While that's true, remember that under the new rules getting all possible prototypes onto a ship does less to advance technology than a very successful ship with some prototypes:
Linked contents
[X] +2 Phaser Banks (1 Fore, 1 Aft) [4 Phaser Banks, 2 Launchers] [Cost: 14]
[X] Type-1 Covariant Shield System [Prototype] [+25% Cost] [Cost: 8]
That says that more successful ships give us more experience with the tech so it's improved faster, ie more ships in service for a longer period of time. In this case, the increase to cost would probably reduce the number built, but if the engineering capability outweighed the cost we'd likely get a decent number built regardless. The number of prototypes on a vessel don't affect how much each one is advanced directly.
[X] Type-1 Covariant Shield System [Prototype] [+25% Cost] [Cost: 8]
That's not what that says at all though?
That says that more successful ships give us more experience with the tech so it's improved faster, ie more ships in service for a longer period of time. In this case, the increase to cost would probably reduce the number built, but if the engineering capability outweighed the cost we'd likely get a decent number built regardless. The number of prototypes on a vessel don't affect how much each one is advanced directly.
- Location
- Actually pretty lost
I think this vote has really highlighted, for me, that on the future if we're going to go ORB we should commit to it - no extraneous modules, no matter how cost-effective. The cargo pod gives a lot of space for its cost, but an ORB is already doing pretty great on space.
And we will do another orb! We have to. Those temporal accord people all use orb ships, there must be a reason for that!
And we will do another orb! We have to. Those temporal accord people all use orb ships, there must be a reason for that!
[X] 2 Phaser Banks, 2 Torpedo Launchers [Cost: 10]
[X] Type-1 Shield System [Mature] [-25% Cost] [Cost: 3]
[X] Type-1 Shield System [Mature] [-25% Cost] [Cost: 3]
What it says is that each extra prototype you load a hull down with reduces the technological advancement from all previous prototypes attached, barring the new prototype having particular synergy with the hull's purpose.
- Location
- United States
[X] 2 Phaser Banks, 2 Torpedo Launchers [Cost: 10]
[X] Type-1 Covariant Shield System [Prototype] [+25% Cost] [Cost: 8]
[X] Type-1 Covariant Shield System [Prototype] [+25% Cost] [Cost: 8]
- Location
- Outside the Box
- Pronouns
- She/Her
The success/length of service of a ship determines how much progress it gives to the prototype(s) it has. Regardless of the number of prototypes on the ship.
But memes can be fun.
Iridium Flare
Cyborg Commando
- Location
- AC-130 Gunship circling overhead
[X] 2 Phaser Banks, 2 Torpedo Launchers [Cost: 10]
[X] Type-1 Shield System [Mature] [-25% Cost] [Cost: 3]
[X] Type-1 Shield System [Mature] [-25% Cost] [Cost: 3]
- Location
- Actually pretty lost
I wasn't meming, even if I wasn't phrasing things as formally as possible. If the far-future shipbuilders think that the orb form factor is the best way to build their ships, they presumably know something we don't, and we're more likely to find whatever it is by putting the design into practice.
NavySeel
"I don't know what I'm doing."
- Location
- Places
A fair point, but, how about we do meme instead.
And all else being equal, excess prototypes mean a less successful, shorter service.
I suspect the answer is Doylist but I note most still look saucer like
- Location
- Actually pretty lost
Oh it's for sure Doylist in the actual show, like almost everything. But in an interactive quest you do have to assume there's a Watsonian reason too.
The reason might be that it works best for some piece of technology that won't be invented for 100 years! But it might not be, and I think it's worth seeing if we can find out.
- Location
- Seattle, Washington
[X] +2 Phaser Banks (1 Fore, 1 Aft) [4 Phaser Banks, 2 Launchers] [Cost: 14]
[X] Type-1 Shield System [Mature] [-25% Cost] [Cost: 3]
[X] Type-1 Shield System [Mature] [-25% Cost] [Cost: 3]
KnightDisciple
Love God. Do Right. Fear No Man.
- Location
- Midwest, USA
At the end of the day, this is an Engineering ship. Meaning it's full of Engineers. *Starfleet* Engineers.
If there's anyone I trust in a cantankerous ship full of prototype tech, it's that collection of mad bastards.
[X] +2 Phaser Banks (1 Fore, 1 Aft) [4 Phaser Banks, 2 Launchers] [Cost: 14]
[X] Type-1 Covariant Shield System [Prototype] [+25% Cost] [Cost: 8]
If there's anyone I trust in a cantankerous ship full of prototype tech, it's that collection of mad bastards.
[X] +2 Phaser Banks (1 Fore, 1 Aft) [4 Phaser Banks, 2 Launchers] [Cost: 14]
[X] Type-1 Covariant Shield System [Prototype] [+25% Cost] [Cost: 8]
If you roll poorly, maybe. The number of prototypes has no direct impact on the advancement of each prototype under the new system.
Endorfinator
Awkwardly Social
- Location
- California
- Pronouns
- He/Him
On the topic of spheres, if it's good enough for the Borg it's good enough for us. Also maybe we'll uock phaser panel arrays at some point and can put those on the ship?
I mean, in quest it has been stated that warp fields are harder to make without a short side, meaning flat shapes are easier.
But logically the further into the future you get the less and less you care about limitations like that because you have gotten better and better at cheating out performance out of warp fields. All the tricks to making wide and tall warp fields gets settled. It likely still incurs some cost in performance, but the value of space gained remains the same so the tradeoff becomes more and more palatable and ships get thicker.
Last edited:
StriderInCosmos
Wanderer in the Worldsea
- Location
- Somewhere in... Terminal Dogma? I think?
I'd imagine a nice teardrop shape would be a good go between for sphere and saucer in terms of current Warp dynamics. It'd certainly still make for a striking profile, while keeping the Warp bubble nice and relatively stable.
What about a teaspoon like the Intrepid-class?