This, pretty much. Especially when you're making something in fiction that already has established background and basic rules.
But their design is far from the only thing that is ludicrous. Another example is the lack of windows. There are living, breathing, sentient beings aboard those, right? So they're telling me the these living beings don't like gazing at the wonders of space and are perfectly content to stay locked in a submarine environment for months, even years in deep space, just because? Are these ships manned by droids?
And black hull....lol Yeah, nothing says "stealth" as black hull......with huge glowing stripes! :rolleyes: That's why the Klingons and Romulans painted all their ships bl.....oh wait! :eek:
Seriosuly, I apreciate the attempt for an explanation, but....lol
Ships have holodecks. They don't need windows. If they want to see how space is around them, they can just go to the Holodeck and use the ship's external sensor feed to get a neat impression.
Not to mention that not every crew man aboard a ship actually gets a room with a window.
I sympathize with their situation but way I see it before you were renting official star trek license and now you are not.
The cost of renting a few pixels on your screen could be rationalized with it being official design.
It cost money because it was a copyrighted product.
Just like the whole game could be aswell - everyone hates the story missions and forced to cope but at least flying a star trek ship, you could live with it.
Everyone hates the story missions?
I think you lost me there.
Star Trek Online Advancement: You start with lowbie gear, you end with Lobi gear.
Ships have holodecks. They don't need windows. If they want to see how space is around them, they can just go to the Holodeck and use the ship's external sensor feed to get a neat impression.
Not to mention that not every crew man aboard a ship actually gets a room with a window.
You kinda' missed my point. They justify starships that could spend years in space not having windows with a pharse like "Stealth jet fighters barely have windows". I can't even start to explain how dumb that sounds to me. It's on the same level of dumb with Starfleet comissioning a DSD with alien interiors. :rolleyes:
Every crewman aboard probably/posibly doesn't get a room with window. But how much time do crewmen actually spend in their rooms anyway? We're speaking about the entire ship not getting any room with windows.
And your comment about the holodecks is waaaay off. Every ship built since the TNG era, and probably even in the "lost" era had holodecks. Yet, all those ships had windows.
You're trying to make sense from something that wasn't concieved with any to begin with. Starships in outer space not having windows because they are suposed to be "intel" and rely on subterfuge is nothing more that a weak justification attempt for a decision made based on "TRIBBLE that, this looks cooler to me this way!".
I concur with mustrumridcully0. If they wish to provide the crew a view of outer-space - less the structural weaknesses that are windows - then they can just use holography to project a view of space within crew quarters, lounges and conference rooms.
Heck, the Eclipse does not have a visible bridge. I know one of my fleetmates Yuzral would approve, because dorsally-mounted bridge were a blatant weakpoint.
Also, we draw inspirations from many things, and modern design is one of them. Right now, following the lines of stealth-planes and lamborghini cars is the source of design cues... and honestly, I model spaceships and it's the same for me. It's not a question of what would be truly futuristic becase - hey - we actually have no idea how things will be in 3 centuries. All we have to go on is the art of today.
So, in general, I frown on nitpicking just for the sake of nitpicking. I actually very much doubt anyone here could actually design a stealth-variant shape language much better. And people are being waaay too hung up on ships which are admitted to be the exception to the rule.
You kinda' missed my point. They justify starships that could spend years in space not having windows with a pharse like "Stealth jet fighters barely have windows". I can't even start to explain how dumb that sounds to me. It's on the same level of dumb with Starfleet comissioning a DSD with alien interiors. :rolleyes:
Then you don't seem to understand design work.
The goal of the ship's design is to sell you that it's a stealthy ship. Of course, they could just give it no model at all and say " The new Intelligence Ships are always cloaked", but that would not be much fun and cause gameplay problems.
Windows are structural weaknesses, and since they are transparent, they will always allow signals in some form getting out.
A ship like the Galaxy Class had windows. The Galaxy also had families aboard
It was not designed for "intelligence" operations, nor stealth, nor was it supposed to be a warship. It could fill in Intelligence Gathering (because it's a ship of exploration, and fancy sensors help gathering data) and the warship role, but that was a multi-purpose ship, and that will alway require compromises.
Star Trek Online Advancement: You start with lowbie gear, you end with Lobi gear.
No, I do not see the problem.
If you want official lore and official ships, TNG and TOS ares out on Blu Ray and digitally remastered now. I am really hoping DS9 gets the same treatment.
Cryptic has no choice but create new lore and new ships if they want to continue the show You don't have to like them all.
It's not like all of the official lore and ships were all well liked by every Trek fan.
I concur with mustrumridcully0. If they wish to provide the crew a view of outer-space - less the structural weaknesses that are windows - then they can just use holography to project a view of space within crew quarters, lounges and conference rooms.
1. Blast shutters.
2. As Star Trek has shown many times, without shields you're preety much a sitting duck anyway.
3. These ships are suposed to fill somekind of reconnaissance role, right? The complete vesrion of the explanation given in this thread even says that the nacelles on the cruiser a 4 and "flattened" in order for it to decrease the power signature traces, because these ships need to be left unnoticed. How does this go with every room aboard having holographic projections on the walls?
Heck, the Eclipse does not have a visible bridge. I know one of my fleetmates Yuzral would approve, because dorsally-mounted bridge were a blatant weakpoint.
Except in Star Trek it wasn't. That's the thing about fiction, the creators of it say what goes and how it works. Obviously it Star Trek it wasn't a weak point since not only the Federation ships were designed like this, but many other species' as well. BoP being one example.
You say you frown on nitpicking, but this is actual nitpicking right here. If we start to nitpick stuff like this, soon we may find out that ther's little if any logic behind a vast majority of ships and other stuff in ST.
Also, we draw inspirations from many things, and modern design is one of them. Right now, following the lines of stealth-planes and lamborghini cars is the source of design cues... and honestly, I model spaceships and it's the same for me. It's not a question of what would be truly futuristic becase - hey - we actually have no idea how things will be in 3 centuries. All we have to go on is the art of today.
Except we have, in this franchise at least. Because it's set in the future. And we've seen how the basic design elements and ideas of many major species in Star Trek look and feel like.
They're not projecting one POV on the future evoultion of Human technology here, they're making a Star Trek game. It has preety clear basic rules and guidelines.
So, in general, I frown on nitpicking just for the sake of nitpicking. I actually very much doubt anyone here could actually design a stealth-variant shape language much better. And people are being waaay too hung up on ships which are admitted to be the exception to the rule.
I'm not nitpicking for the sake of nitpicking. It may seem that way to some, but these directions they're taking lately really trouble me. I understand evolution and somewhat detering from the basic guidelines of Trek design in order to innovate, however when basic elements such as windows are left behind it just feels stupid.
I understand they're suposed to be "exception to the rule", although we're yet to see just how many of them there will be and how big portion of the roster they'll actually take. But now we have these "exceptions to the rule". Few months ago we had the Dyson "exceptons to the rule". So just how many "exceptions to the rule" will we have, before everyone forgets what the "rule" was?
Take this statement from the qoute in the OP for example:
"Their plating hints of some alien tech exchange. It has always been strange to me that somehow tech doesnt seem to cross over species in ST. Even on Earth what one product brand does influences the others. Im not saying this will be a trend in STO design, but something to think about as an open minded fan."
A signal for things to come? Being an open-minded fan is one thing, but people primarily came here to play a Star Trek game. If a TV show or a movie does this he speaks of here, it would be fine to implement such elements in a ST game. Untill then, the game should resemble what people have seen on the shows. Because at the end of the day if you start meshing things like this - primarily on visual level, cause that's the primary element people will notice, how will you be able to sell soemthing that doesn't look like ST as a ST product?
Yeah people came to play a Star Trek game, we want rigid adhearance to Arbitrary rules! not Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations...........( Obvious sarcasm is obvious)
These are the Voyages on the STO forum, the final frontier. Our continuing mission: to explore Pretentious Posts, to seek out new Overreactions and Misinformation , to boldly experience Cynicism like no man has before.......
Ok, something else to consider, which I haven't seen mentioned yet.
I assume, since these are standard faction ships they will have to use the standard interiors, correct?
That means the Captain's Quarters and "Ten Forward" lounge will have honkin huge windows and not match the exterior in any way thematically.
Haha, I'm willing to bet your right about that
Although you could make use of the Belfast Interior, if your lucky enough to have it
These are the Voyages on the STO forum, the final frontier. Our continuing mission: to explore Pretentious Posts, to seek out new Overreactions and Misinformation , to boldly experience Cynicism like no man has before.......
Ok, something else to consider, which I haven't seen mentioned yet.
I assume, since these are standard faction ships they will have to use the standard interiors, correct?
That means the Captain's Quarters and "Ten Forward" lounge will have honkin huge windows and not match the exterior in any way thematically.
In all fairness, you can have a big giant "window" that is actually a viewscreen which shows a projection of the exterior. You do not actually need it to be a real window.
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.
2. As Star Trek
has shown many times, without shields you're preety much a sitting duck anyway.
The Defiant showed that even without shields, a ship can take a beating.
3. These ships are suposed to fill somekind of reconnaissance role, right? The complete vesrion of the explanation given in this thread even says that the nacelles on the cruiser a 4 and "flattened" in order for it to decrease the power signature traces, because these ships need to be left unnoticed. How does this go with every room aboard having holographic projections on the walls?
How about Holo Windows that can be turned off?
Except in Star Trek it wasn't. That's the thing about fiction, the creators of it say what goes and how it works. Obviously it Star Trek it wasn't a weak point since not only the Federation ships were designed like this, but many other species' as well. BoP being one example.
You say you frown on nitpicking, but this is actual nitpicking right here. If we start to nitpick stuff like this, soon we may find out that ther's little if any logic behind a vast majority of ships and other stuff in ST.
Yes, so why do you get nitpicky when a ship doesn't have windows?
But now we have these "exceptions to the rule". Few months ago we had the Dyson "exceptons to the rule". So just how many "exceptions to the rule" will we have, before everyone forgets what the "rule" was?
And the Dyson Ship was also an exception to the rule. It was pretty explicit that it was heavily based on the technology found on the Dyson Sphere. (More below.)
Take this statement from the qoute in the OP for example:
"Their plating hints of some alien tech exchange. It has always been strange to me that somehow tech doesnt seem to cross over species in ST. Even on Earth what one product brand does influences the others. Im not saying this will be a trend in STO design, but something to think about as an open minded fan."
A signal for things to come? Being an open-minded fan is one thing, but people primarily came here to play a Star Trek game. If a TV show or a movie does this he speaks of here, it would be fine to implement such elements in a ST game. Untill then, the game should resemble what people have seen on the shows. Because at the end of the day if you start meshing things like this - primarily on visual level, cause that's the primary element people will notice, how will you be able to sell soemthing that doesn't look like ST as a ST product?
MAybe that makes me not a true Star Trek fan, but maybe I actually want to see Star Trek evolve, grow and dare to experiment?
But don't worry - if the players of this game don't want this kind of ships, the sales will show them, and they'll stop doing them. I didn't buy the Dyson Federation or Klingon ship because they were just ugly. I did buy the Romulan one however, because it actually looked cool. (It's shape is actually much better than many of the other Romulan designs in my opinion.)
Star Trek Online Advancement: You start with lowbie gear, you end with Lobi gear.
1. You can't do everything under cloak. The only "perfect" cloak we saw was in Nemesis (BLAH), and we don't know if that cloak is now standard (my guess is no). Color scheme aside, lower energy profiles, sensor-reflective hull plating... it's not that unbelievable.
2. They will likely release custom interiors for these ships. Think Dyson.
3. Speaking of Dyson, these ships look MUCH better to me than the Dyson ships.
4. "Intelligence" doesn't mean "corrupt spooking." More than likely, Kirk's mission in "The Enterprise Incident" was a mission from SFI, and even included some "snooping around." Why is it so hard to believe that one can't do secret work honorably? BECAUSE YOU CAN'T!!! SECRETS ARE EVIL!!! Please. This is such a naive view of the world, coming from the same man who believes children wouldn't morn for their parents' deaths in the future because "we evolved beyond that." *eye roll*
1. You can't do everything under cloak. The only "perfect" cloak we saw was in Nemesis (BLAH), and we don't know if that cloak is now standard (my guess is no). Color scheme aside, lower energy profiles, sensor-reflective hull plating... it's not that unbelievable.
2. They will likely release custom interiors for these ships. Think Dyson.
3. Speaking of Dyson, these ships look MUCH better to me than the Dyson ships.
4. "Intelligence" doesn't mean "corrupt spooking." More than likely, Kirk's mission in "The Enterprise Incident" was a mission from SFI, and even included some "snooping around." Why is it so hard to believe that one can't do secret work honorably? BECAUSE YOU CAN'T!!! SECRETS ARE EVIL!!! Please. This is such a naive view of the world, coming from the same man who believes children wouldn't morn for their parents' deaths in the future because "we evolved beyond that." *eye roll*
Secrets aren't evil, But evil Loves secrets, Secrecy shields Evil intent, cloaks it, allows it to grow and proceed, and to act without opposition
Theres a good reason people don't like secrets
These are the Voyages on the STO forum, the final frontier. Our continuing mission: to explore Pretentious Posts, to seek out new Overreactions and Misinformation , to boldly experience Cynicism like no man has before.......
Secrets aren't evil, But evil Loves secrets, Secrecy shields Evil intent, cloaks it, allows it to grow and proceed, and to act without opposition
Theres a good reason people don't like secrets
So, you want to undermine the entire concept behind "classified information"? Starfleet Intelligence should be headed by Buddy the Elf? "Secrets are not fun, unless they're shared with everyone"? This makes no sense, especially for a quasi-miliartistic organization based in a future where we've supposedly evolved past doing evil deeds.
And people don't like secrets because we're nosey and selfish, LOL.
So, you want to undermine the entire concept behind "classified information"? Starfleet Intelligence should be headed by Buddy the Elf? "Secrets are not fun, unless they're shared with everyone"? This makes no sense, especially for a quasi-miliartistic organization based in a future where we've supposedly evolved past doing evil deeds.
And people don't like secrets because we're nosey and selfish, LOL.
Oh of course Intelligence is by its nature dealing with secrets and classified Information
But part of the point of Section 31, the pegasus Incident and Insurrections plots is to point out the danger of secret operations, The lack of oversight is a significant problem, leading to organisatrions like Section 31 to exisit without significant opposition from the Federation Council or Starfleet command
On the one hand its portraying them as Necessary Evil, but on the other hand its showcasing Starfleet and the Federations lack of proper oversight into its own Intelligence affiars and it is either Unable or Unwilling to bring these Illegal actions to an end.
The fact is Illegal Operations are able to continue largely unapposed because they are maintained secret by the powers that be, The Federation council may or may not know, but the public citizens don't they have no democratic recourse to support or oppose Section 31, who break the law in their name
Who watches the watchers and all that stuff
And evolving past doing evil deeds? Thats a childish notion, Greed, ambition power, they are all abused, Its been done countless times in Trek, Trek even has a prominant entry for the Insane Admiral Trope http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/InsaneAdmiral "Really, the list of admirals in Star Trek who are not either insane or talking heads giving generic orders off a viewscreen is awfully short."
These are the Voyages on the STO forum, the final frontier. Our continuing mission: to explore Pretentious Posts, to seek out new Overreactions and Misinformation , to boldly experience Cynicism like no man has before.......
The goal of the ship's design is to sell you that it's a stealthy ship. Of course, they could just give it no model at all and say " The new Intelligence Ships are always cloaked", but that would not be much fun and cause gameplay problems.
Oh, I fully know how design works and what they're trying to sell me. (well ok, not me obviously) What I'm saying is that they're strongly overdoing it.
Windows are structural weaknesses, and since they are transparent, they will always allow signals in some form getting out.
This makes no sense in relation to Star Trek. It has been shown many times over that Romulans and Klingons relied on subterfuge, being cloaked and unnoticed in order to have an upper hand and the element of suprise, yet all their ships had windows. Just look at the D'Deridex. If signals were getting out as you assume, then Picard would've lol'd every time someone told him - "Captain, a cloaked warbird is closing in on our position. They'll be here in few hours. The idiots think they're cloaked, but we registered the signal of Radio Romulus thorugh their Commander's window". :P
A ship like the Galaxy Class had windows. The Galaxy also had families aboard
It was not designed for "intelligence" operations, nor stealth, nor was it supposed to be a warship. It could fill in Intelligence Gathering (because it's a ship of exploration, and fancy sensors help gathering data) and the warship role, but that was a multi-purpose ship, and that will alway require compromises.
This makes even less sense. So what you're saying is that a ship of the line, stuffed with families, intended to venture into the unknown of deep space on long term missions on it's own, without a cloak can afford to have "structural weaknesses" like windows, but this stealthy thing that has a cloak, is intended for reconnaissance and designed around the notion to lurk around without ever being noticed and forced to engage in combat can't?
Yeah people came to play a Star Trek game, we want rigid adhearance to Arbitrary rules! not Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations...........( Obvious sarcasm is obvious)
No need for sarcasm. I wrote an entire paragraph to clearly explain that my point is not against broadening and evolution, so I have no idea how your radar missed that.
The only thing I'm saying is that if they start to change too many things too significantly, we'll come to a point where this game is unreckognizable as a Star Trek product.
Yes, so why do you get nitpicky when a ship doesn't have windows?
Well truth be told, I didn't become nitpicky because the ship doesn't have windows. I just said that to me it's a stupid decision. I became nitpicky because after I said that, people started trying to grasp at straws and convince me how it's now "logical" for ships to not have any windows.
And the Dyson Ship was also an exception to the rule. It was pretty explicit that it was heavily based on the technology found on the Dyson Sphere. (More below.)
MAybe that makes me not a true Star Trek fan, but maybe I actually want to see Star Trek evolve, grow and dare to experiment?
This has nothing to do with "true" and "untrue" Star Trek fans, so please don't try to apply a "no true Scotsman fallacy" victimization here.
I'll repeat it again - I wrote an entire paragraph before where I explained that I'm not against growing and evolution, but I guess people pay attention only to what they want to read. What troubles me is that we could achieve such a divergence from the actual ST on TV, that if a ST fan that for the sake of discussion lived in a cave for some time, finally finds out and wants to try STO 2-3 years from now - he won't be able to reckognize anything Trek in this game.
But don't worry - if the players of this game don't want this kind of ships, the sales will show them, and they'll stop doing them. I didn't buy the Dyson Federation or Klingon ship because they were just ugly. I did buy the Romulan one however, because it actually looked cool. (It's shape is actually much better than many of the other Romulan designs in my opinion.)
That is a very narrow view to have, especially in a F2P environment where there are no entry fees. Not all players that play STO are Trekkies or even ST fans and they can demand and even invest money in anything, including battlemechs, flying space unicorns or magic wands. That's why I consider it the game studio's responsibility to be sensible in terms of what is on demand and what they sell. Because people that play STO don't have the big Star Trek logo over their heads, but Cryptic does over their game.
So is demanding that a 2-300 year old ship be retrofitted for every new advance in tech, yet this still happens on a daily basis on the forum!
Some may, I never have. As I stated elsewhere, the concepts of physics and stealth as we understand them and design for today, may or may not, probably not, continue to have any relevance 4-500 yrs from now.
Designing your ship(s) as if modern day concepts of stealth still apply, is ludicrous. I mean, since you know, cloaking technology has pretty much rendered them all obsolete and irrelevant.
If you want to design true "stealth" ships for the ST era, look at how cloaking devices work and design to play to those concepts, not angular refraction of directed radiation beams like we do now,... the idea is, well, ludicrous.
Remember, "Some things are true, whether you believe them or not."
"Go play with your DPS in the corner, I don't care how big it is." ~ Me "There... are... four... lights!" ~Jean Luc Picard
Some may, I never have. As I stated elsewhere, the concepts of physics and stealth as we understand them and design for today, may or may not, probably not, continue to have any relevance 4-500 yrs from now.
Designing your ship(s) as if modern day concepts of stealth still apply, is ludicrous. I mean, since you know, cloaking technology has pretty much rendered them all obsolete and irrelevant.
If you want to design true "stealth" ships for the ST era, look at how cloaking devices work and design to play to those concepts, not angular refraction of directed radiation beams like we do now,... the idea is, well, ludicrous.
Remember, "Some things are true, whether you believe them or not."
At the minimum, it is obviously helpful for your cloaking device if your warp engines do not radiate as much as they normally do. So the Quad Nacelles seem to make sense. There was even a TNG episode ("Tin Man") that involved a Romulan Warbird basically running their engines beyond specification, leading to their cloak being a lot less effective.
The No-Window thing may also be related to something else entirely - aside from being a design cue from modern Stealth ships - it means more of the ship's surface can serve as an antenna or sensor surface. A ship running a cloaking device might find this still very interesting, because it allows them to passively detect other ships without sending active signals. And so windows were sacrificed.
It could also be that the surface material of these ships assists the cloaking abilities. (Maybe the Romulans and Klingons don't see a need for such fancy pants tech because their cloaking technology is more advanced - or they simply haven't developed such material yet.).
The shape of the ship can also be quite important in determining how it appears on active sensor scans, even if those scans are made with Applied Plebotonium instead of Radar signals. 4
Star Trek Online Advancement: You start with lowbie gear, you end with Lobi gear.
A modern stealth fighter, if you took it into space, would be easily identifiable. 'Stealth' just doesn't work very well in space. It works well in atmosphere, but the same conditions do not exist in the same manner in space. There have been articles written about this topic.
Star Trek Stealth works in a completely different way than conventional stealth, which should be evident every time a D'deridex, B'rel, Galaxy X etc cloaks itself. Slapping modern cloaking tech onto a trek ship is not only redundant, but utilizing obsolete technology (that wouldn't work very well in space in the first place).
I'm not convinced that using four half-power nacelles would make any difference compared to two full-powered ones. in regards to detection.
If Cryptic wanted to make futuristic trek designs inspired by stealth aircraft, they would have been better off going with something inspired by the likes of the Blackbird instead of the Nighthawk-just look at the Wells if you need inspiration.
What really gets me is they make a big deal about the cloak (and the stealth look in the OP) then also make a big deal about the powerful active sensor suite...
Because nothing says "stealth" like broadcasting your location with a powerful transmitter.
I'm aware that tech may change, but they decided to use modern english, and "active sensor" has a specific meaning in english.
1. It's not really a fact that these ships are ugly; opinions are different after all. Plus, first impressions about the Galaxy's premiere were full of hate and ugly, just like now - that did change overtime. Not for everyone of course, but some warmed up to them, some still loved them as they do now, and others will still hate them; nothing new here for the T6 ships except for time
2. The same general principle (first reactions/emotions overshadowing things) applies to the reactions about the explanation. Therefore those who hate them and/or have cynicism in general currently only see what they want to see, instead of objectively, least for now
3. The T6 ships are purposefully un-Trek, because the ships serve an attempted stealth purpose, which as stated isn't the normal Federation approach - but it still has not/will not overtake the usual aesthetic (gameplay not included). So you can't truly hold them to the usual standards in this case
And on a side note, the 'Tron' lights were considered for gameplay, so we could see the ships in space; they know it doesn't help for their expressed purpose, but it still matters.
Was named Trek17.
Been playing STO since Open Beta, and have never regarded anything as worse than 'meh', if only due to personal standards.
The thing that most people are overlooking was that these ships are being designed for a Stealth purpose. Which makes me wonder if a lot of Delta's content is going to require a lot of cloak & dagger stuff to max potential of success. Romulans will be well-prepared for this sort of thing but Klinks & Feds may have to adapt and think like Romulans there.
And doesn't the Treaty of Algeron strictly forbid the Federation from developing let alone using it's own Cloaking tech (the Defiant's case was a rare exception, and was used under strict Romulan conditions and only by a Romulan operator. Once it was damaged beyond repair at the start of the Klingon invasion of Cardassia it became moot)? Unless there's some mention in the game that the Republic is providing the actual cloaking hardware and waiving that Treaty provision, I'm sticking to geek canon.
While I think the rationale behind the designs is ludicrous, I could and probably will be able to live with them IF I can use other hull materials on them. That dark "scale" style, doesn't sit right with me. Same reason I don't and won't own any of the Dyson ships. I cannot stand and will not be locked into that "one skin fits all" mentality.
"Go play with your DPS in the corner, I don't care how big it is." ~ Me "There... are... four... lights!" ~Jean Luc Picard
And on a side note, the 'Tron' lights were considered for gameplay, so we could see the ships in space; they know it doesn't help for their expressed purpose, but it still matters.
The same reason why an F-117 fighter still has navigation lights. It can be seen at night, but only when it wants to be seen.
A nice feature for these ships would be the ability to turn off the Tron lighting if the player wants to really make themselves hard to see, especially in PVP.
I was one of the people ripping on the look of these ships... I still can't say I'm a big fan, but I see where he's coming from.
It would have been good to at least have some explanation of what they were all about, beyond just slapping the word "intelligence" on them. I just don't see how the storyline leads to needing stealthy ships, considering there are already cloaking devices all over the place.
Anyway I can deal with a few funny looking ships, just don't make the classics obsolete >.<
Comments
We made them black so they are thematically hard to see.
Then we added the glowing Tron stripes, because players could not see them anymore. Make up your mind.
Mine Trap Supporter
wait...
Not to mention that not every crew man aboard a ship actually gets a room with a window.
Everyone hates the story missions?
I think you lost me there.
Are you seriously trying to compare the magnitude of the water portion on our planet with the entire galaxy??? :eek:
*facepalm* @ ships not needeing windows.
You kinda' missed my point. They justify starships that could spend years in space not having windows with a pharse like "Stealth jet fighters barely have windows". I can't even start to explain how dumb that sounds to me. It's on the same level of dumb with Starfleet comissioning a DSD with alien interiors. :rolleyes:
Every crewman aboard probably/posibly doesn't get a room with window. But how much time do crewmen actually spend in their rooms anyway? We're speaking about the entire ship not getting any room with windows.
And your comment about the holodecks is waaaay off. Every ship built since the TNG era, and probably even in the "lost" era had holodecks. Yet, all those ships had windows.
You're trying to make sense from something that wasn't concieved with any to begin with. Starships in outer space not having windows because they are suposed to be "intel" and rely on subterfuge is nothing more that a weak justification attempt for a decision made based on "TRIBBLE that, this looks cooler to me this way!".
Heck, the Eclipse does not have a visible bridge. I know one of my fleetmates Yuzral would approve, because dorsally-mounted bridge were a blatant weakpoint.
Also, we draw inspirations from many things, and modern design is one of them. Right now, following the lines of stealth-planes and lamborghini cars is the source of design cues... and honestly, I model spaceships and it's the same for me. It's not a question of what would be truly futuristic becase - hey - we actually have no idea how things will be in 3 centuries. All we have to go on is the art of today.
So, in general, I frown on nitpicking just for the sake of nitpicking. I actually very much doubt anyone here could actually design a stealth-variant shape language much better. And people are being waaay too hung up on ships which are admitted to be the exception to the rule.
The goal of the ship's design is to sell you that it's a stealthy ship. Of course, they could just give it no model at all and say " The new Intelligence Ships are always cloaked", but that would not be much fun and cause gameplay problems.
Windows are structural weaknesses, and since they are transparent, they will always allow signals in some form getting out.
A ship like the Galaxy Class had windows. The Galaxy also had families aboard
It was not designed for "intelligence" operations, nor stealth, nor was it supposed to be a warship. It could fill in Intelligence Gathering (because it's a ship of exploration, and fancy sensors help gathering data) and the warship role, but that was a multi-purpose ship, and that will alway require compromises.
It takes a very na
1. Blast shutters.
2. As Star Trek has shown many times, without shields you're preety much a sitting duck anyway.
3. These ships are suposed to fill somekind of reconnaissance role, right? The complete vesrion of the explanation given in this thread even says that the nacelles on the cruiser a 4 and "flattened" in order for it to decrease the power signature traces, because these ships need to be left unnoticed. How does this go with every room aboard having holographic projections on the walls?
Except in Star Trek it wasn't. That's the thing about fiction, the creators of it say what goes and how it works. Obviously it Star Trek it wasn't a weak point since not only the Federation ships were designed like this, but many other species' as well. BoP being one example.
You say you frown on nitpicking, but this is actual nitpicking right here. If we start to nitpick stuff like this, soon we may find out that ther's little if any logic behind a vast majority of ships and other stuff in ST.
Except we have, in this franchise at least. Because it's set in the future. And we've seen how the basic design elements and ideas of many major species in Star Trek look and feel like.
They're not projecting one POV on the future evoultion of Human technology here, they're making a Star Trek game. It has preety clear basic rules and guidelines.
I'm not nitpicking for the sake of nitpicking. It may seem that way to some, but these directions they're taking lately really trouble me. I understand evolution and somewhat detering from the basic guidelines of Trek design in order to innovate, however when basic elements such as windows are left behind it just feels stupid.
I understand they're suposed to be "exception to the rule", although we're yet to see just how many of them there will be and how big portion of the roster they'll actually take. But now we have these "exceptions to the rule". Few months ago we had the Dyson "exceptons to the rule". So just how many "exceptions to the rule" will we have, before everyone forgets what the "rule" was?
Take this statement from the qoute in the OP for example:
"Their plating hints of some alien tech exchange. It has always been strange to me that somehow tech doesnt seem to cross over species in ST. Even on Earth what one product brand does influences the others. Im not saying this will be a trend in STO design, but something to think about as an open minded fan."
A signal for things to come? Being an open-minded fan is one thing, but people primarily came here to play a Star Trek game. If a TV show or a movie does this he speaks of here, it would be fine to implement such elements in a ST game. Untill then, the game should resemble what people have seen on the shows. Because at the end of the day if you start meshing things like this - primarily on visual level, cause that's the primary element people will notice, how will you be able to sell soemthing that doesn't look like ST as a ST product?
I assume, since these are standard faction ships they will have to use the standard interiors, correct?
That means the Captain's Quarters and "Ten Forward" lounge will have honkin huge windows and not match the exterior in any way thematically.
Haha, I'm willing to bet your right about that
Although you could make use of the Belfast Interior, if your lucky enough to have it
The Defiant showed that even without shields, a ship can take a beating.
How about Holo Windows that can be turned off?
Yes, so why do you get nitpicky when a ship doesn't have windows?
And the Dyson Ship was also an exception to the rule. It was pretty explicit that it was heavily based on the technology found on the Dyson Sphere. (More below.)
MAybe that makes me not a true Star Trek fan, but maybe I actually want to see Star Trek evolve, grow and dare to experiment?
But don't worry - if the players of this game don't want this kind of ships, the sales will show them, and they'll stop doing them. I didn't buy the Dyson Federation or Klingon ship because they were just ugly. I did buy the Romulan one however, because it actually looked cool. (It's shape is actually much better than many of the other Romulan designs in my opinion.)
1. You can't do everything under cloak. The only "perfect" cloak we saw was in Nemesis (BLAH), and we don't know if that cloak is now standard (my guess is no). Color scheme aside, lower energy profiles, sensor-reflective hull plating... it's not that unbelievable.
2. They will likely release custom interiors for these ships. Think Dyson.
3. Speaking of Dyson, these ships look MUCH better to me than the Dyson ships.
4. "Intelligence" doesn't mean "corrupt spooking." More than likely, Kirk's mission in "The Enterprise Incident" was a mission from SFI, and even included some "snooping around." Why is it so hard to believe that one can't do secret work honorably? BECAUSE YOU CAN'T!!! SECRETS ARE EVIL!!! Please. This is such a naive view of the world, coming from the same man who believes children wouldn't morn for their parents' deaths in the future because "we evolved beyond that." *eye roll*
Secrets aren't evil, But evil Loves secrets, Secrecy shields Evil intent, cloaks it, allows it to grow and proceed, and to act without opposition
Theres a good reason people don't like secrets
So is demanding that a 2-300 year old ship be retrofitted for every new advance in tech, yet this still happens on a daily basis on the forum!
So, you want to undermine the entire concept behind "classified information"? Starfleet Intelligence should be headed by Buddy the Elf? "Secrets are not fun, unless they're shared with everyone"? This makes no sense, especially for a quasi-miliartistic organization based in a future where we've supposedly evolved past doing evil deeds.
And people don't like secrets because we're nosey and selfish, LOL.
Oh of course Intelligence is by its nature dealing with secrets and classified Information
But part of the point of Section 31, the pegasus Incident and Insurrections plots is to point out the danger of secret operations, The lack of oversight is a significant problem, leading to organisatrions like Section 31 to exisit without significant opposition from the Federation Council or Starfleet command
On the one hand its portraying them as Necessary Evil, but on the other hand its showcasing Starfleet and the Federations lack of proper oversight into its own Intelligence affiars and it is either Unable or Unwilling to bring these Illegal actions to an end.
The fact is Illegal Operations are able to continue largely unapposed because they are maintained secret by the powers that be, The Federation council may or may not know, but the public citizens don't they have no democratic recourse to support or oppose Section 31, who break the law in their name
Who watches the watchers and all that stuff
And evolving past doing evil deeds? Thats a childish notion, Greed, ambition power, they are all abused, Its been done countless times in Trek, Trek even has a prominant entry for the Insane Admiral Trope http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/InsaneAdmiral
"Really, the list of admirals in Star Trek who are not either insane or talking heads giving generic orders off a viewscreen is awfully short."
Oh, I fully know how design works and what they're trying to sell me. (well ok, not me obviously
This makes no sense in relation to Star Trek. It has been shown many times over that Romulans and Klingons relied on subterfuge, being cloaked and unnoticed in order to have an upper hand and the element of suprise, yet all their ships had windows. Just look at the D'Deridex. If signals were getting out as you assume, then Picard would've lol'd every time someone told him - "Captain, a cloaked warbird is closing in on our position. They'll be here in few hours. The idiots think they're cloaked, but we registered the signal of Radio Romulus thorugh their Commander's window". :P
This makes even less sense. So what you're saying is that a ship of the line, stuffed with families, intended to venture into the unknown of deep space on long term missions on it's own, without a cloak can afford to have "structural weaknesses" like windows, but this stealthy thing that has a cloak, is intended for reconnaissance and designed around the notion to lurk around without ever being noticed and forced to engage in combat can't?
No need for sarcasm. I wrote an entire paragraph to clearly explain that my point is not against broadening and evolution, so I have no idea how your radar missed that.
The only thing I'm saying is that if they start to change too many things too significantly, we'll come to a point where this game is unreckognizable as a Star Trek product.
Well truth be told, I didn't become nitpicky because the ship doesn't have windows. I just said that to me it's a stupid decision. I became nitpicky because after I said that, people started trying to grasp at straws and convince me how it's now "logical" for ships to not have any windows.
That's what I said as well.
This has nothing to do with "true" and "untrue" Star Trek fans, so please don't try to apply a "no true Scotsman fallacy" victimization here.
I'll repeat it again - I wrote an entire paragraph before where I explained that I'm not against growing and evolution, but I guess people pay attention only to what they want to read. What troubles me is that we could achieve such a divergence from the actual ST on TV, that if a ST fan that for the sake of discussion lived in a cave for some time, finally finds out and wants to try STO 2-3 years from now - he won't be able to reckognize anything Trek in this game.
That is a very narrow view to have, especially in a F2P environment where there are no entry fees. Not all players that play STO are Trekkies or even ST fans and they can demand and even invest money in anything, including battlemechs, flying space unicorns or magic wands. That's why I consider it the game studio's responsibility to be sensible in terms of what is on demand and what they sell. Because people that play STO don't have the big Star Trek logo over their heads, but Cryptic does over their game.
Some may, I never have. As I stated elsewhere, the concepts of physics and stealth as we understand them and design for today, may or may not, probably not, continue to have any relevance 4-500 yrs from now.
Designing your ship(s) as if modern day concepts of stealth still apply, is ludicrous. I mean, since you know, cloaking technology has pretty much rendered them all obsolete and irrelevant.
If you want to design true "stealth" ships for the ST era, look at how cloaking devices work and design to play to those concepts, not angular refraction of directed radiation beams like we do now,... the idea is, well, ludicrous.
Remember, "Some things are true, whether you believe them or not."
"There... are... four... lights!" ~Jean Luc Picard
At the minimum, it is obviously helpful for your cloaking device if your warp engines do not radiate as much as they normally do. So the Quad Nacelles seem to make sense. There was even a TNG episode ("Tin Man") that involved a Romulan Warbird basically running their engines beyond specification, leading to their cloak being a lot less effective.
The No-Window thing may also be related to something else entirely - aside from being a design cue from modern Stealth ships - it means more of the ship's surface can serve as an antenna or sensor surface. A ship running a cloaking device might find this still very interesting, because it allows them to passively detect other ships without sending active signals. And so windows were sacrificed.
It could also be that the surface material of these ships assists the cloaking abilities. (Maybe the Romulans and Klingons don't see a need for such fancy pants tech because their cloaking technology is more advanced - or they simply haven't developed such material yet.).
The shape of the ship can also be quite important in determining how it appears on active sensor scans, even if those scans are made with Applied Plebotonium instead of Radar signals. 4
Star Trek Stealth works in a completely different way than conventional stealth, which should be evident every time a D'deridex, B'rel, Galaxy X etc cloaks itself. Slapping modern cloaking tech onto a trek ship is not only redundant, but utilizing obsolete technology (that wouldn't work very well in space in the first place).
I'm not convinced that using four half-power nacelles would make any difference compared to two full-powered ones. in regards to detection.
If Cryptic wanted to make futuristic trek designs inspired by stealth aircraft, they would have been better off going with something inspired by the likes of the Blackbird instead of the Nighthawk-just look at the Wells if you need inspiration.
Because nothing says "stealth" like broadcasting your location with a powerful transmitter.
I'm aware that tech may change, but they decided to use modern english, and "active sensor" has a specific meaning in english.
1. It's not really a fact that these ships are ugly; opinions are different after all. Plus, first impressions about the Galaxy's premiere were full of hate and ugly, just like now - that did change overtime. Not for everyone of course, but some warmed up to them, some still loved them as they do now, and others will still hate them; nothing new here for the T6 ships except for time
2. The same general principle (first reactions/emotions overshadowing things) applies to the reactions about the explanation. Therefore those who hate them and/or have cynicism in general currently only see what they want to see, instead of objectively, least for now
3. The T6 ships are purposefully un-Trek, because the ships serve an attempted stealth purpose, which as stated isn't the normal Federation approach - but it still has not/will not overtake the usual aesthetic (gameplay not included). So you can't truly hold them to the usual standards in this case
And on a side note, the 'Tron' lights were considered for gameplay, so we could see the ships in space; they know it doesn't help for their expressed purpose, but it still matters.
Been playing STO since Open Beta, and have never regarded anything as worse than 'meh', if only due to personal standards.
And doesn't the Treaty of Algeron strictly forbid the Federation from developing let alone using it's own Cloaking tech (the Defiant's case was a rare exception, and was used under strict Romulan conditions and only by a Romulan operator. Once it was damaged beyond repair at the start of the Klingon invasion of Cardassia it became moot)? Unless there's some mention in the game that the Republic is providing the actual cloaking hardware and waiving that Treaty provision, I'm sticking to geek canon.
"There... are... four... lights!" ~Jean Luc Picard
The same reason why an F-117 fighter still has navigation lights. It can be seen at night, but only when it wants to be seen.
A nice feature for these ships would be the ability to turn off the Tron lighting if the player wants to really make themselves hard to see, especially in PVP.
It would have been good to at least have some explanation of what they were all about, beyond just slapping the word "intelligence" on them. I just don't see how the storyline leads to needing stealthy ships, considering there are already cloaking devices all over the place.
Anyway I can deal with a few funny looking ships, just don't make the classics obsolete >.<