test content
Logo
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc
Constitution Class: Any chance of a Fleet Ship?
tobiasosir
Member Posts: 30 Arc User
When I started playing this game, I was overjoyed to see that the original series Constitution Class was available for $5, and that my character could use it right off the bat. I held off buying it for a bit because I didn't want to spend money on this game until I knew I liked it (love it), and I'm glad I didn't because I leveled up so fast and just picked up the movie era connie.
But I keep thinking about the TOS ship. It's a beaut. Is there any talk about getting a fleet version?
Failing that, how tenable is it at higher tier play? I've read that some bring them to fleet events, but that's frowned upon; one person said the leveling phasers get obsolete by level 45. Is there any way to make use it in the end game?
I'm level 38 right now and have pretty well mapped out my end game ships, so I don't know if I'd bother...but part of me really wants to make it work.
But I keep thinking about the TOS ship. It's a beaut. Is there any talk about getting a fleet version?
Failing that, how tenable is it at higher tier play? I've read that some bring them to fleet events, but that's frowned upon; one person said the leveling phasers get obsolete by level 45. Is there any way to make use it in the end game?
I'm level 38 right now and have pretty well mapped out my end game ships, so I don't know if I'd bother...but part of me really wants to make it work.
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
Like my fanpage!
https://www.facebook.com/CaptainBMoney913
Join Date: August 29th 2010
Don't do it. If you even dare bring your TOS Connie into a high-tier PUG I will pray that STO spontaneously develops a "friendly fire" feature that I can use on you. If you want to **** around like that do it in your own groups, on your own time.
This. They already have a Fleet Saber and a Fleet Nova/Rhode Island, a retrofit of the vanilla free cruiser is the next logical step.
Plus, the Fleet Exeter looks like a slightly 2409'd version of the Abrams-prise.
The only question at this point is exactly HOW strict CBS is about having a Tier 5 "Constitution". Y'see, the "Constitution" skin for the basic Cruiser looks a lot like the Connie-A, except with a different texture. And as above, the Exeter bears a not-insignificant resemblance to the Abrams-version Constitution. So, does CBS really not want ANYTHING at tier 5 that heavily invokes the TOS version? That's the real concern.
However I could imagine a Fleet Exeter, but something more like destroyer, then a Cruiser.
Read my ****ing post for your answer. Once John Van Citters stops having that stick up his TRIBBLE about this issue he can make STO make money off of it.
Like my fanpage!
https://www.facebook.com/CaptainBMoney913
Join Date: August 29th 2010
https://youtube.com/channel/UCJZ5FBJ9bFaZ6yAFiNpZiRQ/featured?view_as=subscriber
Twitter:
https://twitter.com/CaptainCidStorm
Thanks for posting this. I have begun my series of messages.
Oh, and my messages to CBS went completely ignored. So saying it's the only place worth petitioning is not true. We need to put pressure on both companies. Cryptic and PWE's words cannot be ignored as easily as ours can.
https://youtube.com/channel/UCJZ5FBJ9bFaZ6yAFiNpZiRQ/featured?view_as=subscriber
Twitter:
https://twitter.com/CaptainCidStorm
Not with STO technology, or did you miss the older vulcan and klingon ships at tier 5?
https://youtube.com/channel/UCJZ5FBJ9bFaZ6yAFiNpZiRQ/featured?view_as=subscriber
Twitter:
https://twitter.com/CaptainCidStorm
It wouldn't surprise me if Mr. Rivera would create an Constitution with higher Tactical BOFF and more Tactical Consoles than a Galaxy, capable of using DCs and DHCs, lol.
Believe it or not i could imagine a ship similar to the Exeter as a Destroyer, but the Constitution and it's variants look too fragile for heavy combat IMO.
However if it would get shorter and more sturdy Pylons and Neck i could see it as a T5 light destroyer.
If Cryptic (Mr. Rivera) makes it a Fleet ship i would deny Cryptic any competence regarding Star trek.
EDIT:
Since the same people who say "NO" to a useful Galaxy Class in STO are here and say "YES!" to a T5 Constitution, i am afraid i have to recall my previous statement, just because i don't like the Constitution.
Seriously a 260 year old ship as a T5 ship in this game, would be the final kick into complete madness.
Yes...because you can't build/use the same design with up to date hull materials, power systems, and weapons that would be in line with the current ships of the line...
/sarcasm
Go ahead and build an 18th century first rate using 21st century materials, weapons and propulsion. See what happens.
Try and quote me saying that older ships should outperform newer ships. You can't, because I never have. A T5/Fleet Connie makes as much (IE: zero) logical sense as a T5/Fleet D7/K'Tinga, a T5/Fleet Excelsior, Ambassador or any other ship that has, in reality, long since been obsoleted by newer design concepts and technology.
What you're arguing for is effectively the same thing as asking for a WWI era Biplane with a jet engine, built from modern composites and carrying state of the art weapons to function as a stand in for say a Super-Hornet, Raptor or Lightning. It's a completely and utterly ridiculous notion.
Perhaps you are missing the complete and utterly ridiculous nature of sci fi. STO technology has moved on from the constraints facing today's technology. Making comparisons isn't going to help because things are different in star trek. A frame has no effect on anything relevant to STO, you can check the size of Bugs, defiants, and Nova class vessels for it if you need a modern comparison of what is needed for the process of upgrading.
https://youtube.com/channel/UCJZ5FBJ9bFaZ6yAFiNpZiRQ/featured?view_as=subscriber
Twitter:
https://twitter.com/CaptainCidStorm
You're seriously arguing that size has zero impact on a ship's capabilities in Trek?
Why then did Voyager take priority over the Equinox based on tactical capability?
Why didn't Peregrines carry the same amount of firepower that the Defiant did?
Why didn't the Defiant have the equivalent staying power of a Sovereign-class ship?
I could go on and on and on, but the notion that size is irrelevant is complete bunk.
Secondly, you're using modern designs to argue for an obsolete and ancient design. If ships could be upgraded like you argue, why then didn't the Federation just fight the Dominion Wars with nothing but upgraded ancient Connies?
Meh, it's not a huge concern for me--honestly, it's mostly an aesthetic choice. I like the look of the TOS connie, but I also like the look of the Intrepid and Prometheus, both with better end game options. I can live without the Enterprise.
I love the idea of T1 PvP play though. Maybe I'll have to approach my fleet about that, though I wouldn't buy a Zen store ship just for that. I was actually thinking this morning about a shuttle only queue (can't play the Vault shuttle event yet), but that's another thread entirely.
Yes but they chose to use them and upgrade them because they WORKED, obviously the Constitution class and the refit weren't as efficient as as ships like the Excelsior.
You need to read between the lines of what I was saying. When I said frame, I meant the shape of a ships shell. Every thing inside of a ship is modular, it can be replaced with systems and consoles and warp cores of any shape and power rating as shown with the various customization elements in game. My proof, as mentioned in earlier posts, is size. Ships smaller than the Connie refit like the Defiant, bug, and nova, are all tier 5 despite their tiny size. This means that HP, shields, and weapons are largely the result of exotic particle field work and digitization. A difference in frame will not make up for the differences in size shown to be able to use tier 5 stats. Whatever mass of armor, force fields, and weapon systems that fit within any of those smaller vessels could be put into the connie refit.
https://youtube.com/channel/UCJZ5FBJ9bFaZ6yAFiNpZiRQ/featured?view_as=subscriber
Twitter:
https://twitter.com/CaptainCidStorm
Are you implying the constitution class didn't work? It was the ship class with the longest confirmed existing flagship status in star fleet history. It stayed at the top of the food chain longer than any other enterprise. I'm not saying it should tank better than a Sovereign, but there is a role for tier 5 light cruises in combat.
https://youtube.com/channel/UCJZ5FBJ9bFaZ6yAFiNpZiRQ/featured?view_as=subscriber
Twitter:
https://twitter.com/CaptainCidStorm
As far as the original connie goes... I would propose ship costumes for all modern ships, but using the TOS "look". More hard geometric shapes, all white, and with actual dishes as deflectors.
Size and tier are not at all related variables. And the notion that you can magically stuff the capabilities of one ship into another ship of completely different dimensions is again, ludicrous. If it were true, why bother creating new designs at all?
1) The U.S.S. Constitution is still in active service with the US Navy. She's still seaworthy. Should we replace our entire fleet with ships based on her design because she's been in service for nearly two and a half centuries?
2) You're absolutely right about the highlighted portion. That role however, does not equate to a justification for using an incredibly outdated design when modern, superior, designs exist.
The Excelsior, B'rel, and K'tingas are century and a half old designs and only a couple decades older than the Constitution at that. Oh, and we have Fleet D7s as well.
Yet we have the Fleet Excel, the Fleet Galaxy, the Fleet Cheyenne, the Fleet D7, the Fleet B'rel, the Kumari...
Which are equally as ridiculous, especially given the current in-game situation where older ships are outperforming newer ones (see Galaxy vs. Excel/Ambassador). But Cryptic is too cheap, or too lazy, to actually create new Klingon ships to fill the vacuum, which makes the D7/B'Rel inclusion a smidge more tolerable.
See above for B'Rel, Excelsior and D7. In addition, the Kumari is not the 22nd century design. The Cheyenne and Galaxy are mid/late 24th century designs. A few decades is a far cry from pushing two hundred years.
We've done shuttles too, that's nutty. We've also done 5-10 shuttles vs. one guy in his T5 ship. Actually managed to bring down an Armitage 3 times with 6 shuttles before he racked up 15 kills, lol.
As for the main derailment of this thread, Cryptic has already put explanation for that into the game. Specifically, if you look at the NX replica (not, it's specifically a replica), it says tech has advanced enough that they can basically make the ship however they want. It's a similar excuse as used in Galaxy Express 999 for why anybody could or would make interstellar spacecraft that look like old time steam trains.
Is it a contrivance just to allow people to play their favorite ship regardless of the setting? Yes, absolutely. We aren't going to be able to have Star Trek Enterprise: Online, Star Trek TOS: Online, Star Trek TNG: Online and Star Trek 2409 Online. This one game has to satisfy everybody. It's just a video game, and its status as soft canon is highly debatable, so who cares. I doubt the authors of the Pocket novels will start having technologically modern Excelsiors showing up in post-Nemesis relaunch stuff just because STO did it. So yes, it's a contrivance, yes it doesn't make sense in universe if you think about it, but just roll with it. From a gameplay POV it doesn't matter.