No, we all don't want this. Its an ugly ship. It's almost as ugly as the ambassador and excelsior classes.
So wait. Let me get this straight. You like Star Trek? (I mean you do play a Star Trek video game).
But you don't like the look of the Constitution, Excelsior or Ambassador?
That's like half the Enterprises in Star Trek history.
Do you like the NX? The Galaxy (which has the same saucer and nacelles as the Ambassador which you call ugly, just on a different hull)? The Sovereign? The J (the futuristic city ship from the time travel arc in Enterprise)?
No to a tier 5 constitution. I'd say yes however to a tier 5 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!
Anyone else support this? It's not gamebreaking, might be why none is relpying....
I know that I am not pressed for it because the only really good use for them is leveling a toon with. Once you hit near cap, they get quickly ditched in favor of Fleet Advanced or Elite weapons. The Connie beam arrays work just fine for leveling purposes.
Wow.... like that wouldn't be extremely overpowering. I think you forgot to ask for the hangar full of scatterpack shuttles while you were at it.
Yes, and a hanger full of scatterpack shuttles.
Yes I'm just being obnoxious. It was not my intent to start a "thing" or make people angry or get their PvP balance in an uproar. I literally just want to do my thing at end game in my ride of choice. No I'm not Captain James T Kirk. I'm The Kirk, a third person avatar that exists in a game that is quite frankly a dream come true for me. I love sector patrol and Borg incursions and DS9 and Risa and... and I get to do it with an avatar wearing the skin that makes me happy just like everyone else who skins themselves every which way they want for the sheer delight of it.
Yes, I'd like this thread to end on a good note. I just love the game and trek just like everyone else here.
Yes, fleet weps do MUCH more dmg but for non-PVP porpoises they do fine on my va engi in a mirror heavy cruiser. I am working towards fleet weps and have a torp, but wish that they also were fleet weps. The retrofit ones that is. Those in fleet would be the best.
If you want blue phasers at the high end, you can get them in all varieties (cannons and beams both) by picking up a Kumari Escort, which gives you access to Andorian Phasers. They sound like normal phasers but have blue beams (with smooth lines and none of the weird judder from the Tetryon Beam firing effect).
I literally just want to do my thing at end game in my ride of choice.
This. At least for a small minority of us. The only reason "we" (Connie lovers) break out the dead horse on dang close to a weekly basis...
Doesn't "help" that TNG fans get this option, via T5 Retrofits of "their" iconic ships...
Now, I understand that CBS has the ultimate right to do what they want. And, at this time, they are saying "no". I also have the right to free speech, and part of that right is to post my thoughts in an attempt to convince CBS to possibly change their stance. Or provide Cryptic with information (a clamoring voice at the least, possibly a pitch to CBS) so they can do the dirty work of convincing CBS.
On that note, here goes. It is fairly common on these forums to claim that CBS's "no" comes from a logical rationale - that a ~100 year old Connie should not be able to be built on a par with the "modern" Galaxy/Soverign/Oddessy's specifications. AKA Hull points, shield strength, loadout, etc.
Fine. On this I can agree. Yet, I also seemingly have a "solution" to the problem, that can actually fit both "quasi-realistic engineering dictates", lore, and still make the Connie competitive at T5. In one word: Reclassification.
So no T5 Connie as cruiser. Leaves Escort and Science as options. Of those two, I can create a much more "logical" - in terms of game lore, engineering dictates, etc. - argument for Science than Escort. To wit:
Science vessels have the lowest hull numbers of the game. Connie with low hull strength is appropriate due to size. Measurements are also somewhat comparable, Connie is in the lower end of the science ship size range. 3/3 weapons loadout doesn't require massive rebuilding to fit, argument can be made preventing the inclusion of 4th forward weapon and cannon mounts. Lower maneuverability ratings of Scis vs Escorts appropriate to "older cruiser classification".
Technical enhancements required to "make" a science ship, aka higher shield modifier, sensor suite capable of sensor analysis and subsystem targetting are both "common" enough refits to fit into the ship. Same with ability to mount Mk XII gear, my T1 Connie has no problem slotting any Mk XII gear as it is. BOff seating is also measured more by the abilities of the computers / operators (of which "modernized" versions can fit) than the physical capabilities of the ship.
Full suite of T5 science enhancements means ship capable of engaging a T5 cruiser while not being a T5 cruiser. Balance and lore met.
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]
Thank you!!! I truly appreciate the support and thought contributed to the matter 8D
One of the largest factor's causing my sadness are the T5 Defiant and Galaxy Class ships cruising in quantum streams while I pine away. Please take it as a compliment that I am adding this to a reddit thread I started: http://www.reddit.com/r/sto/comments/1wxj43/tier_5_constitution_class_in_sto/
This. At least for a small minority of us. The only reason "we" (Connie lovers) break out the dead horse on dang close to a weekly basis...
Doesn't "help" that TNG fans get this option, via T5 Retrofits of "their" iconic ships...
Now, I understand that CBS has the ultimate right to do what they want. And, at this time, they are saying "no". I also have the right to free speech, and part of that right is to post my thoughts in an attempt to convince CBS to possibly change their stance. Or provide Cryptic with information (a clamoring voice at the least, possibly a pitch to CBS) so they can do the dirty work of convincing CBS.
On that note, here goes. It is fairly common on these forums to claim that CBS's "no" comes from a logical rationale - that a ~100 year old Connie should not be able to be built on a par with the "modern" Galaxy/Soverign/Oddessy's specifications. AKA Hull points, shield strength, loadout, etc.
Fine. On this I can agree. Yet, I also seemingly have a "solution" to the problem, that can actually fit both "quasi-realistic engineering dictates", lore, and still make the Connie competitive at T5. In one word: Reclassification.
So no T5 Connie as cruiser. Leaves Escort and Science as options. Of those two, I can create a much more "logical" - in terms of game lore, engineering dictates, etc. - argument for Science than Escort. To wit:
Science vessels have the lowest hull numbers of the game. Connie with low hull strength is appropriate due to size. Measurements are also somewhat comparable, Connie is in the lower end of the science ship size range. 3/3 weapons loadout doesn't require massive rebuilding to fit, argument can be made preventing the inclusion of 4th forward weapon and cannon mounts. Lower maneuverability ratings of Scis vs Escorts appropriate to "older cruiser classification".
Technical enhancements required to "make" a science ship, aka higher shield modifier, sensor suite capable of sensor analysis and subsystem targetting are both "common" enough refits to fit into the ship. Same with ability to mount Mk XII gear, my T1 Connie has no problem slotting any Mk XII gear as it is. BOff seating is also measured more by the abilities of the computers / operators (of which "modernized" versions can fit) than the physical capabilities of the ship.
Full suite of T5 science enhancements means ship capable of engaging a T5 cruiser while not being a T5 cruiser. Balance and lore met.
This. At least for a small minority of us. The only reason "we" (Connie lovers) break out the dead horse on dang close to a weekly basis...
Doesn't "help" that TNG fans get this option, via T5 Retrofits of "their" iconic ships...
Now, I understand that CBS has the ultimate right to do what they want. And, at this time, they are saying "no". I also have the right to free speech, and part of that right is to post my thoughts in an attempt to convince CBS to possibly change their stance. Or provide Cryptic with information (a clamoring voice at the least, possibly a pitch to CBS) so they can do the dirty work of convincing CBS.
On that note, here goes. It is fairly common on these forums to claim that CBS's "no" comes from a logical rationale - that a ~100 year old Connie should not be able to be built on a par with the "modern" Galaxy/Soverign/Oddessy's specifications. AKA Hull points, shield strength, loadout, etc.
Fine. On this I can agree. Yet, I also seemingly have a "solution" to the problem, that can actually fit both "quasi-realistic engineering dictates", lore, and still make the Connie competitive at T5. In one word: Reclassification.
So no T5 Connie as cruiser. Leaves Escort and Science as options. Of those two, I can create a much more "logical" - in terms of game lore, engineering dictates, etc. - argument for Science than Escort. To wit:
Science vessels have the lowest hull numbers of the game. Connie with low hull strength is appropriate due to size. Measurements are also somewhat comparable, Connie is in the lower end of the science ship size range. 3/3 weapons loadout doesn't require massive rebuilding to fit, argument can be made preventing the inclusion of 4th forward weapon and cannon mounts. Lower maneuverability ratings of Scis vs Escorts appropriate to "older cruiser classification".
Technical enhancements required to "make" a science ship, aka higher shield modifier, sensor suite capable of sensor analysis and subsystem targetting are both "common" enough refits to fit into the ship. Same with ability to mount Mk XII gear, my T1 Connie has no problem slotting any Mk XII gear as it is. BOff seating is also measured more by the abilities of the computers / operators (of which "modernized" versions can fit) than the physical capabilities of the ship.
Full suite of T5 science enhancements means ship capable of engaging a T5 cruiser while not being a T5 cruiser. Balance and lore met.
No it doesn't. Does anybody not realize that the Excalibur was launched in 2391, The Exeter the same year and the Vesper was launched around the same time.
These are some of the NEWEST ships in starfleet's inventory much newer than the defiant, Galaxy and Intrepids, but these 3 ships are not allowed a tier 5 retrofit?
Umm excuse me WTF? I can understand not wanting the constitution at tier 5, but why not the other 3?
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!
No it doesn't. Does anybody not realize that the Excalibur was launched in 2391, The Exeter the same year and the Vesper was launched around the same time.
These are some of the NEWEST ships in starfleet's inventory much newer than the defiant, Galaxy and Intrepids, but these 3 ships are not allowed a tier 5 retrofit?
Umm excuse me WTF? I can understand not wanting the constitution at tier 5, but why not the other 3?
One of the "other" arguments I've heard was licensing concerns - something about not wanting to "confuse" the Older-School Connies with the JJ-prise. Since Excalibur, Exeter, Vesper are "extremely close" in design to the Connie, a license restriction prohibiting any possible confusion between "Prime" and "JJ" ships would encompass these designs. However, taking the recent use of the 60's Connie lines in the Twizzlers commercial, said design confusion issues should be a moot point - the JJ-prise has enough recognition now to prevent confusion, much as there's enough recognition difference to tell the Connie-Refit from the Connie proper...
Whole separate argument, but one I'll stand with...
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]
Jellico....Engineer ground.....Da'val Romulan space Sci
Saphire.. Science ground......Ko'el Romulan space Tac
Leva........Tactical ground.....Koj Romulan space Eng
JJ-Verse will never be Canon or considered Lore...It will always be JJ-Verse
So no T5 Connie as cruiser. Leaves Escort and Science as options. Of those two, I can create a much more "logical" - in terms of game lore, engineering dictates, etc. - argument for Science than Escort.
I seem to recall that the NCC-1701(-A) had a Science Officer in the Commander BOff seat and filling the role as First Officer, not an Engineer. It also kept getting sent on "5 year missions" to seek out and explore new worlds and new civilizations.
Yeah, I could easily see a Tier 5 Constitution Redesign as a Science Vessel instead of a Cruiser in 2409 ...
Cash Cow Potential: {need new meter, old one seems to be busted}
Essentially a Cruiser configuration completely rebuilt as a new design for Science Vessel supporting purposes in the 25th century. That means all new metallurgy, internal systems, technological architecture ... everything. The only thing that "looks the same" externally is the planform and silhouette. So the hull SHAPES "exactly" match this historical forms, but the ship *itself* is entirely new.
=====
Although, just between you and me, I'd love to see this kind of a ship substitute a single Hangar Bay for the Secondary Deflector, turning into this "pocket carrier" instead that uses shuttlecraft as a standard part of its operational profile:
This winds up being something of an "odd duck" of a ship, that's essentially a converted Cruiser turned into a hybrid Science Ship that's also a Carrier (meaning, shuttlecraft launcher).
Hull boost over Tier 2 version is the typical +10k seen on several other comparable retrofits (thus following precedents).
Shield Modifier is adjusted from the Cruiser standard of 1.0 up to 1.3.
Crew complement is adjusted to be a "more canon-like" 430 instead of merely 400.
Bridge Officer layout "fits" a Lieutenant Sulu, Lt Commander Scott, Commander Spock, Lt Commander McCoy arrangement (for those who just like to roleplay that way as a "Captain").
Devices slots limited to 3 because of Science Vessel standards.
Consoles are arranged to be balanced (3 each) plus one (universal) to match 10 console standard at Tier 5 (Vice Admiral).
Turn rate improved from 9 to 10.
Inertia rating remains unchanged at 40, so the ship still "handles" like a Cruiser.
Bonus Power is a partial hybrid of Cruiser and Science Ship standards.
Shuttlecraft hangar bay instead of a Secondary Deflector, which "makes more sense" given the design appearance than a Secondary Deflector.
Zen cost increased to 2500 to match other Carrier types.
Just make the Hangar ships launch and recover to the rear of the secondary hull, rather than shoot out the front like with most Carriers and you're golden.
That's the most important bit right there. Those of you who want a Tier 5 Constitution will have to go and convince CBS to allow it. You can argue the "logic" of a Tier 5 Constitution all you want, but you have to convince the people who issue the Star Trek brand licenses to say "yes".
Go and post on http://www.startrek.com/boards/star-trek-online and go ask this question at the CBS Star Trek panels at conventions. You are not going to gain any ground here other than chasing your own tail.
Best of luck.
Member since November 2009... I think. (UFP) Ragnar
That's the most important bit right there. Those of you who want a Tier 5 Constitution will have to go and convince CBS to allow it. You can argue the "logic" of a Tier 5 Constitution all you want, but you have to convince the people who issue the Star Trek brand licenses to say "yes".
Yes, CBS is the "ultimate" authority on the matter. However, spending some time here refining our proposal before throwing it to the big dogs, or, perhaps, giving Cryptic some ammunition to take to their CBS liaison, is just as effective (if not more so) than a pile of random voices spamming a message board with no coherent direction...
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]
Yes, CBS is the "ultimate" authority on the matter. However, spending some time here refining our proposal before throwing it to the big dogs, or, perhaps, giving Cryptic some ammunition to take to their CBS liaison, is just as effective (if not more so) than a pile of random voices spamming a message board with no coherent direction...
You might as well carry the discussion over to their boards. In this thread alone you have multiple perspectives about what would be or whether a T5 Constitution is acceptable. Me? I'm indifferent. If I see the space shuttle Columbia fly off my bow in-game, I'll cast Diplomatic Immunity on it to give it some help.
But I sigh a bit more every time the T5 Constitution topic come and inevitable fly the same circles again and again. Come on guys, bring the discussion and opinions to the people who actually made it part of their conditions to give the Star Trek brand license to Cryptic.
Member since November 2009... I think. (UFP) Ragnar
But I sigh a bit more every time the T5 Constitution topic come and inevitable fly the same circles again and again. Come on guys, bring the discussion and opinions to the people who actually made it part of their conditions to give the Star Trek brand license to Cryptic.
As I write this, it's due to be post #50 and fill page 5. While there is the usual "hater" presence in this thread, it hasn't degenerated into the "love / hate" debate that most Connie threads do by page 3.
Therefore, even though I've proposed the science conversion over half a dozen (minimum) times already, this is the first time I've actually seen "constructive feedback" about the idea outside of haters trying to twist the logic to keep the ship locked out.
I'd like to view this as progress, of a sorts. Enough to take it to CBS's doorstep? Not quite yet, I don't think there's enough traction to the idea of a Sci-Connie after a morning's posts, a single "+1" and proposed set of specs...
However, and this could be my old SFC days talking, the CBS rep that's supposed to be assigned to STO probably spends more of his (intern's) "forum time" lurking here as opposed to trolling the "official" CBS boards. Also, we have the ears of the Devs here, not there. Better chance to have a player's proposal "heard" here and then passed up the chain, instead of trying it there and being ignored...
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]
I would hazard a guess that the community is probably split pretty evenly when it comes to the Constitution class , I'd say there are likely just as many want to see it in the game in some form or another ( be it a straight T5 , or a complete new class with updated skins like the Exeter class ) as there are who do not wish to see it at T5 , and would much prefer newer classes of ship to represent the period in time STO takes place in instead.
and would much prefer newer classes of ship to represent the period in time STO takes place in instead.
The Exeter, Excalibur and Vesper are all newer classes of ship than the Cheyenne/Constellation.
So I mean, I don't know if it's really that much of a big deal. There's a ton of ships/skins used at end-game that are older than most of the actual variants of the T2 cruiser.
Going by what little Cryptic has said, CBS isn't keen on this. And Geko has suggested this extends to the variant skins as well in a podcast. That's all that this really is about.
Anyways, I don't get tired of the topic and don't get mad at the cyclical nature of these threads. It's feedback. And the squeaky wheel gets the grease. It took years of the same threads to get any movement on the Klingon development front, for instance.
even though I've proposed the science conversion over half a dozen (minimum) times already, this is the first time I've actually seen "constructive feedback" about the idea
That's because it's easy to be negative, particularly when it looks like long odds of anything every being done. Isn't exactly hard to come up with a "not gonna happen" response. Actually attempting to build something though, trying out the "what if" scenarios and trying to decide where the boundaries of "good taste" are when it comes to game design ... that's a lot harder and takes a lot more effort.
So yeah ... basically sand castle rules. It takes mere seconds to tear down (or stomp down, if you prefer) what can take the better part of an hour (or few) to make.
Very much doubt we'll ever see two LT commander stations on a federation ship , let alone one of them being universal too
Well, if you look at the loadouts for BOffs on Tier 5 ships for the Federation, you'll notice that a pattern emerges ... of having 5 BOffs and that the total number of BOff skills added up between them equals 12. It's pretty consistent.
So as for the point of getting two Lt Commander stations on a Federation ship, the Atrox Carrier does that already, so there is a precedent. All I did was take the Atrox BOff layout, switch the (spare) Lt Commander Science to being a Lt Commander Universal, and left the layout at 4 BOffs instead of 5, as is more typical for Tier 5 ships. The net result would be a more "versatile" Constitution Carrier which could (technically speaking) be organized around Tactical, Engineering or Science specializations with relatively equal ease without stepping all that hard on the toes of the Atrox design thanks to other differences (number of hangar bays, crew size differences, hull strength, power bonuses, etc.).
Comments
dead ones to flog
So wait. Let me get this straight. You like Star Trek? (I mean you do play a Star Trek video game).
But you don't like the look of the Constitution, Excelsior or Ambassador?
That's like half the Enterprises in Star Trek history.
Do you like the NX? The Galaxy (which has the same saucer and nacelles as the Ambassador which you call ugly, just on a different hull)? The Sovereign? The J (the futuristic city ship from the time travel arc in Enterprise)?
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
Wow.... like that wouldn't be extremely overpowering. I think you forgot to ask for the hangar full of scatterpack shuttles while you were at it.
I know that I am not pressed for it because the only really good use for them is leveling a toon with. Once you hit near cap, they get quickly ditched in favor of Fleet Advanced or Elite weapons. The Connie beam arrays work just fine for leveling purposes.
I'll take 3!
Harden up Princess
Looking for an Oceanic fleet? Check out our website:
www.ausmonauts.com
Yes, and a hanger full of scatterpack shuttles.
Yes I'm just being obnoxious. It was not my intent to start a "thing" or make people angry or get their PvP balance in an uproar. I literally just want to do my thing at end game in my ride of choice. No I'm not Captain James T Kirk. I'm The Kirk, a third person avatar that exists in a game that is quite frankly a dream come true for me. I love sector patrol and Borg incursions and DS9 and Risa and... and I get to do it with an avatar wearing the skin that makes me happy just like everyone else who skins themselves every which way they want for the sheer delight of it.
Yes, I'd like this thread to end on a good note. I just love the game and trek just like everyone else here.
Elite Fleet Retrofit Forward Phaser Beam Array
Elite Fleet Retrofit Forward Phaser Dual Beam Bank
Soon I hope, prob too much to ask for though
Support the Typhoon and Jupiter class starships!
Support the Typhoon and Jupiter class starships!
This. At least for a small minority of us. The only reason "we" (Connie lovers) break out the dead horse on dang close to a weekly basis...
Doesn't "help" that TNG fans get this option, via T5 Retrofits of "their" iconic ships...
Now, I understand that CBS has the ultimate right to do what they want. And, at this time, they are saying "no". I also have the right to free speech, and part of that right is to post my thoughts in an attempt to convince CBS to possibly change their stance. Or provide Cryptic with information (a clamoring voice at the least, possibly a pitch to CBS) so they can do the dirty work of convincing CBS.
On that note, here goes. It is fairly common on these forums to claim that CBS's "no" comes from a logical rationale - that a ~100 year old Connie should not be able to be built on a par with the "modern" Galaxy/Soverign/Oddessy's specifications. AKA Hull points, shield strength, loadout, etc.
Fine. On this I can agree. Yet, I also seemingly have a "solution" to the problem, that can actually fit both "quasi-realistic engineering dictates", lore, and still make the Connie competitive at T5. In one word: Reclassification.
So no T5 Connie as cruiser. Leaves Escort and Science as options. Of those two, I can create a much more "logical" - in terms of game lore, engineering dictates, etc. - argument for Science than Escort. To wit:
Science vessels have the lowest hull numbers of the game. Connie with low hull strength is appropriate due to size. Measurements are also somewhat comparable, Connie is in the lower end of the science ship size range. 3/3 weapons loadout doesn't require massive rebuilding to fit, argument can be made preventing the inclusion of 4th forward weapon and cannon mounts. Lower maneuverability ratings of Scis vs Escorts appropriate to "older cruiser classification".
Technical enhancements required to "make" a science ship, aka higher shield modifier, sensor suite capable of sensor analysis and subsystem targetting are both "common" enough refits to fit into the ship. Same with ability to mount Mk XII gear, my T1 Connie has no problem slotting any Mk XII gear as it is. BOff seating is also measured more by the abilities of the computers / operators (of which "modernized" versions can fit) than the physical capabilities of the ship.
Full suite of T5 science enhancements means ship capable of engaging a T5 cruiser while not being a T5 cruiser. Balance and lore met.
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]
Rear Admiral , Engineering Division
U.S.S. Sheffield N.C.C. 92016
One of the largest factor's causing my sadness are the T5 Defiant and Galaxy Class ships cruising in quantum streams while I pine away. Please take it as a compliment that I am adding this to a reddit thread I started:
http://www.reddit.com/r/sto/comments/1wxj43/tier_5_constitution_class_in_sto/
No it doesn't. Does anybody not realize that the Excalibur was launched in 2391, The Exeter the same year and the Vesper was launched around the same time.
These are some of the NEWEST ships in starfleet's inventory much newer than the defiant, Galaxy and Intrepids, but these 3 ships are not allowed a tier 5 retrofit?
Umm excuse me WTF? I can understand not wanting the constitution at tier 5, but why not the other 3?
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
One of the "other" arguments I've heard was licensing concerns - something about not wanting to "confuse" the Older-School Connies with the JJ-prise. Since Excalibur, Exeter, Vesper are "extremely close" in design to the Connie, a license restriction prohibiting any possible confusion between "Prime" and "JJ" ships would encompass these designs. However, taking the recent use of the 60's Connie lines in the Twizzlers commercial, said design confusion issues should be a moot point - the JJ-prise has enough recognition now to prevent confusion, much as there's enough recognition difference to tell the Connie-Refit from the Connie proper...
Whole separate argument, but one I'll stand with...
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]
Saphire.. Science ground......Ko'el Romulan space Tac
Leva........Tactical ground.....Koj Romulan space Eng
JJ-Verse will never be Canon or considered Lore...It will always be JJ-Verse
I seem to recall that the NCC-1701(-A) had a Science Officer in the Commander BOff seat and filling the role as First Officer, not an Engineer. It also kept getting sent on "5 year missions" to seek out and explore new worlds and new civilizations.
Yeah, I could easily see a Tier 5 Constitution Redesign as a Science Vessel instead of a Cruiser in 2409 ...
Constitution Redesign
New Art Assets Required: *NONE*
Cash Cow Potential: {need new meter, old one seems to be busted}
Essentially a Cruiser configuration completely rebuilt as a new design for Science Vessel supporting purposes in the 25th century. That means all new metallurgy, internal systems, technological architecture ... everything. The only thing that "looks the same" externally is the planform and silhouette. So the hull SHAPES "exactly" match this historical forms, but the ship *itself* is entirely new.
=====
Although, just between you and me, I'd love to see this kind of a ship substitute a single Hangar Bay for the Secondary Deflector, turning into this "pocket carrier" instead that uses shuttlecraft as a standard part of its operational profile:
Constitution Carrier
This winds up being something of an "odd duck" of a ship, that's essentially a converted Cruiser turned into a hybrid Science Ship that's also a Carrier (meaning, shuttlecraft launcher).
- Hull boost over Tier 2 version is the typical +10k seen on several other comparable retrofits (thus following precedents).
- Shield Modifier is adjusted from the Cruiser standard of 1.0 up to 1.3.
- Crew complement is adjusted to be a "more canon-like" 430 instead of merely 400.
- Bridge Officer layout "fits" a Lieutenant Sulu, Lt Commander Scott, Commander Spock, Lt Commander McCoy arrangement (for those who just like to roleplay that way as a "Captain").
- Devices slots limited to 3 because of Science Vessel standards.
- Consoles are arranged to be balanced (3 each) plus one (universal) to match 10 console standard at Tier 5 (Vice Admiral).
- Turn rate improved from 9 to 10.
- Inertia rating remains unchanged at 40, so the ship still "handles" like a Cruiser.
- Bonus Power is a partial hybrid of Cruiser and Science Ship standards.
- Shuttlecraft hangar bay instead of a Secondary Deflector, which "makes more sense" given the design appearance than a Secondary Deflector.
- Zen cost increased to 2500 to match other Carrier types.
Just make the Hangar ships launch and recover to the rear of the secondary hull, rather than shoot out the front like with most Carriers and you're golden.Protonic Kool-Aid Down The Drain Cruiser
Immortal BOff Skills combo for Ground
That's the most important bit right there. Those of you who want a Tier 5 Constitution will have to go and convince CBS to allow it. You can argue the "logic" of a Tier 5 Constitution all you want, but you have to convince the people who issue the Star Trek brand licenses to say "yes".
Go and post on http://www.startrek.com/boards/star-trek-online and go ask this question at the CBS Star Trek panels at conventions. You are not going to gain any ground here other than chasing your own tail.
Best of luck.
(UFP) Ragnar
Yes, CBS is the "ultimate" authority on the matter. However, spending some time here refining our proposal before throwing it to the big dogs, or, perhaps, giving Cryptic some ammunition to take to their CBS liaison, is just as effective (if not more so) than a pile of random voices spamming a message board with no coherent direction...
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]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NIgfiSzCy1o
Very much doubt we'll ever see two LT commander stations on a federation ship , let alone one of them being universal too
Rear Admiral , Engineering Division
U.S.S. Sheffield N.C.C. 92016
You might as well carry the discussion over to their boards. In this thread alone you have multiple perspectives about what would be or whether a T5 Constitution is acceptable. Me? I'm indifferent. If I see the space shuttle Columbia fly off my bow in-game, I'll cast Diplomatic Immunity on it to give it some help.
But I sigh a bit more every time the T5 Constitution topic come and inevitable fly the same circles again and again. Come on guys, bring the discussion and opinions to the people who actually made it part of their conditions to give the Star Trek brand license to Cryptic.
(UFP) Ragnar
As I write this, it's due to be post #50 and fill page 5. While there is the usual "hater" presence in this thread, it hasn't degenerated into the "love / hate" debate that most Connie threads do by page 3.
Therefore, even though I've proposed the science conversion over half a dozen (minimum) times already, this is the first time I've actually seen "constructive feedback" about the idea outside of haters trying to twist the logic to keep the ship locked out.
I'd like to view this as progress, of a sorts. Enough to take it to CBS's doorstep? Not quite yet, I don't think there's enough traction to the idea of a Sci-Connie after a morning's posts, a single "+1" and proposed set of specs...
However, and this could be my old SFC days talking, the CBS rep that's supposed to be assigned to STO probably spends more of his (intern's) "forum time" lurking here as opposed to trolling the "official" CBS boards. Also, we have the ears of the Devs here, not there. Better chance to have a player's proposal "heard" here and then passed up the chain, instead of trying it there and being ignored...
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]
Rear Admiral , Engineering Division
U.S.S. Sheffield N.C.C. 92016
The Exeter, Excalibur and Vesper are all newer classes of ship than the Cheyenne/Constellation.
So I mean, I don't know if it's really that much of a big deal. There's a ton of ships/skins used at end-game that are older than most of the actual variants of the T2 cruiser.
Going by what little Cryptic has said, CBS isn't keen on this. And Geko has suggested this extends to the variant skins as well in a podcast. That's all that this really is about.
Anyways, I don't get tired of the topic and don't get mad at the cyclical nature of these threads. It's feedback. And the squeaky wheel gets the grease. It took years of the same threads to get any movement on the Klingon development front, for instance.
So carry on T5 Connie Peeps! BOLDY GO!
That's because it's easy to be negative, particularly when it looks like long odds of anything every being done. Isn't exactly hard to come up with a "not gonna happen" response. Actually attempting to build something though, trying out the "what if" scenarios and trying to decide where the boundaries of "good taste" are when it comes to game design ... that's a lot harder and takes a lot more effort.
So yeah ... basically sand castle rules. It takes mere seconds to tear down (or stomp down, if you prefer) what can take the better part of an hour (or few) to make.
Well, if you look at the loadouts for BOffs on Tier 5 ships for the Federation, you'll notice that a pattern emerges ... of having 5 BOffs and that the total number of BOff skills added up between them equals 12. It's pretty consistent.
Star Cruiser = 2 + 4 + 3 + 2 + 1 = 12 in 5 BOffs
Assault Cruiser = 2 + 1 + 4 + 3 + 2 = 12 in 5 BOffs
Solanae Science Destroyer = 4 + 3 + 2 + 2 + 1 = 12 in 5 BOffs
Wells Temporal Science Vessel = 1 + 4 + 2 + 3 + 2 = 12 in 5 BOffs
Caitian Atrox Carrier = 2 + 3 + 4 + 3 = 12 in 4 BOffs
So as for the point of getting two Lt Commander stations on a Federation ship, the Atrox Carrier does that already, so there is a precedent. All I did was take the Atrox BOff layout, switch the (spare) Lt Commander Science to being a Lt Commander Universal, and left the layout at 4 BOffs instead of 5, as is more typical for Tier 5 ships. The net result would be a more "versatile" Constitution Carrier which could (technically speaking) be organized around Tactical, Engineering or Science specializations with relatively equal ease without stepping all that hard on the toes of the Atrox design thanks to other differences (number of hangar bays, crew size differences, hull strength, power bonuses, etc.).
Protonic Kool-Aid Down The Drain Cruiser
Immortal BOff Skills combo for Ground