test content
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc

T6 excelsior

13»

Comments

  • adamkafeiadamkafei Member Posts: 6,539 Arc User
    edited March 2015
    The Defiant vs the Lakota is a deeply flawed argument, for one the crew of the Defiant were not willing to destroy a Federation ship, and the Lakota came off much worse than the Defiant.

    I would dispute that, we have a video, lets talk script here for a start. The Lakota with two shots reduced the Defiant's shields by 40%, this while shooting to disable. If we skip ahead a bit, it is stated that the Lakota had access to quantum torpedoes but her captain refuses to use them protesting "our orders were to disable the Defiant, not destroy it", this is backed up by Worf's statement later "The Lakota powered down their weapons and allowed us to pass" in other words the Lakota captain didn't want to destroy a Federation ship.

    If we go by casualties and fatalities (using script numbers for the Defiant crew and mem-A numbers for the Lakota crew as this isn't stated in the episode) that means the Defiant started with 50 crew members and the Lakota 750. Script states the Defiant suffered 2 fatalities and 7 casualties and that the Lakota had 24 casualties and no stated fatalities.

    So the Lakota lost 3.2% of her crew for the time it takes for them to recover, the Defiant on the other hand lost 14% of her crew until they recover and 4% permanently.

    The script doesn't state how much physical damage the ships suffered so we can't use that. Overall however going by the script and the numbers, it is reasonable to say the Lakota came off better than the Defiant and had the two ships been fighting to destroy rather than disable the Lakota would likely have been dead in the water with the Defiant either a burning wreak or outright destroyed thanks to the Lakota's additional size and resulting survivability.
    ZiOfChe.png?1
  • drakethewhitedrakethewhite Member Posts: 1,240 Arc User
    edited March 2015
    The Defiant vs the Lakota is a deeply flawed argument, for one the crew of the Defiant were not willing to destroy a Federation ship, and the Lakota came off much worse than the Defiant.

    Nor was the Lakota. It was specifically targeting weapons and going for a disable- in the end she refused orders to destroy the Defiant.

    That means, fair fight. And the Defiant only did as well as it did due to it's called out Ablative Armor (pity it doesn't have that in this game except in name only).

    The comparative damage was covered by adamkafei and from what was said in the show, the Defiant was taking the worse of the exchange despite its armor advantage.
  • edited March 2015
    This content has been removed.
  • drakethewhitedrakethewhite Member Posts: 1,240 Arc User
    edited March 2015
    jellico1 wrote: »


    True

    Whatever you could pack into a Defiant you could pack 5x as much into a Excelsior simply because you have more room

    Size matters........Ask your wife/girlfriend :P

    You know, I wish that was true. But it doesn't really seem to be.

    I mean it's clear that the cruisers had far more space given over to engines and warp core than the entire displacement of the Defiant or a Runabout. One would expect massive advantages in power generation and even speed (on par with a modern Aircraft Carrier compared to its escorts for example, a CVA is capable of outrunning nearly anything else in the fleet).

    But that never seemed to be the case.

    Why wasn't it? Star Trek magic, it's not worth going into it more than that. From TNG on, just about any ship was on rough par with any other ship no matter what the design or size differences. Sadly, much like this game here except for the poor hated Connies.

    This of course is why skollulfr's rather lame attempt to apply today's logic to the question is so foolish. It clearly doesn't apply.
  • nickcastletonnickcastleton Member Posts: 1,212 Arc User
    edited March 2015
    adamkafei wrote: »

    The script doesn't state how much physical damage the ships suffered so we can't use that. Overall however going by the script and the numbers, it is reasonable to say the Lakota came off better than the Defiant and had the two ships been fighting to destroy rather than disable the Lakota would likely have been dead in the water with the Defiant either a burning wreak or outright destroyed thanks to the Lakota's additional size and resulting survivability.

    not precisely but it does
    DAX: Shields are almost gone. We have major systems failures on decks one, three and four.
    WORF: What about the Lakota?
    KIRA: They're in worse shape. One good hit will probably finish them.
    O'BRIEN: And kill everyone on board.
    WORF: That is not an option.
    KIRA: It's either them or us.
    O'BRIEN: Mister Worf, I think you should look at this.
    WORF: They have powered down their weapons. Hold your fire.
    DAX: Commander, they're hailing us.
    WORF: On screen.
    source http://www.chakoteya.net/ds9/484.htm and watch the episode if u dont trust it.

    While i agree that the Lakota was also trying to disable the Defiant (didn't word it properly in my original post) it deas seem that the Lakota was in worse shape even with the Defiant also holding back.

    But as i said it isn't a fair example cause there are 100s of different factors including plot armor of the Defiant.
    0bzJyzP.gif





    "It appears we have lost our sex appeal, captain."- Tuvok
  • adamkafeiadamkafei Member Posts: 6,539 Arc User
    edited March 2015
    not precisely but it does


    source http://www.chakoteya.net/ds9/484.htm and watch the episode if u dont trust it.

    While i agree that the Lakota was also trying to disable the Defiant (didn't word it properly in my original post) it deas seem that the Lakota was in worse shape even with the Defiant also holding back.

    But as i said it isn't a fair example cause there are 100s of different factors including plot armor of the Defiant.

    I thought there was a scene missing there, you've got me there and I agree that you can't really compare ships due to plot armour on one or other side.

    As to Skollulfr, I suppose you win based on leaving nothing for anyone to work with.
    ZiOfChe.png?1
  • drakethewhitedrakethewhite Member Posts: 1,240 Arc User
    edited March 2015
    But as i said it isn't a fair example cause there are 100s of different factors including plot armor of the Defiant.

    It's not plot armor. The Defiant has the better crew because of course our heroes are better than any Starfleet crew who aren't stars of the show.

    The key point here is that even with that factored in, it was a heck of a close fight.
  • jalina1982jalina1982 Member Posts: 11 Arc User
    edited March 2015
    Okay, now that everybody had his time arguing about whether or not there are real life technical issues preventing a T6 Excelsior from existing in a fantasy space ship game there's just one question left to be answered:

    When can i buy one?
  • drakethewhitedrakethewhite Member Posts: 1,240 Arc User
    edited March 2015
    jalina1982 wrote: »
    Okay, now that everybody had his time arguing about whether or not there are real life technical issues preventing a T6 Excelsior from existing in a fantasy space ship game there's just one question left to be answered:

    When can i buy one?

    I want a T6 Connie more :)
  • thegcbaconthegcbacon Member Posts: 434 Arc User
    edited March 2015
    It's not plot armor. The Defiant has the better crew because of course our heroes are better than any Starfleet crew who aren't stars of the show.

    The key point here is that even with that factored in, it was a heck of a close fight.

    Star Trek hero ships are all about plot armour, you really should rewatch all episodes & see it for yourself. If you still think otherwise then you can't be reasoned with.
  • nimbullnimbull Member Posts: 1,564 Arc User
    edited March 2015
    Nothing would get me rolling a Fed engineer and playing more again quicker then a T6 connie. :D
    Green people don't have to be.... little.
  • jermbotjermbot Member Posts: 801 Arc User
    edited March 2015
    nimbull wrote: »
    Nothing would get me rolling a Fed engineer and playing more again quicker then a T6 connie. :D

    Probably never going to happen. The last time the developers weighed in on the T6 Connie debate it was to explain that part of their IP Licensing agreement prevented them from establishing the Constitution as an end game ship.

    Now, because I highly doubt CBS made their decision based on how realistic it would be in an MMO, and more likely based it on marketing concerns and commitments for other developers using their Star Trek License, a certain film franchise using a Constitution variant for instance, I can't imagine that's changed at all. Sorry.
  • greyhame3greyhame3 Member Posts: 914 Arc User
    edited March 2015
    I'd definitely roll a Fed engineer for a T6 Excelsior. Though really it should get the Pathfinder treatment. A new ship with a new design that just happens to be able to use the older skins (this is also true for the Galaxy and Sovereign).

    Just need a reason for them to add one.
  • foxrockssocksfoxrockssocks Member Posts: 2,482 Arc User
    edited March 2015
    skollulfr wrote: »
    nothing in trek is post scarcity. all teh resources they are using need to be harvested. what it is, is a cheap energy society, with a tightly rationed, highly indoctrinated population.

    and even with that, the operational wear on the superstructure and hull will get to a point where discarding teh whole thing to replace it with a new one is inevitable.


    Matter-energy conversion is what makes replicators work, and as long as there is raw material and energy to convert it, there is nothing stopping them from taking weak sections of the hull, turning it into photons, and reassembling it into whatever molecular design they want. This is the kind of thing that would end metal fatigue by fixing the fractures and other imperfections that develop, with all the supporting technology to detect them. Wear and tear is not an issue at all because of these things. Scrapping an entire ship rather than reconstituting the parts that are in need of replacement is foolish.


    utterly and completly wrong. nuclear reactors put a very large point load in teh hulls of ships they are built into.
    they need to have structural reinforcment the entire length of the hull to prevent the ship getting split in half under its own stress in bad weather.

    Nothing is wrong about it. You can, with enough money and time, tear it apart, reinforce the hull, and put it back together again. It is generally impractical by modern standards, and easier to build a new ship. But these are rules that do not apply in 25th century. Even still, the Kittyhawk with its primitive propulsion was still capable of the same power projection.

    Let's look at another ship, though. The USS Nevada was a ship built before WW1. In its lifespan it went through two major modernizations that vastly changed the way it looked. Look at three different pictures from each period and you would not guess all three were the same ship.


    From Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Nevada_%28BB-36%29

    After the cruise, Nevada was modernized at the Norfolk Naval Shipyard between August 1927 and January 1930, with the exchange of her "basket" masts for tripod masts[55] and her steam turbines for those from the recently stricken battleship North Dakota. These were geared turbines that had been retrofitted to North Dakota in 1917, replacing her original direct drive turbines to increase her range.[56][18] Additionally, many different adaptations and additions were made: her main guns' elevation was increased to 30° (which upped the range of the guns from 23,000 yd (21,000 m) to 34,000 yd (31,100 m)), anti-torpedo bulges were added, her 12 original Yarrow boilers were replaced with 6 more efficient Bureau Express boilers in a new arrangement to accommodate those bulges, two catapults were added for three Vought O2U-3 Corsair biplane spotter aircraft,[57] eight 5 in (127 mm)/25 cal AA guns were added,[12] a new superstructure was installed, and her 5 inch (127 mm) 51 cal secondary battery was relocated above the hull[55] in an arrangement similar to that of the New Mexico class.[57] Nevada then served in the Pacific Fleet for the next eleven years.[55]
    Nevada was refloated on 12 February 1942 and underwent temporary repairs at Pearl Harbor so she could get to Puget Sound Navy Yard for a major overhaul and modernization.[69] This was completed in October 1942, and it changed the old battleship's appearance so that she slightly resembled the South Dakota-class battleships when seen from a distance.[70][71] Her 5"/51s and 5"/25s were replaced with sixteen 5"/38 caliber guns in new twin mounts.[12] Nevada then sailed for Alaska, where she provided fire support from 11–18 May 1943 for the capture of Attu.[1]


    Two major changes to the ship, its armaments, and its overall capabilities 15 years apart, and it would go on to survive two atomic tests as well. It was ultimately sunk by a torpedo after being used for target practice by a modern battleship that couldn't sink it either. Old, but modernized twice, and still capable of withstanding extreme punishment before sinking.

    And we can go even further back and look at the USS Merrimack and the CSS Virginia. Same ship rebuilt.

    Star Trek ships would see modernizing themselves, especially in a time of war, and could still be capable of facing down weapons that were not even conceived of in their day.


    except you can automatically set its weapons capability far below that of any array mounted ship due to thermal threshold of its weapons.
    the excel cant choose to use a different part of its array to avoid heat overload of its phasers(canon problem from yesterdays enterprise), since its only got turrets.
    and the hull is not designed to have phaser arrays mounted in it.


    There is nothing in yesterday's enterprise about weapon overheating. Even if there was, that is irrelevant, because...

    The entire concept of modernizing a ship means replacing outdated components with new ones. Vacuum tubes get replaced with CRT monitors get replaced with flatscreens. Copper telephone wire gets replaced with fiber optics. If old phasers are too much of a problem, they work out how to replace them with new ones if not re-engineer the old ones.

    The Nevada had its entire superstructure reworked to fit and launch aircraft, things that were barely useful when it was originally built. It had gun turrets replaced and rebuilt, propulsion system upgrades, gun mounts added. The end result is a ship in 1942 that looks nothing like the ship did in 1916, save for the hull.

    Why can the Excelsior not have these things done? Add phaser strips, shift the warp nacelles, change the deflector, whatever needs done. All of these are very much the sort of things we would do to a ship these days to modernize it. The Galaxy X was modernized with significant changes. The Galaxy from Yesterday's Enterprise would have had to be internally very different from the Galaxy from the main timeline just due to the different purpose of the ships, one a luxury cruise liner with families, and the other a warship housing thousands of troops.

    Of course, the only reason Star Trek ships look the way they do in the first place is for aesthetics. Yet the difference between a ST ship and a battleship is the fact of space, a spaceship has to be enclosed. The hull would get to stay largely the same, just like the Nevada's hull stayed largely the same. I'm sure some people would like to see an Excelsior with phaser strips, an upgraded deflector, and different nacelles perhaps. The Lakota had changes, there is no reason another round of upgrades can't be done as well.


    Put this in another context. DS9 showed us the need of keeping old ships in service for a big war. Updating them with more modern technologies is going to be a priority, especially now with the many STO wars. Rather than scrap them, they modernize them, repeatedly if necessary. Everything in canon, and our own history, points to the ability to do this. Everything in STO points to the need to do this.
  • mhall85mhall85 Member Posts: 2,852 Arc User1
    edited March 2015
    jermbot wrote: »
    a certain film franchise using a Constitution variant for instance

    Don't blame Abrams for that.

    The movies are run through Paramount. CBS has no say on what they do, or vise-versa.

    Besides, there are plenty of other references to Abrams' films in the game.
    d87926bd02aaa4eb12e2bb0fbc1f7061.jpg
  • drakethewhitedrakethewhite Member Posts: 1,240 Arc User
    edited March 2015
    jermbot wrote: »
    Probably never going to happen. The last time the developers weighed in on the T6 Connie debate it was to explain that part of their IP Licensing agreement prevented them from establishing the Constitution as an end game ship.

    Now, because I highly doubt CBS made their decision based on how realistic it would be in an MMO, and more likely based it on marketing concerns and commitments for other developers using their Star Trek License, a certain film franchise using a Constitution variant for instance, I can't imagine that's changed at all. Sorry.

    I'd pay for a T5-U, or even a T5 for that matter and thus no longer 'end-game'.
  • cidstormcidstorm Member Posts: 1,220 Arc User
    edited March 2015
    Anyone in here who thinks Cryptic won't try to make a quick buck with a tier 6 excelsior is delusional. The real question is whether or not it will come a few months before tier 7 hits.
  • jalina1982jalina1982 Member Posts: 11 Arc User
    edited March 2015
    I want a T6 Connie more :)


    I have no problem with that - you can even have yours first - it's my generous day :D
  • nimbullnimbull Member Posts: 1,564 Arc User
    edited March 2015
    jermbot wrote: »
    Probably never going to happen. The last time the developers weighed in on the T6 Connie debate it was to explain that part of their IP Licensing agreement prevented them from establishing the Constitution as an end game ship.

    Now, because I highly doubt CBS made their decision based on how realistic it would be in an MMO, and more likely based it on marketing concerns and commitments for other developers using their Star Trek License, a certain film franchise using a Constitution variant for instance, I can't imagine that's changed at all. Sorry.

    Suits me fine if they don't want more of my money.
    Green people don't have to be.... little.
Sign In or Register to comment.