test content
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc

Now that the T5 B'rel is here...

135

Comments

  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2011
    redheadguy wrote:
    Then why didn't you just SAY that before?
    :rolleyes:

    I have, just not in this thread ;)

    I'm not the only one either. I'm one of those silly people that likes the new ships, and wants to see where Cryptic takes ST. I think all the time travel episodes we have and inconsistancy is a great disservice to the game.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2011
    I have, just not in this thread ;)

    I'm not the only one either. I'm one of those silly people that likes the new ships, and wants to see where Cryptic takes ST. I think all the time travel episodes we have and inconsistancy is a great disservice to the game.

    So why don't we just agree to disagree and leave it at that before we get carried away in a flaming match that neither of us need?
    Or...
    Lets just brake out the peace pipe,(I don't smoke, but we could Role Play it :D ).
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2011
    redheadguy wrote:
    So why don't we just agree to disagree and leave it at that before we get carried away in a flaming match that neither of us need?
    Or...
    Lets just brake out the peace pipe,(I don't smoke, but we could Role Play it :D ).

    I'm not out to flame, lol.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2011
    I'm not out to flame, lol.

    Your back to the argument that what- you don't like- shouldn't be in the game....

    That's a Denial-ist type of argument and most likely it's not going to win you the battle.

    The Designer's of this MMO are going to put into the game what they think is going to create more revenu...,

    Not withhold or take out things that paying customers want.

    If They think adding Tier-1 ship's to the Tier-5 level will generate more income then so be it...

    You'll have to adapt to the circumstances or withdraw from the battle field.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2011
    DaveyNY wrote: »
    Your back to the argument that what- you don't like- shouldn't be in the game....

    That's a Denialist type of argument and most likely it's not going to win you the battle.

    The Designer's of this MMO are going to put into the game what they think is going to create more revenu...,

    Not withhold or take out things that paying customers want.

    If They think adding Tier-1 ship's to the Tier-5 level will generate more income then so be it...

    You'll have to adapt to the circumstances or withdraw from the battle field.

    I think you just made a new word ;)

    That's not my arguement at all.

    My arguement, if I had one O.o , is that some customers want one way (the way I want it) and others want it the other way (the way you apparently want it). That doesn't make me.... whatever that word is. It makes me a paying customer who has the ability to give input to the developers on where I would like the game I payed for to go. My opinion is just as valid, and warrented as anyone elses.

    If you have a problem with it, voice your opinion. Don't make up words and then accuse someone of being... whatever it is you just accused me of.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2011
    I have, just not in this thread ;)

    I'm not the only one either. I'm one of those silly people that likes the new ships, and wants to see where Cryptic takes ST. I think all the time travel episodes we have and inconsistancy is a great disservice to the game.

    so true cavillier the path to a lie this game is in stagnation not progress by including all this tos and tng junk star trek is actually moving backwards not forward cryptic has time and again failed to live up there own continuity

    there kinda like Q in that regard and not in a good way
    when he met picard in that episode he recreated a napoleonic but didnt care about accuracy at all
    Cryptic is a lot like they dont care about there own timeline endlessly destroying there own established path to with things that should have been outdated many many many years ago
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2011
    Lufia wrote:
    so true cavillier the path to a lie this game is in stagnation not progress by including all this tos and tng junk star trek is actually moving backwards not forward cryptic has time and again failed to live up there own continuity

    there kinda like Q in that regard and not in a good way
    when he met picard in that episode he recreated a napoleonic but didnt care about accuracy at all
    Cryptic is a lot like they dont care about there own timeline endlessly destroying there own established path to with things that should have been outdated many many many years ago

    that is your point of view and you are entitled to it. I for one love what they are doing. They are continuing the story arcs they set up at launch, improving game play mechanics, and the feature episodes are amazing. And I love that they are adding TOS interiors and other things. I just wish they would add them faster. Look at it this way. The sooner they release all of the TOS/TMP/TNG/VOY/DS9 stuff the sooner they release cryptic made stuff. Better to have the older stuff out now, and the newer stuff later, that way the new stuff has more of the new stuff flavor than the old stuff by that point.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2011
    So I have read the posts stating the B'rel is a large vessel, larger than a connie. uh...WRONG! the B'rel was a scout ship with a crew complement of about 12 or so...the original connie had a crew of 400. So unless the connie packed in the crew like sardines I do believe you need to really check your facts. The larger BoP's were the K'vorts which were classified as light cruisers.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2011
    redheadguy wrote:
    If they are limited then there is no reason to upgrade the ships in the first place. We'd just be right back where we started.

    That's the trick I think Cryptic is trying to figure out. How to make Tier 1 ships viable all the way to Tier 5/6, without making the current ships obsolete.


    The only ways I could figure having T1 ships all the way to T5 is if they get something like passive group buffs. Like T1 B'rels having a shield bypass ability, as omage to the Duras Sisters D-12 in Generations.

    The Consitution could have somthing like a "legacy hero" buff that aids in battle performance of other Federation ships.

    The Olympic giving off an active crew regeneration bonus.



    That or for PvP, have limits on certain types of ships for certain maps. For instance a "Fleet vs Fleet" battle scenario where you have ship slots open for battles. Like this:

    (1) T5 Ship (Command Ship)
    (2) T4 Ships
    (4) T3 Ships
    (8) T2 Ships
    (12) T1 Ships
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2011
    Staran wrote: »
    What? I mean look. If you took the design of a car from the 50's and filled it with todays technology, should it not run circles around a 10 year old car?

    Err, no. Cars from the 50's have seriously heavier and simultaneously weaker chassis than modern cars (i.e. cars up to 10 or so years old) so your analogy doesn't work.

    However that doesn't mean that the TOS Constitution can't be refitted with modern tech. IIRC most of a Trek ship's toughness comes from various field generators reinforcing the hull anyway and it's not down to purely mechanical strength.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2011
    In DS9 you pretty much always see the smaller version of the bird of prey. No they don't name the class but looking at the size and the model, you figure it out, it's a Brel. And they often fight either against or alongside the defiant. It's pretty much a huge part of the Dominion war, competitive with the defiant, but of course never as good as it or the hero crew.

    In TNG you see more of the larger version. The one we call the KVort, which is more of a cruiser size ship.

    Afraid not.
    The B'rel is confirmed in TNG by name as a large ship, the DS9 ships are not more than half the size of a Galaxy Class starship, thus they are not B'rel.

    And model? the actualy model will tell you squat as with exception for CGI footage ALL Bird of Prey's in Star Trek use the "exact" same model.
    Which is why the "only" thing that sets the various BoP's in Star Trek apart is pure size.

    What we do know however is that there are at least three named classes of BoP's
    The B'rel, the K'vort and the D-12.
    Bearing that in mind there most likeley exists a wide variety of BoP's in various sizes, but the B'rel is and remains a big ship.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2011
    Err, no. Cars from the 50's have seriously heavier and simultaneously weaker chassis than modern cars (i.e. cars up to 10 or so years old) so your analogy doesn't work.

    However that doesn't mean that the TOS Constitution can't be refitted with modern tech. IIRC most of a Trek ship's toughness comes from various field generators reinforcing the hull anyway and it's not down to purely mechanical strength.

    i am not saying the exact outer car. I am saying the outer design.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2011
    People, my goodness.

    Cryptic never said these ToS models are the actual SHIPS for goodness sake....no one did.

    These are currently produced ships based upon the old schematics / designs with current technology implemented.

    You know, kinda like how some cars actually ARE doing in the US? The Mustang is a great example.

    I swear, someone actually purporting that the constitution your seeing IG is an actual 1st gen line connie is ...

    well, it's just silly.

    Regards,
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2011
    TheFreyMan wrote: »
    People, my goodness.

    Cryptic never said these ToS models are the actual SHIPS for goodness sake....no one did.

    These are currently produced ships based upon the old schematics / designs with current technology implemented.

    You know, kinda like how some cars actually ARE doing in the US? The Mustang is a great example.

    I swear, someone actually purporting that the constitution your seeing IG is an actual 1st gen line connie is ...

    well, it's just silly.

    Regards,

    I do however have a question in that regard:
    I can understand people buying cool, classic cars.
    I can understand companies producing classi-looking cars because they are easily sold.
    I don't understand why any military would do the same.
    They don't sell their ships to their captains, so why build them retrolook ships in the first place?
    Espcially since effectiveness is not only dependant on the materials used but on the shape of the hull itself.
    This starts with mundane things like the ability to take damage and ends with such esoteric things like a shape that helps create a decent warpfield.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2011
    TheFreyMan wrote: »
    People, my goodness.

    Cryptic never said these ToS models are the actual SHIPS for goodness sake....no one did.

    These are currently produced ships based upon the old schematics / designs with current technology implemented.

    You know, kinda like how some cars actually ARE doing in the US? The Mustang is a great example.

    I swear, someone actually purporting that the constitution your seeing IG is an actual 1st gen line connie is ...

    well, it's just silly.

    Regards,

    Yes and that is just silly too.

    How can you possibly even begin to compare cars that are built and upgraded solely for the looks and serve absolutely zero practical purpose?

    Do you see fancy cars fighting in wars?
    Do you see fancy cars moving through rough terrain to conduct scientific studies and investigation?
    Do you see fancy cars delivering supplies and heavy cargo?

    Show me a country's military that has WWII spitfires or mustangs refitted with turbojet engines and combat ready and i will gladly concede. :rolleyes:
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2011
    mister_dee wrote:
    I do however have a question in that regard:
    I can understand people buying cool, classic cars.
    I can understand companies producing classi-looking cars because they are easily sold.
    I don't understand why any military would do the same.
    They don't sell their ships to their captains, so why build them retrolook ships in the first place?
    Espcially since effectiveness is not only dependant on the materials used but on the shape of the hull itself.
    This starts with mundane things like the ability to take damage and ends with such esoteric things like a shape that helps create a decent warpfield.
    Alexraptor wrote: »
    Yes and that is just silly too.

    How can you possibly even begin to compare cars that are built and upgraded solely for the looks and serve absolutely zero practical purpose?

    Do you see fancy cars fighting in wars?
    Do you see fancy cars moving through rough terrain to conduct scientific studies and investigation?
    Do you see fancy cars delivering supplies and heavy cargo?

    Show me a country's military that has WWII spitfires or mustangs refitted with turbojet engines and combat ready and i will gladly concede. :rolleyes:

    Both of these arguments apply equally to the continued production of the Galaxy class ships in T5. Please explain your rationalization.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2011
    Alexraptor wrote: »
    Its uncanon and that is that.

    But sure, if Cryptic wants to make a crappy and sloppy game then they are free to add TOS T5 ships galore. :rolleyes:

    STO was a lot better off back when it had only pure 25th century ships.
    But TOS ships as endgame ships is just stupid and dumb and nothing will ever change that.

    Same can be said for 24th century ships in endgame. :rolleyes
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2011
    Alexraptor wrote: »
    less than 50 year old ships vs 100-200 year old ships? Riiiiight. :rolleyes:

    This post has been edited to remove content which violates the [URL=" http://forums.startrekonline.com/announcement.php?f=70&a=2"]Cryptic Studios Forum Usage Guidelines[/URL] GMMeeko
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2011
    Pasquatic wrote:
    Both of these arguments apply equally to the continued production of the Galaxy class ships in T5. Please explain your rationalization.

    I love the Galaxy class. I was so happy when they made a T5 version of it. I'll be so happy when they make a T6 version of it because of fanbase pressure. <3<3<3!!
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2011
    jam062307 wrote: »
    Variety is the spice of life. Lets have more variety. Lets make a T-5 Connie Replica. A ship that has the same design LOOK as the Connie...but double the size and double the crew. that way all the nay sayers can no longer have the arguement that a small ship of that design has no place in the universe. Now the ship is bigger...but looks like the old one. This is after all a FICTIONAL GAME. We can do anything.

    This kind of sums it up, You hit it on the head, just becuase it looks like a TOS generation ship doesn't necessarily mean it is. As others have pointed out, the basic design remains a constant in Star Fleet, just as it does for the Klingon's and Romulans.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2011
    Pasquatic wrote:
    If you had bothered to read The Path to 2409 you might realize just how ignorant you have shown yourself to be.

    Like I said before, the Kiddie Horde is on the stampede to ensure that this game goes down as TNG Online.

    Yep, 2409 not 2309.
    When they bother to set a year for the setting it's usually a good thing to stick with that setting.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2011
    Pasquatic wrote:
    Both of these arguments apply equally to the continued production of the Galaxy class ships in T5. Please explain your rationalization.

    In the TNGTM, the Galaxy's live expectency is given as 100 years, so she's not really old but middle-aged.

    Unlike a certain other ship that's from the 2240's, was retired in the 2290's and inexplicably turns up again after staying that way for over a century.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2011
    Err, no. Cars from the 50's have seriously heavier and simultaneously weaker chassis than modern cars (i.e. cars up to 10 or so years old) so your analogy doesn't work.

    Ok... 2011 Toyota Camry vs. this retrofitted car from the 50's straight line mile. Who wins? :p

    As and Admiral in Starfleet with almost 60 million EC, I'm definitely in a position to take an antique starship from the boneyard and tune, or dare I say "craft" it into something better than what is readily available. People have been taking old things and tuning them way past their original capabilities since there have been things to tune up. It's not a huge leap of imagination to assume the same thing is possible to do in the Star Trek universe.

    I hope crafting lower tier ships into T5 equivalent or better is coming sooner than later :)
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2011
    I think you just made a new word ;)

    That's not my argument at all.

    My argument, if I had one O.o , is that some customers want one way (the way I want it) and others want it the other way (the way you apparently want it). That doesn't make me.... whatever that word is. It makes me a paying customer who has the ability to give input to the developers on where I would like the game I payed for to go. My opinion is just as valid, and warranted as anyone else's.

    If you have a problem with it, voice your opinion. Don't make up words and then accuse someone of being... whatever it is you just accused me of.

    You are quite right...I forgot the dash... fixed it...

    What I was pointing out to you, is that your desires for what the Dev's do in regards to this particular facet of the game, actually Denies other players of their desires.

    Asking for something to not happen in an MMO, in effect creates a situation that could limit another players enjoyment of the game.

    You can always ignore/not use a particular aspect of game play you don't like...

    On the other hand, how does another player enjoy/use something that's NOT there?

    How do you justify limiting another players enjoyment of the game, just because you don't like a particular aspect.

    And how does putting something in the game, that you can ignore/not use, really limit your enjoyment of said game.

    Nothing is being denied or taken away from you.

    That's sounds kinda self-centered to me and appears to go against the basic tenant of a MMO.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2011
    TrentTyler wrote: »
    This kind of sums it up, You hit it on the head, just becuase it looks like a TOS generation ship doesn't necessarily mean it is. As others have pointed out, the basic design remains a constant in Star Fleet, just as it does for the Klingon's and Romulans.

    Your right.
    But because it still looks like a TOS generation ship means the design still has all the basic flaws and inadequacies that led it to being retired in the first place.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2011
    Alexraptor wrote: »
    Its uncanon and that is that.

    But sure, if Cryptic wants to make a crappy and sloppy game then they are free to add TOS T5 ships galore. :rolleyes:

    STO was a lot better off back when it had only pure 25th century ships.
    But TOS ships as endgame ships is just stupid and dumb and nothing will ever change that.

    Oh please. You realize Star Trek is a FICTIONAL entity right; (and FYI the fact that you saw Miranda, Excelsior, etc. 'old' ship models from the TOS films in TNG was a budget issue - ie they wanted gto show different ships and had perfectly good film quality models at ILM, and reusing those saved on effect production cost - so even TPTB and TNG producers weren't all that concerned with the fictional 'Star Trek timeline'.

    Again, this isn't the "Star Trek 25th Century Virtiual Life Simulator" - it's an MMORPG based on the 45 year IP known as Star Trek; and is using EVERYTHING (old and new) from that IP. I assume you're also upset we're not required to sit at out computer for days staring at Sector Space just to reach the planet Vulcan on the map (as by most accounts it for 4 days to go from Earth to Vulcan.) the fact it takes less than 30 seconds must really be frustrating eh?

    It's not crappy or sloppy to decide that they want to cater to fans of the 45 year old IP; and give them the tools to tailor theiir game experience to their liking. It's a sound business decision, just like the TNG producers decision to recycle good film models from films made just 4 years earlier when they needed/wanted more starships to be shown on TNG.

    If you rweally want a Star Trek simulation, I hear teh MMO Second Life has a HIUGE area devoted to fans of 24th century Star Trek; and you can spend hours walking around in size appropriate areas fiddling with appropriate looking control consoles to hyour hearts content.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2011
    DaveyNY wrote: »
    What I was pointing out to you, is that your desires for what the Dev's do in regards to this particular facet of the game, actually Denies other players of their desires.

    Asking for something to not happen in an MMO, in effect creates a situation that could limit another players enjoyment of the game.

    You can always ignore/not use a particular aspect of game play you don't like...

    On the other hand, how does another player enjoy/use something that's NOT there?

    How do you justify limiting another players enjoyment of the game, just because you don't like a particular aspect.

    And how does putting something in the game, that you can ignore/not use, really limit your enjoyment of said game.

    Nothing is being denied or taken away from you.

    That's sounds kinda self-centered to me and appears to go against the basic tenant of a MMO.

    Actually, people getting everything they want limits my enjoyment of the game. Though thats a qualitative, not quantitative measure, I'm not alone in using such a measure for the products I buy. I bought a product based in the ST universe, set in a future point in time relative to the latest canon material.

    In my opinion, since launch, I haven't really got what I paid for. For almost a year now, we've had frivilous, or retro such and such added continuously. And since my name is blue here, you can tell how much I paid initially for said product.

    I can tolerate the T5 Galaxy, because the same capability of of thge Excelsior to be improved exists in the Galaxy (especially the Galaxy). It's large, has a ton of power, and can be modified to fulfill almost any mission. It has a hull life (though non canon i think) of 100 years. Considering the Galaxy was probably produced in relatively large numbers, I would assume its production time lasted a few decades, making the newer of the original production possibly as old now, as the Enterprise was when it crashed.

    The Constitution is small, uses ancient technology, and uses a hull geometry that, though symbolic, is structurally unsound in the modern day (from the games setting). All it would be good for is training, and maybe ferrying people from place to place as a glorified courier.

    Its production ended 120 years ago (game reference) or so, The newest of the connie's would be older then the average excelsior, which may still be in production. That ships hull isn't structurally unsound, and it has great ability for upgrade.

    All the people begging for a T5 TOS connie are asking for is really just a pretty ship (in their opinion) and little else. And by little else, i mean even if it were T5, it would probably be so completely and utterly useless, that no one would fly the sucker anyway.

    I have no problem coming to the forum and telling people I don't like their ideas. Especially when their entire idea is founded on "gimme NAO!!!" or how they want a new shiny or status symbol. Sorry, I just can't respect that kind of arguement as valid, when viewed through the prism of what i think is good for the game.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2011
    All the people begging for a T5 TOS connie are asking for is really just a pretty ship (in their opinion) and little else. And by little else, i mean even if it were T5, it would probably be so completely and utterly useless, that no one would fly the sucker anyway.

    I have no problem coming to the forum and telling people I don't like their ideas. Especially when their entire idea is founded on "gimme NAO!!!" or how they want a new shiny or status symbol. Sorry, I just can't respect that kind of arguement as valid, when viewed through the prism of what i think is good for the game.

    Who's saying 'Gimme NAO!!!"? Nice straw man. Shall I describe your position as 'OMG IT DOESN'T FOLLOW THE TECH MANUAL!!! THAT HAS TO BE ON DECK 5!!!! RAGEQUIT!'? That doesn't really get us anywhere. Especially when a bunch of Star Trek fans start accusing each other of being nerds. We're all nerds around these parts.

    I want a T5 Connie because I'm a TOS Trek fan. That's the Star Trek show that I prefer. That's the ship that I'd like to fly around in. The TOS uniforms are the uniforms I like to dress my toons in. I want the interior of my ship to look like the interior of the U.S.S. Enterprise.

    See, I bought this game to play a Star Trek game.

    Let me add: It continuously amazes me, the people who complain and complain about me having TOS style toons and wanting to have a TOS style ship, whose own toons don't look like anything I've ever seen on Star Trek. The ships have to be completely canon, or they're out, but they can play a cheerleader with pink pigtails in the KDF. The fact that that irritates me doesn't matter to them. Likewise, them being irritated my TOS preference? Doesn't bother me in the least.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2011
    Actually, people getting everything they want limits my enjoyment of the game. Though thats a qualitative, not quantitative measure, I'm not alone in using such a measure for the products I buy. I bought a product based in the ST universe, set in a future point in time relative to the latest canon material.

    In my opinion, since launch, I haven't really got what I paid for. For almost a year now, we've had frivilous, or retro such and such added continuously. And since my name is blue here, you can tell how much I paid initially for said product.

    I can tolerate the T5 Galaxy, because the same capability of of thge Excelsior to be improved exists in the Galaxy (especially the Galaxy). It's large, has a ton of power, and can be modified to fulfill almost any mission. It has a hull life (though non canon i think) of 100 years. Considering the Galaxy was probably produced in relatively large numbers, I would assume its production time lasted a few decades, making the newer of the original production possibly as old now, as the Enterprise was when it crashed.

    The Constitution is small, uses ancient technology, and uses a hull geometry that, though symbolic, is structurally unsound in the modern day (from the games setting). All it would be good for is training, and maybe ferrying people from place to place as a glorified courier.

    Its production ended 120 years ago (game reference) or so, The newest of the connie's would be older then the average excelsior, which may still be in production. That ships hull isn't structurally unsound, and it has great ability for upgrade.

    All the people begging for a T5 TOS connie are asking for is really just a pretty ship (in their opinion) and little else. And by little else, i mean even if it were T5, it would probably be so completely and utterly useless, that no one would fly the sucker anyway.

    I have no problem coming to the forum and telling people I don't like their ideas. Especially when their entire idea is founded on "gimme NAO!!!" or how they want a new shiny or status symbol. Sorry, I just can't respect that kind of arguement as valid, when viewed through the prism of what i think is good for the game.

    Other than for selfish reasons, why should what you think is good for the game, take precedence over what others think is good for the game.

    And how does your explanation of how an old vessel would compare to newer ones, override the fact that the "Old Looking" vessels that are being talked about, are being built using the Same Modern Technology that the newer ones are using??


    (..and with this, I have to go to work... see ya'll later...:) )
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2011
    I really fail to understand why everyone feels their favorite ship must be a T5.
    Why not simply fly favorite ships anyway and accept the fact that they are not top of the line ships.

    TOS and TMP ships can be justified for existing in the game, they cannot however ever be justified as top of the line ships.
Sign In or Register to comment.