Did a brief search and couldn't find mention of this Enterprise. Wonder if CBS would say yes to
this ship?
Have it come with a universal "Medusa" console. Always on, no cooldown. When an enemy ship does a scan in the visual EM band, their bridge officers all turn to stone. ;-) ;-)
They're not really gone, as long as we remember them
I do not see how that would be a replacement as it looks nothing like a Connie.
Cryptic can make a 100 kit-bash ships all on their own. They do not need to steal someone else.
STO is about my Liberated Borg Federation Captain with his Breen 1st Officer, Jem'Hadar Tactical Officer, Liberated Borg Engineering Officer, Android Ops Officer, Photonic Science Officer, Gorn Science Officer, and Reman Medical Officer jumping into their Jem'Hadar Carrier and flying off to do missions for the new Romulan Empire. But for some players allowing a T5 Connie to be used breaks the canon in the game.
That's quite the paradox, how could you nerf nerf when the nerf is nerfed. But how would the nerf be nerfed when the nerf is nerfed? This allows the nerf not to be nerfed since the nerf is nerfed? But if the nerf isn't nerfed, it could still nerf nerfs. But as soon as the nerf is nerfed, the nerf power is lost. So paradoxally it the nerf nerf lost its nerf, while it's still nerfed, which cannot be because the nerf was unable to nerf.
Did a brief search and couldn't find mention of this Enterprise. Wonder if CBS would say yes to
this ship?
Have it come with a universal "Medusa" console. Always on, no cooldown. When an enemy ship does a scan in the visual EM band, their bridge officers all turn to stone.
That ship actually is canon. It's seen in the backdrop of the Earth Space Dock in Star Trek 3. (Copy and Paste Link to See). And one of them fought at Wolf 359. So Cryptic should have no trouble adding it to STO.
However, given Geko's statements about not wanting the more canonical K'Vort and the Yeager in STO, I doubt we will ever see these unknown ships.
Not sure why these threads keep poping up but theres already a Constitution class shop in the c shop. As far as a T5 version of it, are we talking a fleet version? because as stats go, because the c shop version is ment to be a c shop alternative to using the Miranda class for leveling up between levels 1 and 10, a fleet version would have to have stats along the lines of the other fleet ships available to a T1 fleet shipyard, that's just the way they do fleet ships verse regular ships so the stats for it.
It wouldn't be all that impressive. May as well just buy the one available now and equip it with fleet equipment. From what I've read in a lot of the T5 Connie threads, it sounds as if people want a buffed version with the hull strength of an Odyssey, the turn rate of an escort, and the firepower of a fleet. Whats next? a battle cloak for it? A carrier launch bay? How far does anyone really belive they'd even take the idea even if they were considering it.
As far as the argument about how it would bring in money, yes, we've all seen their ideas on that, a T5 Connie as a lock box ship.
I ended up purchasing the Exter to play with her console.
I must admit, it is kinda fun to try and do end game missions in her.
Off topic, but still fun.
I would like to have a T5 version of every canon ship. I don't see why it isn't that way now, other then time to develop and release.
But... I'm not in charge. Not personally a huge Connie fan myself, but I'd like to be able to fly any Fed ship from the IP. Seems like that is what a Trek game is all about.
Honestly, I'm not sure I would want to see a T5/Fleet Oberth. There is just a sort of sacrilegious feeling to it.
Not sure why these threads keep poping up but theres already a Constitution class shop in the c shop. As far as a T5 version of it, are we talking a fleet version? because as stats go, because the c shop version is ment to be a c shop alternative to using the Miranda class for leveling up between levels 1 and 10, a fleet version would have to have stats along the lines of the other fleet ships available to a T1 fleet shipyard, that's just the way they do fleet ships verse regular ships so the stats for it.
It wouldn't be all that impressive. May as well just buy the one available now and equip it with fleet equipment. From what I've read in a lot of the T5 Connie threads, it sounds as if people want a buffed version with the hull strength of an Odyssey, the turn rate of an escort, and the firepower of a fleet. Whats next? a battle cloak for it? A carrier launch bay? How far does anyone really belive they'd even take the idea even if they were considering it.
As far as the argument about how it would bring in money, yes, we've all seen their ideas on that, a T5 Connie as a lock box ship.
Thing with that T1 Connie that's already in the C-store, the "problem" with it is the fact that it's T1. 3 consoles, 3 weapon slots (total), 3 Ensign level BOff powers. Take that into a "stock" ISE PuG and...
And not all of us want a T5 Connie that's as strong as an Oddessy. Partially because that's one of CBS's "terms" keeping us from having a Connie, for once, they've put their foot down and said "we don't want an ~170 year old design as powerful as the latest, greatest cruiser." Hence my proposal earlier this thread to make the Connie a T5 science ship...
And yes, I realise that, spec-wise, it won't be much better than my T5 Luna, probably on a par with the T5 Intrepid-retro. Same with any possible Fleet version vs. Fleet Intrepids / Lunas / Titans / whatevers. However, to any fan of ToS, the point isn't as much "I need the Connie to be the supership of the week in powercreep" and more "give me a ship that won't get me laughed out of an elite STF when I decide to take her for a spin..."
Finally, remember that "faction" ships = C-store, and "alien" ships = lockbox... Though nothing's "preventing" Cryptic from making a T5 Connie the first 3k Zen ship...
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]
Geko has said he has no plans to modify the Galaxy in more than one podcast. And yet ... this thread still exists:
That's a different kettle of fish though. There's nothing preventing Geko from making modifications to the Gal-R other than his own opinion that there's nothing wrong with it. CBS aren't blocking Crpytic from using the Gal-R, and the whole argument is not "why can't we have it?" but more "why can't we have it upgraded to put it on par with latest C-Store releases?"
Ideally, Geko should be taking the information on board - as word spreads that the Gal-R is practically useless compared to the Oddy and Avenger, it's going to sell less. And for a company that is reliant on micro-transactions, having a product (especially an icon like the Gal-R) that doesn't sell very well is a bad thing indeed.
You're just a machine. And machines can be broken.
That's a different kettle of fish though. There's nothing preventing Geko from making modifications to the Gal-R other than his own opinion that there's nothing wrong with it. CBS aren't blocking Crpytic from using the Gal-R, and the whole argument is not "why can't we have it?" but more "why can't we have it upgraded to put it on par with latest C-Store releases?"
Ideally, Geko should be taking the information on board - as word spreads that the Gal-R is practically useless compared to the Oddy and Avenger, it's going to sell less. And for a company that is reliant on micro-transactions, having a product (especially an icon like the Gal-R) that doesn't sell very well is a bad thing indeed.
Kind of. But it's not a different kettle in the context I was using for my statement. You can sub Connie in for Galaxy and CBS in for Geko and arrive at pretty much the same situation. Party X says NO to Idea Y. And Playerbase Z really likes Idea Y and keeps having an ongoing discussion about Idea Y no matter what Party X has said.
So the discussion about improving the Galaxy continues even though the person in charge of those ships has said more than a few times that said improvements are not on the schedule.
In the same way, discussion about a T5 Connie or Fleet T2 Cruiser keeps on keeping on.
All I'm trying to do is illustrate why the discussion keeps cropping up. It's something a lot of people want. So the old "CBS said no, end of discussion" post doesn't work. That doesn't end the discussion. And as we've seen since 2010, it hasn't ended the discussion has it?
Kind of. But it's not a different kettle in the context I was using for my statement. You can sub Connie in for Galaxy and CBS in for Geko and arrive at pretty much the same situation. Party X says NO to Idea Y. And Playerbase Z really likes Idea Y and keeps having an ongoing discussion about Idea Y no matter what Party X has said.
So the discussion about improving the Galaxy continues even though the person in charge of those ships has said more than a few times that said improvements are not on the schedule.
In the same way, discussion about a T5 Connie or Fleet T2 Cruiser keeps on keeping on.
All I'm trying to do is illustrate why the discussion keeps cropping up. It's something a lot of people want. So the old "CBS said no, end of discussion" post doesn't work. That doesn't end the discussion. And as we've seen since 2010, it hasn't ended the discussion has it?
Ah yes, I see what you mean there.
And yes, it hasn't ended the discussion. It should have, though.
You're just a machine. And machines can be broken.
Kind of. But it's not a different kettle in the context I was using for my statement. You can sub Connie in for Galaxy and CBS in for Geko and arrive at pretty much the same situation. Party X says NO to Idea Y. And Playerbase Z really likes Idea Y and keeps having an ongoing discussion about Idea Y no matter what Party X has said.
So the discussion about improving the Galaxy continues even though the person in charge of those ships has said more than a few times that said improvements are not on the schedule.
In the same way, discussion about a T5 Connie or Fleet T2 Cruiser keeps on keeping on.
All I'm trying to do is illustrate why the discussion keeps cropping up. It's something a lot of people want. So the old "CBS said no, end of discussion" post doesn't work. That doesn't end the discussion. And as we've seen since 2010, it hasn't ended the discussion has it?
And yes, it hasn't ended the discussion. It should have, though.
At first, I thought so. I've been around the Trek license long enough to know that certain "thought out" licensing decisions are essentially "bound in stone".
However, to this day, nobody can give a "concrete" reason as to why the "no" exists, and, as my sig alludes to, at least one previous "CBS No" has been violated already...
Therefore, speculation (due to lack of reasoning) and "we've seen the overturning before" keeps up hopes that the T5 Connie issue goes the way of the "primarily faction headquarters spaces"...
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]
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.
Yes, I absolutely agree with your assessment of ships being an extension of our character, but your final thought saddens me. This isOUR game! Whether you're a free-to-player or a lifer like me, this game was created for US, for our mutual enjoyment with the hopes of turning a profit.
Yes, I am very glad they decided to make this game and I'm proud to be a lifer. A T5 Constitution doesn't make the game worse for other players but it does make it better for that group of us that want it so very badly. I saw a post by hravik where DStahl states, "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."
Yes, there is someone new as the executive producer, Stephen D'Angelo, and quite some time has rolled by since that Q&A session so I'm not giving up on my dream of doing my end game reputation sorties in what amounts to me driving a 1967 Corvette Stingray next the 2014 Lexus.
Yes, let me take this analogy further in hopes of striking a chord with whomever is "The Decider" on the T5 Connie issue at CBS. Sure the Lexus is nice and I wouldn't mind having one. So is a Porche but I want, no... NEED my '67 Corvette the same way there are people right NOW, this VERY SECOND who NEED to drive their '57 Chevy, the gas mileage and replacement parts costs be damned. As long as they can cruise the road in their favorite ride, they are in heaven. Taking this to the next level, there are many parts manufacturers that make more advanced versions of replacement parts for old cars, effectively "retrofitting" those older vehicles with newer technology. Whole engines with 21st century performance and technology are built and placed in these literally antique vehicles.
Yes, this can be applied to wonderful 25th Century technology where parts can be replicated and I'm betting the tech that fits in a Nova class or Defiant could easily be massaged into a Constitution Class hull which is obviously bigger.
Yes, even in the reboot movie, young Kirk is driving a what? A 1967 Corvette...
Get over it. It is not going to happen. We have asked for a T5 Connie, A T5 Connie look-a-like, and updated version of a T5 Connie Look. Lockbox Connie. Limited Edition Connie. the $200 Connie. Connie holograms. Connie Skins. Connie ship parts for X, Y, and Z ship. It has all been discussed. It has all be shot down. This is one of the most dead horses in the game, and I wish fanboys would find something else to beat up.
That being said, I love the Connie. I love the ship-tease scene in the TMP/WoK. I cried watching it be destroyed in SFS. It is graceful, elegant, majestic, sturdy. It is an awesome looking ship. However, CBS has denied Cryptic the T5 Connie for 4 years now. I doubt any amount of forum rage or boycotts will change their mind.
Yes, I love it too! In fact, I love it so much that I won't give up on seeing that graceful, elegant, majestic, sturdy beauty on my game screen someday. Don't stop fighting. Like I said in my last post, this is a new year with a new executive producer and anything can happen.
I saw a post by hravik where DStahl states, "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."
CBS probably doesn't get adamant about things that could pull in a fair amount of money unless there's a damn good reason. Hence why I think the deal with Paramount is probably related to why it's still a no.
CBS probably doesn't get adamant about things that could pull in a fair amount of money unless there's a damn good reason. Hence why I think the deal with Paramount is probably related to why it's still a no.
Why only 36000 hull, go even higher. A good number would be 42900. I like that number.
Its a small-sh cruiser compared to the other offerings out there. Any (un)-likely T5 Connie' wouldn't have as much hull as larger ships. I'm not even wasting my time on the pipe-dream CMDR universal.
To me to be more realistic for a T5 Connie and other variations. Update the seating to make use of the skills similar to current T5 ships. Then put in 4 weapons front/rear to make that equal. Consuls around 8 or 9 since it will be a smaller ship. Lastly give it the hull similar to an escort. So it can at least give a beating, but not really take it. Mainly due to its size. With a fast turn rate, it would make a nice ship. That you will learn to fly properly so it wont blow up.
USS Casinghead NCC 92047 launched 2350
Fleet Admiral Stowe - Dominion War Vet.
Comments
Rear Admiral , Engineering Division
U.S.S. Sheffield N.C.C. 92016
this ship?
Have it come with a universal "Medusa" console. Always on, no cooldown. When an enemy ship does a scan in the visual EM band, their bridge officers all turn to stone. ;-) ;-)
Rayzee
excellentawesome#4589
torgaddon101
raeat
Why would you want to be one shotted?
Cryptic can make a 100 kit-bash ships all on their own. They do not need to steal someone else.
And also T5? What are you using?
I call it, the Stoutes paradox.
Helpful Tools: Dictionary.com - Logical fallacies - Random generator - Word generator - Color tool - Extra Credits - List of common English language errors - New T6 Big booty tutorial
That ship actually is canon. It's seen in the backdrop of the Earth Space Dock in Star Trek 3. (Copy and Paste Link to See). And one of them fought at Wolf 359. So Cryptic should have no trouble adding it to STO.
However, given Geko's statements about not wanting the more canonical K'Vort and the Yeager in STO, I doubt we will ever see these unknown ships.
Hence the "Medusa" console.
Rayzee
excellentawesome#4589
torgaddon101
raeat
It wouldn't be all that impressive. May as well just buy the one available now and equip it with fleet equipment. From what I've read in a lot of the T5 Connie threads, it sounds as if people want a buffed version with the hull strength of an Odyssey, the turn rate of an escort, and the firepower of a fleet. Whats next? a battle cloak for it? A carrier launch bay? How far does anyone really belive they'd even take the idea even if they were considering it.
As far as the argument about how it would bring in money, yes, we've all seen their ideas on that, a T5 Connie as a lock box ship.
Thumbs down on the thread merge, btw.
Rayzee
excellentawesome#4589
torgaddon101
raeat
Honestly, I'm not sure I would want to see a T5/Fleet Oberth. There is just a sort of sacrilegious feeling to it.
That was full of win. What game is that from?
Thanks, I'm not that familiar with the swords and magic type games.
I can answer that!
Ka Boom!
Thing with that T1 Connie that's already in the C-store, the "problem" with it is the fact that it's T1. 3 consoles, 3 weapon slots (total), 3 Ensign level BOff powers. Take that into a "stock" ISE PuG and...
And not all of us want a T5 Connie that's as strong as an Oddessy. Partially because that's one of CBS's "terms" keeping us from having a Connie, for once, they've put their foot down and said "we don't want an ~170 year old design as powerful as the latest, greatest cruiser." Hence my proposal earlier this thread to make the Connie a T5 science ship...
And yes, I realise that, spec-wise, it won't be much better than my T5 Luna, probably on a par with the T5 Intrepid-retro. Same with any possible Fleet version vs. Fleet Intrepids / Lunas / Titans / whatevers. However, to any fan of ToS, the point isn't as much "I need the Connie to be the supership of the week in powercreep" and more "give me a ship that won't get me laughed out of an elite STF when I decide to take her for a spin..."
Finally, remember that "faction" ships = C-store, and "alien" ships = lockbox...
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]
Apart from that whole "CBS owning the license and having the final say on what Cryptic can and can't use in STO" issue.
Although I realise that's rapidly becoming an inconvenient truth here.
That's a different kettle of fish though. There's nothing preventing Geko from making modifications to the Gal-R other than his own opinion that there's nothing wrong with it. CBS aren't blocking Crpytic from using the Gal-R, and the whole argument is not "why can't we have it?" but more "why can't we have it upgraded to put it on par with latest C-Store releases?"
Ideally, Geko should be taking the information on board - as word spreads that the Gal-R is practically useless compared to the Oddy and Avenger, it's going to sell less. And for a company that is reliant on micro-transactions, having a product (especially an icon like the Gal-R) that doesn't sell very well is a bad thing indeed.
Kind of. But it's not a different kettle in the context I was using for my statement. You can sub Connie in for Galaxy and CBS in for Geko and arrive at pretty much the same situation. Party X says NO to Idea Y. And Playerbase Z really likes Idea Y and keeps having an ongoing discussion about Idea Y no matter what Party X has said.
So the discussion about improving the Galaxy continues even though the person in charge of those ships has said more than a few times that said improvements are not on the schedule.
In the same way, discussion about a T5 Connie or Fleet T2 Cruiser keeps on keeping on.
All I'm trying to do is illustrate why the discussion keeps cropping up. It's something a lot of people want. So the old "CBS said no, end of discussion" post doesn't work. That doesn't end the discussion. And as we've seen since 2010, it hasn't ended the discussion has it?
Ah yes, I see what you mean there.
And yes, it hasn't ended the discussion. It should have, though.
At first, I thought so. I've been around the Trek license long enough to know that certain "thought out" licensing decisions are essentially "bound in stone".
However, to this day, nobody can give a "concrete" reason as to why the "no" exists, and, as my sig alludes to, at least one previous "CBS No" has been violated already...
Therefore, speculation (due to lack of reasoning) and "we've seen the overturning before" keeps up hopes that the T5 Connie issue goes the way of the "primarily faction headquarters spaces"...
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, I absolutely agree with your assessment of ships being an extension of our character, but your final thought saddens me. This is OUR game! Whether you're a free-to-player or a lifer like me, this game was created for US, for our mutual enjoyment with the hopes of turning a profit.
Yes, I am very glad they decided to make this game and I'm proud to be a lifer. A T5 Constitution doesn't make the game worse for other players but it does make it better for that group of us that want it so very badly. I saw a post by hravik where DStahl states, "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."
Yes, there is someone new as the executive producer, Stephen D'Angelo, and quite some time has rolled by since that Q&A session so I'm not giving up on my dream of doing my end game reputation sorties in what amounts to me driving a 1967 Corvette Stingray next the 2014 Lexus.
Yes, let me take this analogy further in hopes of striking a chord with whomever is "The Decider" on the T5 Connie issue at CBS. Sure the Lexus is nice and I wouldn't mind having one. So is a Porche but I want, no... NEED my '67 Corvette the same way there are people right NOW, this VERY SECOND who NEED to drive their '57 Chevy, the gas mileage and replacement parts costs be damned. As long as they can cruise the road in their favorite ride, they are in heaven. Taking this to the next level, there are many parts manufacturers that make more advanced versions of replacement parts for old cars, effectively "retrofitting" those older vehicles with newer technology. Whole engines with 21st century performance and technology are built and placed in these literally antique vehicles.
Yes, this can be applied to wonderful 25th Century technology where parts can be replicated and I'm betting the tech that fits in a Nova class or Defiant could easily be massaged into a Constitution Class hull which is obviously bigger.
Yes, even in the reboot movie, young Kirk is driving a what? A 1967 Corvette...
Yes, I love it too! In fact, I love it so much that I won't give up on seeing that graceful, elegant, majestic, sturdy beauty on my game screen someday. Don't stop fighting. Like I said in my last post, this is a new year with a new executive producer and anything can happen.
CBS probably doesn't get adamant about things that could pull in a fair amount of money unless there's a damn good reason. Hence why I think the deal with Paramount is probably related to why it's still a no.
They read this forum?
Yes, I'm casting a wide net:
http://www.startrek.com/boards-topic/33382418/tier-5-constition-class-in-sto
http://www.reddit.com/r/sto/comments/1wxj43/tier_5_constitution_class_in_sto/
And comparing it's current refit for 2 fore weps being less than a sci vessel. But whatever it takes, count me in.
I figure at some point they will start wanting more $$$ and maybe we will get lucky.
Why only 36000 hull, go even higher. A good number would be 42900. I like that number.
Its a small-sh cruiser compared to the other offerings out there. Any (un)-likely T5 Connie' wouldn't have as much hull as larger ships. I'm not even wasting my time on the pipe-dream CMDR universal.
USS Casinghead NCC 92047 launched 2350
Fleet Admiral Stowe - Dominion War Vet.