To those talking about "spindly, fragile nacelles." and "giant bay doors are just a target." The design direction discussed by Doug Drexler, who was one of the ship designers of star trek, was that the ships were intended to look impossible...
<snip>
Better yet, i want a Nebula based carrier design. Didn't like any of the designs brought up for voting.
Either i didn't like the aesthetics, i considered the design unsuited for a carrier or both
To this, I point to my sig >> And yus, I support more nebula/miranda-configured ship designs in the shipyards. And the mission pod would be an excellent part of the ship to re-purpose into a hangar deck
To this I say, how would you like it if they did throw in the Nebula as a design, but made one engine nacelle smaller than the other?
It's impossible according to Doug Drexler, so it must be good sci-fi design. See our point?
Will there be any votings during the "Design" phase (to satisfy #TeamMissionPod, #TeamEpsilonNacelles, etc.)? Or just a WIP slideshow, and the next voting will be all the way in the boff seatings, console layouts and stuff decision phase?
Will there be any votings during the "Design" phase (to satisfy #TeamMissionPod, #TeamEpsilonNacelles, etc.)? Or just a WIP slideshow, and the next voting will be all the way in the boff seatings, console layouts and stuff decision phase?
Would be nice. I would like an option for no lower nacelles at all. I really doubt we will get to give any input on that though. They may read stuff from the thread and possibly put something in there but it won't be a vote.
The problem with popularity contests is that the percentage of people who voted against the design they didn't like won't like the winner.
However, if you don't do a single elimination style, you run the risk of a heavily fractured percentage-base. Imagine the winner having won because they got 14% of the votes rather than this case (60%+)
Thats the right method with the wrong approach. You do the all at once voting but do not pick the winner but throw out the looser. Then repeat till last man ship standing. That way every design can compete with every design.
Possible downside (if you see it such a way): You end up with the least disliked design by the majority of voters. But at least its a more foolproof method for a result, even if less spectacular, then the one used
edit:
Now that I think of it. Didn't Grandnagus used to make some voting polls some time ago similar but with rating, where you did not just said "This one" but ranked them? That would be even more precise.
I was kind of expecting we would get to vote on several builds today. Or is this part just some kind of publication informing us about the intended build?
I was kind of expecting we would get to vote on several builds today. Or is this part just some kind of publication informing us about the intended build?
"Two go in, one comes out!" Thats the final build.
My second favorite won. That's good enough I guess. While Alpha is better design, Omega could still be improved by replacing those smaller nacelles with the exact same as the upper ones are, and adding a mission pod like Alpha has.
FED ENG:FA Sirius Verax (USS Leviathan) , FED TAC (Delta): FA Adria Tyllex (USS Thunderblade) , ROM TAC:ADM Kill'ina (IRW Imperix Thrai) , KLING ENG (Delta):LT. GEN Ghol'Vaq Martok (IKS Qeh'Ral II) - 44th Fleet member SUPPORTING PLAYABLE CARDASSIAN AND DOMINION FACTIONS!
The problem with popularity contests is that the percentage of people who voted against the design they didn't like won't like the winner.
Ya, and I'm one of those that really hated Omega, enough that I won't be getting it. But the up side is that they have design Alpha pre-selected for the next ship... the federation T6 Battle-carrier to go with the T6 Karfi.
I'm hoping some of the other designs get made anyways as customization pieces for the winning Omega design(the one I voted for too). I think it would be a good move at least. While voting is done, doing something like this makes sense with the customization options Federation ships usually get. Two or three extra complete sets of pieces, sometimes an extra option for something, etc.
Well. ..my 2nd fav won, so that's ok I suppose. What I fear is the seating design part. I fear the DPS crowd is going to ban together and try to give it 6 tac consoles and two tac commander boffs :P
Since this is a "Federation Carrier," make it a true carrier,
give it FOUR (4) hanger bays,
only 2/2 weapon slots,
ship specific uni console that buffs hanger pet attack range, damage, hull points, and shield points,
give it which ever specialization fits best for a carrier fighting at long range.
Give it a Comm eng, LTC eng, LTC sci, LTC tac loadout,
terrible turn rate, 2 or 3,
5,000 crew,
slow regenerating shields, but high shield cap.
The point would be to have a slow moving carrier that can send fighters off 20 km away, and the carrier would be able to take heavy hits if needed, but not defend itself very well because it is dedicated to hanger bays.
Contest was rigged from the moment a Jupiter-like design was included. Thankfully I dont have to spend money on this horrible design. Unfortunately... I'll have to see this horrible design in the game, such a shame people have no taste.
I love coming here to refill my cup of schadenfreude.
On-topic, here's hoping we can get Omega as a Tac-centric Fed Carrier followed by a T6 Atrox to balance it out as a Sci-centric Fed Carrier. Both with their own respective Frigates; such as Defiants or Aquarius frigates for Omega (and usable on the T6 Atrox) and Caitian Frigates for the T6 Atrox itself.
Then copy/paste/edit the stats to a pre-designed pair of Romulan Carriers (one Reman-design and one Romulan-design) and overhaul the stats of the KDF Kar'Fi and Vo'quv carriers to match.
Structural integrity isn't going to protect these components in combat, spindly parts sticking out make excellent targets, obscure the line of fire for defensive weapons, create a complication to shielding and are a navigation hazard for fighters on a carrier. They are simply a liability on a warship.
Better yet, i want a Nebula based carrier design. Didn't like any of the designs brought up for voting.
Either i didn't like the aesthetics, i considered the design unsuited for a carrier or both
To this, I point to my sig >> And yus, I support more nebula/miranda-configured ship designs in the shipyards. And the mission pod would be an excellent part of the ship to re-purpose into a hangar deck
As do I, A Nebula with a different mission pod could be a carrier, an Odyssey with an enlarged engineering or saucer section could be a carrier, any of the Command ships could be carriers, but I think we both know this contest was never about making a good carrier, it was about giving the Jupiter lovers their damn ship or at least something close to it.
Since this is a "Federation Carrier," make it a true carrier,
give it FOUR (4) hanger bays,
only 2/2 weapon slots,
ship specific uni console that buffs hanger pet attack range, damage, hull points, and shield points,
give it which ever specialization fits best for a carrier fighting at long range.
Give it a Comm eng, LTC eng, LTC sci, LTC tac loadout,
terrible turn rate, 2 or 3,
5,000 crew,
slow regenerating shields, but high shield cap.
The point would be to have a slow moving carrier that can send fighters off 20 km away, and the carrier would be able to take heavy hits if needed, but not defend itself very well because it is dedicated to hanger bays.
With hanger pet AI as borked as it is, you do NOT want a 4 hanger ship at the expense of weapons and as for the all LTC/Comm seating, it is nice to dream but that isn't ever likely to happen.
If something is not broken, don't fix it, if it is broken, don't leave it broken.
To those talking about "spindly, fragile nacelles." and "giant bay doors are just a target." The design direction discussed by Doug Drexler, who was one of the ship designers of star trek, was that the ships were intended to look impossible...
<snip>
Better yet, i want a Nebula based carrier design. Didn't like any of the designs brought up for voting.
Either i didn't like the aesthetics, i considered the design unsuited for a carrier or both
To this, I point to my sig >> And yus, I support more nebula/miranda-configured ship designs in the shipyards. And the mission pod would be an excellent part of the ship to re-purpose into a hangar deck
To this I say, how would you like it if they did throw in the Nebula as a design, but made one engine nacelle smaller than the other?
It's impossible according to Doug Drexler, so it must be good sci-fi design. See our point?
No, I don't see your point. For one, Doug Drexler, never said anything to suggest that a nebula with one nacelle smaller than the other would some how be "impossible." He was talking about pylons looking "too thin" to support the nacelles which suggests that their technology must be incredibly advanced to use such thin support structures and have them be viable. Making one nacelle smaller than the other on a ship with two nacelles doesn't make the ship look "impossible" just lopsided, and perhaps aesthetically displeasing.
You are suggesting an alteration to the nacelles of an already existing design that would be aesthetically displeasing in an attempt to explain, "This is the manner in which my senses are offended by this new ship." However, this is a new ship design, not an alteration of an old favorite, and the topic being addressed is the ship's pylons, not the nacelles. Thus in no way, shape, or form does your example have parallels to the newly designed carrier, nor is your proposal directed at the point being discussed, which is "spindly pylons." A more appropriate parallel would be "How would you like it if they thinned out the nebula's pylons?" to which I would have to answer: "I suppose it depends on what they end up looking like." Or perhaps if you have a problem with the mis-matched nacelle pairs, you could ask, "How would you feel if the prometheus had the lower nacelles replaced with a smaller set?" or perhaps, "How would you feel if the cheyenne had its lower nacelles replaced with a smaller set?" and again, it would depend on how they ended up looking on the ship. With the right design, they could look just fine.
The point I was addressing by other people was the "spindly pylons" not the "mismatched nacelles." Those miss-matched nacelles come in symmetrical pairs. The smaller secondary nacelles could be considered auxiliary nacelles that are only there as a backup to the primary nacelles. The larger and smaller nacelles may be used to generate a "asymmetrical warp field" that has some extra special benefit, whether it's improving warp speeds or improving the energy efficiency of the warp field or reducing stress on the ship or repairing subspace damage done by previous warp technologies or any manner of other technobable reasons.
So, again, no, I don't see your point.
The Nebula-configured Odyssey needs to be a thing.
Structural integrity isn't going to protect these components in combat, spindly parts sticking out make excellent targets, obscure the line of fire for defensive weapons, create a complication to shielding and are a navigation hazard for fighters on a carrier. They are simply a liability on a warship.
The manner in which ships have thinner pylons can be simply better and better structural integrity fields or it could also have something to do with more advanced construction materials. The more bulk added to the ship by armoring the pylons or nacelles, the more mass one has to counter with inertial dampers or increased thrust.
In the star trek world, having any windows on the ship provide an "excellent target" because the weapons and sensors are so precise, so it really doesn't matter if your nacelles are right against the hull/in the hull or out on long spindly struts, they will find them and target them if that is the goal. Ships routinely target the warp core which is typically deep within the ship, or perhaps computer cores deep within the ship. And shall we discuss the bridge? Just... sitting there on the outside of the hull?
I believe with the enterprise D it was actually proposed that they move the bridge deeper into the ship for better protection, but Roddenberry overruled that saying, essentially, that's what the shields are for. So basically, expect to be borked without shields. I would imagine the same goes for nacelles and pylons.
With properly placed weapons, you compensate for "blind spots" that nacelles could create, even if it is simply placing weapons on the nacelles/pylons themselves as several ship designs have done. So far I haven't seen any visible weapons on the omega to be able to even speculate as to whether the ship's weapon placement would be likely to have problems with the nacelles.
They are not a navigation complication to fighters considering that the bays are a considerable distance from the nacelles, nor are the nacelles along any of the paths leading from open space into the hangars. They aren't even really in the way of fighters that would perhaps approach from behind, plus, again, all the advanced sensors and computers to un-complicate this process. I mean, look at the nebula class's main hangar, that thing is obstructed quite nicely by the mission pod and accompanying strut. I imagine if that wasn't a critical design flaw for the nebula, the omega will be just fine.
Nacelles do not complicate shielding for this carrier any more than they nacelles complicate shielding for the sovereign class regardless of if that shielding were the "close to the hull" type or the "giant bubble" type.
The Nebula-configured Odyssey needs to be a thing.
The problem with popularity contests is that the percentage of people who voted against the design they didn't like won't like the winner.
However, if you don't do a single elimination style, you run the risk of a heavily fractured percentage-base. Imagine the winner having won because they got 14% of the votes rather than this case (60%+)
That of course doesn't take into account all those who didn't vote because they didn't like either of the final designs though, so to say 60% is rather misleading as the real percentage is probaly a lot lower than that.
I voted omega due to the federation needing a better carrier then the atrox
however alpha was the more sexier design by far.
I think the omegas nacells need to be equalised the smaller ones needs to be made as large as the upper ones and add the alphas mission pod and the omega would look alot better.
The problem with popularity contests is that the percentage of people who voted against the design they didn't like won't like the winner.
However, if you don't do a single elimination style, you run the risk of a heavily fractured percentage-base. Imagine the winner having won because they got 14% of the votes rather than this case (60%+)
That of course doesn't take into account all those who didn't vote because they didn't like either of the final designs though, so to say 60% is rather misleading as the real percentage is probaly a lot lower than that.
Well, guess how many percent of people voted for the design of the Pathfinder or the Icarus. Or on the looks of the Constitution or the Galaxy.
And how many do you think would have abstained from voting on the Alpha, Beta, Sigma or whatever other ships could have made it to the finale if the Omega hadn't been there. No matter how you turn and twist, this is still the one that was most popular, otherwise it would have never gotten that far. Sometimes it's okay if someone else wins.
And in the end, it hardly matters. People managed to like the designs of dozens of Star Trek ships despite never having the chance to vote on it or select a preference.
Star Trek Online Advancement: You start with lowbie gear, you end with Lobi gear.
Comments
To this I say, how would you like it if they did throw in the Nebula as a design, but made one engine nacelle smaller than the other?
It's impossible according to Doug Drexler, so it must be good sci-fi design. See our point?
arcgames.com/en/forums/startrekonline/#/discussion/1203368/pve-content-a-list-of-gamewide-polishing-pass-suggestions
Would be nice. I would like an option for no lower nacelles at all. I really doubt we will get to give any input on that though. They may read stuff from the thread and possibly put something in there but it won't be a vote.
Thats the right method with the wrong approach. You do the all at once voting but do not pick the winner but throw out the looser. Then repeat till last man ship standing. That way every design can compete with every design.
Possible downside (if you see it such a way): You end up with the least disliked design by the majority of voters. But at least its a more foolproof method for a result, even if less spectacular, then the one used
edit:
Now that I think of it. Didn't Grandnagus used to make some voting polls some time ago similar but with rating, where you did not just said "This one" but ranked them? That would be even more precise.
Most unexpectedly, this turned into a flame-fest! Closed it goes!. /sigh What flamefestery is this? pwlaughingtrendy
"Two go in, one comes out!" Thats the final build.
SUPPORTING PLAYABLE CARDASSIAN AND DOMINION FACTIONS!
Ya, and I'm one of those that really hated Omega, enough that I won't be getting it. But the up side is that they have design Alpha pre-selected for the next ship... the federation T6 Battle-carrier to go with the T6 Karfi.
Nerfing is Fraud...
A moment of silence for Sigma please.
Vice Admiral Volmack ISS Thundermole
Brigadier General Jokag IKS Gorkan
Centurion Kares RRW Tomalak
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
give it FOUR (4) hanger bays,
only 2/2 weapon slots,
ship specific uni console that buffs hanger pet attack range, damage, hull points, and shield points,
give it which ever specialization fits best for a carrier fighting at long range.
Give it a Comm eng, LTC eng, LTC sci, LTC tac loadout,
terrible turn rate, 2 or 3,
5,000 crew,
slow regenerating shields, but high shield cap.
The point would be to have a slow moving carrier that can send fighters off 20 km away, and the carrier would be able to take heavy hits if needed, but not defend itself very well because it is dedicated to hanger bays.
The Command Battlecruisers already exist.
I Support Disco | Disco is Love | Disco is Life
#TeamEpsilon TeamTyphon
#RememberBeta
I Support Disco | Disco is Love | Disco is Life
On-topic, here's hoping we can get Omega as a Tac-centric Fed Carrier followed by a T6 Atrox to balance it out as a Sci-centric Fed Carrier. Both with their own respective Frigates; such as Defiants or Aquarius frigates for Omega (and usable on the T6 Atrox) and Caitian Frigates for the T6 Atrox itself.
Then copy/paste/edit the stats to a pre-designed pair of Romulan Carriers (one Reman-design and one Romulan-design) and overhaul the stats of the KDF Kar'Fi and Vo'quv carriers to match.
It could've been a brick with engines and people would want it.
With hanger pet AI as borked as it is, you do NOT want a 4 hanger ship at the expense of weapons and as for the all LTC/Comm seating, it is nice to dream but that isn't ever likely to happen.
No, I don't see your point. For one, Doug Drexler, never said anything to suggest that a nebula with one nacelle smaller than the other would some how be "impossible." He was talking about pylons looking "too thin" to support the nacelles which suggests that their technology must be incredibly advanced to use such thin support structures and have them be viable. Making one nacelle smaller than the other on a ship with two nacelles doesn't make the ship look "impossible" just lopsided, and perhaps aesthetically displeasing.
You are suggesting an alteration to the nacelles of an already existing design that would be aesthetically displeasing in an attempt to explain, "This is the manner in which my senses are offended by this new ship." However, this is a new ship design, not an alteration of an old favorite, and the topic being addressed is the ship's pylons, not the nacelles. Thus in no way, shape, or form does your example have parallels to the newly designed carrier, nor is your proposal directed at the point being discussed, which is "spindly pylons." A more appropriate parallel would be "How would you like it if they thinned out the nebula's pylons?" to which I would have to answer: "I suppose it depends on what they end up looking like." Or perhaps if you have a problem with the mis-matched nacelle pairs, you could ask, "How would you feel if the prometheus had the lower nacelles replaced with a smaller set?" or perhaps, "How would you feel if the cheyenne had its lower nacelles replaced with a smaller set?" and again, it would depend on how they ended up looking on the ship. With the right design, they could look just fine.
The point I was addressing by other people was the "spindly pylons" not the "mismatched nacelles." Those miss-matched nacelles come in symmetrical pairs. The smaller secondary nacelles could be considered auxiliary nacelles that are only there as a backup to the primary nacelles. The larger and smaller nacelles may be used to generate a "asymmetrical warp field" that has some extra special benefit, whether it's improving warp speeds or improving the energy efficiency of the warp field or reducing stress on the ship or repairing subspace damage done by previous warp technologies or any manner of other technobable reasons.
So, again, no, I don't see your point.
The Nebula-configured Odyssey needs to be a thing.
The manner in which ships have thinner pylons can be simply better and better structural integrity fields or it could also have something to do with more advanced construction materials. The more bulk added to the ship by armoring the pylons or nacelles, the more mass one has to counter with inertial dampers or increased thrust.
In the star trek world, having any windows on the ship provide an "excellent target" because the weapons and sensors are so precise, so it really doesn't matter if your nacelles are right against the hull/in the hull or out on long spindly struts, they will find them and target them if that is the goal. Ships routinely target the warp core which is typically deep within the ship, or perhaps computer cores deep within the ship. And shall we discuss the bridge? Just... sitting there on the outside of the hull?
I believe with the enterprise D it was actually proposed that they move the bridge deeper into the ship for better protection, but Roddenberry overruled that saying, essentially, that's what the shields are for. So basically, expect to be borked without shields. I would imagine the same goes for nacelles and pylons.
With properly placed weapons, you compensate for "blind spots" that nacelles could create, even if it is simply placing weapons on the nacelles/pylons themselves as several ship designs have done. So far I haven't seen any visible weapons on the omega to be able to even speculate as to whether the ship's weapon placement would be likely to have problems with the nacelles.
They are not a navigation complication to fighters considering that the bays are a considerable distance from the nacelles, nor are the nacelles along any of the paths leading from open space into the hangars. They aren't even really in the way of fighters that would perhaps approach from behind, plus, again, all the advanced sensors and computers to un-complicate this process. I mean, look at the nebula class's main hangar, that thing is obstructed quite nicely by the mission pod and accompanying strut. I imagine if that wasn't a critical design flaw for the nebula, the omega will be just fine.
Nacelles do not complicate shielding for this carrier any more than they nacelles complicate shielding for the sovereign class regardless of if that shielding were the "close to the hull" type or the "giant bubble" type.
The Nebula-configured Odyssey needs to be a thing.
That of course doesn't take into account all those who didn't vote because they didn't like either of the final designs though, so to say 60% is rather misleading as the real percentage is probaly a lot lower than that.
however alpha was the more sexier design by far.
I think the omegas nacells need to be equalised the smaller ones needs to be made as large as the upper ones and add the alphas mission pod and the omega would look alot better.
Well, guess how many percent of people voted for the design of the Pathfinder or the Icarus. Or on the looks of the Constitution or the Galaxy.
And how many do you think would have abstained from voting on the Alpha, Beta, Sigma or whatever other ships could have made it to the finale if the Omega hadn't been there. No matter how you turn and twist, this is still the one that was most popular, otherwise it would have never gotten that far. Sometimes it's okay if someone else wins.
And in the end, it hardly matters. People managed to like the designs of dozens of Star Trek ships despite never having the chance to vote on it or select a preference.