Who cares about how things work in a make believe science fiction show. All i care about is we finally got a Tier 6 Galaxy that can we can be proud of. A Galaxy that can throw punches as well as take them. A Galaxy that is no longer considered a joke to take into PvE and can dish it out with the best of them.
We lobbied for this for many years and finally got a competitive Galaxy to use in this game, so lets get in game and fly the flag and show people what a Galaxy Class can do.
I believe Lucas said they only changed that to Greedo shooting first because otherwise the MPAA was threatening to upgrade A New Hope's rating from PG to PG-13 for showing one of the heroes committing second-degree murder. Even Lucas himself was photographed wearing a "Han shot first!" T-shirt.
/derail
I wouldn't had expect this from Mr. Lucas.
But yeah, Han shot first! 100%.
It was a character defining moment that was twisted to suit for a (very) younger audience, just to make more $$$. (simply disgusting imo)
Who cares about how things work in a make believe science fiction show. All i care about is we finally got a Tier 6 Galaxy that can we can be proud of. A Galaxy that can throw punches as well as take them. A Galaxy that is no longer considered a joke to take into PvE and can dish it out with the best of them.
We lobbied for this for many years and finally got a competitive Galaxy to use in this game, so lets get in game and fly the flag and show people what a Galaxy Class can do.
:thumbs up:
"...'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
Which is why most of the time on the show Geordi has to make modifications in order to handle the energy flow.
Beef up the components on your car radio and it will be able to handle the load of your rear defroster.
You would need to completely rebuild the raido to even get close. The microchipbboard can only handle a 10amp surge load. Most operate at 5amps. Wile the ear defroster is a 25amp system with a 30amp surge.
cool hostility bro! well i tried to defuse that, but F it.
you mean demonstrating i'm an expert. oops sorry, that was arrogant, i keep forgetting facts end were feelings begin.
This is the problem, they arent facts, you arent an expert, they are just your ( and a few of your friends) interpretation. No matter how much you want it to be a fact, its still your opinion/interpretation. This is where you missing the mark, and why people are highly disagreeing. You havent been made Star Trek Pope. If you had carried on as if it was just an opinion and not pushed your opinion as fact, you wouldnt be hearing the majority of this.
you once again assume the actual emitter discharge plate, visible on the surface of the hull, and the output rating of each emitter segment are the same thing. the 5.1 is how much raw plasma each segment can receive, convert, pass on or fire on its own. there is no observed limit to how much throughput can pass through the surface discharge plate at once, that was the specific component i was referring to in that quote.
No, you keep not getting that if the plate on the surface can handle any amount of energy you care to put through it, then the thing that limits the firing power is ONLY the amount of power you can provide to that emitter. That's my point. As soon as that's true, you lose because you can't prove that the array is the ONLY way to provide that power.
there is a shortage of terms to clearly illustrate what im trying to convey perhaps, but i don't want to go inventing any, cause i'd get even more undo grief for that. when i specifically say segments, that refers to everything between the EPS conduit and the prefire chamber, and every segment can handle it's 5.1MW. the literal emitter part of the emitter, the discharge plate that sticks out of the hull, has no observed limit to how much power can pass through it or fire from any point on it. i may have failed to explain this clearly yet, but i have not changed positions on anything, merely elaborated glossed over portions of the theory, that inevitably get called into question.
Drunk, I've already pointed out you explicitly contradicting yourself - and the fact that you think the terms for this discussion don't exist just (again) demonstrates that you don't know what you're talking about. Of course the terms exist - this is just a question of energy flow and energy conversion, which is simply a question of thermodynamics. You are doing here exactly what I said you would - you're pretending that there was a key distinction that you made long ago, based on special vocabulary that only you and your special circle of special friends understand, and that even though I explained what appears to be the only possible way your interpretation works in extremely plain language and then explained why that still fails you continue to "reason" that since you're certain about your conclusion it must be true that your reasoning is sound and you've thought of all of this before. It's simply an incredible claim, given you demonstrated inconsistency in your explanations, as well as you mysterious inability to articulate your theory in concrete, falsifiable ways.
the tech manual description of all the components in each emitter segment can be found in the post i linked, you're welcome to read up on them, an understanding would be needed or surly what i'm writing would appear to be gibberish. not only would it allow you to be aconstructive participant, it would be polite to actually be on the same page, its on the detractor to understand the subject mater before he barges in and calls everything BS or illogical.
No, Drunk. Just... no. I'm sorry, but what you wrote doesn't "appear" to be gibberish. It factually is gibberish. You simply don't understand the terms and concepts in play here well enough (see your notion that the vocabulary for these concepts doesn't exist) to understand why it is gibberish. Also, it's actually NOT on the critic to prove the criticism, that's simply a misunderstanding of how reasoning works. You have asserted an affirmative position - that it MUST be true that the Galaxy has the most powerful phaser array the Federation ever built. It is your responsibility to answer every single charge against that claim, or else concede that it is false.
its not being routed through the lower internal workings of each emitter, the part that receives and processes the raw plasma. the energy is discharged through the surface emitter plate, i may not have plainly stated that because i though that was OBVIOUS, seeing as you see that literally happening in the show, thats the moving low effect.
Drunk, do you understand that I'm saying that even if that were one way to transfer energy, it's not the only way? Do you understand that in order to support your position you are having to make up a new magical form of "phaser energy" that can only be generated and then transferred in one incredibly specific way (a limitation which is never even implied on the show)? Do you understand why that's an illogical and unreasonable way to develop your argument? You keep acting like it has to be this way, and only this way, because you started with the conclusion that it must be true that the Galaxy is the most powerful warship built (despite all evidence to the contrary), and keep working backwards from that conclusion.
Try this instead - work forward from what we see on the show:
Is there a reason to build phaser arrays? Sure. They provide superior fire arc and redundancy, at a minor cost in efficiency as power is transferred along the array. This explains the design, explains the glow, and explains the fact that the Galaxy class simply wasn't portrayed as that powerful in the shows, ever. Thus, it is a sufficient explanation.
The embroidery you've added in the guise of "figuring it out" is nothing more than rationalizations of a conclusion that you can't accept as simply something you've chosen to believe come hell or high water. I'm not saying you have to change your belief (though I certainly feel that you should), but you can't keep pretending that it has any value as an argument, because it's not one. It's like young earth creationists dismissing geological evidence as "tricks of the devil" or a "test of faith".
its more elaboration. i intentionally never mentioned per segment output in megawatts, among other things, because it makes what is being talked about more complex, less cut and dry. the insipid nitpicking is what drew it out, i would have preferred keeping it much more simple, because the more complex i have to get, the more hellish the debate becomes. i mean clearly, just look at this thread.
So, you lied because it made your argument sound simpler, and therefore (you presumed) more likely to be true, and then when you were called on the fact that your lie makes your argument worse you abandoned it, all while claiming that it wasn't a change, simply an elaboration. By way of analogy, let me say this:
I totally respect your position and think it's reasonable. By way of elaboration, let me be clear - I don't actually respect your position at all, and find it to be ridiculous in the extreme, but I didn't want to point that out because I find that unreasonable people don't like having their unreasonableness thrown in their faces.
You were caught out because you don't understand what you're talking about well enough to make a coherent argument, and I do. The best part is that you literally admitted here to changing your position in response to the counterarguments, but again you think that as long as your conclusion has stayed the same the fact that your support for it is fluid at best is not a problem.
right, this is once again something i just made up on the spot. did you ever even watch star trek? go ahead, try containing antimater in a box made of mater, tell me how that goes. a GCS, the yamato, was lost because 'special' magnetic fields stooped working all the sudden.
Herp derp. Drunk, I'm not saying that you don't need magnetic fields to contain antimatter - I know that you do, because that's how we, today, contain antimatter that we generate here in the status quo. Actually, that's not strictly true - there are also laser traps that we use when we have uncharged species, but electro-magnetic traps are easier to work with by and large. What I was responding to (and it's clear this has sailed over your head) is that your assertion that we need some kind of "special" magnetic field to do it, and the implication that this was somehow unknowable magic Trek technology. It isn't. We do it now - it's not like it's commonplace, but it's also not like its revolutionary or cutting edge. Nobody is winning the Nobel Prize for isolating antimatter at this point. It's settled science.
no reason not, sure. but it doesn't. the manual tells us exactly what does the converting, its all self contained in emitter segments. plasma is routed through the ship, its the universal power source. the phaser energy, or rapid nadions or whatever, are created on site in emitter segments. they could do anything, anywhere, but instead they do it the exact way they describe. they can do that, because its not real, and the science is not real, and it all works the way they say it does, because its a tv show.
they do it were it says they do it, they do it were you see it happen, and it works the way it does because thats the way they say it works. i didn't decide any of that, take it up with the show producers if you dont like it.
cool, i believe its totally possible such a thing exists, that could turn my theory on their head, and i would accept it. i look forward to the screenshot or passage in the manual that talks about it, until then i'll stick to actual evidence.
Two problems. First, they never said what you think they said. You assume they said those things because you are confusing your backwards inferences from the conclusion you wanted to draw to be properly inferred from the evidence at hand. The fact is, based on the show and the technical manuals, there is not enough evidence to support your interpretation as the only possible one. In fact, I would contend that there's not even enough evidence to make your interpretation likely or reasonable, but really, it doesn't matter. You conceded my point about how unfounded your argument was when you said that there's no reason it couldn't be done another way. Further, you demonstrated my point about how you don't understand how reasoning works when you (again) confused your interpretation of what the technical manuals say for "evidence", and compounded the error when you asserted that "evidence" is superior to reasoning from a standpoint of actual facts based on things we actually know.
i know we are dealing with make believe, but your post is an existential rollercoaster. none of what you say is right, because they could have done things in all these other ways! sorry, they didn't do things those ways, they didn't describe the components or functions in that way, they did them the way they did them.
Dude, they didn't describe the functions of the components in ANY meaningful way. They tossed out questionable techno-babble, you took that and filled in the gaps, and now you are confusing that for some sort of body of knowledge when it isn't.
Further, you seriously expose your failure to understand logic with your incredulity about my "existential rollercoaster". Here's the deal - you are asserting that one possible scenario is the only possible scenario. That is your conclusion. You are right - that entire conclusion is false as long as I can demonstrate at least one alternate possibility. If you had simply made your conclusion "I think it's possible that the Galaxy has the most powerful phasers ever", there would be no way for me to dispute that - certainly it's possible. It's not likely, and I think it flies in the face of the intentions of the show-runners, as well as creating problems with the overall narrative structures of the shows and TNG-era movies, but whatever. It's possible.
The problem is that you don't want it to be "possible", you want to keep pretending that it's a "fact", and you want to use that "fact" and your elucidation thereof as a reason why you are an "expert" on Star Trek, and know better how people should be thinking about the show. I'm sorry that you are going to have to navigate the cognitive dissonance between "I like big mean fighting ships" and "I like the Galaxy class" without the crutch of your certainty in your conclusion to guide you, but there it is. Your interpretation isn't fact. It's merely possible (not even likely), and you are unreasonable to suggest anything otherwise.
Now, if you want to get into a discussion of which subjective interpretation is better:
Mine sufficiently explains everything that we see on the show, is exactly as supported by the text of the technical manuals and show dialogue, and is more in line with what we know about actual science AND the narrative intentions of the show/movie creators.
Yours, at best, explains what we see on the show, but is not consistent with the intentions of the show/movie creators, nor with what we know about actual science. The only claim you have for it being superior is that it adheres more closely to the "evidence", but that doesn't seem to be a true claim (everything you have cited is ambiguous at best), and in the end raises the question of how we choose to evaluate the value of a position. I think that since mine doesn't require made-up anti-science to support it, we should prefer it, based on my belief that real knowledge trumps fake knowledge.
you know, i get the feeling a debate about magic future science, that has nothing you can relate with currency science, isn't really your cup of tee, it doesn't float your boat. thankfully, there are an infinite number of other things you could spend your time doing.
Here again you resort to an appeal to magical nonsense as a reason to prefer your interpretation - I welcome your admission that your position is functionally "a wizard did it", as it makes plain what I'm saying - your explanation is merely a techno-babble extrapolation to get you to your desired conclusion. It's not reasonable, and it's certainly not fact. I'm sorry that the interjection of actual knowledge and reasoning has gotten in the way of your dontdrunk magical science bed-time story. Maybe next time don't act like your subjective opinion and rationalizations thereof are anything but your subjective opinions, and you won't have this problem of getting that position beat down again.
Also to be considered is the maximum, non-emergency tolerances of the individual emitter elements and their transfer mechanisms. It does zero good to have 1000 emitters chained together if the focal point can only handle the energies of 10 elements worth of phaser power.(...)
This is true. But given that the ship repeatedly does fire those shots without damaging itself, I'd assume the emitter surface can handle the energy accumulation. It's the individual transfer system to/beneath a emitter that can handle the limited amount of 5.1 MW. But I do agree with the versatility thing
Thank you. I try to make it work for me and put enough into the explanation that people can agree on it without jumping at each other throats
^ Memory Alpha.org is not canon. It's a open wiki with arbitrary rules. Only what can be cited from an episode is. ^
"No. Men do not roar. Women roar. Then they hurl heavy objects... and claw at you." -Worf, son of Mogh
"A filthy, mangy beast, but in its bony breast beat the heart of a warrior" - "faithful" (...) "but ever-ready to follow the call of the wild." - Martok, about a Targ
"That pig smelled horrid. A sweet-sour, extremely pungent odor. I showered and showered, and it took me a week to get rid of it!" - Robert Justman, appreciating Emmy-Lou
And despite your best efforts still have not provided any evidence as to why a larger array is more powerful and therefore why other ships can't have powerful phasers either.
Really? Seems to be pretty simple the way drunk describes it. We basically have 3 (or more) potential bottlenecks here
1. emitter discharge plate (part of the phaser emitter)
2. EPS conduits
2. Power generator (the fusion reactor or antimatter reactor)
Drunk assumes the discharge plate has an infinite energy storage capability. Each plate ist bound to a phaser emitter which are connected in series. If this is the case then the only limiting factors would be bottleneck 2 and 3 and the spatial variables that make up the emitter. If each each emitter is attached to an individual EPS conduit only the the spatial variables remain. That indeed means that a bigger array will have a higher collective energy output then a smaller one.
It all hinges on the fact(?) that the emitter discharge plate would have to hold a large amount of energy. Not an infinite amount per se, but at least greater then the sum of what all emitters can produce in that array.
I believe Lucas said they only changed that to Greedo shooting first because otherwise the MPAA was threatening to upgrade A New Hope's rating from PG to PG-13 for showing one of the heroes committing second-degree murder. Even Lucas himself was photographed wearing a "Han shot first!" T-shirt.
/derail
The thing is this, who the hell cares about a justifiable homicide defense in freaking MOS EISLEY??? (that TRIBBLE-hole)
If Han shot first, it just proves that Jabba should've sent someone with a faster trigger finger if he wanted the job to actually get done. Jabba learned that, he sent Boba Fett later.
This is true. But given that the ship repeatedly does fire those shots without damaging itself, I'd assume the emitter surface can handle the energy accumulation. It's the individual transfer system to/beneath a emitter that can handle the limited amount of 5.1 MW. But I do agree with the versatility thing
Thank you. I try to make it work for me and put enough into the explanation that people can agree on it without jumping at each other throats
Really? Seems to be pretty simple the way drunk describes it. We basically have 3 (or more) potential bottlenecks here
1. emitter discharge plate (part of the phaser emitter)
2. EPS conduits
2. Power generator (the fusion reactor or antimatter reactor)
Drunk assumes the discharge plate has an infinite energy storage capability. Each plate ist bound to a phaser emitter which are connected in series. If this is the case then the only limiting factors would be bottleneck 2 and 3 and the spatial variables that make up the emitter. If each each emitter is attached to an individual EPS conduit only the the spatial variables remain. That indeed means that a bigger array will have a higher collective energy output then a smaller one.
It all hinges on the fact(?) that the emitter discharge plate would have to hold a large amount of energy. Not an infinite amount per se, but at least greater then the sum of what all emitters can produce in that array.
I postulate that the limited for the power is the prefire chamber where it actually becomes phaser energy.
"Rise like Lions after slumber, In unvanquishable number, Shake your chains to earth like dew, Which in sleep had fallen on you-Ye are many they are few"
Kinda taking a stab in the dark, as I've only managed to read about 1/3rd of this thread, but I do have a question here.
With the Delta recruit stuff going on, I figured, why the heck not ,and grabbed the galaxy 3 pack. Now mind you, the delta dude didn't have any traits, but I am hard pressed to even remember, what was wrong with the galaxy of old ? It seems to get the job done on any tier.
Mind you I do see the AHC is a superior (imho) ship, but I've played that one to death on an alt. The only cruiser I don't have is the new galaxy and the engineering and science command ships...
But anyways, the question, Sure the skin was kind of off, but what was the build problem with the old ship? Was it strictly due to limitations versus other classes ? (odyssey ? )
thanks dudes, and sorry for the hijack. I know return you to nerd wars.
My mother always told me to walk away from a fight, The Marines taught me how.
Isn't it possible to find a compromise all parties can agree on?
The way I see it: TM says one Type X phaser emitter is capable of a maximum output of 5.1 MW energy. The Ent-Ds shields operate at a maximum capacity of something around 2.6 or so GW. Even if we assume the Ent-Ds shields are exceptionally strong, a 5.1 MW hit would tickle most other ship's shields, especially those in comparable weight classes. However, phaser hits did disable many ships' shields on the first volley or downright destroyed the target. They also had prolonged fights and could not bring down the other shields. That means that single emitter shots cannot be the end to all and the arrays are simply to cover a bigger field of fire (which they also do, though). If one emitter cannot operate beyond 5.1 GW, a bigger number of emitters have to be capable of combining their output. And since the powerful shots are not large phaser waves emitted by 200 emitters AND the used FX is a typical Sci-Fi "charge up" animation we can assume that emitters can combine their firepower by somehow transfering their "shot" over the emitter surface to the neighbouring emitter, incresing the overall energy and are ultimately unleashed at the emitter that's best suited to take the shot. The enrgy, though, traverses the emitters on the surface, which is what we see. Now, real life physics might suggest that the glow alone is a safe sign of massive power loss, but this technology is so efficient that it's not an issue. This set up would make sense in so far as the numbers in the TM given for shield strength and weapon strength add up to reasonable dimensions. That means that array length does matter. However, a upgraded emitter that is capable of more than 5.1 GW or a emitter that is fiddled with to be able to deal with more can be stronger, which means a shorter array can deal equivalent damage to the Type X long array.
So, both theories can work together. Now, can we be friends again?
this is pretty much what i have been saying and why both the sov and gal have the same fire power (galaxy still having more as it can get both main arrays on the same target.
main issue is we have no official say on what type phasers the sov has and how many emitters. i think the best guess i have seen do to the size of the array section compared to the galaxy is about 160 to 170 emitters. i think the accepted theroy is the sov has MKXI like the akira this would mean it has 6.2Mw per emitter this would give the main array of the sov with mkxi .9-1.05Gw of phaser energy. pretty much the same as the galaxy can do with it's mkx
Kinda taking a stab in the dark, as I've only managed to read about 1/3rd of this thread, but I do have a question here.
With the Delta recruit stuff going on, I figured, why the heck not ,and grabbed the galaxy 3 pack. Now mind you, the delta dude didn't have any traits, but I am hard pressed to even remember, what was wrong with the galaxy of old ? It seems to get the job done on any tier.
Mind you I do see the AHC is a superior (imho) ship, but I've played that one to death on an alt. The only cruiser I don't have is the new galaxy and the engineering and science command ships...
But anyways, the question, Sure the skin was kind of off, but what was the build problem with the old ship? Was it strictly due to limitations versus other classes ? (odyssey ? )
thanks dudes, and sorry for the hijack. I know return you to nerd wars.
compared to every other T5 cruiser it was dead last. the stargazer was a better ship in both support and tactical ability
compared to every other T5 cruiser it was dead last. the stargazer was a better ship in both support and tactical ability
ahh thanks man. Yeah, looking over it at the wiki, it does seem to be sub par. That makes sense to me now, why there was so much about it in the past (having done a search myself to see what was up.)
Thanks again.
My mother always told me to walk away from a fight, The Marines taught me how.
"My magical rainbow unicorn is better than yours!" :rolleyes:
Welcome to STAR TREK online. :eek:
"...'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
In another thread, someone complained about the Galaxy class in game being a "gimped Titanic" and wanted a better one. That sentiment is one I've seen a lot, with people who grew up on TNG having an attachment to that ship and wanting it to be made as a viable endgame ship if not THE main flagship as it was lo those decades ago when TNG was still on the air. My reply to him was as follows:
Now I won't deny I hate the Galaxy and have from the first moment I laid eyes on it in 1987. I feel it's hideously ugly and the design principles both inside and out were misguided at best. I grew up on TOS, but I immediately recognized the Constitution refit as vastly superior to the original and the Excelsior as better still. I fell in love with the Sovereign at first sight as it corrected virtually every design mistake made with Galaxy and restored grace and beauty to the Enterprise line.
But even if the Galaxy was an amazing ship, she's still vastly outdated just like my beloved Refit Enterprise from TMP and TWOK. Time moves on and beloved ships get outdated and replaced by modern designs. That's how it works. It happens to cars too. Why can't some people accept that and move on from the Galaxy, especially when the Guardian exists to represent the Ambassador / Galaxy design lineage in the modern setting?
I think a big part of the problem is the INCONSISTENT approach to ships that Cryptic has taken.
How can you expect fans of the Galaxy (for example) to give up on their ship, and embrace a new one, when you have things like the T5-U Excelsior, which is vastly superior in most every way to the Galaxy (T5-U) even if the Excelsior is 150 years older. Then, top that off with 200+ year old Xindi / Andorian / Vulcan ships and you have to wonder why 40 year old ships can't be given an end game treatment.
And if it was only a matter of a couple of historic ships being elevated, then maybe it wouldn't be a big deal, but then you have brand new modern ships (like the Excalibur / Vesper) which were built in the 2400s, and yet they don't get an endgame treatment?
If you ask me (which you didn't) the entire lineup of ships needs to be reworked all the way down to Tier 0, with all antique ships pushed down to their relative position in comparison to newer ships, then develop modern variants (like the Guardian when compared to the Ambassador) as viable endgame ships inspired by older antiques.
In this example, the antique ships are re-tiered to lower levels based on their relative age or the era of their particular design, while modern variants are pushed up to endgame or closer to endgame reflective of their newer design parameters.
If the ships were re-tiered in this manner, then Cryptic could develop modern variants of some of these lower tier ships (with all modern parts, no antique parts) and it would give the players a chance to play ships that bear some resemblance to their favored ships, but with a design aesthetic that matches the timeline of the game.
I wouldn't have an issue with a T6 Excelsior Modern successor, but a T6 Excelsior itself? No.
"You shoot him, I shoot you, I leave both your bodies here and go out for a late night snack.
I'm thinking maybe pancakes." ~ John Casey
Totally agree with everything you said. As does sparkles.
One tiny thing though: the andorian ships are brand new. They are descended from the old kumari - but they are modern designs. They are to the 22nd Cent andorian ships what the sovereign is to the NX-01.
Got a cat? Have 10 minutes to help someone make the best degree dissertation of all time?
Then please fill out my dissertation survey on feline attachment, it'd be a massive help (-:
I think a big part of the problem is the INCONSISTENT approach to ships that Cryptic has taken.
How can you expect fans of the Galaxy (for example) to give up on their ship, and embrace a new one, when you have things like the T5-U Excelsior, which is vastly superior in most every way to the Galaxy (T5-U) even if the Excelsior is 150 years older. Then, top that off with 200+ year old Xindi / Andorian / Vulcan ships and you have to wonder why 40 year old ships can't be given an end game treatment.
And if it was only a matter of a couple of historic ships being elevated, then maybe it wouldn't be a big deal, but then you have brand new modern ships (like the Excalibur / Vesper) which were built in the 2400s, and yet they don't get an endgame treatment?
If you ask me (which you didn't) the entire lineup of ships needs to be reworked all the way down to Tier 0, with all antique ships pushed down to their relative position in comparison to newer ships, then develop modern variants (like the Guardian when compared to the Ambassador) as viable endgame ships inspired by older antiques.
In this example, the antique ships are re-tiered to lower levels based on their relative age or the era of their particular design, while modern variants are pushed up to endgame or closer to endgame reflective of their newer design parameters.
If the ships were re-tiered in this manner, then Cryptic could develop modern variants of some of these lower tier ships (with all modern parts, no antique parts) and it would give the players a chance to play ships that bear some resemblance to their favored ships, but with a design aesthetic that matches the timeline of the game.
I wouldn't have an issue with a T6 Excelsior Modern successor, but a T6 Excelsior itself? No.
Here is where you arguement falls apart has no logic and become nonsense and where all the frustration comes from
The shape of a ship hull has very little meaning
The interior size of the hull does
But to cryptic the interior size of a hull and the amount of crew has no meaning the amount of supplies you can carry has no meaning to ability to put ( modern) equipment into a hull has no meaning to a old ship /Hull verses a new ship has no meaning
A old hull can be striped of its old equipment like a impulse engine and replaced with a new one giving the old hull the same performance as a new one..............A newly constructed old Hull can be fitted with a state of the art engine and give that old/Brand new hull the same performance and a new looking hull
A hull is a box to hold the equipment you put into it...nothing more
From a engineering point of view a old hull is easier to produce than a new one , you have the shipyard tooled up for it , It takes years to equip a new shipyard for a new hull
Now more nonsense from cryptic
This escort has 50 crew
It can repair hull 10 time faster than a engineering ship with a crew of 1000
it can operate with no crew left alive
it has more tactical bridge officer powers than a ship with 20X the amount of crew
It carrys the same amount of equipment as a ship 10X its size and does more damage is faster has the same range can do the same doff missions basically can do anything the larger ship can do most of the time better
Basically you arguement is just as foolish as cryptics is in its game design
Its nonsense not logical has no common sense factor in it............pure STO foolishness
from a games view maybe needed but dont try to use any logic to make some believe it it is logical :P
Its clear that cryptic uses no logic or rules to make ships that make any common sense ...Just what will sell
I mean they tried to use the trinity system to make a navel starship combat game ...How Dumb is that !!!
Jellico....Engineer ground.....Da'val Romulan space Sci
Saphire.. Science ground......Ko'el Romulan space Tac
Leva........Tactical ground.....Koj Romulan space Eng
JJ-Verse will never be Canon or considered Lore...It will always be JJ-Verse
Totally agree with everything you said. As does sparkles.
One tiny thing though: the andorian ships are brand new. They are descended from the old kumari - but they are modern designs. They are to the 22nd Cent andorian ships what the sovereign is to the NX-01.
Hey, I'm a huge Trekkie nerd too but when people start arguing over the power output of a weapon that doesn't even EXIST, that's where I draw the line of stupidity.
Hey, I'm a huge Trekkie nerd too but when people start arguing over the power output of a weapon that doesn't even EXIST, that's where I draw the line of stupidity.
And thats your right to believe so. Consistency quality aside, anytime a sci-fi franchise puts out stats for its content, expect dissection. When consistency issues, biases, and people using the "jump-to-conclusion-mat" come in to play, expect debate/argument. To tell you the truth, I enjoy physics and other areas that cross into engineering/mechanical sciences, you might not.
Honestly, its not that far off from benchracing, or arguing about the development of the next generation Mustang, Camaro, Corvetter, etc.
I see the array = more firepower vs array = better coverage only argument is still going. I don't usually weigh in on these debates but I think it might be fun.
So let's set some premises up
The GCS has a 200 emitter array all lined up next each other in a strip.
Each emitter can handle 5.1 MW of power right
So is it safe to assume that each emitter is capable of shots at 5.1 MW power per sec?
Each emitter is capable of shooting the beam in any direction it can 'see'
If this is the case then the idea that an array's only advantage is to increase coverage does not make sense.
NX-01's Phase Cannons were rated at a peak of 500GJ which is roughly 138 MW/h why would the MKX array be so much less potent than a technology 100 years old?
5.1 MW isn't actually all that much power and we see many ships shots doing far greater damage than 5.1MW can produce such as using the main array to drill into a planet's crust or the level of damage done to the borg cube.
The GCS Shields are somewhere between 4-5GW an assumption I making based on the Husnock ship that Uxbride created where they were hit with enough power to drop the shields but not damage the ship and Worf says it was over 4GW of particle energy. That being the case a 5.1MW shot wouldn't even tickle...
The power output of the GCS warp core is 12.75 billion gigawatts. Knowing that enemy ships of the same caliber probably have similar shields we logically should see beams from each emitter being fired instead of one beam. The GCS can power that many emitters with ease.
If each emitter is capable of firing at anything LOS then one long array makes less sense in terms of increased coverage since many of the emitters would be incredibly redundant. I would expect to see small arrays of few emitters dotted around the hull instead.
If each emitter has it's own EPS supply then there would seem to be no benefit to passing the charge along the array just for better coverage.
We would also have to be wondering why the Federation would have created a ship so impotent in the offense category.
So we must conclude that either than TM is wrong and emitters are more powerful than 5.1 MW or that there is some way for the emitters to fire more powerful shots. If we assume that the TM is wrong then that still doesn't explain the reason behind the array strip or the passing energy across it.
If we allow that at least some amount of energy is able to be passed along the emitters creating a more powerful shot then that would explain the array strip, the energy passing along it and the more powerful phaser shot.There would have to be a limit to the amount of energy that could be built up in such a fashion or we would see ships that are outwardly nothing but arrays.
For me I think I fall somewhere in the middle. I can't fathom why the Federation would design such an advanced starship intended to be the best it could engineer with so little punching power from it's energy weapons. I am not sure that the TM is right either as 5.1 MW seems so little but at least if it were able to pass the entire array's worth of energy to one shot it would be a 1020 MW shot which is more than I would expect but I think more reasonable than a 5.1 MW shot.
Honestly people, especially guys, do it all the time in nearly all facets of life.
What would have happened in WWII if the 2 Yamato battleships squared against the US Iowa battleships without any aircraftcarriers?
Which fighter would win in a dogfight? F22 or Su37?
Which car is faster?
Which baseball team win in a series? The 1927 Yankees or the 1998 Yankees?
Which ship is better the Galaxy or the Sovereign? ?????
It goes on endlessly and we have fun debating it along the way.
Exactly. To answer your questions though:
1) there would be a big zoggin' 'uge battleship fight that the winners would have been the first guys to land a square and critical hit. Ships would've sunk, sailors would have died. Movies and songs would have been made.
2) The one that doesnt get shot down
3) the faster car is
4) the 1998 Yankees would win, the 1927 Yankees are all dead.
5) Depends on what role is needed to be performed.
Here is where you arguement falls apart has no logic and become nonsense and where all the frustration comes from
The shape of a ship hull has very little meaning
The interior size of the hull does
But to cryptic the interior size of a hull and the amount of crew has no meaning the amount of supplies you can carry has no meaning to ability to put ( modern) equipment into a hull has no meaning to a old ship /Hull verses a new ship has no meaning
A old hull can be striped of its old equipment like a impulse engine and replaced with a new one giving the old hull the same performance as a new one..............A newly constructed old Hull can be fitted with a state of the art engine and give that old/Brand new hull the same performance and a new looking hull
A hull is a box to hold the equipment you put into it...nothing more
From a engineering point of view a old hull is easier to produce than a new one , you have the shipyard tooled up for it , It takes years to equip a new shipyard for a new hull
Now more nonsense from cryptic
This escort has 50 crew
It can repair hull 10 time faster than a engineering ship with a crew of 1000
it can operate with no crew left alive
it has more tactical bridge officer powers than a ship with 20X the amount of crew
It carrys the same amount of equipment as a ship 10X its size and does more damage is faster has the same range can do the same doff missions basically can do anything the larger ship can do most of the time better
Basically you arguement is just as foolish as cryptics is in its game design
Its nonsense not logical has no common sense factor in it............pure STO foolishness
from a games view maybe needed but dont try to use any logic to make some believe it it is logical :P
Its clear that cryptic uses no logic or rules to make ships that make any common sense ...Just what will sell
I mean they tried to use the trinity system to make a navel starship combat game ...How Dumb is that !!!
God, I wish this game would make the crew size matter. Out of a crew of 750, I swear 700 of the are barbers and barkeeps!
Comments
We lobbied for this for many years and finally got a competitive Galaxy to use in this game, so lets get in game and fly the flag and show people what a Galaxy Class can do.
But yeah, Han shot first! 100%.
It was a character defining moment that was twisted to suit for a (very) younger audience, just to make more $$$. (simply disgusting imo)
:thumbs up:
You would need to completely rebuild the raido to even get close. The microchipbboard can only handle a 10amp surge load. Most operate at 5amps. Wile the ear defroster is a 25amp system with a 30amp surge.
This is the problem, they arent facts, you arent an expert, they are just your ( and a few of your friends) interpretation. No matter how much you want it to be a fact, its still your opinion/interpretation. This is where you missing the mark, and why people are highly disagreeing. You havent been made Star Trek Pope. If you had carried on as if it was just an opinion and not pushed your opinion as fact, you wouldnt be hearing the majority of this.
No, you keep not getting that if the plate on the surface can handle any amount of energy you care to put through it, then the thing that limits the firing power is ONLY the amount of power you can provide to that emitter. That's my point. As soon as that's true, you lose because you can't prove that the array is the ONLY way to provide that power.
Drunk, I've already pointed out you explicitly contradicting yourself - and the fact that you think the terms for this discussion don't exist just (again) demonstrates that you don't know what you're talking about. Of course the terms exist - this is just a question of energy flow and energy conversion, which is simply a question of thermodynamics. You are doing here exactly what I said you would - you're pretending that there was a key distinction that you made long ago, based on special vocabulary that only you and your special circle of special friends understand, and that even though I explained what appears to be the only possible way your interpretation works in extremely plain language and then explained why that still fails you continue to "reason" that since you're certain about your conclusion it must be true that your reasoning is sound and you've thought of all of this before. It's simply an incredible claim, given you demonstrated inconsistency in your explanations, as well as you mysterious inability to articulate your theory in concrete, falsifiable ways.
No, Drunk. Just... no. I'm sorry, but what you wrote doesn't "appear" to be gibberish. It factually is gibberish. You simply don't understand the terms and concepts in play here well enough (see your notion that the vocabulary for these concepts doesn't exist) to understand why it is gibberish. Also, it's actually NOT on the critic to prove the criticism, that's simply a misunderstanding of how reasoning works. You have asserted an affirmative position - that it MUST be true that the Galaxy has the most powerful phaser array the Federation ever built. It is your responsibility to answer every single charge against that claim, or else concede that it is false.
Drunk, do you understand that I'm saying that even if that were one way to transfer energy, it's not the only way? Do you understand that in order to support your position you are having to make up a new magical form of "phaser energy" that can only be generated and then transferred in one incredibly specific way (a limitation which is never even implied on the show)? Do you understand why that's an illogical and unreasonable way to develop your argument? You keep acting like it has to be this way, and only this way, because you started with the conclusion that it must be true that the Galaxy is the most powerful warship built (despite all evidence to the contrary), and keep working backwards from that conclusion.
Try this instead - work forward from what we see on the show:
Is there a reason to build phaser arrays? Sure. They provide superior fire arc and redundancy, at a minor cost in efficiency as power is transferred along the array. This explains the design, explains the glow, and explains the fact that the Galaxy class simply wasn't portrayed as that powerful in the shows, ever. Thus, it is a sufficient explanation.
The embroidery you've added in the guise of "figuring it out" is nothing more than rationalizations of a conclusion that you can't accept as simply something you've chosen to believe come hell or high water. I'm not saying you have to change your belief (though I certainly feel that you should), but you can't keep pretending that it has any value as an argument, because it's not one. It's like young earth creationists dismissing geological evidence as "tricks of the devil" or a "test of faith".
So, you lied because it made your argument sound simpler, and therefore (you presumed) more likely to be true, and then when you were called on the fact that your lie makes your argument worse you abandoned it, all while claiming that it wasn't a change, simply an elaboration. By way of analogy, let me say this:
I totally respect your position and think it's reasonable. By way of elaboration, let me be clear - I don't actually respect your position at all, and find it to be ridiculous in the extreme, but I didn't want to point that out because I find that unreasonable people don't like having their unreasonableness thrown in their faces.
You were caught out because you don't understand what you're talking about well enough to make a coherent argument, and I do. The best part is that you literally admitted here to changing your position in response to the counterarguments, but again you think that as long as your conclusion has stayed the same the fact that your support for it is fluid at best is not a problem.
Herp derp. Drunk, I'm not saying that you don't need magnetic fields to contain antimatter - I know that you do, because that's how we, today, contain antimatter that we generate here in the status quo. Actually, that's not strictly true - there are also laser traps that we use when we have uncharged species, but electro-magnetic traps are easier to work with by and large. What I was responding to (and it's clear this has sailed over your head) is that your assertion that we need some kind of "special" magnetic field to do it, and the implication that this was somehow unknowable magic Trek technology. It isn't. We do it now - it's not like it's commonplace, but it's also not like its revolutionary or cutting edge. Nobody is winning the Nobel Prize for isolating antimatter at this point. It's settled science.
Two problems. First, they never said what you think they said. You assume they said those things because you are confusing your backwards inferences from the conclusion you wanted to draw to be properly inferred from the evidence at hand. The fact is, based on the show and the technical manuals, there is not enough evidence to support your interpretation as the only possible one. In fact, I would contend that there's not even enough evidence to make your interpretation likely or reasonable, but really, it doesn't matter. You conceded my point about how unfounded your argument was when you said that there's no reason it couldn't be done another way. Further, you demonstrated my point about how you don't understand how reasoning works when you (again) confused your interpretation of what the technical manuals say for "evidence", and compounded the error when you asserted that "evidence" is superior to reasoning from a standpoint of actual facts based on things we actually know.
Dude, they didn't describe the functions of the components in ANY meaningful way. They tossed out questionable techno-babble, you took that and filled in the gaps, and now you are confusing that for some sort of body of knowledge when it isn't.
Further, you seriously expose your failure to understand logic with your incredulity about my "existential rollercoaster". Here's the deal - you are asserting that one possible scenario is the only possible scenario. That is your conclusion. You are right - that entire conclusion is false as long as I can demonstrate at least one alternate possibility. If you had simply made your conclusion "I think it's possible that the Galaxy has the most powerful phasers ever", there would be no way for me to dispute that - certainly it's possible. It's not likely, and I think it flies in the face of the intentions of the show-runners, as well as creating problems with the overall narrative structures of the shows and TNG-era movies, but whatever. It's possible.
The problem is that you don't want it to be "possible", you want to keep pretending that it's a "fact", and you want to use that "fact" and your elucidation thereof as a reason why you are an "expert" on Star Trek, and know better how people should be thinking about the show. I'm sorry that you are going to have to navigate the cognitive dissonance between "I like big mean fighting ships" and "I like the Galaxy class" without the crutch of your certainty in your conclusion to guide you, but there it is. Your interpretation isn't fact. It's merely possible (not even likely), and you are unreasonable to suggest anything otherwise.
Now, if you want to get into a discussion of which subjective interpretation is better:
Mine sufficiently explains everything that we see on the show, is exactly as supported by the text of the technical manuals and show dialogue, and is more in line with what we know about actual science AND the narrative intentions of the show/movie creators.
Yours, at best, explains what we see on the show, but is not consistent with the intentions of the show/movie creators, nor with what we know about actual science. The only claim you have for it being superior is that it adheres more closely to the "evidence", but that doesn't seem to be a true claim (everything you have cited is ambiguous at best), and in the end raises the question of how we choose to evaluate the value of a position. I think that since mine doesn't require made-up anti-science to support it, we should prefer it, based on my belief that real knowledge trumps fake knowledge.
Here again you resort to an appeal to magical nonsense as a reason to prefer your interpretation - I welcome your admission that your position is functionally "a wizard did it", as it makes plain what I'm saying - your explanation is merely a techno-babble extrapolation to get you to your desired conclusion. It's not reasonable, and it's certainly not fact. I'm sorry that the interjection of actual knowledge and reasoning has gotten in the way of your dontdrunk magical science bed-time story. Maybe next time don't act like your subjective opinion and rationalizations thereof are anything but your subjective opinions, and you won't have this problem of getting that position beat down again.
Sometimes I try
This is true. But given that the ship repeatedly does fire those shots without damaging itself, I'd assume the emitter surface can handle the energy accumulation. It's the individual transfer system to/beneath a emitter that can handle the limited amount of 5.1 MW. But I do agree with the versatility thing
Thank you. I try to make it work for me and put enough into the explanation that people can agree on it without jumping at each other throats
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
Really? Seems to be pretty simple the way drunk describes it. We basically have 3 (or more) potential bottlenecks here
1. emitter discharge plate (part of the phaser emitter)
2. EPS conduits
2. Power generator (the fusion reactor or antimatter reactor)
Drunk assumes the discharge plate has an infinite energy storage capability. Each plate ist bound to a phaser emitter which are connected in series. If this is the case then the only limiting factors would be bottleneck 2 and 3 and the spatial variables that make up the emitter. If each each emitter is attached to an individual EPS conduit only the the spatial variables remain. That indeed means that a bigger array will have a higher collective energy output then a smaller one.
It all hinges on the fact(?) that the emitter discharge plate would have to hold a large amount of energy. Not an infinite amount per se, but at least greater then the sum of what all emitters can produce in that array.
The thing is this, who the hell cares about a justifiable homicide defense in freaking MOS EISLEY??? (that TRIBBLE-hole)
If Han shot first, it just proves that Jabba should've sent someone with a faster trigger finger if he wanted the job to actually get done. Jabba learned that, he sent Boba Fett later.
It looks good all around to tell the truth.
That's what I said. And that's what's supported in the manual.
http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/showthread.php?p=23700521#post23700521
I postulate that the limited for the power is the prefire chamber where it actually becomes phaser energy.
With the Delta recruit stuff going on, I figured, why the heck not ,and grabbed the galaxy 3 pack. Now mind you, the delta dude didn't have any traits, but I am hard pressed to even remember, what was wrong with the galaxy of old ? It seems to get the job done on any tier.
Mind you I do see the AHC is a superior (imho) ship, but I've played that one to death on an alt. The only cruiser I don't have is the new galaxy and the engineering and science command ships...
But anyways, the question, Sure the skin was kind of off, but what was the build problem with the old ship? Was it strictly due to limitations versus other classes ? (odyssey ? )
thanks dudes, and sorry for the hijack. I know return you to nerd wars.
this is pretty much what i have been saying and why both the sov and gal have the same fire power (galaxy still having more as it can get both main arrays on the same target.
main issue is we have no official say on what type phasers the sov has and how many emitters. i think the best guess i have seen do to the size of the array section compared to the galaxy is about 160 to 170 emitters. i think the accepted theroy is the sov has MKXI like the akira this would mean it has 6.2Mw per emitter this would give the main array of the sov with mkxi .9-1.05Gw of phaser energy. pretty much the same as the galaxy can do with it's mkx
compared to every other T5 cruiser it was dead last. the stargazer was a better ship in both support and tactical ability
ahh thanks man. Yeah, looking over it at the wiki, it does seem to be sub par. That makes sense to me now, why there was so much about it in the past (having done a search myself to see what was up.)
Thanks again.
"My magical rainbow unicorn is better than yours!" :rolleyes:
Welcome to STAR TREK online.
I think a big part of the problem is the INCONSISTENT approach to ships that Cryptic has taken.
How can you expect fans of the Galaxy (for example) to give up on their ship, and embrace a new one, when you have things like the T5-U Excelsior, which is vastly superior in most every way to the Galaxy (T5-U) even if the Excelsior is 150 years older. Then, top that off with 200+ year old Xindi / Andorian / Vulcan ships and you have to wonder why 40 year old ships can't be given an end game treatment.
And if it was only a matter of a couple of historic ships being elevated, then maybe it wouldn't be a big deal, but then you have brand new modern ships (like the Excalibur / Vesper) which were built in the 2400s, and yet they don't get an endgame treatment?
If you ask me (which you didn't) the entire lineup of ships needs to be reworked all the way down to Tier 0, with all antique ships pushed down to their relative position in comparison to newer ships, then develop modern variants (like the Guardian when compared to the Ambassador) as viable endgame ships inspired by older antiques.
As an example:
Tier 0/1: Miranda / Constitution / Constitution Refit / NX
Tier 2: Excelsior / Constellation
Tier 3: Ambassador / Excelsior Refit
Tier 4: Galaxy
Tier 5: Venture / Excalibur / Vesper (Excalibur/Vesper as a T5 Light Cruiser or Destroyer)
Tier 6: Andromeda
In this example, the antique ships are re-tiered to lower levels based on their relative age or the era of their particular design, while modern variants are pushed up to endgame or closer to endgame reflective of their newer design parameters.
If the ships were re-tiered in this manner, then Cryptic could develop modern variants of some of these lower tier ships (with all modern parts, no antique parts) and it would give the players a chance to play ships that bear some resemblance to their favored ships, but with a design aesthetic that matches the timeline of the game.
I wouldn't have an issue with a T6 Excelsior Modern successor, but a T6 Excelsior itself? No.
"You shoot him, I shoot you, I leave both your bodies here and go out for a late night snack.
I'm thinking maybe pancakes." ~ John Casey
What do you expect when going to a sci-fi franchise (that is nearly 50 yars old) MMO website?
Most of us are trekkies. By definition we are nerds and proud.
And for the record, my magical unicorn is called sparkles. And she is awesome.
Also @ccarmichael07
Totally agree with everything you said. As does sparkles.
One tiny thing though: the andorian ships are brand new. They are descended from the old kumari - but they are modern designs. They are to the 22nd Cent andorian ships what the sovereign is to the NX-01.
Then please fill out my dissertation survey on feline attachment, it'd be a massive help (-:
https://www.surveymonkey.co.uk/r/87XKSGH
Bah, everyone knows that Rainbow Dash rulz!!!
<.< >.> <.<
"Bekk engage the cloak, now!"
*dissapears*
Here is where you arguement falls apart has no logic and become nonsense and where all the frustration comes from
The shape of a ship hull has very little meaning
The interior size of the hull does
But to cryptic the interior size of a hull and the amount of crew has no meaning the amount of supplies you can carry has no meaning to ability to put ( modern) equipment into a hull has no meaning to a old ship /Hull verses a new ship has no meaning
A old hull can be striped of its old equipment like a impulse engine and replaced with a new one giving the old hull the same performance as a new one..............A newly constructed old Hull can be fitted with a state of the art engine and give that old/Brand new hull the same performance and a new looking hull
A hull is a box to hold the equipment you put into it...nothing more
From a engineering point of view a old hull is easier to produce than a new one , you have the shipyard tooled up for it , It takes years to equip a new shipyard for a new hull
Now more nonsense from cryptic
This escort has 50 crew
It can repair hull 10 time faster than a engineering ship with a crew of 1000
it can operate with no crew left alive
it has more tactical bridge officer powers than a ship with 20X the amount of crew
It carrys the same amount of equipment as a ship 10X its size and does more damage is faster has the same range can do the same doff missions basically can do anything the larger ship can do most of the time better
Basically you arguement is just as foolish as cryptics is in its game design
Its nonsense not logical has no common sense factor in it............pure STO foolishness
from a games view maybe needed but dont try to use any logic to make some believe it it is logical :P
Its clear that cryptic uses no logic or rules to make ships that make any common sense ...Just what will sell
I mean they tried to use the trinity system to make a navel starship combat game ...How Dumb is that !!!
Saphire.. Science ground......Ko'el Romulan space Tac
Leva........Tactical ground.....Koj Romulan space Eng
JJ-Verse will never be Canon or considered Lore...It will always be JJ-Verse
Hey, I'm a huge Trekkie nerd too but when people start arguing over the power output of a weapon that doesn't even EXIST, that's where I draw the line of stupidity.
And thats your right to believe so. Consistency quality aside, anytime a sci-fi franchise puts out stats for its content, expect dissection. When consistency issues, biases, and people using the "jump-to-conclusion-mat" come in to play, expect debate/argument. To tell you the truth, I enjoy physics and other areas that cross into engineering/mechanical sciences, you might not.
Honestly, its not that far off from benchracing, or arguing about the development of the next generation Mustang, Camaro, Corvetter, etc.
So let's set some premises up
The GCS has a 200 emitter array all lined up next each other in a strip.
Each emitter can handle 5.1 MW of power right
So is it safe to assume that each emitter is capable of shots at 5.1 MW power per sec?
Each emitter is capable of shooting the beam in any direction it can 'see'
If this is the case then the idea that an array's only advantage is to increase coverage does not make sense.
NX-01's Phase Cannons were rated at a peak of 500GJ which is roughly 138 MW/h why would the MKX array be so much less potent than a technology 100 years old?
5.1 MW isn't actually all that much power and we see many ships shots doing far greater damage than 5.1MW can produce such as using the main array to drill into a planet's crust or the level of damage done to the borg cube.
The GCS Shields are somewhere between 4-5GW an assumption I making based on the Husnock ship that Uxbride created where they were hit with enough power to drop the shields but not damage the ship and Worf says it was over 4GW of particle energy. That being the case a 5.1MW shot wouldn't even tickle...
The power output of the GCS warp core is 12.75 billion gigawatts. Knowing that enemy ships of the same caliber probably have similar shields we logically should see beams from each emitter being fired instead of one beam. The GCS can power that many emitters with ease.
If each emitter is capable of firing at anything LOS then one long array makes less sense in terms of increased coverage since many of the emitters would be incredibly redundant. I would expect to see small arrays of few emitters dotted around the hull instead.
If each emitter has it's own EPS supply then there would seem to be no benefit to passing the charge along the array just for better coverage.
We would also have to be wondering why the Federation would have created a ship so impotent in the offense category.
So we must conclude that either than TM is wrong and emitters are more powerful than 5.1 MW or that there is some way for the emitters to fire more powerful shots. If we assume that the TM is wrong then that still doesn't explain the reason behind the array strip or the passing energy across it.
If we allow that at least some amount of energy is able to be passed along the emitters creating a more powerful shot then that would explain the array strip, the energy passing along it and the more powerful phaser shot.There would have to be a limit to the amount of energy that could be built up in such a fashion or we would see ships that are outwardly nothing but arrays.
For me I think I fall somewhere in the middle. I can't fathom why the Federation would design such an advanced starship intended to be the best it could engineer with so little punching power from it's energy weapons. I am not sure that the TM is right either as 5.1 MW seems so little but at least if it were able to pass the entire array's worth of energy to one shot it would be a 1020 MW shot which is more than I would expect but I think more reasonable than a 5.1 MW shot.
Or am I just being silly here?
Exactly. To answer your questions though:
1) there would be a big zoggin' 'uge battleship fight that the winners would have been the first guys to land a square and critical hit. Ships would've sunk, sailors would have died. Movies and songs would have been made.
2) The one that doesnt get shot down
3) the faster car is
4) the 1998 Yankees would win, the 1927 Yankees are all dead.
5) Depends on what role is needed to be performed.
God, I wish this game would make the crew size matter. Out of a crew of 750, I swear 700 of the are barbers and barkeeps!