test content
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc

Why are ships broken into "Escort", "Cruiser" and "Science Vessel"?

projectfrontierprojectfrontier Member Posts: 0 Arc User
As per the title why "escort", "cruiser" and "science vessel"?

Why not "small", "medium" and "large" where hull/weapons/shields are a function of that system?
Post edited by projectfrontier on
«134

Comments

  • thecosmic1thecosmic1 Member Posts: 9,365 Arc User
    edited March 2014
    Because the game was originally going to be based on the Trinity: DPS, Tank, Support. Plans got changed but the ship Classes stayed.

    Plus the Defiant is a small ship, but packs a HUGE punch, and it would not work being defined by size.
    STO is about my Liberated Borg Federation Captain with his Breen 1st Officer, Jem'Hadar Tactical Officer, Liberated Borg Engineering Officer, Android Ops Officer, Photonic Science Officer, Gorn Science Officer, and Reman Medical Officer jumping into their Jem'Hadar Carrier and flying off to do missions for the new Romulan Empire. But for some players allowing a T5 Connie to be used breaks the canon in the game.
  • orangeitisorangeitis Member Posts: 5,218 Arc User
    edited March 2014
    They're not. They are broken into tactical, engineering, and science ships. Not all tactical ships are Escorts, and not all science ships are Science Vessels.
  • mewmaster101mewmaster101 Member Posts: 1,239 Arc User
    edited March 2014
    As per the title why "escort", "cruiser" and "science vessel"?

    Why not "small", "medium" and "large" where hull/weapons/shields are a function of that system?

    To fit with lore (At least to some extent), and to fit with the trinity and the 3 classes

    WHy are you even playing this game, all you ever seem to do is complain about every little thing related to this game.
  • phadrenphadren Member Posts: 159 Arc User
    edited March 2014
    I believe drkfrontiers logged onto an alternate account...
  • captainrevo1captainrevo1 Member Posts: 3,948 Arc User
    edited March 2014
    Because escort (damage dealer), science (support) and cruiser (tank) is typical MMO style, makes more sense and is more IP related than small, medium and large which really makes no sense and tell us nothing.
  • projectfrontierprojectfrontier Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited March 2014
    thecosmic1 wrote: »
    Because the game was originally going to be based on the Trinity: DPS, Tank, Support. Plans got changed but the ship Classes stayed.

    Plus the Defiant is a small ship, but packs a HUGE punch, and it would not work being defined by size.

    Holy trinity? Check; however, I did not argue that a small ship cannot have powerful weaponry (or that a large ship cannot have weak weaponry for that matter).
    orangeitis wrote: »
    They're not. They are broken into tactical, engineering, and science ships. Not all tactical ships are Escorts, and not all science ships are Science Vessels.

    Your response has nothing to do with my topic and is grossly inaccurate as an assessment of what is currently in game. You have gone through the tutorial and used the shipyard, right?
    To fit with lore (At least to some extent), and to fit with the trinity and the 3 classes

    3 classes? In game the Federation alone has dozens of classes for ships, what does that have to do with Escort/Cruiser/Science-Vessel?
    WHy are you even playing this game, all you ever seem to do is complain about every little thing related to this game.

    You seem to strongly "associate self-worth with the products you prefer" and consistently "lash out at people who question those products at all". Show your parents this response and revel in the glory that is their /uinstalling STO before they send you to their room and fight over "who went wrong" in your upbringing.
    phadren wrote: »
    I believe drkfrontiers logged onto an alternate account...

    Which one is drkfrontiers?
    Because escort (damage dealer), science (support) and cruiser (tank) is typical MMO style, makes more sense and is more IP related than small, medium and large which really makes no sense and tell us nothing.

    "small", "medium", "large" are arbitrary placeholders like "escort", "cruiser", and "science vessel."

    They are "figurative representations".

    Also, the "holy trinity" is not really IP-related at all.
  • jaturnleyjaturnley Member Posts: 1,217 Arc User
    edited March 2014
    To be fair, nothing as far as classification meant anything until the recent introduction of cruiser commands, flanking bonuses (if they ever get rolled out) and now secondary deflectors. There were escorts and destroyers used interchangeably, sci ships abilities put on cruisers and escorts, and cruisers that had escort roles. It's only recently that any "classes" outside of true carriers really had any truly definitive features. We still need to know what the defining features of escorts and destroyers are going to be, but at least we can point at a ship and say "that's a Battle Cruiser" now.
  • thegalaxy31thegalaxy31 Member Posts: 1,211 Arc User
    edited March 2014
    Because... we need some form of classification for ships.
    I would love to visit this star in-game...or maybe this one!
    Won't SOMEONE please think of the CHILDREN?!
  • priestofsin420priestofsin420 Member Posts: 419
    edited March 2014
    As per the title why "escort", "cruiser" and "science vessel"?

    Why not "small", "medium" and "large" where hull/weapons/shields are a function of that system?

    Uh... Escorts have small hull and shields, with 7 weapon slots. Cruisers have large hull and shields, and have 8 weapon slots. Science Vessels have large shields and medium hulls, and have 6 weapon slots. The current names ARE a function of that system... Are you just asking to change an immersion-related name to an immersion-less name?
    Sardak (Science Officer): Captain of a 23k DPS R'Mor Temporal Science Vessel, R.R.W. Vathos
    Odan Brota (Science Officer): Captain of a 28k DPS Scryer Intel Science Vessel, U.S.S. Kepler
    Patiently waiting for a Romulan Science Vessel
  • snoggymack22snoggymack22 Member Posts: 7,084 Arc User
    edited March 2014
    Your response has nothing to do with my topic and is grossly inaccurate as an assessment of what is currently in game. You have gone through the tutorial and used the shipyard, right?

    Ok. Klingon and Romulan Escorts. List them. GO!
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • orangeitisorangeitis Member Posts: 5,218 Arc User
    edited March 2014
    Your response has nothing to do with my topic and is grossly inaccurate as an assessment of what is currently in game.
    Evidence demonstrates otherwise. "Escorts" describe the Escort ship type, and "Science Vessels" describe the Science vessel ship type. But they do not describe Destroyers, Carriers, Corvettes, Raptors, Support Ships, or Raiders.

    But to be fair, "Cruisers" can describe most, if not all engineering ships(sans small craft). And if the Ferengi Marauder is officially classified as a Battlecruiser(that is, with word from a dev), then it can describe all of them.

    What does describe every type of capital ship are the "tactical", "engineering", and "science" classifications.
    You have gone through the tutorial and used the shipyard, right?
    Which fleetyard? I'm in the shipyard orbiting Qo'noS right now, as a matter of fact. I see no "Escorts", "Cruisers", and "Science Vessels". I see Raiders, Raptors, and Battlecruisers. =3
  • magnumstarmagnumstar Member Posts: 269 Arc User
    edited March 2014
    thecosmic1 wrote: »
    Because the game was originally going to be based on the Trinity: DPS, Tank, Support. Plans got changed but the ship Classes stayed.

    Plus the Defiant is a small ship, but packs a HUGE punch, and it would not work being defined by size.

    Destroyers were small ships that packed a big punch, battleship killers, why couldn't they classify the Defiant as such?
  • magnumstarmagnumstar Member Posts: 269 Arc User
    edited March 2014
    Because... we need some form of classification for ships.

    They could use modern Naval classifications that would fit the description of the ships a lot better and make more sense.
  • thecosmic1thecosmic1 Member Posts: 9,365 Arc User
    edited March 2014
    magnumstar wrote: »
    Destroyers were small ships that packed a big punch, battleship killers, why couldn't they classify the Defiant as such?
    I was working within the confines of the categories he suggested: small, medium, and large.

    As the game stands now it has: Escorts, Science Vessels, Cruisers, Destroyers, Carriers, and Dreadnoughts. That is certainly a better distinction then small, medium, and large, IMO.
    STO is about my Liberated Borg Federation Captain with his Breen 1st Officer, Jem'Hadar Tactical Officer, Liberated Borg Engineering Officer, Android Ops Officer, Photonic Science Officer, Gorn Science Officer, and Reman Medical Officer jumping into their Jem'Hadar Carrier and flying off to do missions for the new Romulan Empire. But for some players allowing a T5 Connie to be used breaks the canon in the game.
  • mewmaster101mewmaster101 Member Posts: 1,239 Arc User
    edited March 2014
    magnumstar wrote: »
    Destroyers were small ships that packed a big punch, battleship killers, why couldn't they classify the Defiant as such?

    Because the SHOW classifies it as a Escort ship. Granted, they ONLY named it that because they did not want to admit it was a warship. Even the show basically classifies them in a very similar manner.

    OP, for someone who is supposedly a Trekkie, you show ignorance of anything to do with the show.
  • snoggymack22snoggymack22 Member Posts: 7,084 Arc User
    edited March 2014
    magnumstar wrote: »
    They could use modern Naval classifications that would fit the description of the ships a lot better and make more sense.

    Not to me. Naval classifications have no place in my sci fi liesure activities. Reverse Tachyon Particles do though. And Exocomps. And Binars. And Crystaline Entitites. And the Borg Collective. But modern naval classifications? Don't care for that jibba jabba one bit.
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • snoggymack22snoggymack22 Member Posts: 7,084 Arc User
    edited March 2014
    OP, for someone who is supposedly a Trekkie, you show ignorance of anything to do with the show.

    Going out on a limb here but I'm guessing the OP is just upset at the Galaxy reboot and specifically Bort's post about the Galaxy X. And thus the thread here focusing on ship classification since the X doesn't match what the poster thought it did after reading Bort's post on it.
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • magnumstarmagnumstar Member Posts: 269 Arc User
    edited March 2014
    Because the SHOW classifies it as a Escort ship. Granted, they ONLY named it that because they did not want to admit it was a warship. Even the show basically classifies them in a very similar manner.

    OP, for someone who is supposedly a Trekkie, you show ignorance of anything to do with the show.

    In the Navy any ship can be called an escort if that's what mission it is performing. Mostly though the duty falls to small, fast, and manueverable ships as they can get to the problem in the convoy of ships they're escorting quickly. The Defiant may have been designed for escort duty or they may have reffered to it as such because that was the duty it was performing, I don't remember the details of the show with the defiant. Anyway a light cruiser or destroyer can be called an escort if that's the duty assigned to that ship. Naval classifications of ships would give the players much more choices on what ships we could use and their looks, also it would be easier to balance them against one another.
  • magnumstarmagnumstar Member Posts: 269 Arc User
    edited March 2014
    Not to me. Naval classifications have no place in my sci fi liesure activities. Reverse Tachyon Particles do though. And Exocomps. And Binars. And Crystaline Entitites. And the Borg Collective. But modern naval classifications? Don't care for that jibba jabba one bit.

    Trek takes most of its ranking, shipboard terms, and military structure from the Navy so you already have this in your liesure activities. The game would balance out far better using Naval ship classifications as well as make a hell of a lot more sense. On the ocean or in space you're going to need the same types of ships because the type of ship to ship combat will be the same.

    Frigate
    Destroyer
    LightCruiser
    MediumCruiser
    HeavyCruiser
    Battleship
    Dreadnaught
    Carrier

    Some of the naval classifications are already in game so again you already have the jibba jabba.
  • mewmaster101mewmaster101 Member Posts: 1,239 Arc User
    edited March 2014
    magnumstar wrote: »
    In the Navy any ship can be called an escort if that's what mission it is performing. Mostly though the duty falls to small, fast, and manueverable ships as they can get to the problem in the convoy of ships they're escorting quickly. The Defiant may have been designed for escort duty or they may have reffered to it as such because that was the duty it was performing, I don't remember the details of the show with the defiant. Anyway a light cruiser or destroyer can be called an escort if that's the duty assigned to that ship. Naval classifications of ships would give the players much more choices on what ships we could use and their looks, also it would be easier to balance them against one another.

    yeah....the USS Defiant never did any real escort missions (or at least, that was not its main job), it was explicitly called a warship by everyone on the show that was not a higher up in Starfleet and it is explicitly stated the only reason it is called that is because Starfleet (refusing to admit they are a military) did not wan to call it a warship.

    It was a ship created to fight the borg and was/is the "Warplane" of Starfleet compared to the Cruisers being battleships.
  • mewmaster101mewmaster101 Member Posts: 1,239 Arc User
    edited March 2014
    magnumstar wrote: »
    Trek takes most of its ranking, shipboard terms, and military structure from the Navy so you already have this in your liesure activities. The game would balance out far better using Naval ship classifications as well as make a hell of a lot more sense. On the ocean or in space you're going to need the same types of ships because the type of ship to ship combat will be the same.

    Frigate
    Destroyer
    LightCruiser
    MediumCruiser
    HeavyCruiser
    Battleship
    Dreadnaught
    Carrier

    Some of the naval classifications are already in game so again you already have the jibba jabba.

    and they mean different things in the game/show then they do in the navy and it has been that way since TOS.
  • snoggymack22snoggymack22 Member Posts: 7,084 Arc User
    edited March 2014
    magnumstar wrote: »
    Trek takes most of its ranking, shipboard terms, and military structure from the Navy


    Except it doesn't take all of it from there. As Colonel West can rightly tell you.
    The game would balance out far better using Naval ship classifications as well as make a hell of a lot more sense.

    The words they use won't affect balance at all. And they don't make sense to me. Maybe to you, not to me.

    because the type of ship to ship combat will be the same.

    I've never seen an ocean going ship create a gravity well or do anything to its structural integrity field. Where's the deflector dish on a frigate? How does a cruiser reverse its shield polarity?

    Also can't you get your naval ship fix from World of Warships? It's a pretty popular MMO and does use naval ship classifications right? Play that? And let me have my Tachyon Detection Grid!
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • sentinel64sentinel64 Member Posts: 897 Arc User
    edited March 2014
    magnumstar wrote: »
    Trek takes most of its ranking, shipboard terms, and military structure from the Navy so you already have this in your liesure activities. The game would balance out far better using Naval ship classifications as well as make a hell of a lot more sense. On the ocean or in space you're going to need the same types of ships because the type of ship to ship combat will be the same.

    Frigate
    Destroyer
    LightCruiser
    MediumCruiser
    HeavyCruiser
    Battleship
    Dreadnaught
    Carrier

    Some of the naval classifications are already in game so again you already have the jibba jabba.

    In short, no;

    Frigate - this is the Escort , as in the old WW2 term Destroyer Escort
    Destroyer - this is nothing more than a larger Escort nearly equal to a heavy cruiser
    LightCruiser - this was dropped for the term frigate (e.g., Miranda Class Frigate)
    MediumCruiser - meaningless term, has no use in game
    HeavyCruiser - standard term for the Starfleet exploration ships is Cruiser
    Battleship - Starfleet doesn't like this term; just an oversized Cruiser
    Dreadnaught - this is nothing more than the older term for Battleships
    Carrier - game uses these as a variable; most are Sci-based, but some have Tac or Eng flavor; also these can be the Fleet version (two bays) or the light version (one-bay), and then the exceptions are the not Carriers but we threw a carrier-like ability to "sweeten" the sale

    Of course Battlecruiser is a favorite term for KDF Cruisers since they are more Tac-oriented, but such terms don't mean much more than extra firepower in a Cruiser design.

    Too many terms just pigeon-holes the game and makes balancing even more impossible, so keeping it simple will just helps make the game easier to balance... Escort, Cruiser, Science.
  • magnumstarmagnumstar Member Posts: 269 Arc User
    edited March 2014
    Except it doesn't take all of it from there. As Colonel West can rightly tell you.



    The words they use won't affect balance at all. And they don't make sense to me. Maybe to you, not to me.

    I'm taking it you've never been around a ship of war before, not being sarcastic here just speculating. And you're right just giving the ships different classifications wouldn't affect balance but if they used how each classification of ship performs it would. Hard to explain to a landlubber in a short space and time.


    I've never seen an ocean going ship create a gravity well or do anything to its structural integrity field. Where's the deflector dish on a frigate? How does a cruiser reverse its shield polarity?

    Ship to ship combat will be the same in space as it is on the ocean, instead of missiles and guns though you'd use phasers and photon topedoes. The classifications I'm suggesting won't take any of the things you enjoy about the game away.

    Also can't you get your naval ship fix from World of Warships? It's a pretty popular MMO and does use naval ship classifications right? Play that? And let me have my Tachyon Detection Grid!

    You'd still have you tachyon detection grid, the only difference would be instead of calling your ship an escort it would be a light cruiser.
  • snoggymack22snoggymack22 Member Posts: 7,084 Arc User
    edited March 2014
    magnumstar wrote: »
    You'd still have you tachyon detection grid, the only difference would be instead of calling your ship an escort it would be a light cruiser.

    Isn't the Miranda a light cruiser? The Miranda gets laughed at a lot on these forums. Most escorts don't. It's just all kinds of confusing.

    I have the solution to this problem anyways. I know it's not naval terminology influenced, but I think it's gamer friendly:

    Pew

    Pew-Pew

    And PEW-PEW-PEW

    That pretty much defines the ships in a way that makes sense to me. And kind of reflects where the game is at, I think.
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • mewmaster101mewmaster101 Member Posts: 1,239 Arc User
    edited March 2014
    Isn't the Miranda a light cruiser? The Miranda gets laughed at a lot on these forums. Most escorts don't. It's just all kinds of confusing.

    I have the solution to this problem anyways. I know it's not naval terminology influenced, but I think it's gamer friendly:

    Pew

    Pew-Pew

    And PEW-PEW-PEW

    That pretty much defines the ships in a way that makes sense to me. And kind of reflects where the game is at, I think.

    You forgot the Scimitar's level:

    PEW-PEW-PEW-PEW!

    :P
  • snoggymack22snoggymack22 Member Posts: 7,084 Arc User
    edited March 2014
    You forgot the Scimitar's level:

    PEW-PEW-PEW-PEW!

    :P

    I was leaning toward EPIC-PEW but the fourth PEW works too.
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • magnumstarmagnumstar Member Posts: 269 Arc User
    edited March 2014
    sentinel64 wrote: »
    In short, no;

    Frigate - this is the Escort , as in the old WW2 term Destroyer Escort
    Destroyer - this is nothing more than a larger Escort nearly equal to a heavy cruiser
    LightCruiser - this was dropped for the term frigate (e.g., Miranda Class Frigate)
    MediumCruiser - meaningless term, has no use in game
    HeavyCruiser - standard term for the Starfleet exploration ships is Cruiser
    Battleship - Starfleet doesn't like this term; just an oversized Cruiser
    Dreadnaught - this is nothing more than the older term for Battleships
    Carrier - game uses these as a variable; most are Sci-based, but some have Tac or Eng flavor; also these can be the Fleet version (two bays) or the light version (one-bay), and then the exceptions are the not Carriers but we threw a carrier-like ability to "sweeten" the sale

    Of course Battlecruiser is a favorite term for KDF Cruisers since they are more Tac-oriented, but such terms don't mean much more than extra firepower in a Cruiser design.

    Too many terms just pigeon-holes the game and makes balancing even more impossible, so keeping it simple will just helps make the game easier to balance... Escort, Cruiser, Science.

    I like how you inserted the starfleet mission profiles for each class of ship. Not to worry anyway because to change the classifications of the ships would require a total game change and I don't see Cryptic doing that.
  • markhawkmanmarkhawkman Member Posts: 35,231 Arc User
    edited March 2014
    Meh.. it doesn't make a lot of difference what names are used anyways.... To a certain extent the real-world names are arbitrary anyways.

    The simplest way to define it is to look at what the primary focus of the ship's systems is. At VA level each ship has one station that's commander level(in the case of the Dyson ships this can change in combat but it only has one at a time), thus each ship can be said to have a focus of science, engineering, or tactical. Of course what that goes along with varies greatly. Not all tac focused ships have 7 weapons, not all Eng focused ships have 8 weapons.
    -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
    My character Tsin'xing
    Costume_marhawkman_Tsin%27xing_CC_Comic_Page_Blue_488916968.jpg
  • warmaker001bwarmaker001b Member Posts: 9,204 Arc User
    edited March 2014
    Because escort (damage dealer), science (support) and cruiser (tank) is typical MMO style, makes more sense and is more IP related than small, medium and large which really makes no sense and tell us nothing.

    Actually, the train of thought for "small, medium, and large" in classification and power for Star Trek makes a whole lot of sense.

    In short, the bigger the ship, the more powerful it was. In terms of defense, staying power, firepower. The only ship that broke the rule in the TV shows and movies is the USS Plot Armor (Defiant).

    Cruisers were the backbone of every fleet, but expensive. Smaller stuff like destroyers, frigates, etc. were smaller, fragile, less firepower, but far more cost effective and good enough in patrolling and keeping the peace within the borders.

    But in the end, if we're just talking about sheer power, Cruisers were it. "Battleships" and such were extremely, rarely shown in the TV shows & movies (Scimitar, Jem'Hadar Battleship... you never saw a JH Battleship blow up, etc). But Cruisers were more frequently found and were a sign of power... when someone was serious about something. When that exploration vessel or some patrol ship got taken out by something strange, dangerous, they sent... the USS Enterprise, always a Cruiser during its time of service.
    XzRTofz.gif
Sign In or Register to comment.