test content
Logo
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc
Starship Registry Numbers
hawke89305092
Member Posts: 237 Arc User
Does anyone know if there's a reason our registry numbers need to be higher than 91000? The reason I ask is because I think it would be excellent if we could select lower, canon appropriate registry numbers. NCC 91485 feels very odd on an Ambassador or Excelsior class, for example. What do you guys think?
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
Post edited by hawke89305092 on
0
Comments
The reason is (to my knowledge), to avoid running into canon registry numbers.
It's quite simply a way to not open up for people using the licensed registries from previous series and movies.
normal text = me speaking as fellow formite
colored text = mod mode
Just better to give everyone a new block of numbers. Besides, we're in the future here, all of those numbers got used up like AOL screennames.
Blocking the canon numbers from being used, would be as simple as blocking the canon ship names (which you already do). Ofcourse, there are variations like Enterprize, or Enterprice.
But using the "future" argument goes out the airlock, when you consider that STO consists of primarily 22nd-24th Century ships.
There are no actual 22nd Century vessels in-game.
And the only 23rd Century vessels in service are a few TOS-era Constitutions pulled out of mothballs and pressed into limited service.
Now, ships built in the late 24th Century? I can see that being possible. But all things considered, in the end, this is a game. So, anything is possible.
As for the canon registry numbers/their variants issue, I'm not sure how much of a problem that would be. As is, we barely have any contact with our own ship's registry number, let alone those of others. It's not like we'd warp into sector space and see 17010 and 1702 listed everywhere - we only see the ship's name.
The NX-Class, D'Kyr, Kumari and the bulk of the "Raptor" class of ships for the KDF, are all based on 22nd Century "designs". You may argue that the NX-Class, D'Kyr and Kumari are 25th Century "replicas", but they look virtually identical to their 22nd Century counterparts.
So again, a "future" setting using primitive looking 250-year old ships, makes Tacofangs argument go right out the airlock.
In summary: Remove the limitation on which registry numbers can be used. Block usage of the canon registry numbers for hero/guest ships. If you're worried about possible "1702s" floating around, or 2001s, block off a range of numbers around them, but keep the bulk of the numbers open to all.
However, looks do not necessarily preclude to function. EG: one can make a lighter look exactly like a certain toy from a child's toy box. However, one is a toy and the other is a lighter with the capacity to severely burn and injure said child. Need I remind everyone that on the very description of the D'Kyr it clearly states that the ships were retrofitted and upgraded; While the Raptors and Kumari classes are absolute overhauls of their aged counterparts?
http://www.arcgames.com/en/games/star-trek-online/news/detail/10052253
Why are you not rejoicing?
There is no argument regarding the co-called "NX" class. It is clearly stated in the description that it's a replica. In other words, a full-fledged 25th Century starship sporting a retro look. It's not an ancient relic simply upgraded with modern technology.
The modern Kumari Class is an evolutionary design that can trace it's roots back to the 22nd Century Andorian warship Kumari, but its' neither a replica (like the modern NX) or an old design refitted to modern specs.
The D'Kyr is an old design. But it's capabilities suggest that, to misquote the old Oldsmobile advertisements, "It's not your father's D'Kyr". The Vulcans obviously continued to refine the design to the point where, other than general looks, it's so far above the original as to be a different vessel.
Pretty is as pretty does. Looks have jack **** to do with anything regarding Taco's argument, since looks don't reflect the age or capability of a given design in this game. All of the designs in this game, with the exception of the Original Series Constitution (and possibly the old D7s), are modern vessels. Even the ones that "look old". So, Taco's argument stands.
Columbia, NX-02, Risian Corvette.
As for the rest, there are enough Entarprises, Entreprises, Enterprices, Enterpirses and more already out there. With plenty of NCC-170001's and so on between them.
I support new registries.
Join the Deltas today!
Even a relatively new ship like the Galaxy (which could believably have an NCC-9XXXX number), could also have potentially have one in the 70000s, which we usually saw in canon.
Maybe one idea could be to define the lower limit based on the registry of the first ship of each class - so while a Galaxy would need to be higher than 70637, an Excelsior would only need to be above 2000. That would probably be way to much work for something very minor, though.
system Lord Baal is dead
I guess when you dont have a life live in your parents basement never had a date with a real woman Not your auntie or grandmama then i reckon youd stare at a number all day raging you didnt get the one to indulge your fanboish fanatasies lol
But yeah i agree dan this is a moronic arguement whats the big deal no one else sees them and few even care .
lol this comes to mind
system Lord Baal is dead
well that will only tell me that owner of 1702 have no imagination lol. Because you look like kirk doesnt mean you are kirk nor have his skills.
well, except enter-her-prize that numbers tell me absolthely nothing. But i asume that ncc-2000 is for excelsior with tranwarp (or how they called it in that st movie - st2? ).
system Lord Baal is dead
My god man what your suggesting is heresy against all things nerd and the forums would glow red from the nerd rage that would follow.......actually thats a good idea i need entertainment lets go with that
As stupid as that would be, I really can't see the harm. There are a thousand Enterpr1zes flying around. Morons, but not hurting anything.
its better than U.S.S Bunny rabbit or U.S.S Vader some ship and player names i see just make me sad
"It appears we have lost our sex appeal, captain."- Tuvok
Don't hate on the U.S.S. Bunny Rabbit
It may not be to your liking, however it's far better than all the canon hero wannabes in their Enterpr1zes. :P
I have no issues with the current registry scheme. It's not like you can see it as part of the ship tag. You have to be real close to see it on most ships...some you practically have to walk on the hull to be able to see it.
I feel the 90000 and higher rule is appropriate.
Example: "U.S.S. Voyager, NCC-74756, Intrepid-Class, launched Utopia Planitia Shipyards, Mars, 2371."
That was thirty-eight years ago. Considering the Dominion War, the current conflicts, ships needing to be replaced simply because it's more resource-exhaustive to refit and overhaul them rather than just build a new one... it's not that hard to believe that registry numbers could reach the 90000's by now.
Going to my old copy of the Star Trek Encyclopedia (even if it is apocryphal, especially thanks to "Enterprise"...) for some further examples...
U.S.S. Zhukov, NCC-26136, Ambassador-class. (Barclay's assignment before the Enterprise-D)
U.S.S. Melbourne, NCC-62043, Excelsior-class. (The ship Riker was offered command of and turned down just prior to the Battle of Wolf 359)
U.S.S. Saratoga, NCC-31911, Miranda-class. (Ben Sisko's ship during Wolf-359)
U.S.S. Cochrane, NCC-59318, Oberth-class. (The ship that delivered Julian Bashir to DS9)
All of these are 'older' classes of ships with fairly high numbers, that's not even going into the Galaxy-class ships and Nebula-class ships with numbers easily in the 70000's...
^Words that every player should keep in mind, especially whenever there's a problem with the game...
There is nothing out of place within canon with a Ambassador or Excelsior class with high registry numbers.
In the arms of an angel....