Perhaps not entitlement, but trying to get more use out of something you paid good money for. (Even if you have to pay more money)
As I've said, I think that ANY Tier 1 or Tier 2 ship should be refittable. The same for the Tier 3 ships that can't be refitted, currently. If you think that "reeks of entitlement", well, I'm sorry, but that's just my opinion. I'd like the option to continue using the ships I grew fond of while levelling.
The Pre-Order Pre-Retrofit Connie was advertised for being useful for only a few hours, to have threads now crying about this is, well, in PG-terms: silly.
There is NO NEED for an upper tier pre-order connie, I can live with the REFIT CONNIE getting a tier upgrade, but not the pre-order one.
People are making this seem like the game will fall apart if the pre-order connie (which wasn't going to be in the C-Store at all at first) isn't upgraded. STO has the refit and the 25th century version of the constitution: excalibur, so there is no real reason at all other than "OMG I WANT, GIMMIE GIMME!!!!!" reasons that immature players constantly spam about.
I'm sorry, but I have yet seen a true reason to have this ship as an upper tier.
The Pre-Order Pre-Retrofit Connie was advertised for being useful for only a few hours, to have threads now crying about this is, well, in PG-terms: silly.
The TOS Connie currently costs 800 AP. Yes, it is cheaper than a 1200 AP Tier 5 ship. Yes, it is usable on any Captain you create. (So you can run through those intro levels again and again) That's not really the point, though.
And I have repeatedly said that, despite the title of the thread, to me this is about Tier 1 and 2 ships, including the Constitution refit, having a refit available at Tier 5. And as far as I'm concerned, this is the true topic, despite the title. Making this about the TOS Connie is an oversimplification.
It does seem, though, rather silly in game terms to have the Tier 2 Connie able to be upgraded, and the TOS Connie unable to be upgraded. Technically speaking the Tier 2 Connie is the upgrade of the Tier 1 Connie, but that doesn't really have anything to do with gameplay.
The Pre-Order Pre-Retrofit Connie was advertised for being useful for only a few hours, to have threads now crying about this is, well, in PG-terms: silly.
There is NO NEED for an upper tier pre-order connie, I can live with the REFIT CONNIE getting a tier upgrade, but not the pre-order one.
People are making this seem like the game will fall apart if the pre-order connie (which wasn't going to be in the C-Store at all at first) isn't upgraded. STO has the refit and the 25th century version of the constitution: excalibur, so there is no real reason at all other than "OMG I WANT, GIMMIE GIMME!!!!!" reasons that immature players constantly spam about.
I'm sorry, but I have yet seen a true reason to have this ship as an upper tier.
Whether you like it or not - "OMG I WANT, GIMMIE GIMME!!!!!" - is a perfectly valid reason for a business to make money and give people what they want and doesn't have anything to do with maturity level.
What you should be asking is whether or not Cryptic can make a nice profit by selling a T5 connie. If they can make a tidy profit without alienating* a large chunk of the player base, where do you think this is all heading?
Personally, there is already so much old stuff in the game another one really doesn't matter to me. I'd like to think if they did it, they'd do it with the TMP/WoK Connie, and not the original one, thou.
(*alienating to the point that paying subs walk. Nothing short of that counts as alienation. If you don't like it but continue to play and pay, you must not have cared that much.)
No, the Tier system still exists. A Tier 2 is still a Tier 2. A Tier 2 refit is a Tier 3, or a Tier 4, or a Tier 5, whatever the devs decide. You may still be required to replace your existing ship with a refit, just as current. And it goes wilthout saying that this upgrade will cost you SOMETHING. You don't just get the ability to use your Lt level ship for free.
The devs could easily continue by bringing out T5 versions of existing ships. I personally think that's silly, though, and think an upgrade system would be better and easier on the devs in the long run. Particularly since the option would be opened for Tier 5 ships to be upgraded to Tier 6, should the level cap be raised, instead of making every single refit the devs have released so far, and requiring a whole new set of "refit" ships, now at Tier 6.
One thing that's not even being mentioned is that the devs are currently adding as part of their design strategy to include a "bonus power" with T5 refits and store bought ships. Do we want to continue that, or should additional Tier upgrades simply increase the effective Tier? The TOS Connie (although not so much the NX) was provided before there even were T5 upgrades available at Vice Admiral, and may have been provided on the belief that players would want a ship of the LOWEST level, not the highest. Does this mean that it should be revisited to fit it closer in the current concept of the game, or is it a "special" case?
There is absolutely no reason to have a Tier System of any kind of any ship can simply be refit into the next Tier. At that point, it's just be a mess, and should just be condensed down into just being skins on the one base template.
Whether you like it or not - "OMG I WANT, GIMMIE GIMME!!!!!" - is a perfectly valid reason for a business to make money and give people what they want and doesn't have anything to do with maturity level.
I love how people keep running to some sort of business ethics
There's a quote that Peregrine_Falcon made in another thread that had me thinking about what's actually canon for ST:O, and canon is whatever you make it to be for your own character is the point Peregrine makes. As far as Star Trek: Online goes, I'm a little bit inclined to agree with them.
As much as it pains me as to see an old Constitution flying around even now, what impact does this really have on when I log into the game?
The majority of the PvE content can be handled solo, so it's not going to 'break my immersion' if I'm not the one flying the connie. If I was the one flying the connie, I'm probably not worried about having my immersion broken, I'm RP'ing like it's TOS, or I just don't care cause the connie looks cool. Course you may see a connie floating around in Sector Space, but you'll always know in the back of your mind that it wouldn't be able to take your souped up Sovereign in a fight as far as your canon is concerned.
Anytime I head into PvP, I don't go in with the expectation that there'll be some sort of RP canon coherence since PvP is mostly a min/max game. There's little facilitation on the game's part to support immersion in PvP anyway. With the immersion portion already broken in PvP, what do I care what the other ships look like? They're just ships with stats that are to be shot down while my team marches it's way to destroying 15 players or capping a bunch of control points. I don't expect this to be different either when the Territory Control game that dstahl had made mention of comes around.
What's really important to remember is that ST:O canon is what Cryptic makes it to be. As is, we have precedence that the Starfleet Corps of Engineers has the ability and drive to bring out old ship designs and bring them up to the standards of the day. You get one of those engineers to tinker around long enough, I really don't see why they couldn't soup up a connie to be on the same tactical level as a Sovereign.
There's a quote that Peregrine_Falcon made in another thread that had me thinking about what's actually canon for ST:O, and canon is whatever you make it to be for your own character is the point Peregrine makes. As far as Star Trek: Online goes, I'm a little bit inclined to agree with them.
As much as it pains me as to see an old Constitution flying around even now, what impact does this really have on when I log into the game?
The majority of the PvE content can be handled solo, so it's not going to 'break my immersion' if I'm not the one flying the connie. If I was the one flying the connie, I'm probably not worried about having my immersion broken, I'm RP'ing like it's TOS, or I just don't care cause the connie looks cool. Course you may see a connie floating around in Sector Space, but you'll always know in the back of your mind that it wouldn't be able to take your souped up Sovereign in a fight as far as your canon is concerned.
Anytime I head into PvP, I don't go in with the expectation that there'll be some sort of RP canon coherence since PvP is mostly a min/max game. There's little facilitation on the game's part to support immersion in PvP anyway. With the immersion portion already broken in PvP, what do I care what the other ships look like? They're just ships with stats that are to be shot down while my team marches it's way to destroying 15 players or capping a bunch of control points. I don't expect this to be different either when the Territory Control game that dstahl had made mention of comes around.
What's really important to remember is that ST:O canon is what Cryptic makes it to be. As is, we have precedence that the Starfleet Corps of Engineers has the ability and drive to bring out old ship designs and bring them up to the standards of the day. You get one of those engineers to tinker around long enough, I really don't see why they couldn't soup up a connie to be on the same tactical level as a Sovereign.
Like Spock says, there are always possibilities.
the problem is that people don't understand the concept of refit you can't refit something and it ends up exactly like it was it would be a totally diffrent ship so the refit arguement dont work just like the TMP connie is very diffrent from the TOS Connie adding 25th tech to a TMP connie would make it into a exclibur
There's a quote that Peregrine_Falcon made in another thread that had me thinking about what's actually canon for ST:O, and canon is whatever you make it to be for your own character is the point Peregrine makes. As far as Star Trek: Online goes, I'm a little bit inclined to agree with them.
People can think whatever they like, the the fact is only CBS decides what is canon, and then with their approval Cryptic gets to decide what is the official story of this game. So you can pretend whatever you like, but that doesnt change what is officially canon or what the official story of this game is.
There's a quote that Peregrine_Falcon made in another thread that had me thinking about what's actually canon for ST:O, and canon is whatever you make it to be for your own character is the point Peregrine makes. As far as Star Trek: Online goes, I'm a little bit inclined to agree with them.
As much as it pains me as to see an old Constitution flying around even now, what impact does this really have on when I log into the game?
The majority of the PvE content can be handled solo, so it's not going to 'break my immersion' if I'm not the one flying the connie. If I was the one flying the connie, I'm probably not worried about having my immersion broken, I'm RP'ing like it's TOS, or I just don't care cause the connie looks cool. Course you may see a connie floating around in Sector Space, but you'll always know in the back of your mind that it wouldn't be able to take your souped up Sovereign in a fight as far as your canon is concerned.
Anytime I head into PvP, I don't go in with the expectation that there'll be some sort of RP canon coherence since PvP is mostly a min/max game. There's little facilitation on the game's part to support immersion in PvP anyway. With the immersion portion already broken in PvP, what do I care what the other ships look like? They're just ships with stats that are to be shot down while my team marches it's way to destroying 15 players or capping a bunch of control points. I don't expect this to be different either when the Territory Control game that dstahl had made mention of comes around.
What's really important to remember is that ST:O canon is what Cryptic makes it to be. As is, we have precedence that the Starfleet Corps of Engineers has the ability and drive to bring out old ship designs and bring them up to the standards of the day. You get one of those engineers to tinker around long enough, I really don't see why they couldn't soup up a connie to be on the same tactical level as a Sovereign.
Like Spock says, there are always possibilities.
This game is set in a declared time period and has a linear story. My issue is that they throw that out the window when theres enough rage on the forums or in the marketing department. The Connie wasn't mass produced as far as I know from the story from the shows, the Miranda was, the Excelsior was. SF didn't even bother to make a new connie to replace the Enterprise, they just renamed another ship of the same class to Enterprise.
So no, I'm not a fan of a cobbled together game used by a marketing dept to gain revenue for other games :mad:
If STO was a TOS era game, I'm sure there'd be so much rage from the TOS fans if anyone thought of trying to put in a sovereign.
There is absolutely no reason to have a Tier System of any kind of any ship can simply be refit into the next Tier. At that point, it's just be a mess, and should just be condensed down into just being skins on the one base template.
No, there are still plenty of reasons to have Tiers:
1) In general, as ships increase in Tier, they become more specialized. The Tier 5 Excelsior refit is less specialized than the Tier 5 Galaxy refit, because it is based on a Tier 3 design instead of Tier 4. Thus, it is more agile and manueverable, while having less crew. It also has a different Bridge Officer layout.
2) Refits are expensive. It is cheaper to simply trade in a starship token at each rank for the next Tier of ship, than to buy a refit with ATs, Emblems, or some other system involving crafting or credits.
3) The Tier system will still be needed while levelling. A first year Ensign would not be put in charge of a Galaxy class right off the bat, even if he did perform heroically in combat against the Borg.
4) The physical design of ships is different. Lower Tier ships are usually smaller. Only certain classes of ship have special features, like four nacelles. This might give an individual player reason to choose one class over another.
In addition, there is no reason a refit has to have the same capabilities as another ship of the same Tier. The devs have made all refits equivalent to each other, because they all cost ATs, but the AT or Emblem cost could be lower for a ship with lower capabilities. The same goes for an upgrade system, there is no reason a lower Tier ship upgraded to a higher Tier would have to be the equal of a ship or refit bought at that level.
This could bring up the possiblity of changing the base template of each class even further. Ships could trade additional weapon slots for more manueverability. The ships would not have to be "different skins on the same base template" because they would have different characteristics.
This game is set in a declared time period and has a linear story. My issue is that they throw that out the window when theres enough rage on the forums or in the marketing department. The Connie wasn't mass produced as far as I know from the story from the shows, the Miranda was, the Excelsior was. SF didn't even bother to make a new connie to replace the Enterprise, they just renamed another ship of the same class to Enterprise.
The Constitution class was massed produced, it was the backbone of Star fleet for a generation or more.
I really don't get the whole hub bub over this issue. It is apparently a fairly wanted addition by a portion of the player base. What makes bringing this into being any different than any of the other wants that the community has shown?
I mean, isn't showing support for a particular item or set of items in the best interest of the long term viability of the game?
So no, I'm not a fan of a cobbled together game used by a marketing dept to gain revenue for other games :mad:
If STO was a TOS era game, I'm sure there'd be so much rage from the TOS fans if anyone thought of trying to put in a sovereign.
As far as marketing goes, this entire game is about marketing, from the acquisition of the rights from perpetual, to the actual use of the I.P., so what does that have to do with the issue of a end game viable/compatible Constitution class?
the problem is that people don't understand the concept of refit you can't refit something and it ends up exactly like it was it would be a totally diffrent ship so the refit arguement dont work just like the TMP connie is very diffrent from the TOS Connie adding 25th tech to a TMP connie would make it into a exclibur
The Galaxy, Defiant, Intrepid, Excelsior, Nebula and Prometheus refits all look EXACTLY like the lower Tier ships look in this game. They may have different skins available as options, but currently the original skins are available.
So you can have a Tier 5 Excelsior that looks EXACTLY like a Tier 3 Excelsior.
By that argument, since the T2 Connie is a refit of the TOS Connie, it should have an option to make it look exactly like the original T1 ship. (And honestly, if that option was available, I'd use it, even though the ship would be a bit bigger physically)
If you call 12 ships mass production, along with most destroyed before TMP
Anything more then one is massed produced by definition. And lets not forget, none of the ships from the shows were made in much greater quantities, at least as far as the cruisers go.
The issue isnt about quantity, unless your saying that only the first 12 people to make any of the ranks in game can fly each class? sounds ridiculous when you look at it that way, no?
Anything more then one is massed produced by definition. And lets not forget, none of the ships from the shows were made in much greater quantities, at least as far as the cruisers go.
The issue isnt about quantity, unless your saying that only the first 12 people to make any of the ranks in game can fly each class? sounds ridiculous when you look at it that way, no?
I'm saying 12 ships isn't mass production compared to the Miranda, Excelsior, and even the Galaxy
I'm saying 10 ships isn't mass production compared to the Miranda, Excelsior, and even the Galaxy
Any more than one is mass production? Right
Nimitz Class Aircraft Carrier only has 10, you saying that it isn't mass produced? Glad you agree, but seriously, isn't this picking apart bones?
If i dont like a new feature that is brought into game, i dont use it, it has no bearing on my play what so ever. I honestly can not see what the issue is.
Just like the Foundry tool set, some love some hate(me included), but it is coming in game, and will have no effect on my play style or play time what so ever.
Put another way, have you ever supported a feature that has been brought into the game that others did not want? if so, why was you argument for it better then those with a apposing stance?
More is generally better in MMO's, anything that will bring players back, or attract new players must be good for the game no?
I'm saying 12 ships isn't mass production compared to the Miranda, Excelsior, and even the Galaxy
Any more than one is mass production? Right
How many Galaxy class ships were produced? I'm sure the number was mentioned in the Star Trek: TNG Technical Manual, and I'm fairly sure it was less than 20. Possibly less than 10.
Keep in mind there are THOUSANDS of players in this game. There weren't enough ships produced in the entire Star Trek canon for one to be available to a tenth of the number of players here. (Just so you know, there are 1,022,010 entries in the Captain Database)
How many Galaxy class ships were produced? I'm sure the number was mentioned in the Star Trek: TNG Technical Manual, and I'm fairly sure it was less than 20. Possibly less than 10.
Keep in mind there are THOUSANDS of players in this game. There weren't enough ships produced in the entire Star Trek canon for one to be available to a tenth of the number of players here.
Exactly, that's why those arguments make no sense in a Sci-Fi fantasy space ships simulation, just wish others would realize there so call immersion is already shot out of the water.
No, there are still plenty of reasons to have Tiers:
There are plenty of arguments for having tiers, but if every ship can be in every tier, it's not a tier system. The purpose of the Tier System is basically to ensure 1. that progression through the game includes newer, better ships and 2. that people can tell at a glance how powerful a ship is thanks to its tier.
1) In general, as ships increase in Tier, they become more specialized. The Tier 5 Excelsior refit is less specialized than the Tier 5 Galaxy refit, because it is based on a Tier 3 design instead of Tier 4. Thus, it is more agile and manueverable, while having less crew. It also has a different Bridge Officer layout.
But that doesn't matter if every ship can be every tier. Then there is an additional level of needless complexity and will further force people into flying a ship they may not like because it doesn't have the "best" load out and design.
2) Refits are expensive. It is cheaper to simply trade in a starship token at each rank for the next Tier of ship, than to buy a refit with ATs, Emblems, or some other system involving crafting or credits.
That's a good reason to not have a tier system if every ship can be any tier because that creates an unnecessary money sink. Thus far, refits have also cost real money, not fake money.
3) The Tier system will still be needed while levelling. A first year Ensign would not be put in charge of a Galaxy class right off the bat, even if he did perform heroically in combat against the Borg.
4) The physical design of ships is different. Lower Tier ships are usually smaller. Only certain classes of ship have special features, like four nacelles. This might give an individual player reason to choose one class over another.
Again, this is made irrelevant if every ship can be all tiers. Ship choice becomes little more than skin differences if it they are all available at all levels, even if you're "refitting" it to have slightly different slots.
In addition, there is no reason a refit has to have the same capabilities as another ship of the same Tier. The devs have made all refits equivalent to each other, because they all cost ATs, but the AT or Emblem cost could be lower for a ship with lower capabilities. The same goes for an upgrade system, there is no reason a lower Tier ship upgraded to a higher Tier would have to be the equal of a ship or refit bought at that level.
This could bring up the possiblity of changing the base template of each class even further. Ships could trade additional weapon slots for more manueverability. The ships would not have to be "different skins on the same base template" because they would have different characteristics.
This would not be a Tier system. This would be more akin to the systems that have been proposed wherein each ship has certain different characteristics and available space/power to fit in various systems. It may still effectively have "tiers" or not unlock ships until you hit certain levels, but it wouldn't be a tier-based system. It would be an equipment-based system, which many of us agree would be better.
Put another way, have you ever supported a feature that has been brought into the game that others did not want? if so, why was you argument for it better then those with a apposing stance?
More is generally better in MMO's, anything that will bring players back, or attract new players must be good for the game no?
I look forward to having my T5 HMS Enterprize then.
The actual size of the JJ-prise is unknown. There is conflicting scale shots show on screen, and neither of them can be "wrong" since they were both shown.
Personally I never cared about the whole size issue.
There are plenty of arguments for having tiers, but if every ship can be in every tier, it's not a tier system. The purpose of the Tier System is basically to ensure 1. that progression through the game includes newer, better ships and 2. that people can tell at a glance how powerful a ship is thanks to its tier.
So you recommend that the Tier 5 Nebula and Excelsior be removed from the game? Because you cannot tell at a glance whether they are Tier 3 or Tier 5.
But that doesn't matter if every ship can be every tier. Then there is an additional level of needless complexity and will further force people into flying a ship they may not like because it doesn't have the "best" load out and design.
So you recommend that all the other Tier 5 refits be removed from the game, because the player may be forced to buy a ship that doesn't have the best load out and design?
It seems the previous two criteria would be best suited by having exactly ONE Cruiser, Escort, and Science ship at each Tier. There are currently 14 ships available at Tier 5. Shall we drop all but 3 of them?
That's a good reason to not have a tier system if every ship can be any tier because that creates an unnecessary money sink. Thus far, refits have also cost real money, not fake money.
And that discourages players from buying refits that they do not intend to use.
Irrelevant if every ship can be every tier.
Every ship can be refit to a HIGHER tier. It can't be refit to a lower one.
The options INCREASE as you go up in level. They would not remain the same or decrease.
Again, this is made irrelevant if every ship can be all tiers. Ship choice becomes little more than skin differences if it they are all available at all levels, even if you're "refitting" it to have slightly different slots.
Yes, it is just "skin" choice, it is just appearance, model size and shape, but it is not "irrelevant" if is it a reason to choose one class of ship over another. Your suggestion was to make all ships exactly the same. That would be very different from a selection of different ships that you can play at the same tier.
Now, I suppose it you could "reskin" your ship to make it look like any other ship in the game, there wouldn't be a need for a system to allow you to play a ship that you liked the look of. On the other hand, I would think it foolish to make a ship that looks like an Escort perform like a Cruiser. It would also very likely be an issue in PvP.
This would not be a Tier system. This would be more akin to the systems that have been proposed wherein each ship has certain different characteristics and available space/power to fit in various systems. It may still effectively have "tiers" or not unlock ships until you hit certain levels, but it wouldn't be a tier-based system. It would be an equipment-based system, which many of us agree would be better.
The "Tier" would designate how much equipment can be fit onto the ship, as with the current system. At a lower Tier, the ship can fit less equipment, at a higher Tier it can fit more. That seems pretty obvious to me.
Yes becuase this so totally the same thing :rolleyes:
Why is it different? Why don't you want me to have fun? It's a canon ship. It'll be built with modern materials and scaled up. Surely Starfleet can do it. I'll buy it from the C-store.
So you recommend that the Tier 5 Nebula and Excelsior be removed from the game? Because you cannot tell at a glance whether they are Tier 3 or Tier 5.
This kind of covers this whole discussion which I think is just basically a difference in how we define a "tier system" and not actually a difference of opinion, but basically, yes. I believe that we need to switch to a system wherein ships do open up as you level, but their particular capabilities are defined more by their equipment and your crew than anything else.
The older, smaller ships would have properties that might reduce their ability to get as much out of them as the later ships, but there would be no hard and fast "tier" list.
For example, my ideal system would propose that ships would have a given amount of space and that each of them would have a power utilization property. If your warp core cannot support all the stuff you put in the ship, all of the stuff will be reduced in effectiveness. The ship's space would define how big a core you could put in there and the power utilization property would determine the amount of power you can squeeze out of it. Better crew and items you acquire throughout the game would allow you to increase those two stats to keep pushing your ship, but at some point you'll hit a maximum that will be lower than the bigger, newer ships.
This kind of covers this whole discussion which I think is just basically a difference in how we define a "tier system" and not actually a difference of opinion, but basically, yes. I believe that we need to switch to a system wherein ships do open up as you level, but their particular capabilities are defined more by their equipment and your crew than anything else.
Technically speaking, I agree. I would prefer a system where the existing ships could be upgraded to higher Tiers through some sort of purchase/crafting/mission arc.
What I was saying, I think, is that I would not mind if the existing system would to be continued, if that was the only way to continue to "refit" ships to a higher tier.
Honestly, I would personally find that solution less than optimal, because everything's being upgraded to Tier 5. There is no way to currently "partially upgrade" and say, use your Excelsior at Tier 4. (Well, actually you could, and it would work just fine. I use a TIer 3 Heavy Cruiser at Tier 4 all the time and don't have any problems with it. So there ya go )
I don't anyone would like just dropping them altogether, but if the refits could be replaced or supplanted with a system, I think that would be okay with me. I'm glad it turns out we were just bumping heads over a difference in terminology.
I still say it's Tiering though. (Just as an example, at Vice Admiral you might be able to mount a Warp Core which will allow you to load additional weapons. Your ship is the same one from the lower Tier, but the higher level Warp Core effectively raises it to another Tier)
I look forward to having my T5 HMS Enterprize then.
rebuttals like this is why these discourse turn into nothing more than people refusing to acknowledge a simple addition to a game.
You are trying to infer that a HMS Enterprise has a place in the Star Trek MMO. Lets at least try to keep it somewhat in line with a Sci-Fi themed discussion.
Now if this was Big Famous Sailing ships Online, i would say your point is valid but as this statement shows, your not really looking for a solution,just trying to impose your view point on others, and trying to make it seem like your being most reasonable.
If you would like to continue talking about the inclusion of a Constitution look alike at tier 5, and its supposedly effect on everyone's play time, i would do so.
Comments
The Pre-Order Pre-Retrofit Connie was advertised for being useful for only a few hours, to have threads now crying about this is, well, in PG-terms: silly.
There is NO NEED for an upper tier pre-order connie, I can live with the REFIT CONNIE getting a tier upgrade, but not the pre-order one.
People are making this seem like the game will fall apart if the pre-order connie (which wasn't going to be in the C-Store at all at first) isn't upgraded. STO has the refit and the 25th century version of the constitution: excalibur, so there is no real reason at all other than "OMG I WANT, GIMMIE GIMME!!!!!" reasons that immature players constantly spam about.
I'm sorry, but I have yet seen a true reason to have this ship as an upper tier.
The TOS Connie currently costs 800 AP. Yes, it is cheaper than a 1200 AP Tier 5 ship. Yes, it is usable on any Captain you create. (So you can run through those intro levels again and again) That's not really the point, though.
And I have repeatedly said that, despite the title of the thread, to me this is about Tier 1 and 2 ships, including the Constitution refit, having a refit available at Tier 5. And as far as I'm concerned, this is the true topic, despite the title. Making this about the TOS Connie is an oversimplification.
It does seem, though, rather silly in game terms to have the Tier 2 Connie able to be upgraded, and the TOS Connie unable to be upgraded. Technically speaking the Tier 2 Connie is the upgrade of the Tier 1 Connie, but that doesn't really have anything to do with gameplay.
Whether you like it or not - "OMG I WANT, GIMMIE GIMME!!!!!" - is a perfectly valid reason for a business to make money and give people what they want and doesn't have anything to do with maturity level.
What you should be asking is whether or not Cryptic can make a nice profit by selling a T5 connie. If they can make a tidy profit without alienating* a large chunk of the player base, where do you think this is all heading?
Personally, there is already so much old stuff in the game another one really doesn't matter to me. I'd like to think if they did it, they'd do it with the TMP/WoK Connie, and not the original one, thou.
(*alienating to the point that paying subs walk. Nothing short of that counts as alienation. If you don't like it but continue to play and pay, you must not have cared that much.)
There is absolutely no reason to have a Tier System of any kind of any ship can simply be refit into the next Tier. At that point, it's just be a mess, and should just be condensed down into just being skins on the one base template.
I love how people keep running to some sort of business ethics
Don't you know...
There are no Business Ethic's in the USA anymore.... :rolleyes:
As much as it pains me as to see an old Constitution flying around even now, what impact does this really have on when I log into the game?
The majority of the PvE content can be handled solo, so it's not going to 'break my immersion' if I'm not the one flying the connie. If I was the one flying the connie, I'm probably not worried about having my immersion broken, I'm RP'ing like it's TOS, or I just don't care cause the connie looks cool. Course you may see a connie floating around in Sector Space, but you'll always know in the back of your mind that it wouldn't be able to take your souped up Sovereign in a fight as far as your canon is concerned.
Anytime I head into PvP, I don't go in with the expectation that there'll be some sort of RP canon coherence since PvP is mostly a min/max game. There's little facilitation on the game's part to support immersion in PvP anyway. With the immersion portion already broken in PvP, what do I care what the other ships look like? They're just ships with stats that are to be shot down while my team marches it's way to destroying 15 players or capping a bunch of control points. I don't expect this to be different either when the Territory Control game that dstahl had made mention of comes around.
What's really important to remember is that ST:O canon is what Cryptic makes it to be. As is, we have precedence that the Starfleet Corps of Engineers has the ability and drive to bring out old ship designs and bring them up to the standards of the day. You get one of those engineers to tinker around long enough, I really don't see why they couldn't soup up a connie to be on the same tactical level as a Sovereign.
Like Spock says, there are always possibilities.
the problem is that people don't understand the concept of refit you can't refit something and it ends up exactly like it was it would be a totally diffrent ship so the refit arguement dont work just like the TMP connie is very diffrent from the TOS Connie adding 25th tech to a TMP connie would make it into a exclibur
People can think whatever they like, the the fact is only CBS decides what is canon, and then with their approval Cryptic gets to decide what is the official story of this game. So you can pretend whatever you like, but that doesnt change what is officially canon or what the official story of this game is.
This game is set in a declared time period and has a linear story. My issue is that they throw that out the window when theres enough rage on the forums or in the marketing department. The Connie wasn't mass produced as far as I know from the story from the shows, the Miranda was, the Excelsior was. SF didn't even bother to make a new connie to replace the Enterprise, they just renamed another ship of the same class to Enterprise.
So no, I'm not a fan of a cobbled together game used by a marketing dept to gain revenue for other games :mad:
If STO was a TOS era game, I'm sure there'd be so much rage from the TOS fans if anyone thought of trying to put in a sovereign.
No, there are still plenty of reasons to have Tiers:
1) In general, as ships increase in Tier, they become more specialized. The Tier 5 Excelsior refit is less specialized than the Tier 5 Galaxy refit, because it is based on a Tier 3 design instead of Tier 4. Thus, it is more agile and manueverable, while having less crew. It also has a different Bridge Officer layout.
2) Refits are expensive. It is cheaper to simply trade in a starship token at each rank for the next Tier of ship, than to buy a refit with ATs, Emblems, or some other system involving crafting or credits.
3) The Tier system will still be needed while levelling. A first year Ensign would not be put in charge of a Galaxy class right off the bat, even if he did perform heroically in combat against the Borg.
4) The physical design of ships is different. Lower Tier ships are usually smaller. Only certain classes of ship have special features, like four nacelles. This might give an individual player reason to choose one class over another.
In addition, there is no reason a refit has to have the same capabilities as another ship of the same Tier. The devs have made all refits equivalent to each other, because they all cost ATs, but the AT or Emblem cost could be lower for a ship with lower capabilities. The same goes for an upgrade system, there is no reason a lower Tier ship upgraded to a higher Tier would have to be the equal of a ship or refit bought at that level.
This could bring up the possiblity of changing the base template of each class even further. Ships could trade additional weapon slots for more manueverability. The ships would not have to be "different skins on the same base template" because they would have different characteristics.
The Constitution class was massed produced, it was the backbone of Star fleet for a generation or more.
I really don't get the whole hub bub over this issue. It is apparently a fairly wanted addition by a portion of the player base. What makes bringing this into being any different than any of the other wants that the community has shown?
I mean, isn't showing support for a particular item or set of items in the best interest of the long term viability of the game?
As far as marketing goes, this entire game is about marketing, from the acquisition of the rights from perpetual, to the actual use of the I.P., so what does that have to do with the issue of a end game viable/compatible Constitution class?
The Galaxy, Defiant, Intrepid, Excelsior, Nebula and Prometheus refits all look EXACTLY like the lower Tier ships look in this game. They may have different skins available as options, but currently the original skins are available.
So you can have a Tier 5 Excelsior that looks EXACTLY like a Tier 3 Excelsior.
By that argument, since the T2 Connie is a refit of the TOS Connie, it should have an option to make it look exactly like the original T1 ship. (And honestly, if that option was available, I'd use it, even though the ship would be a bit bigger physically)
If you call 12 ships mass production, along with most destroyed before TMP
Anything more then one is massed produced by definition. And lets not forget, none of the ships from the shows were made in much greater quantities, at least as far as the cruisers go.
The issue isnt about quantity, unless your saying that only the first 12 people to make any of the ranks in game can fly each class? sounds ridiculous when you look at it that way, no?
I'm saying 12 ships isn't mass production compared to the Miranda, Excelsior, and even the Galaxy
Any more than one is mass production? Right
Nimitz Class Aircraft Carrier only has 10, you saying that it isn't mass produced? Glad you agree, but seriously, isn't this picking apart bones?
If i dont like a new feature that is brought into game, i dont use it, it has no bearing on my play what so ever. I honestly can not see what the issue is.
Just like the Foundry tool set, some love some hate(me included), but it is coming in game, and will have no effect on my play style or play time what so ever.
Put another way, have you ever supported a feature that has been brought into the game that others did not want? if so, why was you argument for it better then those with a apposing stance?
More is generally better in MMO's, anything that will bring players back, or attract new players must be good for the game no?
How many Galaxy class ships were produced? I'm sure the number was mentioned in the Star Trek: TNG Technical Manual, and I'm fairly sure it was less than 20. Possibly less than 10.
Keep in mind there are THOUSANDS of players in this game. There weren't enough ships produced in the entire Star Trek canon for one to be available to a tenth of the number of players here. (Just so you know, there are 1,022,010 entries in the Captain Database)
Exactly, that's why those arguments make no sense in a Sci-Fi fantasy space ships simulation, just wish others would realize there so call immersion is already shot out of the water.
There are plenty of arguments for having tiers, but if every ship can be in every tier, it's not a tier system. The purpose of the Tier System is basically to ensure 1. that progression through the game includes newer, better ships and 2. that people can tell at a glance how powerful a ship is thanks to its tier.
But that doesn't matter if every ship can be every tier. Then there is an additional level of needless complexity and will further force people into flying a ship they may not like because it doesn't have the "best" load out and design.
That's a good reason to not have a tier system if every ship can be any tier because that creates an unnecessary money sink. Thus far, refits have also cost real money, not fake money.
Irrelevant if every ship can be every tier.
Again, this is made irrelevant if every ship can be all tiers. Ship choice becomes little more than skin differences if it they are all available at all levels, even if you're "refitting" it to have slightly different slots.
This would not be a Tier system. This would be more akin to the systems that have been proposed wherein each ship has certain different characteristics and available space/power to fit in various systems. It may still effectively have "tiers" or not unlock ships until you hit certain levels, but it wouldn't be a tier-based system. It would be an equipment-based system, which many of us agree would be better.
I look forward to having my T5 HMS Enterprize then.
Actually it was both in TWOK and they were pulse beam things.
Personally I never cared about the whole size issue.
Yes becuase this so totally the same thing :rolleyes:
So you recommend that the Tier 5 Nebula and Excelsior be removed from the game? Because you cannot tell at a glance whether they are Tier 3 or Tier 5.
So you recommend that all the other Tier 5 refits be removed from the game, because the player may be forced to buy a ship that doesn't have the best load out and design?
It seems the previous two criteria would be best suited by having exactly ONE Cruiser, Escort, and Science ship at each Tier. There are currently 14 ships available at Tier 5. Shall we drop all but 3 of them?
And that discourages players from buying refits that they do not intend to use.
Every ship can be refit to a HIGHER tier. It can't be refit to a lower one.
The options INCREASE as you go up in level. They would not remain the same or decrease.
Yes, it is just "skin" choice, it is just appearance, model size and shape, but it is not "irrelevant" if is it a reason to choose one class of ship over another. Your suggestion was to make all ships exactly the same. That would be very different from a selection of different ships that you can play at the same tier.
Now, I suppose it you could "reskin" your ship to make it look like any other ship in the game, there wouldn't be a need for a system to allow you to play a ship that you liked the look of. On the other hand, I would think it foolish to make a ship that looks like an Escort perform like a Cruiser. It would also very likely be an issue in PvP.
The "Tier" would designate how much equipment can be fit onto the ship, as with the current system. At a lower Tier, the ship can fit less equipment, at a higher Tier it can fit more. That seems pretty obvious to me.
Why is it different? Why don't you want me to have fun? It's a canon ship. It'll be built with modern materials and scaled up. Surely Starfleet can do it. I'll buy it from the C-store.
This kind of covers this whole discussion which I think is just basically a difference in how we define a "tier system" and not actually a difference of opinion, but basically, yes. I believe that we need to switch to a system wherein ships do open up as you level, but their particular capabilities are defined more by their equipment and your crew than anything else.
The older, smaller ships would have properties that might reduce their ability to get as much out of them as the later ships, but there would be no hard and fast "tier" list.
For example, my ideal system would propose that ships would have a given amount of space and that each of them would have a power utilization property. If your warp core cannot support all the stuff you put in the ship, all of the stuff will be reduced in effectiveness. The ship's space would define how big a core you could put in there and the power utilization property would determine the amount of power you can squeeze out of it. Better crew and items you acquire throughout the game would allow you to increase those two stats to keep pushing your ship, but at some point you'll hit a maximum that will be lower than the bigger, newer ships.
Technically speaking, I agree. I would prefer a system where the existing ships could be upgraded to higher Tiers through some sort of purchase/crafting/mission arc.
What I was saying, I think, is that I would not mind if the existing system would to be continued, if that was the only way to continue to "refit" ships to a higher tier.
Honestly, I would personally find that solution less than optimal, because everything's being upgraded to Tier 5. There is no way to currently "partially upgrade" and say, use your Excelsior at Tier 4. (Well, actually you could, and it would work just fine. I use a TIer 3 Heavy Cruiser at Tier 4 all the time and don't have any problems with it. So there ya go
I don't anyone would like just dropping them altogether, but if the refits could be replaced or supplanted with a system, I think that would be okay with me. I'm glad it turns out we were just bumping heads over a difference in terminology.
I still say it's Tiering though.
rebuttals like this is why these discourse turn into nothing more than people refusing to acknowledge a simple addition to a game.
You are trying to infer that a HMS Enterprise has a place in the Star Trek MMO. Lets at least try to keep it somewhat in line with a Sci-Fi themed discussion.
Now if this was Big Famous Sailing ships Online, i would say your point is valid but as this statement shows, your not really looking for a solution,just trying to impose your view point on others, and trying to make it seem like your being most reasonable.
If you would like to continue talking about the inclusion of a Constitution look alike at tier 5, and its supposedly effect on everyone's play time, i would do so.
And I'll again repeat that I want a Space Shuttle skin for my Tactical Escort.
Are we there yet?