and the prometheus is an entirely different type of ship compared to the sovereign. :rolleyes:
Sign In or Register to comment.