Prometheus/MVAM

posted on January 16th, 2011, 10:47 pm

Even so, it takes two to have an discussion

posted on January 16th, 2011, 10:48 pm

Even so, it takes two to have an discussion

it was more like 3 or 4 here diffusion of responsibility FTW 

posted on January 16th, 2011, 11:25 pm

When all's said and done, the Prometheus isn't likely to be a buildable ship any time soon. If they can find a way to get a decent MVAM in, it would be best to have 2 Promethus in; 1 with MVAM, 1 without.

Since I think the Prometheus is going to be hired through a neutral station, it would solve the problem by letting hater and fans get their version of the ship. Done like that and it would even be multi-player compatible.

posted on January 17th, 2011, 1:51 am

i just think that it could fit into the experimental warp-in's because it is an experimental ship there are few of them and it might be nice to have another option in that warp in

[RedEyedRaven]

posted on January 17th, 2011, 2:17 am

Last edited by RedEyedRaven on January 17th, 2011, 2:20 am, edited 1 time in total.

i just think that it could fit into the experimental warp-in's because it is an experimental ship there are few of them and it might be nice to have another option in that warp in

I think the Prometheus is going to be hired through a neutral station

yah. Good news for all Dominion-players: Just hire a Prometheus and fight Starfleet-forces with their own battlecruiser. 

Warping it in is the most likely thing to happen actually since it is a Starfleet-vessel.
The federation may have some non-Starfleet-vessels which can be hired, though. Former (and old) Starfleet-vessels and civil versions of current Starfleet vessels (may be the non-Starfleet Canaveral for example).

posted on January 22nd, 2011, 3:59 pm

It was an "Experimental Prototype," wasn't it? (Someone can look that up for me)
      Now, I'm fairly certain that there have been plenty of examples of a final production unit being 'a little' different than the test piece (I could use Fleet-Ops Beta Vs Current version as an example here.) 
If the Prom was going to be in-game at all, than it almost certainly wouldn't be that same damned prototype, which needs to be considered.

My solution:  Production-Phase Prometheus Class.  Scrap MVAM; give it something else.  Get creative.

[Tyler]

posted on January 22nd, 2011, 4:49 pm

Last edited by Tyler on January 22nd, 2011, 5:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Prometheus was the prototype of its class, I think the MVAM and related functions was the experimental part. As it was a success, there should be a few with the ability.

Due to the nature as a Warp-In/hirable ship (whichever they use), having multiple varients (one with MVAM, a few with *technobabble superweapon* instead) has with no downsides.

Star Trek Online apparently took the cowards way out and simply gave it 'too many glitches'. Do they even know what an experimental stage is? Talk about a cheap cop-out...

posted on January 22nd, 2011, 5:34 pm

Star Trek Online apparently took the cowards way out and simply gave it 'too many glitches'. Do they even know what an experimental stage is? Talk about a cheap cop-out...

not all experiments succeed, its quite possible that mvam was a resounding failure in almost every sense. we saw it work on 1 ship in 1 episode. maybe any other prototypes they built spontaneously exploded when trying to mvam

[Tyler]

posted on January 22nd, 2011, 5:48 pm

Last edited by Tyler on January 22nd, 2011, 5:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.

They seperated, attacked and reattached twice without incident or delay. Both targets were taken out of the fight in seconds, one of which wasn't damaged before MVAM was used (the USS Bonchune).

Auto-seperation is a tried and tested system, considering the Galaxy has auto-seperation and Prometheus is fully-capable of carrying out an automated attack order, which is the only difference between seperation types.

That's what I meant by calling it a cheap cop-out; everything MVAM does is well-within Starfleets ability and was a success, they just didn't want to do the work on a working version or an excuse to remove it. At least the presence of a Galaxy-X makes the MVAM shortcut is a bit more tolerable.

posted on January 22nd, 2011, 6:11 pm

the example on screen is not relevant, it happened in 1 episode of a show known for its wild fantasies of transwarp 10 and reptilian love stories.

1 example doesnt mean you can extrapolate that mvam was a success. it doesnt mean you can extrapolate its a failure either. its 100% up to the people making the story, in this case maybe the sto writers (like many people including myself) thought mvam was a completely stupid idea and didnt deserve to be in a game. its not a cop out, not everyone shares your love for seeing ships separate into little bits. we have only ever seen 2 starfleet ships that sep, and the galaxy never did it for combat, the prommie did it in 1 ep of voyager. its perfectly possible that mvam was a failure in 1 or several ways. technical difficulties maybe, lack of effect maybe, doesnt pay back its cost maybe. etc etc.

the galaxy separation system is vastly different in many ways to the mvam. for the galaxy its an emergency action, mvam is designed to be used frequently, for the galaxy its designed to save life, its defensive, mvam is attacking and offensive. the galaxy seps into 2, and only 1 is warp capable and the second is a giant escape pod, mvam has 3 independent ships, galaxy isnt automated either, picard orders the crew to do it, not the computer. the only similarity is the cosmetic similarity that a ship separates into bits. a torpedo can saucer sep a connie, it must be similar 

[Tyler]

posted on January 22nd, 2011, 6:33 pm

Last edited by Tyler on January 22nd, 2011, 6:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I'm not entirely sure this discusion is relevent, the Star Trek Online wiki has a different story to the Memory Alpha version; it say's they go with the 'small parts are more fragile' apporach and seperation weakens the hull and defences.

the example on screen is not relevant, it happened in 1 episode of a show known for its wild fantasies of transwarp 10 and reptilian love stories.

Voyager is still canon, as many people often love to point out to the haters of the show. Canon is relevent, except Threshold.

1 example doesnt mean you can extrapolate that mvam was a success. it doesnt mean you can extrapolate its a failure either. its 100% up to the people making the story, in this case maybe the sto writers (like many people including myself) thought mvam was a completely stupid idea and didnt deserve to be in a game. its not a cop out, not everyone shares your love for seeing ships separate into little bits. we have only ever seen 2 starfleet ships that sep, and the galaxy never did it for combat, the prommie did it in 1 ep of voyager. its perfectly possible that mvam was a failure in 1 or several ways. technical difficulties maybe, lack of effect maybe, doesnt pay back its cost maybe. etc etc.

2 times, not 1. If they're not going to put any effort into a proper reason a reason long than 'it has bugs we never saw and it never suffered from', it's a cop-out. When FO removed the Galaxy from proper use they gave a little backstory to explain why, STO didn't even say what was going wrong.

That the Galaxy seperation isn't combat-based isn't relevent as I never claimed it was. It can do both things the MVAM does; auto-seperation/reintergration and pre-programmed computer control of ship systems. I also never implied everyone else loved the idea, stop putting words in my mouth.

Lack of effect doesn't match up with an ability that can cripple a Nebula is about 2 seconds.

the galaxy separation system is vastly different in many ways to the mvam. for the galaxy its an emergency action, mvam is designed to be used frequently, for the galaxy its designed to save life, its defensive, mvam is attacking and offensive. the galaxy seps into 2, and only 1 is warp capable and the second is a giant escape pod, mvam has 3 independent ships, galaxy isnt automated either, picard orders the crew to do it, not the computer. the only similarity is the cosmetic similarity that a ship separates into bits.

There is 1 difference; the computer attacks after seperation, that is the extent of the difference. That is the only difference between the procedures, it's the individual parts that differ. A Galaxy is quite capable of automation, with Data having the ship systems performing pre-programmed actions.

Geordi also mentioned the Galaxy has a lot of automation involved just for day-to-day running of most of the ship, setting the weapons to fire in a pattern wouldn't strain the single computer core used out of the 3 it has available.

a torpedo can saucer sep a connie, it must be similar 

I'm not even sure what that means... A torpedo telling the crew to seperate? Have they expanded their captin list to inanimate objects and no-one told me?

I get the feeling that 'stop puting words in my mouth' also applies here, though.

posted on January 22nd, 2011, 9:15 pm

The STO Prometheus is getting MVA within the next few weeks.  The only reason it didn't have it initially, is the same reason everything on STO is half assed.  Cryptic simply does not have enough employees.  And since Cryptic holds the Star Trek licence, and all thier content is approved by a CBS team that checks for cannon accuracy, everything in STO is therefore cannon...

posted on January 22nd, 2011, 9:58 pm

Getting it later? Where did that come from?

In-universe; the STO wiki says it was removed from modern ones because the hull was weaker and systems tended to become more vulnerable, like what Prometheus itself didn't show happen. In FO terms, the defensive and system value dropped when seperated so they removed it.

Considering FO ships and real-life have such compromises, the reasoning just makes less sense than 'it blew up when we used it'.

posted on January 22nd, 2011, 10:59 pm

Are we going STO ships now? I hope not.

I like the Luna Class (since it has a basis in novels) and the idea of an improved version of the Intrepid class.
Please stay away, far far away, from the STO designs. To say i do not like them is a major understatement.

posted on January 23rd, 2011, 12:14 am

Voyager is still canon, as many people often love to point out to the haters of the show. Canon is relevent, except Threshold.

i love voyager, it was my first trek, but it doesnt take 100 iq points to drive a double decker bus through its plot holes. sometimes u just gotta take voyager with a pinch of salt. the devs avoided transphasic torps and super armour by having fo split before voyager could get home with its cargo bay full of swag.

2 times, not 1

1 ep, 1 ship, 1 day, counts to me as 1 example.

It can do both things the MVAM does; auto-seperation/reintergration and pre-programmed computer control of ship systems.

it has never been shown to be able to separate/unsep automatically. every time picard wants sep he tells his crew, who then start tapping away at their buttons. he doesnt ask the computer to do sep. and every time the galaxy sepped, both halves were controlled from their respective bridges. any ship, sepped or not sepped, can be crudely automated.

Lack of effect doesn't match up with an ability that can cripple a Nebula is about 2 seconds.

you cant discredit something that hasnt happened. i said its possible it has a lack of effect, you are not capable of disproving that. we have 1 episode where mvam was used, it would be a mistake to extrapolate from such limited, low quality (they used phasers at warp, the bonchune didnt seem to bother with shields yadda yadda), evidence. we can only talk of what is possible. what COULD be written into a story. and it is certainly possible that mvam wasnt effective enough.

There is 1 difference; the computer attacks after seperation, that is the extent of the difference.

u just quoted me giving 4 reasons why they are vastly different, im not going to repeat them all again. you havnt rebutted any of those reasons, just repeated your point.

A Galaxy is quite capable of automation, with Data having the ship systems performing pre-programmed actions.

Geordi also mentioned the Galaxy has a lot of automation involved just for day-to-day running of most of the ship, setting the weapons to fire in a pattern wouldn't strain the single computer core used out of the 3 it has available.

then why dont all fed ships automate all the time? obviously its not as easy as you make it out to be. automating things like day to day running doesnt constitute automating ship to ship combat. yes they could program the galaxy to fly in a circle and fire phasers at anything green and shaped like a bird, but any romulan with a brain would have battle tactics, something the computer couldnt keep up with.

I'm not even sure what that means... A torpedo telling the crew to seperate? Have they expanded their captin list to inanimate objects and no-one told me?

I get the feeling that 'stop puting words in my mouth' also applies here, though.

i was referencing the neck of a connie, a torpedo could cut a connie saucer off if it hit that thin neck. im creating a straw man out of your argument at galaxy sep and mvam are very similar by pointing out that cutting the saucer off a connie would count as a saucer sep and would be similar to mvam.

@ibench: things in sto are not canon, sto is made by cryptic, not by CBS. CBS owns trek not cryptic. if sto is canon then so is every other star trek game, as they are the same thing. a licensed trek game. it doesnt matter if CBS has a "team" checking over sto, its not canon as its not made by CBS. i'd love if CBS actually made a game with a movie/tv quality story and script. most trek games have awful stories.

I like the Luna Class (since it has a basis in novels) and the idea of an improved version of the Intrepid class.

i am indifferent to the luna, it is inoffensive to me and i would have no problem with it. it reminds me of the akira, and i like the akira.

Please stay away, far far away, from the STO designs. To say i do not like them is a major understatement.

100% agreed.