test content
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc
Options

Upgrading "old" ships

mirrorshatnermirrorshatner Member Posts: 149 Arc User
edited October 2013 in Federation Discussion
So apparently it is bad form to post in old threads (I have not "necro'd" any threads myself, but have followed after others).

So this is a new thread on the same topic as:
http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/showthread.php?t=196499
http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/showthread.php?t=789121

I wouldn't mind having the ability to upgrade the lower tier ships.
It wouldn't be about "an ancient TOS-Connie or NX" "being able to beat the TRIBBLE out of a Sovereign"
Some sort of upgrading system like Gran Turismo.

You can upgrade the hull, add weapon slots and upgrade Boff slots, but the maximum potential of higher Tier ships is always higher.
I.e. an upgraded Tier 1 ship is "as good" as a base Tier 4 ship.
an upgraded Tier 5 ship is the equivalent of a base Tier 7 ship (if they existed)

I would like to be able to fly the lower tier ships in just normal PvE situations at level 50.

It could be a "way around" the "ban" on a higher level Constitution class
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
Post edited by mirrorshatner on
«1

Comments

  • Options
    adverberoadverbero Member Posts: 2,045 Arc User
    edited October 2013
    hmm not sure if i agree with having the lowest tier avalible for the end game T5 But i like the concept of upgrading

    perhaps upgrading it to only 2 tiers above it so that a constitution could be used at late level 3/early 4 content, but not up against the sovy
    It would make me more inclided to purchase a C store low level ship if i could use it later on as well
    solar_approach_by_chaos_sandwhich-d74kjft.png


    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.......
  • Options
    anazondaanazonda Member Posts: 8,399 Arc User
    edited October 2013
    Yay... Lets beat the dead horse... AGAIN... for the 1,000,000'th time.
    Don't look silly... Don't call it the "Z-Store/Zen Store"...
    Let me put the rumors to rest: it's definitely still the C-Store (Cryptic Store) It just takes ZEN.
    Like Duty Officers? Support effords to gather ideas
  • Options
    robdmcrobdmc Member Posts: 1,619 Arc User
    edited October 2013
    Last I checked they do have an upgrade path. Lets see now what is it called again. Something about modules? Fleet... Fleet... Shiiiiip Modules... yes that's it. Fleet ships modules can be used to get higher tier ships like the stargazer. Most people don't because there is no discounts for those. I believe the fleet science vessel is fun to play with.
  • Options
    mirrorshatnermirrorshatner Member Posts: 149 Arc User
    edited October 2013
    robdmc wrote: »
    Last I checked they do have an upgrade path. Lets see now what is it called again. Something about modules? Fleet... Fleet... Shiiiiip Modules... yes that's it. Fleet ships modules can be used to get higher tier ships like the stargazer. Most people don't because there is no discounts for those. I believe the fleet science vessel is fun to play with.

    Yes I can see your sarcasm and contempt, but fleet modules aren't an upgrade path, they are a currency to buy a better ship.

    Gran Turismo upgrades are like
    Stage 1, Stage 2, Stage 3 options, with Chassis Reinforcement, Window Weight Reduction, Carbon Hood, and Carbon Hood Body Color as options.

    So for any ship in STO this could be:
    Stage 1 hull upgrade. Stage 2 hull upgrade.
    Stage 1 front weapon upgrade (+1 slot). Stage 2 weapon upgrade (+1 slot)
    Stage 1 Boff upgrade (increase Lt slot to Lt commander slot), Stage 2 Boff upgrade (increase Lt commander slot to Commander slot).

    P.S. your rudeness does your credibilty no favours.
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • Options
    robdmcrobdmc Member Posts: 1,619 Arc User
    edited October 2013
    Consoles you slot are kinda like this upgrade setup. The mark and rarity upgrades your ship and changes how it preforms.
  • Options
    joshglassjoshglass Member Posts: 159 Arc User
    edited October 2013
    An option to upgrade a ship in a fashion I'd prefer is something I've wanted since I first started playing. I HATE that I am forced to choose a new ship every tier! The closest we get to this is in First Contact when the crew takes the Enterprise E after the D was Destroyed in the previous film. The crew grow in ranks over the seasons of the shows, the Enterprise gets more and more character, but you don't see Picard changing commands every 10 episodes! On a similar note; I really dislike that there are more Vice Admirals in the game than Captains, but that's a different topic thread I imagine.
  • Options
    feiqafeiqa Member Posts: 2,410 Arc User
    edited October 2013
    Since you can put in newer gear each level/rank to make what a ship has do more. Why not instead of weapons slots, just add one console station and level up the bridge officer slots? That way a Miranda is still weak gun wise to a newer and bigger ship. But is just as versatile as a high end captain and crew can make them.

    Originally Posted by pwlaughingtrendy
    Network engineers are not ship designers.
    Nor should they be. Their ships would look weird.
  • Options
    dknight0001dknight0001 Member Posts: 1,542
    edited October 2013
    The developers have said that this is just not possible.

    Gran Turismo was designed from day 1 to allow you to upgrade cars. It's a car simulation.

    Star Trek Online was designed from day 1 to replace ships, it's a Star Trek themed MMO. It is not a Star Trek Simulation.

    Fleet versions of ships is the closest we're getting to upgrading, just give the new one the same name and number and consider it a refit.
    I was once DKnight1000, apparently I had taken my own name so now I'm DKnight0001. :confused:
    If I ask you a question it is not an insult but a genuine attempt to understand why.
    When I insult you I won't be discreet about it, I will be precise and to the point stupid.
  • Options
    nickcastletonnickcastleton Member Posts: 1,212 Arc User
    edited October 2013
    while i do kind of get the argument against t5 connies or nx i honestly dont understand why there isnt a t5 Exeter, Vesper or Excalibur class, these are 25th century vessels and should perform as good or better than a excelsior or ambassador class which are accent by now.
    0bzJyzP.gif





    "It appears we have lost our sex appeal, captain."- Tuvok
  • Options
    k0pak0pa Member Posts: 8 Arc User
    edited October 2013
    give it up already people... this is almost like taking a WW2 Battleship and upgrading it with today's tech... it not going to happen... the connie size would not even be able to fit the galaxy warp core
  • Options
    joshglassjoshglass Member Posts: 159 Arc User
    edited October 2013
    k0pa wrote: »
    give it up already people... this is almost like taking a WW2 Battleship and upgrading it with today's tech... it not going to happen... the connie size would not even be able to fit the galaxy warp core

    No, but the Defiant Warp Core was itty bitty and could easily fit a Connie or Miranda. Quite seriously the statistics for low end Cruisers are flat out silly with their inability to turn and react like the Escorts that are even bigger than them. Turning an Exeter into a Cruiser/Escort crossbreed isn't beyond the realms of the imagination, especially considering how small the Avenger Battlecruiser is.
  • Options
    alpha8no0nealpha8no0ne Member Posts: 60 Arc User
    edited October 2013
    k0pa wrote: »
    give it up already people... this is almost like taking a WW2 Battleship and upgrading it with today's tech... it not going to happen... the connie size would not even be able to fit the galaxy warp core

    About the bit with the WW2 battleships... we DID that (well 90's tech). The only reason we haven't been upgrading them further is because the hull type of battleships itself is obsolete. You can fulfill the same role (missile cruisers) with a ship much much smaller. Which means less crew, expenses and the ability to produce more faster. Which key since, one cruise missile WILL sink a ship (unless your lucky and have really good damage control).

    By your logic then the Klinks are using "obsolete" tech as well because I still see BoPs that are several hundred years old and Cruisers that are even older. And those BoPs are TINY little bugs...

    Also, no duh a Constitution wouldn't fit a Galaxy warp core, but would it NEED one? The Defiant has a tiny little warp core yet it's described as having so much power that it couldn't cloak properly...

    At least do a little research, please and thank you...

    -Starfleet Historical Research Department
  • Options
    farmallmfarmallm Member Posts: 4,630 Arc User
    edited October 2013
    k0pa wrote: »
    give it up already people... this is almost like taking a WW2 Battleship and upgrading it with today's tech... it not going to happen... the connie size would not even be able to fit the galaxy warp core

    They did that before. They decommissioned the ships in the 50s. Brought them back in the 80s with latest missiles and other tech. Then finally decommissioned them permanently. After their role was no longer needed. As air and missiles took their place. Some of the American battleships was decommissioned more than once and brought back.

    The connie won't need a Galaxy size core. Look at the Defiant and other smaller ships. Star Fleet uses ships of all sizes. Did Voyager have a Galaxy size core? So size don't matter as their is a role for them. If not then they are dropped. Look at the Excalibur/Vesper. Same size as Connie. All new for 2409.

    And to kill off the nearly 200 year old ship theory. If you build it from the frame up with all new components and materials. Then it won't be 200 something years old. Only the blueprint would be that old that you based it off. Like take a 65 Mustang. I use all new sheet metal all parts etc. It will look like one due to I went off those blue prints. But it won't be 48 years old.
    Enterprise%20C_zpsrdrf3v8d.jpg

    USS Casinghead NCC 92047 launched 2350
    Fleet Admiral Stowe - Dominion War Vet.
  • Options
    farmallmfarmallm Member Posts: 4,630 Arc User
    edited October 2013
    By your logic then the Klinks are using "obsolete" tech as well because I still see BoPs that are several hundred years old and Cruisers that are even older. And those BoPs are TINY little bugs...

    At least do a little research, please and thank you...

    -Starfleet Historical Research Department

    So true, my Klingon has used his T5 K'Tinga for a while. Only put it away the other week since I got the Carrier from the gift week. When I decided to try out a carrier ship. And plan on getting back on my K'Tinga again in the future. I have no issues taking out ships.
    Enterprise%20C_zpsrdrf3v8d.jpg

    USS Casinghead NCC 92047 launched 2350
    Fleet Admiral Stowe - Dominion War Vet.
  • Options
    k0pak0pa Member Posts: 8 Arc User
    edited October 2013
    Cbs Is Not Going Allow It End Of Story

    Now Stop Beating On A Dead Horse ... At This Rate It More Like Mush Then A Horse
  • Options
    alpha8no0nealpha8no0ne Member Posts: 60 Arc User
    edited October 2013
    k0pa wrote: »
    Cbs Is Not Going Allow It End Of Story

    Now Stop Beating On A Dead Horse ... At This Rate It More Like Mush Then A Horse

    Now see if you had just said that instead of making up facts you might not have been instantly slapped in the back of the head by several people... :P
  • Options
    mirrorshatnermirrorshatner Member Posts: 149 Arc User
    edited October 2013
    k0pa wrote: »
    Cbs Is Not Going Allow It End Of Story

    Now Stop Beating On A Dead Horse ... At This Rate It More Like Mush Then A Horse

    Now see if you had just said that instead of making up facts you might not have been instantly slapped in the back of the head by several people... :P

    There's no dead horse being beaten here.
    I've been suggesting an upgrade system that complements the existing ship tiers and applies to all ships.
    Only a few people posting in this thread have actually comprehended that concept. You are not one of them.
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • Options
    feiqafeiqa Member Posts: 2,410 Arc User
    edited October 2013
    k0pa wrote: »
    Cbs Is Not Going Allow It End Of Story

    Now Stop Beating On A Dead Horse ... At This Rate It More Like Mush Then A Horse

    Now now, if you get the mush just right you can pour it into a horse shaped mold. ;)


    Seriously though they could sell upgrade kits the way they do fleet modules and people would eat them up to bring a Miranda, Connie, or similar low tier vessel to the higher levels. I know I would love to use the Connie as a theme through the Romulan arc at minimum. The T'liss would be great to use past Nimbus. Oddly not as much attachment in me for the Klingon ships. . . . hmm.

    Originally Posted by pwlaughingtrendy
    Network engineers are not ship designers.
    Nor should they be. Their ships would look weird.
  • Options
    farmallmfarmallm Member Posts: 4,630 Arc User
    edited October 2013
    Gear is already upgradeable as you do missions, buy, etc. The older lower tier ships I doubt upgrades would work. However you have a lot to do to get them up to par.

    What I would like to see as an upgrade. Is like buy a Bridge Officer station upgrade. You get 1 per ship. That way if you want a little more Eng, Tac, or Sci ability added. Then you can get it. Some ships could use a station upgrade in some areas.
    Enterprise%20C_zpsrdrf3v8d.jpg

    USS Casinghead NCC 92047 launched 2350
    Fleet Admiral Stowe - Dominion War Vet.
  • Options
    mirrorshatnermirrorshatner Member Posts: 149 Arc User
    edited October 2013
    First of all, it's everybody's right to disagree, but at least try to comprehend the concept you are actually disagreeing with.

    So next I thought I would outline a possible framework for the upgrade system.

    Coding
    Assume that a ship can be upgraded the equivalent of three "Stages"
    Hidden slots are disabled until the "stage" upgrades are applied
    • All ships in the game could have two front and one rear weapon slots added - but "hidden"
    • Three hidden "hull" console slots - add 20% hull hitpoints per upgrade stage
    • A hidden ensign Boff slot on each ship
    • Boff slots to be upgraded are already of the "higher" version, but higher level skills are disabled

    Existing game mechanics used:
    * The Arkif got a hangar bay added after release - so there is precedent for changes
    * Expansion to inventory and Boff slots are hidden until unlocked/purchased

    Gameplay
    • Stage upgrades occur at the homeworld (Spacedock or Qonos)
    • Only one slot type can be upgraded at a time and takes X amount of time.
    • Amount of time to upgrade increases at each tier. Upgrading on a tier 5 ship takes 5x as long as on a tier 1 ship.
    • Ships are unavailable to sail(fly) while being upgraded
    • 3rd Stage upgrades can only be performed on a fleet starbase
    • End game focused players will probably not upgrade any of the ships below tier 5 - but will focus on upgrades on their tier 5 ship

    Monetization
    • Each upgrade costs X amount of dilithium
    • Higher tiered ships cost more dilithium per upgrade
    • C-Store sells items which speed up the upgrade time
    • C-Store sells items which allow multiple simultaneous upgrades
    • As above, a fleet starbase is required to upgrade to Stage 3 levels

    Benefits
    • More ship customisation - not "off the rack"
    • Option to keep progression with a ship longer
    • Increased longevity and progression for endgame ships
    • More revenue for PWE
    • Higher tier ships retain their superior status
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • Options
    ufpterrellufpterrell Member Posts: 736 Arc User
    edited October 2013
    Sounds like a fair suggestion. To be fair a system like that would probably bring in more money than the current fleet module system, since the more dedicated players would want to upgrade most of their favourite ships. I know I'd like to upgrade my Galaxy (mainly because the fleet version is ****) and my Exeter. Unlikely to happen though, Cryptic tend to be a bit lazy when it comes to things like this, focusing on a quick and easy cash grab (i.e. fleet ships)
    Terrell.png

    Looking for a dedicated Star Trek community? Visit www.ufplanets.com for details.
  • Options
    astro2244astro2244 Member Posts: 623 Arc User
    edited October 2013
    As much as the beat a dead horse argument is used and I once agreed fully. I changed my mind, why? Logic shows that the T'varo and the Somraw raptor (Both endgame ships) which are designs that are closing in on the big 300 in terms of age blow that outta the water I once could understand Cbs and Cryptic regarding this if they had held to that principle with those ships too out of fairness, but it makes no sense with those designs, being from archers era being able to be big players in the 25th century.



    Heresy you say? A lack of immersion you say? I argue that any players who don't want their immersion ruined need to paste their eyes shut. We have timeships and breen ships and elachi oh my! (pardon the tweeked wizard of oz quote) My point is unfortunately Immersion went out the airlock several years ago.



    A modest upgrade to these ships isn't going to kill anything at this point.
    [SIGPIC]583px-Romulan_Star_Empire_logo%2C_2379.svg.png
    [/SIGPIC]
  • Options
    willdaviesalpha1willdaviesalpha1 Member Posts: 17 Arc User
    edited October 2013
    Since some ships from Enterprise and the Original Series are T5 on the Klingon and Romulan side, isn't it a little unfair for the Federation to not get any? Also, since the T'varo was in the Enterprise episode episode "Minefield", and that was before the Original series T'liss, why do we have a T5 T'varo but not a T'liss?
  • Options
    feiqafeiqa Member Posts: 2,410 Arc User
    edited October 2013
    Since some ships from Enterprise and the Original Series are T5 on the Klingon and Romulan side, isn't it a little unfair for the Federation to not get any? Also, since the T'varo was in the Enterprise episode episode "Minefield", and that was before the Original series T'liss, why do we have a T5 T'varo but not a T'liss?

    I would also ask why the Connie and T'liss are tier 1 but the Klingon D7 is tier 3?

    Originally Posted by pwlaughingtrendy
    Network engineers are not ship designers.
    Nor should they be. Their ships would look weird.
  • Options
    vetteguy904vetteguy904 Member Posts: 3,896 Arc User
    edited October 2013
    About the bit with the WW2 battleships... we DID that (well 90's tech). The only reason we haven't been upgrading them further is because the hull type of battleships itself is obsolete. You can fulfill the same role (missile cruisers) with a ship much much smaller. Which means less crew, expenses and the ability to produce more faster. Which key since, one cruise missile WILL sink a ship (unless your lucky and have really good damage control).

    By your logic then the Klinks are using "obsolete" tech as well because I still see BoPs that are several hundred years old and Cruisers that are even older. And those BoPs are TINY little bugs...

    Also, no duh a Constitution wouldn't fit a Galaxy warp core, but would it NEED one? The Defiant has a tiny little warp core yet it's described as having so much power that it couldn't cloak properly...

    At least do a little research, please and thank you...

    -Starfleet Historical Research Department

    The battleships were recommissioned and upgraded as a cheaper and faster alternative to adding aircraft carriers. remember this was the era of Reagan wanting a 600 ship Navy. yes thery were expensive to run, but they were awesome at what they did, show the flag and American might. FYI, the battleships did not receive the full upgrade. the original upgrade design removed the after 16 inch turret and fitted a massive vertical launch facility. essentially they became mobile missile silos, capable of lanunching a couple hundred tomahawks, and still having enough VLS space to be a spare magazine for the Aegis cruiser's AAW capability.
    and in the case of the battleships. it would take a lot more than one cruise missile to sink one. in fact, one captain was asked what he would do if his ship was hit by a missile. he replied "man Sweepers", because with very few exceptions, there isn't a cruise missile out there that can penetrate the armor. the battleships were decommissioned for political and fical reasons, not because they are antiquated or outdated.
    sig.jpg
  • Options
    feiqafeiqa Member Posts: 2,410 Arc User
    edited October 2013
    Sensors indicate a caitian carrier, Sir. Excellent. Ready the Catnip Torpedoes for a full spread.

    Uh sir, I think they detect the torpedoes in the magazine, sir.

    Originally Posted by pwlaughingtrendy
    Network engineers are not ship designers.
    Nor should they be. Their ships would look weird.
  • Options
    misterde3misterde3 Member Posts: 4,195 Arc User
    edited October 2013
    Since some ships from Enterprise and the Original Series are T5 on the Klingon and Romulan side, isn't it a little unfair for the Federation to not get any? Also, since the T'varo was in the Enterprise episode episode "Minefield", and that was before the Original series T'liss, why do we have a T5 T'varo but not a T'liss?

    Geko once explained why and it's actually pretty simple:
    The T'varo as it appeared on "Enterprise" was a massive anachronism.
    The ship with all its details and colour is absolutely perfect as a companion for the Mogai and D'deridex in the 24th century.
    That's the reason why it's in STO: because its appearance in the 22nd century was, to be blunt, total BS. And obviously CBS agrees with this assesment.

    As for the Raptor: the one from "Enterprise" and the one from STO have very little to do with each other. The one in STO is actually over 100 meters bigger and a new design.
    Here's the background article on the ship as it used to be available on the STO homepage:

    http://www.warcry.com/news/view/89845-Star-Trek-Online-Klingon-Raptor-Revealed
    After the Dominion War, the Klingon Empire embarked on an aggressive period of starship design and construction to replace ships lost during the war and subsequent conflicts.

    Facing the increasing demands of Chancellor Martok and the Klingon High Council to create more ships in less time, the design teams at the shipyards of Ty'Gokor looked to the past for inspiration for new ships for the Empire.

    The Raptor class of the 22nd century was a small frigate intended for use as a scout ship. Its limited weapons and small crew compliment made it a ship for hit-and-run raids rather than extended conflicts. It was, according to lead designer Kurak of the House of Palkar, "capable of winning a battle, but not a war."

    The new Raptor shares the basic geometry of its ancestor but is larger and packs a much more powerful punch. The ship is classified as a destroyer and is fast, maneuverable and armed to the teeth.

    An improved cloaking device allows it to travel at warp six or higher without radiating a subspace variance detectable by Federation sensors and particle dampeners limit the Raptor's emissions of tetryon particles. Ablative tetraburnium alloy hull plating adapted from captured Federation technology allows the ship to fight longer and harder.

    Fore and aft torpedo launchers and disruptor beam arrays give the Raptor the ability to take on multiple foes at once, and a disruptor cannon and twin disruptor beam banks make it a dangerous opponent. While many of the weapons on the Raptor class are designed for a frontal attack, it can deal damage from almost any angle and then turn quickly for a decisive strike against a wounded foe.

    The Klingon Defense Force is assigning some of its most aggressive and ambitious captains to the new Raptor vessels, and they have scored some impressive victories against Federation and Romulan targets. Captains of Raptor class ships are fond of overcharging their weapon banks for greater effect, and Federation ships facing a Raptor are warned to be prepared for these devastating attacks.

    If the Raptor class ships have a weakness, it is that so much of the available space in the ships is taken up by weapons and shield generators that the limited medical facilities are ill-equipped to deal with large numbers of wounded crew. When asked, Kurak retorted that this was not a failing of the Raptor class, rather it was a reflection of the Klingon warrior ideal to fight with honor, to strive for success and, if necessary, to die in glorious battle. "Klingon warriors do not need healers to lick their wounds. Klingon warriors fight only one way - to the death."
  • Options
    mirrorshatnermirrorshatner Member Posts: 149 Arc User
    edited October 2013
    Space ships get compared to sea-going vessels and aircraft.

    To go with the aircraft comparison,

    the B52 design was commissioned in the 1950s and the design is expected to have a useful life into the 2040s.

    http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/systems/b-52-life.htm
    http://news.cnet.com/8301-13639_3-57413883-42/sixty-years-on-the-b-52-is-still-going-strong/
    https://medium.com/war-is-boring/b8ae1a9bb99f

    And that's just for the useful life of the existing airframes. If new airframes were produced then the "wear and tear" issue would be a non-factor if the design is still considered serviceable.
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • Options
    mikearoomikearoo Member Posts: 342 Arc User
    edited October 2013
    If they ever let me Fleet my Tactical Odyssey, I'll stop whinging :D
    It might prevent it from being completely outdated by the Avenger :p
  • Options
    misterde3misterde3 Member Posts: 4,195 Arc User
    edited October 2013
    Space ships get compared to sea-going vessels and aircraft.

    To go with the aircraft comparison,

    the B52 design was commissioned in the 1950s and the design is expected to have a useful life into the 2040s.

    http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/systems/b-52-life.htm
    http://news.cnet.com/8301-13639_3-57413883-42/sixty-years-on-the-b-52-is-still-going-strong/
    https://medium.com/war-is-boring/b8ae1a9bb99f

    And that's just for the useful life of the existing airframes. If new airframes were produced then the "wear and tear" issue would be a non-factor if the design is still considered serviceable.

    You'll also notice that the only designs that go so long are carriers and strategic bombers like the B-52 and the Tu-95. That's because neither of them are expected to ever get under fire. Carriers stay out of the enemy's effective range and strategic bombers are only used after air-defenses have been demolished and air superiority has been achieved. And those two tasks are not done by fighters from the 50's for a reason.;)
Sign In or Register to comment.