test content
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc

Why there are no TOS T6 ships ingame

1356

Comments

  • grazyc2#7847 grazyc2 Member Posts: 1,988 Arc User
    coldnapalm wrote: »
    kirk2390 wrote: »
    ltminns wrote: »
    Perhaps you people are reading too much into the OP. Could have meant not seeing any of the TOS T6 Constitutions in the game (hence the 'in-game' term used).

    The OP meant (me) that visually there no TOS T6 ships but as a skin and those are temporal vessels. I looked but there are no light or heavy cruisers science or Constitution vessels and I find that to say the weird. they brought that era to life in game so the least they could build some ships for them from LTC to Admiral there basically no other ships then the temporal cruiser and lock box version you read that already 1% change to get them .... And yeah I bought the Paladin and convert it to the U.S.S. Ranger NCC 1750 but still it's just to little ...

    You do realize that the T6 connie is a reskin of a temporal ship too right? You do realize that by asking for ACTUAL T6 ToS era ships that can melt a borg cube in seconds is walking RIGHT into the your fun is wrong crowd because it makes no bloody sense right? But hey, why make logical arguements when you can give those people ammunition with stupid comments like this one.

    Now I lost ya, I think you have to rephrase your comment to make sense. I mean melt a Borg cube and what about having fun .... I really lost you here. Your comment doesn't make any sense....
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

    "Coffee: the finest organic suspension ever devised. It's got me through the worst of the last three years. I beat the Borg with it."
  • grazyc2#7847 grazyc2 Member Posts: 1,988 Arc User
    Strange enough that they launched a TOS version, made it short only to Lieutenant Commander, Worst they put in with movie sounds terrible mistake I suppose but hey I'm not judging. We gone over this a Thousand times They should build in more missions and put in Nakuhl in a later stage. The way they did it now is presenting a piece of the pie and the moment you want to take a bite they pull it away...
    But beside all this they give so little ships after you return to 25th century only a temporal version, And I just wanted some more variation in the game for the TOS era, I mean look at the other races they have tons of ships But the TOS practically doesn't have that only the temporal version and the Lock box version witch is like the Voyager Bridge hard to get.
    And I know probably DEVS wont read this because they can't.... Not anymore.

    Well I just hope they will adjust it sometime in the future.....
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

    "Coffee: the finest organic suspension ever devised. It's got me through the worst of the last three years. I beat the Borg with it."
  • hmkchmkc Member Posts: 79 Arc User
    kirk2390 wrote: »
    Strange enough that they launched a TOS version, made it short only to Lieutenant Commander, Worst they put in with movie sounds terrible mistake I suppose but hey I'm not judging. We gone over this a Thousand times They should build in more missions and put in Nakuhl in a later stage. The way they did it now is presenting a piece of the pie and the moment you want to take a bite they pull it away...
    But beside all this they give so little ships after you return to 25th century only a temporal version, And I just wanted some more variation in the game for the TOS era, I mean look at the other races they have tons of ships But the TOS practically doesn't have that only the temporal version and the Lock box version witch is like the Voyager Bridge hard to get.
    And I know probably DEVS wont read this because they can't.... Not anymore.

    Well I just hope they will adjust it sometime in the future.....

    Yes I was really hoping for allot more TOS content, aesthetics and settings too... when they opened up the 23rd century theater with the Agents of Yesteryear but, I'm thankful for what there is now and hopefully more will be added in the near future.
    Kirk out!
  • grazyc2#7847 grazyc2 Member Posts: 1,988 Arc User
    hmkc wrote: »
    kirk2390 wrote: »
    Strange enough that they launched a TOS version, made it short only to Lieutenant Commander, Worst they put in with movie sounds terrible mistake I suppose but hey I'm not judging. We gone over this a Thousand times They should build in more missions and put in Nakuhl in a later stage. The way they did it now is presenting a piece of the pie and the moment you want to take a bite they pull it away...
    But beside all this they give so little ships after you return to 25th century only a temporal version, And I just wanted some more variation in the game for the TOS era, I mean look at the other races they have tons of ships But the TOS practically doesn't have that only the temporal version and the Lock box version witch is like the Voyager Bridge hard to get.
    And I know probably DEVS wont read this because they can't.... Not anymore.

    Well I just hope they will adjust it sometime in the future.....

    Yes I was really hoping for allot more TOS content, aesthetics and settings too... when they opened up the 23rd century theater with the Agents of Yesteryear but, I'm thankful for what there is now and hopefully more will be added in the near future.

    Yes me too, I'm thankful for what they did give us just wondering if they gonna put in more stuff in the future because I realy love it. Just be patience I guess
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

    "Coffee: the finest organic suspension ever devised. It's got me through the worst of the last three years. I beat the Borg with it."
  • brian334brian334 Member Posts: 2,214 Arc User
    All of this is in your heads. If you choose to be happy, the offerings of STO are sufficient for you to headcannon the problems away. "Your T6 Connie is a reskin, but mine is an original hull rebuilt with advanced technology." If, on the other hand, you choose to be unhappy, then no effort by the STO crew will be enough. "That crappy attempt at a T6 Connie doesn't have bronze phaser emmitters like I wanted, you ruined my immersion, Craptyc!"

    The development team has limited man hours, and so must plan how to spend them long before content gets to the point of even blogging about upcoming features. By the time any ship or system gets to you the team is working on other stuff you may not see for weeks and months to come. If they didn't 'get it right' they don't have time to go back and 'fix' it for you. Sometimes they make decisions with which I don't agree, but I'm not the guy who has to justify time spent on a project to the CEO.

    As I told a co-worker the other day, there are a thousand right ways to do something, and everyone thinks their right way is the only one. The trick is to get the job done the way that's best for you.
  • smokebaileysmokebailey Member Posts: 4,664 Arc User
    neocatstar wrote: »
    blitzy4 wrote: »
    The problem with the Connie is most of us that want them can't afford them, myself included.

    Thats for sure, id love to give James T Cat a T6 USS Kittyprize, sometimes it just wasnt meant to be. Given i have the JJ connie for the TOS toon i made, ill be content with that. Who knows, down the road i may get it...you as well.

    James T. Cat and Kittyprize sounds very cute. :)
    dvZq2Aj.jpg
  • nimbullnimbull Member Posts: 1,564 Arc User
    I'm totally in favor of more TOS skins for modern ships. Some people just want to have old school fun out of this game irregardless of how others who feel TOS should be omitted feel. Especially since TOS players spend cash to on things like the agent of yesterday ship packs. I'd buy and play fed more if they had more TOS options for modern things, be nice if the KDF and Romulan factions had their TOS offerings beefed up as well.
    Green people don't have to be.... little.
  • smokebaileysmokebailey Member Posts: 4,664 Arc User
    nimbull wrote: »
    I'm totally in favor of more TOS skins for modern ships. Some people just want to have old school fun out of this game irregardless of how others who feel TOS should be omitted feel. Especially since TOS players spend cash to on things like the agent of yesterday ship packs. I'd buy and play fed more if they had more TOS options for modern things, be nice if the KDF and Romulan factions had their TOS offerings beefed up as well.

    Exactly. Some of us like TOS. ~sticks tongue out at the naysayers and 'cannon' people~

    If someone don't like the idea of a TOS ship doing good like the modern ones, IT'S A VIDEO GAME.
    And this is not the first game to do that. The Timelines game, I believe it is called, has an ISS Enterprise one can get, and it's a beast in battle, and with all the TOS goodness.

    This is a game to have fun, folks....you want a TOS Constitution with green paint trim, blowing up Borg ships....go for it. You want a Defiant that's pink and blowing up Nakhul, go for it.

    Like the old saying goes: If you want to have ketchup on your mashed potatoes, and gravy on your French fries, I say why not? :)
    dvZq2Aj.jpg
  • evilmark444evilmark444 Member Posts: 6,950 Arc User
    Are you on console? Cause there are T6 TOS era ships you can get.
    But really... Also you should ask yourself why you don't see any Ford Model-T's in NASCAR. The answer should be the same, but for players whining about not having tiny outdated ships killing Borg Cubes.

    THIS....
    1280px-Iowa_16_inch_Gun-EN.svg.png

    Cannot be mounted on THIS....
    frigate.jpg

    A better analogy would be mounting modern weapons on a WWII era battleship, I'm not an engineer but with a bit of ingenuity and work I don't see why that wouldn't be possible.
    Lifetime Subscriber since Beta
    eaY7Xxu.png
  • drakethewhitedrakethewhite Member Posts: 1,240 Arc User
    A better analogy would be mounting modern weapons on a WWII era battleship, I'm not an engineer but with a bit of ingenuity and work I don't see why that wouldn't be possible.

    Yes, it can and was in fact done. Sets of harpoon, tomahawk missiles, and phalanx weapons along with complete modernization of the electronics were performed on four Iowa class battleships which also retained all her 16" naval guns (which was sort the whole point as they were still very much state of the art. In fact they were unable to improve on the WWII analog fire control computer for those with the digital equipment of the time) but did lose some 5" mounts. The final result was most impressive, and surprisingly cheap as well (about the price of a new destroyer of the time). Operating costs however were high mostly due to it crew being much larger than anything other than a carrier.

    They were decommissioned during the Navy downsizing after the fall of the Soviet Union, having served for almost 50 years. Pity, they could have sailed for decades more.

    Ship don't really become obsolete until one of two things happens- their hull actually wears out or the nuclear reactors wear out (what happened to the USS Enterprise). Until then it's almost always cheaper to refit than buy new. Newer designers can offer marginal improvements, typically operationally- US carriers show this quite well as flight deck operations improved with each new carrier design. Crew size also tends to drop. But this rarely justifies removing a ship from service until she wears out. Building new is *expensive*.

    There is one important addition to the above- massive changes in key components that provides vast benefits that can't be ignored (like wood -> steel) or drive systems (wind -> steam and so on to nuke powered). While very common during the 18th to 20th century, we haven't seen much change for decades. We may however be on the edge of another sea change (pun intended) with stealth hulls and the high electrical power requirements for lasers and railguns. That assumes of course that such technology pans out.

    In Star Trek- the only sea change was trans-warp, and in canon that was a failure. Other than that, it's been warp driven starships with shields, phasers and torpedoes. Nothing there to indicate that a ship couldn't serve for a hundred years or more with upgrades.

    Rather the driving factor here has been a requirement that every show has a new ship for it. A requirement that makes no sense outside of a TV show. It's also audience driven to a large extent, people think that because they get a new iPhone every couple of years that the Navy must get new ships on the same schedule. It doesn't work that way.
  • ltminnsltminns Member Posts: 12,569 Arc User
    Unfortunately, the people at Cryptic have no sense of a good name for an Expansion. It isn't Agents of Yesteryear, it's Agents of Yesterday. The inferior one won out. :(

    Don't be confused, it is deliberate.
    'But to be logical is not to be right', and 'nothing' on God's earth could ever 'make it' right!'
    Judge Dan Haywood
    'As l speak now, the words are forming in my head.
    l don't know.
    l really don't know what l'm about to say, except l have a feeling about it.
    That l must repeat the words that come without my knowledge.'
    Lt. Philip J. Minns
  • tarran61tarran61 Member Posts: 827 Arc User
    Are you on console? Cause there are T6 TOS era ships you can get.
    But really... Also you should ask yourself why you don't see any Ford Model-T's in NASCAR. The answer should be the same, but for players whining about not having tiny outdated ships killing Borg Cubes.

    THIS....
    1280px-Iowa_16_inch_Gun-EN.svg.png

    Cannot be mounted on THIS....
    frigate.jpg

    A better analogy would be mounting modern weapons on a WWII era battleship, I'm not an engineer but with a bit of ingenuity and work I don't see why that wouldn't be possible.


    Take a look at the The Ayes of Texas They place some heavy beams on her.
    41QkrnM-mxL._SX249_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg

    Positive thoughts.
    NeAC.gif
  • kidflash112kidflash112 Member Posts: 75 Arc User
    I fly the T6 prototype ATLAS Dreadnought its my main and i simply love it just wish i could get a fleet version.
    [img][/img]screenshot_2017-03-05-09-33-16_zpsuuddenl4.jpg
  • ltminnsltminns Member Posts: 12,569 Arc User
    They did mount them on there.
    'But to be logical is not to be right', and 'nothing' on God's earth could ever 'make it' right!'
    Judge Dan Haywood
    'As l speak now, the words are forming in my head.
    l don't know.
    l really don't know what l'm about to say, except l have a feeling about it.
    That l must repeat the words that come without my knowledge.'
    Lt. Philip J. Minns
  • nightkennightken Member Posts: 2,824 Arc User
    I fly the T6 prototype ATLAS Dreadnought its my main and i simply love it just wish i could get a fleet version.

    it's already fleet level.


    if I stop posting it doesn't make you right it. just means I don't have enough rum to continue interacting with you.
  • brian334brian334 Member Posts: 2,214 Arc User
    There are a lot of reasons why a new ship is built rather than repurpose an old, already existing hull. Take a trip to Bremerton, Washington, USA, and look in the harbor. It used to be filled with hulls, but they have almost all gone to the scrappers because old hulls are not suitabile as platforms for modern weapons systems and because of a property of all construction materials known as 'fatigue'.

    Even in the Trekverse this property is accepted, and structural integrity fields were created to deal with the problem. However, over time fatigue would progress requiring more and more power to maintain hull integrity.

    In each generation of weapon design more power is required, forcing the reconstruction of the vessel's power generators. To accomodate the mounting of bulkier equipment and power connections the weapons hardpoints must be reinforced, reshaped, and redesigned. Adding a new system, no matter how insignifcant, impacts every other system to one degree or another. If you want to add a new cooking unit to a galley, for example, you must begin by altering one or more power supply systems, rearrange existing galley equipment to accomodate the new equipment, and insure adequate safety installations such as fire protection and emergency egress are installed. Adding a weapon system is much more complicated.

    I lived aboard a ship which was built in the 1970's, then rebuilt in the 1990's to accomodate a new weapon system. The last hull of the class was deactivated and sunk as an artificial reef in the 2010's because the hulls were deemed too expensive to upgrade with newer technologies. It was cheaper to build new ships than to perform the massive alterations required to modernize them, and new hulls wouldn't have 30+ years of stress on them. When a 30 year old hull is deemed too obsolete for modernization, what chance does an 80+ year old hull have, with its steam turbines and asbestos insulation?

    None of this applies to the player who wants to play the game his way. It is a simplified response to the assertion made above that there is no reason to not reuse old hulls. These reasons and more drive real world decisions to either reuse, rebuild, or replace older hulls. Star Trek tries to use real world science as much as possible, but it also drops science in favor of fun every single time. I can't fault the player or designer of STO for doing the same.
  • grazyc2#7847 grazyc2 Member Posts: 1,988 Arc User
    coldnapalm wrote: »
    kirk2390 wrote: »
    coldnapalm wrote: »
    kirk2390 wrote: »
    ltminns wrote: »
    Perhaps you people are reading too much into the OP. Could have meant not seeing any of the TOS T6 Constitutions in the game (hence the 'in-game' term used).

    The OP meant (me) that visually there no TOS T6 ships but as a skin and those are temporal vessels. I looked but there are no light or heavy cruisers science or Constitution vessels and I find that to say the weird. they brought that era to life in game so the least they could build some ships for them from LTC to Admiral there basically no other ships then the temporal cruiser and lock box version you read that already 1% change to get them .... And yeah I bought the Paladin and convert it to the U.S.S. Ranger NCC 1750 but still it's just to little ...

    You do realize that the T6 connie is a reskin of a temporal ship too right? You do realize that by asking for ACTUAL T6 ToS era ships that can melt a borg cube in seconds is walking RIGHT into the your fun is wrong crowd because it makes no bloody sense right? But hey, why make logical arguements when you can give those people ammunition with stupid comments like this one.

    Now I lost ya, I think you have to rephrase your comment to make sense. I mean melt a Borg cube and what about having fun .... I really lost you here. Your comment doesn't make any sense....

    The your fun is wqrong crowd's main arguement is that having a very old ship perform like top of the line modern ship makes ZERO sense. And that was gotten around by making those T6 ToS era ships a temperoal ship that has been reskinned. You then say that that a temporal ship that is reskinned ain't ToS era ships...hence you are saying you want EXACTLY what the your fun is wrong crowd is railing against...there by making their stance stronger.

    Flaming/Harassing comments moderated out.

    Like said before even in this post, This is a game and it is for fun for everyone. everyone his own game that's the beauty of Star Trek Online. there are a trillion people playing there game right here. I for one prefer Jem'Hadar in the KDF and the TOS. others remake there Picard or Janeway and do it like that. And hey it ain't not my fun for a fact I know with me a lot of players playing the TOS era because they loved the shows back then and I say let them have their fun and we let have yours.
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

    "Coffee: the finest organic suspension ever devised. It's got me through the worst of the last three years. I beat the Borg with it."
  • drakethewhitedrakethewhite Member Posts: 1,240 Arc User
    brian334 wrote: »
    There are a lot of reasons why a new ship is built rather than repurpose an old, already existing hull. Take a trip to Bremerton, Washington, USA, and look in the harbor. It used to be filled with hulls, but they have almost all gone to the scrappers because old hulls are not suitabile as platforms for modern weapons systems and because of a property of all construction materials known as 'fatigue'.

    Yes, as I said. Worn out or a victim of a sea change in technology.

    Currently the US is prepping hulls for that sea change to lasers, railguns and stealth. If those technologies don't pan out, it will be wasted money and less effective ships. But hey, roll those dice and see how they come up. It's only the future of the seas lanes we're talking about. It's not like you can avoid rolling those dice anyway.
  • smokebaileysmokebailey Member Posts: 4,664 Arc User
    brian334 wrote: »
    There are a lot of reasons why a new ship is built rather than repurpose an old, already existing hull. Take a trip to Bremerton, Washington, USA, and look in the harbor. It used to be filled with hulls, but they have almost all gone to the scrappers because old hulls are not suitabile as platforms for modern weapons systems and because of a property of all construction materials known as 'fatigue'.
    As I always say, things set in the future could totally change that, since advanced alien technology would not need worry about it.
    Like Doug Drexler always said, "stop thinking with the ape brain", and such..

    So I say don't worry about in game :)
    dvZq2Aj.jpg
  • drakethewhitedrakethewhite Member Posts: 1,240 Arc User
    brian334 wrote: »
    There are a lot of reasons why a new ship is built rather than repurpose an old, already existing hull. Take a trip to Bremerton, Washington, USA, and look in the harbor. It used to be filled with hulls, but they have almost all gone to the scrappers because old hulls are not suitabile as platforms for modern weapons systems and because of a property of all construction materials known as 'fatigue'.
    As I always say, things set in the future could totally change that, since advanced alien technology would not need worry about it.
    Like Doug Drexler always said, "stop thinking with the ape brain", and such..

    So I say don't worry about in game :)

    With replicator technology the concept of anything being worn out disappears. Don't like that wear and tear on that bulkhead? Beam it out, recycle its component atoms and beam it back into place. Done.

    Heck, one wouldn't even have to repaint something.
  • hmkchmkc Member Posts: 79 Arc User
    edited April 2017
    kirk2390 wrote: »
    coldnapalm wrote: »
    kirk2390 wrote: »
    coldnapalm wrote: »
    kirk2390 wrote: »
    ltminns wrote: »
    Perhaps you people are reading too much into the OP. Could have meant not seeing any of the TOS T6 Constitutions in the game (hence the 'in-game' term used).

    The OP meant (me) that visually there no TOS T6 ships but as a skin and those are temporal vessels. I looked but there are no light or heavy cruisers science or Constitution vessels and I find that to say the weird. they brought that era to life in game so the least they could build some ships for them from LTC to Admiral there basically no other ships then the temporal cruiser and lock box version you read that already 1% change to get them .... And yeah I bought the Paladin and convert it to the U.S.S. Ranger NCC 1750 but still it's just to little ...

    You do realize that the T6 connie is a reskin of a temporal ship too right? You do realize that by asking for ACTUAL T6 ToS era ships that can melt a borg cube in seconds is walking RIGHT into the your fun is wrong crowd because it makes no bloody sense right? But hey, why make logical arguements when you can give those people ammunition with stupid comments like this one.

    Now I lost ya, I think you have to rephrase your comment to make sense. I mean melt a Borg cube and what about having fun .... I really lost you here. Your comment doesn't make any sense....

    The your fun is wqrong crowd's main arguement is that having a very old ship perform like top of the line modern ship makes ZERO sense. And that was gotten around by making those T6 ToS era ships a temperoal ship that has been reskinned. You then say that that a temporal ship that is reskinned ain't ToS era ships...hence you are saying you want EXACTLY what the your fun is wrong crowd is railing against...there by making their stance stronger.

    Flaming/Harassing comments moderated out.

    Like said before even in this post, This is a game and it is for fun for everyone. everyone his own game that's the beauty of Star Trek Online. there are a trillion people playing there game right here. I for one prefer Jem'Hadar in the KDF and the TOS. others remake there Picard or Janeway and do it like that. And hey it ain't not my fun for a fact I know with me a lot of players playing the TOS era because they loved the shows back then and I say let them have their fun and we let have yours.

    ^Precisely!!!
    ===================================================================

    Think of it as Retro-Styling with cutting edge tech under the hood and it makes plenty of sense!

    ltminns wrote: »
    Unfortunately, the people at Cryptic have no sense of a good name for an Expansion. It isn't Agents of Yesteryear, it's Agents of Yesterday. The inferior one won out. :(

    Don't be confused, it is deliberate.

    Guilty here, since I call it Yesteryear!
    Kirk out!
  • brian334brian334 Member Posts: 2,214 Arc User
    As I said, headcanon your game in a way which makes you happy.

    However, my headcanon says that because there are energy requirements to transform that bulkhead as you describe, and waste energy when you do so, you wind up either having to inject additional material or energy into the process, or having a thinner bulkhead every time you do so. Beyond a certain point entropy will result in greater energy costs to achieve the same result. Ultimately, even in Star Trek, old hulls will simply require too much maintenance to maintain their integrity.

    Even in Trek the laws of physics say it will eventually be cheaper to build new hulls than to constantly rebuild old ones. Please allow your headcanon to rule your gameplay: I have no desire to spoil your fun. But my headcanon says the many Trek hull designs came about because those hulls were built around specific systems, and retrofitting them is, for whatever reasons, an inferior choice compared to new construction. If this were not so there would be no need for Surplus Depot Z15
  • grazyc2#7847 grazyc2 Member Posts: 1,988 Arc User
    Well still like to have the T6 version of the constellation class...
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

    "Coffee: the finest organic suspension ever devised. It's got me through the worst of the last three years. I beat the Borg with it."
  • drakethewhitedrakethewhite Member Posts: 1,240 Arc User
    brian334 wrote: »
    However, my headcanon says that because there are energy requirements to transform that bulkhead as you describe, and waste energy when you do so

    Energy is free in Star Trek, post-scarcity remember?

    And in STO they can lose and replace ships by the thousands, and easily refit alien ones that were completely unsuited for human life at the drop of a hat.

    So your head canon is completely at odds with the setting- but hey, who says you need to pay attention to the show and game. I certainly don't.
  • smokebaileysmokebailey Member Posts: 4,664 Arc User
    kirk2390 wrote: »
    Well still like to have the T6 version of the constellation class...

    Indeed.
    dvZq2Aj.jpg
This discussion has been closed.