Prometheus/MVAM

posted on January 16th, 2011, 4:11 pm

explain it as starfleet deciding the experiment failed and mvam was a failure and not to be built again.

but it did not fail ....seemed to work rather well actually and as for a reason that starfleet did not build many more of them there are many possible  reasons ..... perhaps they cost too much ....perhaps they take too long to build .....perhaps star fleet will use MVAM on new ships but not the Prometheus class or perhaps with the end of the dominion war such an offencive ship was not needed .....or perhaps with so many ships destroyed during the war starfleet wants to fill its ranks with more well rounded ships first ......the list goes on.

posted on January 16th, 2011, 4:16 pm

Sounds like you're confusing 'not as good' with 'different role'. They only look better because Picard would surrender more if they didn't, they'd be no better or worse than any other as they're just the user interface.

in this case the aux control room has a different role, which makes it not as good as a battle bridge at being a bridge.

You mean the same Tuvok who tries to talk logic to the dreaded Janeway? He already knows that you do not remind the captain of something she forgot or did wrong. She's god on that ship and he knows it even better than Harry.

lol just face it voyager doesnt have a second bridge, it has a bridge, and engineering.

Why not, they already re-wrote the Galaxy to add non-existing flaws. However, there would be a few with it for times where they need multiple ships and have only the one; like every crisis the ever befall the Federation... Starfleet tends to fix bugs, or the Defiants wouldn't exist.

the galaxy did have flaws. the idea of a floating city as a flagship was silly, the shields never seemed to be all that useful, the ent D got beaten quite a lot in TNG. anyone remember to scrapheap brels capturing the ent D it also suffered from a stupid first officer, but the galaxy wasnt that great in combat.

when seperated more weapons would become uncovered

thats silly, why build the ship with weapons covered up?

and power from the shields and system, would transfer to the weapons, making them more powerful offesnsivly, but less powerfull defensively

any ship can divert power from those to weapons and become a "glass cannon"

however as they are now a small ship, and a small target, cover fire would also come into effect, increasing avoidance for the 3 parts

that is the only advantage of mvam that could happen in fleetops, being harder to hit. but three small ships have that too.

posted on January 16th, 2011, 4:19 pm

but it did not fail

i said explain it like that (outside of canon, which fleetops is), we saw the prommie work once. maybe every other time they tried it in combat off screen it failed miserably and the separation system was crap or some other reason.

there are many possible  reasons ..... perhaps they cost too much ....perhaps they take too long to build

those two reasons constitute failure of a design. im sure starfleet could put their resources together and build a borg cube sized ship, it would be a failure if it is so expensive.

[cyrax88]

posted on January 16th, 2011, 4:24 pm

Last edited by cyrax88 on January 16th, 2011, 4:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.

those two reasons constitute failure of a design. im sure starfleet could put their resources together and build a borg cube sized ship, it would be a failure if it is so expensive.

does the word experimental mean anything to you .......it may have been build with more of testing the MVAM and how effective it is rather then the ship itself ....also if those two reasons constitute failure of a design then the galaxy class was a failure but star fleet still built some and the defiant class needed work as well when it was built but they made more of them .

[Tyler]

posted on January 16th, 2011, 4:28 pm

Last edited by Tyler on January 16th, 2011, 4:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Expensive doesn't mean design failure, just limited build listing.

in this case the aux control room has a different role, which makes it not as good as a battle bridge at being a bridge.

Same purpose; augment the bridge/engineering and control the ship when the bridge is unavailable.

lol just face it voyager doesnt have a second bridge, it has a bridge, and engineering.

More like the script didn't know of it, it's standard to use engineering on a Galaxy Class despite the battle bridge being well known.

However, we're talking about a show with a shuttle larger than the shuttlebay...

the galaxy did have flaws. the idea of a floating city as a flagship was silly, the shields never seemed to be all that useful, the ent D got beaten quite a lot in TNG. anyone remember to scrapheap brels capturing the ent D it also suffered from a stupid first officer, but the galaxy wasnt that great in combat.

Having civilians aboard isn't a flaw, just not very smart and is something Starfleet has been doing for a while. Neither is having Riker aboard, that's just bad luck. Yes I remember those BoPs (idiot Worf using the small ship name), I also remember Riker in command and a bunch of kids beating the Ferengi. Powerful ship, despite not being combat-focused and having Riker aboard.

thats silly, why build the ship with weapons covered up?

Funny you should ask that; DITL suggests the MVAM may be the real power and the combined form is just to hide its strength and let them keep a freindly appearance to Starfleet.

any ship can divert power from those to weapons and become a "glass cannon"

They can't ingame, though.

that is the only advantage of mvam that could happen in fleetops, being harder to hit. but three small ships have that too.

3 Small ships that wouldn't be free like a Warp-In or as heavily-armed.

posted on January 16th, 2011, 4:42 pm

does the word experimental mean anything to you .......it may have been build with more of testing the MVAM and how effective it is rather then the ship itself ....also if those two reasons constitute failure of a design then the galaxy class was a failure but star fleet still built some and the defiant class needed work as well when it was built but they made more of them .

does reading posts mean anything to you? i never said the prommie/mvam WAS a failure, as we only saw it once it may have got even better off screen, i said it can be explained as such if the devs choose to include it without mvam.

starfleet only made a handful of galaxies before moving onto the sovvie/akira. i dont think the galaxy was a success. but thats for a different thread.

Expensive doesn't mean design failure, just limited build listing.

yes it does, if the ship is TOO expensive its a failure, end of. some ships are expensive but justify the money, the prommie is expensive and doesnt justify its cost. that is failure.

Same purpose; augment the bridge/engineering and control the ship when the bridge is unavailable.

nope, different purposes. battle bridge is control stardrive when ship separates. its only ever been used for that specific use, never anything else. aux control was a plot device for random aliens of the week to capture the ship. presumably it was useful for controlling other things.

More like the script didn't know of it, it's standard to use engineering on a Galaxy Class despite the battle bridge being well known.

i already answered this, its likely that the battle bridge cant be used to control the whole ship. or at least not as good as engineering can.

However, we're talking about a show with a shuttle larger than the shuttlebay...

why did u edit this out. voyager is a bad evidence source

Having civilians aboard isn't a flaw, just not very smart and is something Starfleet has been doing for a while.

it is a flaw in the design, since the ship was designed with loads of civlian rubbish it didnt need. they might as well have stuck a pair of nacelles on an orbital habitat and called it enterprise. some civilians is tolerable, most of the ship being civilians isnt.

Yes I remember those BoPs (idiot Worf using the small ship name)

canon used brel so u have to call them brels (even though they looked like kvorts ) nyaaaahhh

I also remember Riker in command and a bunch of kids beating the Ferengi. Powerful ship, despite not being combat-focused and having Riker aboard.

how does kids beating the ferengi make the galaxy class good at combat it means kid picard is more ruthless than adult picard. then again if he was adult picard he would have his sexy voice to speechify the ferengi to death, they have massive ears so speeches are a counter to them

Funny you should ask that; DITL suggests the MVAM may be the real power and the combined form is just to hide its strength and let them keep a freindly appearance to Starfleet.

lol so they are sandbagging? we dont look threatening....yet i think the entire idea of mvam was flawed.

They can't ingame, though.

meant in canon we see them do it a lot.

3 Small ships that wouldn't be free like a Warp-In or as heavily-armed.

again i meant in canon about which 3 ships to get. in fleetops id get the 3 free warpins which use less slots.

posted on January 16th, 2011, 4:45 pm

But myles, maybe everytime it went into battle offscreen it performed wonderfully....

posted on January 16th, 2011, 4:54 pm

But myles, maybe everytime it went into battle offscreen it performed wonderfully....

you havnt read my post either? why is nobody reading my posts today?

I said it CAN (not WAS, not IS, nothing affirmative) be explained. ie hypothetical. it could have been a success, it could have been a failure. each is possible. happy? my point is that if the devs dont like mvam they can exclude it using that explanation easily. im not gonna explain this again.

posted on January 16th, 2011, 5:01 pm

yes it does, if the ship is TOO expensive its a failure, end of. some ships are expensive but justify the money, the prommie is expensive and doesnt justify its cost. that is failure.

You post disproves your own point; justification decides it, expensive isn't the deciding factor. Prometheus didn't fail, and cost is unknown but would be lower than the much larger Sovereign.

nope, different purposes. battle bridge is control stardrive when ship separates. its only ever been used for that specific use, never anything else. aux control was a plot device for random aliens of the week to capture the ship. presumably it was useful for controlling other things.

i already answered this, its likely that the battle bridge cant be used to control the whole ship. or at least not as good as engineering can.

Nope, same purpose. Battle bridge is an emergancy command centre that can control the ship, and was suggested in an episode as one was to regain control. The only difference in purpose is the battle bridge gets 1 extra, nothing else.

why did u edit this out. voyager is a bad evidence source

I didn't edit it out, I edited it in.

it is a flaw in the design, since the ship was designed with loads of civlian rubbish it didnt need. they might as well have stuck a pair of nacelles on an orbital habitat and called it enterprise. some civilians is tolerable, most of the ship being civilians isnt.

That's not a design flaw, that's a mission-role flaw; a leftover when when it was meant to be a generational ship. A deisgn flaw would be something like a faulty engine or Riker commanding from the start.

Mostly civilian? I still don't get where that comes from considering the large majority of people seen on Enterprise are Starfleet officers.

canon used brel so u have to call them brels (even though they looked like kvorts ) nyaaaahhh

Canon used B'rel, however I wouldn't rule out microbrain misreading the console.

how does kids beating the ferengi make the galaxy class good at combat it means kid picard is more ruthless than adult picard. then again if he was adult picard he would have his sexy voice to speechify the ferengi to death, they have massive ears so speeches are a counter to them

Well, that Ferengi part was really another jab at Riker; he gets the ship captured by Ferengi of all people, then it gets saved by a groups of kids.

meant in canon we see them do it a lot.

True, but many ships don't have 2 registries to keep the enemy of balance and increase the effect.

again i meant in canon about which 3 ships to get. in fleetops id get the 3 free warpins which use less slots.

Well, we are talking about the game version and the game does break from canon a lot.

posted on January 16th, 2011, 5:25 pm

You post disproves your own point; justification decides it, expensive isn't the deciding factor. Prometheus didn't fail, and cost is unknown but would be lower than the much larger Sovereign.

incorrect, justification DOES decide it, the prommie cant justify its costs. mvam must cost money to build cos the ship has to split. all those new stem bolts to separate etc. but with very little benefit. the sovvie seems to be a rather ordinary ship, hard to see how it would fail miserably, it seemed to hold its own in battle.

Nope, same purpose. Battle bridge is an emergancy command centre that can control the ship, and was suggested in an episode as one was to regain control. The only difference in purpose is the battle bridge gets 1 extra, nothing else.

nope, every time we see the battle bridge it is doing 1 thing and 1 thing alone and that is controlling the stardrive when sepped. the fact that when picard cant use the bridge he uses engineering is even more evidence.

That's not a design flaw, that's a mission-role flaw; a leftover when when it was meant to be a generational ship. A deisgn flaw would be something like a faulty engine or Riker commanding from the start.

it is a design flaw since it was designed for something stupid. if they designed it to be submersible and that meant it couldnt use shields, that would be a design flaw too. they designed the galaxy poorly. now if you wanna discuss the galaxy put it in another thread cos the galaxy discussions last so long they deserve their own threads.

Mostly civilian? I still don't get where that comes from considering the large majority of people seen on Enterprise are Starfleet officers.

im watching an episode right now, ands its definitely more than half civilian. lets exclude areas for officers like engineering, sickbay, labs, shutte bays, officers offices/quarters, transporter rooms and the bridge (which is most of the sets lol) in the corridors you would expect to see more officers since they have duties to attend to while civilians move around less. in ten forward you expect to see a few more civilians because its a leisure area. in ten forward in the show i see many more civilians and in the corridor i see about half and half. sounds to me like the ship is at least half civilian. out of ~1000 people, how many people can be crew? voyager had ~150, so if 75% of the ent people were crew (about 750) then the ent would have ~5 times as many crew, lolwut? its not that much bigger.

Canon used B'rel, however I wouldn't rule out microbrain misreading the console.

i like that explanation

True, but many ships don't have 2 registries to keep the enemy of balance and increase the effect.

indeed, they have 2 registries cos of a c*ck up by the VFX guys

posted on January 16th, 2011, 5:52 pm

incorrect, justification DOES decide it, the prommie cant justify its costs. mvam must cost money to build cos the ship has to split. all those new stem bolts to separate etc. but with very little benefit. the sovvie seems to be a rather ordinary ship, hard to see how it would fail miserably, it seemed to hold its own in battle.

It wouldn't cost any less to make it not seperate, it would cost as much to make something else fill the space. Prometheus justifies the cost; MVAM has proven very effective and does the job with little effort.

nope, every time we see the battle bridge it is doing 1 thing and 1 thing alone and that is controlling the stardrive when sepped. the fact that when picard cant use the bridge he uses engineering is even more evidence.

Nope, that they considered trying to use the battle bridge to regain control then went for engineering only proves they expected it to do the job better. The battle bridge has all required to control the ship properly.

it is a design flaw since it was designed for something stupid. if they designed it to be submersible and that meant it couldnt use shields, that would be a design flaw too. they designed the galaxy poorly. now if you wanna discuss the galaxy put it in another thread cos the galaxy discussions last so long they deserve their own threads.

It's not a design flaw, it had no impact on performance or any ship system. It's a misapplied role, not a flaw in the ship design itself. Too many guns for its size or an engine strong enough to destryo the ship, that's a design flaw.

I don't think I'll create a thread about the Galaxy... those things go on and on for so long even I'm not sure about starting a new one!

im watching an episode right now, ands its definitely more than half civilian. lets exclude areas for officers like engineering, sickbay, labs, shutte bays, officers offices/quarters, transporter rooms and the bridge (which is most of the sets lol) in the corridors you would expect to see more officers since they have duties to attend to while civilians move around less. in ten forward you expect to see a few more civilians because its a leisure area. in ten forward in the show i see many more civilians and in the corridor i see about half and half. sounds to me like the ship is at least half civilian. out of ~1000 people, how many people can be crew? voyager had ~150, so if 75% of the ent people were crew (about 750) then the ent would have ~5 times as many crew, lolwut? its not that much bigger.

Do your calculations include the lower decks we never see, like Voyager's deck 15? Or the possibility that some in Starfleet don't wear uniform during their off-hours like the Voyager crew does?

---
On the capabilities of the battle bridge, we have little evidence either way other than the crew apparently considered it valid but not as good as engineering (which failed anyway). Shall we agree to disagree? We're just repeating ourselves now.

Same about the Prometheus resources; we don't know how the Federation economy works, how Starfleet prioritizes resource spending nor if they considered it a success or justified.

posted on January 16th, 2011, 6:15 pm

It wouldn't cost any less to make it not seperate, it would cost as much to make something else fill the space. Prometheus justifies the cost; MVAM has proven very effective and does the job with little effort.

thats incorrect, making it separate requires internal hulls of the same thickness as the exposed bits. so instead of just have a ship interior, with normal decks etc. u have to have TWO lots of space grade hull (at each separation point) so obviously it costs more to make it sep. the prommie doesnt justify the cost.

Nope, that they considered trying to use the battle bridge to regain control then went for engineering only proves they expected it to do the job better. The battle bridge has all required to control the ship properly.

nope, cos 1) i dont remember which ep that was 2) considered, and REJECTED they chose engineering  3) we have seen MULTIPLE eps  where it was actually used and not just mentioned, and it was always doing one thing. what was that thing? controlling the stardrive when sepped

It's not a design flaw, it had no impact on performance or any ship system. It's a misapplied role, not a flaw in the ship design itself. Too many guns for its size or an engine strong enough to destryo the ship, that's a design flaw.

you are semantically incorrect (which is the worst type of incorrect )
summary of why im right:
ent's wrong role: being a cruise ship
ent's design flaw: being designed with the above role in mind.

Do your calculations include the lower decks we never see, like Voyager's deck 15? Or the possibility that some in Starfleet don't wear uniform during their off-hours like the Voyager crew does?

yup, there is plenty of wiggle room im my calculations, the ent D contains at least half useless civilians, otherwise voyager is grossly undermanned.

Shall we agree to disagree? We're just repeating ourselves now.

sounds good to me. good rigorous debate has made me hungry  :fish:

posted on January 16th, 2011, 6:17 pm

I didnt read the whole lot either, simply because I think you guys are trying to reason in a realistic way, whilst the developers of star trek didnt even think of 2% of the stuff that you guys are thinking about now. MVAM just looked cool, they didnt bother about wether it was realisticly tactical or not. Picard probably used engineering instead of the battle bridge because building the set again was to expensive. Or something. Stuff like that.

My 2 cents on the Tyler - Myles discussion
Now I do think there is a good lot of reasons why MVAM would be inefficient. But I could also come up with a lot of reasons why it ís efficient. I would say that, logically, MVAM would cost more power ( shields more area to cover, more bridges, 3 individual warp cores maybe..) than standard mode. But there's a lot of advantages ( mainly battle ) to MVAM; More tactical manouevers and a bigger area ( a hidden phaser strip at a usually-stuck-to-the-rest-of-the-ship side? ) ..Id say all in all, due to high cost, the prometheus certainly doesnt make for a mass produced main battle cruiser. But 1 prometheus per fleet? Just for the surprise effect it can bring? Id say sure.

All in all I think we shouldnt think too much on how efficient the actual prometheus/MVAM design is. Stuff can be made up/thought off to make it efficient anyway. The question is; Can it be implemented in Fleetops?

posted on January 16th, 2011, 10:10 pm

Way to destroy somebody's idea thread, guys .

posted on January 16th, 2011, 10:32 pm

Way to destroy somebody's idea thread, guys .

hey he took part too, sorry cyrax.