Except that the t2 ships can also be the movie connie.
Same point. How many times do you see a TMP Constitution in any zone? Also, it is far more likely for someone to have a Tier 2 Cruiser with TMP Constitution parts than a TMP Constitution.
Same point. How many times do you see a TMP Constitution in any zone? Also, it is far more likely for someone to have a Tier 2 Cruiser with TMP Constitution parts than a TMP Constitution.
I think the point is that you can use the connie for 40% of the game: first 20 levels; and if you have the exeter you can extend that into 25+ levels without diffuclty. If you can use the ship half the game you might as well make it usable the other half.
I sincerely wish you the best of luck changing CBS's minds, but I think you'd have better luck taking it to CBS directly.
It seems to be that it will be a lot easier for CBS to create a new TV series than changing their mind on the Constitution. Most Star Trek fans are waiting for a new Star Trek series and not flying a ship in a MMO.
I think the point is that you can use the connie for 40% of the game: first 20 levels; and if you have the exeter you can extend that into 25+ levels without diffuclty. If you can use the ship half the game you might as well make it usable the other half.
Not quite right. You fly the Connie for 10% and the TMP Connie for 10-15% of the time spent leveling so it is not about half since they are two completely different ships. The difference between the Connie and TMP Connie brings up how much can you replace on a ship before it is no longer that ship and the TMP Connie replaces far too much to be the same ship.
Not quite right. You fly the Connie for 10% and the TMP Connie for 10-15% of the time spent leveling so it is not about half since they are two completely different ships. The difference between the Connie and TMP Connie brings up how much can you replace on a ship before it is no longer that ship and the TMP Connie replaces far too much to be the same ship.
So... we should get the Exeter and Excalibur variants at Fleet then since they replace TMP?
Ive read a few posts n would like to know why so meny ppl ignore the fact that CBS the licence holders have said no?
That's not what this thread is about.
This thread is asking why so many players choose to hate on the Constitution.
So everything to do with CBS has absolutely no relevance here. Put that aside. It's for some other thread.
No, this one is about how people keep trying to cling to some argument about how the Constitution is old when they themselves are flying some old ship (like an Excelsior).
This thread is about how people are A-OK flying THEIR favorite ship at end-game, even though by 2409 it's most likely an old and dated look (unless they're flying a Star Cruiser or an Avenger), but when someone else wants to fly a different favorite ship, they get all hypocritical about it.
That's what this thread is about.
This thread is about all those Galaxy fans and Excelsior fans being hypocrites.
This thread is about all those Galaxy fans and Excelsior fans being hypocrites.
I'm a Galaxy fan and I support the people that want to have a Connie.
There's no group of fans of one show/ship that as a group want to bring down the hopes and dreams of another group of fans of another ST show/ship. There's just opinionated people.
So... we should get the Exeter and Excalibur variants at Fleet then since they replace TMP?
While I would have preferred that Tier 2 ships don't have Fleet version, my objections are moot with the Fleet Escort Retrofit and Fleet Science Vessel Retrofit. So the Exeter, Excalibur, and Vesper should have a Fleet version. I believe the only reason why we don't have the Fleet Cruiser Retrofit is due to the Constitution refit and Cryptic for whatever reason hasn't decided to scrap the Constitution Refit from the Fleet Cruiser Retrofit lineup and release the ship. CBS said no to the Constitution so it must include the Constitution Refit as well.
I'm a Galaxy fan and I support the people that want to have a Connie.
I'm a Connie fan and supported very vigorously putting the Excelsior into the game waaaaaay back when.
Unfortunately, we're the exception to the rule in threads like this.
There's no group of fans of one show/ship that as a group want to bring down the hopes and dreams of another group of fans of another ST show/ship. There's just opinionated people.
True. But there are quite a few posters in the many and varied Connie threads over the years that have been aggressively vehement against the idea of this ship flying at T5, and you find out they absolutely LOVE flying their Nebula-Galaxy-Intrepid-Defiant-Excelsior at T5.
It's not a cut and dry thing. But there are oh so many examples. A few will certainly be by in this thread to call it a dead horse, and probably dip into some commentary about how old the Constitution is.
And that's really what this thread is about. What is their beef with other people wanting to fly their favorite ship?
It can't be linked to age. Not in THIS Star Trek game. There's just too many ships that are already too old to be flown in 2409 at the peak of the end-game to realistically argue that the Constitution can't just be tossed onto the pile.
While I would have preferred that Tier 2 ships don't have Fleet version, my objections are moot with the Fleet Escort Retrofit and Fleet Science Vessel Retrofit. So the Exeter, Excalibur, and Vesper should have a Fleet version. I believe the only reason why we don't have the Fleet Cruiser Retrofit is due to the Constitution refit and Cryptic for whatever reason hasn't decided to scrap the Constitution Refit from the Fleet Cruiser Retrofit lineup and release the ship. CBS said no to the Constitution so it must include the Constitution Refit as well.
Right, I dig that. I mean, we all know it's relatively hypocritical at this point to pick and choose what century old ships should be in game and what have you, but even assuming that we're rolling on that logic of out-dated tech and design then the Excalibur and Exeter should be Fleet ships.
Those aren't old ships and Starfleet wouldn't waste the budget on building new ships that are completely useless.
Oh boy here we go again. And again I must toss in my 2 cents.
No to a tier 5 constitution. Yes to a tier 5 exeter/excalibur/vesper. That covers it for me.
Star Trek Battles member. Want to roll with a good group of people regardless of fleets and not have to worry about DPS while doing STFs? Come join the channel and join in the fun!
So the US Coast Guard new patrol ships are completly useless them?
The Nova was inferior to the Intrepid despite being of the same "generation" because they were build for entirely different purposes, this is why the Nova sits were it does.
Better analogy. Why would starfleet build the Excalibur, Vesper and Exeter classes? They are new build ships built 2391 and on. Which have the same style of hull design but are brand new ships, some of the newest ships in starfleet's inventory.
Newer than the Galaxy, Defiant, Promethius, Akria, Excelisor and a few others I can name.
So why can't we have a tier 5 Exeter? One of the newest ships in starfleet.
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!
We already have a really good idea of what the issue is with CBS.
So this is a far more valid question and way more relevant to THESE forums.
Since the only answer I keep seeing put by the players is "it's too old."
In a game with the D'Kyr and T'Varo as viable end-game ships.
That leads me to the idea of hypocrisy. Kind of a "I can already fly my favorite ship, forget all those other people clinging to the past!"
The OP wanted an in-game, canon explanation (as near as I could tell - walls of text with no punctuation or capitalization are very difficult to read). I gave one. The fact that someone dislikes the idea for metagame reasons is irrelevant.
The OP wanted an in-game, canon explanation (as near as I could tell - walls of text with no punctuation or capitalization are very difficult to read). I gave one. The fact that someone dislikes the idea for metagame reasons is irrelevant.
Nah, that's not what was in that wall of text. Also, STO has no metagame. Which brings us back to what I've been saying. Hypocrisy.
Most Connie naysayers are what I call "genners." They grew up with TNG and won't watch TOS because it's "old" and "has bad effects."
Growing up with TOS, I was waiting for Riker to take over from the stodgy old proffessor because he kind of looked like Kirk back then. Imagine my disappointment.
The problem seems to be when someone selfishly complains about someone else's preferences as it interferes with their immersion.
I'd say the best advice is: "Mind Your Own Business." It doesn't matter what someone else flies in this sandbox and nothing short of a complete reboot will make this game "canon."
Star Trek Gamers are no FANS of Captian alternate timeline Archer NX Enterprise that ship does not exist in Trek canon as you don't see it on the rec deck of TMP.You don't it on observation lounge of the Ent. E First Conteact when Picard knocksmost of the gold ships down take a good notice of D.
I know this to be fact as I ma in serveral Trek gaming communites and been at it for over 10 years now.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]Age StarTrek-Gamers Administrator
USS WARRIOR NCC 1720 Commanding Officer Star Trek Gamers
Star Trek Gamers are no FANS of Captian alternate timeline Archer NX Enterprise that ship does not exist in Trek canon as you don't see it on the rec deck of TMP.You don't it on observation lounge of the Ent. E First Conteact when Picard knocksmost of the gold ships down take a good notice of D.
I know this to be fact as I ma in serveral Trek gaming communites and been at it for over 10 years now.
but... the USS Archer in Nemesis?
Don't look silly... Don't call it the "Z-Store/Zen Store"...
Star Trek Gamers are no FANS of Captian alternate timeline Archer NX Enterprise that ship does not exist in Trek canon as you don't see it on the rec deck of TMP.You don't it on observation lounge of the Ent. E First Conteact when Picard knocksmost of the gold ships down take a good notice of D.
I know this to be fact as I ma in serveral Trek gaming communites and been at it for over 10 years now.
Comments
Same point. How many times do you see a TMP Constitution in any zone? Also, it is far more likely for someone to have a Tier 2 Cruiser with TMP Constitution parts than a TMP Constitution.
It seems to be that it will be a lot easier for CBS to create a new TV series than changing their mind on the Constitution. Most Star Trek fans are waiting for a new Star Trek series and not flying a ship in a MMO.
From what I've heard it's only one desenter. Surely a nearby con could visit him and explain their opinion persuasively.
Um there is a Wookie in Swtor if you go with a soundrel/gunslinger.
Like I said, just fix the BO situation and everyone can at least feel like their StarShip isn't completely useless.
He probably meant as a PC.
Not quite right. You fly the Connie for 10% and the TMP Connie for 10-15% of the time spent leveling so it is not about half since they are two completely different ships. The difference between the Connie and TMP Connie brings up how much can you replace on a ship before it is no longer that ship and the TMP Connie replaces far too much to be the same ship.
So... we should get the Exeter and Excalibur variants at Fleet then since they replace TMP?
That's not what this thread is about.
This thread is asking why so many players choose to hate on the Constitution.
So everything to do with CBS has absolutely no relevance here. Put that aside. It's for some other thread.
No, this one is about how people keep trying to cling to some argument about how the Constitution is old when they themselves are flying some old ship (like an Excelsior).
This thread is about how people are A-OK flying THEIR favorite ship at end-game, even though by 2409 it's most likely an old and dated look (unless they're flying a Star Cruiser or an Avenger), but when someone else wants to fly a different favorite ship, they get all hypocritical about it.
That's what this thread is about.
This thread is about all those Galaxy fans and Excelsior fans being hypocrites.
Carry on.
I'm a Galaxy fan and I support the people that want to have a Connie.
There's no group of fans of one show/ship that as a group want to bring down the hopes and dreams of another group of fans of another ST show/ship. There's just opinionated people.
While I would have preferred that Tier 2 ships don't have Fleet version, my objections are moot with the Fleet Escort Retrofit and Fleet Science Vessel Retrofit. So the Exeter, Excalibur, and Vesper should have a Fleet version. I believe the only reason why we don't have the Fleet Cruiser Retrofit is due to the Constitution refit and Cryptic for whatever reason hasn't decided to scrap the Constitution Refit from the Fleet Cruiser Retrofit lineup and release the ship. CBS said no to the Constitution so it must include the Constitution Refit as well.
I'm a Connie fan and supported very vigorously putting the Excelsior into the game waaaaaay back when.
Unfortunately, we're the exception to the rule in threads like this.
True. But there are quite a few posters in the many and varied Connie threads over the years that have been aggressively vehement against the idea of this ship flying at T5, and you find out they absolutely LOVE flying their Nebula-Galaxy-Intrepid-Defiant-Excelsior at T5.
It's not a cut and dry thing. But there are oh so many examples. A few will certainly be by in this thread to call it a dead horse, and probably dip into some commentary about how old the Constitution is.
And that's really what this thread is about. What is their beef with other people wanting to fly their favorite ship?
It can't be linked to age. Not in THIS Star Trek game. There's just too many ships that are already too old to be flown in 2409 at the peak of the end-game to realistically argue that the Constitution can't just be tossed onto the pile.
We already have a really good idea of what the issue is with CBS.
So this is a far more valid question and way more relevant to THESE forums.
Since the only answer I keep seeing put by the players is "it's too old."
In a game with the D'Kyr and T'Varo as viable end-game ships.
That leads me to the idea of hypocrisy. Kind of a "I can already fly my favorite ship, forget all those other people clinging to the past!"
Right, I dig that. I mean, we all know it's relatively hypocritical at this point to pick and choose what century old ships should be in game and what have you, but even assuming that we're rolling on that logic of out-dated tech and design then the Excalibur and Exeter should be Fleet ships.
Those aren't old ships and Starfleet wouldn't waste the budget on building new ships that are completely useless.
No to a tier 5 constitution. Yes to a tier 5 exeter/excalibur/vesper. That covers it for me.
Star Trek Battles member. Want to roll with a good group of people regardless of fleets and not have to worry about DPS while doing STFs? Come join the channel and join in the fun!
http://forum.arcgames.com/startrekonline/discussion/1145998/star-trek-battles-channel-got-canon/p1
Better analogy. Why would starfleet build the Excalibur, Vesper and Exeter classes? They are new build ships built 2391 and on. Which have the same style of hull design but are brand new ships, some of the newest ships in starfleet's inventory.
Newer than the Galaxy, Defiant, Promethius, Akria, Excelisor and a few others I can name.
So why can't we have a tier 5 Exeter? One of the newest ships in starfleet.
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
Confidence born of ignorance. The cycle cannot be broken.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sQBb1wXzbBY
Nah, that's not what was in that wall of text. Also, STO has no metagame. Which brings us back to what I've been saying. Hypocrisy.
Most Connie naysayers are what I call "genners." They grew up with TNG and won't watch TOS because it's "old" and "has bad effects."
Growing up with TOS, I was waiting for Riker to take over from the stodgy old proffessor because he kind of looked like Kirk back then. Imagine my disappointment.
The problem seems to be when someone selfishly complains about someone else's preferences as it interferes with their immersion.
I'd say the best advice is: "Mind Your Own Business." It doesn't matter what someone else flies in this sandbox and nothing short of a complete reboot will make this game "canon."
Rear Admiral , Engineering Division
U.S.S. Sheffield N.C.C. 92016
I know this to be fact as I ma in serveral Trek gaming communites and been at it for over 10 years now.
USS WARRIOR NCC 1720 Commanding Officer
Star Trek Gamers
but... the USS Archer in Nemesis?
:P
..........you serious?
It is canon alright, just you will have some people ignore it is because the series is REALLY bad up until the 4th season.
But hey, by that logic Voyager is not canon because many of those episodes were bad as well (also, they had neelix)
Granted, Voyager has the best villain in Star trek, Janeway.