test content
Logo
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc
Options
We are going about this T5 Constitution thing the wrong way.
projectfrontier
Member Posts: 0 Arc User
"T5 Exeter" - that is the way to go.
Proposals for using in-game features to improve: (1) the "Phaser Lance" (and other underrepresented/missing "big guns"); && (2) separation systems on all ships that have them; && (3) training boffs in captain only powers by using boffs as pack-mules; OR to add functionality like: (4) "Away Teams Of Space Ships";
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
Post edited by projectfrontier on
0
Comments
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.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
No it wasn't. It was a no comment from both.
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.
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.
I agree with this. Once the genie is out of the bottle, it is almost impossible to stuff him back in.
http://www.arcgames.com/en/games/star-trek-online/news/detail/10052253
Why are you not rejoicing?
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.
*Impossible of course is something a programmer could fix but programmers cost money and have better things to do
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.)
Missing the good ol' days of PvP: Legacy of Romulus to Season 9
My List of Useful Links, Recently Updated November 25 2017!
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.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
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.
Defending The Galaxy By Breaking One Starfleet Regulation After The Next.
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
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.
How about some elaboration? Or did you just want your own T5 Constitution thread?
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.
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
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.
Actual join date: Open beta, 2009ish.
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.
Well they managed to stop us using the B'Rolth hull on the B'Rel refit, and fleet version, completely by accident.
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!
lmao this ^^^^^^^^^^^
system Lord Baal is dead
Sorry about your luck.
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.
I actually tried to contact them about that. They never responded... which isn't a "no"
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:
STO Beta Test and Launch Veteran
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.
Been around since Dec 2010 on STO and bought LTS in Apr 2013 for STO.
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.