Nice of you to make up theories to fit your beliefs, but none of that was ever stated in the game, in the path to 2409, or in the novel.
What he said was pure mathematics. Constitution 2409-2245 is 164, Oberth is 124. The NX, the Kumari, and the D'Kyr's info is from the game, so you should actually know what you are talking about.
Anyways, I don't really care if there is a Tier V Constitution, it is the player's ship and it really doesn't break immersion. However, if they put the Constitution as the main NPC ship, then that would break immersion, not too much due to Cryptic not even locking in classes for NPC ships. The USS Kirk was three different ships and the IKS Kang is still three different ships.
What he said was pure mathematics. Constitution 2409-2245 is 164, Oberth is 124. The NX, the Kumari, and the D'Kyr's info is from the game, so you should actually know what you are talking about.
Your math is wrong. As stated in the Path to 2409, the ships are all made in the 25th century using 25th century materials.
And you can easily tell this by the Registry numbers they make you choose. If it was a ship from the 2200s, the registry number would be a lot smaller.
Your math is wrong. As stated in the Path to 2409, the ships are all made in the 25th century using 25th century materials.
And you can easily tell this by the Registry numbers they make you choose. If it was a ship from the 2200s, the registry number would be a lot smaller.
I was referring to when they were built as was the originator of the quotee.
What he said was pure mathematics. Constitution 2409-2245 is 164, Oberth is 124. The NX, the Kumari, and the D'Kyr's info is from the game, so you should actually know what you are talking about.
What he said was a bunch of TRIBBLE he made up to justify his opinion. Please show me anything in canon that says vulcans have spent the last few centuries updating d'kyrs over and over rather then making new ships. Or klingons. Or Romulans. I'll wait.
He made it up to rationalize why one ship was in the game over another. Anyone can make up any TRIBBLE to justify their opinion. That doesn't make it canon factual. It just means that how he wants to rationalize one decision over another.
I still think that allowing the T5 Akira's to "wear" it's nacelles above the saucer plane to make an "NX replica" escort at T5 would work, and, if we were to make "old school" ships fit the TNG era "one ship, one class" that the Defiant escort, Intrepid Sci, Galaxy cruiser does, using the NX escort, existing TMP Excelsior Cruiser, that leaves the Connie and Sci...
Which wouldn't be all that bad, IMO. I mean, the Connis is about the size of "existing" science ships like the Nova...
Before I get too deep into my usual logic chain though, I do understand "CBS said no", however, with the lack of an actual CBS rep on this forum saying no, and/or an actual solid explanation as to why the no is a no, we will keep getting these posts on the nigh weekly basis...
And I'll keep posting in these threads showing support for the Connie until it is either given to us, or we hear, preferably from CBS, a solid reason why we aren't ever going to see it, something that's logically irrefutable - for example, if I hear the "Connie shouldn't tank like Sovvy/Oddy", well, I have an argument for that (and it starts with Connie = Sci...)
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 was referring to when they were built as was the originator of the quotee.
And as I pointed out, all these ships were built in and around 2409, as it stated in the Timeline, Path to 2409.
These ships are brand new.
Again, registry number is a dead giveaway.
The registry number of the Constitution Class U.S.S. Lexington was 1709.
The registry number on any ship you make in STO is much much higher than that. Because these brand new ships are just now being popped out of the shipyard.
What he said was a bunch of TRIBBLE he made up to justify his opinion. Please show me anything in canon that says vulcans have spent the last few centuries updating d'kyrs over and over rather then making new ships. Or klingons. Or Romulans. I'll wait.
He made it up to rationalize why one ship was in the game over another. Anyone can make up any TRIBBLE to justify their opinion. That doesn't make it canon factual. It just means that how he wants to rationalize one decision over another.
From the in game STO ship database, the D'Kyr has been in continual use since the 22nd Century. So, it is obviously been being upgraded, since when the player uses it, it is on par with other similar vessels. Nothing that poster said was opinion, it is canon factual.
In regarding the registry numbers, the ones in STO should be taken with a grain of salt, since the USS Kirk was NCC-1672C and the Odyssey was NCC-1701F. According to the in game STO ship database, the TOS Constitution in game is the same class that was brought back into service not a new build. The Oberth is a brand new ship built to Oberth-class hull dimensions, similar to the NX.
Edit: Like I mentioned before, I personally don't see other players ship as canon to the STO game and my own ship, I see it more as active camera to the events of STO like in a holodeck.
From the in game STO ship database, the D'Kyr has been in continual use since the 22nd Century. So, it is obviously been being upgraded,
No. That's not obvious. That's you making a leap. The database doesn't say it was upgraded. Instead it says it has been in continued use. For hundreds of years! Which people keep saying the Constitution can't do.
In regarding the registry numbers, the ones in STO should be taken with a grain of salt,
Oh come on. Stay consistent. Don't quote in game databases and then turn around and say the game has to be taken with a grain of salt.
The video game context is really very specific about what's going on with these ships. It's in the timeline. They are modern ships being popped out for new captains to use because of the Undine War. It's the explanation for why the Miranda, a very old ship, is exactly as powerful as the Centaur, a DS9 era ship that on screen beat up the JHAS.
It's the ex machina to explain why the Cheyenne, cannon fodder at wolf 359, is just as powerful as the stargazer class, a late 24th century design.
It's the "plot" reasoning for why people could ... get this ... fly OLD and NEW ships all at once.
Age has not been a factor in this game at all. Ever.
No. That's not obvious. That's you making a leap. The database doesn't say it was upgraded. Instead it says it has been in continued use. For hundreds of years! Which people keep saying the Constitution can't do.
Oh come on. Stay consistent. Don't quote in game databases and then turn around and say the game has to be taken with a grain of salt.
The video game context is really very specific about what's going on with these ships. It's in the timeline. They are modern ships being popped out for new captains to use because of the Undine War. It's the explanation for why the Miranda, a very old ship, is exactly as powerful as the Centaur, a DS9 era ship that on screen beat up the JHAS.
It's the ex machina to explain why the Cheyenne, cannon fodder at wolf 359, is just as powerful as the stargazer class, a late 24th century design.
It's the "plot" reasoning for why people could ... get this ... fly OLD and NEW ships all at once.
Age has not been a factor in this game at all. Ever.
Well, I suppose the D'Kyr was extremely powerful back in the day. I hate how they put the ship assets in this game, so yes I will agree with you.
Though from what I have seen on how the dev's do it, they put a little bit more thought into the ship database than how they actually implement the ship's in game NPCs. Again, the Constitution, from in game stand point, are the Constitutions from Kirk's time.
Stop spamming the forums with this pro-T5 Connie garbage already.
stardestroyer001, Admiral, Explorers Fury PvE/PvP Fleet | Retired PvP Player
Missing the good ol' days of PvP: Legacy of Romulus to Season 9 My List of Useful Links, Recently Updated November 25 2017!
What he said was a bunch of TRIBBLE he made up to justify his opinion. Please show me anything in canon that says vulcans have spent the last few centuries updating d'kyrs over and over rather then making new ships. Or klingons. Or Romulans. I'll wait.
He made it up to rationalize why one ship was in the game over another. Anyone can make up any TRIBBLE to justify their opinion. That doesn't make it canon factual. It just means that how he wants to rationalize one decision over another.
The Vulcans keep on using it because it is more logical to update good proven designs (not just ships) rather than build new ones all the time, hence why it is T5, when it would really be better as a T4 because then unification wanting Fed-Romulan players could use it - equals more D'Kyr sales for Cryptic.
The Klingons and Romulans have been building new ships and updating older ones - there is a retrofit version of the B'rel and T'Varo. You can't argue against those as far as ST:O canon is concerned.
Your math is wrong. As stated in the Path to 2409, the ships are all made in the 25th century using 25th century materials.
And you can easily tell this by the Registry numbers they make you choose. If it was a ship from the 2200s, the registry number would be a lot smaller.
Now, if you look, I used the word design when I talked about the ages - not the ages of the Ships that are built to that design. As you never quantum date your ship at any point, no ages need specifying.
Captain's log, stardate 45652.1. The Enterprise has entered an area of the Internet known as the Star Trek Online General Discussion board. We are the first Starfleet vessel to chart this unexplored region.
Picard: Report.
Ro: Sensors didn't detect the phenomenon until we were almost on top of it, sir.
Worf: It appears to be a Constitution class thread.
Picard: Back us off, Ensign. Nice and slow.
Ro: Captain, maneuvering thrusters are not responding!
Data: There is a flame war beginning within the thread.
Troi: We have to get out of here now.
Data: Captain, The thread is imploding.
Crusher: Casualty reports coming in from all over the ship.
Riker: This is the Bridge. All hands to emergency escape pods.
Data: Warpcore breach imminent
Picard: All hands abandon ship. Repeat, all hands abandon-
Captain's log, stardate 45652.1. The Enterprise has entered an area of the Internet known as the Star Trek Online General Discussion board. We are the first Starfleet vessel to chart this unexplored region
Classifying a certain group of people as True Star Trek fans is just asking for trouble. Everyone has their own favorite Star Trek series and some of us have never watched TOS
People who have never watched True Trek are Trekkie Wannabes. Plus, CBS streams the True Star Trek episodes on the CBS web site so they're available to both True Trekkies and Wannabes.
From the in game STO ship database, the D'Kyr has been in continual use since the 22nd Century. So, it is obviously been being upgraded, since when the player uses it, it is on par with other similar vessels. Nothing that poster said was opinion, it is canon factual.
In regarding the registry numbers, the ones in STO should be taken with a grain of salt, since the USS Kirk was NCC-1672C and the Odyssey was NCC-1701F. According to the in game STO ship database, the TOS Constitution in game is the same class that was brought back into service not a new build. The Oberth is a brand new ship built to Oberth-class hull dimensions, similar to the NX.
Edit: Like I mentioned before, I personally don't see other players ship as canon to the STO game and my own ship, I see it more as active camera to the events of STO like in a holodeck.
How could they bring the TOS Constitutions back in service when there were only 12? IRC almost all were lost. TMP refits maybe...but not the original TOS 12.
Stop spamming the forums with this pro-T5 Connie garbage already.
How many times did Cryptic tell the Galaxy fans no?
Did that stop them from posting?
Your pain runs deep.
Let us explore it... together. Each man hides a secret pain. It must be exposed and reckoned with. It must be dragged from the darkness and forced into the light. Share your pain. Share your pain with me... and gain strength from the sharing.
The Constellation class... doesn't arrive until Tuesday.
I understand what you were saying, but your typo kinda left an open door. Hope you don't mind.
Yeah you got me...I had just created a toon to go through the game level 1-50 in the connie and named it the Constellation...wires got switched in my head
Your pain runs deep.
Let us explore it... together. Each man hides a secret pain. It must be exposed and reckoned with. It must be dragged from the darkness and forced into the light. Share your pain. Share your pain with me... and gain strength from the sharing.
How many times did Cryptic tell the Galaxy fans no?
Did that stop them from posting?
Cryptic never told the Galaxy fans "no" - and in fact, this revamp proves they said "yes".
Also, CBS never banned a Galaxy. CBS did ban the TOS Connie. A TOS Connie is NOT possible in this game, and thus is not open for debate. (Like I said before, if they want to get a TOS Connie ingame, go to CBS, not here.)
stardestroyer001, Admiral, Explorers Fury PvE/PvP Fleet | Retired PvP Player
Missing the good ol' days of PvP: Legacy of Romulus to Season 9 My List of Useful Links, Recently Updated November 25 2017!
Cryptic never told the Galaxy fans "no" - and in fact, this revamp proves they said "yes".
Also, CBS never banned a Galaxy. CBS did ban the TOS Connie. A TOS Connie is NOT possible in this game, and thus is not open for debate. (Like I said before, if they want to get a TOS Connie ingame, go to CBS, not here.)
I don't see why someone that struggled so hard for their ship to get some love would want to poo-poo someone else's struggle.
Your pain runs deep.
Let us explore it... together. Each man hides a secret pain. It must be exposed and reckoned with. It must be dragged from the darkness and forced into the light. Share your pain. Share your pain with me... and gain strength from the sharing.
I don't see why someone that struggled so hard for their ship to get some love would want to poo-poo someone else's struggle.
Because Cryptic didn't say no to a T5 Constitution, ludicrous as such a thing might be (T3 maybe, T4 at the outside - but a Rear Admiral's vessel??). Cryptic took our requests to CBS, who holds the rights to everything Trek. CBS said no. And whining to Cryptic, or your fellow players, about it will get you exactly nowhere.
I don't see why someone that struggled so hard for their ship to get some love would want to poo-poo someone else's struggle.
Three points.
1) I only advocated for a change. I never strongly pushed for one change or another - just some change. The Galaxy-R never got much love from this revamp anyways.
2) Their "struggle" is deemed illegal by the corporation which allows this game to run.
3) I'm not trashing their dreams. I'm saying stop complaining here, and complain where it would actually be possible to get some kind of redact.
stardestroyer001, Admiral, Explorers Fury PvE/PvP Fleet | Retired PvP Player
Missing the good ol' days of PvP: Legacy of Romulus to Season 9 My List of Useful Links, Recently Updated November 25 2017!
How could they bring the TOS Constitutions back in service when there were only 12? IRC almost all were lost. TMP refits maybe...but not the original TOS 12.
12 as at Tomorrow is Yesterday, TOS Season 1, about a quarter of the way through the classes intended lifespan.
I don't think you understand what the word illegal means.
You want to play Dictionary with me, do it in a different thread.
You understand my meaning regardless; and if you don't, I refer you to the thread in which you posted so frequently. CBS banned the Constitution. There is nothing a player can do on the STO Forums that will change that decision; they must go through CBS.
stardestroyer001, Admiral, Explorers Fury PvE/PvP Fleet | Retired PvP Player
Missing the good ol' days of PvP: Legacy of Romulus to Season 9 My List of Useful Links, Recently Updated November 25 2017!
There are multiple podcasts from Geko linked in the Galaxy thread. How did you miss them?
You understand my meaning regardless; and if you don't, I refer you to the thread in which you posted so frequently. CBS banned the Constitution. There is nothing a player can do on the STO Forums that will change that decision; they must go through CBS.
CBS didn't BAN anything. They said no to DStahl's question years ago. They just said no they don't want the ship in the game. That's not a ban. And there's nothing illegal going on. So no I didn't know what you meant at all. It was just another example of people taking the context of this topic one step further beyond what has actually happened.
CBS said no to DStahl a few years ago. So now it's a ban and is illegal?
Comments
What he said was pure mathematics. Constitution 2409-2245 is 164, Oberth is 124. The NX, the Kumari, and the D'Kyr's info is from the game, so you should actually know what you are talking about.
Anyways, I don't really care if there is a Tier V Constitution, it is the player's ship and it really doesn't break immersion. However, if they put the Constitution as the main NPC ship, then that would break immersion, not too much due to Cryptic not even locking in classes for NPC ships. The USS Kirk was three different ships and the IKS Kang is still three different ships.
Your math is wrong. As stated in the Path to 2409, the ships are all made in the 25th century using 25th century materials.
And you can easily tell this by the Registry numbers they make you choose. If it was a ship from the 2200s, the registry number would be a lot smaller.
I was referring to when they were built as was the originator of the quotee.
He made it up to rationalize why one ship was in the game over another. Anyone can make up any TRIBBLE to justify their opinion. That doesn't make it canon factual. It just means that how he wants to rationalize one decision over another.
Which wouldn't be all that bad, IMO. I mean, the Connis is about the size of "existing" science ships like the Nova...
Before I get too deep into my usual logic chain though, I do understand "CBS said no", however, with the lack of an actual CBS rep on this forum saying no, and/or an actual solid explanation as to why the no is a no, we will keep getting these posts on the nigh weekly basis...
And I'll keep posting in these threads showing support for the Connie until it is either given to us, or we hear, preferably from CBS, a solid reason why we aren't ever going to see it, something that's logically irrefutable - for example, if I hear the "Connie shouldn't tank like Sovvy/Oddy", well, I have an argument for that (and it starts with Connie = Sci...)
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]
And as I pointed out, all these ships were built in and around 2409, as it stated in the Timeline, Path to 2409.
These ships are brand new.
Again, registry number is a dead giveaway.
The registry number of the Constitution Class U.S.S. Lexington was 1709.
The registry number on any ship you make in STO is much much higher than that. Because these brand new ships are just now being popped out of the shipyard.
From the in game STO ship database, the D'Kyr has been in continual use since the 22nd Century. So, it is obviously been being upgraded, since when the player uses it, it is on par with other similar vessels. Nothing that poster said was opinion, it is canon factual.
In regarding the registry numbers, the ones in STO should be taken with a grain of salt, since the USS Kirk was NCC-1672C and the Odyssey was NCC-1701F. According to the in game STO ship database, the TOS Constitution in game is the same class that was brought back into service not a new build. The Oberth is a brand new ship built to Oberth-class hull dimensions, similar to the NX.
Edit: Like I mentioned before, I personally don't see other players ship as canon to the STO game and my own ship, I see it more as active camera to the events of STO like in a holodeck.
No. That's not obvious. That's you making a leap. The database doesn't say it was upgraded. Instead it says it has been in continued use. For hundreds of years! Which people keep saying the Constitution can't do.
Oh come on. Stay consistent. Don't quote in game databases and then turn around and say the game has to be taken with a grain of salt.
The video game context is really very specific about what's going on with these ships. It's in the timeline. They are modern ships being popped out for new captains to use because of the Undine War. It's the explanation for why the Miranda, a very old ship, is exactly as powerful as the Centaur, a DS9 era ship that on screen beat up the JHAS.
It's the ex machina to explain why the Cheyenne, cannon fodder at wolf 359, is just as powerful as the stargazer class, a late 24th century design.
It's the "plot" reasoning for why people could ... get this ... fly OLD and NEW ships all at once.
Age has not been a factor in this game at all. Ever.
Well, I suppose the D'Kyr was extremely powerful back in the day. I hate how they put the ship assets in this game, so yes I will agree with you.
Though from what I have seen on how the dev's do it, they put a little bit more thought into the ship database than how they actually implement the ship's in game NPCs. Again, the Constitution, from in game stand point, are the Constitutions from Kirk's time.
We just need a 22nd century server, where the Connie is a RA ship.
--Red Annorax
Because CBS said no. Leave it at that. Dead horse beaters...
http://www.arcgames.com/en/games/star-trek-online/news/detail/10052253
Why are you not rejoicing?
The reasons why have been covered already.
Stop spamming the forums with this pro-T5 Connie garbage already.
Missing the good ol' days of PvP: Legacy of Romulus to Season 9
My List of Useful Links, Recently Updated November 25 2017!
The Vulcans keep on using it because it is more logical to update good proven designs (not just ships) rather than build new ones all the time, hence why it is T5, when it would really be better as a T4 because then unification wanting Fed-Romulan players could use it - equals more D'Kyr sales for Cryptic.
The Klingons and Romulans have been building new ships and updating older ones - there is a retrofit version of the B'rel and T'Varo. You can't argue against those as far as ST:O canon is concerned.
I didn't make anything up, it is all in the game.
Now, if you look, I used the word design when I talked about the ages - not the ages of the Ships that are built to that design. As you never quantum date your ship at any point, no ages need specifying.
Captain's log, stardate 45652.1. The Enterprise has entered an area of the Internet known as the Star Trek Online General Discussion board. We are the first Starfleet vessel to chart this unexplored region.
Picard: Report.
Ro: Sensors didn't detect the phenomenon until we were almost on top of it, sir.
Worf: It appears to be a Constitution class thread.
Picard: Back us off, Ensign. Nice and slow.
Ro: Captain, maneuvering thrusters are not responding!
Data: There is a flame war beginning within the thread.
Troi: We have to get out of here now.
Data: Captain, The thread is imploding.
Crusher: Casualty reports coming in from all over the ship.
Riker: This is the Bridge. All hands to emergency escape pods.
Data: Warpcore breach imminent
Picard: All hands abandon ship. Repeat, all hands abandon-
Captain's log, stardate 45652.1. The Enterprise has entered an area of the Internet known as the Star Trek Online General Discussion board. We are the first Starfleet vessel to chart this unexplored region
How could they bring the TOS Constitutions back in service when there were only 12? IRC almost all were lost. TMP refits maybe...but not the original TOS 12.
original join date 2010
Member: Team Trekyards. Visit Trekyards today!
How many times did Cryptic tell the Galaxy fans no?
Did that stop them from posting?
Let us explore it... together. Each man hides a secret pain. It must be exposed and reckoned with. It must be dragged from the darkness and forced into the light. Share your pain. Share your pain with me... and gain strength from the sharing.
Yeah you got me...I had just created a toon to go through the game level 1-50 in the connie and named it the Constellation...wires got switched in my head
Let us explore it... together. Each man hides a secret pain. It must be exposed and reckoned with. It must be dragged from the darkness and forced into the light. Share your pain. Share your pain with me... and gain strength from the sharing.
Cryptic never told the Galaxy fans "no" - and in fact, this revamp proves they said "yes".
Also, CBS never banned a Galaxy. CBS did ban the TOS Connie. A TOS Connie is NOT possible in this game, and thus is not open for debate. (Like I said before, if they want to get a TOS Connie ingame, go to CBS, not here.)
Missing the good ol' days of PvP: Legacy of Romulus to Season 9
My List of Useful Links, Recently Updated November 25 2017!
I don't see why someone that struggled so hard for their ship to get some love would want to poo-poo someone else's struggle.
Let us explore it... together. Each man hides a secret pain. It must be exposed and reckoned with. It must be dragged from the darkness and forced into the light. Share your pain. Share your pain with me... and gain strength from the sharing.
Three points.
1) I only advocated for a change. I never strongly pushed for one change or another - just some change. The Galaxy-R never got much love from this revamp anyways.
2) Their "struggle" is deemed illegal by the corporation which allows this game to run.
3) I'm not trashing their dreams. I'm saying stop complaining here, and complain where it would actually be possible to get some kind of redact.
Missing the good ol' days of PvP: Legacy of Romulus to Season 9
My List of Useful Links, Recently Updated November 25 2017!
Yes, Cryptic did. Geko did. Specifically. In podcasts.
Uh ...
Yes. They did. During the game's development and launch, CBS literally said no TV show ships at end-game.
They changed their mind. And eventually the first wave of retrofits were made.
I don't think you understand what the word illegal means.
12 as at Tomorrow is Yesterday, TOS Season 1, about a quarter of the way through the classes intended lifespan.
Please post the podcast, I'd like to have a look.
You want to play Dictionary with me, do it in a different thread.
You understand my meaning regardless; and if you don't, I refer you to the thread in which you posted so frequently. CBS banned the Constitution. There is nothing a player can do on the STO Forums that will change that decision; they must go through CBS.
Missing the good ol' days of PvP: Legacy of Romulus to Season 9
My List of Useful Links, Recently Updated November 25 2017!
There are multiple podcasts from Geko linked in the Galaxy thread. How did you miss them?
CBS didn't BAN anything. They said no to DStahl's question years ago. They just said no they don't want the ship in the game. That's not a ban. And there's nothing illegal going on. So no I didn't know what you meant at all. It was just another example of people taking the context of this topic one step further beyond what has actually happened.
CBS said no to DStahl a few years ago. So now it's a ban and is illegal?
The Solution is a T5 Connie which costs 5000 Zen, of which 2500 is the normal T5 cost and the rest is a bribe to CBS for them to allow it...
/Partial joke.