But here is the thing. A T5 connie will happen, and it will happen when the company want's to cash in on the value of that ship. A year from now, or perhaps two, you will see one in the C-Store. Guaranteed. It is just a matter of time.
If Cryptic wanted to 'cash in' they would have done so under Atari, when it was broke and the STO team was down to 20 devs and Cryptic couldn't even afford coffee cups in the break room. It was no then. It's no now. That doesn't mean CBS won't ever change its mind, but it has nothing to do with cashing in.
Way back in the days of Starfleet Command, there was a "conflict" between fan "ship desires" and what we got...
Fans wanted SFC to be 100% accurate to the "source material", SFB, as to both era (TOS, instead of the TMP we got), and, at least, using "source appropriate" designs, the SFB Gorn fly single/dual saucer ships, and SFC gave us "flying staplers", and there was complaints about the "TMP-ization" of the Romulan "Hawk" series looking like some sort of Mogai/D'deriex hybrid (think basic lines of Mogai, but with the twinned-wing effect of the D'deriex instead of the single-wing the Mogai has).
I recall this coming to a head (with the requisite much begging) in the lead-up to the release of SFC II.
Taldren's EP came on the forum, and gave us a flat-out answer. Was something along the lines of "You won't get TOS, because Paramount wants all Trek games to use the TMP setting for recognition concerns", and "You'll live with flying staplers because our publisher, Interplay, insists on cross-game ship recognition, and since Klingon Academy already shipped with Gorn Staplers and Romulan Mogai-hybrids, well, your game needs to match those aesthetics."
There was the requisite "aw shucks" grumbling / half-hearted attempts to change the minds of TPTB, then the matter dropped "forever more", and if anyone ever attempted to bring it up / ask about it as a newcomer, they were directed back to the original thread and told "talk to them about it if you think you can change it"...
I'd love to get that level of "respect" here. Open admission: I am a fan(atic) of the TOS & TMP Connie. As the "fanatic" label infers, I will not stop making my desires known until either I got my way, or a valid, unarguable reason is given. There are many of us in our respective fanbases that think the same way, I point out the year-old thread about the Galaxy-R needing "love" as TNG's "fanbase" doing the same thing to "their" hero ship that us TOS fans are doing to get "our" Connie, although we've elected to go with dozens (hundreds?) of separate threads instead of a single, monstrous, year-old one...
Thusly, "CBS said NO. Deal with it" will remain an "unacceptable" answer. Just as "Cryptic hasn't said anything, so you've got to live with the Galaxy-R Cryptic gave you" hasn't been accepted. Especially among a "mostly mature" fanbase that can accept a solid reason and live within it. Doesn't help that the two "most speculated" reasons for the ongoing lack of a T5 Connie - licensing issues vs. the JJ-prise, and a belief that CBS doesn't want a 23rd century ship matching the performance of the 25th century's flagship - have been "adequately answered" by the playerbase as "invalid reasons", the Twizzler commercial shows that any "exclusivity" license preventing the use of the classic Connie lines to "prevent confusion" with the JJ-prise's lines has ended, and, again, my sig has an answer to how can the Connie "compete" with the Oddessy without being a tank/cruiser on the same numeric level as the Oddessy... The rest of the "Connie thread baggage" is just player opinion vs player opinion, and that matter will never rest as it's on a level with political and religious opinion discussion - won't ever end, the best we can get is "forced cohabitation"...
Detecting big-time "anti-old-school" bias here. NX? Lobi. TOS/TMP Connie? Super-promotion-box. (aka the two hardest ways to get ships) Excelsior & all 3 TNG "big hero" ships? C-Store. Please Equalize...
To rob a line: [quote: Mariemaia Kushrenada] Forum Posting is much like an endless waltz. The three beats of war, peace and revolution continue on forever. However, opinions will change upon the reading of my post.[/quote]
Q: (thmichael) Are you going to implement the Ambassador Class at some point? And would it be possible to implement the Old Constitution Class for higher ranks?
Dstahl: Yes. The Ambassador class is coming in 2013. CBS is still pretty adamant about the Old Connie not being an end game ship, but you never know what can happen as time rolls by.
Last 11 words. Proof that while the answer, today, is "no", that doesn't mean it won't change. And, last I knew, we don't have a statement newer than this along the lines of "and all hope is squashed, forevermore". Therefore, letting us know the holdup can allow us to focus our arguments on answering the concern(s) in order to make our "fanatical" desires happen now instead of whenever...
Detecting big-time "anti-old-school" bias here. NX? Lobi. TOS/TMP Connie? Super-promotion-box. (aka the two hardest ways to get ships) Excelsior & all 3 TNG "big hero" ships? C-Store. Please Equalize...
To rob a line: [quote: Mariemaia Kushrenada] Forum Posting is much like an endless waltz. The three beats of war, peace and revolution continue on forever. However, opinions will change upon the reading of my post.[/quote]
Last 11 words. Proof that while the answer, today, is "no", that doesn't mean it won't change. And, last I knew, we don't have a statement newer than this along the lines of "and all hope is squashed, forevermore". Therefore, letting us know the holdup can allow us to focus our arguments on answering the concern(s) in order to make our "fanatical" desires happen now instead of whenever...
It's not about what we want. It's about what the person in charge of the STO license at CBS wants. For now they don't want a t5 Connie. When that person gets fired or promoted and a new junior executive takes the STO license position he might have a completely different idea and think a t5 Connie is a great idea. Most of the time it really is just that simple: some exec's personal opinion governing everyone's actions.
Final thought:
People gravitate towards MMOs because they generally offer significantly more options in how our character looks and what his-her abilities are. Our ships in this game are extensions of our characters.
Anything that offers greater freedom to express those characters (or ships) is a good thing overall to any MMO.
But if something can not be done because CBS said NO? then so be it. It's not like this is my game or anything, and I tend to forget that sometimes while playing as I become immersed in my character and his setting. I welcome the reminder. It reminds me to be cautious about how much I invest in something that is, at the end of the day, not mine.
Final thought:
People gravitate towards MMOs because they generally offer significantly more options in how our character looks and what his-her abilities are. Our ships in this game are extensions of our characters.
Anything that offers greater freedom to express those characters (or ships) is a good thing overall to any MMO.
My experience is that licensed mmos don't generally offer a lot of personal freedom. You're basically stuck with the constraints of the IP.
It's not about what we want. It's about what the person in charge of the STO license at CBS wants. For now they don't want a t5 Connie. When that person gets fired or promoted and a new junior executive takes the STO license position he might have a completely different idea and think a t5 Connie is a great idea. Most of the time it really is just that simple: some exec's personal opinion governing everyone's actions.
All I have to say about this is one thing, that's been proven many times over, both in this game and around the world...
Corporate Greed trumps Personal Opinion.
If this is truly the case, then I can practically assure you that upon "proper" notification to the Licensing Exec's boss that said Licensing Exec is holding profits down purely from a matter of personal opinion/desires, said boss will "put the screws" to the Licensing Exec and ensure that the profit rolls in now.
(Fanatic speculation: ) Unless both the licensing exec and his boss knows that the T5 Connie is essentially a license to print money, and when the (inevitable) day comes that the two of them have their jobs on the line due to subpar performance projections, they'll stamp "approved" on the Connie and save their necks for another quarter...
Detecting big-time "anti-old-school" bias here. NX? Lobi. TOS/TMP Connie? Super-promotion-box. (aka the two hardest ways to get ships) Excelsior & all 3 TNG "big hero" ships? C-Store. Please Equalize...
To rob a line: [quote: Mariemaia Kushrenada] Forum Posting is much like an endless waltz. The three beats of war, peace and revolution continue on forever. However, opinions will change upon the reading of my post.[/quote]
All I have to say about this is one thing, that's been proven many times over, both in this game and around the world...
Corporate Greed trumps Personal Opinion.
Since we have no way of knowing the licensing terms between Cryptic and CBS there's no way to know how greed plays into it for CBS. Cryptic could pay them a flat yearly fee, or it could be a quarterly royalties structure based on profits, or a dozen other things. And while a t5 Connie might make Cryptic a lot of money it might be insignificant to CBS due to the license between the 2 companies.
How is this not like any other t5 connie thread? They all want justification for CBS' decision.
CBS thinks on a much bigger scale for Trek then STO. STO is a pimple to them. On any given day they have hundreds of Trek licenses to deal with. Sometimes those licenses conflict. The Enterprise is iconic and a huge money maker for CBS. For example, it's the Connie in a twizzler commercials, not the galaxy class; and that twizzler commercial probably paid them more royalties then Cryptic did. How CBS wants to market, and doesn't want to market, that iconic ship is entirely up to them.
The reason this is not like the other T5 Connie threads is because I'm not asking for it to be released with reasons why. Also, no one is asking for justification for the decision CBS made. As I stated in the original post, I was curious as to what comments if any CBS made concerning a T5 Constitution other than a simple "no". You see, you have to read what the posts say, not what you want them to say to justify your own comments.
Since we have no way of knowing the licensing terms between Cryptic and CBS there's no way to know how greed plays into it for CBS. Cryptic could pay them a flat yearly fee, or it could be a quarterly royalties structure based on profits, or a dozen other things. And while a t5 Connie might make Cryptic a lot of money it might be insignificant to CBS due to the license between the 2 companies.
Bingo. We don't know. Hence the question this thread postulated in the first place. It would be nice to know the reason behind the stance so that we can tell if it's arguable or a lost cause...
Detecting big-time "anti-old-school" bias here. NX? Lobi. TOS/TMP Connie? Super-promotion-box. (aka the two hardest ways to get ships) Excelsior & all 3 TNG "big hero" ships? C-Store. Please Equalize...
To rob a line: [quote: Mariemaia Kushrenada] Forum Posting is much like an endless waltz. The three beats of war, peace and revolution continue on forever. However, opinions will change upon the reading of my post.[/quote]
Bingo. We don't know. Hence the question this thread postulated in the first place. It would be nice to know the reason behind the stance so that we can tell if it's arguable or a lost cause...
And based on Dstahl's, and other dev's, posts over the years, even Cryptic doesn't know that; which is why they always include the 'maybe at a future date' rider when they talk about it.
Personally, I think the new Enterprise from the Abrams films would make a nice Tier 5 Constitution Class. It's sleeker, larger, and more advanced than the Prime Universe classic.
But that would require some serious negotiation with both Paramount and CBS. So, would be unlikely to happen anytime soon.
see my sig. multiply by 10,000 for ANYTHING from jjverse
hahah! You do realize that JJ Enterprise is in a different universe and you cannot compare it with the Sovereign in her universe:P
Lest we forget we are playing in Roddenberry's Trek, not JJ Trek? How are you going to incorporate JJPrise into this verse....ok, never mind, if they were able to secure the licenses to do so, I'm sure they would find some way of doing exactly that. But it will likely never happen.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC] "To secure peace is to prepare for war."
hahah! You do realize that JJ Enterprise is in a different universe and you cannot compare it with the Sovereign in her universe:P
I call shenanigans! Why? Because the poster just did exactly what you said the person cannot do. They did it though. They totally ignored your arbitrary restrictions and went ahead comparing the Enterprise from Star Trek Into Darkness WITH the Enterprise-E.
The reason this is not like the other T5 Connie threads is because I'm not asking for it to be released with reasons why. Also, no one is asking for justification for the decision CBS made. As I stated in the original post, I was curious as to what comments if any CBS made concerning a T5 Constitution other than a simple "no". You see, you have to read what the posts say, not what you want them to say to justify your own comments.
To clarify, CBS has never actually made the statement in this forum or in anything public.
Cryptic has made the statement that CBS said no.
That's why there's no explanation as to why CBS said no.
Just that Cryptic employees have stated they've asked CBS and CBS said no.
CBS has said no to many things over the years. CBS said no the the Enterprise J; which led to the creation of the Enterprise F contest so we could have a futuristic Enterprise. CBS said no to the Kzinti from TAS. We have seen CBS reject a c-store ship; even after the ship was shown on the forum. The t5 Connie isn't the only thing CBS has said no to over the years; and there's probably dozens of other things requested and denied that we never heard about. And some things CBS approves take forever to get into the game. Even after the Vesta was approved by CBS the licensing issues still took over a year to make it into the store.
It's never as easy as just saying I want it. CBS has its own reasons for saying yes and no; like why did they say yes to carriers in STO?
I know there is a lot of players who dread seeing a T5 Constitution, but I have to ask...
How is it the even with a complete remodeling of the ship it only served Star Fleet for 30 some years when every other class has served between 100 and 140 years?
How is it the even with a complete remodeling of the ship it only served Star Fleet for 30 some years when every other class has served between 100 and 140 years?
What? The Constitution served more than 30 years.
The Enterprise itself was in service from 2245 to 2285. And then the Enterprise A was comissioned in 2286. The Enterprise B was launched in 2293. The Constitution was likely around prior to the Enterprise so it has to predate 2245 by at least a little bit.
And since you got me going ...
That service in Enterprise terms stacks up well against Harriman's ship because Garrett's had to replace it pretty much sometime after 2293 and the mid 24th century. And Garrett's tenure at the helm of an enterprise was probably the shortest of all.
Yes, more than 30 years, probably confusing the fact it was refit.
Non-refit constitutions were in service between the 2240's to 2270's (about 30 years), when many were then refit and served into the 2290's.... in all about 50 years (not 30).
I'm not sure why you say "many" served 100-140 years.... Some ships did, like Miranda class seemed to have a long life, as did Oberths, but they seem to be the exception, not the rule. Excelsiors had somewhat of a long life, but then it seems like the class had a long production life as opposed to the inidivual ships..... 70 years or so. But then vessels like Constellation class which served a similar role as the old Constitutions in use didn't serve more then 50-60 themselves, same with Ambassador class vessels, not that many in TNG timeframe. All the Constellation classes we saw in use were pulled out of mothball for specific uses.
There is also the question of serving versus serving in a top-of-the-line capacity (which is what T5 ships are). The Mirandas flying in the Dominion War for example were probably not nearly up to the spec of a modern ship, but the Federation was desperate and those old Mirandas still had warp drives and phaser arrays. I imagine the bulk of the 2409 Starfleet is not in fact T5, since for most jobs a T3 Cheyenne or even T2 Exeter will do the job. Just that since we play as the heroes on the front lines, we DO use nothing but T5 and up, but that doesn't mean the players are representative of the bulk of the fleet.
The Enterprise itself was in service from 2245 to 2285. And then the Enterprise A was comissioned in 2286. The Enterprise B was launched in 2293. The Constitution was likely around prior to the Enterprise so it has to predate 2245 by at least a little bit.
And since you got me going ...
That service in Enterprise terms stacks up well against Harriman's ship because Garrett's had to replace it pretty much sometime after 2293 and the mid 24th century. And Garrett's tenure at the helm of an enterprise was probably the shortest of all.
The Constitution was launched sometime ine 2243-4 and the refit happened in the 2270's but little is mentioned following this concerning Constitution Class starships.
The Enterprise B was an Excelsior Class which entered service around 2284. The USS Yorktown is renamed Enterprise A in 2286 and Decommissioned in 2293.
So the Constitution Class served around 30 years and the Refit scored another 10-20?
The original Constitutions were in service from 2245 to 2270. They then, went through the refit. It is not certain how long the refits were in service for, but Kirk took command of the Enterprise from Spock in... 2284...? And was destroyed in 2285.
1701-A was commissioned in 2286 and was ordered to ESD to be decommissioned in 2293. So... A Constitution and Refit Enterprise existed for 49 years.
The 1701-B was commissioned in 2293, so the Enterprise went Excelsior. There is no reason to believe other Constitutions would not have lasted longer.
There is also the question of serving versus serving in a top-of-the-line capacity (which is what T5 ships are). The Mirandas flying in the Dominion War for example were probably not nearly up to the spec of a modern ship, but the Federation was desperate and those old Mirandas still had warp drives and phaser arrays. I imagine the bulk of the 2409 Starfleet is not in fact T5, since for most jobs a T3 Cheyenne or even T2 Exeter will do the job. Just that since we play as the heroes on the front lines, we DO use nothing but T5 and up, but that doesn't mean the players are representative of the bulk of the fleet.
This. There are not thousands of Vice Admirals flying Tier 5 ships. Some MMOs get it right in explaining why there are so many endgame characters around, but others treat it like a single player game where the other endgame characters don't exist as far as the game is concerned.
Starfleet like every other military is focused around the same number of types of ships. There are a few highly expensive ships, more less expensive ships, and tons of cheap ships. So for every Tier 5 ship, there might be 50 Mirandas even though it seems like for every Miranda there is 50 Tier 5 ships.
Yes, more than 30 years, probably confusing the fact it was refit.
Non-refit constitutions were in service between the 2240's to 2270's (about 30 years), when many were then refit and served into the 2290's.... in all about 50 years (not 30).
I'm not sure why you say "many" served 100-140 years.... Some ships did, like Miranda class seemed to have a long life, as did Oberths, but they seem to be the exception, not the rule. Excelsiors had somewhat of a long life, but then it seems like the class had a long production life as opposed to the inidivual ships..... 70 years or so. But then vessels like Constellation class which served a similar role as the old Constitutions in use didn't serve more then 50-60 themselves, same with Ambassador class vessels, not that many in TNG timeframe. All the Constellation classes we saw in use were pulled out of mothball for specific uses.
The Constilation Class entered servic in 2285 and served into the late 2370's with some even refit for use in the Dominion War. (ST Dominion Wars: DS9 game) That puts them at the 100 year mark.
There is also the question of serving versus serving in a top-of-the-line capacity (which is what T5 ships are). The Mirandas flying in the Dominion War for example were probably not nearly up to the spec of a modern ship, but the Federation was desperate and those old Mirandas still had warp drives and phaser arrays. I imagine the bulk of the 2409 Starfleet is not in fact T5, since for most jobs a T3 Cheyenne or even T2 Exeter will do the job. Just that since we play as the heroes on the front lines, we DO use nothing but T5 and up, but that doesn't mean the players are representative of the bulk of the fleet.
I give this merit, but is that to say that the T1, T2 Constitution Class ships are in fact current ships of the fleet?
The constitution class probably had a shorter production run because the excelsior class took its role and there wasn't a different role that needed it. Modern navies have followed this pattern of retiring younger ship classes because they weren't needed in their old role and required too much man power to maintain compared to the ships that were already filling the other roles.
The excelsior class was apparently very easy to modernization and keep relevant.
Comments
Way back in the days of Starfleet Command, there was a "conflict" between fan "ship desires" and what we got...
Fans wanted SFC to be 100% accurate to the "source material", SFB, as to both era (TOS, instead of the TMP we got), and, at least, using "source appropriate" designs, the SFB Gorn fly single/dual saucer ships, and SFC gave us "flying staplers", and there was complaints about the "TMP-ization" of the Romulan "Hawk" series looking like some sort of Mogai/D'deriex hybrid (think basic lines of Mogai, but with the twinned-wing effect of the D'deriex instead of the single-wing the Mogai has).
I recall this coming to a head (with the requisite much begging) in the lead-up to the release of SFC II.
Taldren's EP came on the forum, and gave us a flat-out answer. Was something along the lines of "You won't get TOS, because Paramount wants all Trek games to use the TMP setting for recognition concerns", and "You'll live with flying staplers because our publisher, Interplay, insists on cross-game ship recognition, and since Klingon Academy already shipped with Gorn Staplers and Romulan Mogai-hybrids, well, your game needs to match those aesthetics."
There was the requisite "aw shucks" grumbling / half-hearted attempts to change the minds of TPTB, then the matter dropped "forever more", and if anyone ever attempted to bring it up / ask about it as a newcomer, they were directed back to the original thread and told "talk to them about it if you think you can change it"...
I'd love to get that level of "respect" here. Open admission: I am a fan(atic) of the TOS & TMP Connie. As the "fanatic" label infers, I will not stop making my desires known until either I got my way, or a valid, unarguable reason is given. There are many of us in our respective fanbases that think the same way, I point out the year-old thread about the Galaxy-R needing "love" as TNG's "fanbase" doing the same thing to "their" hero ship that us TOS fans are doing to get "our" Connie, although we've elected to go with dozens (hundreds?) of separate threads instead of a single, monstrous, year-old one...
Thusly, "CBS said NO. Deal with it" will remain an "unacceptable" answer. Just as "Cryptic hasn't said anything, so you've got to live with the Galaxy-R Cryptic gave you" hasn't been accepted. Especially among a "mostly mature" fanbase that can accept a solid reason and live within it. Doesn't help that the two "most speculated" reasons for the ongoing lack of a T5 Connie - licensing issues vs. the JJ-prise, and a belief that CBS doesn't want a 23rd century ship matching the performance of the 25th century's flagship - have been "adequately answered" by the playerbase as "invalid reasons", the Twizzler commercial shows that any "exclusivity" license preventing the use of the classic Connie lines to "prevent confusion" with the JJ-prise's lines has ended, and, again, my sig has an answer to how can the Connie "compete" with the Oddessy without being a tank/cruiser on the same numeric level as the Oddessy... The rest of the "Connie thread baggage" is just player opinion vs player opinion, and that matter will never rest as it's on a level with political and religious opinion discussion - won't ever end, the best we can get is "forced cohabitation"...
To rob a line: [quote: Mariemaia Kushrenada] Forum Posting is much like an endless waltz. The three beats of war, peace and revolution continue on forever. However, opinions will change upon the reading of my post.[/quote]
Last 11 words. Proof that while the answer, today, is "no", that doesn't mean it won't change. And, last I knew, we don't have a statement newer than this along the lines of "and all hope is squashed, forevermore". Therefore, letting us know the holdup can allow us to focus our arguments on answering the concern(s) in order to make our "fanatical" desires happen now instead of whenever...
To rob a line: [quote: Mariemaia Kushrenada] Forum Posting is much like an endless waltz. The three beats of war, peace and revolution continue on forever. However, opinions will change upon the reading of my post.[/quote]
People gravitate towards MMOs because they generally offer significantly more options in how our character looks and what his-her abilities are. Our ships in this game are extensions of our characters.
Anything that offers greater freedom to express those characters (or ships) is a good thing overall to any MMO.
But if something can not be done because CBS said NO? then so be it. It's not like this is my game or anything, and I tend to forget that sometimes while playing as I become immersed in my character and his setting. I welcome the reminder. It reminds me to be cautious about how much I invest in something that is, at the end of the day, not mine.
All I have to say about this is one thing, that's been proven many times over, both in this game and around the world...
Corporate Greed trumps Personal Opinion.
If this is truly the case, then I can practically assure you that upon "proper" notification to the Licensing Exec's boss that said Licensing Exec is holding profits down purely from a matter of personal opinion/desires, said boss will "put the screws" to the Licensing Exec and ensure that the profit rolls in now.
(Fanatic speculation: ) Unless both the licensing exec and his boss knows that the T5 Connie is essentially a license to print money, and when the (inevitable) day comes that the two of them have their jobs on the line due to subpar performance projections, they'll stamp "approved" on the Connie and save their necks for another quarter...
To rob a line: [quote: Mariemaia Kushrenada] Forum Posting is much like an endless waltz. The three beats of war, peace and revolution continue on forever. However, opinions will change upon the reading of my post.[/quote]
The reason this is not like the other T5 Connie threads is because I'm not asking for it to be released with reasons why. Also, no one is asking for justification for the decision CBS made. As I stated in the original post, I was curious as to what comments if any CBS made concerning a T5 Constitution other than a simple "no". You see, you have to read what the posts say, not what you want them to say to justify your own comments.
Bingo. We don't know. Hence the question this thread postulated in the first place. It would be nice to know the reason behind the stance so that we can tell if it's arguable or a lost cause...
To rob a line: [quote: Mariemaia Kushrenada] Forum Posting is much like an endless waltz. The three beats of war, peace and revolution continue on forever. However, opinions will change upon the reading of my post.[/quote]
...says the guy that obviously can't get over it...
The only difference is that the title screams it's "not what you think."
Y'know, like about 25% of all the other thinly-disguised "exactly what you think" T5 Connie threads.
see my sig. multiply by 10,000 for ANYTHING from jjverse
I am SO stealing this
I call shenanigans! Why? Because the poster just did exactly what you said the person cannot do. They did it though. They totally ignored your arbitrary restrictions and went ahead comparing the Enterprise from Star Trek Into Darkness WITH the Enterprise-E.
Madness? Maybe. But they did it.
No we're not. Deep Space 9 and Voyager are major aspects of STO.
The very plot of this game's beginning was written by Abrams (you know the whole Hobus supernova bit?)
We're so far removed from Roddenberry's Trek in this game that I'm actually astounded to read your comment.
To clarify, CBS has never actually made the statement in this forum or in anything public.
Cryptic has made the statement that CBS said no.
That's why there's no explanation as to why CBS said no.
Just that Cryptic employees have stated they've asked CBS and CBS said no.
It's never as easy as just saying I want it. CBS has its own reasons for saying yes and no; like why did they say yes to carriers in STO?
How is it the even with a complete remodeling of the ship it only served Star Fleet for 30 some years when every other class has served between 100 and 140 years?
What? The Constitution served more than 30 years.
The Enterprise itself was in service from 2245 to 2285. And then the Enterprise A was comissioned in 2286. The Enterprise B was launched in 2293. The Constitution was likely around prior to the Enterprise so it has to predate 2245 by at least a little bit.
And since you got me going ...
That service in Enterprise terms stacks up well against Harriman's ship because Garrett's had to replace it pretty much sometime after 2293 and the mid 24th century. And Garrett's tenure at the helm of an enterprise was probably the shortest of all.
Non-refit constitutions were in service between the 2240's to 2270's (about 30 years), when many were then refit and served into the 2290's.... in all about 50 years (not 30).
I'm not sure why you say "many" served 100-140 years.... Some ships did, like Miranda class seemed to have a long life, as did Oberths, but they seem to be the exception, not the rule. Excelsiors had somewhat of a long life, but then it seems like the class had a long production life as opposed to the inidivual ships..... 70 years or so. But then vessels like Constellation class which served a similar role as the old Constitutions in use didn't serve more then 50-60 themselves, same with Ambassador class vessels, not that many in TNG timeframe. All the Constellation classes we saw in use were pulled out of mothball for specific uses.
The Constitution was launched sometime ine 2243-4 and the refit happened in the 2270's but little is mentioned following this concerning Constitution Class starships.
The Enterprise B was an Excelsior Class which entered service around 2284. The USS Yorktown is renamed Enterprise A in 2286 and Decommissioned in 2293.
So the Constitution Class served around 30 years and the Refit scored another 10-20?
1701-A was commissioned in 2286 and was ordered to ESD to be decommissioned in 2293. So... A Constitution and Refit Enterprise existed for 49 years.
The 1701-B was commissioned in 2293, so the Enterprise went Excelsior. There is no reason to believe other Constitutions would not have lasted longer.
This. There are not thousands of Vice Admirals flying Tier 5 ships. Some MMOs get it right in explaining why there are so many endgame characters around, but others treat it like a single player game where the other endgame characters don't exist as far as the game is concerned.
Starfleet like every other military is focused around the same number of types of ships. There are a few highly expensive ships, more less expensive ships, and tons of cheap ships. So for every Tier 5 ship, there might be 50 Mirandas even though it seems like for every Miranda there is 50 Tier 5 ships.
The Constilation Class entered servic in 2285 and served into the late 2370's with some even refit for use in the Dominion War. (ST Dominion Wars: DS9 game) That puts them at the 100 year mark.
I give this merit, but is that to say that the T1, T2 Constitution Class ships are in fact current ships of the fleet?
The excelsior class was apparently very easy to modernization and keep relevant.