test content
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc

What is Everyones Beef on the Poor Constitution class

1234568

Comments

  • tinkerstormtinkerstorm Member Posts: 853 Arc User
    edited March 2014
    i would enjoy a T5 Connie, however there is a small problem.. its a bit... small

    compared to other ships its length, they generally carry smaller crews, and are a bit bulkier.
    this may be due to having thicker plating (look at that thin neck and pylons of the Connie), and more room put to more essential labs or computers.

    what i think would be viable, is making a larger ship (about the size of a ambassador, or Excelsior? maybe bit smaller or bigger) with a look very similar to that of a Connie.

    it won't be a Connie as it was in Kirks time, But a larger, stronger, and new, ship influenced by the design of the Connie
    Upscale the Exeter and call it a day.
    khan5000 wrote: »
    Figures I'd have to go look for it...anyone know how far back have to look?

    and the beauty of TOS days is that we can open it up to fans of the other series...TOS Mondays, TNG Tuesdays, DS9 Wednesdays, Voyager Thursdays, Enterprise Fridays...
    I'd be down for separate servers for each instead of featured days. I'd like to play on a server that only has 25th Century ships. No clunky Picard schtuff.
  • wolfbladexzwolfbladexz Member Posts: 21
    edited March 2014
    It's bigger than the Saber, Nova and Defiant, all already at T5. And is comparable to the D7 and bigger than the T'Varo. Again all already at T5.

    Size isn't an issue.



    You know what the crew...... size on my Kumari is?

    85 people.

    It's a pretty decent ship in terms of T5 functionality. But is kind of small. And has a tiny crew.

    ... You completely misunderstood my point.
    The Connie (compared to ships of similar size), has to much crew for its size. Any other ship close to it have almost half the Connie's crew size yet they are generally more bulky (again, I will guess this is due to more space for computers, hull, larger warp core, ect..) then the Connie (a rather.. Frail, skinny ship.
    My point is that the Connie should be either bulked up, or made bigger, to be a tier 5 ship
  • psycoticvulcanpsycoticvulcan Member Posts: 4,160 Arc User
    edited March 2014
    The issue is not whether Starfleet would be using Connies in 2409. That's a moot point because they are already in the game. The issue is whether they can be refitted to be useful at T5.

    I think a T5 Connie is a bit hard to swallow, but I'd love a T5 Exeter.
    NJ9oXSO.png
    "Critics who say that the optimistic utopia Star Trek depicted is now outmoded forget the cultural context that gave birth to it: Star Trek was not a manifestation of optimism when optimism was easy. Star Trek declared a hope for a future that nobody stuck in the present could believe in. For all our struggles today, we haven’t outgrown the need for stories like Star Trek. We need tales of optimism, of heroes, of courage and goodness now as much as we’ve ever needed them."
    -Thomas Marrone
  • snoggymack22snoggymack22 Member Posts: 7,084 Arc User
    edited March 2014
    ... You completely misunderstood my point.
    The Connie (compared to ships of similar size), has to much crew for its size. Any other ship close to it have almost half the Connie's crew size yet they are generally more bulky (again, I will guess this is due to more space for computers, hull, larger warp core, ect..) then the Connie (a rather.. Frail, skinny ship.
    My point is that the Connie should be either bulked up, or made bigger, to be a tier 5 ship

    This is FICTION. None of what you said applies to this fictional universe.

    Remember in that Harry Potter film when they all went to watch the world cup of quidditch and Harry saw a small tent but inside it was super huge?

    Same deal here. Fictioneering!
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • starkaosstarkaos Member Posts: 11,556 Arc User
    edited March 2014
    This is FICTION. None of what you said applies to this fictional universe.

    Remember in that Harry Potter film when they all went to watch the world cup of quidditch and Harry saw a small tent but inside it was super huge?

    Same deal here. Fictioneering!

    True, it is fiction, but all good fiction follows a set of defined rules. Even a fantasy series like Harry Potter has its own set of defined rules that it has to follow. You can't have the Constitution be 600 meters long in one episode and 200 meters long in another episode or Avada Kedavra as the Killing Curse in one Harry Potter Book and the levitation spell in another book.
  • iconiansiconians Member Posts: 6,987 Arc User
    edited March 2014
    starkaos wrote: »
    True, it is fiction, but all good fiction follows a set of defined rules.

    No, it doesn't.
    ExtxpTp.jpg
  • wolfbladexzwolfbladexz Member Posts: 21
    edited March 2014
    This is FICTION. None of what you said applies to this fictional universe.

    Remember in that Harry Potter film when they all went to watch the world cup of quidditch and Harry saw a small tent but inside it was super huge?

    Same deal here. Fictioneering!

    Never saw any of the harry potter movies.. but seeing as harry potter is about MAGIC I think it is safe to say that tent was magic
    And yes I know star trek is fiction, what I am saying is just some simple logic to validate making a slightly larger ship that looks like a Connie for sto.. I guess however that you must just not be into new ideas to get a tier 5 Connie into the game.

    I never said star trek isn't fiction. however in the course of watching literally ALL of star trek, I have seen some of it to be based on fact, or at least try
  • snoggymack22snoggymack22 Member Posts: 7,084 Arc User
    edited March 2014
    Our opinions aren't relevant on the subject as CBS has vetoed the idea. Nothings going to change unless CBS changes it's mind.

    The CBS thing isn't what this particular thread is about.
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • stardestroyer001stardestroyer001 Member Posts: 2,615 Arc User
    edited March 2014
    The CBS thing isn't what this particular thread is about.
    ryuranger wrote: »
    [Hey] everyone.

    I am reading [the] forums here and people are actually [against] a retrofit Tier 5 Constitution-class Vessel, and they [would] rather have the NX-class as Tier 5. What the frag here [???].

    The Constitution-class as been in the Star Trek franchise since the [very] beginning; heck, the Original Enterprise [is] an icon, and not [the NX-class, which] almost killed the franchise. You guys [want] to have the Star Trek "Killer" NX-class for Tier 5, then [what about] the Constitution-class, [which is] what brought me in to Star Trek in the first place[?]

    [It pisses] me off when people ([mainly] gamers) [say] that the NX-class is so cool, [just] because is a remodel of [the Akira? the Connie?]. What about the Constitution-class? It's been refitted so many times it surpassed [the original] Constitution-class for more then 200 years. The class [still] serves to this day. And where is the original NX-class? Either as a historical ship in the Starfleet museum, or rotting away in some sort of space junkyard.

    I am just stating a point, [listen to] my opinion. True Star Trek fans [know] the value of the Constitution-class, [know] it's a good ship, and deserves a Tier 5 [version]. Heck, the Cheyenne-class got a [mirror version], why not [the] Constitution-class?

    It's my opinion anyways; what [do] you guys think?
    *Bad grammar/spelling repaired as best I could.

    Basically the guy is pushing for a T5 Connie. And as "proof", he deduces that, if the NX-class gets a T5 variant, so should the Connie.

    The guy doesn't know, and was probably too lazy to look up, CBS's ban on a T5 Connie in STO.

    So, while the thread isn't directly about CBS's ban, it does come into play as the most critical piece of information.
    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!
  • shpoksshpoks Member Posts: 6,967 Arc User
    edited March 2014
    talonxv wrote: »
    defiant has a crew of 50.

    Well, since we're doing this - the B'rel has a crew of 30.
    I'd be down for separate servers for each instead of featured days. I'd like to play on a server that only has 25th Century ships. No clunky Picard schtuff.

    Good luck getting a team for anything on the 25-th Century server if they ever divide the game into servers based on each Star Trek era (which will happen when Gre'thor freezes over).
    The guy doesn't know, and was probably too lazy to look up, CBS's ban on a T5 Connie in STO.

    As I said before, I'll believe that when I hear it directly from the horse's mouth.
    HQroeLu.jpg
  • snoggymack22snoggymack22 Member Posts: 7,084 Arc User
    edited March 2014
    So, while the thread isn't directly about CBS's ban, it does come into play as the most critical piece of information.

    It's not relevant to this thread or this discussion. This thread is about wanting to know why players have some sort of beefy chip on their shoulder about the Constitution at T5. So this thread is mainly about exploring the many and varied ways people misinterpret the Tier system that Cryptic sort of implemented and then tied into knots.

    It's quite thrilling to see people talk about how small the Connie is, when the Saber rocks it at T5. Or the Aquarius, which is so tiny it pops out of the Odyssey.

    It's kind of fun to discuss how the Connie is too old to be T5 when ships from the ENT era are at T5.

    And it's amazing to see so much hatred for the ship that pretty much launched the series.

    This thread has nothing to do with CBS.

    And everything to do with the hypocrisy inherent in the playerbase who absolutely go bananas playing THEIR favorite old ship (be it the Excelsior, the Galaxy, the Ambassador), but then start citing ship dimensions and age whenever anyone else wants to play a different favorite ship.
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • pweapers#8079 pweapers Member, Administrator Posts: 6 Cryptic Developer
    edited March 2014
    testing... testing...
    Only a fool quotes himself - pweap
  • khan5000khan5000 Member Posts: 3,008 Arc User
    edited March 2014
    It's not relevant to this thread or this discussion. This thread is about wanting to know why players have some sort of beefy chip on their shoulder about the Constitution at T5. So this thread is mainly about exploring the many and varied ways people misinterpret the Tier system that Cryptic sort of implemented and then tied into knots.

    It's quite thrilling to see people talk about how small the Connie is, when the Saber rocks it at T5. Or the Aquarius, which is so tiny it pops out of the Odyssey.

    It's kind of fun to discuss how the Connie is too old to be T5 when ships from the ENT era are at T5.

    And it's amazing to see so much hatred for the ship that pretty much launched the series.

    This thread has nothing to do with CBS.

    And everything to do with the hypocrisy inherent in the playerbase who absolutely go bananas playing THEIR favorite old ship (be it the Excelsior, the Galaxy, the Ambassador), but then start citing ship dimensions and age whenever anyone else wants to play a different favorite ship.

    Ouch go easy on 'em
    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.
  • snoggymack22snoggymack22 Member Posts: 7,084 Arc User
    edited March 2014
    Ah, my posts are never 100% serious. So you know, I hope folks don't get worked up by what I type.

    I like talking Trek. I LOVE talking about the Kirk era stuff in this game. But I'm not exactly jumping up and down when I post.

    Usually.

    ;)
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • thegalaxy31thegalaxy31 Member Posts: 1,211 Arc User
    edited March 2014
    appwe wrote: »
    testing... testing...

    You can't post test posts.
    I would love to visit this star in-game...or maybe this one!
    Won't SOMEONE please think of the CHILDREN?!
  • stardestroyer001stardestroyer001 Member Posts: 2,615 Arc User
    edited March 2014
    It's not relevant to this thread or this discussion. This thread is about wanting to know why players have some sort of beefy chip on their shoulder about the Constitution at T5.
    ryuranger wrote:
    [Hey] everyone.

    I am reading [the] forums here and people are actually [against] a retrofit Tier 5 Constitution-class Vessel, and they [would] rather have the NX-class as Tier 5. What the frag here [???].

    The Constitution-class as been in the Star Trek franchise since the [very] beginning; heck, the Original Enterprise [is] an icon, and not [the NX-class, which] almost killed the franchise. You guys [want] to have the Star Trek "Killer" NX-class for Tier 5, then [what about] the Constitution-class, [which is] what brought me in to Star Trek in the first place[?]

    [It pisses] me off when people ([mainly] gamers) [say] that the NX-class is so cool, [just] because is a remodel of [the Akira? the Connie?]. What about the Constitution-class? It's been refitted so many times it surpassed [the original] Constitution-class for more then 200 years. The class [still] serves to this day. And where is the original NX-class? Either as a historical ship in the Starfleet museum, or rotting away in some sort of space junkyard.

    I am just stating a point,[listen to] my opinion. True Star Trek fans [know] the value of the Constitution-class, [know] it's a good ship, and deserves a Tier 5 [version]. Heck, the Cheyenne-class got a [mirror version], why not [the] Constitution-class?

    It's my opinion anyways; what [do] you guys think?

    Quite the contrary. The thread is about pushing for a T5 Connie, using a hypothetical comparative scenario as "proof".

    And thus, the whole CBS spiel becomes involved, because T5 Connies aren't allowed in the game, no matter how hard ryuranger wants one.
    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!
  • snoggymack22snoggymack22 Member Posts: 7,084 Arc User
    edited March 2014
    Quite the contrary. The thread is about pushing for a T5 Connie, using a hypothetical comparative scenario as "proof".

    Nah, this thread has nothing to do with CBS. And since you've already commented about CBS, and we've all read that statement and understand the point and have moved on with the conversation ... what is it you're trying to do now?

    CBS said no? Ok. Moving along to other things to talk about ...

    When CBS finally gets its licensing issues sorted out with Bad Robot and then say yes to this money making idea and the Constitution Retrofit hits the C-Store, what's your beef with the poor Constitution class?
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • stardestroyer001stardestroyer001 Member Posts: 2,615 Arc User
    edited March 2014
    Nah, this thread has nothing to do with CBS.
    Stop.

    That's clearly wrong. See above post.

    And since you've already commented about CBS, and we've all read that statement and understand the point and have moved on with the conversation ... what is it you're trying to do now?
    It's clear that, while you have read the statements I've made in this thread, you don't understand the point. CBS is involved. Again, see above post.

    And that is why we haven't moved on.
    CBS said no? Ok. Moving along to other things to talk about ...

    When CBS finally gets its licensing issues sorted out with Bad Robot and then say yes to this money making idea and the Constitution Retrofit hits the C-Store, what's your beef with the poor Constitution class?

    I won't have any. My "beef", so to speak, is not the ship itself (I would LOVE to fly a Connie at T5, don't get me wrong. I even sent another email to them earlier today). My beef is with those shortsighted forum people who do not check before posting how they "must" have their T5 Connie, when there is nothing that can possibly be done from this end - a fact which is thrown around these forums so often, it is easy to find.

    And, I'll even go one step further.
    spam (verb) 1.send the same message indiscriminately to (large numbers of recipients) on the Internet.
    Count the number of Connie threads, and you'll come to a similar conclusion.
    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!
  • snoggymack22snoggymack22 Member Posts: 7,084 Arc User
    edited March 2014
    It's clear that, while you have read the statements I've made in this thread, you don't understand the point.

    I understand the point. I just don't care. It's not really part of this thread. It IS PART OF THIS THREAD. So put all your fun CBS commentary there?

    At this point you're just trying to derail the discussion. You have stated how many times now about CBS? We read all of it. We get it. We don't care. We're talking about something else. And there is a whole other thread for you to go and talk about CBS in.
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • stardestroyer001stardestroyer001 Member Posts: 2,615 Arc User
    edited March 2014
    I understand the point. I just don't care. It's not really part of this thread. It is part of this thread. So put all your fun CBS commentary there?
    Someone already beat me to the punchline over there; and in fact, the whole thread agrees with the truth.

    This thread, however, does not.
    At this point you're just trying to derail the discussion.

    Actually that's quite the opposite. I'm the one trying to stick to the thread. I referenced the original poster's thread at least twice now, and supplied a counter. I'd say that's sticking closer to the discussion than anyone else; and in fact, by stating that CBS has nothing to do with this thread, you are the one who is "trying to derail the discussion". So I refer you to this thread.

    So let me repeat again. CBS is involved in this thread. It's the reason why T5 Connies don't exist in this game, and it's the reason why the OP cannot get his favourite ship. Sorry mate, but until someone goes over to CBS and changes their stance, there is nothing anyone can do from over here to get the Connie into the list of T5 ships.*

    EDIT: *I sent an email over to CBS Interactive earlier today. Once I get a response, I'll post the reply in a separate thread.
    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!
  • snoggymack22snoggymack22 Member Posts: 7,084 Arc User
    edited March 2014
    Someone already beat me to the punchline over there; and in fact, the whole thread agrees with the truth.

    This thread, however, does not.

    Now you're just trolling. You said your CBS statement. We all read it. And now you're just trolling.

    Look man, I'm sorry Borticus totally dissed you when he defined the Galaxy X as a cruiser and pretty much said exactly what I said about the ship not getting a Commander Tactical slot. But let it go man. Just let it go. There's a whole other thread over there for you to talk about CBS. You made your point in this thread. We get it. What else could you possibly have to add?

    That CBS said no?
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • stardestroyer001stardestroyer001 Member Posts: 2,615 Arc User
    edited March 2014
    Now you're just trolling. You said your CBS statement. We all read it. And now you're just trolling.

    I;m trying to enforce a point which I feel passionate about. How is that trolling?
    Look man, I'm sorry Borticus totally dissed you when he defined the Galaxy X as a cruiser and pretty much said exactly what I said about the ship not getting a Commander Tactical slot.

    ...And how is this relevant?
    At this point you're just trying to derail the discussion.
    I quite agree, "Snoggy from 5 minutes ago". If you want to discuss the Galaxy-X, I believe there's a thread around here that discusses that.
    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!
  • snoggymack22snoggymack22 Member Posts: 7,084 Arc User
    edited March 2014
    I;m trying to enforce a point which I feel passionate about. How is that trolling?

    It's trolling because you made the point. And we read it. We understand it. Yet here you are continuing to post about it.

    Did CBS say no? I think CBS said no. But if only you were here to post again to tell us CBS said no! Oh wait, you are. Did CBS say no? I don't know. I've not heard of this before. Maybe CBS said no. I think they did, but I need confirmation. I sure hope you're here to tell us CBS said no in yet another post.
    ...And how is this relevant?

    Probably because it's the reason you're trolling this thread. You're upset about the Galaxy Reboot and just want to argue about something.
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • stardestroyer001stardestroyer001 Member Posts: 2,615 Arc User
    edited March 2014
    It's trolling because you made the point. And we read it. We understand it. Yet here you are continuing to post about it.
    See, that's the problem right there. You don't understand that the original poster wanted a T5 Connie. You were under the impression that:
    This thread is about wanting to know why players have some sort of beefy chip on their shoulder about the Constitution at T5. So this thread is mainly about exploring the many and varied ways people misinterpret the Tier system that Cryptic sort of implemented and then tied into knots.

    It's quite thrilling to see people talk about how small the Connie is, when the Saber rocks it at T5. Or the Aquarius, which is so tiny it pops out of the Odyssey.

    It's kind of fun to discuss how the Connie is too old to be T5 when ships from the ENT era are at T5.

    And it's amazing to see so much hatred for the ship that pretty much launched the series.
    All of which the OP never said; and in fact said the opposite of!

    Did CBS say no? I think CBS said no. But if only you were here to post again to tell us CBS said no! Oh wait, you are. Did CBS say no? I don't know. I've not heard of this before. Maybe CBS said no. I think they did, but I need confirmation. I sure hope you're here to tell us CBS said no in yet another post.
    I'm going to pretend I never saw any of these sarcastic remarks. I do no insult to you, it would be respectful to do the same.
    Probably because it's the reason you're trolling this thread. You're upset about the Galaxy Reboot and just want to argue about something.
    1) Not trolling. Enforcing a point which does not seem to be worded correctly in the first try, since people in this thread reply with confusing responses. If you'd like, I can try to rephrase it.
    2) Completely wrong. Don't presume to know me; you don't. I was happy with the Galaxy before the revamp, and that has not changed.
    3) Let's get back on topic about the TOS Connie.
    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!
  • snoggymack22snoggymack22 Member Posts: 7,084 Arc User
    edited March 2014
    3) Let's get back on topic about the TOS Connie.

    I'd love to, but you'd rather talk about CBS.
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • stardestroyer001stardestroyer001 Member Posts: 2,615 Arc User
    edited March 2014
    I'd love to, but you'd rather talk about CBS.
    Actually, I'd rather talk about:
    • Why the OP thinks the Constitution-class "deserves" to be in the line of T5 ships
    • How this is, or is not, feasible
    • Something we can do, as players (or devs passing through this thread), to change the current situation.

    All of which I consisely stated in previous posts. The ball is now in your court to counter or agree with.

    EDIT: This isn't restricted by any means to one person or another. If someone wants to jump in and contribute to this discussion, feel free to do so.
    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!
  • farmallmfarmallm Member Posts: 4,630 Arc User
    edited March 2014
    Most don't want to see the game along side their Avenger or what ever they are using. And seeing an old ship design up to par with them. As the ship is old. Others are saying it ruins immersion, even though that was tossed out. When you see a Fed player running around in a Bug ship, or other odd stuff.

    To me its a game, and games are meant to have fun. I can care less if a T5 Connie shows up to join in the fun.

    Granted most want some "God" ship that can hold up with even the latest. But done right it could work as a T5. Put weapons at 3/3, lower the hull to about an escort, etc for examples. That way you have to learn the ship to use it properly. This is ever they decided to do the ship. Until then we can just hope/pray.
    Enterprise%20C_zpsrdrf3v8d.jpg

    USS Casinghead NCC 92047 launched 2350
    Fleet Admiral Stowe - Dominion War Vet.
  • snoggymack22snoggymack22 Member Posts: 7,084 Arc User
    edited March 2014
    farmallm wrote: »
    Granted most want some "God" ship that can hold up with even the latest.

    I don't. I really don't. What I want is to be able to have you know, a pretty standard layout of BOFF stations for a high level ship. So that I can put on my TOS unis, use my TOS Bridge, my TOS phasers and really just have fun playing TOS with one of my characters. I've done the whole "Use your T1 version at end-game" and it's just annoying having the BOFF stations so limited. Especially on this ship since it's the ship that always reminds me of Spock, Bones, Scotty, Sulu, Uhura and Chekov. All those folks were crammed into the bridge time and time again. But I get stuck with just three tiny faces staring back at me in the UI.

    I'm in favor of it turning faster than a Galaxy because it's turning rate is already faster than a Galaxy. But I'm not picky about BOFF layout, other than giving it more stations.

    That's all I ever wanted. Was to putter along in my own little Orignal series world in my head. That's the dream all of the pro-Connie folks have had since the very beginning.

    It's such a tease too. I mean the TOS bridge is so A-freakin-MAZING. Probably one of, if not the best bridge they've done. They put in attack hortas. And Type 3 Phaser Rifles. And TOS Dress Uniforms with all those star clusters and even Fat Kirk's Green Tunic.

    There's just one final piece of the puzzle missing.
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • stardestroyer001stardestroyer001 Member Posts: 2,615 Arc User
    edited March 2014
    farmallm wrote: »
    To me its a game, and games are meant to have fun. I can care less if a T5 Connie shows up to join in the fun.

    I agree. The concept of "immersion" has quietly been chucked out the window a while back. I don't see an ingame reason to hold the ship back, since others of its time (Klingon D-7 among others) have already been retrofitted as T5, and even Fleet, vessels.
    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!
  • sevmragesevmrage Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited March 2014
    What about thinking of ways the Devs could work with PWE to pitch this to CBS?
    Weyland-Yutani Joint Space Venture - Always open to new members!
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    My name is Rage, and I too support a revised Galaxy family.
    khayuung wrote: »
    Firstly, be proud! You're part of the few, the stubborn, the Federation Dreadnought Captains.
Sign In or Register to comment.