test content
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc

T6 Jem'Hadar Attack Ship

1356715

Comments

  • lordsteve1lordsteve1 Member Posts: 3,492 Arc User
    edited March 2015
    bridgern wrote: »
    The major problem I have is that:

    1.) Getting the T5 Bug Ship required a lot of resources or real money and time
    2.) The T5 Bug Ship is bound to one character other than Zen Store Ships, they are an account unlock
    3.) To get the JHAS Pets on the Dreadnought I had to open the Dreadnought on the same alt I have the Bug Ship
    4.) To get the 2 Piece Set I had to open the Heavy Escort Carrier on the same alt I have the Dreadnought
    5.) To get the 3 piece set I have to open the T6 Bug Ship on the same alt I have the T5 Bug Ship

    So Cryptic have you thought about this at all?

    I would say yes, they have thought about it!

    They know that people like you couldn't resit all those shiny toys and went and spent probably a large amount of cash in order to get them. It's brilliant marketing because they know that there are whales out there who MUST buy the newest toys and MUST own every ship and item in game.

    They thought it through very hard and came up with a way to make money from people unable to keep their wallets shut.
    SulMatuul.png
  • antoniosalieriantoniosalieri Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited March 2015
    imruined wrote: »
    This is conspiracy theorism at it's finest given people are constantly belittling Cryptic on the forums, for TRIBBLE up their announcements and failing to update details, when copying and pasting older announcements for the same event...

    I'd be more inclined to believe this was simply a case of not bothering, whether through general laziness or incompetence (take your pick), rather than a calculated decision and action on their part...

    So if you went into a store... and bought a new laptop with windows 8 on it that had a sticker on it that said. "Free Upgrade - Windows 10 Capable".

    Then 3 months later when the next windows came out you found out your machine was not only ineligible, but also unable to be upgraded. When you went back to the store they said no we meant Windows 8.1... no idea why you would have expected it to be a Windows 10 machine.

    You would be ok with that right ? Cause there is zero difference here.

    Microsoft did this they would get sued, and likely settle.
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    Dignity and an empty sack is worth the sack.
  • bridgernbridgern Member Posts: 709 Arc User
    edited March 2015
    Im sorry is your tier 5 bug ship no longer able to do any damage?

    Is it no longer able to do normal advanced and elite pve ques?

    Is it no longer able to do missions?

    this new bug ship doesn't make your worthless it just means your god like damage status may go down, so maybe people should realize that the biggest problem with this game is the obsession over how much damage you do.

    The problem is not the DPS but the fact that the Bug Ship and every other Lockbox Ship or Promotion Ship can't be bought for 30$ they are not an account unlock and involve a much higher investment.
    Bridger.png
  • antoniosalieriantoniosalieri Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited March 2015
    Yes I read your other posts regarding the legalities. As a member of the bar can I ask what is your opinion here, do you think that anyone anywhere would bother taking them to court over this, and if they did would they lose? Also do you know of any similar incidents where a company has been sued over misrepresentation/fals advertising of an in-game product?

    Well I'm Canadian and our laws are different here. To be honest I don't know how much traction you could really get outside of a small claims court. At that point it would really come down to the judge. Yes they are imo at fault according to Canadian law... could I present it in a way a judge who wouldn't want me taking up hours on it could understand and agree with me. I don't know perhaps. lol

    Cryptic has done a good job of wrapping there stuff up in a lot of virtual currency trades, and selling other products with chance roles for something else.

    Like I said earlier, I can't see many laywers suggesting its a slam dunk easy to win case, or that it would be worth the time and expense. Best option really is to simply stop doing business with them. As much as I still want to like the product, I can no longer abide the practices of this company.
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    Dignity and an empty sack is worth the sack.
  • jellico1jellico1 Member Posts: 2,719
    edited March 2015
    The new trend for STO it to make older ships weaker so you now have to buy new ships

    So expect ships 6 months old to start becoming obsolete

    The first T-6 ships are already showing age !
    Jellico....Engineer ground.....Da'val Romulan space Sci
    Saphire.. Science ground......Ko'el Romulan space Tac
    Leva........Tactical ground.....Koj Romulan space Eng

    JJ-Verse will never be Canon or considered Lore...It will always be JJ-Verse
  • js26568js26568 Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited March 2015
    jellico1 wrote: »
    The new trend for STO it to make older ships weaker so you now have to buy new ships

    So expect ships 6 months old to start becoming obsolete

    The first T-6 ships are already showing age !

    The T-6 Scryer science vessel showed its age as soon as I started using it.

    The Wells is still top of the Science pile.
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    Free Tibet!
  • imruinedimruined Member Posts: 1,457 Arc User
    edited March 2015
    meimeitoo wrote: »
    Like I told the other person, 'T6 capabilities' can only ever mean, by any stretch of the imagination, that a ship having those must, even to the smallest degree, be 'capable' of doing 'T6'. Like, for instance, 'EM64T capable' means your CPU *must* support 64-bit extensions; and not 'Why, it is actually just 32-bit, but performs just as good as 64-bit.' That is just bullocks.

    Now this is apples and oranges indeed... It's a ludicrous analogy... What does 'doing T6' even mean? It's a phrase which makes no sense...

    A ship is either T6, or it is not... There is no way a ship can 'do T6'...

    Which brings us back to 'capabilities' meaning something is on par for (in this case) performance, while not being a T6 ship...

    Was it a very poor choice of phrase on behalf of Cryptic? Given so many people have latched onto it as a promise, this is without question...

    Does the phrasing promise that the JHAS would become a T6 ship? Absolutely not, all that was promised was something comparable in capability to a T6 vessel, which a free T5U upgrade delivers...
    The entitlement is strong in these forums...

    not_funny_Q_shadows_small.jpg
  • jellico1jellico1 Member Posts: 2,719
    edited March 2015
    js26568 wrote: »
    The T-6 Scryer science vessel showed its age as soon as I started using it.

    The Wells is still top of the Science pile.


    I will say it is the best looking :P
    Jellico....Engineer ground.....Da'val Romulan space Sci
    Saphire.. Science ground......Ko'el Romulan space Tac
    Leva........Tactical ground.....Koj Romulan space Eng

    JJ-Verse will never be Canon or considered Lore...It will always be JJ-Verse
  • antoniosalieriantoniosalieri Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited March 2015
    skollulfr wrote: »
    i
    this is pretty much the windows vista thing.
    "did we say capable? oh well, technically it is, but you get 2 fps and have to shut down all the improvements."

    From the Vista Wiki page;
    "Two consumers sued Microsoft in United States federal court alleging the "Windows Vista Capable" marketing campaign was a bait and switch tactic as some computers originally installed with Windows XP could only run Vista Basic, and in some cases they did not run even Vista Basic at a user-acceptable speed. In February 2008 a Seattle judge granted the suit class action status, permitting all purchasers in the class to participate in the case."

    Considering the storied use of the word "capable"... I would guess Cryptic never asked there legal council if using the word capable was a good idea. lmao
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    Dignity and an empty sack is worth the sack.
  • imruinedimruined Member Posts: 1,457 Arc User
    edited March 2015
    So if you went into a store... and bought a new laptop with windows 8 on it that had a sticker on it that said. "Free Upgrade - Windows 10 Capable".

    Then 3 months later when the next windows came out you found out your machine was not only ineligible, but also unable to be upgraded. When you went back to the store they said no we meant Windows 8.1... no idea why you would have expected it to be a Windows 10 machine.

    You would be ok with that right ? Cause there is zero difference here.

    Microsoft did this they would get sued, and likely settle.

    Again, apples and oranges and latching onto a term, choosing the definition which best suits your stance without considering anything else...

    Though, it's rather ironic you should actually use this analogy as Windows 10 is indeed FREE to owners of Windows 7, Windows 8.1 and Windows Phone 8.1...
    The entitlement is strong in these forums...

    not_funny_Q_shadows_small.jpg
  • antoniosalieriantoniosalieri Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited March 2015
    imruined wrote: »
    Again, apples and oranges and latching onto a term, choosing the definition which best suits your stance without considering anything else...

    Though, it's rather ironic you should actually use this analogy as Windows 10 is indeed FREE to owners of Windows 7, Windows 8.1 and Windows Phone 8.1...

    Exactly why I choose it... if you purchased a computer today, expecting that to be the case. Then 3-4 months from now you found out your new machine wasn't going to be upgraded, and more then that couldn't be. You would lump it right.

    Or would you get in on the class action suit... like the Windows Vista people did back in 08 ? When microsoft used the word "Capable"
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    Dignity and an empty sack is worth the sack.
  • meimeitoomeimeitoo Member Posts: 12,587 Arc User
    edited March 2015
    imruined wrote: »
    What does 'doing T6' even mean? It's a phrase which makes no sense...

    A ship is either T6, or it is not... There is no way a ship can 'do T6'...


    Like the other guy said, I think you are choosing to defend an indefensible position for some reason known only to yourself.

    And the 'do' argument is hilariously grasping for straws. Much like a HD-capable video card can *do* 1080p. Period.

    Funnily enough, though, you tripped over your own words here, 'A ship is either T6, or it is not.' Exactly! So, a ship with 'T6 capabilties' *must*, by your own logic, be a T6 ship. Since the Bug ship can, yes, *do* neither Intel, nor Command, it is not 'T6 capable' at all. It has no T6 abilities whatso-frakkin'ever. None. It is, in fact, demonstratively 'T6 incapable.'
    3lsZz0w.jpg
  • js26568js26568 Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited March 2015
    There are people who hate Cryptic no matter what. If Cryptic gave them $100 they'd complain about it.

    There are people who'll defend Cryptic no matter what. If Cryptic stole $100 they'd thank them for it.

    Both types of people are the "white noise" of these forums and deserve to be ignored.
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    Free Tibet!
  • imruinedimruined Member Posts: 1,457 Arc User
    edited March 2015
    Exactly why I choose it... if you purchased a computer today, expecting that to be the case. Then 3-4 months from now you found out your new machine wasn't going to be upgraded, and more then that couldn't be. You would lump it right.

    Or would you get in on the class action suit... like the Windows Vista people did back in 08 ? When microsoft used the word "Capable"

    Well, until it actually gets tried in a court of law, I guess we'll indeed have to agree to disagree here...

    As I read it, it says the JHAS would get a free upgrade to something comparable to a T6 ship and that it was a very poor choice of wording...

    Though buying a computer promising Windows 10 capabilities is pretty clear cut, since no one purchased the JHAS outright from Cryptic - it was a bonus prize from the Duty Officer packs Cryptic were selling - I feel you'd be hard pressed to prove without question Cryptic have falsely advertised a product if this was, hypothetically, to be taken to court...
    meimeitoo wrote: »
    Like the other guy said, I think you are choosing to defend an indefensible position for some reason known only to yourself.

    And I did not bother to respond to the other comment like this, as it's merely a rather poor attempt at a straw man argument, in order to silence those with an opposing view...
    meimeitoo wrote: »
    And the 'do' argument is hilariously grasping for straws. Much like a HD-capable video card can *do* 1080p. Period.

    Funnily enough, though, you tripped over your own words here, 'A ship is either T6, or it is not.' Exactly! So, a ship with 'T6 capabilties' *must*, by your own logic, be a T6 ship. Since the Bug ship can, yes, *do* neither Intel, nor Command, it is not 'T6 capable' at all. It has no T6 abilities whatso-frakkin'ever. None. It is, in fact, demonstratively 'T6 incapable.'

    I've already explained my stance on, and interpretation of 'capabilities' several times in other posts, if you failed to read them, I'm not gonna take the time to go over it again - I'll just quote it below...

    Nice work cutting out the rest of my post though, to suit your own stance btw...
    imruined wrote: »

    Which brings us back to 'capabilities' meaning something is on par for (in this case) performance, while not being a T6 ship...

    Was it a very poor choice of phrase on behalf of Cryptic? Given so many people have latched onto it as a promise, this is without question...

    Does the phrasing promise that the JHAS would become a T6 ship? Absolutely not, all that was promised was something comparable in capability to a T6 vessel, which a free T5U upgrade delivers...
    The entitlement is strong in these forums...

    not_funny_Q_shadows_small.jpg
  • thegcbaconthegcbacon Member Posts: 434 Arc User
    edited March 2015
    meimeitoo wrote: »
    Like the other guy said, I think you are choosing to defend an indefensible position for some reason known only to yourself.

    And the 'do' argument is hilariously grasping for straws. Much like a HD-capable video card can *do* 1080p. Period.

    Funnily enough, though, you tripped over your own words here, 'A ship is either T6, or it is not.' Exactly! So, a ship with 'T6 capabilties' *must*, by your own logic, be a T6 ship. Since the Bug ship can, yes, *do* neither Intel, nor Command, it is not 'T6 capable' at all. It has no T6 abilities whatso-frakkin'ever. None. It is, in fact, demonstratively 'T6 incapable.'

    You purposely drop the rest of his post from your quote to push your own self serving agenda. Bravo, you once again proven you have no ground to stand on, like most of your arguments in these forums.

    Are you mad because you think he's grasping at the straws your house is made of?
  • imruinedimruined Member Posts: 1,457 Arc User
    edited March 2015
    Mistaken double post while editing...
    The entitlement is strong in these forums...

    not_funny_Q_shadows_small.jpg
  • meimeitoomeimeitoo Member Posts: 12,587 Arc User
    edited March 2015
    imruined wrote: »
    I've already explained my stance on, and interpretation of 'capabilities' several times in other posts, if you failed to read them, I'm not gonna take the time to go over it again...

    And I've explained, several times, that your definition of 'capable' is untenable here, much like you can't sell a TV that is 'HD-capable', and then cannot do HD, after all.
    3lsZz0w.jpg
  • imruinedimruined Member Posts: 1,457 Arc User
    edited March 2015
    meimeitoo wrote: »
    And I've explained, several times, that your definition of 'capable' is untenable here, much like you can't sell a TV that is 'HD-capable', and then cannot do HD, after all.

    /sigh

    And I've already explained my position... Keep throwing all the false advertising analogies you want, apples and oranges...

    Cryptic never promised a T6 JHAS, just a JHAS with T6 capabilities - which can be interpreted as similar performance, which, again T5U provides...

    But to actually use your HD comparison, it would be a TV that is advertising HD Capable without further clarification, it was 720p, while you're expecting HD capable to mean 1080p...
    The entitlement is strong in these forums...

    not_funny_Q_shadows_small.jpg
  • meimeitoomeimeitoo Member Posts: 12,587 Arc User
    edited March 2015
    thegcbacon wrote: »
    You purposely drop the rest of his post from your quote to push your own self serving agenda. Bravo, you once again proven you have no ground to stand on, like most of your arguments in these forums.

    Are you mad because you think he's grasping at the straws your house is made of?


    Haha! I recognize you from the 'We want SS3 nerfed' thread! Looks like you're the one with a mad axe to grind, buddy. :)

    Meanwhile, if you're capable of contributing anything on the definition of 'capable', I look forward to reading it; otherwise, if you don't mind, I won't.
    3lsZz0w.jpg
  • imruinedimruined Member Posts: 1,457 Arc User
    edited March 2015
    reyan01 wrote: »
    I struggle to understand how you can't see the dishonesty at play here.

    They 'promise' a JHAS with T6 capability. They've delivered on that promise, and cheated at the same time.

    Because the JHSS can use the JHAS skin; therefore there is, technically, now a JHAS with T6 capability. But their 'clever' rebranding of it means that they can 'sell' it as a different ship.

    I'm sorry, but wordplay and spin don't excuse this sort of behavour.

    This is a logical fallacy, which you are constructing based on a new ship, using an old skin... The sentence people keep falling back on was posted in August last year, so we're talking more than 6 months ago - that's a long time to be planning this, far too long to be plausible in my books...

    I see a very poorly worded remark, I don't see a broken promise... I don't see a promise at all, other than a ship that was capable of T6 performance which, again, T5U delivers...
    The entitlement is strong in these forums...

    not_funny_Q_shadows_small.jpg
  • meimeitoomeimeitoo Member Posts: 12,587 Arc User
    edited March 2015
    reyan01 wrote: »
    Except that it was worded in an extremely misleading way, and was never elaborated upon.

    Exactly. And I don't get why ppl are so childish, almost, denying this. We all saw the ads. There were even endless posts from lockbox owners wanting a free T6 Upgrade token for their lockbox ships too (we didn't know exactly, then, what mechanism would be used to upgrade the Bug ship). And never, at any point, did Cryptic come out and say, "No, no, this is all a big misunderstanding. We really just meant T5-U!"

    So, pleeze, ppl! I know there be some forumites who get all pissy when they see someone with what they perceive as having entitlement issues; and then the badgering starts, and the detracting attempts. But please, give it up, you're only 'stretching' definitions ad absurdum, just to not want to have to admit you're wrong.

    Btw, I don't even have a Bug ship.
    3lsZz0w.jpg
  • imruinedimruined Member Posts: 1,457 Arc User
    edited March 2015
    meimeitoo wrote: »
    Exactly. And I don't get why ppl are so childish, almost, denying this. We all saw the ads. There were even endless posts from lockbox owners wanting a free T6 Upgrade token for their lockbox ships too (we didn't know exactly, then, what mechanism would be used to upgrade the Bug ship). And never, at any point, did Cryptic come out and say, "No, no, this is all a big misunderstanding. We really just meant T5-U!"

    So, pleeze, ppl! I know there be some forumites who get all pissy when they see someone with what they perceive as having entitlement issues; and then the badgering starts, and the detracting attempts. But please, give it up, you're only 'stretching' definitions ad
    absurdum
    , just to not want to have to admit you're wrong.

    Btw, I don't even have a Bug ship.

    So... Another straw man argument to try and deter opposing views, by deflecting anyone who disagrees with you as merely speaking out because they have 'entitlement issues'...
    The entitlement is strong in these forums...

    not_funny_Q_shadows_small.jpg
  • meimeitoomeimeitoo Member Posts: 12,587 Arc User
    edited March 2015
    Im so psyched, almost time for the promo!

    I'm glad they made a cool ship this time and not something weird like the ugly bulwark or who-cares elachi thing.

    Keeping it canon for these promos is best i think.

    I hope the super bug catches on in a big way!


    LOL, Yeah, Bulwark ship, it just occured to me, looks like a very wrong sex-toy. :P And that Seshar thing looks, erm, like one Elachi ship humping another. Eew!

    Pretty as the new ship may be, gonna pass up on it, though. In fact, been playing my old T5-U, err, 'T6 Capable', Defiant of late, just for canon; with not green, blue, or whatever color, but just plain Federation-orange Phasers. :)
    3lsZz0w.jpg
  • meimeitoomeimeitoo Member Posts: 12,587 Arc User
    edited March 2015
    imruined wrote: »
    So... Another straw man argument to try and deter opposing views, by deflecting anyone who disagrees with you as merely speaking out because they have 'entitlement issues'...

    Um, no? Let me spell it out for you. "The entitlement is strong in these forums..." That sig look familiar to you?! It should, it's yours. And I was suggesting -- too subtlely, it seems -- that you're started in on these people because, as usual, you can't stand ppl with entitlement issues, and feel an overwhelming -- be it irrational -- need to rebuke them.
    3lsZz0w.jpg
  • imruinedimruined Member Posts: 1,457 Arc User
    edited March 2015
    You can interpret it any way you like, the majority would say you are wrong, T6 does not mean T5-U, if it did there would be no T5-U, this is obvious surely even to you?

    No where did Cryptic promise the JHAS would be T6... The sentence states it would be upgraded free to have T6 capabilities, which is open to interpretation...

    Capable/capabilities can be used in reference to a certain level of performance... By stating the JHAS would be upgraded free to level of capability in line with a T6 ship, as I interpret this, T5U fits the bill...

    However, those who are insisting T6 capabilities means pure T6 seem content to completely dismiss this and ignore that T5U ships perform on par with T6...

    In fact, I can remember people pissing and moaning that the first T6 ships only had 10 consoles, while Fleet/Lock Box/Lobi ships upgraded to T5U had 11 and that this would make T5U better than T6!

    No HD capable requires an additional receiver to be added to the TV in order to receive HD signals, it doesn't mean it's necessarily 720p or 1080, this is why clarification must be sought.

    Yes, this correct, but I didn't bother to go into this as it would have just been filler for the point I was making...

    People have seen a statement that a TV is HD capable without further clarification, even with the proper receivers, if only 720p and they interpret HD capable as being 1080p, the store is not gonna give you a free upgrade to 1080p...

    Same situation as with the JHAS... Cryptic stated a free upgrade to T6 capabilities, T5U provides performance capabilities on-par with T6 vessels...
    The entitlement is strong in these forums...

    not_funny_Q_shadows_small.jpg
  • meimeitoomeimeitoo Member Posts: 12,587 Arc User
    edited March 2015
    reyan01 wrote: »
    I guess it really depends on how one defines 'capable' in this context.

    What defines the T6 ships?

    Their 5th "starship trait"
    Does, or will, the original JHAS receive a 5th trait? Nope.

    Incorporation of Intel or Command BOFF seating - or, in the case of the JHASS BOTH
    Does the original JHAS receive either? Nope.

    Which basically implies that they based the entire 'T6 capable' comment on the JHAS receiving an extra console slot upon upgrade from T5 to T5-U. Sorry. An extra console does NOT make it 'T6 capable'.

    So far as I am concerned, "T6 capable" is poorly considered spin, and is being used as an excuse for the Powers That Be to say "Ah, but we MEANT......". Dishonest, deceitful and it would make your average Politian proud.


    In the words of Mr. Rivera himself:

    Al Rivera: 'T6 ships will have new abilities and powers that ONLY the new T6 will have - Your old ships won't have these new abilities/powers'

    Therefore, T5-U is *not* 'T6 capable' at all. Yes, they put that spin on it afterwards, but that was just bull. They should have just come out and said something like:

    "Look, we know we initially said 'T6 Capable', but, upon furher investigation, we decided for T5-U, after all, as that's more in line with the lockboxes."

    Or something else sounding half-way reasonable. But they didn't.
    3lsZz0w.jpg
This discussion has been closed.