Page 4 of 9
Re: Our Ship - Beam Configuration
Posted: Wed Jul 23, 2008 8:14 pm
by Reliant121
Deepcrush wrote:No need huh? I take it then you've never seen any of the following items.
Starbases
Planet based fortresses
ODPs
Borg
Dominion Battleships
Kazon
Voth
Negh'var
Scimitar
Shipyards
Anything the size of a GCS or more!
Still want to say you can't think of a need for it?
PS, my views on SF have nothing to do with this. We're only building 14 of them. IF I were in control there would be several hundred and they would be a lot bigger then this.
I have seen them. And frankly, in some cases there is no need for the weapon. Kazon?! Scimitar? yes, the stations might require a hard hitter, but thats what the Quantum torpedoes are for. Plus, there will be a Veritable fleet of ships with the Battleship.
Re: Our Ship - Beam Configuration
Posted: Wed Jul 23, 2008 8:20 pm
by Tsukiyumi
The Voth are an awful example. Go ahead, put 100 pulse cannons and 50 pulse-fire QT tubes on your tiny ship. I have the feeling it might actually scratch the paint.
Re: Our Ship - Beam Configuration
Posted: Wed Jul 23, 2008 8:33 pm
by Deepcrush
So then you're going to pull 50 defiants from your front line to fight one ship. That means I have 49 other ships free to do what they want behind your lines. Also, your head seems to forget that the lance isn't the only weapon on the ship. Are you this dumb by choice?
Also, QTs take time to produce and replace. Lance? You build it once. See the point.
Re: Our Ship - Beam Configuration
Posted: Wed Jul 23, 2008 8:34 pm
by Deepcrush
Tsukiyumi wrote:The Voth are an awful example. Go ahead, put 100 pulse cannons and 50 pulse-fire QT tubes on your tiny ship. I have the feeling it might actually scratch the paint.
Ok, the Voth may be just a bit out there but said the lance would never be needed so I showed him wrong. The point still stands.
Re: Our Ship - Beam Configuration
Posted: Wed Jul 23, 2008 8:37 pm
by Reliant121
you misread me my dear Deepcrush. I Never said, or wished to say, it had no purpose.
Re: Our Ship - Beam Configuration
Posted: Wed Jul 23, 2008 8:39 pm
by Deepcrush
I have seen them. And frankly, in some cases there is no need for the weapon. Kazon?! Scimitar? yes, the stations might require a hard hitter, but thats what the Quantum torpedoes are for. Plus, there will be a Veritable fleet of ships with the Battleship.
You may not have wished to say it but you did.
Re: Our Ship - Beam Configuration
Posted: Wed Jul 23, 2008 8:41 pm
by Reliant121
Deepcrush wrote:I have seen them. And frankly, in some cases there is no need for the weapon. Kazon?! Scimitar? yes, the stations might require a hard hitter, but thats what the Quantum torpedoes are for. Plus, there will be a Veritable fleet of ships with the Battleship.
You may not have wished to say it but you did.
I dont know about you, but i dont see no need as no purpose. It isnt Specifically required, but it has a purpose.
Re: Our Ship - Beam Configuration
Posted: Wed Jul 23, 2008 8:43 pm
by stitch626
I certainly don't say it doesn't have a purpose either. I'm just saying it isn't very practicle overall.
I just saw the ep, and it looked like the lance could only fire straight, or at least very minimal coverage. If so, it would be less useful against anything that wasn't straight ahead.
Re: Our Ship - Beam Configuration
Posted: Wed Jul 23, 2008 8:47 pm
by Reliant121
Deepcrush wrote:. Are you this dumb by choice?
Excuse me, But if I was dumb, it is none of your business. Besides, i am perfectly capable of verbal communication, thank you very much.
Re: Our Ship - Beam Configuration
Posted: Wed Jul 23, 2008 8:51 pm
by stitch626
Reliant121 wrote:Deepcrush wrote:. Are you this dumb by choice?
Excuse me, But if I was dumb, it is none of your business. Besides, i am perfectly capable of verbal communication, thank you very much.
Actually, I think he was refering to me. Considering he had just mentioned the 50 defiant example I gave. Or it might be that he was refering to both of us, since you can be plural.
Re: Our Ship - Beam Configuration
Posted: Wed Jul 23, 2008 8:52 pm
by Reliant121
stitch626 wrote:Reliant121 wrote:Deepcrush wrote:. Are you this dumb by choice?
Excuse me, But if I was dumb, it is none of your business. Besides, i am perfectly capable of verbal communication, thank you very much.
Actually, I think he was refering to me. Considering he had just mentioned the 50 defiant example I gave. Or it might be that he was refering to both of us, since you can be plural.
Irrelavent, Personal comments as such have absolutely no place in a debate.
Re: Our Ship - Beam Configuration
Posted: Wed Jul 23, 2008 8:53 pm
by Tsukiyumi
That argument sounds familiar from somewhere...
Re: Our Ship - Beam Configuration
Posted: Wed Jul 23, 2008 8:54 pm
by Aaron
Reliant121 wrote:
Irrelavent, Personal comments as such have absolutely no place in a debate.
Sure they do, just not constantly. Even on SDN people don't immediately start out with a barrage of insults, that comes after their opponent starts being deliberately ignorant. Or their debating an already established fool.
Re: Our Ship - Beam Configuration
Posted: Wed Jul 23, 2008 8:58 pm
by Deepcrush
Let me restate then.
The only purpose of the lance is to take out ships or other items that may be hard or impractical for a normal phaser to engage. You wouldn't want to use it against jemmie bugs or BoPs. That's what the PPCs are for. But, as we saw, a Defiant's forward firepower does nothing against a Dominion Battleship. A lance would have a more 'positive' effect in the matter. That's why its there.
Re: Our Ship - Beam Configuration
Posted: Wed Jul 23, 2008 9:01 pm
by Deepcrush
Reliant121 wrote:Deepcrush wrote:. Are you this dumb by choice?
Excuse me, But if I was dumb, it is none of your business. Besides, i am perfectly capable of verbal communication, thank you very much.
First let me say I'm sorry. Here is my point that I should have pointed out (no pun). I was shocked to have you (someone I do respect) say something along the lines that you did. I was thinking you may have just been reaching for a reason not to have something, instead of just saying you don't want to have it just for sake.