Advanced/Refit, Retrofit; TRIBBLE consistency, what about a advanced reretrofit?

projectfrontier

"Refit" - "Same tier, more boff power slots, a console."
"Advanced" - "another word for Refit, until you reach Rear-Admiral."
"Retrofit" - "Higher tier refit, otherwise a refit."

Exceptions to the nomenclature aside, a nomenclature that would be far simpler of they used one word to describe same-tier store ships (Advanced OR Refit, not both) and used that word only for that purpose (Assault Cruiser Refit is a "higher tier" ship), isn't it about time we added more to it?

This new grade? The Reretrofit!

A grade of ship that will satisfy all of the arbitrary and pedestrian obligations declared by so many people to be the "absolutely most important part of STO - Cryptic making money" by giving them a way to provide another gimmick for you to snort up like so much cocaine off the back of a prostitute while you fantasize about being Mayor.

I say YAY, MAKE IT SO NUMBER TWO, MAKE IT SO ALL OVER NUMBER ONE! - let us add the ReRetrofit, today!

mewmaster101

Refit = Same ship from that time when it was used with original tech, but upgraded meaning the parts that cannot be upgraded are still not very good

Retrofit = Entirely new ship with the best tech possible but looks like and is made to be a better version of the original design.

There is consistency with it, and it works fine.

angrytarg

What consistency is there in calling the Excelsior the "Advanced Heavy Cruiser" while the "Heavy Cruiser" is 60-70 years younger? :P

projectfrontier

mewmaster101 wrote: »

Refit = Same ship from that time when it was used with original tech, but upgraded meaning the parts that cannot be upgraded are still not very good

Retrofit = Entirely new ship with the best tech possible but looks like and is made to be a better version of the original design.

There is consistency with it, and it works fine.

You have (1) new message: "see quote from Angrytarg (below)"

To replay this message press 1 now, otherwise hang up for other options - preferably one where you do not call back again. BEEEEEEEEEEP.

angrytarg wrote: »

What consistency is there in calling the Excelsior the "Advanced Heavy Cruiser" while the "Heavy Cruiser" is 60-70 years younger? :P

They missed the parts in primary school about that covered "reading comprehension" and "staying on topic".

mewmaster101

angrytarg wrote: »

What consistency is there in calling the Excelsior the "Advanced Heavy Cruiser" while the "Heavy Cruiser" is 60-70 years younger? :P

Easy, the Excelsior IS still more advanced than the Normal Heavy Cruisers, the transwarp drive. Also, we do not actually know how long the Cheyenne class (the ONLY canon one of those ships) has been around and the Excelsior was still around at the same time.

And i forgot to mention, IT seems likely that the Excelsior IS a refit.

gofasternow

Yo dawg, I heard you like refits...

angrytarg

mewmaster101 wrote: »

Refit = Same ship from that time when it was used with original tech, but upgraded meaning the parts that cannot be upgraded are still not very good

Retrofit = Entirely new ship with the best tech possible but looks like and is made to be a better version of the original design.

There is consistency with it, and it works fine.

That's not right, at least not according to the IP. It's the other way around, actually:

http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Refit

Retrofits can even be applied "on-the-fly" without a shipyard or spacedock.

regarding the "Excelsior still advanced over the Cheyenne": While it is true we never knew when the Cheyenne Class was comissioned, it seems logical that it is a derivation of the Galaxy Class Development Project in some form (it uses a Enterprise-saucer after all ) so I just assume mid to late 24th century. Why should the old Excelsior STILL be so over-the-top elite that it advanced a newer ship?

The Transwarp-Drive (in-canon, not STO) was a failed experiment. Outside of ST III we never see it mentioned again. In fact, in St VI we see the class use regular warp drives again. The only time when the Excelsior was "advanced" again was after the Lakota-style refit which was even unlikely to happen but probably did work out because some Admiral loved the ship class so much, just like STOs dev did

projectfrontier

mewmaster101 wrote: »

Easy, the Excelsior IS still more advanced than the Normal Heavy Cruisers, the transwarp drive. Also, we do not actually know how long the Cheyenne class (the ONLY canon one of those ships) has been around and the Excelsior was still around at the same time.

And i forgot to mention, IT seems likely that the Excelsior IS a refit.

Eventually it'll click, you'll sit there and go "OHHHHH, they said advanced and refit are the same thing in game game-wise. Yeah that's true."

Eventually.

But your nonsense about the Excelsior vs. the "Heavy Cruiser" has gots to go.

gofasternow wrote: »

Yo dawg, I heard you like refits...

We put some science in your science cause I heard you like science.

angrytarg wrote: »

That's not right, at least not according to the IP. It's the other way around, actually:

http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Refit

Retrofits can even be applied "on-the-fly" without a shipyard or spacedock.

regarding the "Excelsior still advanced over the Cheyenne": While it is true we never knew when the Cheyenne Class was comissioned, it seems logical that it is a derivation of the Galaxy Class Development Project in some form (it uses a Enterprise-saucer after all ) so I just assume mid to late 24th century. Why should the old Excelsior STILL be so over-the-top elite that it advanced a newer ship?

The Transwarp-Drive (in-canon, not STO) was a failed experiment. Outside of ST III we never see it mentioned again. In fact, in St VI we see the class use regular warp drives again. The only time when the Excelsior was "advanced" again was after the Lakota-style refit which was even unlikely to happen but probably did work out because some Admiral loved the ship class so much, just like STOs dev did

The Cheyenne? Production comments (on a TNG disc I believe) addressed how studio models were kit-bashed for various projects, that was (I believe) based on parts for a Galaxy model alongside the New Orleans class.

Otherwise yeah, we're not on the part about how screwed up nomenclature is relative to the real world, yet.

And the Excelsior hull is about the only thing the Lakota has in common with the original ship - per the fiction.

angrytarg

projectfrontier wrote: »

The Cheyenne? Production comments (on a TNG disc I believe) addressed how studio models were kit-bashed for various projects, that was (I believe) based on parts for a Galaxy model alongside the New Orleans class.

Otherwise yeah, we're not on the part about how screwed up nomenclature is relative to the real world, yet.

And the Excelsior hull is about the only thing the Lakota has in common with the original ship - per the fiction.

Yeah, it was a smaller Galaxy saucer (From the Enterprise-D actually, one of the smaller models) and the nacelles were made out of marker pens But that circumstance leads to the conclusion that in-universe design schemes from the Galaxy Class design found their way into the Cheyenne, my theory is to provide a light cruiser (it really isn't a "heavy cruiser" as STO claims, nor is the Excelsior. At least not in 2409 anymore) that uses the technical advancements of the Galaxy Class that could be produced in larger number. But again, only my theory

The Lakota had some hull upgrades as well. It got a new hull material, slightly changed shapes and additional weaponry on the nacelles, just like the Galaxy-Refit got during the Dominion War and in AGT. The Lakota was upgraded with quantum torpedoes and the like, although they said it was unlikely for a ship of that class to recieve such an extensive refit. I suspect it was the lovechild of an admiral, like AGT-future-Riker refitted the Enterprise

temporalhavoc

angrytarg wrote: »

The Transwarp-Drive (in-canon, not STO) was a failed experiment. Outside of ST III we never see it mentioned again.

Actually... We do see transwarp drives mentioned again, in Voyager. Both Borg and Voth propulsion technologies are referred to on-screen as transwarp, and later the word 'transwarp drive' is used during the modifications performed on the Voyager's shuttle 'Cochrane'; Which DID manage to achieve working transwarp... Just had some horrible radiation side-effects that needed to be sorted out. :P

mewmaster101

temporalhavoc wrote: »

Actually... We do see transwarp drives mentioned again, in Voyager. Both Borg and Voth propulsion technologies are referred to on-screen as transwarp, and later the word 'transwarp drive' is used during the modifications performed on the Voyager's shuttle 'Cochrane'; Which DID manage to achieve working transwarp... Just had some horrible radiation side-effects that needed to be sorted out. :P

Transwarp IS canon, but the threshold episode is not, it has been officially stated that episode never happened...............................and that anyone who mentions that episode will mysteriously disappear..

angrytarg

temporalhavoc wrote: »

Actually... We do see transwarp drives mentioned again, in Voyager. Both Borg and Voth propulsion technologies are referred to on-screen as transwarp, and later the word 'transwarp drive' is used during the modifications performed on the Voyager's shuttle 'Cochrane'; Which DID manage to achieve working transwarp... Just had some horrible radiation side-effects that needed to be sorted out. :P

You are right, I should have been more precise stating "Transwarp on Starfleet ships". Well, until the "incident" in VOY. Which the author of that episode apologized for and he recommended never to speak of it again But even if we do, "stable transwarp" was not a thing Starfleet could accomplish. Until VOY got Borg tech. Seriously, they justified everything with Borg tech. Borg tech is the equivalent of a deus-ex-machina

cmdrskyfaller

They could simply name the 'newest' upgrade to the old hull as 'Revised'.


Aka the Galaxy class could become

'Revised Galaxy Retrofit' (or Refit).

temporalhavoc

mewmaster101 wrote: »

Transwarp IS canon, but the threshold episode is not, it has been officially stated that episode never happened...............................and that anyone who mentions that episode will mysteriously disappear..

I'm not trying to be argumentative, promise- But can I get a link to a source on that? I was unaware that individual episodes could be excluded from canon like that, and am curious.