test content
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc

The Intrepid-class is a warship with banned weapons!

2456711

Comments

  • mustrumridcully0mustrumridcully0 Member Posts: 12,963 Arc User
    nightken wrote: »
    actually now that think about it is the Defiant actually as good of a warship as it is made out to be. I can't remember a time it destroyed a larger ship when it wasn't part of a large fleet battle were the ship was likely heavily damaged for fighting other ships. in fact most of the time it seemed to be running or ambushing someone. not saying it's a bad ship but is it seems older ship designed for very different roles do almost as well with fewer problems. granted it could be a writing problem.

    We actually see the Defiant disable at least one Cardassian Galor, which is a larger ship. And the Mirror One was able to force a (oversized?) Neg'Var to retreat.

    And we often see it disable multiple Jem'Hadar ships in short succession. The Oddy couldn't achieve that. (At the same time, I hav to defend the Oddy here. It's shield were useless, and still the enemy had to resort to a suicide attack to stop it from retreating. The Galaxy Class clearly could hull tank for a while...)
    And in the fight against the upgraded Excelsior she was in a better shape then the Excelsior. (but it was "just" an Excelsior)

    I think the main benefit of the Defiant was however that it was a "cheap" design. It would probably be easier to mass-produce a bunch of larger multi-mission capable ships. My head-canonand DS9 hard-on makes me think it might have firepower similar to a Galaxy Class ship - but not even close the capability to perform its roles, and probably not even that tough. (If you consider what kind of sh*t the Enterprise survived.. Collisions with Cosmic Strings, A Borg ship ripping components out). But it needed to be stationed at a Starbase and longer, independent exploration (or combat) missions would be out of the question.
    Star Trek Online Advancement: You start with lowbie gear, you end with Lobi gear.
  • redeyedravenredeyedraven Member Posts: 1,297 Arc User
    edited November 2016
    The Defiant is glass cannon. Being as big as it is with it's particular armament it doesn't have the power output to take much of a beating. A trope continued in the mission "Facility 4028" where Captain Shon's is blasted to hell. Shame he didn't go down with it...

    The Defiant is more likely designed to deliver quick, focused attacks while being overall harder to hit (flat profile, small size). As she was initially meant to fight the Borg, I assume she was not meant to operate alone in engagements.

    Her cannons seemed so powerful because almost every time we saw the Defiant fighting on screen she was fighting other small vessels. It took her much longer to fight the Lakota for example.
  • marcusdkanemarcusdkane Member Posts: 7,439 Arc User
    Absolutely, he wasn't saying that it's a warship, but he did say 'designed for combat performance'... A ship which is designed for combat performance, is clearly intended to be used in combat roles, rather than pure research and diplomacy...

    They aren't mutually exclusive and, having seen Star Trek before :tongue: , I can report that research/diplomacy vessels are often involved in combat. The name "Science Vessel" simply describes a ship that is capable of conducting research. That's it. Anything else may be involved as well, depending on the whim of whoever's building it, provided its capacity to do science is maintained. Not all science vessels need combat capability, but having combat capability doesn't change the core nature of a science vessel.

    /Thread
    Sure, they may not be mutually exclusive, but when design intent is stated, then it has to be acknowledged as thus, even if later mission roles are fullfilled B)

  • theraven2378theraven2378 Member Posts: 5,985 Arc User
    Not this again, moderator please
    NMXb2ph.png
      "The meaning of victory is not to merely defeat your enemy but to destroy him, to completely eradicate him from living memory, to leave no remnant of his endeavours, to crush utterly his achievement and remove from all record his every trace of existence. From that defeat no enemy can ever recover. That is the meaning of victory."
      -Lord Commander Solar Macharius
    • nightkennightken Member Posts: 2,824 Arc User
      nightken wrote: »
      actually now that think about it is the Defiant actually as good of a warship as it is made out to be. I can't remember a time it destroyed a larger ship when it wasn't part of a large fleet battle were the ship was likely heavily damaged for fighting other ships. in fact most of the time it seemed to be running or ambushing someone. not saying it's a bad ship but is it seems older ship designed for very different roles do almost as well with fewer problems. granted it could be a writing problem.

      We actually see the Defiant disable at least one Cardassian Galor, which is a larger ship. And the Mirror One was able to force a (oversized?) Neg'Var to retreat.

      And we often see it disable multiple Jem'Hadar ships in short succession. The Oddy couldn't achieve that. (At the same time, I hav to defend the Oddy here. It's shield were useless, and still the enemy had to resort to a suicide attack to stop it from retreating. The Galaxy Class clearly could hull tank for a while...)
      And in the fight against the upgraded Excelsior she was in a better shape then the Excelsior. (but it was "just" an Excelsior)

      I think the main benefit of the Defiant was however that it was a "cheap" design. It would probably be easier to mass-produce a bunch of larger multi-mission capable ships. My head-canonand DS9 hard-on makes me think it might have firepower similar to a Galaxy Class ship - but not even close the capability to perform its roles, and probably not even that tough. (If you consider what kind of sh*t the Enterprise survived.. Collisions with Cosmic Strings, A Borg ship ripping components out). But it needed to be stationed at a Starbase and longer, independent exploration (or combat) missions would be out of the question.

      how strong is a galor though, I don't think we ever saw one of those do well against another larger warship. and the mirror neg'var is mirror with their made for fighting yet something worse in a fight tech kinda makes it hard to read.

      and not sure defiant being cheaper is correct, grant can't really tell cause of of the reason we only see the one is so we know is sisko's defiant, not mook ship 35.

      if I stop posting it doesn't make you right it. just means I don't have enough rum to continue interacting with you.
    • artan42artan42 Member Posts: 10,450 Bug Hunter
      THE INTREPID-CLASS IS A WARSHIP, NOT A SCIENCE VESSEL!

      No it's not. All Starfleet vessels are capable of self defence but only one is a Warship, the Defiant. The rest are all science or exploration vessels.

      But that doesn't go along with your space marine fetish for Starfleet though.​​
      22762792376_ac7c992b7c_o.png
      Norway and Yeager dammit... I still want my Typhoon and Jupiter though.
      JJ Trek The Kelvin Timeline is just Trek and it's fully canon... get over it. But I still prefer TAR.

      #TASforSTO


      '...I can tell you that we're not in the military and that we intend no harm to the whales.' Kirk: The Voyage Home
      'Starfleet is not a military organisation. Its purpose is exploration.' Picard: Peak Performance
      'This is clearly a military operation. Is that what we are now? Because I thought we were explorers!' Scotty: Into Darkness
      '...The Federation. Starfleet. We're not a military agency.' Scotty: Beyond
      'I'm not a soldier anymore. I'm an engineer.' Miles O'Brien: Empok Nor
      '...Starfleet could use you... It's a peacekeeping and humanitarian armada...' Admiral Pike: Star Trek

      Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
    • antonine3258antonine3258 Member Posts: 2,391 Arc User
      edited November 2016

      I think the main benefit of the Defiant was however that it was a "cheap" design. It would probably be easier to mass-produce a bunch of larger multi-mission capable ships. My head-canonand DS9 hard-on makes me think it might have firepower similar to a Galaxy Class ship - but not even close the capability to perform its roles, and probably not even that tough. (If you consider what kind of sh*t the Enterprise survived.. Collisions with Cosmic Strings, A Borg ship ripping components out). But it needed to be stationed at a Starbase and longer, independent exploration (or combat) missions would be out of the question.

      That there is a good reason its designation was 'escort' - intended to protect a larger force or screen. The Defiant is very good at that. Consider the other 'small' designs we see on screen are dedicated survey vessels (the Obreth and the Nova) too, as opposed to the Defiant as a small dedicated combat vessel. And even then they tried to make it do too many things, judging by the initial problems.

      Not that the Galaxies made a bad showing in the Dominion War, but the Sovereign is clearly intended to have upgraded tactical systems in comparison to the Galaxy, but they were still multirole ships. (Though being the other first class with quantum torpedoes was probably a help, in comparison)
      Fate - protects fools, small children, and ships named Enterprise Will Riker

      Member Access Denied Armada!

      My forum single-issue of rage: Make the Proton Experimental Weapon go for subsystem targetting!
    • angrytargangrytarg Member Posts: 11,001 Arc User
      nightken wrote: »
      how strong is a galor though, I don't think we ever saw one of those do well against another larger warship. and the mirror neg'var is mirror with their made for fighting yet something worse in a fight tech kinda makes it hard to read.

      and not sure defiant being cheaper is correct, grant can't really tell cause of of the reason we only see the one is so we know is sisko's defiant, not mook ship 35.

      The Mirror universe, from what little glimpses we get, somehow has a few traits of a sci-fi vision á la Fallout in which things seem bigger and more impressive but kinda perform worse. In the Fallout universe humanity never mastered micro technologies, meaning all their build from flying cars over hovering robots or supercomputers is huge but performance wise probably worse than your average mobile phone these days.​​
      lFC4bt2.gif
      ^ 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
    • redeyedravenredeyedraven Member Posts: 1,297 Arc User
      nightken wrote: »
      how strong is a galor though, I don't think we ever saw one of those do well against another larger warship.

      During TNG it was a very weak ship compared to top-notch Starfleet-ships. During DS9 they must have been upgraded multiple times though. It's also likely that there were many different variations of the Galor when it comes to equipment and combat-role.
    • sevenofnine13141sevenofnine13141 Member Posts: 4,272 Arc User
      edited November 2016
      Well, not this conspiracy stuff again. *Sigh* The Intrepid-class started out as a Short-Range Science Vessel with tactical capabilities, but over time, it took the role of Long-Range Science vessels since Voyager showed that an Intrepid-Class can go long journeys if needed, so thus, the Intrepid-Class became the Long-Range Science Vessel we all know in Star Trek Online. But with the armaments, we could say it was a... Tactical Long-Range Science Vessel, since it clearly had a tactical feel to it in terms of armament, but that can easily be blamed on the Borg after the whole Wolf 359 situation.
      | State of the Federation |
      The German Empire
      Founded 2413
      Leader: S. Raneson
      de_pr2.gif
    • antonine3258antonine3258 Member Posts: 2,391 Arc User
      nightken wrote: »
      how strong is a galor though, I don't think we ever saw one of those do well against another larger warship.

      During TNG it was a very weak ship compared to top-notch Starfleet-ships. During DS9 they must have been upgraded multiple times though. It's also likely that there were many different variations of the Galor when it comes to equipment and combat-role.

      Probably the Dominion sent over some refit kits.
      Fate - protects fools, small children, and ships named Enterprise Will Riker

      Member Access Denied Armada!

      My forum single-issue of rage: Make the Proton Experimental Weapon go for subsystem targetting!
    • duncanidaho11duncanidaho11 Member Posts: 7,867 Arc User
      edited November 2016
      Sure, they may not be mutually exclusive, but when design intent is stated, then it has to be acknowledged as thus, even if later mission roles are fullfilled B)

      I'm not sure what you're trying to say there. Yes, the Intrepid class could fulfill combat roles but there's no denying that even a poorly equipped one (ie. Voyager) could perform in the role of Science Vessel exceptionally. In heart, almost all Starfleet vessels balance scientific and combat roles. It's major moral quandary of the organization. Much airtime was dedicated to exploring that fact, literally and explicitly.

      That doesn't help STO populate a three-way class system, requiring simple designations to easily communicate gameplay concepts, but it does mean that this discussion is pretty much bunk. If the Intrepid doesn't qualify as a science vessel because it was designed for combat as well then neither does any other ship in the fleet save for perhaps the Oberth class (which never demonstrated ANY combat capability). See. the nature of Starfleet.

      Is that point useful? Absolutely not, it woefully disregards both STO's game mechanics as well as one of the longest running ethical concerns of the Star Trek franchise. So just leave it be.
      Post edited by duncanidaho11 on
      Bipedal mammal and senior Foundry author.
      Notable missions: Apex [AEI], Gemini [SSF], Trident [AEI], Evolution's Smile [SSF], Transcendence
      Looking for something new to play? I've started building Foundry missions again in visual novel form!
    • alikainalikain Member Posts: 348 Arc User
      Wow i can't believe what am reading, OP are you saying that since the Intrepid class starship has armament that doesn't make it a science ship. This question about the description of what the Intrepid class starship really make me believe you have know idea of what you are talking. Tell me, what is the difference between long-range science vessel and a long-range explorer vessel. are they both not science. how do you explorer space if your ship doesn't have any science equipment's on board.
      Now let look at both

      first what is a Science Vessel, a science vessel (or research vessel) is a limited-role. It not well armed, but instead carried several laboratories, advanced sensors, and in some cases, advanced deflector shields. Ships of this class are used for scientific research missions, such as observing the collapse of a star, mapping newly discovered planets and nebulae, or simply being an isolated location for hazardous experiments. Most science vessels were not designed for long term missions.

      which i believe the Intrepid class is capable of, so it fall under this category to.

      now let take a look at what an explorer vessel is, an explorer ship, or exploration vessel, are a type of spacecraft designed for exploring unknown regions of space. This type of ship are armed with both defensive and offensive armament and has laboratories, advanced sensors advanced deflectors shields. ships of this class can perform scientific research mission, such as observing the collapse of a star, mapping newly discovered planets and nebulae, and also capable performing hazardous experiments. Most explorer vessel are designed for long term missions. which i believe the intrepid class is capable of and so fall under this category to.

      Let take the seven of nine parent starship the Raven would you classified that ship as a science vessel or surveyor vessel. now tell me what make them two different from each other, just because the surveyor vessel has less armament than a science vessel and has only one Auxiliary craft doesn't make it less science vessel. it capable of performing scientific stuff such mapping newly discovered planets and nebulae.

      So you see everything you are trying to argue about is pointless. everyone who love startrek know that the Federation build their ships for all round purpose.
      "You ask why we give our ships computer normal emotions. Do you really want a warship incapable of loyalty?"
    • marcusdkanemarcusdkane Member Posts: 7,439 Arc User
      Sure, they may not be mutually exclusive, but when design intent is stated, then it has to be acknowledged as thus, even if later mission roles are fullfilled B)

      I'm not sure what you're trying to say there. Yes, the Intrepid class could fulfill combat roles but there's no denying that even a poorly equipped one (ie. Voyager) could perform in the role of Science Vessel exceptionally. In heart, almost all Starfleet vessels balance scientific and combat roles. It's major moral quandary of the organization. Much airtime was dedicated to exploring that fact, literally and explicitly.
      I'm not 'trying' to say anything... Paris said that Voyager had been built for combat performance. That's it... Case closed... Discussion over, nothing else needs to be said about it... It's direct canon statement, not an opinion open for investigation or debate, but a statement of fact B)
    • duncanidaho11duncanidaho11 Member Posts: 7,867 Arc User
      edited November 2016
      alikain wrote: »
      Wow i can't believe what am reading, OP are you saying that since the Intrepid class starship has armament that doesn't make it a science ship.

      Context: the OP is routinely posts context-free arguments that seek to make a point inflamatory to the sensibilities of STO players and/or Star Trek fans. IE. it's grade-A topic trolling, without specific malice (to be fair), and despite those ignominious beginnings these threads can work their way around to the discussion of other productive topics (ex. the fundamental dichotomy of Starfleet as both a military and scientific organization, despite the best of intentions.)

      Don't read too much in what the OP has to say (they almost never respond anyway), but keep an eye out for how people respond to the "prompt" provided.
      Bipedal mammal and senior Foundry author.
      Notable missions: Apex [AEI], Gemini [SSF], Trident [AEI], Evolution's Smile [SSF], Transcendence
      Looking for something new to play? I've started building Foundry missions again in visual novel form!
    • stobg2015stobg2015 Member Posts: 800 Arc User
      jonsills wrote: »
      Antonine, the issue here is that olivia apparently has permission to start as many of these silly threads as she likes, in all the subforums where they don't belong, and never receive so much as a thread-closing or a slap on the wrist in response from the "moderators". (You should see the one where she claims the US is an Evil Empire, and thus the same must be true of its descendant the Federation, because of the shape of a building at the Coronado naval base in California.)​​

      Annoying as it may be, volunteer mods in the past usually tried to operate on the principle of non-interference in threads like these. They might have tried to relocate them but if there's no obvious intent to troll the poster usually got the benefit of the doubt.

      In this case the OP is expressing an opinion that people are allowed to disagree with, as long as they keep it civil. That's how I'd have been forced to interpret it.

      Now if the OP had come in guns blazing and insisted that everyone who disagreed was a moron, that would have been against the rules.

      That said, mods in the past have shut down nuisance threads where posts were getting out of hand and have consolidated multiple duplicate topic threads.

      I don't know what the current policy is, but AFAIK the community rules haven't changed. If there's no good reason to flag the OP or any subsequent posts, people should just ignore it if it irritates them. The general principle of "Don't Feed The Troll" is still in play.

      Back on topic, I would say that the Intrepid was combat-ready but it's primary mission was exploration. The OP has ignored the possibility that Voyager was sent to find the Maquis because it had the best sensors to sniff them out in the badlands. The fact that Voyager was uniquely equipped for planetary landings argues strongly in favor of its' nature as an exploration vessel. No combat starship needs to land on a planet. It would be ridiculous for a space-going warship to make itself that vulnerable.
      (The Guy Formerly And Still Known As Bluegeek)
    • marcusdkanemarcusdkane Member Posts: 7,439 Arc User
      alikain wrote: »
      Wow i can't believe what am reading, OP are you saying that since the Intrepid class starship has armament that doesn't make it a science ship.
      That's not what was said at all...

      Paris said that Voyager was built for combat performance...

      That's all there is to it... It's not saying that it couldn't ever do anything else, but it is saying what it was originally built for... B)
    • duncanidaho11duncanidaho11 Member Posts: 7,867 Arc User
      edited November 2016
      Paris said that Voyager was built for combat performance...

      That's all there is to it... It's not saying that it couldn't ever do anything else, but it is saying what it was originally built for... B)

      It specifically being Tom Paris, the ship's helmsman...

      Here's more of the quote in question:
      KIM: Sorry!
      PARIS: Obviously, Ensign Baytart doesn't appreciate music.
      KIM: It's the darn fluid conduits running through the walls. They conduct sound. You'd think when they designed this thing, they would have
      PARIS: This ship was built for combat performance, Harry, not musical performance. Nobody figured we'd be taking any long trips.
      KIM: Where am I supposed to practice?
      PARIS: How about the cargo bay?
      KIM: Bad acoustics.
      PARIS: We could get Baytart transferred to the night shift.
      KIM: We couldn't do that. Could we?
      PARIS: So now you have an excuse to give your mother why you didn't practice while you were gone.
      KIM: Look, I'm trying to prepare for an important performance.

      Remember: context. Was this a dissertation on the design of the Intrepid class? No, it was one guy trying to informally explain why their ship doesn't have the best acoustics. He was NOT comparing its relative combat capability to its scientific capabilities.

      BTW, here's the very next scene:
      KIM: EM signature indicates that a major solar flare occurred here nineteen years ago.
      NEELIX: I'd say about nineteen years, more or less.
      CHAKOTAY: Looks like a glacial freeze.
      JANEWAY: Caused by a solar flare that radically changed the weather patterns.
      KIM: It did a lot more than that. They were hit by magnetic storms and extreme levels of radiation.
      CHAKOTAY: Those glaciers are receding.
      KIM: The biosphere seems to be recovering.
      Post edited by duncanidaho11 on
      Bipedal mammal and senior Foundry author.
      Notable missions: Apex [AEI], Gemini [SSF], Trident [AEI], Evolution's Smile [SSF], Transcendence
      Looking for something new to play? I've started building Foundry missions again in visual novel form!
    • marcusdkanemarcusdkane Member Posts: 7,439 Arc User
      stobg2015 wrote: »
      jonsills wrote: »
      Antonine, the issue here is that olivia apparently has permission to start as many of these silly threads as she likes, in all the subforums where they don't belong, and never receive so much as a thread-closing or a slap on the wrist in response from the "moderators". (You should see the one where she claims the US is an Evil Empire, and thus the same must be true of its descendant the Federation, because of the shape of a building at the Coronado naval base in California.)​​

      Annoying as it may be, volunteer mods in the past usually tried to operate on the principle of non-interference in threads like these. They might have tried to relocate them but if there's no obvious intent to troll the poster usually got the benefit of the doubt.

      In this case the OP is expressing an opinion that people are allowed to disagree with, as long as they keep it civil. That's how I'd have been forced to interpret it.

      Now if the OP had come in guns blazing and insisted that everyone who disagreed was a moron, that would have been against the rules.

      That said, mods in the past have shut down nuisance threads where posts were getting out of hand and have consolidated multiple duplicate topic threads.

      I don't know what the current policy is, but AFAIK the community rules haven't changed. If there's no good reason to flag the OP or any subsequent posts, people should just ignore it if it irritates them. The general principle of "Don't Feed The Troll" is still in play.

      Back on topic, I would say that the Intrepid was combat-ready but it's primary mission was exploration. The OP has ignored the possibility that Voyager was sent to find the Maquis because it had the best sensors to sniff them out in the badlands. The fact that Voyager was uniquely equipped for planetary landings argues strongly in favor of its' nature as an exploration vessel. No combat starship needs to land on a planet. It would be ridiculous for a space-going warship to make itself that vulnerable.
      Or, that it had the necessary maneuverability to not only navigate the plasma storms, which tended to trash other ships, but that it had the maneuverability to be able to do so easily, rather than being pushed to the upper performance limits when going into what had a reasonable potential to become a combat situation ;)
    • markhawkmanmarkhawkman Member Posts: 35,231 Arc User
      Sure, they may not be mutually exclusive, but when design intent is stated, then it has to be acknowledged as thus, even if later mission roles are fullfilled B)
      I'm not sure what you're trying to say there. Yes, the Intrepid class could fulfill combat roles but there's no denying that even a poorly equipped one (ie. Voyager) could perform in the role of Science Vessel exceptionally. In heart, almost all Starfleet vessels balance scientific and combat roles. It's major moral quandary of the organization. Much airtime was dedicated to exploring that fact, literally and explicitly.
      I'm not 'trying' to say anything... Paris said that Voyager had been built for combat performance. That's it... Case closed... Discussion over, nothing else needs to be said about it... It's direct canon statement, not an opinion open for investigation or debate, but a statement of fact B)
      Except that it's a vague statement taken out of context, and from a non-authoritative source. I mean seriously... You expect Tom Paris to know the design intent behind the Intrepid class? He was probably in prison when it was built and launched. Also there's the fact that you're cherry picking, and ignoring something like 70 other statements made about the nature of the ship class.
      -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
      My character Tsin'xing
      Costume_marhawkman_Tsin%27xing_CC_Comic_Page_Blue_488916968.jpg
    • antonine3258antonine3258 Member Posts: 2,391 Arc User
      stobg2015 wrote: »
      Back on topic, I would say that the Intrepid was combat-ready but it's primary mission was exploration. The OP has ignored the possibility that Voyager was sent to find the Maquis because it had the best sensors to sniff them out in the badlands. The fact that Voyager was uniquely equipped for planetary landings argues strongly in favor of its' nature as an exploration vessel. No combat starship needs to land on a planet. It would be ridiculous for a space-going warship to make itself that vulnerable.

      Also something on speed and range - When we first see the Intrepid class being described to Paris, it's top speed given makes it the fastest thing established in canon (9.75 for 12 hours, the Galaxy was 9.6 for 12).

      The fact that Voyager ended up in a situation where high sustainable warp speed was the ship's most useful feature is certainly lucky, eh? Not that it was necessarily needed for the Badlands mission, but hey, tracking down a raider isn't the worst post-shakedown mission, and you get to see the ship behave in adverse circumstances with the Badlands for what was expected to be the Starfleet equivalent of a three-hour tour.
      Fate - protects fools, small children, and ships named Enterprise Will Riker

      Member Access Denied Armada!

      My forum single-issue of rage: Make the Proton Experimental Weapon go for subsystem targetting!
    • risian4risian4 Member Posts: 3,711 Arc User
      Didn't most of us reach the conclusion that it was not a pure science vessel ages ago?

      It's neither a pure warship or a pure science vessel.
    • duncanidaho11duncanidaho11 Member Posts: 7,867 Arc User
      edited November 2016
      risian4 wrote: »
      Didn't most of us reach the conclusion that it was not a pure science vessel ages ago?

      It's neither a pure warship or a pure science vessel.

      Pretty much. Even with the defiant, it would be difficult to call it a pure warship since it still seems to have retained its ability to quickly gather academic techno-bable. For Starfleet, it's built first and foremost for combat but it's worth keeping in mind that it's still a Starfleet vessel. Balancing between military and exploration functions is part of its basic nature.
      Bipedal mammal and senior Foundry author.
      Notable missions: Apex [AEI], Gemini [SSF], Trident [AEI], Evolution's Smile [SSF], Transcendence
      Looking for something new to play? I've started building Foundry missions again in visual novel form!
    • stobg2015stobg2015 Member Posts: 800 Arc User
      risian4 wrote: »
      Didn't most of us reach the conclusion that it was not a pure science vessel ages ago?

      It's neither a pure warship or a pure science vessel.

      Heh. Apparently not everyone got the memo.

      I'm just happy that my Pathfinder has Sensor Analysis and Secondary Deflectors, not to mention the Sci-focused configuration. In game terms, there's no strong reason why it shouldn't be classed as an SV.
      (The Guy Formerly And Still Known As Bluegeek)
    • marcusdkanemarcusdkane Member Posts: 7,439 Arc User
      Sure, they may not be mutually exclusive, but when design intent is stated, then it has to be acknowledged as thus, even if later mission roles are fullfilled B)
      I'm not sure what you're trying to say there. Yes, the Intrepid class could fulfill combat roles but there's no denying that even a poorly equipped one (ie. Voyager) could perform in the role of Science Vessel exceptionally. In heart, almost all Starfleet vessels balance scientific and combat roles. It's major moral quandary of the organization. Much airtime was dedicated to exploring that fact, literally and explicitly.
      I'm not 'trying' to say anything... Paris said that Voyager had been built for combat performance. That's it... Case closed... Discussion over, nothing else needs to be said about it... It's direct canon statement, not an opinion open for investigation or debate, but a statement of fact B)
      Except that it's a vague statement taken out of context, and from a non-authoritative source.
      It's a canon statement...
      I mean seriously... You expect Tom Paris to know the design intent behind the Intrepid class? He was probably in prison when it was built and launched.
      :D:D
      The guy who designed and built the Delta Flyer... Who rebuilt a junked alien shuttle to operable status in his spare time, with no access to original specs... You're seriously questioning Paris' expertise in the field, and capacity for research?? :D:D That's funnier than the one about the unjoined Trill and the carrot... :D:D
      Also there's the fact that you're cherry picking
      You mean; It's a canon statement, so beyond the realm of mere opinion or speculation...
      and ignoring something like 70 other statements made about the nature of the ship class.
      Seventy canon statements, please... B)



    • risian4risian4 Member Posts: 3,711 Arc User
      stobg2015 wrote: »
      risian4 wrote: »
      Didn't most of us reach the conclusion that it was not a pure science vessel ages ago?

      It's neither a pure warship or a pure science vessel.

      Heh. Apparently not everyone got the memo.

      I'm just happy that my Pathfinder has Sensor Analysis and Secondary Deflectors, not to mention the Sci-focused configuration. In game terms, there's no strong reason why it shouldn't be classed as an SV.

      Also the use of special torpedoes and the use of photonic ships could be listed as reasons to class it as a Science Vessel. There's this joke of Janeway never running out of torpedoes, pure energy weapon damage never seemed the most important thing in combat.

      Speaking of Janeway, there was that time she went inside a burning deflector control room. Another reason to call it a science ship :p
    • marcusdkanemarcusdkane Member Posts: 7,439 Arc User
      risian4 wrote: »
      Didn't most of us reach the conclusion that it was not a pure science vessel ages ago?

      It's neither a pure warship or a pure science vessel.
      Precisely... B)
    • a3001a3001 Member Posts: 1,132 Arc User
      What's next? Galaxy class was a battleship?
      Rejoice JJ Trek people....

      http://www.arcgames.com/en/games/star-trek-online/news/detail/10052253

      Why are you not rejoicing?
    • duncanidaho11duncanidaho11 Member Posts: 7,867 Arc User
      edited November 2016
      You mean; It's a canon statement, so beyond the realm of mere opinion or speculation...
      Which gleefully ignores the canon statements preceding and following. It's beyond the realm of mere opinion or speculation to say that the Intrepid class was built first and foremost for combat. If nothing else that was said in that episode is clue to that, then perhaps the name of the franchise might suffice.

      It's Star Trek. Furthermore, the series in question was Star Trek: Voyager. In what nether region of the Q continuum can that be contorted to "combat, first and foremost?" Everything else that follows is an extension of the themes intended to be headlined by the title. We can, and have, been trying to sort out the specific details for you, but if all you want to pay attention to is one line then perhaps just going back and watching the series would be a better use of your time.

      You may easily have missed something in being so unquestioningly focused.
      Bipedal mammal and senior Foundry author.
      Notable missions: Apex [AEI], Gemini [SSF], Trident [AEI], Evolution's Smile [SSF], Transcendence
      Looking for something new to play? I've started building Foundry missions again in visual novel form!
    • risian4risian4 Member Posts: 3,711 Arc User
      edited November 2016
      The only reason against calling it a science ship that I can think of, would be the lack of a true Science bridge officer (at least before Seven joined the crew). Kim was something of a mix between science and engineering, but he wasn't a Spock or T'Pol.

      But even then one might also argue that there wasn't a true tactical officer either (see my comment in this thread on that) and that only Janeway was something of a tactically thinking officer as the captain, but also still a mix of both.
    This discussion has been closed.