test content
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc

Cryptic, Let's make a deal!

ccarmichael07ccarmichael07 Member Posts: 755 Arc User
edited October 2012 in Federation Discussion
So, looking over the Chimeria Class specs, I gotta say I like it. It's everything I've always wanted in an endgame ship. Manueverable, Durable, and not the size of the Empire State Building.

Way to go!

There is a problem though. Cryptic, you seem ADDICTED to 4-nacelle starships. It's a bad addiction, and it's hurting some of the people you love. (Your customers)

So I'll make you a deal. Take the Chimeria back to Utopia Planitia, and do a Revision on the design plans. Rev 1 should include an option to utilize only 2 nacelles, instead of 4. That way, it'll look like a normal Starfleet ship.

If you do that, make a 2-nacelle visual option, I promise I will buy an LTS at my very next paycheck. Guarenteed.

But you have to want to break your addiction Cryptic. You have to want to get better.

Do we have a deal?

:)


"You shoot him, I shoot you, I leave both your bodies here and go out for a late night snack.
I'm thinking maybe pancakes." ~ John Casey
Post edited by ccarmichael07 on

Comments

  • walshicuswalshicus Member Posts: 1,314 Arc User
    edited October 2012
    There are tonnes of four-nacelled ships in Star Trek canon. It's hardly an obsession of Cryptic's!
    http://mmo-economics.com - analysing the economic interactions in MMOs.
  • ccarmichael07ccarmichael07 Member Posts: 755 Arc User
    edited October 2012
    walshicus wrote: »
    There are tonnes of four-nacelled ships in Star Trek canon. It's hardly an obsession of Cryptic's!

    Tons?

    I can only think of 2.

    Constellation (and it's subsequent Cheyenne successor)
    Prometheus

    And besides, if you re-read my post, I'm not asking them to convert the ship from 4-nacelles to 2-nacelles. I'm asking them to give us a toggle/option in the shipyard to only display 2 of the nacelles.

    That way, if you like 4-nacelle ships, you're golden, and if you hate 4-nacelle ships (like I do) then you can still use this ship without the loathing for it's appearance!

    It's a win-win in my book!

    Other than the 4 nacelles, I have no complaints about the ship's style. It looks good to me. Just need the ability to drop some nacelles, and it would be perfect! :D


    "You shoot him, I shoot you, I leave both your bodies here and go out for a late night snack.
    I'm thinking maybe pancakes." ~ John Casey
  • jtmarshjtmarsh Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited October 2012
    First time on screen was Picards first command ship. They had 2 episodes that centered around it. Then of course the Prometheus on Voyager. All 3 episodes was not just background pretty but details of the ships and interiors. Beyond that "canon" The old role play star trek and many books have 1, and 4 nacel ships
  • ccarmichael07ccarmichael07 Member Posts: 755 Arc User
    edited October 2012
    Guys, I'm not debating the validity of 4 nacelle designs!

    I know they exist! I know they are canon!


    All I'm asking for is a visual option. A tweak to the graphical model so that in the Starship Customization, you can change it to a 2 nacelle ship instead of a 4 nacelle ship.

    It's a visual preference. Nothing more.

    You could change the Strut so it rounds off at the connection point for the under-nacelle, and by picking that option, you'd have a ship that looks more like a 2409 Excelsior, than a 2409 Cheyenne.

    Or you could fly it just the way it looks.

    Have we really become so intransigent in the STO community that the requests for some choices and options have become verboten?


    "You shoot him, I shoot you, I leave both your bodies here and go out for a late night snack.
    I'm thinking maybe pancakes." ~ John Casey
  • hyplhypl Member Posts: 3,719 Arc User
    edited October 2012
    The pylons rise and the nacelles close in while in sector space mode, so there would have to be some significant tweaking involved for a two nacelle version, but it's certainly not unreasonable.
  • ccarmichael07ccarmichael07 Member Posts: 755 Arc User
    edited October 2012
    hypl wrote: »
    The pylons rise and the nacelles close in while in sector space mode, so there would have to be some significant tweaking involved for a two nacelle version, but it's certainly not unreasonable.

    That I was not aware of.

    Yeah, tweaks to components of the ship involved in an animation, are likely to be time consuming and the devs are not likely to want to tackle that.

    Bummer.


    "You shoot him, I shoot you, I leave both your bodies here and go out for a late night snack.
    I'm thinking maybe pancakes." ~ John Casey
  • intrinsicalintrinsical Member Posts: 208 Arc User
    edited October 2012
    From what I have seen from screenshots, it seems to have two big nacelles in sector space and four nacelles in a space combat map. I guess the nacelle pylons are retractable?
  • crusty8maccrusty8mac Member Posts: 1,381 Arc User
    edited October 2012
    While I don't particularly care for 4 nacelles, they are in no way, shape, or form hurting me.
    __________________________________
    STO Forum member since before February 2010.
    STO Academy's excellent skill planner here: Link
    I actually avoid success entirely. It doesn't get me what I want, and the consequences for failure are slim. -- markhawman
  • lianthelialianthelia Member Posts: 7,921 Arc User
    edited October 2012
    What addiction? There are only what two playable ships with four nacelles, and what one npc ship? I'm not a huge fan of the nacelles on the ship either but to say they are addicted is a little...overboard.
  • kylesal24kylesal24 Member Posts: 312
    edited October 2012
    lianthelia- There are at least 2. Typhoon class and the Jupiter class.

    These are the 2 main NPC ships that I want to fly.

    Kyle
    Delta Fleet Command
  • misterde3misterde3 Member Posts: 4,195 Arc User
    edited October 2012
    Tons?

    I can only think of 2.

    Constellation (and it's subsequent Cheyenne successor)
    Prometheus

    You're seriously counting the Cheyenne and the Constellation as 1?
    I mean if you do that you can count just about every ship with two nacelles as one ship design.

    Cheyenne:

    http://www.scapecraft.us/stdarkfate/images/stsfc2352CheyenneM.jpg

    http://alunowen.org/sfmuk/components/com_joomgallery/img_originals/article_pictures_1/cheyenne_class_17/cheyenne_class_20090524_1322458554.jpg

    Constellation:

    http://evilgenius180.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/valkyrie_orbit_001.jpg

    http://www.klingon-empire.org/photopost/data/500/galexploration_constellatn.gif

    I mean..yeah totally the same ship.:confused:
  • jorumgandrjorumgandr Member Posts: 142 Arc User
    edited October 2012
    give a man a pony, he'll complain that its not Rainbow Dash. Eh, its an awesome ship that does awesome things and I love it, 4 nacelles don't hurt my eyes nearly as much as the Galaxy X's 3rd nacelle so its a non issue, thanks for the heavy destroyers cryptic!
  • ccarmichael07ccarmichael07 Member Posts: 755 Arc User
    edited October 2012
    misterde3 wrote: »

    I do count it as 1 ship, because they aren't unique designs. The Constellation and the Cheyenne are nearly identical, with the exception that one is kitbashed from Connie Refit parts, while the other is kitbashed from Galaxy parts.


    "You shoot him, I shoot you, I leave both your bodies here and go out for a late night snack.
    I'm thinking maybe pancakes." ~ John Casey
  • misterde3misterde3 Member Posts: 4,195 Arc User
    edited October 2012
    I do count it as 1 ship, because they aren't unique designs. The Constellation and the Cheyenne are nearly identical, with the exception that one is kitbashed from Connie Refit parts, while the other is kitbashed from Galaxy parts.

    Does this mean you count the Miranda and Nebula as one ship too?
    Because one was made out of Connie reft parts and the other out of Galaxy parts.
  • ccarmichael07ccarmichael07 Member Posts: 755 Arc User
    edited October 2012
    misterde3 wrote: »
    Does this mean you count the Miranda and Nebula as one ship too?
    Because one was made out of Connie reft parts and the other out of Galaxy parts.

    No I don't because the Nebula has 2 major differences.

    1. It has the Galaxy Class primary hull underneath it. The Miranda has no primary hull. The nacelles attach directly to the saucer.

    2. The Nebula is not a "next in line" design revision and update to the Miranda. It was instead designed as a "variant" of the Galaxy. The Cheyenne, visually might look more Galaxy than Constitution in terms of progression, but it's functional design is nearly identical, just a modernization of the original Constellation design.


    "You shoot him, I shoot you, I leave both your bodies here and go out for a late night snack.
    I'm thinking maybe pancakes." ~ John Casey
  • misterde3misterde3 Member Posts: 4,195 Arc User
    edited October 2012
    No I don't because the Nebula has 2 major differences.

    1. It has the Galaxy Class primary hull underneath it.

    No it doesn't, it has a completely custom-designed underside hull.

    http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20050601150727/memoryalpha/de/images/d/d0/NebulaKlasse.jpg
    The Miranda has no primary hull. The nacelles attach directly to the saucer.

    And the Constallation is a one-piece ship while the Cheyenne was set up so it can seperate so it is also technically a ship with two hulls.
    2. The Nebula is not a "next in line" design revision and update to the Miranda. It was instead designed as a "variant" of the Galaxy.

    How do you kow that?
    I couldn't find that information in any canon source.
    The Cheyenne, visually might look more Galaxy than Constitution in terms of progression, but it's functional design is nearly identical, just a modernization of the original Constellation design.

    If you consider these ships to be basically one design because they are "next in line" (again somathing I could not find any evidence of anywhere) and their functional design is nearly identical as you put it, does this mean you see the Constitution refit, the Excelsior, the Ambassador, Galaxy and Sovereign as one design as well?
    Because the exact same criteria also fit them.
  • obsidiusrexobsidiusrex Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited October 2012
    From what I have seen from screenshots, it seems to have two big nacelles in sector space and four nacelles in a space combat map. I guess the nacelle pylons are retractable?
    The nacelle pairs squeeze together and extend in sector space, or when the ship goes into warp. Makes each pair look like one big nacelle. Really interesting style.
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    I don't care how long you've been playing. I only care about how you play.
    And remember to follow the rules.
  • ccarmichael07ccarmichael07 Member Posts: 755 Arc User
    edited October 2012
    misterde3 wrote: »
    No it doesn't, it has a completely custom-designed underside hull.

    http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20050601150727/memoryalpha/de/images/d/d0/NebulaKlasse.jpg

    Actually, it is the same primary hull.

    http://pokethatfish.com/images/galaxyexterior.jpg

    From the foreward point at the deflector dish to the aft point where the nacelle struts begin, the hull is identical.

    This from Memory Alpha:

    Studio models

    First appearing as prototype kit-bash studio model in the debris field of "The Best of Both Worlds, Part II", the design of the Nebula-class was upgraded to a full worthy studio model, to represent a major class of starship. As Michael Okuda explains on Doug Drexler's blog, "The original concept for the Nebula-class ship was to develop a design that was in the style that Andy Probert had so brilliantly established for the Enterprise-D. (You may recall that every other Federation starship in early TNG episodes was made with recycled movie ships.) Our initial hope was that Greg could use the same molds from the 4' Enterprise-D, but that he could add a bigger bridge and give it bigger windows. The idea was to suggest that this ship was a contemporary of the E-D, but it was a smaller vessel."

    And the Constallation is a one-piece ship while the Cheyenne was set up so it can seperate so it is also technically a ship with two hulls.

    While the Cheyenne was developed so it could seperate, there is no evidence that the Constellation couldn't seperate. This follows the vein of "unspoken abilities" that the Constitution Class Enterprise had, as the 2006 Ships of the Line book speaks of the Constitution Class being able to detonate explosives to seperate the saucer if necessary, even though we never saw this on screen.

    Additionally, Michael Okuda verifies that the intent of the Cheyenne was to mimic the Constellation, which would give it an implied design lineage.

    From Memory Alpha:

    Okuda commented,"I think the fourth was the Cheyenne-class U.S.S. Ahwahnee. (Again, without my notes, I'm not entirely sure). This was a scaled-down Galaxy saucer with four nacelles, arranged in a manner similar to the Constellation.
    How do you kow that?
    I couldn't find that information in any canon source.

    From Memory Alpha:

    The Nebula-class shared a similar design lineage with its larger Galaxy-class counterpart. (TNG: "The Wounded", etc.)

    It is unknown, precisely, which class spawned the other, or if they were designed simultaneously. The only chronological evidence that exists can be determined by a comparison of dedication plaques, which reveals that the Nebula-class Phoenix was commissioned (on stardate 40250.5) just a short time before the launch (stardate 40759.5) of the Galaxy-class USS Enterprise-D.


    This entirely suggests that the Nebula was designed, in the kitbash phase, to be a variant of the Galaxy class, only smaller. Though, we know from TV appearances that the Nebula was not that much smaller than the Galaxy, as evidenced by the scene where a Nebula is docked at DS9, as well as the scene from Generations where a Nebula is flying side-by-side with an Oberth and Miranda.
    If you consider these ships to be basically one design because they are "next in line" (again somathing I could not find any evidence of anywhere) and their functional design is nearly identical as you put it, does this mean you see the Constitution refit, the Excelsior, the Ambassador, Galaxy and Sovereign as one design as well?
    Because the exact same criteria also fit them.

    While each of the "Enterprise" classes were "next in line" for the flagship, that doesn't make them "next in line" in terms of design lineage.

    3 of the Enterprises could be considered "next in line" in terms of design lineage. The Excelsior-Ambassador-Galaxy share enough common design components to make that leap, however there are substantial differences as well, which make the ships unique enough to be entirely new classes. Also, beyond the Constitution Refit, there was a substantial change in size, as well as mission profile, thereby breaking the design lineage.

    So no, just because the listed classes are successors of the original Constitution, I do not consider them 1 vessel class.


    "You shoot him, I shoot you, I leave both your bodies here and go out for a late night snack.
    I'm thinking maybe pancakes." ~ John Casey
Sign In or Register to comment.