Wow. Terrible analogy. Cryptic doesn't give any of us mice any cookies - we mice pay for our cookies. By not giving the fans what they want, you don't have fans. No fans = no money.
Cryptic needs to stop trying to appease unpleasable fans and work on the game so Joe NormalDude and the pleasable fans can have fun instead of wasting Dev time making pretty ships for unpleasable fans.
Think you have the argument backwards. The pretty ships are for the pleasable fans. The ones who spend money above the subscription cost to get the pretty ships that they ASKED FOR. Those are the happy fans who continue to spend money and enjoy tooling around space in their 200 year old rides.
The unpleasable crowd are the ones who don't want to see anything that "ruins their immersion" or "doesn't make sense story-wise" as if their opinions or their immersion was more important than anyone elses.
The bottom line is that people want these refit ships, and they are willing to pay for them.
Cryptic would be pretty stupid not to offer them when they could earn profit by doing so.
Perception is irrelevant when you can make a profit.
Besides, it makes little sense to have a ship you can only use for a couple of days while leveling if it is your favorite Trek ship.
What we really need a way to refit any ship to max tier performance, or there is no point in having them at all, since 99% of your game-play is going to be spent at top level.
OK. Here is my one problem with this whole argument. The strictest of definition of canon is whatever was seen on screen. Fine, then STO is not canon then why should it be restricted to canon? I am neither for or against T5 Connies. I am Joe Normaldude but I have seen more than a few episodes. To me, Star Trek is a release from reality. A possibility that we as Humans could but, most likely, will never achieve. It is an idea. What Star Trek is not to me is a way of life. I am not bound to it as it is not bound to me. I love Star Trek and I want dearly to see that iconic delta emblem on my tv on a weekly basis once again but, my life will go on without it just the same.
On another note: One poster mentioned that the NX design was retired after only 10 years due to its ineffectiveness. What yo need to realize in the time of the NX: It was the most advanced ship in Earth's Starfleet but, it was the weakest link in the Coalition of Planets or the Federation. I am certain it took time to be able to make the technologies cross compatible for the member worlds. Much easier to design new ships at that time than to try and make another race's tech work on an existing platform.
Except that I'm fine with how the ships in game now are and I have no problem with new ones, but these take away from precious Dev time that could be spent doing better thing for the community as a whole instead of trying to appease your ilk diverting Dev time to create ships only the minority of players will use and then claiming that its proof for more.
I'm against the ship due to it being, imo, uncanon, and I will argue against it, I'm not going to leave over it. I'm mostly against it because because it just gives fuel to the unpleasable fans to want more.
If it coming would make those fans be quiet, I wouldn't have a problem with it but that's not what will happen.
"If you give a mouse a cookie...."
Read up a few posts to what I say about the sacrosanctness of canon... Not even Gene himself was too concerned about it.. if the CREATOR of the wonderful world of Star Trek was willing to either bend, or ignore completely the canon of his own creation, why are you, and your ilk so determined to be canonical?
Think you have the argument backwards. The pretty ships are for the pleasable fans. The ones who spend money above the subscription cost to get the pretty ships that they ASKED FOR. Those are the happy fans who continue to spend money and enjoy tooling around space in their 200 year old rides.
The unpleasable crowd are the ones who don't want to see anything that "ruins their immersion" or "doesn't make sense story-wise" as if their opinions or their immersion was more important than anyone elses.
And, unless you have missed it.. those of us pushing for Cryptic to add these ships.. even the Tier 1's as Tier 5's aren't going anywhere either.
You demand and demand and demand, and the Devs try to placate you while taking time away from improving the game for the majority of the population. Those are the unpleasable fans. As the game degrades, subscriber leave.
No subscribers = no game.
That very same thing could be said to you, and those in the camp of "don't do it" .. The problem there is neither you nor I know which side of the fence has the majority. You can say it is the "canon TRIBBLE camp" .. I can say it's the "Joe Normalguy" ... neither of us can prove the other side wrong, so that cannot be validated. But, considering the shear number of TOS Connies, and NX-Enterprises I see in sector space.. I have to assume that "Joe Normalguy" its a fairly large portion of the player-base. But, again, that's just an assumption on my part.
1) I only mentioned it as my opinion that ain't my argument anymore, way to ignore the rest of the post
2) Yeah I know you aren't going anywhere, they'll give it to you and you'll immediately demand more
Okay, your points are "opinion" and my points are "demands?"
Show me, ANYWHERE on these threads, where I make anything a DEMAND! Please.. Humor me here... Or, you need to just accept that I am posing my OPINION the same as you are..
And, speaking of ignoring posts...
What of the issue of Gene himself disregarding canon, and your continued, unbowed reluctance to look past canon?
Okay, your points are "opinion" and my points are "demands?"
Show me, ANYWHERE on these threads, where I make anything a DEMAND! Please.. Humor me here... Or, you need to just accept that I am posing my OPINION the same as you are..
And, speaking of ignoring posts...
What of the issue of Gene himself disregarding canon, and your continued, unbowed reluctance to look past canon?
Saith
1) Your side is demanding a TOS T5 Connie, I'm against it as it wastes Dev time trying to placate the unpleasable
2) I AM NOT arguing Canon anymore, and yet you keep bringing it up,
I haven't mentioned Canon (besides in my opinion it is against canon) and you continue to bring it as a discussion point.
You continue to just ignore my comments and just make comments about its canonicity.
The only person on this conversation arguing Canon anymore is you
Then I take issue with the fact of why Starfleet feels they need rebuild old ship designs rather than innovate and build new ships. It would be like the Air Force building F-22's and WWII Spitfires and then having the Spitfires on equal footing with the F-22's. Makes no sense. Why even build the F-22's then if they could just reuse the Spitfires.
Think about the argument you have made....... it really makes no sense.
Th NX replica visualy looks like the Star Fleet NX class. The Federation have chosen to use an old design to create a viable ship for current times and what better than a ship that could carry a decent size crew and travel at warp speed. The NX replica is a similar size to the Defiant class which means they can already make the tech to fit inside the NX class replica. The Hull is made out of modern materials and it can now have shields and a tractor beam as well as having the grappler which could be useful in situations when a tractor beam cant be used.
There is no argument against it being able to hold its own against the larger ships because the Defiant can... So size is not the issue.
The tech is is not an issue because its modern, the warpcore could be simular if not the same as the Defiant, same with the shields, sensors, computer, all the support systems and that would leave more room to maybe extent crew quaters slightly.
The Hull is not an issue because its not some old museum ship thats been draged to space dock and retrofitted, its brand new and as strong as a defiant..... or it should be...
In some ways apart from the "look" of the ship....... it would be one of the more modern ships in the timeline.
1) Your side is demanding a TOS t5 Connie, I'm against it as it wastes Dev time trying to placate the unpleasable
2) I AM NOT ARGUING Canon anymore, and yet you keep bringing it up, I haven't mentioned Canon (besides in my opinion it is against canon) and you continue to bring it as a discussion point. Stop saying I'm doing things I'm not. You continue to just ignore my comments and just make comments about its canonicity.
The only person on this conversation arguing Canon anymore is you
1. I am not DEMANDING anything, SHOW ME where I am DEMANDING anything. I am requesting. The same way a plethora of other members here make requests. Do you know the difference between REQUEST and DEMAND? Why is your opinion a REQUEST/SUGGESTION where mine, and those asking for these ships is a DEMAND?
2. But you have attempted to use canon to support your argument. And even in trying to say you don't, you include the "besides in my opinion it is against canon."
And I am not the only one referencing canon here... re-read the thread man.
1) It was requested before. It was put on hold/canceled. Multiple threads about it. Sitting there and "justifying" it. That is beyond asking, it is demanding.
2) I have not used Canon to support my argument. You just ignore my comments and make up this Canon garbage. I was referring to the conversation between me and you, your the only one that started talking about Canon and its applicability.:)
Have fun arguing Canon by yourself. I have made my argument, and you can ignore it all you want, I'm not giving you anymore fuel. Hope you have a fun time arguing with yourself.;)
1. Where is you're proof that it was put on hold or canceled? YES, things fall off and are put back on the Engineering reports.. but neither you nor I KNOW the reason behind it, we can only make assumptions.
The developers in this game have posted polls, and requests of the games player base (that would be you and I, correct?) what we would like added to the game. The fact that there is rarely a reason given for things falling off the Engineering report, those that continue to ask, are seeking a clearer understanding of whether or not it was removed completely, or just postponed due to normal development schedules... and stating that if it isn't removed, to continue to bolster their argument as to why they wish the ships be added. This, to you, constitutes demand? I would completely disagree.
2. Fine, I will not bring up canon arguments with you. I'll reserve those comments to those that do post canon as reason for not allowing the ships. Is that fair enough for you?
Saith
Edit to add:
As far as things being placed on hold during development. Look through the Engineering Reports at some of the items that have been put on hold...
From Aug 18, 2010
STF: The Hive
Sitting in Chairs
Episode Replay
Now, from August to now, only one of those issues is not currently in game. The STF. Are you saying that the reason chairs and episode replay were continued was because of the player base "demanding" it? No. Those things were put on hold due to technical difficulties, and productions schedules. Hence, why The Hive still hasn't hit live. It's not due to Cryptic not wanting it, and the players making demands, its due to them running into problems and waiting until its as close to bug free as possible before launching it.
I haven't been able to find it.. but since this is something that you are arguing for/about, can you post information on something that was removed from the report, and stated that it was removed, where the players continued to "demand" it, and have the devs actually do so?
while it find it amusing to read the circular logic being used by many in this thread, most still refuse to accept that these ships are not 23rd century, they only LOOK that way. Many people have linked the info, so i wont do it again, but really, let it sink in, 'IT IS NOT A 23RD CENTURY SHIP"
There, nice and big on screen again. And we all know, if you read it on the interweb thingy, its the truth.
I was waiting for someone to say that. I was hoping for Nagus to say it, but what I'm about to say will hold up anyway.
I can throw out all sorts of technobabble reasons why the comparison works. Maybe it's the fact that matter/antimatter technology can't be miniaturized. Warp cores have to keep getting bigger to power the higher-powered shields and engines. Maybe the shield emitter placement on older ships is inefficient, so you can't get proper coverage using newer tech. Maybe the deflector geometry doesn't allow the ship to travel at full warp speed.
I could come up with all sorts of reasons such as the above, and you would be incapable of telling me I'm wrong, simply because Cryptic's copout for allowing antiquated tech does not even begin to explain away these arguments. The fact is they are only putting in older ships because a small percentage of fans want them. I'm fine with that, as long as their design age is taken into consideration, and they are NEVER tier 4 or 5 (or any theoretical higher tier).
The reason you are wrong is the highlighted words above. Regarding size, see the Defiant, Nova, Saber, etc. If modern tech can fit in this ships, it can fit in other smaller ships as well. Moving on, you still think we're talking about "old ships", but we're not. We're talking about NEW ships that LOOK old. That being the case, any issues relating to older ships is invalid. These are NOT old ships with old tech, they are NEW ships with brand NEW tech that simply LOOK like old ships. I honestly expected some kind of great argument with that intro, but that was far from it.
You dont have to like it, but as far as the story of the game goes these arent old ships, they are NEW ships that LOOK like old ships. Canon argument = defeated.
The problem with this is that the description of the TOS Constitution says it IS the TOS Constitution.
There is that thing called inertia, you know, that means when you turn your ship around there is stress on the hull because the mass that is your hull would very much like to continue on its previous course. Yeah, its lazy like that.
If the hull design isn't laid out properly, your nacelles might spontaneously decide to tell the captain of the ship to go fck himself and go their merry way while the captain and the rest of the ship go another way.
Now ,a modern version of the conni for example needs to be laid out for the stresses that come up now that it got even more powerful engines and thrusters.
And here we reach the problem of the limits of materials. Yes modern materials are expected to endure more strain, but at some point there is a limit on how far that can be pushed and design changes need to be made.
The point ultimately still stands undefeated: ships got bigger for a reason. If starfleet could build ships of the same brawn and power but with a fraction of the size, it would do so per default. Because being small has advantages in itself but comes at the price of not being big - which has different advantages (usually from the MORE! department).
Even so, consider TMP connie and the Excalibur. Those are both T2 cruisers, with almost the exact same shape and size(thats why you can mix and match those parts). Considering the fact that those ships are the same size and virtually the same shape, a brand new TMP connie could be built with the same tech used to build the modern Exalibur T2 ship and theres no reason it shouldnt be able to perform approximately the same.
There is that thing called inertia, you know, that means when you turn your ship around there is stress on the hull because the mass that is your hull would very much like to continue on its previous course. Yeah, its lazy like that.
If the hull design isn't laid out properly, your nacelles might spontaneously decide to tell the captain of the ship to go fck himself and go their merry way while the captain and the rest of the ship go another way.
Now ,a modern version of the conni for example needs to be laid out for the stresses that come up now that it got even more powerful engines and thrusters.
And here we reach the problem of the limits of materials. Yes modern materials are expected to endure more strain, but at some point there is a limit on how far that can be pushed and design changes need to be made.
The point ultimately still stands undefeated: ships got bigger for a reason. If starfleet could build ships of the same brawn and power but with a fraction of the size, it would do so per default. Because being small has advantages in itself but comes at the price of not being big - which has different advantages (usually from the MORE! department).
That's what structural integrity fields are for. And seriously, its not like the ends of the nacelles are doing the pushing for all maneuvering. There are maneuvering engines/jets all along the hull of the ships, so its spinning on its center of gravity for all movement anyways.
The point ultimately still stands undefeated: ships got bigger for a reason. If starfleet could build ships of the same brawn and power but with a fraction of the size, it would do so per default. Because being small has advantages in itself but comes at the price of not being big - which has different advantages (usually from the MORE! department).
I'm not very up to date on my DS9 lore, but I'm pretty sure a Defiant was a good match for an Akira or Galaxy.
Biggest lie the devs have perpetuated. Most of the money goes to Atari corporate, and never makes it to Cryptic. Of the money that DOES make it to Cryptic, most of it is spent on administrative costs. What little finally trickles down to the development budget is used to "justify" the man-hours spent on developing the ships to begin with. People buying and flying these ships does nothing to benefit my gameplay.
And as an aside, I don't want to see OTHER players flying useless, outdated hulks. This is the "future" Trek, so let's see some new ships. We see it over and over again on the screen - Starfleet did not use older tech. They gave them away to civilians because they had much better ships to replace them with.
So basicly every star trek movie, and most of the series is out of cannon, cause if you look around you can see that there are alot of ships in starfleet that are very old. especially in time of war. Every large scale starfleet battle shows the remains of both new and old starfleet ships.
The reason you are wrong is the highlighted words above. Regarding size, see the Defiant, Nova, Saber, etc. If modern tech can fit in this ships, it can fit in other smaller ships as well. Moving on, you still think we're talking about "old ships", but we're not. We're talking about NEW ships that LOOK old. That being the case, any issues relating to older ships is invalid. These are NOT old ships with old tech, they are NEW ships with brand NEW tech that simply LOOK like old ships. I honestly expected some kind of great argument with that intro, but that was far from it.
Its like flogging a dead horse trying to get people understand that these are totaly new ships with new tech that could be newer than a Soverign class. People also cant understand that the size of a ship is not a factor....... You can come up with the most logical argument and they will still refuse to accept it.
I am one of the people that like to see choice and I see no reason for not having every ship in tier 5. Every ship should have its plus and minus points so should an NX replica be able to stand up to and maybe even beat a Soverign class.. yes if it has a capable Captain.
Even so,: consider TMP connie and the Excalibur. Those are both T2 cruisers, with almost the exact same shape and size(thats why you can mix and match those parts). Considering the fact that those ships are the same size and virtually the same shape, a brand new TMP connie could be built with the same tech used to build the modern Exalibur T2 ship and theres no reason it shouldnt be able to perform approximately the same.
if it performs at t2 levels no one would argue against it.
Problem is when people want it at t5 stats.
while it find it amusing to read the circular logic being used by many in this thread, most still refuse to accept that these ships are not 23rd century, they only LOOK that way. Many people have linked the info, so i wont do it again, but really, let it sink in, 'IT IS NOT A 23RD CENTURY SHIP"
There, nice and big on screen again. And we all know, if you read it on the interweb thingy, its the truth.
More people saying this does not make it any less stupid.
Look, you have already shot yourself into the foot with this.
We have the NX replica, build with modern tech and all that.
We already have the TOS conni too, also rebuilt with modern tech.
Both ships are t1.
Both were build with the best available, and both are t1.
They can never be t5. because they are t1, already here, built with the best tech.
full stop.
There also is the modern version of the conni refit, at t2. build with the best tech you can fot for that size. and its t2. it can never be t5. Because it already is the most modern incarnation of that spaceframe. And its just enough to be t2.
So your argument about those ships not being old ships pulled from mothballs is true, and it shot you in the back.
These ships aren't old mothballed hulls. They are the modern incarnation built with modern tech.
And they are placed at t1 and t2 because that is where their size logically requires them to be.
So your argument works against you. stop using it.
But the defiant is not outfitted as a long range explorer.
At least not in the shows.
While this is true, in game, the Defiant goes anywhere any of the "long range explorers" go, without hindrance or limitation. So, game needs/mechanics can trump what would be "scientifically/mechanically accurate."
But the defiant is not outfitted as a long range explorer.
At least not in the shows.
But that really has nothing to do with what we're discussion. We're discussing whether a smaller ship could "take on" a larger ship, not whether it could explore as long.
Comments
Wow. Terrible analogy. Cryptic doesn't give any of us mice any cookies - we mice pay for our cookies. By not giving the fans what they want, you don't have fans. No fans = no money.
Think you have the argument backwards. The pretty ships are for the pleasable fans. The ones who spend money above the subscription cost to get the pretty ships that they ASKED FOR. Those are the happy fans who continue to spend money and enjoy tooling around space in their 200 year old rides.
The unpleasable crowd are the ones who don't want to see anything that "ruins their immersion" or "doesn't make sense story-wise" as if their opinions or their immersion was more important than anyone elses.
Cleared that up for you?
Cryptic would be pretty stupid not to offer them when they could earn profit by doing so.
Perception is irrelevant when you can make a profit.
Besides, it makes little sense to have a ship you can only use for a couple of days while leveling if it is your favorite Trek ship.
What we really need a way to refit any ship to max tier performance, or there is no point in having them at all, since 99% of your game-play is going to be spent at top level.
On another note: One poster mentioned that the NX design was retired after only 10 years due to its ineffectiveness. What yo need to realize in the time of the NX: It was the most advanced ship in Earth's Starfleet but, it was the weakest link in the Coalition of Planets or the Federation. I am certain it took time to be able to make the technologies cross compatible for the member worlds. Much easier to design new ships at that time than to try and make another race's tech work on an existing platform.
Read up a few posts to what I say about the sacrosanctness of canon... Not even Gene himself was too concerned about it.. if the CREATOR of the wonderful world of Star Trek was willing to either bend, or ignore completely the canon of his own creation, why are you, and your ilk so determined to be canonical?
As for who is "unpleaseable" I defer to Boglejam
And, unless you have missed it.. those of us pushing for Cryptic to add these ships.. even the Tier 1's as Tier 5's aren't going anywhere either.
Saith, and Jolan'tru
Edit to Add:
That very same thing could be said to you, and those in the camp of "don't do it" .. The problem there is neither you nor I know which side of the fence has the majority. You can say it is the "canon TRIBBLE camp" .. I can say it's the "Joe Normalguy" ... neither of us can prove the other side wrong, so that cannot be validated. But, considering the shear number of TOS Connies, and NX-Enterprises I see in sector space.. I have to assume that "Joe Normalguy" its a fairly large portion of the player-base. But, again, that's just an assumption on my part.
arguing .
Okay, your points are "opinion" and my points are "demands?"
Show me, ANYWHERE on these threads, where I make anything a DEMAND! Please.. Humor me here... Or, you need to just accept that I am posing my OPINION the same as you are..
And, speaking of ignoring posts...
What of the issue of Gene himself disregarding canon, and your continued, unbowed reluctance to look past canon?
Saith
1) Your side is demanding a TOS T5 Connie, I'm against it as it wastes Dev time trying to placate the unpleasable
2) I AM NOT arguing Canon anymore, and yet you keep bringing it up,
I haven't mentioned Canon (besides in my opinion it is against canon) and you continue to bring it as a discussion point.
You continue to just ignore my comments and just make comments about its canonicity.
The only person on this conversation arguing Canon anymore is you
Think about the argument you have made....... it really makes no sense.
Th NX replica visualy looks like the Star Fleet NX class. The Federation have chosen to use an old design to create a viable ship for current times and what better than a ship that could carry a decent size crew and travel at warp speed. The NX replica is a similar size to the Defiant class which means they can already make the tech to fit inside the NX class replica. The Hull is made out of modern materials and it can now have shields and a tractor beam as well as having the grappler which could be useful in situations when a tractor beam cant be used.
There is no argument against it being able to hold its own against the larger ships because the Defiant can... So size is not the issue.
The tech is is not an issue because its modern, the warpcore could be simular if not the same as the Defiant, same with the shields, sensors, computer, all the support systems and that would leave more room to maybe extent crew quaters slightly.
The Hull is not an issue because its not some old museum ship thats been draged to space dock and retrofitted, its brand new and as strong as a defiant..... or it should be...
In some ways apart from the "look" of the ship....... it would be one of the more modern ships in the timeline.
1. I am not DEMANDING anything, SHOW ME where I am DEMANDING anything. I am requesting. The same way a plethora of other members here make requests. Do you know the difference between REQUEST and DEMAND? Why is your opinion a REQUEST/SUGGESTION where mine, and those asking for these ships is a DEMAND?
2. But you have attempted to use canon to support your argument. And even in trying to say you don't, you include the "besides in my opinion it is against canon."
And I am not the only one referencing canon here... re-read the thread man.
Saith
arguing .
I have made my comments, and you can ignore them all you want, I'm not giving you anymore fuel. Hope you have a fun time arguing with yourself.;)
1. Where is you're proof that it was put on hold or canceled? YES, things fall off and are put back on the Engineering reports.. but neither you nor I KNOW the reason behind it, we can only make assumptions.
The developers in this game have posted polls, and requests of the games player base (that would be you and I, correct?) what we would like added to the game. The fact that there is rarely a reason given for things falling off the Engineering report, those that continue to ask, are seeking a clearer understanding of whether or not it was removed completely, or just postponed due to normal development schedules... and stating that if it isn't removed, to continue to bolster their argument as to why they wish the ships be added. This, to you, constitutes demand? I would completely disagree.
2. Fine, I will not bring up canon arguments with you. I'll reserve those comments to those that do post canon as reason for not allowing the ships. Is that fair enough for you?
Saith
Edit to add:
As far as things being placed on hold during development. Look through the Engineering Reports at some of the items that have been put on hold...
From Aug 18, 2010
Now, from August to now, only one of those issues is not currently in game. The STF. Are you saying that the reason chairs and episode replay were continued was because of the player base "demanding" it? No. Those things were put on hold due to technical difficulties, and productions schedules. Hence, why The Hive still hasn't hit live. It's not due to Cryptic not wanting it, and the players making demands, its due to them running into problems and waiting until its as close to bug free as possible before launching it.
I haven't been able to find it.. but since this is something that you are arguing for/about, can you post information on something that was removed from the report, and stated that it was removed, where the players continued to "demand" it, and have the devs actually do so?
Saith, again
LOL!
Okay, I will gladly accept your defeat.
Saith, and Jolan'tru
http://forums.startrekonline.com/showthread.php?p=3443710#post3443710
They are cannon after all.
where does it end??
Oh and a four nacelled Excelsior, and the phase-2 enterprise (Ralph McQuarrie concept).
There, nice and big on screen again. And we all know, if you read it on the interweb thingy, its the truth.
The reason you are wrong is the highlighted words above. Regarding size, see the Defiant, Nova, Saber, etc. If modern tech can fit in this ships, it can fit in other smaller ships as well. Moving on, you still think we're talking about "old ships", but we're not. We're talking about NEW ships that LOOK old. That being the case, any issues relating to older ships is invalid. These are NOT old ships with old tech, they are NEW ships with brand NEW tech that simply LOOK like old ships. I honestly expected some kind of great argument with that intro, but that was far from it.
Except in Star Trek it does.
In the later eras there is a reason for angular hull. Hull shape vs. warp field - if you buy in to all the technobabble.
Great article about it here.
http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/articles/design.htm
and here:
http://www.cavecreations.net/startrek/wps.html
The problem with this is that the description of the TOS Constitution says it IS the TOS Constitution.
Oh i'm sorry, it actually does.
There is that thing called inertia, you know, that means when you turn your ship around there is stress on the hull because the mass that is your hull would very much like to continue on its previous course. Yeah, its lazy like that.
If the hull design isn't laid out properly, your nacelles might spontaneously decide to tell the captain of the ship to go fck himself and go their merry way while the captain and the rest of the ship go another way.
Now ,a modern version of the conni for example needs to be laid out for the stresses that come up now that it got even more powerful engines and thrusters.
And here we reach the problem of the limits of materials. Yes modern materials are expected to endure more strain, but at some point there is a limit on how far that can be pushed and design changes need to be made.
The point ultimately still stands undefeated: ships got bigger for a reason. If starfleet could build ships of the same brawn and power but with a fraction of the size, it would do so per default. Because being small has advantages in itself but comes at the price of not being big - which has different advantages (usually from the MORE! department).
Even so, consider TMP connie and the Excalibur. Those are both T2 cruisers, with almost the exact same shape and size(thats why you can mix and match those parts). Considering the fact that those ships are the same size and virtually the same shape, a brand new TMP connie could be built with the same tech used to build the modern Exalibur T2 ship and theres no reason it shouldnt be able to perform approximately the same.
That's what structural integrity fields are for. And seriously, its not like the ends of the nacelles are doing the pushing for all maneuvering. There are maneuvering engines/jets all along the hull of the ships, so its spinning on its center of gravity for all movement anyways.
I'm not very up to date on my DS9 lore, but I'm pretty sure a Defiant was a good match for an Akira or Galaxy.
So basicly every star trek movie, and most of the series is out of cannon, cause if you look around you can see that there are alot of ships in starfleet that are very old. especially in time of war. Every large scale starfleet battle shows the remains of both new and old starfleet ships.
But the defiant is not outfitted as a long range explorer.
At least not in the shows.
Just shows that Star Trek canon is as curfuffled as anything that could get put in STO.
Its like flogging a dead horse trying to get people understand that these are totaly new ships with new tech that could be newer than a Soverign class. People also cant understand that the size of a ship is not a factor....... You can come up with the most logical argument and they will still refuse to accept it.
I am one of the people that like to see choice and I see no reason for not having every ship in tier 5. Every ship should have its plus and minus points so should an NX replica be able to stand up to and maybe even beat a Soverign class.. yes if it has a capable Captain.
if it performs at t2 levels no one would argue against it.
Problem is when people want it at t5 stats.
More people saying this does not make it any less stupid.
Look, you have already shot yourself into the foot with this.
We have the NX replica, build with modern tech and all that.
We already have the TOS conni too, also rebuilt with modern tech.
Both ships are t1.
Both were build with the best available, and both are t1.
They can never be t5. because they are t1, already here, built with the best tech.
full stop.
There also is the modern version of the conni refit, at t2. build with the best tech you can fot for that size. and its t2. it can never be t5. Because it already is the most modern incarnation of that spaceframe. And its just enough to be t2.
So your argument about those ships not being old ships pulled from mothballs is true, and it shot you in the back.
These ships aren't old mothballed hulls. They are the modern incarnation built with modern tech.
And they are placed at t1 and t2 because that is where their size logically requires them to be.
So your argument works against you. stop using it.
While this is true, in game, the Defiant goes anywhere any of the "long range explorers" go, without hindrance or limitation. So, game needs/mechanics can trump what would be "scientifically/mechanically accurate."
Saith
But that really has nothing to do with what we're discussion. We're discussing whether a smaller ship could "take on" a larger ship, not whether it could explore as long.
http://forums.startrekonline.com/showthread.php?p=3443727#post3443727