And sure, a retro Constitution might be useful in 2409, as a museum piece, or a towship, or a target hull.. It might even be useful as a secondary ship, a light cruiser suited for police/customs duties.. Even so it should be modernized (modern deflector, nacelles etc.. Kinda like the 2009 Movie version)
It should certainly not be on par with a 150 year younger design, that is nearly twice as big.
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.
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.
Very funny, admitting defeat and deciding its a waste of my time to discuss something with a person that just ignores my posts and then goes off on tangents about something I wasn't doing is ultimately pointless.:)
I've discussed this with others, those willing to compromise if even a little and it was very productive.
Instead of a T5 Connie, a refit system that allows it to be viable at high end is the only long term solution for the unpleasable fans to get what they want while keeping the game based somewhere in logic.
That's my position, if it was up to me it wouldn't happen, but I'm tolerant of it.
You can continue to try to stamp out whoever disagrees with you, but this thread is headed towards Moderation closure. So have fun
I have no problem with having 23rd century ships in game. In fact, I have a TOS connie and love it. But I understand that its armament and power levels cannot (and should not) rival with a T5 ship of the line. Sure, in times of war, you are driven to dust off old war machines, but they are not necessarily state of the art, more like cannon fodder like Miranda were during dominion wars.
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....
Yes, but Mirandas are not match for a Sovereign..
We dont need more 23th century ships.. 24th its ok, even the Ambassador could be on line, but 23 its to mach.. this game has a lot of TOS already, lets move on plz!
I'm not against refitting. I would love to refit ships. I'm all for customization. But there needs to be a limit. Letting people refit a ship so it can function 1 tier above is something I would like. MAYBE 2 tiers higher than normal is something I could live with. But theres the line.
Refitting a T1 to function on the same level as a T4 puts it on par with the Galaxy class cruiser. That's just wrong. It's illogical. It would be a spacecraft powered by magic and faeries and wouldn't belong in the Star Trek Universe.
A Constitution frame the size of a Sovereign...BRILLIANT!!! Smooth out a few things here and there ever so slightly, and add the extra weapon slots to match a Sovereign, now THAT I can get on board with, as long as we're willing to bas-tard-ize canon. Kirk would wet his pants if you let him fly that. In fact, Jim would find a way to cheat and live in this time line too JUST for the opportunity, lol.
Personally, any arguments saying new tech in that little Connie could match a Sovereign, even in one instance out of 100, Im still NEVER going to buy it. If that were the case, then why didnt my Connie come with 4 weapon slots fore and aft? Sovereign would flat out OUT GUN a Connie, PERIOD, even if Kirk himself where in the big chair. If you want to argue that new tech is in old frames, and that the new warp core could be smaller and still produce the power to HAVE new weapons, then why do you just install 2 fore and aft?
Well for the KDF side i dont see no problem in it. Its canon. Klingons rarely change their design schematics and used ships from the old. But you will have to look at their losses and come to a conclusion that all those old ship are for the most part gone.
The Federation did bring out all the old ship in during the dominion war. At the end of that war those ships where destroyed or so badly damage that it would be more of a danger then help to keep them around. If anything they were scraped or used only for smaller missions. Ships of the old should be rare in comparison to ships of the new. assembly yards would not push out old ship lines that where decommissioned. So far the reliant and excelsior more so the excelsior have made the cut off list as being the most useable ship. I dont see the beneift of having a connie around. in this time frame. Other race ships should be used for system patrols or mining operations.
While cryptic wants u to believe that collecting anomilies is how things are created in star trek. That is not the case. Anyhow their should be few ships of the old around as compared to new ships. People may want to argue about refits or bringing back some ship lines but if you look at history of star trek. they have a long line of ship classes compared to well the 22nd century design paramenters
Some valid points have been made. The biggest for the Anti-Upgraders being the TOS is too old. Although I think there are enough reasons made in the game that this should not make a difference.
How about I point a few things out.
The Excelsior (per Cryptic)
A retrofit of the iconic Excelsior class as seen in Star Trek: Generations, this ship has the weapons and power needed to tackle anything from a training cruise in the Sol system to a race to the Galactic Barrier.
(Definition: Retrofitting refers to the addition of new technology or features to older systems.)
Excalibur
Updating the iconic profile of the Constitution class, the Excalibur is the first of a group of new, state-of-the-art cruisers intended to fill a variety of roles for Starfleet.
Designed with the modular construction favored by the Starfleet Corps of Engineers, the Excalibur can tackle almost any task. Its expanded cargo capacity and advanced warp core make it an ideal solo exploration vessel, but it also performs well as a support ship during fleet actions.
(This is a brand new ship and does have room for a Refit or even a Retrofit.)
What does this tell me? It's right on par with the T5 Science ships. Cut the crew down, boost the turn and slap a Cm. Sci and LtCm. Tac on there and you have a new T5 Science ship that will also fill a new role that is needed. On top of that include the Replica TOS Connie skin with the TOS T1 Connie and TOS Bundle and you have a 2,000+ Atari Point ship.
*Added*
The 31,500 hull of the Excalibur-R could range 27,000-31,500. Just used it as an example. Also the turn could be 9-13 based on T5 Science ships.
The simple fact of the matter is that the exterior appearance of the ship cannot be accurate to the original design and still be upgraded with new tech without being a holographic projection.
Case in point: phaser strips. NX, TOS Connie, Refit Connie, and Miranda did not have them. That means if you want to upgrade one of them, you have to change the exterior look to account for that new technology.
Sensors, deflector dish, thrusters, torpedo tubes...any one of these systems would likely affect the look of the external design, and this is to say nothing of how changing the external structure affects shielding, warp field, etc.
I'll avoid the temptation to copy and paste all of my statements from the refit thread.
Looking at what has currently been put in the game and the fact that Cryptic is unlikely to take any of it out, especially since some players (not me) paid a premium for some of these ships...
...There are some basic principles that are simply not going to change and we would do well to recognize them. There are some questions we should be asking.
How is TIER defined?
1. TIER is not defined by SIZE. There are both big and small ships at most tier levels. You can infer that a large Cruiser should be more powerful than a small Cruiser, but I don't think we can treat this as a hard rule. If size were the ranking factor, then all of the Escort class ships would fall into the bottom tiers.
2. TIER is not defined by AGE. There is simply no basis for assuming that Starfleet puts all of its' junior captains in the oldest vessels they can find and nothing in game to prove that any particular ship was built within a specific time frame. A design may look like an older starship and still not be that old.
3. TIER is not defined by CLASS. In fact each tier has Cruisers, Escorts, and Science Vessels in it. Although there is some room for an interpretation that each class has its' own tiers, and this makes a lot more sense from a certain viewpoint. I think it is necessary to evaluate both CLASS and TIER together when looking at game balance.
4. TIER is not defined by NEWER DESIGN. Here I am defining design as the overall structure of a ship. The basic visible design of the B'rel does not change between the T-1 and the T-5 retrofit, but the T-5 version is clearly a more capable ship.
5. TIER is not defined by Star Trek "canon". In addition, the STO concept of Class is different from how the term is used in "canon". None of the canon sources ever refer to a "cruiser class" for example; they are refered to as being "Constitution class" or "Galaxy class". STO Classes should probably be considered supersets of canonical ship classes.
I firmly believe that (outside of level progression arguments) Tier has to be defined as the relative capability of a ship in-game as ranked within its' Class. This means, for example, that any given cruiser should fit somewhere in the tier relative to the other cruisers, not directly compared to ships of another class.
Once a ship is properly classified into a tier within its' class, then there is a basis for comparing ships cross-class to insure that the classes themselves are balanced across each tier. You can't establish a range of norms without doing something like that. Without doing something like that, you open the door for unintentionally creating hybrid classes (for example, a high-end T-3 Escort able to tank as well as a low-end T-3 Cruiser).
Now the argument becomes, what Tier goes a given ship of a given Class fall into?
It should be obvious that the existing TOS Constitution is a Cruiser Tier 1 ship. Unfortunately, it cannot be obvious what Cruiser Tier a refit Constitution should fall into because it hasn't been defined yet.
What is bothering some people is the perception that a Constitution built from a 23rd century design might outperform a Sovereign built from a 25th century design. The problem is, this assumes:
A) That the ship in question was really constructed according to a old, presumably discontinued design.
That the ship was not redesigned with 25th century principles and technology in mind.
C) That real-world design principles should apply in a fictional and/or game environment. In this, any sort of official technobabble will overrule any preconceived notion of what you can and cannot do.
D) That someone role-playing in the post-Voyager Starfleet should have more right to their immersion than someone role-playing in the TOS Starfleet.
Personally, I don't like the idea of T-5 Connies either... but the TOS Constitution has already flown the shipyard and it's too late to re-engage the inertial dampeners. At best, we should hope that a reasonable balance is struck and that we can choose whether or not to interact with anyone that upsets our own sense of immersion.
Okay, I can see that there are valid points on both sides, but I personally think that once you have a particular ship, you should have the OPTION to continue to use it, and it will remain viable. It may not be the best option available, or even necessarily a competitive option, but unless it is a shuttle or something, it should be possible. You should be able to progress without being forced to change your conceptual idea of your ship.
This isn't an MMO concept, this is a concept of MMOs as Cryptic makes them. Cryptic specializes with character customization. It's a selling point for their games.
And lets not forget, there ARE refit versions of Tier 3 and Tier 4 ships available at Tier 5. You cannot dispute that. So Tier 3 and Tier 4 ships CAN be ranked up to match the level of their Captain. Just, not ALL of them can be ranked up. And that's the issue.
The way I see it, we have three different factors involved in this discussion:
1) First is the ranking of Bridge Officers on the ship. This is, to my mind, the largest factor involved in the increase of power for a ship. Yes, more weapons and better preformance is great, but the primary thing that makes a high tier ship desirable is Bridge Officers slots. The MVAM refit is ONLY Bridge Officer slots, because the Advanced Escort it is based on is already a Tier 5 ship. And instead of gaining more Bridge Officers, the available number and levels of them are simply rearranged.
So to me, any talk of an "upgrade system" for lower Tier ships should start with Bridge Officers. Merely making Bridge Officers of the player's level (and possibly consoles) available on a lower tier ship will go a long way to making it usable at higher level. And this is something that does not require ANY ADDITIONAL MODIFICATIONS TO THE SHIP. You may argue that technically it will require an upgrade to the bridge of the ship, but honestly, my assumption is that the bridge layout of a ship is based on the rank of the captain NOT the capabilities of the ship. A Lt. Commander has no Commander level stations on his bridge because he has no Commanders to man them. (If he did, that Commander would be the Captain, and not him...)
2) Second, obviously, we have weapon layout. Personally, I would find it a completely reasonable thing if, once I upgraded a TOS Connie to Tier 5, it still had only 2 forward weapon slots and 1 rear. Or even 3 forward and 2 rear. (Or 2 and 2) This gets back to the technical arguments raised in this thread, while I might upgrade a TOS Connie with the latest modern weaponry, there still is only enough SPACE on the ship to replace its forward phasers and photon torpedoes with 2 forward weapons and rear phasers with 1 rear weapon. Sure, the Defiant is a lot smaller ship than a Connie, but it has weapon hardpoints designed into its hull, with the design goal of carrying more weaponry in a smaller size.
So rather than follow the normal progression, maybe we could just add a weapon slot every second tier or so. The final layout of all Tier 1s and the Tier 2 Cruiser and Science could be 3/2, and the Escort 4/1.
3) Finally, and I think much more importantly, we have the issue of hull, shields, inertia, speed, and turn rate. This is where I think the lighter weapon loadout balances out. Tier 3 is basically where the three classes of Cruiser, Escort and Science become defined, at Tier 1 and Tier 2 they really don't exist yet. The Advanced Heavy Cruiser Refit already has a remarkably high turn rate for its hull and shields rating, although it does still have the lower crew of the Tier 3 version. A TOS Cruiser with its turn rate is going to be essentially a Science Vessel in terms of manueverability.
As with the weapons, this could be averaged out, or it could be applied so that TOS Connie = Cruiser, NX = Escort and Miranda = Science, but in any case, I think the important thing is to since you have a smaller ship that is more manueverable, that also means it holds fewer weapons. It's not going to quite be an Escort, but then it won't be concentrating all its weapon slots in the front, either. It's sort of a hybrid, like the original Tiers were, so it's not going to be as specialized, and thus not as strong.
Hopefully, that will solve the problems, whether the devs decide to keep issuing new VA level ships (which I think has been taken about as far as it can be) or offer a crafting or upgrade system. (which will give the players more options right away, without the devs needing to design a whole bunch of new ships)
Case in point: phaser strips. NX, TOS Connie, Refit Connie, and Miranda did not have them. That means if you want to upgrade one of them, you have to change the exterior look to account for that new technology.
By that argument, TOS Phasers should be issued at Mk I, and not be available at any higher Mk. The "blue" TOS Phasers automatically level with you, and are as poweful as Mk X phasers at VA.
Of course, I could also point out that the TOS phasers should technically be Dual Phaser Banks, not a Beam Array, and they should be mounted fore, port, and starboard.
The simple fact of the matter is that the exterior appearance of the ship cannot be accurate to the original design and still be upgraded with new tech without being a holographic projection.
Case in point: phaser strips. NX, TOS Connie, Refit Connie, and Miranda did not have them. That means if you want to upgrade one of them, you have to change the exterior look to account for that new technology.
Sensors, deflector dish, thrusters, torpedo tubes...any one of these systems would likely affect the look of the external design, and this is to say nothing of how changing the external structure affects shielding, warp field, etc.
The in-game Miranda still does not have phaser strips, correct? Yet there is nothing stopping you from fitting a "new" Mk IX Phaser Array into one of the Miranda's weapon slots and the exterior look of the ship has not been altered to accomodate it.
An interesting question... is it possible to put Borg or Aegis gear on a Miranda or TOS Connie? This is another fitting of new technology that the game may already allow without any visual changes other than what the sets themselves do.
You are also incorrectly assuming that "real" design principles exist that would prevent you from turning a TOS Connie into a superior version of itself.
Since no such principles exist in the real world as to how shielding and warp field, etc. are engineered, they can only be derived from what canonical sources exist in this fictional setting and assume that no technobabble overrules them.
If I say that MY starship has extra-dimensional hull space that allows me to fit in as much technology as a ship twice its' size, has subspace modulation shielding technology that gives my shields twice the strength, and has a warp core powered by dead aliens that's twice as powerful -- all given to me by Q -- then my technobabble beats your technobabble until further contradicted.
If I say that MY starship has extra-dimensional hull space that allows me to fit in as much technology as a ship twice its' size, has subspace modulation shielding technology that gives my shields twice the strength, and has a warp core powered by dead aliens that's twice as powerful -- all given to me by Q -- then my technobabble beats your technobabble until further contradicted.
I think the major misunderstanding is that they would not be 23rd century ships "intruding" on this century, but this century ships that resemble their 23rd century forerunners.
The current ships should remain in game as is and the T5 Connie and NX should be available as "refits" in the game for emblems and in the C-Store.
Opinions are important, so is people's freedom of expression. Important word is Freedom.
If your opinion supports or does not hinder anothers pursuit of Happiness and additional fundage for the game then it's OK.
If your opinion has people being restricted in some way, then you are infringing on their Freedom and you need to reevaluate.
Please Mind your own fun and don't worry about what others are doing for fun. If you can't ignore it you will have to wait for a more canon game to come out.
Again any argument about 23rd century designs not being available now went out the window with the release of the Vulcan ship from before the 23rd century. This includes arguments about space and energy limitations.
I agree that everyone has the freedom to express their opinion about ship refits.
However I will point out that does NOT mean that I agree that Cryptic can, will, or should make room for everyone's desires on this point.
For example, if you bought a T-1 TOS Connie I believe you are entitled to keep it and Cryptic has an ethical responsibility to let you keep it or to compensate you somehow. I do not necessarily agree that you are thereby entitled to be able to obtain a T-5 TOS Connie. You knew what you were buying when you bought the T-1. I will agree that if every other ship is given an upgrade path then it is only fair that the TOS Connie gets it too.
That's about as far as it goes. We are free to ask Cryptic for anything we want to ask for, but we are not entitled to get it.
I think the major misunderstanding is that they would not be 23rd century ships "intruding" on this century, but this century ships that resemble their 23rd century forerunners.
The current ships should remain in game as is and the T5 Connie and NX should be available as "refits" in the game for emblems and in the C-Store.
Opinions are important, so is people's freedom of expression. Important word is Freedom.
If your opinion supports or does not hinder anothers pursuit of Happiness and additional fundage for the game then it's OK.
If your opinion has people being restricted in some way, then you are infringing on their Freedom and you need to reevaluate.
Please Mind your own fun and don't worry about what others are doing for fun. If you can't ignore it you will have to wait for a more canon game to come out.
Again any argument about 23rd century designs not being available now went out the window with the release of the Vulcan ship from before the 23rd century. This includes arguments about space and energy limitations.
Oh please. You know someone is grasping at straws when they have to bring "freedom" and "pursuit of happiness" into an argument about what should be in a computer game.
Anyway, no one has responded to my original point I made all the way back on the first page, that if you upgrade the interior of the ship enough, it's no longer an NX or Constitution, it's an Akira or an Excalibur. I don't care if they get upgraded to T5 because that could make sense, but calling it an NX or Connie when it's 90% different from an NX or Connie is ridiculous. I even posted a recent example supporting my POV, from the US Navy (which Starfleet is most certainly based on)
I think the major misunderstanding is that they would not be 23rd century ships "intruding" on this century, but this century ships that resemble their 23rd century forerunners.
The current ships should remain in game as is and the T5 Connie and NX should be available as "refits" in the game for emblems and in the C-Store.
Opinions are important, so is people's freedom of expression. Important word is Freedom.
If your opinion supports or does not hinder anothers pursuit of Happiness and additional fundage for the game then it's OK.
If your opinion has people being restricted in some way, then you are infringing on their Freedom and you need to reevaluate.
Please Mind your own fun and don't worry about what others are doing for fun. If you can't ignore it you will have to wait for a more canon game to come out.
Again any argument about 23rd century designs not being available now went out the window with the release of the Vulcan ship from before the 23rd century. This includes arguments about space and energy limitations.
Please don't tell me what I am or am not allowed to hold as an opinion. Free speech doesn't give you the right to tell others what to think, nor does it give you the right to force whatever fantasies or delusions you believe in on others.
Also, STO is based on canon. Link: http://www.startrekonline.com/dev_blog/ask_cryptic_8-25-08
"Al "Captain Geko" Rivera (lead designer): Every series and movie is considered canon, and we are staying very true to this in our development. Star Trek is rich with lore and history, and there is a great deal of material to build upon as we move into the 25th century with Star Trek Online. We are working with CBS to ensure that everything we create is true to Trek and makes sense. "
Connies with Spinal Phaser Lances, Ablative Armor, Multi-Phasic Regenerative Shields, Cloaking Devices, and enough torpedo tubes to scare the Borg away, on the grounds that Q gave you a dimensional rift field emiitter for your birthday, is NOT canon.
its simple, people bought a star trek game and think its there right to dilute the game to encompass the entire star trek series. its like this, they shouldnt do it, its like making a starwars game and having it when the jedi are extinct yet everyone can be a jedi ??? or having it where the deathstar is playable place yet its suppossed to be destroyed, its *******ismn purly for profit of wringing the profit at the sake of the ip which injurys it more then neurtures it.
an the out of the mothballs is balls, let me think a war starts and am i going to use a scud missile or im i gonna use a flintlock. the game is set in an era where the tecnological reasons dictitate a ship follows a specific role, old ships looked like they did because the parts to make it mean it looks like that, you dont stick a cell on a ship simply to look pritty, they have to be asthetically pleasing yet be in the role of the era they belong.
Yes, but some of us don't like living in the past, we like living in the future. In fact, that's one of the largest reasons any of us like Star Trek - it shows what we COULD be. So why don't we stop living in Trek's "past", and move forward? Nostalgia is the most useless thing in the world, afterall.
You want the 'future of Star Trek' eh? Dood, that means we ALSO dump the 40+ year old Federation designs like:
The Galaxy Class (Fisrt commissioned in 2363)
The Defiant Class (First commissioned in 2369)
The Intrepid Class (First commissiuoned in 2271)
The Akira Class (First commissiuoned in 2271)
et. al.
And hell, any mid 24th century ship design as it's 60 years past that and why would these old designs be 'front line' Admiralty ships in a time of war? Yep, here's to the 'future' of Star Trek. (And sorry if you like any 24th century ship designs, but hey, they're all 'old' now.):D:eek:;)
In reality, to make old technology just as competent as new technology, you have to rebuild it from the inside out. That means it is no longer old technology, it IS new technology. Often times, a retrofit is a lot more expensive than just building a new one (of anything, mind you), so you just drop the old one and build the new one.
actally it's the other way around.
why do think the US Airforce is projecting to keep the B-52 around for anotheer 50 yrs
Or why the Navy keeps updating The Enterprise ( NCV-65) systems?
By that argument, TOS Phasers should be issued at Mk I, and not be available at any higher Mk. The "blue" TOS Phasers automatically level with you, and are as poweful as Mk X phasers at VA.
Of course, I could also point out that the TOS phasers should technically be Dual Phaser Banks, not a Beam Array, and they should be mounted fore, port, and starboard.
I agree. I don't understand why they scale at all never mind beyond T1.
The in-game Miranda still does not have phaser strips, correct? Yet there is nothing stopping you from fitting a "new" Mk IX Phaser Array into one of the Miranda's weapon slots and the exterior look of the ship has not been altered to accomodate it.
And the Miranda will still get wrecked by upper-tier ships because of its (correct) tier placement. Thus it is easy to ignore the fact that it should not be possible to put Mark IX anything in it.
Of course, had I designed the ship systems, what weapons you could install would be based on the room available in the ship and the amount of power you need to generate from your warp core. In that way, ships could be upgraded to work longer, but they would have ceilings that reflect their size and age.
An interesting question... is it possible to put Borg or Aegis gear on a Miranda or TOS Connie? This is another fitting of new technology that the game may already allow without any visual changes other than what the sets themselves do.
They do have visual changes though, so I'd have no problem with that.
You are also incorrectly assuming that "real" design principles exist that would prevent you from turning a TOS Connie into a superior version of itself.
Since no such principles exist in the real world as to how shielding and warp field, etc. are engineered, they can only be derived from what canonical sources exist in this fictional setting and assume that no technobabble overrules them.
If I say that MY starship has extra-dimensional hull space that allows me to fit in as much technology as a ship twice its' size, has subspace modulation shielding technology that gives my shields twice the strength, and has a warp core powered by dead aliens that's twice as powerful -- all given to me by Q -- then my technobabble beats your technobabble until further contradicted.
Except I did not make that assumption. I said that since phaser strips get put on the outside of the hull, putting phaser strips on a ship would modify her exterior appearance. As do a number of other systems. I also posited that the design of the hull would probably affect shielding and warp fields.
As for technobabble overruling all, that's a useless argument because it allows literally anything and completely obliterates any consistency of setting. Q gave me the Millennium Falcon and let me dock it in my space-ship version of the HMS Enterprize, along with my T5 Phoenix.
well lets go back to the books, in DS9 did anyone see a connie in those major ship engagements. nope, why not. well its simple they are easy prey and the connie had its problems. majority of the defiants in the scrafice of angels engagements are upgraded with limited current tech. Notice those reliants get hit with one shot and they either go down or just are temporary out of commision. so you see a connie would have more people and thus be easy to kill all othose personnel.
The problem is that many of the request in this game go like this because there is no real loss in the game. People dont understand the concept of loss in the game hence why they ask for a ship that obviously would not make it in a serious engagement in the 24th century to be a T5. now your freedom allows you to enjoy the iconic ship at its level it was made for. I had fun with this ship at the lvl i was at but when i grew to a commander i knew it was time to grow up and take on the role of a new ship. You can use ship equipment of a higher lvl to upgrade the ship to a current stand point internally. no one is limiting anyone. The game is staying to reality of game mechanic as well as canon mechanics. Their is possibly one connie ship which is a trainer being mentioned in star trek 24th century.
The problem is that many of the request in this game go like this because there is no real loss in the game. People dont understand the concept of loss in the game hence why they ask for a ship that obviously would not make it in a serious engagement in the 24th century to be a T5....
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.
As for technobabble overruling all, that's a useless argument because it allows literally anything and completely obliterates any consistency of setting. Q gave me the Millennium Falcon and let me dock it in my space-ship version of the HMS Enterprize, along with my T5 Phoenix.
I never said they should do anything like that.
I am simply pointing out that there is really no firm ground to holler "Foul!!!" based on imaginary design principles.
Boglejam is right (as was Peregrine Falcon, several pages back).
And whoever it was that posted back on page 2 that it's not enough that they don't fly old ships, they don't want to see/allow anyone else to: IMO, this is where one crosses the line to "Stop Having Fun, Guys!"
I'm big into canon myself, which gave me a bit of trouble during my first week or so of playing, before I took a real good look around and realized that this just wasn't that kind of game. Never has been. So I've learned to live with what it is, not what I might like it to be.
I am simply pointing out that there is really no firm ground to holler "Foul!!!" based on imaginary design principles.
There is if you want to retain some consistency in the setting. The setting would dictate that it would be out of the ordinary to see, say, the NX-class doing anything but dying horribly against even a Constitution-class, never mind a Sovereign.
I consider the T1 versions of these ships to be what their maximum capacity would be if you did, in fact, upgrade them as far as their designs could conceivably go without altering their appearance. I believe it is the best method (under the current tier system) to strike a balance between people who just want to have fun with their toys and people who desire a consistency of setting.
Comments
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.
Little Kirk did.
So It's Canon!
Very funny, admitting defeat and deciding its a waste of my time to discuss something with a person that just ignores my posts and then goes off on tangents about something I wasn't doing is ultimately pointless.:)
I've discussed this with others, those willing to compromise if even a little and it was very productive.
Instead of a T5 Connie, a refit system that allows it to be viable at high end is the only long term solution for the unpleasable fans to get what they want while keeping the game based somewhere in logic.
That's my position, if it was up to me it wouldn't happen, but I'm tolerant of it.
You can continue to try to stamp out whoever disagrees with you, but this thread is headed towards Moderation closure. So have fun
Yes, but Mirandas are not match for a Sovereign..
We dont need more 23th century ships.. 24th its ok, even the Ambassador could be on line, but 23 its to mach.. this game has a lot of TOS already, lets move on plz!
Refitting a T1 to function on the same level as a T4 puts it on par with the Galaxy class cruiser. That's just wrong. It's illogical. It would be a spacecraft powered by magic and faeries and wouldn't belong in the Star Trek Universe.
Personally, any arguments saying new tech in that little Connie could match a Sovereign, even in one instance out of 100, Im still NEVER going to buy it. If that were the case, then why didnt my Connie come with 4 weapon slots fore and aft? Sovereign would flat out OUT GUN a Connie, PERIOD, even if Kirk himself where in the big chair. If you want to argue that new tech is in old frames, and that the new warp core could be smaller and still produce the power to HAVE new weapons, then why do you just install 2 fore and aft?
The Federation did bring out all the old ship in during the dominion war. At the end of that war those ships where destroyed or so badly damage that it would be more of a danger then help to keep them around. If anything they were scraped or used only for smaller missions. Ships of the old should be rare in comparison to ships of the new. assembly yards would not push out old ship lines that where decommissioned. So far the reliant and excelsior more so the excelsior have made the cut off list as being the most useable ship. I dont see the beneift of having a connie around. in this time frame. Other race ships should be used for system patrols or mining operations.
While cryptic wants u to believe that collecting anomilies is how things are created in star trek. That is not the case. Anyhow their should be few ships of the old around as compared to new ships. People may want to argue about refits or bringing back some ship lines but if you look at history of star trek. they have a long line of ship classes compared to well the 22nd century design paramenters
True. those ships should have been t5 from the start.
How about I point a few things out.
The Excelsior (per Cryptic)
A retrofit of the iconic Excelsior class as seen in Star Trek: Generations, this ship has the weapons and power needed to tackle anything from a training cruise in the Sol system to a race to the Galactic Barrier.
(Definition: Retrofitting refers to the addition of new technology or features to older systems.)
Excalibur
Updating the iconic profile of the Constitution class, the Excalibur is the first of a group of new, state-of-the-art cruisers intended to fill a variety of roles for Starfleet.
Designed with the modular construction favored by the Starfleet Corps of Engineers, the Excalibur can tackle almost any task. Its expanded cargo capacity and advanced warp core make it an ideal solo exploration vessel, but it also performs well as a support ship during fleet actions.
(This is a brand new ship and does have room for a Refit or even a Retrofit.)
Stat comparison
___T2 Excal__I__T3 Excel
Hull:_19,500_I_26,000
Weapon:_2/2_I__3/3
Turn:____9.0_I__8.0
Now what would happen if we gave the Excalibur an upgrade for T5
___T5 Excal__I__T5 Excel
Hull:_31,500_I_39,000
Weapon:_3/3_I__4/4
Turn:____9.0_I__8.0
What does this tell me? It's right on par with the T5 Science ships. Cut the crew down, boost the turn and slap a Cm. Sci and LtCm. Tac on there and you have a new T5 Science ship that will also fill a new role that is needed. On top of that include the Replica TOS Connie skin with the TOS T1 Connie and TOS Bundle and you have a 2,000+ Atari Point ship.
*Added*
The 31,500 hull of the Excalibur-R could range 27,000-31,500. Just used it as an example. Also the turn could be 9-13 based on T5 Science ships.
Case in point: phaser strips. NX, TOS Connie, Refit Connie, and Miranda did not have them. That means if you want to upgrade one of them, you have to change the exterior look to account for that new technology.
Sensors, deflector dish, thrusters, torpedo tubes...any one of these systems would likely affect the look of the external design, and this is to say nothing of how changing the external structure affects shielding, warp field, etc.
Looking at what has currently been put in the game and the fact that Cryptic is unlikely to take any of it out, especially since some players (not me) paid a premium for some of these ships...
...There are some basic principles that are simply not going to change and we would do well to recognize them. There are some questions we should be asking.
How is TIER defined?
1. TIER is not defined by SIZE. There are both big and small ships at most tier levels. You can infer that a large Cruiser should be more powerful than a small Cruiser, but I don't think we can treat this as a hard rule. If size were the ranking factor, then all of the Escort class ships would fall into the bottom tiers.
2. TIER is not defined by AGE. There is simply no basis for assuming that Starfleet puts all of its' junior captains in the oldest vessels they can find and nothing in game to prove that any particular ship was built within a specific time frame. A design may look like an older starship and still not be that old.
3. TIER is not defined by CLASS. In fact each tier has Cruisers, Escorts, and Science Vessels in it. Although there is some room for an interpretation that each class has its' own tiers, and this makes a lot more sense from a certain viewpoint. I think it is necessary to evaluate both CLASS and TIER together when looking at game balance.
4. TIER is not defined by NEWER DESIGN. Here I am defining design as the overall structure of a ship. The basic visible design of the B'rel does not change between the T-1 and the T-5 retrofit, but the T-5 version is clearly a more capable ship.
5. TIER is not defined by Star Trek "canon". In addition, the STO concept of Class is different from how the term is used in "canon". None of the canon sources ever refer to a "cruiser class" for example; they are refered to as being "Constitution class" or "Galaxy class". STO Classes should probably be considered supersets of canonical ship classes.
I firmly believe that (outside of level progression arguments) Tier has to be defined as the relative capability of a ship in-game as ranked within its' Class. This means, for example, that any given cruiser should fit somewhere in the tier relative to the other cruisers, not directly compared to ships of another class.
Once a ship is properly classified into a tier within its' class, then there is a basis for comparing ships cross-class to insure that the classes themselves are balanced across each tier. You can't establish a range of norms without doing something like that. Without doing something like that, you open the door for unintentionally creating hybrid classes (for example, a high-end T-3 Escort able to tank as well as a low-end T-3 Cruiser).
Now the argument becomes, what Tier goes a given ship of a given Class fall into?
It should be obvious that the existing TOS Constitution is a Cruiser Tier 1 ship. Unfortunately, it cannot be obvious what Cruiser Tier a refit Constitution should fall into because it hasn't been defined yet.
What is bothering some people is the perception that a Constitution built from a 23rd century design might outperform a Sovereign built from a 25th century design. The problem is, this assumes:
A) That the ship in question was really constructed according to a old, presumably discontinued design.
C) That real-world design principles should apply in a fictional and/or game environment. In this, any sort of official technobabble will overrule any preconceived notion of what you can and cannot do.
D) That someone role-playing in the post-Voyager Starfleet should have more right to their immersion than someone role-playing in the TOS Starfleet.
Personally, I don't like the idea of T-5 Connies either... but the TOS Constitution has already flown the shipyard and it's too late to re-engage the inertial dampeners. At best, we should hope that a reasonable balance is struck and that we can choose whether or not to interact with anyone that upsets our own sense of immersion.
This isn't an MMO concept, this is a concept of MMOs as Cryptic makes them. Cryptic specializes with character customization. It's a selling point for their games.
And lets not forget, there ARE refit versions of Tier 3 and Tier 4 ships available at Tier 5. You cannot dispute that. So Tier 3 and Tier 4 ships CAN be ranked up to match the level of their Captain. Just, not ALL of them can be ranked up. And that's the issue.
The way I see it, we have three different factors involved in this discussion:
1) First is the ranking of Bridge Officers on the ship. This is, to my mind, the largest factor involved in the increase of power for a ship. Yes, more weapons and better preformance is great, but the primary thing that makes a high tier ship desirable is Bridge Officers slots. The MVAM refit is ONLY Bridge Officer slots, because the Advanced Escort it is based on is already a Tier 5 ship. And instead of gaining more Bridge Officers, the available number and levels of them are simply rearranged.
So to me, any talk of an "upgrade system" for lower Tier ships should start with Bridge Officers. Merely making Bridge Officers of the player's level (and possibly consoles) available on a lower tier ship will go a long way to making it usable at higher level. And this is something that does not require ANY ADDITIONAL MODIFICATIONS TO THE SHIP. You may argue that technically it will require an upgrade to the bridge of the ship, but honestly, my assumption is that the bridge layout of a ship is based on the rank of the captain NOT the capabilities of the ship. A Lt. Commander has no Commander level stations on his bridge because he has no Commanders to man them. (If he did, that Commander would be the Captain, and not him...)
2) Second, obviously, we have weapon layout. Personally, I would find it a completely reasonable thing if, once I upgraded a TOS Connie to Tier 5, it still had only 2 forward weapon slots and 1 rear. Or even 3 forward and 2 rear. (Or 2 and 2) This gets back to the technical arguments raised in this thread, while I might upgrade a TOS Connie with the latest modern weaponry, there still is only enough SPACE on the ship to replace its forward phasers and photon torpedoes with 2 forward weapons and rear phasers with 1 rear weapon. Sure, the Defiant is a lot smaller ship than a Connie, but it has weapon hardpoints designed into its hull, with the design goal of carrying more weaponry in a smaller size.
So rather than follow the normal progression, maybe we could just add a weapon slot every second tier or so. The final layout of all Tier 1s and the Tier 2 Cruiser and Science could be 3/2, and the Escort 4/1.
3) Finally, and I think much more importantly, we have the issue of hull, shields, inertia, speed, and turn rate. This is where I think the lighter weapon loadout balances out. Tier 3 is basically where the three classes of Cruiser, Escort and Science become defined, at Tier 1 and Tier 2 they really don't exist yet. The Advanced Heavy Cruiser Refit already has a remarkably high turn rate for its hull and shields rating, although it does still have the lower crew of the Tier 3 version. A TOS Cruiser with its turn rate is going to be essentially a Science Vessel in terms of manueverability.
As with the weapons, this could be averaged out, or it could be applied so that TOS Connie = Cruiser, NX = Escort and Miranda = Science, but in any case, I think the important thing is to since you have a smaller ship that is more manueverable, that also means it holds fewer weapons. It's not going to quite be an Escort, but then it won't be concentrating all its weapon slots in the front, either. It's sort of a hybrid, like the original Tiers were, so it's not going to be as specialized, and thus not as strong.
Hopefully, that will solve the problems, whether the devs decide to keep issuing new VA level ships (which I think has been taken about as far as it can be) or offer a crafting or upgrade system. (which will give the players more options right away, without the devs needing to design a whole bunch of new ships)
By that argument, TOS Phasers should be issued at Mk I, and not be available at any higher Mk. The "blue" TOS Phasers automatically level with you, and are as poweful as Mk X phasers at VA.
Of course, I could also point out that the TOS phasers should technically be Dual Phaser Banks, not a Beam Array, and they should be mounted fore, port, and starboard.
The in-game Miranda still does not have phaser strips, correct? Yet there is nothing stopping you from fitting a "new" Mk IX Phaser Array into one of the Miranda's weapon slots and the exterior look of the ship has not been altered to accomodate it.
An interesting question... is it possible to put Borg or Aegis gear on a Miranda or TOS Connie? This is another fitting of new technology that the game may already allow without any visual changes other than what the sets themselves do.
You are also incorrectly assuming that "real" design principles exist that would prevent you from turning a TOS Connie into a superior version of itself.
Since no such principles exist in the real world as to how shielding and warp field, etc. are engineered, they can only be derived from what canonical sources exist in this fictional setting and assume that no technobabble overrules them.
If I say that MY starship has extra-dimensional hull space that allows me to fit in as much technology as a ship twice its' size, has subspace modulation shielding technology that gives my shields twice the strength, and has a warp core powered by dead aliens that's twice as powerful -- all given to me by Q -- then my technobabble beats your technobabble until further contradicted.
yeah that made me lol
The current ships should remain in game as is and the T5 Connie and NX should be available as "refits" in the game for emblems and in the C-Store.
Opinions are important, so is people's freedom of expression. Important word is Freedom.
If your opinion supports or does not hinder anothers pursuit of Happiness and additional fundage for the game then it's OK.
If your opinion has people being restricted in some way, then you are infringing on their Freedom and you need to reevaluate.
Please Mind your own fun and don't worry about what others are doing for fun. If you can't ignore it you will have to wait for a more canon game to come out.
Again any argument about 23rd century designs not being available now went out the window with the release of the Vulcan ship from before the 23rd century. This includes arguments about space and energy limitations.
However I will point out that does NOT mean that I agree that Cryptic can, will, or should make room for everyone's desires on this point.
For example, if you bought a T-1 TOS Connie I believe you are entitled to keep it and Cryptic has an ethical responsibility to let you keep it or to compensate you somehow. I do not necessarily agree that you are thereby entitled to be able to obtain a T-5 TOS Connie. You knew what you were buying when you bought the T-1. I will agree that if every other ship is given an upgrade path then it is only fair that the TOS Connie gets it too.
That's about as far as it goes. We are free to ask Cryptic for anything we want to ask for, but we are not entitled to get it.
Oh please. You know someone is grasping at straws when they have to bring "freedom" and "pursuit of happiness" into an argument about what should be in a computer game.
Anyway, no one has responded to my original point I made all the way back on the first page, that if you upgrade the interior of the ship enough, it's no longer an NX or Constitution, it's an Akira or an Excalibur. I don't care if they get upgraded to T5 because that could make sense, but calling it an NX or Connie when it's 90% different from an NX or Connie is ridiculous. I even posted a recent example supporting my POV, from the US Navy (which Starfleet is most certainly based on)
Please don't tell me what I am or am not allowed to hold as an opinion. Free speech doesn't give you the right to tell others what to think, nor does it give you the right to force whatever fantasies or delusions you believe in on others.
Also, STO is based on canon. Link:
http://www.startrekonline.com/dev_blog/ask_cryptic_8-25-08
"Al "Captain Geko" Rivera (lead designer): Every series and movie is considered canon, and we are staying very true to this in our development. Star Trek is rich with lore and history, and there is a great deal of material to build upon as we move into the 25th century with Star Trek Online. We are working with CBS to ensure that everything we create is true to Trek and makes sense. "
Connies with Spinal Phaser Lances, Ablative Armor, Multi-Phasic Regenerative Shields, Cloaking Devices, and enough torpedo tubes to scare the Borg away, on the grounds that Q gave you a dimensional rift field emiitter for your birthday, is NOT canon.
an the out of the mothballs is balls, let me think a war starts and am i going to use a scud missile or im i gonna use a flintlock. the game is set in an era where the tecnological reasons dictitate a ship follows a specific role, old ships looked like they did because the parts to make it mean it looks like that, you dont stick a cell on a ship simply to look pritty, they have to be asthetically pleasing yet be in the role of the era they belong.
You want the 'future of Star Trek' eh? Dood, that means we ALSO dump the 40+ year old Federation designs like:
The Galaxy Class (Fisrt commissioned in 2363)
The Defiant Class (First commissioned in 2369)
The Intrepid Class (First commissiuoned in 2271)
The Akira Class (First commissiuoned in 2271)
et. al.
And hell, any mid 24th century ship design as it's 60 years past that and why would these old designs be 'front line' Admiralty ships in a time of war? Yep, here's to the 'future' of Star Trek. (And sorry if you like any 24th century ship designs, but hey, they're all 'old' now.):D:eek:;)
actally it's the other way around.
why do think the US Airforce is projecting to keep the B-52 around for anotheer 50 yrs
Or why the Navy keeps updating The Enterprise ( NCV-65) systems?
I agree. I don't understand why they scale at all never mind beyond T1.
And the Miranda will still get wrecked by upper-tier ships because of its (correct) tier placement. Thus it is easy to ignore the fact that it should not be possible to put Mark IX anything in it.
Of course, had I designed the ship systems, what weapons you could install would be based on the room available in the ship and the amount of power you need to generate from your warp core. In that way, ships could be upgraded to work longer, but they would have ceilings that reflect their size and age.
They do have visual changes though, so I'd have no problem with that.
Except I did not make that assumption. I said that since phaser strips get put on the outside of the hull, putting phaser strips on a ship would modify her exterior appearance. As do a number of other systems. I also posited that the design of the hull would probably affect shielding and warp fields.
As for technobabble overruling all, that's a useless argument because it allows literally anything and completely obliterates any consistency of setting. Q gave me the Millennium Falcon and let me dock it in my space-ship version of the HMS Enterprize, along with my T5 Phoenix.
The problem is that many of the request in this game go like this because there is no real loss in the game. People dont understand the concept of loss in the game hence why they ask for a ship that obviously would not make it in a serious engagement in the 24th century to be a T5. now your freedom allows you to enjoy the iconic ship at its level it was made for. I had fun with this ship at the lvl i was at but when i grew to a commander i knew it was time to grow up and take on the role of a new ship. You can use ship equipment of a higher lvl to upgrade the ship to a current stand point internally. no one is limiting anyone. The game is staying to reality of game mechanic as well as canon mechanics. Their is possibly one connie ship which is a trainer being mentioned in star trek 24th century.
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 never said they should do anything like that.
I am simply pointing out that there is really no firm ground to holler "Foul!!!" based on imaginary design principles.
And whoever it was that posted back on page 2 that it's not enough that they don't fly old ships, they don't want to see/allow anyone else to: IMO, this is where one crosses the line to "Stop Having Fun, Guys!"
I'm big into canon myself, which gave me a bit of trouble during my first week or so of playing, before I took a real good look around and realized that this just wasn't that kind of game. Never has been. So I've learned to live with what it is, not what I might like it to be.
There is if you want to retain some consistency in the setting. The setting would dictate that it would be out of the ordinary to see, say, the NX-class doing anything but dying horribly against even a Constitution-class, never mind a Sovereign.
I consider the T1 versions of these ships to be what their maximum capacity would be if you did, in fact, upgrade them as far as their designs could conceivably go without altering their appearance. I believe it is the best method (under the current tier system) to strike a balance between people who just want to have fun with their toys and people who desire a consistency of setting.