test content
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc

Re: Tier 5 Connie

1111214161720

Comments

  • whamhammer1whamhammer1 Member Posts: 2,290 Arc User
    edited February 2014
    So let me get this right, there are people who think that CBS did not say no to a T5 Connie? If this is true, would this debunk the whole idea that people are claiming that TNG content is limited/weak because the dev's hate TNG? Can they hate TOS/TMP as well? :D
  • snoggymack22snoggymack22 Member Posts: 7,084 Arc User
    edited February 2014
    So let me get this right, there are people who think that CBS did not say no to a T5 Connie?

    No. There are people pointing out that CBS has never officially commented on the Vesper. Which looks like a mini-Excelsior. Or the Exeter or the Excalibur.
    If this is true, would this debunk the whole idea that people are claiming that TNG content is limited/weak because the dev's hate TNG? Can they hate TOS/TMP as well? :D

    I have no idea there. I really have given up trying to figure out Geko, his tastes, or really the style/vision of this game's version of Trek.

    There's sort of a war between the feds and KDF right? But I spend most of my PVE time teaming up with Klingons in STFs.

    There's no rhyme or reason to the ship tiers at all. There's Excelsiors stacked up next to Avengers. A Star Cruiser, a Mirror Star Cruiser, a Fleet Cheyenne. I don't know why or how that all fits together. And then I see a D'Kora and a Bug Ship and I give up.

    The Uniform situation is a little whacky. I really won't even begin to think about that. The only reason I brought it up is this thread has consistently criticized the "ex machina" they used in the timeline/book to justify Mirandas and Centaurs being essentially the exact same ship ... yet the same timeline has a similar ex machina for why a military organization allows five BILLION different uniforms.

    Do they hate TNG? I really couldn't tell by anything they've done.

    So I'm at a point where I'm going to enjoy the ships I have. Because I like a few of them.

    I love participating in these threads on this topic but gave up ages ago on them doing ANYTHING I like in terms of future development. So while the Constitution class ship is one of my favorites of all-time, I'm no longer invested in them doing anything else with it.

    I think it's indicative of their lack of organization though. The entire game has had it for ages. They offer the bridge, costumes, phasers (ship and hand held), phaser rifles, and shuttle from the original series for play at all levels. But then only allow the ship itself from that series to work on par with the first 10 levels.

    It's annoying.

    But they do that throughout.

    There's no Excelsior bridge.

    It took them forever to make small tweaks to the TWOK uniform's badge to make it more accurate.

    There's no Voyager bridge.

    With the release of the academy uniforms and jupiter uniforms I can't even tell you what the standard 2409 uniform is supposed to be. People just wear whatever.

    So yeah, I gave up on actual changes being made.

    I'll play with the toys I got.

    Maybe someday they'll release a Wambundu class ship and I'll be happy. Or not.
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • kdfrulzfeddroolzkdfrulzfeddroolz Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited February 2014
    shpoks wrote: »
    You know, if this discussion was happening a couple of years ago I'd probably be strongly against it because of consistency, modern era and whatnot. But from a today's perspecive, after seeing all that has somehow crawled it's way into this game, I can only say: "Hell yeah!"

    +1. Seriously, you Connie guys have my support on this one.
    Noone in the world can presently convince me that a T5 Connie could be immersion breaking, timeline breaking, technology breaking or whatever more than a lot of stuff that is currently in game hopping around happily. I'd rather look at an armada of Connies than that Dyson abomination around ESD.

    And the whole CBS says no shtick? Yeah, CBS says no and somehow CBS said no to a lot of things including unlimited access to alien ships for every player and yet there are the Chel Grett, Plesh Bekk and the Corvette smiling at us. So you'll pardon me if I don't buy that anymore.

    Don't worry, I'll clean you out in PvP with my 300 year old T'Varo, you know, that ship that's some 100 years older than the Constitution?


    Everything you said is 100% spot on. +1 for a T5 Connie from me as well.
  • stf65stf65 Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited February 2014
    shpoks wrote: »
    Out of curiosity, has anyone tried to go into full leveling in the original T1 Connie and how well does it fare?
    I've never tried it but I remember Nagas had a thread where he took his t2 exeter all the way to 50. Cosmic took his nx to 50. I can't remember the other guy's name, but he took a peregrine fighter to 50.
  • age03age03 Member Posts: 1,664 Arc User
    edited February 2014
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]Age StarTrek-Gamers Administrator
    USS WARRIOR NCC 1720 Commanding Officer
    Star Trek Gamers
  • stf65stf65 Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited March 2014
    age03 wrote: »
    I think he was making a point that if a warp core can fit within a 30 m tall defiant it has no problem fitting within the engineering hull of a connie. The nova is smaller then the defiant and can fit a high warp core.
  • organicmanfredorganicmanfred Member Posts: 3,236 Arc User
    edited March 2014
    age03 wrote: »

    Wow, a whole human fits into the neck...
  • starkaosstarkaos Member Posts: 11,556 Arc User
    edited March 2014
    shpoks wrote: »
    Out of curiosity, has anyone tried to go into full leveling in the original T1 Connie and how well does it fare?

    Leveled to 50 with a Peregrine Fighter on one alt, but as others have mentioned, it was through the Duty Officer system and non-combat exploration missions. Although, if a team of T1 Connies can complete an Elite STF, then leveling should be easy.
  • age03age03 Member Posts: 1,664 Arc User
    edited March 2014
    There's no Voyager bridge.

    There are Voyager bridges as I got mine with it.

    http://sto.gamepedia.com/Science_Bridge
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]Age StarTrek-Gamers Administrator
    USS WARRIOR NCC 1720 Commanding Officer
    Star Trek Gamers
  • snoggymack22snoggymack22 Member Posts: 7,084 Arc User
    edited March 2014
    age03 wrote: »
    There are Voyager bridges as I got mine with it.

    http://sto.gamepedia.com/Science_Bridge

    Like the initial attempts at a Galaxy Bridge back during the heady days of beta and launch, it's close, but not the Voyager bridge.

    And some folks who play this game are sticklers for those kinds of details.
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • age03age03 Member Posts: 1,664 Arc User
    edited March 2014
    Like the initial attempts at a Galaxy Bridge back during the heady days of beta and launch, it's close, but not the Voyager bridge.

    And some folks who play this game are sticklers for those kinds of details.

    I was thinking about the same but it does the trick for me besides how many times to you spend in your bridge.I could see if this game was more like Bridge Commander which it isn't more like StarFleet Command.
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]Age StarTrek-Gamers Administrator
    USS WARRIOR NCC 1720 Commanding Officer
    Star Trek Gamers
  • snoggymack22snoggymack22 Member Posts: 7,084 Arc User
    edited March 2014
    age03 wrote: »
    I was thinking about the same but it does the trick for me

    I'm not one of those detail sticklers, so it works for me too. :)
    besides how many times to you spend in your bridge.I could see if this game was more like Bridge Commander which it isn't more like StarFleet Command.

    I would say I spend more time than some. But it's still not a heck of a lot. I tend to go to my bridge out of habit when I have to go AFK for a stretch (like let my dog out or something). And every now and then (about twice a month) I just get bored and want to goof off on my bridge.

    I really like the look of some of the bridges in the game.

    But now I'm veering totally off topic. Sorry.
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • khan5000khan5000 Member Posts: 3,008 Arc User
    edited March 2014
    shpoks wrote: »
    Out of curiosity, has anyone tried to go into full leveling in the original T1 Connie and how well does it fare?

    I did and it was a bit rough...it made the game a bit challenging and added thinking to combat rather than pressing fire over and over again
    Your pain runs deep.
    Let us explore it... together. Each man hides a secret pain. It must be exposed and reckoned with. It must be dragged from the darkness and forced into the light. Share your pain. Share your pain with me... and gain strength from the sharing.
  • kadamskadams Member Posts: 204 Arc User
    edited March 2014
    Oh gods has my trolling session with Teapa crossed over from Zone chat, or is this an unrelated coincidence?

    Regardless, I'll pop one question here.

    T5 Connie people - are you really trying to say Cryptic should make the Constitution-class, a ship that is close to 200 years old, on equal footing as the Ambassador-class, the Galaxy-class, the Sovereign-class (you know, the Ent-E) and the Odyssey-class (aka the Ent-F)? Really?

    I agree there should be an endgame version of the T2 Cruiser (since the Exeter-class, Vesper-class and Excalibur-classes are 2409-era ships), but it should lose the Connie refit skin, and I say this as someone who actually thinks the Connie refit is the best looking skin for the T2 Cruiser.

    They should add a "Fleet Light Cruiser Retrofit" type, 3:3 weapons, all of the cruiser commands except for "Attract Fire", sort of like a "fast cruiser"-type class, along with the starter Light Cruiser ("Fleet Frigate Retrofit", which should lose the Miranda skin, since the Miranda is TMP-era and the ShiKhar-class and Centaur-class are new-ish designs).

    I would totally, happily pay 2000Z to cruise around in an awesome T5 Centaur-class.

    T5 Connie? Ain't gonna happen. Shouldn't happen, either. A 200~ year old ship capable of going toe-to-toe with the newest flagship of the fleet? No. Nopeity nope nope.
  • snoggymack22snoggymack22 Member Posts: 7,084 Arc User
    edited March 2014
    kadams wrote: »
    T5 Connie people - are you really trying to say Cryptic should make the Constitution-class, a ship that is close to 200 years old, on equal footing as the Ambassador-class, the Galaxy-class, the Sovereign-class (you know, the Ent-E) and the Odyssey-class (aka the Ent-F)? Really?

    No. I'd rather it be on par with the D7 and B'Rel and superior to the D'Kyr, Kumari and T'Varo.

    Sound good?
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • mewmaster101mewmaster101 Member Posts: 1,239 Arc User
    edited March 2014
    kadams wrote: »
    Oh gods has my trolling session with Teapa crossed over from Zone chat, or is this an unrelated coincidence?

    Regardless, I'll pop one question here.

    T5 Connie people - are you really trying to say Cryptic should make the Constitution-class, a ship that is close to 200 years old, on equal footing as the Ambassador-class, the Galaxy-class, the Sovereign-class (you know, the Ent-E) and the Odyssey-class (aka the Ent-F)? Really?

    The D'kyr and T'varo (retrofit) are both OLDER than the Connie, so that excuse does not work
    Granted, a T-5 connie is never happening since CBS (NOT CRYPTIC), so it matters little.

    PErsonally, i wonder why so many people seem to ignore the fact that even if Cryptic wanted to, they could not do it. all of this complaining should be toward CBS.
  • snoggymack22snoggymack22 Member Posts: 7,084 Arc User
    edited March 2014
    PErsonally, i wonder why so many people seem to ignore the fact that even if Cryptic wanted to, they could not do it. all of this complaining should be toward CBS.

    Oh that's easy. The only thing holding CBS back right now is Bad Robot and the movie deal. That deal is currently in the midst of the third of three films.

    So if these threads stick around about as long as the "Beef with the Galaxy" threads ... we'll be in an era where licensing issues may open up as CBS and Paramount are going to have to figure out where to go from the movies.

    The CBS issue is a non issue. This game will outlast the licensing problems created by the movies.
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • samt296samt296 Member Posts: 157 Arc User
    edited March 2014
    F*** the connie... its ugly and small and stupid. If you grew up with TOS and really love it that much than just die and leave the rest of us in peace. This is an open comment directed at no one in particular.
    "When people ask stupid questions I feel obligated to give sarcastic answers."

    Keltoi Class... fan design. You KNOW you want one In-game!

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • kadamskadams Member Posts: 204 Arc User
    edited March 2014
    No. I'd rather it be on par with the D7 and B'Rel and superior to the D'Kyr, Kumari and T'Varo.

    Sound good?

    Well you may have noticed this, but the Klingons and Romulans don't exactly have a lot of starships seen in the various series. Both of the Klingon ships are seen throughout the entire line (from TOS movies to DS9). A Klingon bird-of-prey may get unnoticed, but people running around with in a TOS-era Consitution-class and going toe-to-toe with the Sovereign-class, the starship that destroyed the Scimitar (not a nerfed Scimitar like the ones in STO, ~the~ Scimitar from Nemesis)... yeah, people are going to notice that.

    The B'rels are the KDF equivalent to the Miranda anyways, which is an overworked, underpowered starship that's likely to explode should it enter combat with anything better armed than a freighter or a shuttle. The B'rel just has a cloaking device, which keeps it still useful as a scout and raider.

    As for the T'varo.... that's just a charlie foxtrot I probably shouldn't go into, but I will anyways. The T'varo is a pre-TOS starship that uses the post-TOS design cues. It agrees with the TNG-era Romulan starship designs, but it's a slap in the face with TOS-era Romulan starships, ignoring the fact that TOS was first contact with the Romulans, was it not? So why are the Romulans even IN Enterprise? Although, the Ferengi episode too..... ~shrugs~ I like ENT, but.... I dunno.

    The Andorian escorts are updated versions of the ENT-era ships, much like the NX-class.

    As for the D'Kyr.... newer production starships based off the ENT-era D'Kyr? Dunno. Again, Vulcans don't really have all that many starships seen in the series, so it's sort of "use this" or "design your own ship", which, given some of Cryptic's designs, is probably not something you should suggest. ~stares at the Gladius-class and the Chimera~

    Regardless... The TOS Connie at T5? Being capable of going toe-to-toe with the Sovereign? Yeah, no. It's 2409. Let the Connie die already. Look to the future, instead of staring at the past.
  • shpoksshpoks Member Posts: 6,967 Arc User
    edited March 2014
    samt296 wrote: »
    F*** the connie... its ugly and small and stupid. If you grew up with TOS and really love it that much than just die and leave the rest of us in peace. This is an open comment directed at no one in particular.

    Wow here you are ranting about how ugly the Connie is on this thread, right after ranting about how ugly the Galaxy is in that other thread!
    How about you bugger off and you leave the rest of us in peace. You're clearly in the wrong game forum.
    HQroeLu.jpg
  • snoggymack22snoggymack22 Member Posts: 7,084 Arc User
    edited March 2014
    kadams wrote: »
    Well you may have noticed this, but the Klingons and Romulans don't exactly have a lot of starships seen in the various series.

    Don't flip flop. The Klingon and Romulan ships are old. So if your gripe is that the Connie is too old, then be consistent and argue that all the other old ships are too old too. Otherwise it just looks like you're biased against the one ship. Which is ... kind of hypocritical.
    A Klingon bird-of-prey may get unnoticed, but people running around with in a TOS-era Consitution-class and going toe-to-toe with the Sovereign-class, the starship that destroyed the Scimitar (not a nerfed Scimitar like the ones in STO, ~the~ Scimitar from Nemesis)... yeah, people are going to notice that.

    People seem to have zero problem with a T'Varo taking out a Borg Tactical Cube. So, I just don't see your point.
    The T'varo is

    The T'Varo is the hole in your entire thesis.
    As for the D'Kyr.... newer production starships based off the ENT-era D'Kyr? Dunno.

    So apply that exact sentence to the Constitution. It LOOKS like an old era ship. But it's "newer production based off the old look."

    And hey, there we are. You're now on board.
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • kadamskadams Member Posts: 204 Arc User
    edited March 2014
    Well, except the Constitution-class is ~iconic~. The Constitution-class is "THE" Enterprise NCC-1701.

    People think "Star Trek" and the Connie immediately comes to mind. The D'kyr? 'the heck is that?' The T'varo? The T'liss? Those ships didn't even have names until STO.
    So apply that exact sentence to the Constitution. It LOOKS like an old era ship. But it's "newer production based off the old look."

    Why would Starfleet continue to manufacture pre-refit Constitution-classes when the refit is the Constitution-class standard, and has been for over 100 years? Those materials used to manufacture those Connies could be used to manufacture a freighter, or a Luna. The NX-class also has the "modern remanufacture", but, again, those are Lt-level ships, like the Connie.
    The T'Varo is

    Also from Enterprise, which people complain about (for various reasons, some of which are semi-valid) as being of dubious canonicity, despite CBS's continued insistence that it is.
  • snoggymack22snoggymack22 Member Posts: 7,084 Arc User
    edited March 2014
    kadams wrote: »
    Well, except the Constitution-class is ~iconic~. The Constitution-class is "THE" Enterprise NCC-1701.

    Nah. I don't believe that for one second. I mean just look around these forums. Look at all the hatred for the ship.

    You don't even have to go that far up in this very thread to find:

    "F*** the connie... its ugly and small and stupid. If you grew up with TOS and really love it that much than just die and leave the rest of us in peace."

    Iconic? If it were Iconic, people wouldn't be calling it ugly and stupid would they?
    Why would Starfleet continue to manufacture pre-refit Constitution-classes when the refit is the Constitution-class standard, and has been for over 100 years?

    For the same reason why they continue to make pre-refit Galaxies after the Venture appeared?
    Those materials used to manufacture those Connies could be used to manufacture a freighter, or a Luna.

    A Luna Class Vessel? The USS Titan?
    Also from Enterprise, which people complain about (for various reasons, some of which are semi-valid) as being of dubious canonicity, despite CBS's continued insistence that it is.

    Oh god.

    Really?
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • kadamskadams Member Posts: 204 Arc User
    edited March 2014
    Nah. I don't believe that for one second. I mean just look around these forums. Look at all the hatred for the ship.

    You don't even have to go that far up in this very thread to find:

    "F*** the connie... its ugly and small and stupid. If you grew up with TOS and really love it that much than just die and leave the rest of us in peace."

    Iconic? If it were Iconic, people wouldn't be calling it ugly and stupid would they?

    That's just one minority likely trolling a thread to get a rise out of people. Amongst the most of the population of casual STO players and regular people, yes, the Connie is iconic. If you go out on the street and ask a dozen people what they think of when they hear Star Trek, I'd imagine most people would think of the Galaxy-class (due to age nowadays), followed closely by the Connie.

    You also dodged the comparison between the T'liss/T'varo and the Connie. Yes, we have one helpful troll making your point quite nicely in that some people think the Connie is ugly and stupid, but the Enterprise (Aka the hero ship from TOS) is an entirely different level of starship than the T'varo, which was seen in a few scenes in ENT, an incredibly unpopular series, and the first series to be cancelled instead of ending normally (IE, 7 seasons like TNG/VOY/DS9) since TOS or possibly TAS, if you wish to include that.
    For the same reason why they continue to make pre-refit Galaxies after the Venture appeared?

    The Galaxy-class is a bit of another charlie foxtrot I shouldn't, but will, get into. A, that hinges (entirely) on the assumption they ~are~ producing pre-refit Galaxy-classes and that all of the Galaxies currently in service aren't just pre-refit Venture-classes. B, according to Gene Roddenberry (aka the man himself), the Federation would have only built a very few of these massive monstrosities (supposedly, at the beginning of TNG, only 12 hulls were laid, and of those 12, only 6 were launched). I sort of wish the Galaxy-class wasn't so common and easily acquired, (along with the Sovereign-class and the Scimitar) but that's a topic for another thread.
    A Luna Class Vessel? The USS Titan?

    More Luna-classes, yes. After the Dominion war, (I believe this is correct) the president of the Federation stated that, despite being in the midst of several wars, the Federation would continue to uphold their exploration and science mandates by building more Luna-class and Nebula-class starships.
    Oh god.

    Really?

    Just trolling, just a bit.

    Regardless, ENT has both Ferengi and Romulans in it, despite the fact those races weren't encountered until TNG and TOS, respectively. I actually like ENT a bit, and am disappointed it was cancelled before the NX-class refit was seen onscreen.

    You also dodged my comment about how it's time to stop looking to the past and move on.
  • khan5000khan5000 Member Posts: 3,008 Arc User
    edited March 2014
    No one is asking for the T5 connie to be able to stand toe to toe with the newer ships.
    Your pain runs deep.
    Let us explore it... together. Each man hides a secret pain. It must be exposed and reckoned with. It must be dragged from the darkness and forced into the light. Share your pain. Share your pain with me... and gain strength from the sharing.
  • artan42artan42 Member Posts: 10,450 Bug Hunter
    edited March 2014
    kadams wrote: »
    Regardless, ENT has both Ferengi and Romulans in it, despite the fact those races weren't encountered until TNG and TOS, respectively. I actually like ENT a bit, and am disappointed it was cancelled before the NX-class refit was seen onscreen.


    Ignore the Ferengi, but the Romulans are wearing Nemesis uniforms, Temporal Cold War, preventing the destruction of Romulans by going back and mucking up the timeline.
    Also 7od9's parents studying Borg before the Ent D made first contact, VOY going back to the 90's with no eugenics Wars.

    Welcome to ST continuity is optional.
    22762792376_ac7c992b7c_o.png
    Norway and Yeager dammit... I still want my Typhoon and Jupiter though.
    JJ Trek The Kelvin Timeline is just Trek and it's fully canon... get over it. But I still prefer TAR.

    #TASforSTO


    '...I can tell you that we're not in the military and that we intend no harm to the whales.' Kirk: The Voyage Home
    'Starfleet is not a military organisation. Its purpose is exploration.' Picard: Peak Performance
    'This is clearly a military operation. Is that what we are now? Because I thought we were explorers!' Scotty: Into Darkness
    '...The Federation. Starfleet. We're not a military agency.' Scotty: Beyond
    'I'm not a soldier anymore. I'm an engineer.' Miles O'Brien: Empok Nor
    '...Starfleet could use you... It's a peacekeeping and humanitarian armada...' Admiral Pike: Star Trek

    Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
  • sevmragesevmrage Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited March 2014
    Before, I used to think that a T5 Connie had no business in STO, but at this point, with the various ships that can be had T5, and what I've read about "The Path to 2409" story, aside from what CBS says, There seems to be plenty of merit for a T5 Connie in some form. It has the same iconic level as the Galaxy Class. As much as I love the GCS, something about a TOS Connie or a Refit Connie, I love seeing. My Tribble Toon has a Connie from levelling, and if it weren't for the fact I'm level-grinding so I can stop getting roflstomped by the storyline, I would relish driving it.
    Weyland-Yutani Joint Space Venture - Always open to new members!
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    My name is Rage, and I too support a revised Galaxy family.
    khayuung wrote: »
    Firstly, be proud! You're part of the few, the stubborn, the Federation Dreadnought Captains.
  • twg042370twg042370 Member Posts: 2,312 Arc User
    edited March 2014
    Nah. I don't believe that for one second. I mean just look around these forums. Look at all the hatred for the ship.

    Those people have a shocking lack of good taste and probably wet themselves regularly. No need to take their opinions into consideration.
    <3
  • greyhame3greyhame3 Member Posts: 914 Arc User
    edited March 2014
    IMO, the TOS Connie is rather ugly looking, as iconic as it is. The movie one (not JJ movies to be clear) on the other hand looks awesome.

    That said, people could be allowed to chose should a T5 become available.
  • tinkerstormtinkerstorm Member Posts: 853 Arc User
    edited March 2014
    kadams wrote: »
    If you go out on the street and ask a dozen people what they think of when they hear Star Trek, I'd imagine most people would think of the Galaxy-class (due to age nowadays), followed closely by the Connie.
    You would be wrong. Very wrong.

    The majority of sentient beings on planet Earth associate Kirk's Constitution class ship with Star Trek. Kirk's Enterprise is Star Trek to the majority.
This discussion has been closed.