test content
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc

We are going about this T5 Constitution thing the wrong way.

projectfrontierprojectfrontier Member Posts: 0 Arc User
"T5 Exeter" - that is the way to go.
Post edited by projectfrontier on

Comments

  • puttenhamputtenham Member Posts: 1,052 Arc User
    edited March 2014
    "T5 Exeter" - that is the way to go.

    really, these threads are like a virus.. it just doesn't go away.. lol..

    the Exeter thing has been discussed in great leangth, and it was still a no from cryptic/cbs.

    I know the search option in this game really sucks.. but.. yeah..
  • iconiansiconians Member Posts: 6,987 Arc User
    edited March 2014
    I think you are the first person in the history of STO to ever suggest this.
    ExtxpTp.jpg
  • projectfrontierprojectfrontier Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited March 2014
    puttenham wrote: »
    really, these threads are like a virus.. it just doesn't go away.. lol..

    the Exeter thing has been discussed in great leangth, and it was still a no from cryptic/cbs.

    I know the search option in this game really sucks.. but.. yeah..

    People misusing ellipses can also be described as a virus, either way this thread is not about the topic - it is about the logic and humor behind the logic that goes into the topic usually.

    I may be leaving out too many details in the original post for that to be clear here.
  • snoggymack22snoggymack22 Member Posts: 7,084 Arc User
    edited March 2014
    puttenham wrote: »
    and it was still a no from cryptic/cbs.

    No it wasn't. It was a no comment from both.
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • leviathan99#2867 leviathan99 Member Posts: 7,747 Arc User
    edited March 2014
    puttenham wrote: »
    really, these threads are like a virus.. it just doesn't go away.. lol..

    the Exeter thing has been discussed in great leangth, and it was still a no from cryptic/cbs.

    I know the search option in this game really sucks.. but.. yeah..

    I don't think we ever got a "no" on the Exeter. I think we got a "Then we'd have people begging for the Connie too."

    CBS said "no" on the Connie. Cryptic is cautious about getting people riled up, believe it or not.

    That doesn't rule out the Exeter but I think you'd need a reason why the Connie wouldn't naturally follow.

    My take would be to make the T5 Exeter a 3 nacelle "Light Dreadnought."

    That would probably dampen requests for a Connie version if all the T5 Exter versions had 3 nacelles. I think it would remain a gorgeous ship.
  • starkaosstarkaos Member Posts: 11,550 Arc User
    edited March 2014
    iconians wrote: »
    I think you are the first person in the history of STO to ever suggest this.

    I believe talonxv suggested this. We have the Fleet Science Vessel Retrofit and Fleet Escort Retrofit so it makes sense to have the Fleet Cruiser Retrofit and get rid of the Constitution Refit for its customization lineup.
  • a3001a3001 Member Posts: 1,132 Arc User
    edited March 2014
    I don't think we ever got a "no" on the Exeter. I think we got a "Then we'd have people begging for the Connie too."

    I agree with this. Once the genie is out of the bottle, it is almost impossible to stuff him back in.
    Rejoice JJ Trek people....

    http://www.arcgames.com/en/games/star-trek-online/news/detail/10052253

    Why are you not rejoicing?
  • hravikhravik Member Posts: 1,202 Arc User
    edited March 2014
    I don't think we ever got a "no" on the Exeter. I think we got a "Then we'd have people begging for the Connie too."

    We kind of did really. He didn't give a specific reason, but Geko did say something to the effect of 'I don't like to say never, but this is as close to never as it gets' in one of his Priority One interviews.
  • futurepastnowfuturepastnow Member Posts: 3,660 Arc User
    edited March 2014
    The way ship costumes are unlocked makes it impossible* for them to prevent you from using the refit Connie costume on a T5 Exeter.

    *Impossible of course is something a programmer could fix but programmers cost money and have better things to do
  • neoakiraiineoakiraii Member Posts: 7,468 Arc User
    edited March 2014
    You're not a Snowflake it's been brought up. The T5 debate has been brought up ,and nitpicked and everything so much, so long, There is NOTHING new to to bring to the table, if you think you're the first when it comes to anything with the T5 connie you are mistaken.
    GwaoHAD.png
  • stardestroyer001stardestroyer001 Member Posts: 2,615 Arc User
    edited March 2014
    T5 Exeter? Fine.
    T5 Vesper? Fine.
    T5 Excalibur? Fine.

    Just so long as these three ships do not look nor have the name "Constitution", it doesn't seem like it's banned by CBS. (Only the Connie has been banned by 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!
  • projectfrontierprojectfrontier Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited March 2014
    neoakiraii wrote: »
    You're not a Snowflake it's been brought up. The T5 debate has been brought up ,and nitpicked and everything so much, so long, There is NOTHING new to to bring to the table, if you think you're the first when it comes to anything with the T5 connie you are mistaken.

    Huh?
    neoakiraii wrote: »
    You're not a Snowflake [it has] been brought up. The T5 debate has been brought up and nitpicked, and everything, [for] so long there is NOTHING new to to bring to the table; if you think you're the first when it comes to anything with the T5 connie you are mistaken.

    Is that what you meant?

    If it is I shall be the bearer of bad bonds for you, you are completely off base as to the point of this thread - read post #4.
  • chiyoumikuchiyoumiku Member Posts: 1,028 Arc User
    edited March 2014
    Step 1. Petition CBS the LICENSE and INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY OWNER
    Step 2. Await Response.
    Step 3. Post Response of CBS Saying "No" here.
    Step 4. We will all laugh at you and say "We told you so."
    Step 5. For the love of god stop beating the damned horse already. Nothing you say or do is going to change CBS's mind and Cryptic isn't going to look at these stupid threads.
    Sekhmet_Banner.jpg
    Defending The Galaxy By Breaking One Starfleet Regulation After The Next.
  • adverberoadverbero Member Posts: 2,045 Arc User
    edited March 2014
    Meh, Your unlikely to get it, But a T5 exeter, in lore terms why not?
    If you can fit all the gear on the little T5 fleet Nova then i can see it fitting on the Exeter, and its a new build so theres no age issue there

    Just no to old looking ones, Starfleet is not a historical Reenactment society
    solar_approach_by_chaos_sandwhich-d74kjft.png


    These are the Voyages on the STO forum, the final frontier. Our continuing mission: to explore Pretentious Posts, to seek out new Overreactions and Misinformation , to boldly experience Cynicism like no man has before.......
  • abystander0abystander0 Member Posts: 648 Arc User
    edited March 2014
    starkaos wrote: »
    I believe talonxv suggested this. We have the Fleet Science Vessel Retrofit and Fleet Escort Retrofit so it makes sense to have the Fleet Cruiser Retrofit and get rid of the Constitution Refit for its customization lineup.


    He was using sarcasm.

    As had been mentioned, there is no stone that has been left unturned in the T5 Constitution saga, including the Exeter.
    People misusing ellipses can also be described as a virus, either way this thread is not about the topic - it is about the logic and humor behind the logic that goes into the topic usually.




    I may be leaving out too many details in the original post for that to be clear here.

    How about some elaboration? Or did you just want your own T5 Constitution thread?
    neoakiraii wrote: »
    You're not a Snowflake it's been brought up. The T5 debate has been brought up ,and nitpicked and everything so much, so long, There is NOTHING new to to bring to the table, if you think you're the first when it comes to anything with the T5 connie you are mistaken.
    Huh?



    Is that what you meant?

    If it is I shall be the bearer of bad bonds for you, you are completely off base as to the point of this thread - read post #4.


    What is your point, besides nitpicking over paltry grammatical and punctuation errors?

    Did you really think that making yet another thread would somehow garner different results or approbations that the scores of other threads hadn't?


    Neoakiraii was on the mark.
  • coupaholiccoupaholic Member Posts: 2,188 Arc User
    edited March 2014
    Jeez, cut the guy some slack - you all know the score here, this is a Star Trek game after all. Like Galaxy threads this one will keep re-appearing whether you like it or not.

    But yes, the search does suck. When trying to find something myself I just go to Google and use the site:sto-forum.perfectworld.com trick, works much better.

    And as for the original point of the post, it would be nice to see T5 variants of the other T2 cruiser hulls but I agree that if they were available this place will flood with 'where is the Connie???' threads, so I doubt we'll see them.

    Give 'em and inch, before you know it they've got a mile :)
  • oldravenman3025oldravenman3025 Member Posts: 1,892 Arc User
    edited March 2014
    He was using sarcasm.


    What is your point, besides nitpicking over paltry grammatical and punctuation errors?

    Did you really think that making yet another thread would somehow garner different results or approbations that the scores of other threads hadn't?


    Neoakiraii was on the mark.




    No, his post, like yours and others in this thread, is irrelevant to the subject at hand.



    The topic isn't about how many threads have existed in the past on the subject. Nor is it about proverbial "dead horses" being flogged.


    The best policy, if a thread topic doesn't interest (or bothers) you, is to ignore it and not post at all.


    I find it amusing that some of you get tired of these threads, but still post in them. Thus, bumping them up. I'm beginning to think that some on these boards are actually terrified that a T5 Constitution will end up in the game if enough threads pop up about it. So, out of some sort of compulsion, they just have to "shout down" people who start such threads.


    If true, an irrational fear. This is Cryptic we are talking about. If a gazillion Galaxy threads don't change things to players' satisfaction, what's makes anybody think that Cryptic/PWE is going to work at getting a T5 Constitution/standard Cruiser into the game, on the basis of number of topics alone?


    Really, people.
  • quistraquistra Member Posts: 214 Arc User
    edited March 2014
    Do I really need to cut-and-paste my "the Constitution is old and busted" argument?
    The artist formerly known as PlanetofHats.
    Actual join date: Open beta, 2009ish.
  • oldravenman3025oldravenman3025 Member Posts: 1,892 Arc User
    edited March 2014
    quistra wrote: »
    Do I really need to cut-and-paste my "the Constitution is old and busted" argument?


    If you want, even though it's irrelevant when pertaining to the game itself.


    Having said that, I'll let you guys get back to playing with your 29th Century timeships and Voth warships with the "U.S.S." Starfleet prefix.
  • artan42artan42 Member Posts: 10,450 Bug Hunter
    edited March 2014
    The way ship costumes are unlocked makes it impossible* for them to prevent you from using the refit Connie costume on a T5 Exeter.

    *Impossible of course is something a programmer could fix but programmers cost money and have better things to do

    Well they managed to stop us using the B'Rolth hull on the B'Rel refit, and fleet version, completely by accident.
    :D
    22762792376_ac7c992b7c_o.png
    Norway and Yeager dammit... I still want my Typhoon and Jupiter though.
    JJ Trek The Kelvin Timeline is just Trek and it's fully canon... get over it. But I still prefer TAR.

    #TASforSTO


    '...I can tell you that we're not in the military and that we intend no harm to the whales.' Kirk: The Voyage Home
    'Starfleet is not a military organisation. Its purpose is exploration.' Picard: Peak Performance
    'This is clearly a military operation. Is that what we are now? Because I thought we were explorers!' Scotty: Into Darkness
    '...The Federation. Starfleet. We're not a military agency.' Scotty: Beyond
    'I'm not a soldier anymore. I'm an engineer.' Miles O'Brien: Empok Nor
    '...Starfleet could use you... It's a peacekeeping and humanitarian armada...' Admiral Pike: Star Trek

    Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
  • daan2006daan2006 Member Posts: 5,346 Arc User
    edited March 2014
    puttenham wrote: »
    really, these threads are like a virus.. it just doesn't go away.. lol...

    lmao this ^^^^^^^^^^^
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    swimwear off risa not fixed
    system Lord Baal is dead
    macronius wrote: »
    This! Their ability to outdo their own failures is quite impressive. If only this power could be harnessed for good.
  • shpoksshpoks Member Posts: 6,967 Arc User
    edited March 2014
    You're missing the point OP, the people that ask for a Constitution would actually like a....Constitution! Not an Exeter, but a Connie. If they release a T5 Exeter without a Constitution skin attached to the ship it'll just add insult to injury and change nothing really. There will be another T5 Constitution thread the morning after.
    HQroeLu.jpg
  • psiameesepsiameese Member Posts: 1,567 Arc User
    edited March 2014
    puttenham wrote: »
    really, these threads are like a virus.. it just doesn't go away.. lol..

    Sorry about your luck. ;) We TOS fans really are the gift that keeps on giving. It's within our fandom DNA. There is no cure.
    (/\) Exploring Star Trek Online Since July 2008 (/\)
    #TASinSTO
    #LDinSTO
    #TrekkiesTogether
  • starkaosstarkaos Member Posts: 11,550 Arc User
    edited March 2014
    psiameese wrote: »
    Sorry about your luck. ;) We TOS fans really are the gift that keeps on giving. It's within our fandom DNA. There is no cure.

    So you mean TOS fans are like fruitcake?
  • aloishammeraloishammer Member Posts: 3,294 Arc User
    edited March 2014
    starkaos wrote: »
    So you mean TOS fans are like fruitcake?

    I was thinking more like Herpes. Once you've got it, you can't get rid of it. Luckily, it doesn't do much besides crop up and make a nuisance of itself from time to time before going dormant again for a while. ;)
  • alpharaider47#7707 alpharaider47 Member Posts: 171 Arc User
    edited March 2014
    chiyoumiku wrote: »
    Step 1. Petition CBS the LICENSE and INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY OWNER
    Step 2. Await Response.
    Step 3. Post Response of CBS Saying "No" here.
    Step 4. We will all laugh at you and say "We told you so."
    Step 5. For the love of god stop beating the damned horse already. Nothing you say or do is going to change CBS's mind and Cryptic isn't going to look at these stupid threads.

    I actually tried to contact them about that. They never responded... which isn't a "no" :D

    I doubt these threads will go away until CBS/Cryptic give in to demand or decide that they need more money for the game. Let's face it, a T5 Connie, excuse me, Exeter, would sell quite well. And if I recall correctly in one of the earlier interviews around the launch of the game, I believe one of the devs mentioned that they may have had access to the JJprise in terms of their license- I'll try to open that can of worms too while I'm at it :cool:
    sFfAcbR.jpg
    STO Beta Test and Launch Veteran
  • leviathan99#2867 leviathan99 Member Posts: 7,747 Arc User
    edited March 2014
    I doubt aside from a flare up, that T5 Connie threads will go away with or without a T5 Exeter.

    But some people really honestly just love the Exeter style. You don't need to assume disingeuousness on this part.

    I maintain just release it in a form for which a Connie version would be impractical.

    Also, there are pretty much mandatory ways that a T1 ship should be upgraded and should not be upgraded at T5 so I'm sticking to these.

    This is what an ordinary T5 Exeter would have to be, by the game's internal design rules:

    Lt. Tac, Ens. Tac, Cmdr Eng, Lt. Cmdr Eng, Ens Sci
    Hull:36,000
    Shield Modifier:1.0
    Weapons:Fore 4 Aft 4
    Crew:400
    Device Slots:4
    Consoles:
    4 Eng
    3 Tac
    2 Sci
    Turn Rate:9
    Impulse Modifier:0.15
    Inertia rating:40
    Bonus Power:+5 all power levels
    Cruiser Commands:
    Strategic Maneuvering
    Shield Frequency Modulation
    Weapon System Efficiency
    Attract Fire

    The fleet version would have 1 extra Tac console and 10% more shield mod and hull.

    A Tier 5 Exeter could be NOTHING ELSE.

    But say we're looking at a 3 nacelle version and allowing for all the best plausible liberties allowed of any C-Store ships that are upgrades of standard ships while looking at synergy. In short, it couldn't get any more aggressive than this without breaking the design paradigms of the game and I'm bending a few here:

    Light Dreadnought: Cruiser Refit
    Lt. Cmdr Tac, Ens. Tac, Cmdr Eng, Ens Sci, Lt. Universal
    Hull:36,000
    Shield Modifier:1.0
    Weapons:Fore 5 Aft 3
    Can Equip Cannons
    Crew:400
    Device Slots:4
    Consoles:
    4 Eng
    4 Tac
    1 Sci (The Exploration-to-Dreadnought transfers one console from the weakest area to Tac)
    Turn Rate:9
    Impulse Modifier:0.15
    Inertia rating:40
    Bonus Power:
    +10 weapons power
    +5 shield power
    +5 engine power
    Cruiser Commands:
    Strategic Maneuvering
    Shield Frequency Modulation
    Weapon System Efficiency
    Console Synergies:
    Ability to equip cloaking device.
    Set bonus with Console - Universal - Ionized Gas Sensor and native console, grants +2 turn rate.

    One console ability and/or one weapon. If you want something really favorable with a lot of synergy, I think you're looking at a torpedo that deals phaser damage to maximize a combination of cannon capability and the T1 ships' torpedo based console. In this case what you're looking at is a phaser point defense warhead.

    Phaser Point Defense Warhead
    Destructible Projectile - High AOE Damage
    90' targeting arc
    Launched a 51 level Phaser Warhead:
    Point Defense: 459.1 Phaser Damage per sec
    Detonation: 6883.6 Kinetic Damage

    NOTE: The warhead should probably also get a passive boost from having the Ionized Gas Sensor Equipped. I'd suggest this would be likliest as a form of upgrade to the projectiles, making them more durable and upgrading the warhead's phaser attacks.

    The fleet version would have 1 extra Tac console and 10% more shield mod and hull.

    Now... I think there are reasons why the basic version might be a tricky release and lackluster if it did release but the 3 nacelle variant proposed here? I can see that.
  • mirrorchaosmirrorchaos Member Posts: 9,825 Arc User
    edited March 2014
    if the exeter comes, then people will demand the connie with it, and i would expect the t5 miranda as well.
    T6 Miranda Hero Ship FTW.
    Been around since Dec 2010 on STO and bought LTS in Apr 2013 for STO.
  • timelord79timelord79 Member Posts: 1,852 Arc User
    edited March 2014
    I doubt aside from a flare up, that T5 Connie threads will go away with or without a T5 Exeter.

    But some people really honestly just love the Exeter style. You don't need to assume disingeuousness on this part.

    I maintain just release it in a form for which a Connie version would be impractical.

    Also, there are pretty much mandatory ways that a T1 ship should be upgraded and should not be upgraded at T5 so I'm sticking to these.

    This is what an ordinary T5 Exeter would have to be, by the game's internal design rules:

    Lt. Tac, Ens. Tac, Cmdr Eng, Lt. Cmdr Eng, Lt. Sci
    Hull:36,000
    Shield Modifier:1.0
    Weapons:Fore 4 Aft 4
    Crew:400
    Device Slots:4
    Consoles:
    4 Eng
    3 Tac
    2 Sci
    Turn Rate:9
    Impulse Modifier:0.15
    Inertia rating:40
    Bonus Power:+5 all power levels
    Cruiser Commands:
    Strategic Maneuvering
    Shield Frequency Modulation
    Weapon System Efficiency
    Attract Fire

    The fleet version would have 1 extra Tac console and 10% more shield mod and hull.

    Fixed it for you, an Ensign Sci would leave it with 11 Boff powers only while every T5 has 12.
    That is basically a copy and paste job of an Assault cruiser, right?

    Maybe a layout that hasn't been used yet would be:

    Lt Cmdr Tac, Lt. Sci, Cmdr Eng, Lt. Cmdr Eng
    Penalty for the extra offensive power would be a lighter hull close more close to a destroyer than your standard cruiser.
    11750640_1051211588222593_450219911807924697_n.jpg
Sign In or Register to comment.