We don't have any evidence for that. The ship turned up during Enterprise, not in TOS, not in TNG, not in DS9 and not in VOY. Then it turned up in STO again. And obviously the hull pattern of the Constitution was even more logical than that of the D'kyr. It was built 100 years later with the combined knowledge of Vulcans, Tellarites, Andorians and humans. So why should it be worse? If the D'kyr would have been superior it would have been the standard Starfleet vessel.
Also, people like to forget that the Connie disappearing from the TNG and DS9 was a aesthetic decision rather than a story based one. TNG was a new series, ship, crew, characters, and direction. They wanted to separate it from TOS as much as possible. The Star Trek effects team was as practical (lazy) as possible, if they could've used the the Connie, they totally would have. Hence the appearance of Oberths, Mirandas, Excelsiors and their many kitbashes. (Who am I kidding.... of course they used the Connie.....)
In short, the Connie disappeared out of the desire to keep the series apart. STO is a silly little MMO about letting you play out your Star Trek captain fantasies anyway you want to, and thus franchise establishment rule need not apply.
For me, it's simple. More variety of ships being flown at level / rank cap. In PVP, I like to see a wide variety of ships flown by people.
IMO, there should be some sort of system to make any ship from any tier viable in different ways as you progress. A small, old ship even of the same generic type shouldn't be of the same "stats" of a modern ship, but it should be viable with upgrades. Another cool thing is that a small "cruiser" from the low tiers should not have the same feel, handling, and power of a cruiser from the higher tiers, especially a modern one.
There could be things like a Light Cruiser, Heavy Cruiser, whatever. They were all cruisers but were specialized and capable of different things. Naval buffs out there would know what I'm talking about.
I wasn't aware that anybody classifies the Sovereign as a dreadnought. Yes, the Galaxy-X is from an alternate future. One in that the Enterprise-D was supposed to be scrapped and only was still around because Riker loved her.
And we don't know why. For all we know she survived through that timeline's Dominion War but was too badly damaged during the fighting to be deemed worth repairing, only to have Riker save her. Or the refit costs for a first production run of the Galaxy was too high, or maybe they wanted to pass the name on, or or or...tons of possibilities that don't involve the class itself not being in general use.
IMO, there should be some sort of system to make any ship from any tier viable in different ways as you progress. A small, old ship even of the same generic type shouldn't be of the same "stats" of a modern ship, but it should be viable with upgrades. Another cool thing is that a small "cruiser" from the low tiers should not have the same feel, handling, and power of a cruiser from the higher tiers, especially a modern one.
Course not. I don't want it to be as powerful as an Oddy, or a Gal-X, or anything, I want it to be its own animal. Maybe a Sci/Eng hybrid rather than a Tac/Eng.
There could be things like a Light Cruiser, Heavy Cruiser, whatever. They were all cruisers but were specialized and capable of different things. Naval buffs out there would know what I'm talking about.
We don't have any evidence for that. The ship turned up during Enterprise, not in TOS, not in TNG, not in DS9 and not in VOY. Then it turned up in STO again. And obviously the hull pattern of the Constitution was even more logical than that of the D'kyr. It was built 100 years later with the combined knowledge of Vulcans, Tellarites, Andorians and humans. So why should it be worse? If the D'kyr would have been superior it would have been the standard Starfleet vessel.
We don't have any evidence for what? That Vulcans value logic more than Humans do? Enterprise was produced after all the other series were dead and in the can, but even setting that aside, how many Vulcan ships do we see in ANY series other than Enterprise?
Does this mean that Vulcan no longer has ships?
The hull pattern of the Constitution was nothing of the sort. It is a clear derivation of earlier Human designs and was a standard disbursed structure.
The D'kyr did not have to be vastly superior to not be adopted. Human pride and human vanity would still have favored human designed ships, barring a huge advantage to the D'kyr. The Vulcan vessel is also a small science vessel, suitable to Vulcan purposes but not necessarily to those of Star Fleet generally.
I wasn't aware that anybody classifies the Sovereign as a dreadnought. Yes, the Galaxy-X is from an alternate future. One in that the Enterprise-D was supposed to be scrapped and only was still around because Riker loved her.
First of all, since STO is not the alternate time line, the Enterprise never received any such refit.
Second, assuming the Enterprise-D was refitted into a Galaxy-X, that is a MUCH more radical refit than is being asked for by those wanting a T5 Connie.
Third, Riker was only able to save her by way of such a radical refit. He wasn't able to do so simply by changing the internals.
Two words: Size difference. And in TNG and DS9 there's evidence of two Constitutions.
That isn't evidence of anything... unless you also insist that various other ships changed sizes randomly. There are many many discrepancies with respect to displacement, number of decks, descriptions of armament, etc. In scenes used as evidence of connies there are no clear shots of anything.
Even in the case of Riker's Gal-X, it is still NCC-1701-blur.
Also, people like to forget that the Connie disappearing from the TNG and DS9 was a aesthetic decision rather than a story based one. TNG was a new series, ship, crew, characters, and direction. They wanted to separate it from TOS as much as possible. The Star Trek effects team was as practical (lazy) as possible, if they could've used the the Connie, they totally would have. Hence the appearance of Oberths, Mirandas, Excelsiors and their many kitbashes. (Who am I kidding.... of course they used the Connie.....)
In short, the Connie disappeared out of the desire to keep the series apart. STO is a silly little MMO about letting you play out your Star Trek captain fantasies anyway you want to, and thus franchise establishment rule need not apply.
Based on that argument we should be able to fly Bistros, or broomsticks, or anything that isn't specifically copywritten.... as long as it fits the captain's fantasy it's o.k., right?
I posted this in a T5 Connie thread more than a year ago, but it bears repeating:
Technology, as it advances, gets smaller, not bigger. You could fit everything in a Defiant class into the saucer section of a Constitution Class. Meaning, you could take all of that advanced, miniaturized technology from the Defiant and spread it out into a Connie's skin, and have plenty of room for a larger crew complement, research labs, etc. etc. The reason the Enterprise-D was so much bigger than the 1701, the A, the B, and the C was that it was built to accomodate a massive civilian population in the saucer section. There's literally no logical reason within the scientific and technological rules of the Star Trek Universe that you couldn't have a top of the line 25th Century cruiser in a Constitution class design.
That said, I want one because having my TOS interiors and uniforms in an Excelsior class just ain't right. For a lot of us, Star Trek is about Star Trek, not the later spinoff series. And with the popularity of the new film series, I think we're going to see the fanbase moving more and more back in the direction of TOS and TOS-style design preferences.
Based on that argument we should be able to fly Bistros, or broomsticks, or anything that isn't specifically copywritten.... as long as it fits the captain's fantasy it's o.k., right?
Because when we try to use logic, the logical response is to throw logic out the window, right? :P
No, that's not what I'm arguing at all. I'm arguing for the inclusion of a major part of the Star Trek franchise and history that means a lot to a great many people. More people cried at the "Death" of the Constitution than the death of Kirk. :P It's more than a ship, it's a character. People talk about it, and treat it as such. And without it, there is a great void in the STO universe.
That's how people feel about it, and why they want it in the game so badly. It's not that surprising, people treat all the Enterprises that way. People got Troi's & 7's outfit, Worf's stuff, alternate/mirror universe nonsense, etc, guess what they do with them? They want the Connie for the same reason.
I posted this in a T5 Connie thread more than a year ago, but it bears repeating:
Technology, as it advances, gets smaller, not bigger. You could fit everything in a Defiant class into the saucer section of a Constitution Class. Meaning, you could take all of that advanced, miniaturized technology from the Defiant and spread it out into a Connie's skin, and have plenty of room for a larger crew complement, research labs, etc. etc. The reason the Enterprise-D was so much bigger than the 1701, the A, the B, and the C was that it was built to accomodate a massive civilian population in the saucer section. There's literally no logical reason within the scientific and technological rules of the Star Trek Universe that you couldn't have a top of the line 25th Century cruiser in a Constitution class design.
That said, I want one because having my TOS interiors and uniforms in an Excelsior class just ain't right. For a lot of us, Star Trek is about Star Trek, not the later spinoff series. And with the popularity of the new film series, I think we're going to see the fanbase moving more and more back in the direction of TOS and TOS-style design preferences.
All that is well and fine, but shouldn't that mean the newer larger displacement vessels such as the sovereign class, or the Odyssey should be insanely powerful?
Space efficiency doesn't remove the displacement issue.
Because when we try to use logic, the logical response is to throw logic out the window, right? :P
No, that's not what I'm arguing at all. I'm arguing for the inclusion of a major part of the Star Trek franchise and history that means a lot to a great many people. More people cried at the "Death" of the Constitution than the death of Kirk. :P It's more than a ship, it's a character. People talk about it, and treat it as such. And without it, there is a great void in the STO universe.
That's how people feel about it, and why they want it in the game so badly. It's not that surprising, people treat all the Enterprises that way. People got Troi's & 7's outfit, Worf's stuff, alternate/mirror universe nonsense, etc, guess what they do with them? They want the Connie for the same reason.
I say let them have it.
And I am saying honor it by letting it rest.
Be your own hero and build your own glory rather than try to steal that of Kirk or anyone else.
That said, and I have said this before, I would love it if Cryptic would do a retro expansion in which the older ships were the stars and where you could not enter in a newer ship.
Not holding my breath on that happening, but it is nice to dream.
All that is well and fine, but shouldn't that mean the newer larger displacement vessels such as the sovereign class, or the Odyssey should be insanely powerful?
Space efficiency doesn't remove the displacement issue.
That doesn't follow, though. For example, modern jet engines are smaller and far more powerful than the first ones built. That doesn't mean that if they built one the size of the originals now it would be ultra-powerful.
Likewise, I have a computer that sits nicely in the palm of my hand now that is far more powerful than ones that used to take up whole rooms. That doesn't mean that they should go make new room-size computers that are super ultra powerful. It means we don't need them to be that big anymore.
Likewise, warp cores in the 25th century should be significantly smaller, and significantly more powerful, than those of the 24th and the 23rd. Likewise phaser banks. Likewise quantum torpedos. Likewise every other piece of technology on the ship. The only reason a 24th century ship should be bigger than a 23rd century ship is if it needs to accomodate significantly more crew/passengers (ala the Enterprise-D). If its carrying a crew the same size or smaller, each generation of ships should be smaller and more technologically powerful. And, logically, it should require a smaller crew to operate and maintain with each generation as well, as the technology improves.
A Connie designed can accomodate all of the up to date top of the line equipment, logically, and the shape itself is irrelevant, as the Borg prove.
It's not just the older players who want the Constitution to be upgraded.
I'm 27. I grew up watching TNG. On cable tv. While the brand new Nintendo sat there, tucked into the cubby underneath. It was the coolest thing ever.
Then I saw Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country. I instantly fell in love with the Excelsior and Constitution; they just looked so much cooler than the Galaxy, to me. Don't get me wrong, the Galaxy is cool with its wide-track design, and that cobra look (the wide saucer and neck shape remind me of a king cobra, about to strike)...but the Connie Refit just looks cool as hell, and the Excelsior looks like it's going warp 9 while it's sitting still; it's just so beautiful and streamlined.
So, it's not just nostalgia; it's a great, cool design that we want to be able to use more often. What's wrong with that?
I still say we should get a Commander-level redesign, though, not tier 5. I used my Commander-level Akira at VA rank on my tactical character until they finally gave us a tier 5 Akira; I would have no problem flying a Commander-level Constitution Refit at VA rank when I'm in it for fun, not sheer performance (as in Elite STF's).
That doesn't follow, though. For example, modern jet engines are smaller and far more powerful than the first ones built. That doesn't mean that if they built one the size of the originals now it would be ultra-powerful.
No, but if each provides X thrust, and you can now fit 10 of them instead of 1....
Alternatively, if each provides the same thrust but is considerably smaller, you have the difference in displacement for other equipment.
If the extra space is no longer needed nor useful, why is there anything bigger than an escort at all?
Likewise, I have a computer that sits nicely in the palm of my hand now that is far more powerful than ones that used to take up whole rooms. That doesn't mean that they should go make new room-size computers that are super ultra powerful. It means we don't need them to be that big anymore.
Really bad example. Computers can be banked, running on different parts of a problem in parallel. And since we don't have accurate weather prediction yet, yes, we do still have applications that need that level of processing.
On a smaller scale, do you really think STO runs off a single palm computer?
Likewise, warp cores in the 25th century should be significantly smaller, and significantly more powerful, than those of the 24th and the 23rd. Likewise phaser banks. Likewise quantum torpedos. Likewise every other piece of technology on the ship. The only reason a 24th century ship should be bigger than a 23rd century ship is if it needs to accomodate significantly more crew/passengers (ala the Enterprise-D). If its carrying a crew the same size or smaller, each generation of ships should be smaller and more technologically powerful. And, logically, it should require a smaller crew to operate and maintain with each generation as well, as the technology improves.
That presupposes that there is no limit to miniaturization, very much not a given. This is especially the case in Star Trek since we are discussing fictional technology that can conform to whatever characteristics the writers find useful, as long as they stay internally consistent. The fact that displacements continue to increase, even at the height of the Borg War and Dominion War strongly suggests that rather than warp cores getting smaller, better containment allows for better economies of scale in warp engine design.
A Connie designed can accomodate all of the up to date top of the line equipment, logically, and the shape itself is irrelevant, as the Borg prove.
The Borg have no pride nor feel any need to justify their existence by creating a newer 'prettier' hull design. On the other hand, even though they could, the Borg do not merely install their tech on assimilated ships. They take what is useful and use it to build their hulls.
Given the Borg are minimalists who are all about efficiency, why would they do that rather than refit unless it had proved the most efficient option?
We don't have any evidence for what? That Vulcans value logic more than Humans do? Enterprise was produced after all the other series were dead and in the can, but even setting that aside, how many Vulcan ships do we see in ANY series other than Enterprise?
Does this mean that Vulcan no longer has ships?
The hull pattern of the Constitution was nothing of the sort. It is a clear derivation of earlier Human designs and was a standard disbursed structure.
The D'kyr did not have to be vastly superior to not be adopted. Human pride and human vanity would still have favored human designed ships, barring a huge advantage to the D'kyr. The Vulcan vessel is also a small science vessel, suitable to Vulcan purposes but not necessarily to those of Star Fleet generally.
At the time of TOS there was nothing small about the D'kyr class and it was classified as a "combat cruiser". And I don't think that human vanity factors into the equipment choices of a fleet of an alliance that has less than 25% humans. Even completely Vulcan crews used the Constitution ( http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/USS_Intrepid_%28NCC-1631%29 ). And that Vulcan no longer has ships is actually a point that was often made when the D'kyr was released, after all in Unification II the Enterprise was the only ship between Vulcan and the Romulan invasion force (which used Vulcan civilian ships) http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/T%27Pau_%28starship%29
Second, assuming the Enterprise-D was refitted into a Galaxy-X, that is a MUCH more radical refit than is being asked for by those wanting a T5 Connie.
Third, Riker was only able to save her by way of such a radical refit. He wasn't able to do so simply by changing the internals.
So you would be okay with it with the Constitution got a third nacelle and a bigger torpedo launcher?
That isn't evidence of anything... unless you also insist that various other ships changed sizes randomly. There are many many discrepancies with respect to displacement, number of decks, descriptions of armament, etc. In scenes used as evidence of connies there are no clear shots of anything.
Even in the case of Riker's Gal-X, it is still NCC-1701-blur.
It is pretty clear the the Excelsior is bigger than the Constitution. That makes the Constitution cheaper to construct and more maneuverable.
Based on that argument we should be able to fly Bistros, or broomsticks, or anything that isn't specifically copywritten.... as long as it fits the captain's fantasy it's o.k., right?
Stay reasonable, everybody wants to fly Star Trek spaceships and nobody wants to fly one that is older than the D'kyr.
Be your own hero and build your own glory rather than try to steal that of Kirk or anyone else.
Sure as soon as everybody else stops stealing the glory of Sulu, Harriman, Picard, Riker, the EMH, Janeway, Chang and Gowron.
FKA K-Tar, grumpy Klingon/El-Aurian hybrid. Now assimilated by PWE.
Sometimes, if you want to bury the hatchet with a Klingon, it has to be in his skull. - Captain K'Tar of the USS Danu about J'mpok.
At the time of TOS there was nothing small about the D'kyr class and it was classified as a "combat cruiser". And I don't think that human vanity factors into the equipment choices of a fleet of an alliance that has less than 25% humans. Even completely Vulcan crews used the Constitution ( http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/USS_Intrepid_%28NCC-1631%29 ).
The Intrepid was a Star Fleet vessel rather than a Vulcan vessel. Vulcans serve in Star Fleet as do many other races. And if you were paying attention, the Intrepid was destroyed with no survivors, which doesn't speak well for the concept of the Vulcans using Connies.
And that Vulcan no longer has ships is actually a point that was often made when the D'kyr was released, after all in Unification II the Enterprise was the only ship between Vulcan and the Romulan invasion force (which used Vulcan civilian ships) http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/T%27Pau_%28starship%29
Civilian ships were used so they would be under the radar. If they had approached Vulcan with warships, it seems unlikely they would have had much success landing any troops. Also, it was not a Vulcan plot, so warships would have required convincing Vulcan crews the plan was legitimate.
In fact, if Vulcan had no defense force, why couldn't they have just sailed in with Romulan warships? With cloak they could have gotten close enough to land troops and take over before Star Fleet could have successfully responded.
The fact they used civilian vessels implies there was indeed a Vulcan defense force to be wary of.
Given that, there is nothing stating or implying Vulcan abandoned the defense force it is entitled to under the Federation charter. Doing so would not have been logical.
That doesn't say anything about how quickly Starfleet was willing to phase her out.
We don't even know that the Galaxies were phased out at all in STO's timeline. It is a different timeline from the alternate future of All Good Things.
So you would be okay with it with the Constitution got a third nacelle and a bigger torpedo launcher?
Given the events of TMP and Undiscovered Country, I dispute that there are many Connies to refit. Regardless, with that big a modification it would no longer be a Connie and thus would defeat the whole argument.
Would you be ok if instead of the third nacelle, Connies were refitted to look exactly like Defiant refits? Would that satisfy your desire for a T5 Connie?
It is pretty clear the the Excelsior is bigger than the Constitution. That makes the Constitution cheaper to construct and more maneuverable.
Very much not a given. The Excelsior was designed as a transwarp ship. Even though the drive did not work during the TOS era, they did get the drive working by the time of TNG. The Connie might not have been big enough to handle the newer warp drive. Or might simply not have the right structure.
Or whatever limitations any given author wants to give.
Stay reasonable, everybody wants to fly Star Trek spaceships and nobody wants to fly one that is older than the D'kyr.
You are obviously not qualified to speak for everyone. Just because it is a Star Trek game does not mean every player is a fanatic Star Trek fan.
And since there was a thread in which people were calling for a flyable/playable Phoenix, it is pretty easy to prove you wrong.
Sure as soon as everybody else stops stealing the glory of Sulu, Harriman, Picard, Riker, the EMH, Janeway, Chang and Gowron.
Stealing the glory? It is 2409! No one is capable of heroic deeds any more simply because others were heroic in the past?
In fact your statement suggests the issue here. I strongly suspect that many Connie supporters refuse to accept that the game is set in 2409. It isn't the 2260's any more. get over it.
Great post.... I wonder how people who enjoy seeing the original Enterprise blowing up that much can call themselves "Trekkies". That was the second saddest moment of the original movies.
FKA K-Tar, grumpy Klingon/El-Aurian hybrid. Now assimilated by PWE.
Sometimes, if you want to bury the hatchet with a Klingon, it has to be in his skull. - Captain K'Tar of the USS Danu about J'mpok.
The pure and simple answer if you really care to look at it is, because they were told they can't have it.
Being told you can't do something makes you want to do it all the more, and being told you can't have something makes you want it all the more. It a drive that sends you forward to confront you goal, and obliterate all obstacles in your path. That is one reason "Limited Time" and "While Supplies Last" are such big selling points (would you be so eager to add plants to your starbase or open the windows if you knew you could just do it whenever you felt like it?)
Another reason is diminishing personal control. When you have something (a T1 Connie in this instance) and then lose it (Not having one at T5) it make you want it even more because you are losing options you had before. As opportunities become less available, we lose freedom and boy do we loathe to lose freedoms we already have. Whenever free choice is limited or threatened, the need to retain our freedoms makes us desire them (as well as the goods and services associated with them) significantly more than previously. So when increasing scarcity (or anything else, Cryptic and CBS in this case) interferes with our prior access to some item, we will react against the interference by wanting and trying to possess the item more than before.
In addition, telling someone that they can?t have something plays even deeper into their greed. You see this all the time at a shop when a child throws a tantrum over something he can?t have. The biggest concern I heard before S6 came out was that the ships being limited quantity would upset those who weren't "quick enough" to get the first ones, that shows this same aspect of human nature.
Not saying that is the only reason, or that it is the reason everyone wants it, but I'd be willing to wager that if we look at it honestly the majority of those that want a T5 Connie want it, at least in part, simply because they can't have it.
The Intrepid was a Star Fleet vessel rather than a Vulcan vessel. Vulcans serve in Star Fleet as do many other races. And if you were paying attention, the Intrepid was destroyed with no survivors, which doesn't speak well for the concept of the Vulcans using Connies.
And what is Starfleet? Starfleet is a Federation organisation, not a human one. And there were lots of ships without plot armor destroyed during TOS, claiming that the Intrepid shows that Vulcans can't use Federation starships is nonsense, I guess the captain of the T'Kumbra would like to have a word with you about that.
Civilian ships were used so they would be under the radar. If they had approached Vulcan with warships, it seems unlikely they would have had much success landing any troops. Also, it was not a Vulcan plot, so warships would have required convincing Vulcan crews the plan was legitimate.
In fact, if Vulcan had no defense force, why couldn't they have just sailed in with Romulan warships? With cloak they could have gotten close enough to land troops and take over before Star Fleet could have successfully responded.
The fact they used civilian vessels implies there was indeed a Vulcan defense force to be wary of.
Then there would have been no need to lure the Enterprise away from Vulcan. If the Enterprise would have known that something fishy was going on they simply could have alerted the Vulcan defense force. Subspace communication is faster than warp travel.
Given that, there is nothing stating or implying Vulcan abandoned the defense force it is entitled to under the Federation charter. Doing so would not have been logical.
Keeping their own army would have been illogical. Vulcan is deep in Federation space surrounded by allies. The borders that have to be defended are lightyears away and are defended by Starfleet. Vulcans after TOS are a peaceful society (well, except once every 7 years for each Vulcan) and wasting resources on an army that has nothing to do is the most illogical thing they could do.
We don't even know that the Galaxies were phased out at all in STO's timeline. It is a different timeline from the alternate future of All Good Things.
No, in STO they instead took the Constitution and D'kyr back into service and started building new NX-class vessels.:rolleyes:
Given the events of TMP and Undiscovered Country, I dispute that there are many Connies to refit. Regardless, with that big a modification it would no longer be a Connie and thus would defeat the whole argument.
What events? And there are tons in STO! I can't fly through Sirius, Regulus and Pi Canis without running into Constitutions. They are everywhere!!!:eek:
Would you be ok if instead of the third nacelle, Connies were refitted to look exactly like Defiant refits? Would that satisfy your desire for a T5 Connie?
Personally I would be happy if I could make my own kitbash of the Exeter and Excalibur, use the Constitution interior on it and claim that it's a ship that never go the TMP refit, was stored in a surplus depot, recommissioned and refitted with 25th century tech while they didn't have time to change the interiors which drives the crew crazy.:D
Very much not a given. The Excelsior was designed as a transwarp ship. Even though the drive did not work during the TOS era, they did get the drive working by the time of TNG. The Connie might not have been big enough to handle the newer warp drive. Or might simply not have the right structure.
Or whatever limitations any given author wants to give.
What they meant with transwarp in Star Trek III is something people still argue about. However there are plenty of smaller ships who could obviously handle new warp drives (Miranda, Oberth, Nova, Defiant), and the structure must have it's perks after all they basically reverted to it for two ships (Ambassador and Galaxy) after the flat Excelsior.
You are obviously not qualified to speak for everyone. Just because it is a Star Trek game does not mean every player is a fanatic Star Trek fan.
And since there was a thread in which people were calling for a flyable/playable Phoenix, it is pretty easy to prove you wrong.
The last such thread I remember was a cheap attempt to troll people who want a Constitution, and even if there are people who want to play a nuclear rocket with a cockpit and two warp nacelles bolted on comparing that to people who want to play a cruiser that is 100 years younger than the oldest current T5 ship is nonsense.
In fact your statement suggests the issue here. I strongly suspect that many Connie supporters refuse to accept that the game is set in 2409. It isn't the 2260's any more. get over it.
It isn't the 2360's anymore either. The Galaxy hasn't just been replaced by the Sovereign, the new top dog is the Odyssey! Galaxies are now the scrap metal Miranda's were during the Dominion War, the Aventine is the new top science vessel, the only classes from the series that still have a decent lifetime left are the Prometheus and the Nova. None of the current top tier ships beside the Odyssey belong there. Live with it.
Not saying that is the only reason, or that it is the reason everyone wants it, but I'd be willing to wager that if we look at it honestly the majority of those that want a T5 Connie want it, at least in part, simply because they can't have it.
I wanted one before the STO open beta started, long before the whole "CBS said no" issue turned up. Nice try though.
FKA K-Tar, grumpy Klingon/El-Aurian hybrid. Now assimilated by PWE.
Sometimes, if you want to bury the hatchet with a Klingon, it has to be in his skull. - Captain K'Tar of the USS Danu about J'mpok.
Honestly, I think alot of this argueing would've been prevented, had STO shipped with ONLY 25th Century style ships, and possibly refitted late 24th Century (Bellerophon, Venture, Sao Paolo classes)
There is absolutely no reason why a rust-bucket of 250 years (NX-Class / D'Kyr) should be floating around in 2409. Stretching ANY ship beyond 100 years, is pure fan-wanking. But then, Cryptic never really have bothered to follow canon particularly closely anyways. And CBS seems to let them run rampant on canon, by having diverse crew uniforms from all eras, ships that are 250 years old etc. But God forbid, we have a T5 Constitution Class.
I'm just trying to figure out why players would want such an ugly ship at the high levels.
Oh sure, I fully understand the legacy behind it. It's THE original starship that has become synonymous with Star Trek, and that was just fine back when it was the only design, but that doesn't make it good looking.
I'm leveling up an engineer right now, checking out the cruisers. I was hoping there would be some other choice for ships at level ten, like the Excelsior or something. I was so glad that I was able to customize it's appearance to make it look more modern. The only Constitution piece I ended up using was the neck.
I'm not looking forward to level 30 when I get stuck with the awful Galaxy class. IMO, starships didn't become interesting and aesthetically pleasing until DS9 and Voyager.
Blasphemy!
And for the record, I don't personally advocate for the T5 connie (refit specifically), while it IS my favourite Enterprise, I completely see that it would be dumb to be flying against, oh, say... a Negh'Var or Bortas.
Honestly, I think alot of this argueing would've been prevented, had STO shipped with ONLY 25th Century style ships, and possibly refitted late 24th Century (Bellerophon, Venture, Sao Paolo classes)
There is absolutely no reason why a rust-bucket of 250 years (NX-Class / D'Kyr) should be floating around in 2409. Stretching ANY ship beyond 100 years, is pure fan-wanking. But then, Cryptic never really have bothered to follow canon particularly closely anyways. And CBS seems to let them run rampant on canon, by having diverse crew uniforms from all eras, ships that are 250 years old etc. But God forbid, we have a T5 Constitution Class.
I've always thought it would've been really ballsy (and I'd respect Cryptic if they'd went through with it) to just scrap 95% of the designs we'd seen on the shows/movies and design from the ground up their own vision of what 25th C ships would be like. So you'd get the odd Vesta or Prometheus here and there, but everything else would be totally new, futuristic and almost alien.
I know that never in a million years would they have pitched a Star Trek game where you can't fly a ship from the actual show, but it's still fun to think about.
I can go with the Excalibur Class. If they say we won't do a T5 Connie, why not this? Its the same basic design but with modern upgrades. I loved how this ship looks. Plus it would be modern enough for most. I would really love to see this one at T5.
USS Casinghead NCC 92047 launched 2350
Fleet Admiral Stowe - Dominion War Vet.
I wanted one before the STO open beta started, long before the whole "CBS said no" issue turned up. Nice try though.
Unless T5 Connies were in the Open Beta it doesn't make my argument invalid, as you still couldn't have one back then either. Just because CBS hadn't said no yet didn't mean they were around for you. And I find it highly unlikely you wanted a T5 Connie in Open Beta since T5 ships didn't exist until Season 2. As you say, nice try though.
Anyway, I have still yet to see a VALID reason to have one.
Unless T5 Connies were in the Open Beta it doesn't make my argument invalid, as you still couldn't have one back then either. Just because CBS hadn't said no yet didn't mean they were around for you. And I find it highly unlikely you wanted a T5 Connie in Open Beta since T5 ships didn't exist until Season 2. As you say, nice try though.
The game started with the Assault Cruiser, Star Cruiser, Fleet (now Patrol) Escort, Advanced Escort, Recon Science Vessel and Deep Space Science Vessel. Which all were and are T5.:rolleyes: And no, T5 Constitutions weren't around then. They were however a distinct possibility. At one point dstahl was asked if they would make an upgrade of the Miranda and he said that they planned to let us craft refits of lower tier ships for endgame.
Anyway, I have still yet to see a VALID reason to have one.
Validity in fandom is highly subjective. Give me a single "valid" reason to have refits of any of the ships that didn't start at T5 when the game was released. Heck, give me a "valid" reason why anybody should play STO.
FKA K-Tar, grumpy Klingon/El-Aurian hybrid. Now assimilated by PWE.
Sometimes, if you want to bury the hatchet with a Klingon, it has to be in his skull. - Captain K'Tar of the USS Danu about J'mpok.
And what is Starfleet? Starfleet is a Federation organisation, not a human one. And there were lots of ships without plot armor destroyed during TOS, claiming that the Intrepid shows that Vulcans can't use Federation starships is nonsense, I guess the captain of the T'Kumbra would like to have a word with you about that.
That a predominantly human ship was not destroyed doesn't prove plot armor to anyone within the plot.
We aren't talking about Federation decisions or anything beyond the 4th wall though. To a logical race such as the Vulcan's, the loss of the Intrepid would have indicated a potential flaw in the Constitution class. That would be the logical conclusion.
Then there would have been no need to lure the Enterprise away from Vulcan. If the Enterprise would have known that something fishy was going on they simply could have alerted the Vulcan defense force. Subspace communication is faster than warp travel.
The Enterprise was a Star Fleet vessel. If they engaged it, then they would be attacking Star Fleet rather than supporting a Vulcan revolution of reunification. That would have put a very large hole in their plans, since if they stick to Vulcan specifically and win, they can point to the faction that favors reunification and say 'They did it, we were merely supporting them.' If Star Fleet intervenes early or if the invasion force engages Star Fleet vessels, then they lose that plausible deniability.
Keeping their own army would have been illogical. Vulcan is deep in Federation space surrounded by allies. The borders that have to be defended are lightyears away and are defended by Starfleet. Vulcans after TOS are a peaceful society (well, except once every 7 years for each Vulcan) and wasting resources on an army that has nothing to do is the most illogical thing they could do.
Given travel times and the fact that it is easier to defend a world than to take a defended world (since the world has its entire population available vs the invaders only having the troops they could ship in), standing militia make sense. The UFP was patterned after the UN, with its own defense force but with member nations retaining considerable independence and their own forces.
How many UN nations have no standing armies at all?
No, in STO they instead took the Constitution and D'kyr back into service and started building new NX-class vessels.:rolleyes:
What events? And there are tons in STO! I can't fly through Sirius, Regulus and Pi Canis without running into Constitutions. They are everywhere!!!:eek:
I think the official line is that they built Constitution and NX class ships as museum pieces. The NX is an 'NX replica' and as such may already be upgraded to the limits of its hull.
Either of them can fit Rank XII weapons, shields, engines and deflectors, after all.... so it isn't like they aren't already upgraded over their original designs.
And I don't see anywhere near as many Connies as you seem to claim to see. It is not like the majority stick to low tier ships. Even new players aren't in them for long. I see more Galor and D'kora than I do Constitution class.
Personally I would be happy if I could make my own kitbash of the Exeter and Excalibur, use the Constitution interior on it and claim that it's a ship that never go the TMP refit, was stored in a surplus depot, recommissioned and refitted with 25th century tech while they didn't have time to change the interiors which drives the crew crazy.:D
You didn't answer my question... If you are ok considering the Galaxy X a Galaxy, then what level of modification to a Connie would you accept while still calling it a Constitution class, particularly for purposes of this discussion?
What they meant with transwarp in Star Trek III is something people still argue about. However there are plenty of smaller ships who could obviously handle new warp drives (Miranda, Oberth, Nova, Defiant), and the structure must have it's perks after all they basically reverted to it for two ships (Ambassador and Galaxy) after the flat Excelsior.
Those other smaller hulls were all built for transwarp though. At some point the modifications needed for an upgrade get to the point you are better off replacing entirely.
The last such thread I remember was a cheap attempt to troll people who want a Constitution, and even if there are people who want to play a nuclear rocket with a cockpit and two warp nacelles bolted on comparing that to people who want to play a cruiser that is 100 years younger than the oldest current T5 ship is nonsense.
Ah, so people calling for a ship you consider too old to modernize is 'trolling' but calling for upgrades to a ship others call too old to modernize is a noble cause?
That's what YOU claim.
I made no such claim. In fact I made the opposite claim, that those feeling the need to fly a T5 connie because of some feeling that class was more 'heroic' are more interested in borrowing Kirk's glory rather than creating their own. Picard didn't need to fly a Constitution class ship to be heroic. He flew the ships of his era. Gowron definitely didn't need a Connie to be heroic. None of the names you listed needed Connies to be heroic or even feel heroic.
It isn't the 2360's anymore either. The Galaxy hasn't just been replaced by the Sovereign, the new top dog is the Odyssey! Galaxies are now the scrap metal Miranda's were during the Dominion War, the Aventine is the new top science vessel, the only classes from the series that still have a decent lifetime left are the Prometheus and the Nova. None of the current top tier ships beside the Odyssey belong there. Live with it.
There were still enough Galaxies during the Dominion War to organize them into Wings, and that was just what they could get to DS9. There were large fleet elements that could not get there in time.
Mirandas have an even better excuse for survival than the Excels. The Mirandas are modular ships, so easier to refit.
And this isn't the same era. Star Fleet has been through a few full scale wars in its recent history and is in one now. That changes the practicality of scrapping ship classes wholesale as they did in Kirk's day. Note that still does not make refits infinitely practical.
Besides, you seem to have me confused with someone else. I like the Odyssey and have no objections to it. I like the Atrox too, although for my non-Caitians I would prefer a full Federation carrier of some sort.
I wanted one before the STO open beta started, long before the whole "CBS said no" issue turned up. Nice try though.
That said, and I have said this before, I would love it if Cryptic would do a retro expansion in which the older ships were the stars and where you could not enter in a newer ship.
Not holding my breath on that happening, but it is nice to dream.
And then people would complain about it being half-baked. At this point people would be willing to go for a T5 Exeter, Vesper, Excalibur, or somesuch ship. They are new ships that merely resemble the Constitution, the 100+ year old design argument is invalid there.
Give me one good reason those ships do not deserve a T5 variant? (Assume that the TOS Connie and the Refit will never reach T5)
Comments
Also, people like to forget that the Connie disappearing from the TNG and DS9 was a aesthetic decision rather than a story based one. TNG was a new series, ship, crew, characters, and direction. They wanted to separate it from TOS as much as possible. The Star Trek effects team was as practical (lazy) as possible, if they could've used the the Connie, they totally would have. Hence the appearance of Oberths, Mirandas, Excelsiors and their many kitbashes. (Who am I kidding.... of course they used the Connie.....)
In short, the Connie disappeared out of the desire to keep the series apart. STO is a silly little MMO about letting you play out your Star Trek captain fantasies anyway you want to, and thus franchise establishment rule need not apply.
For me, it's simple. More variety of ships being flown at level / rank cap. In PVP, I like to see a wide variety of ships flown by people.
IMO, there should be some sort of system to make any ship from any tier viable in different ways as you progress. A small, old ship even of the same generic type shouldn't be of the same "stats" of a modern ship, but it should be viable with upgrades. Another cool thing is that a small "cruiser" from the low tiers should not have the same feel, handling, and power of a cruiser from the higher tiers, especially a modern one.
There could be things like a Light Cruiser, Heavy Cruiser, whatever. They were all cruisers but were specialized and capable of different things. Naval buffs out there would know what I'm talking about.
And we don't know why. For all we know she survived through that timeline's Dominion War but was too badly damaged during the fighting to be deemed worth repairing, only to have Riker save her. Or the refit costs for a first production run of the Galaxy was too high, or maybe they wanted to pass the name on, or or or...tons of possibilities that don't involve the class itself not being in general use.
Course not. I don't want it to be as powerful as an Oddy, or a Gal-X, or anything, I want it to be its own animal. Maybe a Sci/Eng hybrid rather than a Tac/Eng.
We don't have any evidence for what? That Vulcans value logic more than Humans do? Enterprise was produced after all the other series were dead and in the can, but even setting that aside, how many Vulcan ships do we see in ANY series other than Enterprise?
Does this mean that Vulcan no longer has ships?
The hull pattern of the Constitution was nothing of the sort. It is a clear derivation of earlier Human designs and was a standard disbursed structure.
The D'kyr did not have to be vastly superior to not be adopted. Human pride and human vanity would still have favored human designed ships, barring a huge advantage to the D'kyr. The Vulcan vessel is also a small science vessel, suitable to Vulcan purposes but not necessarily to those of Star Fleet generally.
First of all, since STO is not the alternate time line, the Enterprise never received any such refit.
Second, assuming the Enterprise-D was refitted into a Galaxy-X, that is a MUCH more radical refit than is being asked for by those wanting a T5 Connie.
Third, Riker was only able to save her by way of such a radical refit. He wasn't able to do so simply by changing the internals.
That isn't evidence of anything... unless you also insist that various other ships changed sizes randomly. There are many many discrepancies with respect to displacement, number of decks, descriptions of armament, etc. In scenes used as evidence of connies there are no clear shots of anything.
Even in the case of Riker's Gal-X, it is still NCC-1701-blur.
Based on that argument we should be able to fly Bistros, or broomsticks, or anything that isn't specifically copywritten.... as long as it fits the captain's fantasy it's o.k., right?
Technology, as it advances, gets smaller, not bigger. You could fit everything in a Defiant class into the saucer section of a Constitution Class. Meaning, you could take all of that advanced, miniaturized technology from the Defiant and spread it out into a Connie's skin, and have plenty of room for a larger crew complement, research labs, etc. etc. The reason the Enterprise-D was so much bigger than the 1701, the A, the B, and the C was that it was built to accomodate a massive civilian population in the saucer section. There's literally no logical reason within the scientific and technological rules of the Star Trek Universe that you couldn't have a top of the line 25th Century cruiser in a Constitution class design.
That said, I want one because having my TOS interiors and uniforms in an Excelsior class just ain't right. For a lot of us, Star Trek is about Star Trek, not the later spinoff series. And with the popularity of the new film series, I think we're going to see the fanbase moving more and more back in the direction of TOS and TOS-style design preferences.
Because when we try to use logic, the logical response is to throw logic out the window, right? :P
No, that's not what I'm arguing at all. I'm arguing for the inclusion of a major part of the Star Trek franchise and history that means a lot to a great many people. More people cried at the "Death" of the Constitution than the death of Kirk. :P It's more than a ship, it's a character. People talk about it, and treat it as such. And without it, there is a great void in the STO universe.
That's how people feel about it, and why they want it in the game so badly. It's not that surprising, people treat all the Enterprises that way. People got Troi's & 7's outfit, Worf's stuff, alternate/mirror universe nonsense, etc, guess what they do with them? They want the Connie for the same reason.
I say let them have it.
All that is well and fine, but shouldn't that mean the newer larger displacement vessels such as the sovereign class, or the Odyssey should be insanely powerful?
Space efficiency doesn't remove the displacement issue.
That said I would gladly accept a Tier 5 Exeter.
And I am saying honor it by letting it rest.
Be your own hero and build your own glory rather than try to steal that of Kirk or anyone else.
That said, and I have said this before, I would love it if Cryptic would do a retro expansion in which the older ships were the stars and where you could not enter in a newer ship.
Not holding my breath on that happening, but it is nice to dream.
That doesn't follow, though. For example, modern jet engines are smaller and far more powerful than the first ones built. That doesn't mean that if they built one the size of the originals now it would be ultra-powerful.
Likewise, I have a computer that sits nicely in the palm of my hand now that is far more powerful than ones that used to take up whole rooms. That doesn't mean that they should go make new room-size computers that are super ultra powerful. It means we don't need them to be that big anymore.
Likewise, warp cores in the 25th century should be significantly smaller, and significantly more powerful, than those of the 24th and the 23rd. Likewise phaser banks. Likewise quantum torpedos. Likewise every other piece of technology on the ship. The only reason a 24th century ship should be bigger than a 23rd century ship is if it needs to accomodate significantly more crew/passengers (ala the Enterprise-D). If its carrying a crew the same size or smaller, each generation of ships should be smaller and more technologically powerful. And, logically, it should require a smaller crew to operate and maintain with each generation as well, as the technology improves.
A Connie designed can accomodate all of the up to date top of the line equipment, logically, and the shape itself is irrelevant, as the Borg prove.
I'm 27. I grew up watching TNG. On cable tv. While the brand new Nintendo sat there, tucked into the cubby underneath. It was the coolest thing ever.
Then I saw Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country. I instantly fell in love with the Excelsior and Constitution; they just looked so much cooler than the Galaxy, to me. Don't get me wrong, the Galaxy is cool with its wide-track design, and that cobra look (the wide saucer and neck shape remind me of a king cobra, about to strike)...but the Connie Refit just looks cool as hell, and the Excelsior looks like it's going warp 9 while it's sitting still; it's just so beautiful and streamlined.
So, it's not just nostalgia; it's a great, cool design that we want to be able to use more often. What's wrong with that?
I still say we should get a Commander-level redesign, though, not tier 5. I used my Commander-level Akira at VA rank on my tactical character until they finally gave us a tier 5 Akira; I would have no problem flying a Commander-level Constitution Refit at VA rank when I'm in it for fun, not sheer performance (as in Elite STF's).
No, but if each provides X thrust, and you can now fit 10 of them instead of 1....
Alternatively, if each provides the same thrust but is considerably smaller, you have the difference in displacement for other equipment.
If the extra space is no longer needed nor useful, why is there anything bigger than an escort at all?
Really bad example. Computers can be banked, running on different parts of a problem in parallel. And since we don't have accurate weather prediction yet, yes, we do still have applications that need that level of processing.
On a smaller scale, do you really think STO runs off a single palm computer?
That presupposes that there is no limit to miniaturization, very much not a given. This is especially the case in Star Trek since we are discussing fictional technology that can conform to whatever characteristics the writers find useful, as long as they stay internally consistent. The fact that displacements continue to increase, even at the height of the Borg War and Dominion War strongly suggests that rather than warp cores getting smaller, better containment allows for better economies of scale in warp engine design.
The Borg have no pride nor feel any need to justify their existence by creating a newer 'prettier' hull design. On the other hand, even though they could, the Borg do not merely install their tech on assimilated ships. They take what is useful and use it to build their hulls.
Given the Borg are minimalists who are all about efficiency, why would they do that rather than refit unless it had proved the most efficient option?
At the time of TOS there was nothing small about the D'kyr class and it was classified as a "combat cruiser". And I don't think that human vanity factors into the equipment choices of a fleet of an alliance that has less than 25% humans. Even completely Vulcan crews used the Constitution ( http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/USS_Intrepid_%28NCC-1631%29 ). And that Vulcan no longer has ships is actually a point that was often made when the D'kyr was released, after all in Unification II the Enterprise was the only ship between Vulcan and the Romulan invasion force (which used Vulcan civilian ships) http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/T%27Pau_%28starship%29
That doesn't say anything about how quickly Starfleet was willing to phase her out.
So you would be okay with it with the Constitution got a third nacelle and a bigger torpedo launcher?
It is pretty clear the the Excelsior is bigger than the Constitution. That makes the Constitution cheaper to construct and more maneuverable.
Stay reasonable, everybody wants to fly Star Trek spaceships and nobody wants to fly one that is older than the D'kyr.
Sure as soon as everybody else stops stealing the glory of Sulu, Harriman, Picard, Riker, the EMH, Janeway, Chang and Gowron.
Sometimes, if you want to bury the hatchet with a Klingon, it has to be in his skull. - Captain K'Tar of the USS Danu about J'mpok.
The Intrepid was a Star Fleet vessel rather than a Vulcan vessel. Vulcans serve in Star Fleet as do many other races. And if you were paying attention, the Intrepid was destroyed with no survivors, which doesn't speak well for the concept of the Vulcans using Connies.
Civilian ships were used so they would be under the radar. If they had approached Vulcan with warships, it seems unlikely they would have had much success landing any troops. Also, it was not a Vulcan plot, so warships would have required convincing Vulcan crews the plan was legitimate.
In fact, if Vulcan had no defense force, why couldn't they have just sailed in with Romulan warships? With cloak they could have gotten close enough to land troops and take over before Star Fleet could have successfully responded.
The fact they used civilian vessels implies there was indeed a Vulcan defense force to be wary of.
Given that, there is nothing stating or implying Vulcan abandoned the defense force it is entitled to under the Federation charter. Doing so would not have been logical.
We don't even know that the Galaxies were phased out at all in STO's timeline. It is a different timeline from the alternate future of All Good Things.
Given the events of TMP and Undiscovered Country, I dispute that there are many Connies to refit. Regardless, with that big a modification it would no longer be a Connie and thus would defeat the whole argument.
Would you be ok if instead of the third nacelle, Connies were refitted to look exactly like Defiant refits? Would that satisfy your desire for a T5 Connie?
Very much not a given. The Excelsior was designed as a transwarp ship. Even though the drive did not work during the TOS era, they did get the drive working by the time of TNG. The Connie might not have been big enough to handle the newer warp drive. Or might simply not have the right structure.
Or whatever limitations any given author wants to give.
You are obviously not qualified to speak for everyone. Just because it is a Star Trek game does not mean every player is a fanatic Star Trek fan.
And since there was a thread in which people were calling for a flyable/playable Phoenix, it is pretty easy to prove you wrong.
Stealing the glory? It is 2409! No one is capable of heroic deeds any more simply because others were heroic in the past?
In fact your statement suggests the issue here. I strongly suspect that many Connie supporters refuse to accept that the game is set in 2409. It isn't the 2260's any more. get over it.
Great post.... I wonder how people who enjoy seeing the original Enterprise blowing up that much can call themselves "Trekkies". That was the second saddest moment of the original movies.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cn3eWz0Cc80
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fg58hVEY5Og&feature=player_detailpage#t=87s
Sometimes, if you want to bury the hatchet with a Klingon, it has to be in his skull. - Captain K'Tar of the USS Danu about J'mpok.
The pure and simple answer if you really care to look at it is, because they were told they can't have it.
Being told you can't do something makes you want to do it all the more, and being told you can't have something makes you want it all the more. It a drive that sends you forward to confront you goal, and obliterate all obstacles in your path. That is one reason "Limited Time" and "While Supplies Last" are such big selling points (would you be so eager to add plants to your starbase or open the windows if you knew you could just do it whenever you felt like it?)
Another reason is diminishing personal control. When you have something (a T1 Connie in this instance) and then lose it (Not having one at T5) it make you want it even more because you are losing options you had before. As opportunities become less available, we lose freedom and boy do we loathe to lose freedoms we already have. Whenever free choice is limited or threatened, the need to retain our freedoms makes us desire them (as well as the goods and services associated with them) significantly more than previously. So when increasing scarcity (or anything else, Cryptic and CBS in this case) interferes with our prior access to some item, we will react against the interference by wanting and trying to possess the item more than before.
In addition, telling someone that they can?t have something plays even deeper into their greed. You see this all the time at a shop when a child throws a tantrum over something he can?t have. The biggest concern I heard before S6 came out was that the ships being limited quantity would upset those who weren't "quick enough" to get the first ones, that shows this same aspect of human nature.
Not saying that is the only reason, or that it is the reason everyone wants it, but I'd be willing to wager that if we look at it honestly the majority of those that want a T5 Connie want it, at least in part, simply because they can't have it.
And what is Starfleet? Starfleet is a Federation organisation, not a human one. And there were lots of ships without plot armor destroyed during TOS, claiming that the Intrepid shows that Vulcans can't use Federation starships is nonsense, I guess the captain of the T'Kumbra would like to have a word with you about that.
Then there would have been no need to lure the Enterprise away from Vulcan. If the Enterprise would have known that something fishy was going on they simply could have alerted the Vulcan defense force. Subspace communication is faster than warp travel.
Keeping their own army would have been illogical. Vulcan is deep in Federation space surrounded by allies. The borders that have to be defended are lightyears away and are defended by Starfleet. Vulcans after TOS are a peaceful society (well, except once every 7 years for each Vulcan) and wasting resources on an army that has nothing to do is the most illogical thing they could do.
No, in STO they instead took the Constitution and D'kyr back into service and started building new NX-class vessels.:rolleyes:
What events? And there are tons in STO! I can't fly through Sirius, Regulus and Pi Canis without running into Constitutions. They are everywhere!!!:eek:
Personally I would be happy if I could make my own kitbash of the Exeter and Excalibur, use the Constitution interior on it and claim that it's a ship that never go the TMP refit, was stored in a surplus depot, recommissioned and refitted with 25th century tech while they didn't have time to change the interiors which drives the crew crazy.:D
What they meant with transwarp in Star Trek III is something people still argue about. However there are plenty of smaller ships who could obviously handle new warp drives (Miranda, Oberth, Nova, Defiant), and the structure must have it's perks after all they basically reverted to it for two ships (Ambassador and Galaxy) after the flat Excelsior.
The last such thread I remember was a cheap attempt to troll people who want a Constitution, and even if there are people who want to play a nuclear rocket with a cockpit and two warp nacelles bolted on comparing that to people who want to play a cruiser that is 100 years younger than the oldest current T5 ship is nonsense.
That's what YOU claim.
It isn't the 2360's anymore either. The Galaxy hasn't just been replaced by the Sovereign, the new top dog is the Odyssey! Galaxies are now the scrap metal Miranda's were during the Dominion War, the Aventine is the new top science vessel, the only classes from the series that still have a decent lifetime left are the Prometheus and the Nova. None of the current top tier ships beside the Odyssey belong there. Live with it.
I wanted one before the STO open beta started, long before the whole "CBS said no" issue turned up. Nice try though.
Sometimes, if you want to bury the hatchet with a Klingon, it has to be in his skull. - Captain K'Tar of the USS Danu about J'mpok.
There is absolutely no reason why a rust-bucket of 250 years (NX-Class / D'Kyr) should be floating around in 2409. Stretching ANY ship beyond 100 years, is pure fan-wanking. But then, Cryptic never really have bothered to follow canon particularly closely anyways. And CBS seems to let them run rampant on canon, by having diverse crew uniforms from all eras, ships that are 250 years old etc. But God forbid, we have a T5 Constitution Class.
Blasphemy!
And for the record, I don't personally advocate for the T5 connie (refit specifically), while it IS my favourite Enterprise, I completely see that it would be dumb to be flying against, oh, say... a Negh'Var or Bortas.
http://trekmovie.com/2012/07/20/video-of-the-day-neil-degrasse-tyson-explains-why-the-uss-enterprise-is-the-greatest-starship-ever/
I've always thought it would've been really ballsy (and I'd respect Cryptic if they'd went through with it) to just scrap 95% of the designs we'd seen on the shows/movies and design from the ground up their own vision of what 25th C ships would be like. So you'd get the odd Vesta or Prometheus here and there, but everything else would be totally new, futuristic and almost alien.
I know that never in a million years would they have pitched a Star Trek game where you can't fly a ship from the actual show, but it's still fun to think about.
vids and guides and stuff
[9:52] [Zone #11] Neal@trapper1532: im a omega force shadow oprative and a maoc elite camander and here i am taking water samples
USS Casinghead NCC 92047 launched 2350
Fleet Admiral Stowe - Dominion War Vet.
Unless T5 Connies were in the Open Beta it doesn't make my argument invalid, as you still couldn't have one back then either. Just because CBS hadn't said no yet didn't mean they were around for you. And I find it highly unlikely you wanted a T5 Connie in Open Beta since T5 ships didn't exist until Season 2. As you say, nice try though.
Anyway, I have still yet to see a VALID reason to have one.
The game started with the Assault Cruiser, Star Cruiser, Fleet (now Patrol) Escort, Advanced Escort, Recon Science Vessel and Deep Space Science Vessel. Which all were and are T5.:rolleyes: And no, T5 Constitutions weren't around then. They were however a distinct possibility. At one point dstahl was asked if they would make an upgrade of the Miranda and he said that they planned to let us craft refits of lower tier ships for endgame.
Validity in fandom is highly subjective. Give me a single "valid" reason to have refits of any of the ships that didn't start at T5 when the game was released. Heck, give me a "valid" reason why anybody should play STO.
Sometimes, if you want to bury the hatchet with a Klingon, it has to be in his skull. - Captain K'Tar of the USS Danu about J'mpok.
That a predominantly human ship was not destroyed doesn't prove plot armor to anyone within the plot.
We aren't talking about Federation decisions or anything beyond the 4th wall though. To a logical race such as the Vulcan's, the loss of the Intrepid would have indicated a potential flaw in the Constitution class. That would be the logical conclusion.
The Enterprise was a Star Fleet vessel. If they engaged it, then they would be attacking Star Fleet rather than supporting a Vulcan revolution of reunification. That would have put a very large hole in their plans, since if they stick to Vulcan specifically and win, they can point to the faction that favors reunification and say 'They did it, we were merely supporting them.' If Star Fleet intervenes early or if the invasion force engages Star Fleet vessels, then they lose that plausible deniability.
Given travel times and the fact that it is easier to defend a world than to take a defended world (since the world has its entire population available vs the invaders only having the troops they could ship in), standing militia make sense. The UFP was patterned after the UN, with its own defense force but with member nations retaining considerable independence and their own forces.
How many UN nations have no standing armies at all?
I think the official line is that they built Constitution and NX class ships as museum pieces. The NX is an 'NX replica' and as such may already be upgraded to the limits of its hull.
Either of them can fit Rank XII weapons, shields, engines and deflectors, after all.... so it isn't like they aren't already upgraded over their original designs.
And I don't see anywhere near as many Connies as you seem to claim to see. It is not like the majority stick to low tier ships. Even new players aren't in them for long. I see more Galor and D'kora than I do Constitution class.
You didn't answer my question... If you are ok considering the Galaxy X a Galaxy, then what level of modification to a Connie would you accept while still calling it a Constitution class, particularly for purposes of this discussion?
Those other smaller hulls were all built for transwarp though. At some point the modifications needed for an upgrade get to the point you are better off replacing entirely.
Ah, so people calling for a ship you consider too old to modernize is 'trolling' but calling for upgrades to a ship others call too old to modernize is a noble cause?
I made no such claim. In fact I made the opposite claim, that those feeling the need to fly a T5 connie because of some feeling that class was more 'heroic' are more interested in borrowing Kirk's glory rather than creating their own. Picard didn't need to fly a Constitution class ship to be heroic. He flew the ships of his era. Gowron definitely didn't need a Connie to be heroic. None of the names you listed needed Connies to be heroic or even feel heroic.
There were still enough Galaxies during the Dominion War to organize them into Wings, and that was just what they could get to DS9. There were large fleet elements that could not get there in time.
Mirandas have an even better excuse for survival than the Excels. The Mirandas are modular ships, so easier to refit.
And this isn't the same era. Star Fleet has been through a few full scale wars in its recent history and is in one now. That changes the practicality of scrapping ship classes wholesale as they did in Kirk's day. Note that still does not make refits infinitely practical.
Besides, you seem to have me confused with someone else. I like the Odyssey and have no objections to it. I like the Atrox too, although for my non-Caitians I would prefer a full Federation carrier of some sort.
You are confusing yourself with the majority now?
Not everyone is that creative, nor do they wish to be. :P
And then people would complain about it being half-baked. At this point people would be willing to go for a T5 Exeter, Vesper, Excalibur, or somesuch ship. They are new ships that merely resemble the Constitution, the 100+ year old design argument is invalid there.
Give me one good reason those ships do not deserve a T5 variant? (Assume that the TOS Connie and the Refit will never reach T5)