People don't drive 150 year old cars as a rule, they do however fly reaaally old ships. Take the Miranda's in the space battles with the borg, with the Dominion...
Starfleet ships were built to last. But as with others who've posted. It looks like a 150 year old starship in shape but the hull materials, the warpcore, the weapons, then shields. all fancy 25th century dudads.
Design has nothing to do with it. It's a body shape with different insides and outsides. You can mistake the siloette but I have no doubt you'd look at it and go, that's a replica, not an origional.
The problem is that you can only upgrade a design so far, before you run into designflaws .. The entire design simply isnt meant for the higher performance..
If we compare
the NX with a Fokker DR I,
the TOS Miranda with a Spitfire MK I, the Miranda refit with Spitfire MK 24,
the Excelsior with a F4 Phantom II, the refit with a F4 Terminator 2020,
the Galaxy with a SU 27 Flanker, the refit with a SU 37 Flanker-F
the Sovereign with a F22
the upcoming Enterprise F class with the Su 47 Berkut
The arguement against unrestricted refits/upgrades makes more sense..
You can upgrade the original F4, to stand a good chance against a modern fighter, but you cannot upgrade a triplane, likewise you can upgrade the original Su27 to compete with a F22, but not a Spitfire to even stand a snowballs chance in hell against it.
The overwhelming hypocrisy in this paragraph is too much to not point out. I guess it's okay for Cryptic to cater to the arrogant, self-righteous PvP crowd that wants everything nerfed for the sake of PvP though, yes?
As opposed to the hypocritical, generalizing, holier-than-thou PvE crowd?
The overwhelming hypocrisy in this paragraph is too much to not point out. I guess it's okay for Cryptic to cater to the arrogant, self-righteous PvP crowd that wants everything nerfed for the sake of PvP though, yes?
Maybe I rephrase what I am saying:
If someone has a problem with me (unlikely) or superchum playing a ship that looks like a TOS Consitution while he himself has the option to filter out or "sanitize" his view of tha tship into something more apporpirate for his taste (maybe a regular Star Cruiser), then that person is such a special case that I do not think he needs extra catering for.
This has nothing to do with "nerfing" things for PvP. it is clearly not a problem of game balance if a TOS Constitution Tier 5 exists. As long as it is as powerful as any comparable Tier 5 ships, from a PvP balance point of view, the whole issue is irrelevant. My post would have worked just as well if I had put "Fleet Action" in the sentence, like this:
f there is still a minority that disagrees on the principle that it's wrong if just one single person could see a TOS Constitution in a Tier 5 Fleet Action (the very person flying it), well, he can go do something that cannot be written on this forum.
Seriously, that's a level of small-mindedness nobody should need to cater to.
But this game has roleplayers, PvE players and PvP players that have additional concerns beyond game balance - like the visual aesthetic of ships, or the internal consistency of the fictional game setting, or the level of immersion that is possible in the game. If we didn't care for stuff like internal consistency or immersion, we could have Star Destroyers and Nimitz Carriers in this game.
Or it could simply be that people don't care about loss in a video game and want to fly the ships they liked from the TV shows?
Everyone is getting caught up on the technological possibilities or on the does-it-make-sense-for-the-story aspects. I suggest to you that those arguments are immaterial.
Real customers with real money want those ships and Cryptic is a business. Everything else doesn't really matter.
As to whether the old ships will scale, or be refitted - No matter what arguments for or against you all bring to the table, the only real decision point will be if Cryptic think more people want it than don't want it. Why? because if more people want it (and will pay for it) then they'd be pretty poor business folks not to offer it.
And if the eventual Connie T5 refit (shudder) needs a backstory to appease some of you, then get ready for the "Because Q said so" card to be played.
I SUGGEST FOR YOU TO READ THE BOX OF THE GAME YOU BOUGHT..
This is a game that was meant to experience star trek. not fly a ship or go around thinking their is no such thing as gain and loss. Cryptic shouldnt have been so eager to quote every thing from star trek because if you bought this game just to fly around in a ship and not expect nothing bad to happen to you then thats your bad.
The argument makes sense to point out because sometimes people at cryptic do not think of these points of view. I know cbs does because of the fact quality control on ship designs they do care about. there is no point for a t5 refit as its pointless and not apart of any real aspect of star trek. You want to fly a connie then you can, just dont expect her to be a bad TRIBBLE or equal to a galaxy or soverign. That in itself is insulting to the brand and its many fans. Real customers with real money do not want those aspects to ruin the game. Real customers want star trek online to make sense. Doing what you suggest, after a while it will just be star junk that makes no sense. overall CBS gets the last word on ship design and quality..
The problem is that you can only upgrade a design so far, before you run into designflaws .. The entire design simply isnt meant for the higher performance..
If we compare
the NX with a Fokker DR I,
the TOS Miranda with a Spitfire MK I, the Miranda refit with Spitfire MK 24,
the Excelsior with a F4 Phantom II, the refit with a F4 Terminator 2020,
the Galaxy with a SU 27 Flanker, the refit with a SU 37 Flanker-F
the Sovereign with a F22
the upcoming Enterprise F class with the Su 47 Berkut
The arguement against unrestricted refits/upgrades makes more sense..
You can upgrade the original F4, to stand a good chance against a modern fighter, but you cannot upgrade a triplane, likewise you can upgrade the original Su27 to compete with a F22, but not a Spitfire to even stand a snowballs chance in hell against it.
I see where you're going with this and if we were asking for a retrofit I would totally agree with you. What we are asking for is a replica. The frame of the Excalibur and all it's internals (per Cryptic) are brand new and state of the art. It is also the same size as a TOS Connie. If the Excalibur could be given a Refit for T5 it could be given a TOS replica skin.
So brand new ship with a brand new ship skin. Not one thing would be old.
I see where you're going with this and if we were asking for a retrofit I would totally agree with you. What we are asking for is a replica. The frame of the Excalibur and all it's internals (per Cryptic) are brand new and state of the art. It is also the same size as a TOS Connie. If the Excalibur could be given a Refit for T5 it could be given a TOS replica skin.
So brand new ship with a brand new ship skin. Not one thing would be old.
The Excalibur is already brand new in every way. Either the SCE are useless idiots, or it already has top-of-the-line tech for its design.
I see where you're going with this and if we were asking for a retrofit I would totally agree with you. What we are asking for is a replica. The frame of the Excalibur and all it's internals (per Cryptic) are brand new and state of the art. It is also the same size as a TOS Connie. If the Excalibur could be given a Refit for T5 it could be given a TOS replica skin.
So brand new ship with a brand new ship skin. Not one thing would be old.
If you talk the general shape, Id be inclined to agree with you..
But you are talking an exact replica.. To use my examples from before: You could make a modern replica of a Spitfire, but you would never be able to make it perform beyond the limitations given by the shape.. Obviously there is no airdrag in a vacuum, but the higher speeds might mean it need to have different nacelles and deflector.. It might mean that the position of the nacelles needs to be adjusted..
In the end youd have a ship that had roughly the same shape as the original ship, but it wouldnt look like it.. Furthermore, Its only roughly half the size of a Galaxy or Sovereign, so it logically would be armed with less weapons and a weaker hull..
----
Yes, this is a fictional setting.. These things arent real, but you still have to have some guidelines, lest the fiction loses its logic and immersioness (if thats even a word)..
It would be like putting a Fokker DR I into a modern Jetsim, and have it perform as the F22 Raptor.. It would just be silly.
If you talk the general shape, Id be inclined to agree with you..
But you are talking an exact replica.. To use my examples from before: You could make a modern replica of a Spitfire, but you would never be able to make it perform beyond the limitations given by the shape.. Obviously there is no airdrag in a vacuum, but the higher speeds might mean it need to have different nacelles and deflector.. It might mean that the position of the nacelles needs to be adjusted..
In the end youd have a ship that had roughly the same shape as the original ship, but it wouldnt look like it.. Furthermore, Its only roughly half the size of a Galaxy or Sovereign, so it logically would be armed with less weapons and a weaker hull..
----
Yes, this is a fictional setting.. These things arent real, but you still have to have some guidelines, lest the fiction loses its logic and immersioness (if thats even a word)..
It would be like putting a Fokker DR I into a modern Jetsim, and have it perform as the F22 Raptor.. It would just be silly.
Very true! Also as much as I am a pro-refitter I would never ask for this ship to be on par with a Sovy or Gal. But I could see it being on par with an Intrepid. They are around the same size and I feel it could have 3/3 weapon slots with 27,500-31,500 hull and turn 10-13. With the Excaliburs advanced warp core it could also get the shield boost of a Science ship. Basically it would just be a T5 Science ship. If you could see it having an LtCm. Tac it would will also fill a gap that players have been asking for.
Let me also add that this would be an Excalibur-R. So not everybody would be sportin the TOS skin.
As opposed to the hypocritical, generalizing, holier-than-thou PvE crowd?
Riiiight.. I get ya.
Considering I don't make thread or posts condemning everything the PvP crowd wants, then your snarky sarcasm doesn't apply. So no, you don't get me...but thanks for proving my point.
Why can't a new skin of the updated Constitution model be applied to an existing design to fulfill the desire for a T5 connie without having the Devs redo the whole thing from scratch?
Why can't a new skin of the updated Constitution model be applied to an existing design to fulfill the desire for a T5 connie without having the Devs redo the whole thing from scratch?
K-Tar had suggested using the D'kyr or Nebula for that very concept. I see it as being a great alternate if they go this route.
Considering I don't make thread or posts condemning everything the PvP crowd wants, then your snarky sarcasm doesn't apply. So no, you don't get me...but thanks for proving my point.
Your entire post reeked of illwill against PvPers, because they "get everything nerfed for the sake of PvP".
Thats the "holier than thou" part
You then proceed by calling PvPers for "arrogant and selfrighteous"
Thats the "generalizing"
Combined they make up the "Hypocritical" part.
----
Sure, there are arrogant PvPers.. But they are few and far between (but granted, very vocal).. And quite frankly I can live with them being arrogant, because they have the knowledge to justify it.. The best PvPers have forgotten more about how skills and ships work, than you and I have ever known.
Your entire post reeked of illwill against PvPers, because they "get everything nerfed for the sake of PvP".
Thats the "holier than thou" part
You then proceed by calling PvPers for "arrogant and selfrighteous"
Thats the "generalizing"
Combined they make up the "Hypocritical" part.
----
Sure, there are arrogant PvPers.. But they are few and far between (but granted, very vocal).. And quite frankly I can live with them being arrogant, because they have the knowledge to justify it.. The best PvPers have forgotten more about how skills and ships work, than you and I have ever known.
Really? So where's the outcry to have Starfleet ships that use phasers only or Klingons with disruptors only?
Lord knows too the PvP crowd can be confused by a ship that looks like it's been assimilated by the Borg, or maybe Remans or possibly Tron!
And damn all those targets to cycle through because that would require some thinking and skill...let's get those scorpion fighters, carriers, tractor mines...hell all mines nerfed to oblivion.
Science ships? Way too many abilities that need nerfed since there are no counters to any of them! Oh wait...
So heaven forbid they run into a Constitution that's on par with other tier cap ships because that would just totally ruin their immersion...yes, sounds so very knowledgeable.
Really? So where's the outcry to have Starfleet ships that use phasers only or Klingons with disruptors only?
Lord knows too the PvP crowd can be confused by a ship that looks like it's been assimilated by the Borg, or maybe Remans or possibly Tron!
And damn all those targets to cycle through because that would require some thinking and skill...let's get those scorpion fighters, carriers, tractor mines...hell all mines nerfed to oblivion.
Science ships? Way too many abilities that need nerfed since there are no counters to any of them! Oh wait...
So heaven forbid they run into a Constitution that's on par with other tier cap ships because that would just totally ruin their immersion...yes, sounds so very knowledgeable.
You know you have probably found yet another reason for why the klingons are better at PVP.
K-Tar had suggested using the D'kyr or Nebula for that very concept. I see it as being a great alternate if they go this route.
It would save on resourcing for the project.
Though I imagine Forgotten-Nemesis's idea of a Retro-Connie with seeker torps will probally get it due to large potential Cstore marketing.
I wonder when the KDF/Orion/Gorn ideas for vessels will be looked into?
Really? So where's the outcry to have Starfleet ships that use phasers only or Klingons with disruptors only?
been brought up several times and shot down due to its limiting the player choices. Seemed unfair to make one faction have access to cross-faction technology, whilst other could not access the same technology. PvPer's defended this too.
Lord knows too the PvP crowd can be confused by a ship that looks like it's been assimilated by the Borg, or maybe Remans or possibly Tron!
Really?
And damn all those targets to cycle through because that would require some thinking and skill...let's get those scorpion fighters, carriers, tractor mines...hell all mines nerfed to oblivion.
Actually that a spam issue that started with complaints against the Carrier so you may be right on this one. It was changes brought about by pvp complaints by those whom couldn't "think" or use "skill" to overcome.
So thanks PvE'ers for the carrier nerf?
Before the carrier , nobody really complained out loud against spam en masse, even though it was in wide use at the time.
Though a key - target players only - function would be nice.
Science ships? Way too many abilities that need nerfed since there are no counters to any of them! Oh wait...
Oh wait, the PvP crowd was the one against most Sci nerfs as most PvP'ers already knew the counters to them. I believe it was the PvP newcomers (pve players attempti thier first pvp) that started that arguement that ended with the VM, PSW, SNB, etc nerfs.
Something about them being to tought, not easily countered,etc.
So heaven forbid they run into a Constitution that's on par with other tier cap ships because that would just totally ruin their immersion...yes, sounds so very knowledgeable.
I'm not threatened by it. It will explode like everybody else.
I'm just curiuos why its needed if its just for the iconic look of the vessel.
Would not a skin job work just as well?
So basicly every star trek movie, and most of the series is out of cannon, cause if you look around you can see that there are alot of ships in starfleet that are very old. especially in time of war. Every large scale starfleet battle shows the remains of both new and old starfleet ships.
And those old ships were always the ones going "pop" when they got into it with the enemy. The ships that typically survived were the larger vessels. Including the Excelisior that everyone keeps pointing at.
Why did it survive? Because it was larger, not as big as more modern ships, but big enough to actually allow for modifications. Some designs are hard to push beyond their limits, while others are designed so that they can continuously be pushed beyond any limits. The Constitution was mothballed by StarFleet in the Movies. Remember that? Kirk didnt want to take her home?
The ONLY reason they have these zombieships flying around. Is because the Federation and StarFleet are hurting. They dont have the man power or the upto par ships to actually handle everything. So what do they do?
They pull older ships from the yards and assign them a crew that is not essential to bigger tasks and throw them into areas with less risk. Yes we have DSEs and alot of Klink/Naus/Orion/Gorn encounters close to Earth. But those incursions are less frequent then what you would find on the frontlines. So it makes sense to utilize older ships, with a lower life expectancy, to pull up the reserve then to send them to the front to have them swept to the sides like they were in the Dominion war.
Really? So where's the outcry to have Starfleet ships that use phasers only or Klingons with disruptors only?
Lord knows too the PvP crowd can be confused by a ship that looks like it's been assimilated by the Borg, or maybe Remans or possibly Tron!
And damn all those targets to cycle through because that would require some thinking and skill...let's get those scorpion fighters, carriers, tractor mines...hell all mines nerfed to oblivion.
Science ships? Way too many abilities that need nerfed since there are no counters to any of them! Oh wait...
So heaven forbid they run into a Constitution that's on par with other tier cap ships because that would just totally ruin their immersion...yes, sounds so very knowledgeable.
1: Phasers and Disruptors effects have nothing to do with PvPers..
2: Personally Id prefer to have one hulldesign, one uniform.. But Im not going to advocate for removing things, only fight even more illogical stuff being added.
3: I dont think you realize how many objects (fighters/mines/etc) a fiveman team can spawn.. Potentially we are talking 120+ objects to scroll through, objects that make so you cannot click a specific target (with TB Mines 120 of them can make it quite pointless to even try to counter them) .
4: If things are nerfed (in your case Sci powers), its because they were too powerful.. I dont think youve experienced one of the better PvP fleets premades, spamming the old version of GW or PSW.. Or how about the old VM builds that completely disabled you for 30-60 seconds (where you could do absolutely nothing)
5: Immersion have nothing to do with PvP or PvPers, and certainly have nothing to do with knowledge of powers and ships.. I would hate the idea of a T5 TOS Connie equally much if I hadnt ever PvPd.
I SUGGEST FOR YOU TO READ THE BOX OF THE GAME YOU BOUGHT..
This is a game that was meant to experience star trek. not fly a ship or go around thinking their is no such thing as gain and loss. Cryptic shouldnt have been so eager to quote every thing from star trek because if you bought this game just to fly around in a ship and not expect nothing bad to happen to you then thats your bad.
The argument makes sense to point out because sometimes people at cryptic do not think of these points of view. I know cbs does because of the fact quality control on ship designs they do care about. there is no point for a t5 refit as its pointless and not apart of any real aspect of star trek. You want to fly a connie then you can, just dont expect her to be a bad TRIBBLE or equal to a galaxy or soverign. That in itself is insulting to the brand and its many fans. Real customers with real money do not want those aspects to ruin the game. Real customers want star trek online to make sense. Doing what you suggest, after a while it will just be star junk that makes no sense. overall CBS gets the last word on ship design and quality..
Whaaa?
Look, dial back the all caps, take a deep breath, and realize that its a video game.
Sorry you don't like the old looking ships. Bummer for you that you feel make-believe ships should conform to some arbitrary make-believe science you gleaned from watching sci-fi tv shows. The real point of decision on this will be if Cryptic thinks they can make a buck or not. CBS may be able to exert some muscle but I doubt they care what tier the hero ships occupy.
Judging from just this thread, most people want the old ships at higher tiers or don't really care one way or another. That really doesn't bode well for the folks who don't want to see the oldies.
Another company did that too. It was called the NGE. Yeah, thats a really great strategy :rolleyes:
You know I am going to go out on a limb and say that there is a variation of Godwin's Law; that given enough time, in any discussion on MMOs somebody will inevitably try to shut down a point made by bringing up the NGE.
You know I am going to go out and say that there is a variation of Godwin's Law that given enough time any discussion on MMOs somebody will inevitably try to shut down a point made by bringing up the NGE.
I will call it Geoduck's Rule of NGE Finality.
You Sir, have firmly left your footprint in the history books with this one.
isnt the connie a cruiser? so why use the sci vessel?
The basic logic behind the idea of changing its class was it just doesn't make sense to give it 39,000 hull with a 4/4 weapon layout. But since it's around the size of a T5 Science it could fill that role with a 3/3 weapon layout. This would also allow the current T5 Cruisers to be the big boys they deserve to be.
Also asking for 27,000-31,500 hull for a T5 Excalibur-R when its current T2 version has 19,500 isn't such a stretch to the basic reality of immersion. The T3 Excelsior has 26,000 with the T5 having 39,000. The D'kyr was a Cruiser and now classed as a Science...it shows it can be done.
Plus right now we have Science ships with LtCm Eng and Sci. What we are lacking is one with Tac. This could fill that missing role for a heavy focused tactical science ship with good turn rate.
The basic logic behind the idea of changing its class was it just doesn't make sense to give it 39,000 hull with a 4/4 weapon layout. But since it's around the size of a T5 Science it could fill that role with a 3/3 weapon layout. This would also allow the current T5 Cruisers to be the big boys they deserve to be.
Also asking for 27,000-31,500 hull for a T5 Excalibur-R when its current T2 version has 19,500 isn't such a stretch to the basic reality of immersion. The T3 Excelsior has 26,000 with the T5 having 39,000. The D'kyr was a Cruiser and now classed as a Science...it shows it can be done.
Plus right now we have Science ships with LtCm Eng and Sci. What we are lacking is one with Tac. This could fill that missing role for a heavy focused tactical science ship with good turn rate.
Useing this logic, it is also more probable to keep it as a cruiser.
I dont get the wole up roar over this., It would be a NEW design that just looks like a TOS ship, algiet larger to fill the current roles of the cruiser class.
It would not impact anyone that doesn't want to use it. I myself would most likely get it, just becuase i like the traditional look, does that mean it needs to have a layout that makes it better? no, of course not. Should it get the layout of whatever tier it is suppose to be new at? yes, makes everything stay uniform across the board.
Comments
The problem is that you can only upgrade a design so far, before you run into designflaws .. The entire design simply isnt meant for the higher performance..
If we compare
the NX with a Fokker DR I,
the TOS Miranda with a Spitfire MK I, the Miranda refit with Spitfire MK 24,
the Excelsior with a F4 Phantom II, the refit with a F4 Terminator 2020,
the Galaxy with a SU 27 Flanker, the refit with a SU 37 Flanker-F
the Sovereign with a F22
the upcoming Enterprise F class with the Su 47 Berkut
The arguement against unrestricted refits/upgrades makes more sense..
You can upgrade the original F4, to stand a good chance against a modern fighter, but you cannot upgrade a triplane, likewise you can upgrade the original Su27 to compete with a F22, but not a Spitfire to even stand a snowballs chance in hell against it.
As opposed to the hypocritical, generalizing, holier-than-thou PvE crowd?
Riiiight.. I get ya.
Maybe I rephrase what I am saying:
If someone has a problem with me (unlikely) or superchum playing a ship that looks like a TOS Consitution while he himself has the option to filter out or "sanitize" his view of tha tship into something more apporpirate for his taste (maybe a regular Star Cruiser), then that person is such a special case that I do not think he needs extra catering for.
This has nothing to do with "nerfing" things for PvP. it is clearly not a problem of game balance if a TOS Constitution Tier 5 exists. As long as it is as powerful as any comparable Tier 5 ships, from a PvP balance point of view, the whole issue is irrelevant. My post would have worked just as well if I had put "Fleet Action" in the sentence, like this:
But this game has roleplayers, PvE players and PvP players that have additional concerns beyond game balance - like the visual aesthetic of ships, or the internal consistency of the fictional game setting, or the level of immersion that is possible in the game. If we didn't care for stuff like internal consistency or immersion, we could have Star Destroyers and Nimitz Carriers in this game.
I SUGGEST FOR YOU TO READ THE BOX OF THE GAME YOU BOUGHT..
This is a game that was meant to experience star trek. not fly a ship or go around thinking their is no such thing as gain and loss. Cryptic shouldnt have been so eager to quote every thing from star trek because if you bought this game just to fly around in a ship and not expect nothing bad to happen to you then thats your bad.
The argument makes sense to point out because sometimes people at cryptic do not think of these points of view. I know cbs does because of the fact quality control on ship designs they do care about. there is no point for a t5 refit as its pointless and not apart of any real aspect of star trek. You want to fly a connie then you can, just dont expect her to be a bad TRIBBLE or equal to a galaxy or soverign. That in itself is insulting to the brand and its many fans. Real customers with real money do not want those aspects to ruin the game. Real customers want star trek online to make sense. Doing what you suggest, after a while it will just be star junk that makes no sense. overall CBS gets the last word on ship design and quality..
I see where you're going with this and if we were asking for a retrofit I would totally agree with you. What we are asking for is a replica. The frame of the Excalibur and all it's internals (per Cryptic) are brand new and state of the art. It is also the same size as a TOS Connie. If the Excalibur could be given a Refit for T5 it could be given a TOS replica skin.
So brand new ship with a brand new ship skin. Not one thing would be old.
The Excalibur is already brand new in every way. Either the SCE are useless idiots, or it already has top-of-the-line tech for its design.
If you talk the general shape, Id be inclined to agree with you..
But you are talking an exact replica.. To use my examples from before: You could make a modern replica of a Spitfire, but you would never be able to make it perform beyond the limitations given by the shape.. Obviously there is no airdrag in a vacuum, but the higher speeds might mean it need to have different nacelles and deflector.. It might mean that the position of the nacelles needs to be adjusted..
In the end youd have a ship that had roughly the same shape as the original ship, but it wouldnt look like it.. Furthermore, Its only roughly half the size of a Galaxy or Sovereign, so it logically would be armed with less weapons and a weaker hull..
----
Yes, this is a fictional setting.. These things arent real, but you still have to have some guidelines, lest the fiction loses its logic and immersioness (if thats even a word)..
It would be like putting a Fokker DR I into a modern Jetsim, and have it perform as the F22 Raptor.. It would just be silly.
Very true! Also as much as I am a pro-refitter I would never ask for this ship to be on par with a Sovy or Gal. But I could see it being on par with an Intrepid. They are around the same size and I feel it could have 3/3 weapon slots with 27,500-31,500 hull and turn 10-13. With the Excaliburs advanced warp core it could also get the shield boost of a Science ship. Basically it would just be a T5 Science ship. If you could see it having an LtCm. Tac it would will also fill a gap that players have been asking for.
Let me also add that this would be an Excalibur-R. So not everybody would be sportin the TOS skin.
Considering I don't make thread or posts condemning everything the PvP crowd wants, then your snarky sarcasm doesn't apply. So no, you don't get me...but thanks for proving my point.
K-Tar had suggested using the D'kyr or Nebula for that very concept. I see it as being a great alternate if they go this route.
Your entire post reeked of illwill against PvPers, because they "get everything nerfed for the sake of PvP".
Thats the "holier than thou" part
You then proceed by calling PvPers for "arrogant and selfrighteous"
Thats the "generalizing"
Combined they make up the "Hypocritical" part.
----
Sure, there are arrogant PvPers.. But they are few and far between (but granted, very vocal).. And quite frankly I can live with them being arrogant, because they have the knowledge to justify it.. The best PvPers have forgotten more about how skills and ships work, than you and I have ever known.
Really? So where's the outcry to have Starfleet ships that use phasers only or Klingons with disruptors only?
Lord knows too the PvP crowd can be confused by a ship that looks like it's been assimilated by the Borg, or maybe Remans or possibly Tron!
And damn all those targets to cycle through because that would require some thinking and skill...let's get those scorpion fighters, carriers, tractor mines...hell all mines nerfed to oblivion.
Science ships? Way too many abilities that need nerfed since there are no counters to any of them! Oh wait...
So heaven forbid they run into a Constitution that's on par with other tier cap ships because that would just totally ruin their immersion...yes, sounds so very knowledgeable.
You know you have probably found yet another reason for why the klingons are better at PVP.
It would save on resourcing for the project.
Though I imagine Forgotten-Nemesis's idea of a Retro-Connie with seeker torps will probally get it due to large potential Cstore marketing.
I wonder when the KDF/Orion/Gorn ideas for vessels will be looked into?
Please end the mutual bashing in either direction and return to the topic - or this thread will go the way of off-topic, flamy threads.
But that is just me.
And those old ships were always the ones going "pop" when they got into it with the enemy. The ships that typically survived were the larger vessels. Including the Excelisior that everyone keeps pointing at.
Why did it survive? Because it was larger, not as big as more modern ships, but big enough to actually allow for modifications. Some designs are hard to push beyond their limits, while others are designed so that they can continuously be pushed beyond any limits. The Constitution was mothballed by StarFleet in the Movies. Remember that? Kirk didnt want to take her home?
The ONLY reason they have these zombieships flying around. Is because the Federation and StarFleet are hurting. They dont have the man power or the upto par ships to actually handle everything. So what do they do?
They pull older ships from the yards and assign them a crew that is not essential to bigger tasks and throw them into areas with less risk. Yes we have DSEs and alot of Klink/Naus/Orion/Gorn encounters close to Earth. But those incursions are less frequent then what you would find on the frontlines. So it makes sense to utilize older ships, with a lower life expectancy, to pull up the reserve then to send them to the front to have them swept to the sides like they were in the Dominion war.
1: Phasers and Disruptors effects have nothing to do with PvPers..
2: Personally Id prefer to have one hulldesign, one uniform.. But Im not going to advocate for removing things, only fight even more illogical stuff being added.
3: I dont think you realize how many objects (fighters/mines/etc) a fiveman team can spawn.. Potentially we are talking 120+ objects to scroll through, objects that make so you cannot click a specific target (with TB Mines 120 of them can make it quite pointless to even try to counter them) .
4: If things are nerfed (in your case Sci powers), its because they were too powerful.. I dont think youve experienced one of the better PvP fleets premades, spamming the old version of GW or PSW.. Or how about the old VM builds that completely disabled you for 30-60 seconds (where you could do absolutely nothing)
5: Immersion have nothing to do with PvP or PvPers, and certainly have nothing to do with knowledge of powers and ships.. I would hate the idea of a T5 TOS Connie equally much if I hadnt ever PvPd.
For the same reason the people that don't want it are going on.
Enough QQ from you guys will delay the inevitable as Cryptic can be gulible at times.
Cryptic needs to adopt the Bioware trait of completely ignoring the forums and releasing whatever they want.
Especially since not everyone who plays the game even uses the forums.
isnt the connie a cruiser? so why use the sci vessel?
Whaaa?
Look, dial back the all caps, take a deep breath, and realize that its a video game.
Sorry you don't like the old looking ships. Bummer for you that you feel make-believe ships should conform to some arbitrary make-believe science you gleaned from watching sci-fi tv shows. The real point of decision on this will be if Cryptic thinks they can make a buck or not. CBS may be able to exert some muscle but I doubt they care what tier the hero ships occupy.
Judging from just this thread, most people want the old ships at higher tiers or don't really care one way or another. That really doesn't bode well for the folks who don't want to see the oldies.
Another company did that too. It was called the NGE. Yeah, thats a really great strategy :rolleyes:
You know I am going to go out on a limb and say that there is a variation of Godwin's Law; that given enough time, in any discussion on MMOs somebody will inevitably try to shut down a point made by bringing up the NGE.
I will call it Geoduck's Rule of NGE Finality.
Nice. Very nice.
You Sir, have firmly left your footprint in the history books with this one.
The basic logic behind the idea of changing its class was it just doesn't make sense to give it 39,000 hull with a 4/4 weapon layout. But since it's around the size of a T5 Science it could fill that role with a 3/3 weapon layout. This would also allow the current T5 Cruisers to be the big boys they deserve to be.
Also asking for 27,000-31,500 hull for a T5 Excalibur-R when its current T2 version has 19,500 isn't such a stretch to the basic reality of immersion. The T3 Excelsior has 26,000 with the T5 having 39,000. The D'kyr was a Cruiser and now classed as a Science...it shows it can be done.
Plus right now we have Science ships with LtCm Eng and Sci. What we are lacking is one with Tac. This could fill that missing role for a heavy focused tactical science ship with good turn rate.
Useing this logic, it is also more probable to keep it as a cruiser.
I dont get the wole up roar over this., It would be a NEW design that just looks like a TOS ship, algiet larger to fill the current roles of the cruiser class.
It would not impact anyone that doesn't want to use it. I myself would most likely get it, just becuase i like the traditional look, does that mean it needs to have a layout that makes it better? no, of course not. Should it get the layout of whatever tier it is suppose to be new at? yes, makes everything stay uniform across the board.