Imagine playing a game in which the sole idea is peace keeping? rofl... As several Borg cubes fire on everyone's ship, I can only imagine players opening hailing frequencies and saying, "How about a hug?"
"Resistance is futile. We will add your infinite styles of hugs to our own."
oohh i would i would *jumps up and down* i would give them hug oh yes lots and lots of torpedo hugs ^_^
Sure the Scimitar is a Dreadnought but for such a big ship it is Op in this categorie comparable to all other ships. Good turnrate, Commander Tactical, 5 front weapons, 5 tactical Slots, 1 Hangar bay, cloaking device, talaron burst and good defense. This ship outdamaging escorts in no time if you know what you are doing but thats not part of the discussion.
If you start to talk about op in different ship classes such discussions never take an end.
Im talk about cryin because of shield modifer of 0.1 Advantage a discussion that starts because starfleet gets a new ship and kdf not. Players get jealous and search for Advantages then the word Overpowerd raises to the sky and nerfs getting started.
Like i said before every faction has their ships with their own Advantages and get new ones with new advanteges. If they get nerfed because of such reasons, ruins the Quality of game Content for all Players. And yes as a Starfleet Cruiser it is really strong but Overall not class specific no, Overall it has only an Advantage like many other ships. Thats like it should be if all where the same it goes boring.
Btw: I dont like some parts of the design aswell, mainly the nacelles but its ok. I dont like eve onlines ships because of the asymmetric design but you learn to like it
they arent using copper wires, they are using plasma magnetically contained in a conduit. bleed? clearly not much, at doesn't take many watts to create light like that, and the heat is magnetically contained. its the 24th century, they dont got to explain TRIBBLE. it works the way they outlined, period. it makes sense considering thier tech, you just dont like it. go ahead and come up with an explanation that makes more sense.
it is described that each emitter holds its own energy, and is its own capacitor. that is why they are able to hand it off. they dont generate it, but theres a large EPS trunk every ~10 or so emitters, and from there each emitter gets piped its own power. with such an unrestricted flow of plasma, its easy to see why they have the rate of fire that they do. they can only pass down what they first store per shot, they cant store an unlimited amount, thats why the more emitters hooked together the better. thats why smaller arrays cant compete, and we know they cant compete because they are never used if a larger array has a shot.
I don't really care about the rest of this, because basically my only point was that you can't know one way or the other how Star Trek ships are "really" built, since they aren't, you know, real. Broadly, my point is (as it has always been) that you aren't "right" about the "facts" you make up, because they are just assumptions in service to your aesthetic preferences. You are entitled to those, of course, they just have no more cachet than my opinions, especially since I'm at least as good at rationalizing my assumptions as you are.
That said, what you are NOT entitled to is spreading bad science. This whole phaser strip thing is literally anti-science. This isn't even a case of "well, it's plausible either way, so we can agree to disagree". It's simply a provably nonsensical proposition, exactly as if Okuda had said the Enterprise D is "faster in a dive" because of its front-heavy construction. Seriously, it's that bad.
Let me break it down -
First, the nature of the energy system is totally irrelevant to my point here. ANY energy transfer is going to be less than 100% efficient - meaning at least a tiny fraction of the energy is lost as heat. This is basic thermodynamics, and we know from events on the show that this still holds true. They talk about overheating and burning out conduits and emitters, LaForge is always trying to improve the eps efficiency, etc. We know that the power transfer isn't perfect, in other words. Even if the transfer was 100% efficient, that doesn't ADD power, it merely keeps it at the same level. The fact that they are described as capacitors just makes this even more clear - as I said, the only way more phaser emitters actually adds power is if each emitter is a generator, which you've already said is not the case. (As an aside, here's how ludicrous this is - if they have 100% or greater efficiency in their energy transfers, they have either perpetual motion machines, or an infinitely capable energy source.)
Second, the idea that each emitter is a capacitor with a limited capacity to hold charge again doesn't make a longer array more powerful than (say) building one really high capacity capacitor and pushing all that power through a single emitter. In fact, assuming the internal resistance of the capacitor was lower than the resistance of the eps conduits (which seems almost certain, since otherwise why are you using that material as a capacitor in the first place?), then you actually get more energy my way, since you lose less to bleed off and resistance. Again, even if there was no resistance at all, it means a larger array is merely equal to, not greater than, my alternative.
Third, you may come up with theoretical reasons why a single large capacitor wouldn't be feasible. Here are a few I can think of, and my pre-emptive responses:
"The power grind can't handle that much power all at once." This one sounds plausible, but is provably false, since the firing emitter manifestly CAN handle all the power being dumped through it, which means the underlying power systems must be able to handle that throughput, at least for a short duration. In other words, there's no good reason why the last emitter would be able to handle a big dump of power from many small sources any better than a single dump of power from a single source - when it gets to the last emitter, it's still just a large, instant burst of power.
"Large capacitors like that aren't feasible because..." This one is less good, but likely to come up. First it seems tough to argue that it is impossible to store that much energy, when that's already how the array is described as working - there's really no good reason I can think of why it wouldn't be equally possible to store the same amount of energy in a single capacitor of roughly the same volume (if not the same shape). Now, as was noted, we don't really know what the materials and engineering limitations are in Star Trek, so it's possible to invent a reason this won't work, but that would really just boil down to "I don't want to be wrong, so I techno-babbled up an objection". On face, there's no reason it couldn't work.
"The power system can't refill a large capacitor fast enough to maintain the rate of fire we see on the show". Okay, I apologize if this didn't occur to you, because it's pretty bad, but I'm trying to cover my bases. If you DO think this makes sense, I have an algebra riddle for you - assuming you have ten faucets that each pour a gallon a minute, how long will it take to fill ten one gallon balloons? Now, if you ran those ten faucets into a single ten gallon balloon, how long would it take to fill? Right.
I think you are making the same mistake that Okuda made when he wrote the tech manual. You are calling the emitters capacitors, but treating them like batteries or generators, both of which are problematic for different reasons. In any case, the science simply doesn't back up what was written, and it seems clear that it was less about providing a hard science basis for the weapon's function, and more about providing a "golly-gee ain't that cool" feeling. On the flip side, you did throw down the reasonable challenge to come up with an alternate explanation that makes as much sense, so here we go:
Fire arc. Nothing more, nothing less. The longer strip gives a wider fire arc, and thus makes sense. Why do they use the main arrays more often? Habit, probably. If they are only planning on firing a limited barrage, why muck about with anything else? If the main array has arc, just use that. It's sort of like asking why I use one route to go to work, when another is equally good - since there's no reason to prefer either one, I just go with the one I'm used to. There really doesn't have to be any more complicated reason than that.
Star Trek is differnt to other Sci fi universes, because humans and the Federation is are based on a peaceful premise, which does directly reflect in their ship designs.
Not anymore. in XXV Federation shipyards are building tac ships only
But to be serious: I started playing STO just half year ago. There was LoR coming and I was all happy, until about 30 lvl.
I assumed that there are major differences between fractions: Fed eng, KDF tac, Rom sci,
and that every fraction has core playable content, that allows players to take advantage of fraction specific. But there is no difference in way You play...
I know people do not think game elements are art forms. When I went to college for web and graphic design, I learned part of my trade along side digital animators. We were all taught art history, color theory, elements of design, etc...
Within my personal and subjective perspective, I think the Avenger represents an anthology of different ship designs. You can see how the ship's design was influenced by the Armitage, Reconnaissance Science Vessel, and Intrepid. Seeing those qualities pulled together and fused by color makes the Avenger sing.
Well, I agree... Your "reverse design" is quite accurate. But Av doesn't look like smooth extention of these concepts, more like eclectic freak...
You are probably correct, I see these inspirations, but as You should know, art is not math and in this case it just havn't gone well.
Sure the Scimitar is a Dreadnought but for such a big ship it is Op in this categorie comparable to all other ships. Good turnrate, Commander Tactical, 5 front weapons, 5 tactical Slots, 1 Hangar bay, cloaking device, talaron burst and good defense. This ship outdamaging escorts in no time if you know what you are doing but thats not part of the discussion.
If you start to talk about op in different ship classes such discussions never take an end.
Im talk about cryin because of shield modifer of 0.1 Advantage a discussion that starts because starfleet gets a new ship and kdf not. Players get jealous and search for Advantages then the word Overpowerd raises to the sky and nerfs getting started.
Like i said before every faction has their ships with their own Advantages and get new ones with new advanteges. If they get nerfed because of such reasons, ruins the Quality of game Content for all Players. And yes as a Starfleet Cruiser it is really strong but Overall not class specific no, Overall it has only an Advantage like many other ships. Thats like it should be if all where the same it goes boring.
Btw: I dont like some parts of the design aswell, mainly the nacelles but its ok. I dont like eve onlines ships because of the asymmetric design but you learn to like it
Ok, at first I did not consider replying, but since you repeated this a couple of times I somehow feel inclined to.
First of all get your facts straight - The ship was not nerfed. The Avenger got its test stats adjusted to the level the rest of the Starfleet T5 cruisers by the devs. even before it hit holodeck. Therefore it isn't a nerf, you can only nerf something that already has been released.
Also worth noting is that the ship had 12 consoles on the redshirt server. I assume you'd want that as well?
Second - the KDF players were not complaining about the ship having 1.2 shield mod. The KDF players are rightfully complaining about having their promised ship delayed due to ship artists being focused on S8 and Voth ships, while the Federation gets a new one out of the blue. It has nothing to do with the shield mod of the Avenger.
Third - if someone's complaints would have been influential for the so called "nerf" of this ship, which didn't happen, it would have been the complaints of Federation players and not KDF ones. Yes, the Federation players that felt this ship with that shield mod would make their cruisers obsolete, and to a certain point rightfully so.
But all of this doesn't matter because the ship didn't get nerfed, it's test stats got adjusted by the devs themselves. And frankly, anyone following the game for a longer time would know that Redshirt/Tribble test stats rarely make it out to Holodeck without being adjusted. That's the whole point of having a test server.
KDF doesn't seem to want ships, Cryptic added a bunch, hardly anyone purchased them. And then of course the KDF whine that its because their faction is so small. Then the even smaller Romulan faction comes out and the Scimitar is the best selling ship of all time, so that blows that out of the water.
all those kdf ships were sub tier 5, with no end game version that could even use the low level costume those ships came with. of course they didnt sell well. and becase of that they have been to scared to put any effort in to an end game kdf ship, that people would actually have a reason to buy. the bortas was TRIBBLE too, its turn rate due to its far to large a size ruined it
Here comes another punch into the KDF players faces.
No new KDF T5/Fleet ships since when?
Also i would like to ask when you developers think to release the KDF Version of Escort Carrier / Ar'Kif Tactical Carrier Warbird or maybe a 5 Fore Weapons ship?
I don't really care about the rest of this, because basically my only point was that you can't know one way or the other how Star Trek ships are "really" built, since they aren't, you know, real. Broadly, my point is (as it has always been) that you aren't "right" about the "facts" you make up, because they are just assumptions in service to your aesthetic preferences. You are entitled to those, of course, they just have no more cachet than my opinions, especially since I'm at least as good at rationalizing my assumptions as you are.
That said, what you are NOT entitled to is spreading bad science. This whole phaser strip thing is literally anti-science. This isn't even a case of "well, it's plausible either way, so we can agree to disagree". It's simply a provably nonsensical proposition, exactly as if Okuda had said the Enterprise D is "faster in a dive" because of its front-heavy construction. Seriously, it's that bad.
Let me break it down -
First, the nature of the energy system is totally irrelevant to my point here. ANY energy transfer is going to be less than 100% efficient - meaning at least a tiny fraction of the energy is lost as heat. This is basic thermodynamics, and we know from events on the show that this still holds true. They talk about overheating and burning out conduits and emitters, LaForge is always trying to improve the eps efficiency, etc. We know that the power transfer isn't perfect, in other words. Even if the transfer was 100% efficient, that doesn't ADD power, it merely keeps it at the same level. The fact that they are described as capacitors just makes this even more clear - as I said, the only way more phaser emitters actually adds power is if each emitter is a generator, which you've already said is not the case. (As an aside, here's how ludicrous this is - if they have 100% or greater efficiency in their energy transfers, they have either perpetual motion machines, or an infinitely capable energy source.)
Second, the idea that each emitter is a capacitor with a limited capacity to hold charge again doesn't make a longer array more powerful than (say) building one really high capacity capacitor and pushing all that power through a single emitter. In fact, assuming the internal resistance of the capacitor was lower than the resistance of the eps conduits (which seems almost certain, since otherwise why are you using that material as a capacitor in the first place?), then you actually get more energy my way, since you lose less to bleed off and resistance. Again, even if there was no resistance at all, it means a larger array is merely equal to, not greater than, my alternative.
Third, you may come up with theoretical reasons why a single large capacitor wouldn't be feasible. Here are a few I can think of, and my pre-emptive responses:
"The power grind can't handle that much power all at once." This one sounds plausible, but is provably false, since the firing emitter manifestly CAN handle all the power being dumped through it, which means the underlying power systems must be able to handle that throughput, at least for a short duration. In other words, there's no good reason why the last emitter would be able to handle a big dump of power from many small sources any better than a single dump of power from a single source - when it gets to the last emitter, it's still just a large, instant burst of power.
"Large capacitors like that aren't feasible because..." This one is less good, but likely to come up. First it seems tough to argue that it is impossible to store that much energy, when that's already how the array is described as working - there's really no good reason I can think of why it wouldn't be equally possible to store the same amount of energy in a single capacitor of roughly the same volume (if not the same shape). Now, as was noted, we don't really know what the materials and engineering limitations are in Star Trek, so it's possible to invent a reason this won't work, but that would really just boil down to "I don't want to be wrong, so I techno-babbled up an objection". On face, there's no reason it couldn't work.
"The power system can't refill a large capacitor fast enough to maintain the rate of fire we see on the show". Okay, I apologize if this didn't occur to you, because it's pretty bad, but I'm trying to cover my bases. If you DO think this makes sense, I have an algebra riddle for you - assuming you have ten faucets that each pour a gallon a minute, how long will it take to fill ten one gallon balloons? Now, if you ran those ten faucets into a single ten gallon balloon, how long would it take to fill? Right.
I think you are making the same mistake that Okuda made when he wrote the tech manual. You are calling the emitters capacitors, but treating them like batteries or generators, both of which are problematic for different reasons. In any case, the science simply doesn't back up what was written, and it seems clear that it was less about providing a hard science basis for the weapon's function, and more about providing a "golly-gee ain't that cool" feeling. On the flip side, you did throw down the reasonable challenge to come up with an alternate explanation that makes as much sense, so here we go:
Fire arc. Nothing more, nothing less. The longer strip gives a wider fire arc, and thus makes sense. Why do they use the main arrays more often? Habit, probably. If they are only planning on firing a limited barrage, why muck about with anything else? If the main array has arc, just use that. It's sort of like asking why I use one route to go to work, when another is equally good - since there's no reason to prefer either one, I just go with the one I'm used to. There really doesn't have to be any more complicated reason than that.
dude, im not Okuda, go email him this rant if you want to vent. im simply laying out the closest thing to a canon explanation for arrays. weather they make sense to you or not makes no difference. these are not my opinions, i dont have the luxury to come up with my own version of how they work, because its already plainly stated in a source book. thats good enough for me, because star trek is a piece of fiction anyway.
i try to make sense of 1 large capacitor, like you try to make sense of arrays. 1 large central capacitor for the whole system is the old way they did things with the ball turrets. they went to arrays because, well they must be better? 1 large capacitor would be a single point of failure too, and proboly something that generates a lot of heat in 1 concentrated area. with an ever growing need for more firepower, a central capacitor to run the weapons proboly became prohibitive for any number of reasons. needed to be to large, gave off to much heat, the tech didn't scale well after a point, etc. so they might have gone to multiple small and mid sized capacitors next. and before you know it, arrays themselves, made of 10, 20, 100, 200 emitters that each had a small capacitor in addition to their own ability to fire.
in addition to fireing at anything they have line of sight with, arrays arent going to have an overheating problem because they act as a giant heat sink, and they can just fire the next shot from a cooler location on the array.
they are from the future, their technology is magic to us. they bypass the rules of physics every day, dont have a coronary trying to disprove canon by apply modern science to it.
Miranda class, no engineering hull or Deflector Array and that is just Star Trek II, you can stubborn hold unto what you call "different in design as generic himan si fic spaceships" yet you are pushing exactly the same, all Star Trek Ships must look like the Enterprise and by Enterprise I mean the no Letter, A, C or D ... not the B, E or F ... oh no, not "those".
The miranda was a kitbash.
It didn't look like a battlestar or a ship from Star Wars. It still was consistent with the rest of Starfleet designs, but if you don't see the difference, i won't help you.
Oh really ... lets see, Ambassador? NOPE! ... Kamarag? NOPE! ... The entire Romulan Shipyard? NOPE!
Ah but you are going to say "but there are 2 variants on Romulan ships" thats bull, there is a C-Shop costume that exists so people dont confuse the 2 ships and even that doesnt apply to T5 Retrofits that look the same as the lower tiered ships.
3 Packs you say? again ... visual diferences so people dont confuse them, in fact I can go back and point out the Atrox that lacks "some alternatives", using older costumes is one thing ... attempting to make a T5 ship look like another T5 that have completely different specs is another and its been damn clear to me you just want to make this ship look like the Galaxy-X.
This ISNT the Galaxy-X, deal with it.
I was talking about older STO ships that came with STOs launch.
I know why i am so upset about that ship, but since you like that dung beetle what's your excuse to be so agressive?
"...'With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured...the first thought forbidden...the first freedom denied--chains us all irrevocably.' ... The first time any man's freedom is trodden on, we're all damaged. I fear that today--"
- (TNG) Picard, quoting Judge Aaron Satie
Actually this is what KDF battle cruisers should look like.
A lot of fore weapons, agile and with cloak. In general Klingons should be offensively oriented and the Federation defensively. But now the fed cruisers are pretty much more offensive than the kdf ones (Negh'Var or Vor'Cha). That's just wrong.
And I have to agree that some new KDF content is overdue. The Klingons could use more episodes, more uniforms, more ships/costumes.
I get my Facts from informations you People post and things what going on, on this Forum.
I dont talk about things what happened, rather the Kind how things get handled. You are if If i say nerf you know what i mean i said decreased aswell so dont turn this into ridicule. I dont tested the ship on the testservers and dont said anything that let you think that i do so.
**If you read clearly i said that the discussion of the decreasing stats starts because the kdf dont get their ship what you confirmed now. The same for your third i never said anything about that the kdf says anything about the "decrease" i repeated it many times that a few kdf Players are frustrated because they dont get their ship a discussion that surely starts on every ship release.
My english isnt the best but i repeated this aswell as clear as i can, im not interested in the changes itself, only how things get handled. I dont know which faction every Player is in but there where many many threads about the ship is too op to strong shields, before you guys changed the News and everything Yesterday. Then i read on sto gamepedia, in this Forum, and i heard from a discussion on the testserver through my fleet that the stats get changed because of some sort of community stuff.
Nevermind good to hear that shes ready and please im not the best in english but i read my writen words from the last Posts again and it says exactly that what i said again above.
dude, im not Okuda, go email him this rant if you want to vent. im simply laying out the closest thing to a canon explanation for arrays. weather they make sense to you or not makes no difference. these are not my opinions, i dont have the luxury to come up with my own version of how they work, because its already plainly stated in a source book. thats good enough for me, because star trek is a piece of fiction anyway.
I guess I simply don't see a single reason to consider that book to be canon, above and beyond the fact that I don't see a single reason to consider "canon" to be an important concept in the first place. Basically, you are arguing from a standpoint that we are "forced" to accept a nonsensical explanation because it's canon, and I can't understand why that should be so. It is actively anti-science, isn't needed to explain the existence of longer arrays, never becomes a plot point in the show, and begs more questions than it answers. So why keep it? In what way does it make Star Trek better?
i try to make sense of 1 large capacitor, like you try to make sense of arrays. 1 large central capacitor for the whole system is the old way they did things with the ball turrets. they went to arrays because, well they must be better? 1 large capacitor would be a single point of failure too, and proboly something that generates a lot of heat in 1 concentrated area. with an ever growing need for more firepower, a central capacitor to run the weapons proboly became prohibitive for any number of reasons. needed to be to large, gave off to much heat, the tech didn't scale well after a point, etc. so they might have gone to multiple small and mid sized capacitors next. and before you know it, arrays themselves, made of 10, 20, 100, 200 emitters that each had a small capacitor in addition to their own ability to fire.
Remember when I said you could come up with theoretical reasons why the engineering doesn't work, but that would be you just using technobabble to rationalize why you aren't wrong? Yeah, that's what this is. We aren't debating the science here, you are just making up reasons why the fake engineering might have to work in the fake way you want it to. We could play that game back and forth, but that sounds exhausting, especially since it would just boil down to who can imagine harder.
Here's a zinger for you, though. You assert that they went from turrets to strips, so that must mean the strips are better, right? Well, after the Galaxy, they went from longer strips to shorter ones, so, by the same logic, shorter must be better now, right? Note that again, for all that you can come up with reasons why that shouldn't be true, I can counter them with rationalizations of my own, but I'm not going to, because I'm not interested in proving you "wrong". I'm saying that I think the view you are supporting here is irrational magical thinking, and I feel like it does you and everyone else a disservice to say that we are incapable of using our reason to decide what makes sense.
they are from the future, their technology is magic to us. they bypass the rules of physics every day, dont have a coronary trying to disprove canon by apply modern science to it.
This. This is exactly what I was talking about - why should I sell myself short like this, when there's no reason to. Why should I accept this "magic" when it isn't an integral part of the show and runs actively counter to all established understanding of thermodynamics for no good reason? It's just like the Voyager episode "Threshold". It's so bad it actively diminishes the quality of the franchise, so I just do what Star Trek writers do - I ignore it, and pretend it never happened.
I get my Facts from informations you People post and things what going on, on this Forum.
I dont talk about things what happened, rather the Kind how things get handled. You are if If i say nerf you know what i mean i said decreased aswell so dont turn this into ridicule. I dont tested the ship on the testservers and dont said anything that let you think that i do so.
**If you read clearly i said that the discussion of the decreasing stats starts because the kdf dont get their ship what you confirmed now. The same for your third i never said anything about that the kdf says anything about the "decrease" i repeated it many times that a few kdf Players are frustrated because they dont get their ship a discussion that surely starts on every ship release.
My english isnt the best but i repeated this aswell as clear as i can, im not interested in the changes itself, only how things get handled. I dont know which faction every Player is in but there where many many threads about the ship is too op to strong shields, before you guys changed the News and everything Yesterday. Then i read on sto gamepedia, in this Forum, and i heard from a discussion on the testserver through my fleet that the stats get changed because of some sort of community stuff.
Nevermind good to hear that shes ready and please im not the best in english but i read my writen words from the last Posts again and it says exactly that what i said again above.
Let me try to explain what happened.
The stats of the Avenger that everyone discussed about were ones taken from people participating in the Redshirt test server. (I'm not on it btw)
Now as it is with every ship - when a ship makes it to the test server, especially Redshirt server and not Tribble server they usually have some wonky non-realistic stats. I'm not sure why is this, I personally assume because it's of primary concern for the designers to see how a new ship interacts with the environment of the game before they resort to tweaking the stats.
So like I said, this ship has some ridiculous stats. It had 5 tac.consoles 5 engi.consoles and 2 science consoles. It also had a strange shield mod. of 1.21 for the fleet version. I mean, why not round it at 1.20, why 1.21?
So what happened is the devs. after testing the ship and seing that it interacts with the game environment in STO without any issues and bugs, decided that it's ready for release and than tweaked those strange stats. Not because anyone complained, be it KDF, Feds or Roms, but because they intended to do it anyway before they release it.
They wouldn't release a ship with 12 consoles under no circumistances and the shield mod of 1.21 was putting it over all the rest of Starfleet cruisers. I don't understand the reasoning behind decreasing the crew though, the devs. probably felt that 500 is more apropriate for a cruiser of this size.
Being a battlecruiser, the Avenger is not suposed to be shield tanking, but have other perks that she has - like the best cruiser turn rate on the Fed. side, 5/3 weapon layout and ability to mount DHC.
So all I'm trying to say is - you got the wrong impression about this. The ship didn't get nerfed, it got reasonably adjusted before release. Yes, people complained (as always), but this didn't happen because anyone complained, but because it was planned before and the right thing to do.
Don't get me wrong, I was loving the 1.21 shield mod. as well, but I'm being realistic and when i saw it I already knew that the chances of it being released on holodeck with 1.21 shield mod were like 1%.
I'd like to see a one vs one PVP fight between this Battle cruiser and the mighty Scimitar.
One day Cryptic will be free from their Perfect World overlord. Until that day comes, they will continue to pamper the whales of this game, and ignore everyone that isn't a whale.
KDF doesn't seem to want ships, Cryptic added a bunch, hardly anyone purchased them. And then of course the KDF whine that its because their faction is so small. Then the even smaller Romulan faction comes out and the Scimitar is the best selling ship of all time, so that blows that out of the water.
what ships?
last thing added was a dead whale bortasq even the oddy has better turning
I guess I simply don't see a single reason to consider that book to be canon, above and beyond the fact that I don't see a single reason to consider "canon" to be an important concept in the first place. Basically, you are arguing from a standpoint that we are "forced" to accept a nonsensical explanation because it's canon, and I can't understand why that should be so. It is actively anti-science, isn't needed to explain the existence of longer arrays, never becomes a plot point in the show, and begs more questions than it answers. So why keep it? In what way does it make Star Trek better?
i guess i dont understand why you care at all, if you just reject canon as nonsense. why debate someone who is citing canon and practically canon information if all your going to say is its all BS? there is no discussion to be had at all. trek is trek, its not what you think they should have done.
also, no ship had arrays as big or bigger then the galaxy and nebula, because no canon ship is bigger then the galaxy. in fact, no canon ship is even half the volume of a galaxy. longer arrays would be impossible
LMAO!! I love it hove you say "cowardly". I invite you to enter Ker'rat with any BoP, but not to use the cloak. Let's see where that gets you.
And I think complaining about "cowardly" Klingons that cloak is so last season now that we have Romulans that can battlecloak anyhting, don't you agree?
i guess i dont understand why you care at all, if you just reject canon as nonsense. why debate someone who is citing canon and practically canon information if all your going to say is its all BS? there is no discussion to be had at all. trek is trek, its not what you think they should have done.
also, no ship had arrays as big or bigger then the galaxy and nebula, because no canon ship is bigger then the galaxy. in fact, no canon ship is even half the volume of a galaxy. longer arrays would be impossible
First of all, I care because I see silly things like this being repeated ad nauseam on the boards as if they were somehow "true", and I think in general it's bad practice to claim that untruths and opinions are somehow objective facts. More personally, I find that Trek is at its best when it tries to hew more closely to what is scientifically possible/known, and at its worst when it indulges in inane magical thinking in the guise of technobabble. That's not to say I won't suspend disbelief, because I will, especially when doing so allows for better, more interesting stories. I won't beef about warp drive, for example, because the show would be obviously impossible without it.
Thus, I don't just reject canon as nonsense out of hand, I reject the parts of canon that I think are stupid. For example, did you know that if you go too fast, you turn into a lizard? Yeah. I didn't know that, because that whole episode may as well not exist, as far as I'm concerned. To me, "canon" only matters when it serves the needs of the story (and that story is good). Otherwise, I'm apathetic, unless it crosses a certain *ahem* threshold of stupidity, then I simply ignore it, in exactly the same way Star Trek writers do. I would argue that in this sense, my loose, flexible understanding of canon is probably closer to the actual practice of the show than a more doctrinaire approach. I mean, heck, what are we, Voth?
As for the arrays thing, two things immediately occur to me. First, volume =/= surface area (In fact, volume doesn't necessarily mean much of anything - not necessarily more power, not necessarily more durability, not even necessarily more mass). Critically, though, phaser length is actually a function of available surface area, and not volume in any case. Certainly there are ships which could conceivably have a longer strip on a "smaller" chassis. They just don't.
And that bring up point two, which is that you missed my point completely. You asserted that strips must be better than the previous ball turret model (which you assume means more powerful, I guess), and used the tautological reasoning of "they switched to them because they are better, because if they weren't better they wouldn't have switched to them". My point is that same "reasoning" applies to later ships - they certainly COULD design bigger ships with longer strips, or longer strips on smaller ships (especially for ships that are intended for a main-line combat role), but they don't. Why? I submit that it must be true that shorter strips are now better (which I guess means more powerful), because later designs switched to them, because if they weren't better they wouldn't have done that. It's obviously terrible logic, I know. That was my point.
I know it's hard to get PWE to invest money into designing new Klingon ships, but wouldn't it be possible to convert some of the existing Orion, Fek'iri and nausican NPC ships into player ships, instead?
Also. It would be nice to have 'neck' variants for the Avenger, or at least remodel it. That's the only part of the ship I think makes no since at all when considering what Starfleet supposedly said about starship vulnerability. (Including the men that designed Sovereign class for the First Contact movie and so on). With the ship being so compact in design, the spit neck just kills the purpose of why the ship was built in the first place aesthetically and practically. Just my opinion. (Not sure if this was said many time before or not.)
Also. It would be nice to have 'neck' variants for the Avenger, or at least remodel it. That's the only part of the ship I think makes no since at all when considering what Starfleet supposedly said about starship vulnerability. (Including the men that designed Sovereign class for the First Contact movie and so on). With the ship being so compact in design, the spit neck just kills the purpose of why the ship was built in the first place aesthetically and practically. Just my opinion. (Not sure if this was said many time before or not.)
There is a neck variant that's singular as far as I know.
Also. It would be nice to have 'neck' variants for the Avenger, or at least remodel it. That's the only part of the ship I think makes no since at all when considering what Starfleet supposedly said about starship vulnerability. (Including the men that designed Sovereign class for the First Contact movie and so on). With the ship being so compact in design, the spit neck just kills the purpose of why the ship was built in the first place aesthetically and practically. Just my opinion. (Not sure if this was said many time before or not.)
I fully agree with you.
After looking at the ships design for a while i have noticed that the neck not just doesn't make much sense it also makes the ship too high and to compressed (=short) looking.
I think if there would be a option to remove the neck and connect Engineering hull and saucer directly the ship could look much better.
Additionally from a side long drawn-out neck makes the ship look like a coal brick which is totally unneeded.
Another thing are the pylons, althrough the nacelles ar on the right position for being fore swept, the pylons themselves are placed to far to the bow (at least when using the swept up version).
"...'With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured...the first thought forbidden...the first freedom denied--chains us all irrevocably.' ... The first time any man's freedom is trodden on, we're all damaged. I fear that today--"
- (TNG) Picard, quoting Judge Aaron Satie
First of all, I care because I see silly things like this being repeated ad nauseam on the boards as if they were somehow "true", and I think in general it's bad practice to claim that untruths and opinions are somehow objective facts. More personally, I find that Trek is at its best when it tries to hew more closely to what is scientifically possible/known, and at its worst when it indulges in inane magical thinking in the guise of technobabble. That's not to say I won't suspend disbelief, because I will, especially when doing so allows for better, more interesting stories. I won't beef about warp drive, for example, because the show would be obviously impossible without it.
Thus, I don't just reject canon as nonsense out of hand, I reject the parts of canon that I think are stupid. For example, did you know that if you go too fast, you turn into a lizard? Yeah. I didn't know that, because that whole episode may as well not exist, as far as I'm concerned. To me, "canon" only matters when it serves the needs of the story (and that story is good). Otherwise, I'm apathetic, unless it crosses a certain *ahem* threshold of stupidity, then I simply ignore it, in exactly the same way Star Trek writers do. I would argue that in this sense, my loose, flexible understanding of canon is probably closer to the actual practice of the show than a more doctrinaire approach. I mean, heck, what are we, Voth?
As for the arrays thing, two things immediately occur to me. First, volume =/= surface area (In fact, volume doesn't necessarily mean much of anything - not necessarily more power, not necessarily more durability, not even necessarily more mass). Critically, though, phaser length is actually a function of available surface area, and not volume in any case. Certainly there are ships which could conceivably have a longer strip on a "smaller" chassis. They just don't.
And that bring up point two, which is that you missed my point completely. You asserted that strips must be better than the previous ball turret model (which you assume means more powerful, I guess), and used the tautological reasoning of "they switched to them because they are better, because if they weren't better they wouldn't have switched to them". My point is that same "reasoning" applies to later ships - they certainly COULD design bigger ships with longer strips, or longer strips on smaller ships (especially for ships that are intended for a main-line combat role), but they don't. Why? I submit that it must be true that shorter strips are now better (which I guess means more powerful), because later designs switched to them, because if they weren't better they wouldn't have done that. It's obviously terrible logic, I know. That was my point.
its bad form to recite what the tech manual says, that must be what you mean, because the basic function of arrays are explained how i have described, with no opinion added in to spice it up. theres the glowing effect in the show, the description of the emitters and their components, the bit about how they are all individually powered and act as capacitors, and how they shunt their power down the array to the point that actually fired. that is in the book, that is seen on screen, that is not embellished.
if theres going to be any sort of serious debate about ships and their capabilities, this is the information you have to adhere too or all your doing is saying this ships the best because its my favorite. theres not that much good solid info to benchmark anything, what there is frankly sucks and makes no sense, but this is what there is, and im not going to just dismiss it.
volume gives you the best idea of how much room there is for stuff. the sovereign is longer then a galaxy class, but it has less volume, or space for stuff, then just a galaxy's saucer section alone. no ship has the vast surface, or % of total ship devoted to the saucer that the galaxy has too, so its the only thing that can mount an array that long. a ship would need to have an even larger saucer to have a larger array, and if it was smaller then the galaxy, an even higher % of the ship would have to be the saucer. why arent there any zig zag arrays? why are they all a soft curve? these are actual good questions. why arent there longer arrays is answered by the fact that there are no larger ships or ships with more array mountable surface.
and why isn't there a ship bigger then the galaxy with an even longer array by the end of canon? because the galaxy was built to last 100 years as a class, and for at least 50 years serve as the largest class in the fleet. there was no need, and they didn't, build anything aproching its size. instead, throughout tng, ds9 and voy, you saw smaller and mid sized ships created, filling out the fleet. this here is the reasoning of least resistance.
However at even the lowest estimate its still mush bigger that the Galaxy class, unless we discount DS9 as non-canon.
i am of course referring to federation ships, theres a laundry list of ships bigger, and MUCH bigger then the galaxy. none of which are federation made and use phaser arrays though.
Comments
oohh i would i would *jumps up and down* i would give them hug oh yes lots and lots of torpedo hugs ^_^
If you start to talk about op in different ship classes such discussions never take an end.
Im talk about cryin because of shield modifer of 0.1 Advantage a discussion that starts because starfleet gets a new ship and kdf not. Players get jealous and search for Advantages then the word Overpowerd raises to the sky and nerfs getting started.
Like i said before every faction has their ships with their own Advantages and get new ones with new advanteges. If they get nerfed because of such reasons, ruins the Quality of game Content for all Players. And yes as a Starfleet Cruiser it is really strong but Overall not class specific no, Overall it has only an Advantage like many other ships. Thats like it should be if all where the same it goes boring.
Btw: I dont like some parts of the design aswell, mainly the nacelles but its ok. I dont like eve onlines ships because of the asymmetric design but you learn to like it
rofl...
*gives it to beerxhyper*
Put it in the torpedo chamber and fire when ready.
I don't really care about the rest of this, because basically my only point was that you can't know one way or the other how Star Trek ships are "really" built, since they aren't, you know, real. Broadly, my point is (as it has always been) that you aren't "right" about the "facts" you make up, because they are just assumptions in service to your aesthetic preferences. You are entitled to those, of course, they just have no more cachet than my opinions, especially since I'm at least as good at rationalizing my assumptions as you are.
That said, what you are NOT entitled to is spreading bad science. This whole phaser strip thing is literally anti-science. This isn't even a case of "well, it's plausible either way, so we can agree to disagree". It's simply a provably nonsensical proposition, exactly as if Okuda had said the Enterprise D is "faster in a dive" because of its front-heavy construction. Seriously, it's that bad.
Let me break it down -
First, the nature of the energy system is totally irrelevant to my point here. ANY energy transfer is going to be less than 100% efficient - meaning at least a tiny fraction of the energy is lost as heat. This is basic thermodynamics, and we know from events on the show that this still holds true. They talk about overheating and burning out conduits and emitters, LaForge is always trying to improve the eps efficiency, etc. We know that the power transfer isn't perfect, in other words. Even if the transfer was 100% efficient, that doesn't ADD power, it merely keeps it at the same level. The fact that they are described as capacitors just makes this even more clear - as I said, the only way more phaser emitters actually adds power is if each emitter is a generator, which you've already said is not the case. (As an aside, here's how ludicrous this is - if they have 100% or greater efficiency in their energy transfers, they have either perpetual motion machines, or an infinitely capable energy source.)
Second, the idea that each emitter is a capacitor with a limited capacity to hold charge again doesn't make a longer array more powerful than (say) building one really high capacity capacitor and pushing all that power through a single emitter. In fact, assuming the internal resistance of the capacitor was lower than the resistance of the eps conduits (which seems almost certain, since otherwise why are you using that material as a capacitor in the first place?), then you actually get more energy my way, since you lose less to bleed off and resistance. Again, even if there was no resistance at all, it means a larger array is merely equal to, not greater than, my alternative.
Third, you may come up with theoretical reasons why a single large capacitor wouldn't be feasible. Here are a few I can think of, and my pre-emptive responses:
"The power grind can't handle that much power all at once." This one sounds plausible, but is provably false, since the firing emitter manifestly CAN handle all the power being dumped through it, which means the underlying power systems must be able to handle that throughput, at least for a short duration. In other words, there's no good reason why the last emitter would be able to handle a big dump of power from many small sources any better than a single dump of power from a single source - when it gets to the last emitter, it's still just a large, instant burst of power.
"Large capacitors like that aren't feasible because..." This one is less good, but likely to come up. First it seems tough to argue that it is impossible to store that much energy, when that's already how the array is described as working - there's really no good reason I can think of why it wouldn't be equally possible to store the same amount of energy in a single capacitor of roughly the same volume (if not the same shape). Now, as was noted, we don't really know what the materials and engineering limitations are in Star Trek, so it's possible to invent a reason this won't work, but that would really just boil down to "I don't want to be wrong, so I techno-babbled up an objection". On face, there's no reason it couldn't work.
"The power system can't refill a large capacitor fast enough to maintain the rate of fire we see on the show". Okay, I apologize if this didn't occur to you, because it's pretty bad, but I'm trying to cover my bases. If you DO think this makes sense, I have an algebra riddle for you - assuming you have ten faucets that each pour a gallon a minute, how long will it take to fill ten one gallon balloons? Now, if you ran those ten faucets into a single ten gallon balloon, how long would it take to fill? Right.
I think you are making the same mistake that Okuda made when he wrote the tech manual. You are calling the emitters capacitors, but treating them like batteries or generators, both of which are problematic for different reasons. In any case, the science simply doesn't back up what was written, and it seems clear that it was less about providing a hard science basis for the weapon's function, and more about providing a "golly-gee ain't that cool" feeling. On the flip side, you did throw down the reasonable challenge to come up with an alternate explanation that makes as much sense, so here we go:
Fire arc. Nothing more, nothing less. The longer strip gives a wider fire arc, and thus makes sense. Why do they use the main arrays more often? Habit, probably. If they are only planning on firing a limited barrage, why muck about with anything else? If the main array has arc, just use that. It's sort of like asking why I use one route to go to work, when another is equally good - since there's no reason to prefer either one, I just go with the one I'm used to. There really doesn't have to be any more complicated reason than that.
Not anymore. in XXV Federation shipyards are building tac ships only
But to be serious: I started playing STO just half year ago. There was LoR coming and I was all happy, until about 30 lvl.
I assumed that there are major differences between fractions: Fed eng, KDF tac, Rom sci,
and that every fraction has core playable content, that allows players to take advantage of fraction specific. But there is no difference in way You play...
Well, I agree... Your "reverse design" is quite accurate. But Av doesn't look like smooth extention of these concepts, more like eclectic freak...
You are probably correct, I see these inspirations, but as You should know, art is not math and in this case it just havn't gone well.
That are only opinions!
Ok, at first I did not consider replying, but since you repeated this a couple of times I somehow feel inclined to.
First of all get your facts straight - The ship was not nerfed. The Avenger got its test stats adjusted to the level the rest of the Starfleet T5 cruisers by the devs. even before it hit holodeck. Therefore it isn't a nerf, you can only nerf something that already has been released.
Also worth noting is that the ship had 12 consoles on the redshirt server. I assume you'd want that as well?
Second - the KDF players were not complaining about the ship having 1.2 shield mod. The KDF players are rightfully complaining about having their promised ship delayed due to ship artists being focused on S8 and Voth ships, while the Federation gets a new one out of the blue. It has nothing to do with the shield mod of the Avenger.
Third - if someone's complaints would have been influential for the so called "nerf" of this ship, which didn't happen, it would have been the complaints of Federation players and not KDF ones. Yes, the Federation players that felt this ship with that shield mod would make their cruisers obsolete, and to a certain point rightfully so.
But all of this doesn't matter because the ship didn't get nerfed, it's test stats got adjusted by the devs themselves. And frankly, anyone following the game for a longer time would know that Redshirt/Tribble test stats rarely make it out to Holodeck without being adjusted. That's the whole point of having a test server.
all those kdf ships were sub tier 5, with no end game version that could even use the low level costume those ships came with. of course they didnt sell well. and becase of that they have been to scared to put any effort in to an end game kdf ship, that people would actually have a reason to buy. the bortas was TRIBBLE too, its turn rate due to its far to large a size ruined it
No new KDF T5/Fleet ships since when?
Also i would like to ask when you developers think to release the KDF Version of Escort Carrier / Ar'Kif Tactical Carrier Warbird or maybe a 5 Fore Weapons ship?
dude, im not Okuda, go email him this rant if you want to vent. im simply laying out the closest thing to a canon explanation for arrays. weather they make sense to you or not makes no difference. these are not my opinions, i dont have the luxury to come up with my own version of how they work, because its already plainly stated in a source book. thats good enough for me, because star trek is a piece of fiction anyway.
i try to make sense of 1 large capacitor, like you try to make sense of arrays. 1 large central capacitor for the whole system is the old way they did things with the ball turrets. they went to arrays because, well they must be better? 1 large capacitor would be a single point of failure too, and proboly something that generates a lot of heat in 1 concentrated area. with an ever growing need for more firepower, a central capacitor to run the weapons proboly became prohibitive for any number of reasons. needed to be to large, gave off to much heat, the tech didn't scale well after a point, etc. so they might have gone to multiple small and mid sized capacitors next. and before you know it, arrays themselves, made of 10, 20, 100, 200 emitters that each had a small capacitor in addition to their own ability to fire.
in addition to fireing at anything they have line of sight with, arrays arent going to have an overheating problem because they act as a giant heat sink, and they can just fire the next shot from a cooler location on the array.
they are from the future, their technology is magic to us. they bypass the rules of physics every day, dont have a coronary trying to disprove canon by apply modern science to it.
The miranda was a kitbash.
It didn't look like a battlestar or a ship from Star Wars. It still was consistent with the rest of Starfleet designs, but if you don't see the difference, i won't help you.
The Defiant was a lame try to make Star Trek different, by ppl wanting to imitate another show.
Yeah, bullets. very common in the 24th cenutry... lol
No i just want a ship that doesn't look like a dung beetle. But cryptics "Designers" obviously seem to think the uglier the stronger in battle.
I was talking about older STO ships that came with STOs launch.
I know why i am so upset about that ship, but since you like that dung beetle what's your excuse to be so agressive?
A lot of fore weapons, agile and with cloak. In general Klingons should be offensively oriented and the Federation defensively. But now the fed cruisers are pretty much more offensive than the kdf ones (Negh'Var or Vor'Cha). That's just wrong.
And I have to agree that some new KDF content is overdue. The Klingons could use more episodes, more uniforms, more ships/costumes.
I get my Facts from informations you People post and things what going on, on this Forum.
I dont talk about things what happened, rather the Kind how things get handled. You are if If i say nerf you know what i mean i said decreased aswell so dont turn this into ridicule. I dont tested the ship on the testservers and dont said anything that let you think that i do so.
**If you read clearly i said that the discussion of the decreasing stats starts because the kdf dont get their ship what you confirmed now. The same for your third i never said anything about that the kdf says anything about the "decrease" i repeated it many times that a few kdf Players are frustrated because they dont get their ship a discussion that surely starts on every ship release.
My english isnt the best but i repeated this aswell as clear as i can, im not interested in the changes itself, only how things get handled. I dont know which faction every Player is in but there where many many threads about the ship is too op to strong shields, before you guys changed the News and everything Yesterday. Then i read on sto gamepedia, in this Forum, and i heard from a discussion on the testserver through my fleet that the stats get changed because of some sort of community stuff.
Nevermind good to hear that shes ready and please im not the best in english but i read my writen words from the last Posts again and it says exactly that what i said again above.
I guess I simply don't see a single reason to consider that book to be canon, above and beyond the fact that I don't see a single reason to consider "canon" to be an important concept in the first place. Basically, you are arguing from a standpoint that we are "forced" to accept a nonsensical explanation because it's canon, and I can't understand why that should be so. It is actively anti-science, isn't needed to explain the existence of longer arrays, never becomes a plot point in the show, and begs more questions than it answers. So why keep it? In what way does it make Star Trek better?
Remember when I said you could come up with theoretical reasons why the engineering doesn't work, but that would be you just using technobabble to rationalize why you aren't wrong? Yeah, that's what this is. We aren't debating the science here, you are just making up reasons why the fake engineering might have to work in the fake way you want it to. We could play that game back and forth, but that sounds exhausting, especially since it would just boil down to who can imagine harder.
Here's a zinger for you, though. You assert that they went from turrets to strips, so that must mean the strips are better, right? Well, after the Galaxy, they went from longer strips to shorter ones, so, by the same logic, shorter must be better now, right? Note that again, for all that you can come up with reasons why that shouldn't be true, I can counter them with rationalizations of my own, but I'm not going to, because I'm not interested in proving you "wrong". I'm saying that I think the view you are supporting here is irrational magical thinking, and I feel like it does you and everyone else a disservice to say that we are incapable of using our reason to decide what makes sense.
This. This is exactly what I was talking about - why should I sell myself short like this, when there's no reason to. Why should I accept this "magic" when it isn't an integral part of the show and runs actively counter to all established understanding of thermodynamics for no good reason? It's just like the Voyager episode "Threshold". It's so bad it actively diminishes the quality of the franchise, so I just do what Star Trek writers do - I ignore it, and pretend it never happened.
Let me try to explain what happened.
The stats of the Avenger that everyone discussed about were ones taken from people participating in the Redshirt test server. (I'm not on it btw)
Now as it is with every ship - when a ship makes it to the test server, especially Redshirt server and not Tribble server they usually have some wonky non-realistic stats. I'm not sure why is this, I personally assume because it's of primary concern for the designers to see how a new ship interacts with the environment of the game before they resort to tweaking the stats.
So like I said, this ship has some ridiculous stats. It had 5 tac.consoles 5 engi.consoles and 2 science consoles. It also had a strange shield mod. of 1.21 for the fleet version. I mean, why not round it at 1.20, why 1.21?
So what happened is the devs. after testing the ship and seing that it interacts with the game environment in STO without any issues and bugs, decided that it's ready for release and than tweaked those strange stats. Not because anyone complained, be it KDF, Feds or Roms, but because they intended to do it anyway before they release it.
They wouldn't release a ship with 12 consoles under no circumistances and the shield mod of 1.21 was putting it over all the rest of Starfleet cruisers. I don't understand the reasoning behind decreasing the crew though, the devs. probably felt that 500 is more apropriate for a cruiser of this size.
Being a battlecruiser, the Avenger is not suposed to be shield tanking, but have other perks that she has - like the best cruiser turn rate on the Fed. side, 5/3 weapon layout and ability to mount DHC.
So all I'm trying to say is - you got the wrong impression about this. The ship didn't get nerfed, it got reasonably adjusted before release. Yes, people complained (as always), but this didn't happen because anyone complained, but because it was planned before and the right thing to do.
Don't get me wrong, I was loving the 1.21 shield mod. as well, but I'm being realistic and when i saw it I already knew that the chances of it being released on holodeck with 1.21 shield mod were like 1%.
what ships?
last thing added was a dead whale bortasq even the oddy has better turning
ps only t5 ships count.
i guess i dont understand why you care at all, if you just reject canon as nonsense. why debate someone who is citing canon and practically canon information if all your going to say is its all BS? there is no discussion to be had at all. trek is trek, its not what you think they should have done.
also, no ship had arrays as big or bigger then the galaxy and nebula, because no canon ship is bigger then the galaxy. in fact, no canon ship is even half the volume of a galaxy. longer arrays would be impossible
LMAO!!
And I think complaining about "cowardly" Klingons that cloak is so last season now that we have Romulans that can battlecloak anyhting, don't you agree?
Thus, I don't just reject canon as nonsense out of hand, I reject the parts of canon that I think are stupid. For example, did you know that if you go too fast, you turn into a lizard? Yeah. I didn't know that, because that whole episode may as well not exist, as far as I'm concerned. To me, "canon" only matters when it serves the needs of the story (and that story is good). Otherwise, I'm apathetic, unless it crosses a certain *ahem* threshold of stupidity, then I simply ignore it, in exactly the same way Star Trek writers do. I would argue that in this sense, my loose, flexible understanding of canon is probably closer to the actual practice of the show than a more doctrinaire approach. I mean, heck, what are we, Voth?
As for the arrays thing, two things immediately occur to me. First, volume =/= surface area (In fact, volume doesn't necessarily mean much of anything - not necessarily more power, not necessarily more durability, not even necessarily more mass). Critically, though, phaser length is actually a function of available surface area, and not volume in any case. Certainly there are ships which could conceivably have a longer strip on a "smaller" chassis. They just don't.
And that bring up point two, which is that you missed my point completely. You asserted that strips must be better than the previous ball turret model (which you assume means more powerful, I guess), and used the tautological reasoning of "they switched to them because they are better, because if they weren't better they wouldn't have switched to them". My point is that same "reasoning" applies to later ships - they certainly COULD design bigger ships with longer strips, or longer strips on smaller ships (especially for ships that are intended for a main-line combat role), but they don't. Why? I submit that it must be true that shorter strips are now better (which I guess means more powerful), because later designs switched to them, because if they weren't better they wouldn't have done that. It's obviously terrible logic, I know. That was my point.
Makes perfect sense to me.
Also. It would be nice to have 'neck' variants for the Avenger, or at least remodel it. That's the only part of the ship I think makes no since at all when considering what Starfleet supposedly said about starship vulnerability. (Including the men that designed Sovereign class for the First Contact movie and so on). With the ship being so compact in design, the spit neck just kills the purpose of why the ship was built in the first place aesthetically and practically. Just my opinion. (Not sure if this was said many time before or not.)
There is a neck variant that's singular as far as I know.
I fully agree with you.
After looking at the ships design for a while i have noticed that the neck not just doesn't make much sense it also makes the ship too high and to compressed (=short) looking.
I think if there would be a option to remove the neck and connect Engineering hull and saucer directly the ship could look much better.
Additionally from a side long drawn-out neck makes the ship look like a coal brick which is totally unneeded.
Another thing are the pylons, althrough the nacelles ar on the right position for being fore swept, the pylons themselves are placed to far to the bow (at least when using the swept up version).
its bad form to recite what the tech manual says, that must be what you mean, because the basic function of arrays are explained how i have described, with no opinion added in to spice it up. theres the glowing effect in the show, the description of the emitters and their components, the bit about how they are all individually powered and act as capacitors, and how they shunt their power down the array to the point that actually fired. that is in the book, that is seen on screen, that is not embellished.
if theres going to be any sort of serious debate about ships and their capabilities, this is the information you have to adhere too or all your doing is saying this ships the best because its my favorite. theres not that much good solid info to benchmark anything, what there is frankly sucks and makes no sense, but this is what there is, and im not going to just dismiss it.
volume gives you the best idea of how much room there is for stuff. the sovereign is longer then a galaxy class, but it has less volume, or space for stuff, then just a galaxy's saucer section alone. no ship has the vast surface, or % of total ship devoted to the saucer that the galaxy has too, so its the only thing that can mount an array that long. a ship would need to have an even larger saucer to have a larger array, and if it was smaller then the galaxy, an even higher % of the ship would have to be the saucer. why arent there any zig zag arrays? why are they all a soft curve? these are actual good questions. why arent there longer arrays is answered by the fact that there are no larger ships or ships with more array mountable surface.
and why isn't there a ship bigger then the galaxy with an even longer array by the end of canon? because the galaxy was built to last 100 years as a class, and for at least 50 years serve as the largest class in the fleet. there was no need, and they didn't, build anything aproching its size. instead, throughout tng, ds9 and voy, you saw smaller and mid sized ships created, filling out the fleet. this here is the reasoning of least resistance.
i am of course referring to federation ships, theres a laundry list of ships bigger, and MUCH bigger then the galaxy. none of which are federation made and use phaser arrays though.