test content
Logo
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc
Options
The real reason for no T5 Excalibur?
jjprize
Member Posts: 5 Arc User
Lets go ahead and get something out of the way: we all know CBS said "no T5 connie". Whether you agree with that decision or not, Cryptic still has to do what CBS says. So that is really all there is to that subject.
However, for some reason Cryptic has refused to make a T5(fleet) Excalibur class. For any who may not be familiar, this is the Excalibur class:
http://files.startrekonline.com/wallpapers/Wallpaper-09-1280x1024.jpg
Cryptic's own CBS approved game lore states that this is a modern 25th century ship. It is not a refit of the old Connie class, it is a completely new ship and ship class. And since Cryptic can actually make their game do what they tell it to do, they could make a fleet version of the Excalibur that does not include a Connie skin option. So the question is, why do they refuse to do this?
Some people have said "it will just upset the people who want a T5 connie". But that logic is the same as saying "if one group cant have what they want, then no one else should have what they want either". If a group of friends go to a restaurant and the thing that 1 person wanted is not available, that does not mean that no one else in the group should be able to get what they want if the restaurant is able to make it.
Cryptic can make a T5/fleet Excalibur class. No dev has ever stated that CBS will not allow this. Cryptic's own game lore states this is a modern ship, like many of the other low level ships that have T5/fleet versions. So why do they refuse to make this ship?
However, for some reason Cryptic has refused to make a T5(fleet) Excalibur class. For any who may not be familiar, this is the Excalibur class:
http://files.startrekonline.com/wallpapers/Wallpaper-09-1280x1024.jpg
Cryptic's own CBS approved game lore states that this is a modern 25th century ship. It is not a refit of the old Connie class, it is a completely new ship and ship class. And since Cryptic can actually make their game do what they tell it to do, they could make a fleet version of the Excalibur that does not include a Connie skin option. So the question is, why do they refuse to do this?
Some people have said "it will just upset the people who want a T5 connie". But that logic is the same as saying "if one group cant have what they want, then no one else should have what they want either". If a group of friends go to a restaurant and the thing that 1 person wanted is not available, that does not mean that no one else in the group should be able to get what they want if the restaurant is able to make it.
Cryptic can make a T5/fleet Excalibur class. No dev has ever stated that CBS will not allow this. Cryptic's own game lore states this is a modern ship, like many of the other low level ships that have T5/fleet versions. So why do they refuse to make this ship?
Post edited by jjprize on
0
Comments
Because it's pointless?
What role would it fill that isn't already filled by either the Ambassador/Fleet Ambassador (Sci-oriented Cruiser), Avenger/Fleet Avenger (Tac-Oriented Cruiser) or Odyssey (Eng, Sci or Tac oriented Cruiser)?
Adding a T5 Excalibur would simply mean another cruiser. And at this point, not only do we have enough Fed cruisers, I think we have enough cruisers full stop.
How about this - Klingon's have a range of Birds-Of-Prey, Raptors and Science Vessels as you rank up, including C-Store ships and Refit Ships. None of these ships have T5 fleet or retrofit versions.
I refer of course to the Ki'Tang/Ch'Tang Bird Of Prey, the Qorgh/SuQob Raptor, the Pach/Puyjaq Raptor, the Phalanx and Draguas science vessels and the Dacoit Flight-Deck cruiser.
That's a mass of ships that don't have T5 versions that are no less deserving than a T5 Excalibur. More so, in fact, given that not only does the Federation have a pretty wide choice of ships already, but some of the above mentioned ships have/are C-Store purchases that can't be used again due to the lack of a T5 variant.
To put it pretty simply, the "point" of having ANY fleet ships is to make Cryptic money. That is why they require fleet modules from the C-store. Even if it may fill a similar tactical role as other ships, if it is something people want to buy then that means money for Cryptic.
Star Trek Battles member. Want to roll with a good group of people regardless of fleets and not have to worry about DPS while doing STFs? Come join the channel and join in the fun!
http://forum.arcgames.com/startrekonline/discussion/1145998/star-trek-battles-channel-got-canon/p1
That is the flaw in judging a book by its cover, as it were. I actually dont want a T5 connie. Just to be clear, I'm not opposed to it, I just dont personally want it.
Don't want a connie, want an EXETER. Ya know the tier 2 750 Zen ship. Yeah I'd like one at tier 5 please. I mean U.S.S. Kirk is an Exeter class. Class was launched in 2391.
So again, what's the reason I can't have an Exeter?
Star Trek Battles member. Want to roll with a good group of people regardless of fleets and not have to worry about DPS while doing STFs? Come join the channel and join in the fun!
http://forum.arcgames.com/startrekonline/discussion/1145998/star-trek-battles-channel-got-canon/p1
In which case spending the time developing six or seven T5 KDF ships based on existing sub-T5 versions probably presents a better case for profit than one ship that isn't neccessarily going to be any better than the mass of exisitng cruisers.
Bearing in mind that as I said above, the T1 Excalibur is one of maybe three Fed ships that don't have a T5 variant - along with the Oberth and the NX-01 (which I imagine is another ship that CBS vetoed).
Excalibur is a tier 2, buddy. The tier 1 zen cruiser is the original Connie from the TOS. Excalibur is tier 2.
Star Trek Battles member. Want to roll with a good group of people regardless of fleets and not have to worry about DPS while doing STFs? Come join the channel and join in the fun!
http://forum.arcgames.com/startrekonline/discussion/1145998/star-trek-battles-channel-got-canon/p1
I've got nothing but love for the KDF, but realistically speaking there are simply more Fed-loving customers than there are KDF, so generally speaking a new Fed ship will make more money than a new KDF ship. No, I'm not saying they shouldnt make new KDF ships, just responding to your point above. Also, the Excalibur is a T2 ship, not T1.
Doy, so it is. See? That's how forgettable it is :P
I'm well aware that the Fed fanbase is larger than the KDF fanbase - i've made this abundantly clear in several threads. Regardless, this isn't about making "new" KDF ships - these ships, the models, they already exist. And on top of that, there's (presumably) no CBS meddling that says the ships I mentioned can't have T5 versions. And i'm also aware that the same goes for the T5 Excalibur (with regards to existing models etc.)
I still think that part of the reason for not having one is that it would ultimately be pointless and would detract from the sales of other ships that Cryptic puts time into developing, such as the Avenger or the Odyssey.
Yes, CBS said no T5 Constitution. But for all you're aware, that could very well extend to cover the Vesper, Excalibur and Exeter classes, in their book. And while no Dev ever said CBS won't allow it, none that i've seen have said that they will, either. For all you know, the sole reason for no T5 version of the T2 cruiser is CBS' meddling.
I understand your opinion, but I think its more likely people will wind up getting all of the ships they want rather than strictly choosing between one or the other. Cryptic gave us a large ship inventory for that very reason.
If that is the case, then all they would have to do is tell us. In fact, they have no reason not to tell us that, as it shifts any "blame" off of themselves. However, comments they have made suggest this is not the case. When Dan Stahl was asked about this very subject, his response was "we have not communicated our plans on this subject yet". If the answer were that CBS would not allow it, it makes no sense why he would not have just said that rather than the strange answer he gave.
I know you're talking about the t2 ship but did you ever stop to think that maybe CBS just said no to the whole things because they didn't want to risk conflict? Didn't want to risk any kind of problems with paramount?
Easier to nix a ship than risk a lawsuit? But no like I said a lot of connie fans are fanatics and no matter how logical, thought out, or descriptive the reply is they will just dismiss it because it goes against their views.
Like I said in my previous reply, if that were actually the case they would have no reason not to have said that by now. And what they have said suggests that is not the reason. So I hope that wasnt what you meant by "logical, thought out, or descriptive" reasons :P
Dan Stahl's answer doesn't mean anything, really. "We have not communicated our plans on this subject" could mean they haven't even approached CBS to ask about this, perhaps for any number of reasons.
It could just as easily mean; "We asked CBS, they said no, and now we're trying to find a workaround before we have to tell everyone that a T5 Connie/Connie-esque cruiser is off the table, and possibly alienate part of the playerbase as a result."
Not to mention that it could be No at the moment, but that could be reversed at some point in the future, depending on CBS's stance. So he might be giving cryptic (:P) answers because he doesn't actually have anything concrete.
Error, error, does not compute.
When will you learn that your speculations are not facts? Cryptic said that they are not allowed to make an endgame Constitution (they implied at one point that CBS might agree to a lockbox). If they are not allowed to make an Excalibur, Exeter or Vesper they can say that too. I can say that there will never be Krenim enemies in the game because Voyager left them as a minor power in the delta quadrant that has no reason to fight any alpha or beta quadrant powers. That's completely logical, thought out and descriptive. But it has nothing to do with Cryptic.
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's a Pandora's Box we don't want to go opening; Factional T5 ships in Lockboxes.
Because honesty is bad and all people who would like a Fleet Cruiser Retrofit would ragequit if CBS said no? And Geko gave us a response. He won't say never, but it's as close to never as possible. Just lacks a reason and reminds me of his problems to include the Ambassador.
The temporal lockbox already did that. The only question would be what the Klingons and Romulans would get. IF there ever was such a thing.
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.
To me, all those class-ships look the same (or are so very similar) that no to one = no to all.
Not a major concern, I grant you, but I can see that some people might lose interest if a T5 Connie was give a big no-no, rather than a maybe.
Temporal Lockbox is different though - they're ships that you, under normal circumstances, shouldn't have. Given that the Cruiser is part of Fed level progression, putting it's T5 version in a lockbox just opens the gates of possibility to putting any T5 ship in a lockbox.
I understand that you are trying your best to jump through hoops and come up with any way to possibly explain this without contradicting your earlier opinion, but realistically speaking since they already told us that CBS said no on the T5 connie there is no logical reason they would do the same on any other ship CBS said no to. I do have to give you kudos for the logical acrobatics though :P
Umm...maybe they don't have to respond to every little thing...maybe they're tired of responding to all of these kinds of threads? Take your pick...
Whether it be the Connie or a Exeter/Excalibur thread they pop up way to often and quite frankly I couldn't blame them if they got tired of responding to them.
I'm sorry you missed my point, but here it is more clearly: they *have* responded to this subject before, and they did *not* say CBS would not allow it. If that were actually the case, then there is no logical reason they would not have simply said that when responding to this subject in the past. I hope that is more clear :P
Fleet Cruiser Retrofit
- Exeter/Excalibur/Vesper hull material (Vesper might be controversial, but hey, we have the Excelsior at T5 as well)
- 39.000 hull
- Shield Modifier 1.1
- Turn rate: 9
- Device slots: 4
- Impulse modifier: 0.15
- Inertia rating: 40
- Crew: 400
- Weapons: 4 front, 4 aft
Boff layout:
Cmd Engineering, Lt Cmd Tac, Lt Sci, Ens Sci, Lt Uni or Eng
Consoles: 4 eng, 3 sci, 3 tac
What do you get?
A cruiser with less hull than any other Fleet Cruiser model, but with a better turning rate than the others. The Bridge Officer layout is based on the idea of having a new, unique Fed Cruiser, based around the same ideal as the D'Deridex: dedicated to nothing, potential for many things. This Boff layout isn't the best in the game, but do we need that? I don't think so.
The consoles are also dedicated to express this feeling of multifunctionality.
For the rest, the states are equal to the T2 ship, with the exception of hull and shields (1.1 instead of a 1).
Join the Deltas today!
Basically a Vesper, or in some cases the Excalibur. Those ships are quite literally the GAME FLAGSHIPS. They are THE hero ships of the game. If they weren't we'd see say the Defiant, or a Galaxy or the Odyssey class on the front or in the commercial.
But we don't we see the Vesper or Excalibur. And they don't have a tier 5 variant?
Does that seem right to you?
I'm not knocking the fact that the Roms or KDF aren't in SERIOUS need for more ships because they are. Hell I'll jump up and down and scream with the rest that more are desperately needed on those fronts.
But the game hero ship does not have a tier 5 fleet refit. Sorry doesn't seem right to me.
Star Trek Battles member. Want to roll with a good group of people regardless of fleets and not have to worry about DPS while doing STFs? Come join the channel and join in the fun!
http://forum.arcgames.com/startrekonline/discussion/1145998/star-trek-battles-channel-got-canon/p1
CBS vetoed the Connie for tier 5. The Excalibur is a Connie skin. It seems logical to me that the Connie veto would extend to its variants.
Also, I have to agree with the "too many Fed Cruisers" sentiment. There's not really a need for this ship. We have cruisers filling pretty much every role from tanks to healers to DPS to buffers. Another cruiser with a little more speed, a little less hull, and a Boff layout that's one power away from the Regent is not something the game is in dire need of. Let's focus on stuff like giving more choice to Romulan sci captains, or fixing the older ships to bring them up to par with stuff like the Scimitar and Avenger, or giving the KDF some love. That seems more pressing than "I want this ship because I think it's pretty".
Admiral Dananra Lekall - R.R.W. Teverresh, Deihu-class Warbird
General J'Kar son of K'tsulan - I.K.S. Dlahath, Vo'devwl-class Carrier
Thats the thing though; the Excalibur is only a connie skin if Cryptic hooks it up to work that way. They have the power to "unhook" it, meaning they can make a T5 Excalibur without having the connie skin as an option. There is no law of nature that says that says the Excalibur and Connie have to always be hooked together, so just because CBS will not allow a T5 Connie does not mean Cryptic cannot make a T5 Excalibur.
It would be dead and gone if Cryptic could finally pull themselves together and give us a definite answer with a decent reason.
By that logic it would also extend to the Excelsior, Ambassador and Galaxy. The other T2 cruisers have just as much to do with the Constitution as those ships except that Cryptic linked them to the same set of ingame stats, which is completely unimportant for a television company.
Yet Cryptic keeps churning out cruisers and people buy them. There are still tons of ways to fit in a small maneuverable cruiser, for example with a commander science.
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.
Oh yes, I fly around with an Excelsior skin on my Exeter all the time. :rolleyes:
Seriously though, I think the CBS veto is the main reason they haven't done/don't seem to want to do it. I mean, we the players don't know the exact wording of what CBS said, and even beyond that just by being associated so closely with the Constitution refit it seems like they might fall into a sort of grey area of what they can and can't do, and, if their lack of action over the last three years is any indication, diving into that grey area to appease a small yet annoyingly vocal part of the fanbase isn't high on their priority list.
Admiral Dananra Lekall - R.R.W. Teverresh, Deihu-class Warbird
General J'Kar son of K'tsulan - I.K.S. Dlahath, Vo'devwl-class Carrier