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.
I understand their point of view and if STO was a little more strict on customization and Canon I would probably be right there with them saying it's a bad idea.
The only reason why it shouldn't stay a Cruiser is because it ends up just being a Cruiser with lower stats than others. This could (I say could) keep players that captain it from being involved with grouped missions when someone with the same support role could do a better job...just because of the higher stats. It would be like someone taking a T3-T4 ship to T5 content. It can be done but why create a possible issue for the group.
I understand their point of view and if STO was a little more strict on customization and Canon I would probably be right there with them saying it's a bad idea.
The only reason why it shouldn't stay a Cruiser is because it ends up just being a Cruiser with lower stats than others. This could (I say could) keep players that captain it from being involved with grouped missions when someone with the same support role could do a better job...just because of the higher stats. It would be like someone taking a T3-T4 ship to T5 content. It can be done but why create a possible issue for the group.
Lets not forget that Spock was a Sci Cm
But why have it have lower stats? seriously, if its gonna get added in game, and added as the max tier new cruiser, why have it have lower stats? I don't buy any argument about it being game changing. As we have seen on the multiple threads about this subject, some love it, some don't, some don't give a flying frack about it. So its not like its gonna become the only max tier cruiser being used. Some will get it, some will stay in their current ships, others will still be killing Fed Cruisers with whatever Klink ship they most desire.
I just don't get the whole" well bring it in, but make it subpar " stance. I think anything that brings more people to play or brings back more former players, is the best design decision for the long term life of the game.
Another company did that too. It was called the NGE. Yeah, thats a really great strategy :rolleyes:
I don't know about the NGE, but this forum's QQrs have been responsible for the worst nerfs. I would say the QQrs here are more QQ than any I have encountered elsewhere.
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..
No, honestly what's insulting are 'fans' like yourself who REFUSE to acknowledge that there are OTHER fans of Star Trek who DON'T CARE for the TNG era, and want tio be able to use the ships from the TOS era and TOS film era, and don't care for the Galaxy, Defiant, or Sovereign designs. Furtjher you seem to refuse to acknoledge the fact that in the time of this game's setting (2409) - ship's such as the Galaxy, Sovereign, Defiant et al. ARE NO LONGER 'MODERN' in that they are between 40 to 50 years old; and you would admit (if you really want to be 'true' and 'respectful' of the franchise (I guess to foster some sort of 'realism' <- however that might work in a 100% fictional, made up universe to begin with...); neither the Galaxy, Soverign, Defiant, et. al. should be T5 'top of the line' ships in 2409 either. We should have nothing but new 25th century designs at T5, period....
OR
The gamke can proceed as it has been, allowing Star Trek fans who like different Star Trek eras more than the others, to PICK and CHOOSE what they wish to experience from the Star Trek universe; and be as effective as anyone else beside them - regardless of the 'Star Trek Era' a ship or uniform is from. IMO it's more insulting that some fans can't seem to grasp that this is more a game that allows Star Trek Universe elements across te 45 year history of the Franchise to co exist and give ALL Star Trek fans to experience (whit no loss of game ability) the parts of Star Trek they enjoy and identify with most; rather then a '25th Cwentury Star Trek Real Life Simulation'. (And personally I think the fans who want to destroy or limit the former and turn this game into the latter do more 'insult to the brand' than anything else.
In other words, live and let live. You want your T5 40 year old Sovereign and dress your crew in 50 year old TNG style uniforms? Great. I want my T5 TOS Constitution Class replica, and the ability to dress my crew in 130 year old TOS designs.
^^^
Please tell me how either 'insults the brand' (your words) of 'Star Trek' (the 100% fictional universe that was first shown on TV in 1966, and that I've been watching first run, and enjoying since 1969)?
(FYI - you may also o look up a term that was created during TOS run, and adopted by many a Star Trek fan over the years as an aspect to aspire to - IDIC. )
But why have it have lower stats? seriously, if its gonna get added in game, and added as the max tier new cruiser, why have it have lower stats? I don't buy any argument about it being game changing. As we have seen on the multiple threads about this subject, some love it, some don't, some don't give a flying frack about it. So its not like its gonna become the only max tier cruiser being used. Some will get it, some will stay in their current ships, others will still be killing Fed Cruisers with whatever Klink ship they most desire.
I just don't get the whole" well bring it in, but make it subpar " stance. I think anything that brings more people to play or brings back more former players, is the best design decision for the long term life of the game.
I agree that I don't think it will be game changing. These kind of threads have popped up before on other things with the claim that it would destroy the game or even threats that players would leave if something happened... to me...this is just the next one.
You can make it a Cruiser but be ready to have a reason why it should be a certain way. People will break it apart. Post a build for it if you like
*Added*
Also if this ship is added it really should offer something different from the other ships. Otherwise it's really just a ship skin. Use This chart to study some possible builds for it. I would like to see what you come up with
I agree that I don't think it will be game changing. These kind of threads have popped up before on other things with the claim that it would destroy the game or even threats that players would leave if something happened... to me...this is just the next one.
You can make it a Cruiser but be ready to have a reason why it should be a certain way. People will break it apart. Post a build for it if you like
The simple answer i guess would to be, use the stats from current cruisers( or whatever class gets the most qq) and use the same console lay out and BO stations. That way it is just a matter of re-skinning a existing model( hopefully). This way it takes the least amount of time and effort to do.
We don't need to reinvent the wheel each time the community asks for and receives a in game item/effect.
Now i know, Cryptic will never make everyone happy on every issue, nor should they try to do so. This happens to be a huge point with the community, and has become rather inflamed to the point of people just proposing truly outrageous suggestions in similar threads.
I would think if it had the same stats as the current Assault or Star cruiser, it would keep those people who say it would unbalance pvp happy also, i mean really, its the same damn ship, just looks different and after a day or so, people will have Adapted, Improvised, and Overcame the inconvenient re-skin of a current ship with know capabilities.
The simple answer i guess would to be, use the stats from current cruisers( or whatever class gets the most qq) and use the same console lay out and BO stations. That way it is just a matter of re-skinning a existing model( hopefully). This way it takes the least amount of time and effort to do.
We don't need to reinvent the wheel each time the community asks for and receives a in game item/effect.
Now i know, Cryptic will never make everyone happy on every issue, nor should they try to do so. This happens to be a huge point with the community, and has become rather inflamed to the point of people just proposing truly outrageous suggestions in similar threads.
I would think if it had the same stats as the current Assault or Star cruiser, it would keep those people who say it would unbalance pvp happy also, i mean really, its the same damn ship, just looks different and after a day or so, people will have Adapted, Improvised, and Overcame the inconvenient re-skin of a current ship with know capabilities.
Okay so basically (correct me if I'm wrong) you're asking for it to be a ship skin for the Sovy?
Okay so basically (correct me if I'm wrong) you're asking for it to be a ship skin for the Sovy?
If that is the easiest, it doesn't have to be the Sovereign, thought to me it would be keeping in line with the original ship class. One of exploration but with significant capabilities to defend itself and the interests of the UFP
Furtjher you seem to refuse to acknoledge the fact that in the time of this game's setting (2409) - ship's such as the Galaxy, Sovereign, Defiant et al. ARE NO LONGER 'MODERN' in that they are between 40 to 50 years old; and you would admit (if you really want to be 'true' and 'respectful' of the franchise (I guess to foster some sort of 'realism' <- however that might work in a 100% fictional, made up universe to begin with...); neither the Galaxy, Soverign, Defiant, et. al. should be T5 'top of the line' ships in 2409 either. We should have nothing but new 25th century designs at T5, period....
Considering that there's plenty of canon showing the excelsior being retrofitted repeatedly, while the constitution ships were decommissioned during the excelsior rollout, it would not seem odd to me that the sovereign would become the new "ship of the line" after its debut, replacing the excelsior and lasting for a good 100 years. Moreover, I can then easily see the galaxy being continuously retrofitted for exploration missions, and the defiant for military missions.
On a humorous note, one of my opponents in a VA1 C&H daily the other day was using a connie. Suffice to say, he was blown up plenty of times by all the T5 ships...
People fail to realize, "They arent 23rd Century ships", they just look like them. Its like saying your ****ed because a 2011 mustang kicked your girly cars TRIBBLE in drag race. It isnt the pony car from the 60's, its a brand new spanking look alike.
LOL i look at it like this, i dont care for how the outside looks like. What counts is what is inside that can get the job done.
If that is the easiest, it doesn't have to be the Sovereign, thought to me it would be keeping in line with the original ship class. One of exploration but with significant capabilities to defend itself and the interests of the UFP
Okay...I see some of this logic. It saves time to deal with balance and it would only cost 160-240 Atari Points. These are good points.
But how could we explain the extra 400 to 600 crew, equal hull to ships 3 or 4 times its mass yet have less turn rate than the Excelsior? Also if we can put 4/4 weapon slots on such a small ship, why can't all the Escorts and Science ships? This will cause upset for them. Now if we just made the Excalibur-R as a cruiser it would still only have 150-400 crew...tops. This means it won't have the benefit of extra crew for repair rate.
These are the kind of problems that come with doing this.
*added*
Please don't think I'm making you wrong, I'm all for upgrading.
Okay...I see some of this logic. It saves time to deal with balance and it would only cost 160-240 Atari Points. These are good points.
But how could we explain the extra 400 to 600 crew, equal hull to ships 3 or 4 times its mass yet have less turn rate than the Excelsior? Also if we can put 4/4 weapon slots on such a small ship, why can't all the Escorts and Science ships? This will cause upset for them. Now if we just made the Excalibur-R as a cruiser it would still only have 150-400 crew...tops. This means it won't have the benefit of extra crew for repair rate.
These are the kind of problems that come with doing this.
*added*
Please don't think I'm making you wrong, I'm all for upgrading.
Your missing the point, it would have EXACTLY the same stats across the board. There is no need to explain away anything. It would be the same MASS, have the same Crew compliment, and on and on and on, as the Tier 5 or 6 ship that is used to make the model.
Your missing the point, it would have EXACTLY the same stats across the board. There is no need to explain away anything. It would be the same MASS, have the same Crew compliment, and on and on and on, as the Tier 5 or 6 ship that is used to make the model.
that would be unbalanced the connie is like 350 meters long the sovereign in 730+ so there no way to fit 800 crew on a connie :P
that would be unbalanced the connie is like 350 meters long the sovereign in 730+ so there no way to fit 800 crew on a connie :P
You need to reread what i said, It would have EXACTLY the same stats, this would include, ship length, ship mass, internal volume, external volume, etc, etc, etc. Hence why i said exactly.
After going through 10 pages of complaining and being bored about the constant same arguments I make this post
Every Federation cruiser has a saucer section, a hull section, HUGE pylons and super size nacelles. So in essence all federation cruisers except the Heavy Cruisers (Cheyenne, Stargazer, Dakota class) look like the Constitution class So why complain about a Constitution class refit
You need to reread what i said, It would have EXACTLY the same stats, this would include, ship length, ship mass, internal volume, external volume, etc, etc, etc. Hence why i said exactly.
Sorry I misunderstood. You are saying a 700m+:eek: TOS Connie. Gotcha
Sorry I misunderstood. You are saying a 700m+:eek: TOS Connie. Gotcha
lol, yea, i guess its easier to say then type or read clearly.
Maybe we have hit the problem on the head? many people read these post and say" omg a 200yr old 300m long ship kicked my TRIBBLE" and others see " yes, a current generation ship that has a retro look but current stats of new generation ships"
After going through 10 pages of complaining and being bored about the constant same arguments I make this post
Every Federation cruiser has a saucer section, a hull section, HUGE pylons and super size nacelles. So in essence all federation cruisers except the Heavy Cruisers (Cheyenne, Stargazer, Dakota class) look like the Constitution class So why complain about a Constitution class refit
Most aircraft in the world have a fuselage, two wings, a pair of horizontal stabilizers, tailfin and engines.
Does that mean the Spitfire looks like an F16?
Most aircraft in the world have a fuselage, two wings, a pair of horizontal stabilizers, tailfin and engines.
Does that mean the Spitfire looks like an F16?
I think people are purposely trying to not understand you. Dismissal allows them to not have to face the ridiculousness of what they want.
Most aircraft in the world have a fuselage, two wings, a pair of horizontal stabilizers, tailfin and engines.
Does that mean the Spitfire looks like an F16?
You're on to the conspiracy... pretty clever. How did you find out? Who told you?! You know I can't let you leave here alive now.
Please read it and post your opinion (but I please ask you to discuss the systems and ideas on how to make it work, but please do not argue whether it should or should not exist, so it doesn't dissolve into bickering and trolling )
See my post down about the request to replace the current system.
This isnt the same as your refit proposal, actually most of it has been about designing NEW, vessels that have the look of old style ships. Whether your for or against it, its not the same idea of you upgrading path.
You want a Tier 5 ships that looks exactly like a Connie.
What is the difference?
Difference is it doesn't require a rework of existing in game mechanics, or a new system to advance a ship and impose restriction on what the player gets out of it.
The simplest route is often the best route to take. This is not about taking the current tier 1 ship and retro fitting it, this is about designing a NEW ship that looks like the tier 1 variant. This eliminates all kind of hassles, not to mention the people screaming about not want to fight a tier 1 ship capable of killing my uber tier 5 / tier 6 ship.
If we keep it simple, we have a greater chance of adding another feature that just may attract former and new player back to the game.
Comments
I understand their point of view and if STO was a little more strict on customization and Canon I would probably be right there with them saying it's a bad idea.
The only reason why it shouldn't stay a Cruiser is because it ends up just being a Cruiser with lower stats than others. This could (I say could) keep players that captain it from being involved with grouped missions when someone with the same support role could do a better job...just because of the higher stats. It would be like someone taking a T3-T4 ship to T5 content. It can be done but why create a possible issue for the group.
Lets not forget that Spock was a Sci Cm
But why have it have lower stats? seriously, if its gonna get added in game, and added as the max tier new cruiser, why have it have lower stats? I don't buy any argument about it being game changing. As we have seen on the multiple threads about this subject, some love it, some don't, some don't give a flying frack about it. So its not like its gonna become the only max tier cruiser being used. Some will get it, some will stay in their current ships, others will still be killing Fed Cruisers with whatever Klink ship they most desire.
I just don't get the whole" well bring it in, but make it subpar " stance. I think anything that brings more people to play or brings back more former players, is the best design decision for the long term life of the game.
Sci Connie: Carrier with Peregrines and all Klingon Carrier powers.
Tac Connie: Blue teardrop Photon launcher in place of a Phaser Lance, doesn't take up a weapons slot.
Engineer Connie: The ultimate tank with extra Hull.
I don't know about the NGE, but this forum's QQrs have been responsible for the worst nerfs. I would say the QQrs here are more QQ than any I have encountered elsewhere.
Easy Rules:
People Want: Cryptic Give
People Restrict: Cryptic Ignore
No, honestly what's insulting are 'fans' like yourself who REFUSE to acknowledge that there are OTHER fans of Star Trek who DON'T CARE for the TNG era, and want tio be able to use the ships from the TOS era and TOS film era, and don't care for the Galaxy, Defiant, or Sovereign designs. Furtjher you seem to refuse to acknoledge the fact that in the time of this game's setting (2409) - ship's such as the Galaxy, Sovereign, Defiant et al. ARE NO LONGER 'MODERN' in that they are between 40 to 50 years old; and you would admit (if you really want to be 'true' and 'respectful' of the franchise (I guess to foster some sort of 'realism' <- however that might work in a 100% fictional, made up universe to begin with...); neither the Galaxy, Soverign, Defiant, et. al. should be T5 'top of the line' ships in 2409 either. We should have nothing but new 25th century designs at T5, period....
OR
The gamke can proceed as it has been, allowing Star Trek fans who like different Star Trek eras more than the others, to PICK and CHOOSE what they wish to experience from the Star Trek universe; and be as effective as anyone else beside them - regardless of the 'Star Trek Era' a ship or uniform is from. IMO it's more insulting that some fans can't seem to grasp that this is more a game that allows Star Trek Universe elements across te 45 year history of the Franchise to co exist and give ALL Star Trek fans to experience (whit no loss of game ability) the parts of Star Trek they enjoy and identify with most; rather then a '25th Cwentury Star Trek Real Life Simulation'. (And personally I think the fans who want to destroy or limit the former and turn this game into the latter do more 'insult to the brand' than anything else.
In other words, live and let live. You want your T5 40 year old Sovereign and dress your crew in 50 year old TNG style uniforms? Great. I want my T5 TOS Constitution Class replica, and the ability to dress my crew in 130 year old TOS designs.
^^^
Please tell me how either 'insults the brand' (your words) of 'Star Trek' (the 100% fictional universe that was first shown on TV in 1966, and that I've been watching first run, and enjoying since 1969)?
(FYI - you may also o look up a term that was created during TOS run, and adopted by many a Star Trek fan over the years as an aspect to aspire to - IDIC.
I agree that I don't think it will be game changing. These kind of threads have popped up before on other things with the claim that it would destroy the game or even threats that players would leave if something happened... to me...this is just the next one.
You can make it a Cruiser but be ready to have a reason why it should be a certain way. People will break it apart. Post a build for it if you like
*Added*
Also if this ship is added it really should offer something different from the other ships. Otherwise it's really just a ship skin. Use This chart to study some possible builds for it. I would like to see what you come up with
It just must be.
Along with the D7 of course.
The simple answer i guess would to be, use the stats from current cruisers( or whatever class gets the most qq) and use the same console lay out and BO stations. That way it is just a matter of re-skinning a existing model( hopefully). This way it takes the least amount of time and effort to do.
We don't need to reinvent the wheel each time the community asks for and receives a in game item/effect.
Now i know, Cryptic will never make everyone happy on every issue, nor should they try to do so. This happens to be a huge point with the community, and has become rather inflamed to the point of people just proposing truly outrageous suggestions in similar threads.
I would think if it had the same stats as the current Assault or Star cruiser, it would keep those people who say it would unbalance pvp happy also, i mean really, its the same damn ship, just looks different and after a day or so, people will have Adapted, Improvised, and Overcame the inconvenient re-skin of a current ship with know capabilities.
Okay so basically (correct me if I'm wrong) you're asking for it to be a ship skin for the Sovy?
If that is the easiest, it doesn't have to be the Sovereign, thought to me it would be keeping in line with the original ship class. One of exploration but with significant capabilities to defend itself and the interests of the UFP
On a humorous note, one of my opponents in a VA1 C&H daily the other day was using a connie. Suffice to say, he was blown up plenty of times by all the T5 ships...
LOL i look at it like this, i dont care for how the outside looks like. What counts is what is inside that can get the job done.
Okay...I see some of this logic. It saves time to deal with balance and it would only cost 160-240 Atari Points. These are good points.
But how could we explain the extra 400 to 600 crew, equal hull to ships 3 or 4 times its mass yet have less turn rate than the Excelsior? Also if we can put 4/4 weapon slots on such a small ship, why can't all the Escorts and Science ships? This will cause upset for them. Now if we just made the Excalibur-R as a cruiser it would still only have 150-400 crew...tops. This means it won't have the benefit of extra crew for repair rate.
These are the kind of problems that come with doing this.
*added*
Please don't think I'm making you wrong, I'm all for upgrading.
Your missing the point, it would have EXACTLY the same stats across the board. There is no need to explain away anything. It would be the same MASS, have the same Crew compliment, and on and on and on, as the Tier 5 or 6 ship that is used to make the model.
that would be unbalanced the connie is like 350 meters long the sovereign in 730+ so there no way to fit 800 crew on a connie :P
You need to reread what i said, It would have EXACTLY the same stats, this would include, ship length, ship mass, internal volume, external volume, etc, etc, etc. Hence why i said exactly.
Every Federation cruiser has a saucer section, a hull section, HUGE pylons and super size nacelles. So in essence all federation cruisers except the Heavy Cruisers (Cheyenne, Stargazer, Dakota class) look like the Constitution class So why complain about a Constitution class refit
Sorry I misunderstood. You are saying a 700m+:eek: TOS Connie. Gotcha
lol, yea, i guess its easier to say then type or read clearly.
Maybe we have hit the problem on the head? many people read these post and say" omg a 200yr old 300m long ship kicked my TRIBBLE" and others see " yes, a current generation ship that has a retro look but current stats of new generation ships"
We may be onto something here.
Most aircraft in the world have a fuselage, two wings, a pair of horizontal stabilizers, tailfin and engines.
Does that mean the Spitfire looks like an F16?
I think people are purposely trying to not understand you. Dismissal allows them to not have to face the ridiculousness of what they want.
I just think you're both Herberts.
You're on to the conspiracy... pretty clever. How did you find out? Who told you?! You know I can't let you leave here alive now.
See my post down about the request to replace the current system.
Difference is it doesn't require a rework of existing in game mechanics, or a new system to advance a ship and impose restriction on what the player gets out of it.
The simplest route is often the best route to take. This is not about taking the current tier 1 ship and retro fitting it, this is about designing a NEW ship that looks like the tier 1 variant. This eliminates all kind of hassles, not to mention the people screaming about not want to fight a tier 1 ship capable of killing my uber tier 5 / tier 6 ship.
If we keep it simple, we have a greater chance of adding another feature that just may attract former and new player back to the game.