This thread is only asking for an end game Excalibur, not a connie.
Which in gameplay purposes are the exact same ship. Same stats, shares parts...
The only time it has different stats is if you use the Excalibur skin on an Exeter. But its still the same thing.
Tbh ive allways took the constitution class referanced to be the T1. Allways thought the constutution refit was a class of her own. So technically theyve not said they cant do the refit, excaliber, exeter or vesper at a higher tier
Tbh ive allways took the constitution class referanced to be the T1. Allways thought the constutution refit was a class of her own. So technically theyve not said they cant do the refit, excaliber, exeter or vesper at a higher tier
The Connie Refit counts as the Constitution class for the purposes of the restriction.
I would have to agree. However, this thread is *not* about the connie, so I have to ask that anyone who wants to discuss that topic post a separate thread. This thread is only asking for an end game Excalibur, not a connie.
Oh I know that, I was clarifying it for the person I was quoting.
I'd never want an endgame Connie, frankly, but I'd be super cool with the others.
I think the Excalibur skin is barred from life as a t5/T6 because under the hood it's a Constitution skeleton with interchangeable parts. From a design perspective if they share a skeleton, they're the same ship and if one skin is barred it takes out the whole cluster reliant on that skeleton.
I think the Excalibur skin is barred from life as a t5/T6 because under the hood it's a Constitution skeleton with interchangeable parts. From a design perspective if they share a skeleton, they're the same ship and if one skin is barred it takes out the whole cluster reliant on that skeleton.
This is what's suspected is ultimately holding the non-Connie variants back from an endgame incarnation.
".... you're gonna have a bad time."
0
rattler2Member, Star Trek Online ModeratorPosts: 58,580Community Moderator
I think the Excalibur skin is barred from life as a t5/T6 because under the hood it's a Constitution skeleton with interchangeable parts. From a design perspective if they share a skeleton, they're the same ship and if one skin is barred it takes out the whole cluster reliant on that skeleton.
This is what's suspected is ultimately holding the non-Connie variants back from an endgame incarnation.
Exactly. Same ship, different skin. Even the Exeter falls under the Connie umbrella. OP just doesn't understand that.
This thread is only asking for an end game Excalibur, not a connie.
Which in gameplay purposes are the exact same ship. Same stats, shares parts...
The only time it has different stats is if you use the Excalibur skin on an Exeter. But its still the same thing.
I think the Excalibur skin is barred from life as a t5/T6 because under the hood it's a Constitution skeleton with interchangeable parts. From a design perspective if they share a skeleton, they're the same ship and if one skin is barred it takes out the whole cluster reliant on that skeleton.
This is what's suspected is ultimately holding the non-Connie variants back from an endgame incarnation.
Exactly. Same ship, different skin. Even the Exeter falls under the Connie umbrella. OP just doesn't understand that.
Actually, I do understand. Yes, the T2 Excalibur is effectively the same as the Connie as far as gameplay is concerned, for 2 reasons:
1) exact same stats
2) interchangeable parts
However, I am *NOT* asking for a T2 Excalibur. I am asking for an end game Exaclibur, which would *NOT* have the same stats and *NOT* have interchangeable parts with the connie. Therefore, the 2 reasons that the T2 Excal is related to the connie would have nothing to do with an end game Excalibur.
rattler2Member, Star Trek Online ModeratorPosts: 58,580Community Moderator
ITS A FRICKIN' CONNIE!
It doesn't matter what skin is being used, its a Connie, and falls under the "No Endgame Connie" category. Switching words around doesn't make it a different ship. In regards to the Excalibur, its interchangable with Constitution and for all intents and purposes the same ship. We're not getting an endgame Excalibur because it is a Connie variant.
We have literally covered every single avenue to get an endgame Cruiser Retrofit in countless threads that have resulted in the Endgame Connie subject being put on the FCT, including locking out the Constitution parts. It hasn't happened. It will not happen. CBS has veto'd endgame Connie in any form, otherwise we'd already have one by now.
ITS A FRICKIN' CONNIE!
It doesn't matter what skin is being used, its a Connie, and falls under the "No Endgame Connie" category. Switching words around doesn't make it a different ship. In regards to the Excalibur, its interchangable with Constitution and for all intents and purposes the same ship. We're not getting an endgame Excalibur because it is a Connie variant.
We have literally covered every single avenue to get an endgame Cruiser Retrofit in countless threads that have resulted in the Endgame Connie subject being put on the FCT, including locking out the Constitution parts. It hasn't happened. It will not happen. CBS has veto'd endgame Connie in any form, otherwise we'd already have one by now.
Look, I do understand your point. However, the Excalibur parts are only interchangeable with the connie parts because Cryptic plugged them into that slot. With me so far? Great. Now, I'm not sure if you have noticed, but Cryptic can actually change their game. They have done it before and will do it again. That being the case, Cryptic could disconnect the Excalibur parts, severing all ties with the connie. So no, I am not asking for an end game connie. I am asking for an end game Excalibur, with NO connie parts. I am asking for a completely different ship that would have no connection to the connie.
As far as any "official verdicts" are concerned, if CBS has actually told them that they cannot make an end game version of ANY ship that is a variant of the connie; fine. Just tell us that is what CBS actually said. But again, *NO* dev(smirk wasn't a dev) has *EVER* told us that CBS said they could not make an end game version of any connie variant. ALL dev comments to date regarding CBS 'ruling' have only mentioned the *actual* connie itself. So, again, if CBS has in fact told them that they cannot make an end game version of the Excalibur or any connie variant, just tell us that. I'm willing to accept that, if that is in fact what CBS said.
rattler2Member, Star Trek Online ModeratorPosts: 58,580Community Moderator
She's already connected. She's been connected since the Beta. She is a member of the Connie family, which includes the Vesper and Exeter. The only real change I can think of in playable ships is when they renamed the old Avenger Star Cruiser to allow for the Avenger Battlecruiser, and the addition of new parts for the Negh'Var.
As I said, literally EVERY avenue has been tried to get any form of Endgame Cruiser Retrofit. INCLUDING locking out the Connie parts. Tried and Veto'd.
I'm sorry, but that's just the way it is. We all would love some form of endgame Cruiser Retrofit, but it just won't happen.
She's already connected. She's been connected since the Beta.
I'm not denying that. I'm asking for a change to a game that has been changed many times.
I'm sorry, but that's just the way it is. We all would love some form of endgame Cruiser Retrofit, but it just won't happen.
There is nothing to be "sorry" for. This is a thread on a video game forum asking for a space ship. It's not some "big deal", just a request. If you agree, fine. If you don't, that's also fine.
As I said, literally EVERY avenue has been tried to get any form of Endgame Cruiser Retrofit. INCLUDING locking out the Connie parts. Tried and Veto'd.
I would like to point out THIS particular line you bypassed. We've tried. MANY TIMES. Hence why Endgame Connie (in any form) is part of the FCT. What your suggesting has been tried time and time again. If it didn't happen before, it ain't happening now. Its the same argument that has been explored.
Look, I do understand your point. However, the Excalibur parts are only interchangeable with the connie parts because Cryptic plugged them into that slot. With me so far?
No, I'm not with you, because that statement is COMPLETELY UNTRUE. It's not a coincidence those parts can be used on the Connie skeleton... they were MADE SPECIFICALLY to fit on that skeleton. Otherwise Fedies would have something like 25 nacelle choices on ever single ship in the roster.
So no, I am not asking for an end game connie. I am asking for an end game Excalibur, with NO connie parts. I am asking for a completely different ship that would have no connection to the connie.
Other than the trifling fact it's specifically and inextricably built on a connie skeleton. Making it a connie variant with zero room for finagling about the hard reality of the underlying code.
Dude. The ship is dead and has been in its grave SEVEN YEARS NOW. Maybe we'll see more circular saucers in the future... thought frankly Crypic has shied away from that in such an amazingly consistent way that the observant player has probably noticed they don't want even the slightest wiff of 'looks faintly like a connie' on anything they design and have to submit to CBS's scrutiny.
I think you're really failing to grasp how thoroughly the well has been poisoned. The grass has died in a half mile radius around it and even the dead patch dares not be circular for fear of looking like a Connie.
As I said, literally EVERY avenue has been tried to get any form of Endgame Cruiser Retrofit. INCLUDING locking out the Connie parts. Tried and Veto'd.
I would like to point out THIS particular line you bypassed. We've tried. MANY TIMES. Hence why Endgame Connie (in any form) is part of the FCT. What your suggesting has been tried time and time again. If it didn't happen before, it ain't happening now. Its the same argument that has been explored.
I saw your line, but no matter how many times you say it, I'm not asking for an end game connie. I *do* understand the connection between the T2 Excalibur and the connie(see the OP), but I am asking for an end game ship that has *NO* connection. Different stats, and no connie parts. You can't have an end game connie that doesn't actually have connie parts. The connie parts are what make a connie a connie. So no connie parts + different stats = different ship.
Look, I do understand your point. However, the Excalibur parts are only interchangeable with the connie parts because Cryptic plugged them into that slot. With me so far?
No, I'm not with you, because that statement is COMPLETELY UNTRUE. It's not a coincidence those parts can be used on the Connie skeleton... they were MADE SPECIFICALLY to fit on that skeleton.
You misunderstand. I'm not saying the Excalibur isn't inspired by the connie design, or that it wasn't intentionally designed to be interchangeable. But there is no law of nature that says it's parts have to be connected to the connie. That was a design choice that they *could* change, and I am simply asking for that change. You don't have to agree, but this is simply my request.
rattler2Member, Star Trek Online ModeratorPosts: 58,580Community Moderator
edited March 2016
Again, you're not understanding me.
We TRIED suggesting locking out the Connie parts in the past. MANY TIMES. It didn't work. For all intents and purposes the Excalibur, Vesper, and Exeter are CONNIES. Doesn't matter if they use any Connie parts or not. They are considered Connies.
This argument of locking out the Connie parts has been tried and tried and TRIED countless times. With the same result.
I'm not sure why you are getting so hysterical. If you think this is a useless or pointless request, that's fine. You are not obligated to agree with it or read it if it bothers you so much.
*sigh*
Because you're not suggesting anything that hasn't been tried to death in the past.
Again, if you think this is useless or pointless, that's fine. You don't have to agree with my request or read this thread if it bothers you. You do have free will, so if a thread on a message board is causing you such emotional distress, just use your free will don't read it.
Ok, look, here's what I think REALLY happened behind closed doors.
Cryptic has not released ANY circular primary hulls since launch and those got in only due to a promotional TRIBBLE up that made them have to fight tooth and claw or lose Gamestop's support. In whatever split that Paramount and CBS agreed on so they could both go back to making money hand over fist, Paramount got the classic profile/circular saucers and has been milking it like mad with two movies that could both be re-titled "Enterprise rising out of stuff!" CBS got all the ovals and blunted triangles and that's the beginning and end of the shapes they and their sub-licensees will EVER use in the future.
Cryptic being one of those sub-licensors.
Who, given the chance to design the next Enterprise quite assiduously DID NOT give it a round hull which would have been by FAR the easiest way to evoke the classic.
I don't think its a rule against no "endgame connies" that's driving this . I think that's a microscopic subset of a truly iron-clad rule of "no more circular saucers, EVER".
I'm gonna put my tinfoil hat back on now and go back to analyzing the skill revamp. You keep on having fun here.
0
rattler2Member, Star Trek Online ModeratorPosts: 58,580Community Moderator
I don't think its a rule against no "endgame connies" that's driving this . I think that's a microscopic subset of a truly iron-clad rule of "no more circular saucers, EVER".
Ok, look, here's what I think REALLY happened behind closed doors.
Cryptic has not released ANY circular primary hulls since launch
That is an interesting theory, but it is contradicted by the Excelsior, which I'm pretty sure came out *after* launch. Also, the Ambassador. Also one of the Command cruisers has a circular hull.
Ok, look, here's what I think REALLY happened behind closed doors.
Cryptic has not released ANY circular primary hulls since launch
That is an interesting theory, but it is contradicted by the Excelsior, which I'm pretty sure came out *after* launch. Also, the Ambassador. Also one of the Command cruisers has a circular hull.
Yea... I actually have to agree on this one. The Excelsior came out with an Endgame version back in T5 days, and the T6 can use the older Excelsior parts, with a round saucer. The Ambassador Support Cruiser Retrofit (promo) and Fleet Support Cruiser are both T5, and have round saucers...
Regarding the connie connection, consider this hypothetical scenario: tomorrow, Cryptic disconnects the Excalibur parts from the connie. Suddenly, instantly, magically, just like that...there is no connection anymore. All of the arguments that have ever been made about how the are the "same" ship no longer apply. That is the change that I am requesting. And if they do that, they could make an end game Excalibur with absolutely no connie connection what so ever.
Is it likely? No. It probably won't happen. But again, this is just my request on a video game forum.
Yea... she also kinda blew up the simulator too I think. Drove the techs nuts.
Also, look for a copy of BATTLESTATIONS! as it is a sequel with Piper. Also the fact it was done from Piper's POV was a nice change of pace.
I like those books, too. Which one was the one where she bent the warp nacelles to keep the Enterprise from being stolen?
Sig? What sig? I don't see any sig.
0
rattler2Member, Star Trek Online ModeratorPosts: 58,580Community Moderator
Its not that simple. She's integrated into 3 other skins, Connie, Vesper, and C-Store Exeter. And a lot of people are already flying T2s with Excal parts. My old T2 refit is a Connie with Excal nacelles!
She's too heavily integrated to just flip a switch. We're talking lots of code, serious impact on players who now have to recustomize their ships...
I would call the Andromeda's primary hull an oval. To my eye it's clearly wider than it is long. In my crack pot theory CBS and co. can do ovals, since that's pretty much the Galaxy in a nutshell.
But I imagine Paramount doesn't want anything wandering too close to their reboot baby (without someone paying an astronomical licensing fee). And notice the Vengeance is also a circular hull (as were the other ships you see in dock). I think Paramount picked out their space and are staying in their yard and simply expect CBS to do the same. (and by 'expect' I mean enforced with weapons-grade attack lawyers...)
The thing is the two houses do have very different looks that are distinct from each other and a big component of that distinctiveness is primary hull shape.
0
rattler2Member, Star Trek Online ModeratorPosts: 58,580Community Moderator
The Andromeda may be slightly squished because of her being in the Galaxy family, but that's still rather round to me.
Comments
Which in gameplay purposes are the exact same ship. Same stats, shares parts...
The only time it has different stats is if you use the Excalibur skin on an Exeter. But its still the same thing.
Oh I know that, I was clarifying it for the person I was quoting.
I'd never want an endgame Connie, frankly, but I'd be super cool with the others.
This is what's suspected is ultimately holding the non-Connie variants back from an endgame incarnation.
Exactly. Same ship, different skin. Even the Exeter falls under the Connie umbrella. OP just doesn't understand that.
Actually, I do understand. Yes, the T2 Excalibur is effectively the same as the Connie as far as gameplay is concerned, for 2 reasons:
1) exact same stats
2) interchangeable parts
However, I am *NOT* asking for a T2 Excalibur. I am asking for an end game Exaclibur, which would *NOT* have the same stats and *NOT* have interchangeable parts with the connie. Therefore, the 2 reasons that the T2 Excal is related to the connie would have nothing to do with an end game Excalibur.
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
It doesn't matter what skin is being used, its a Connie, and falls under the "No Endgame Connie" category. Switching words around doesn't make it a different ship. In regards to the Excalibur, its interchangable with Constitution and for all intents and purposes the same ship. We're not getting an endgame Excalibur because it is a Connie variant.
We have literally covered every single avenue to get an endgame Cruiser Retrofit in countless threads that have resulted in the Endgame Connie subject being put on the FCT, including locking out the Constitution parts. It hasn't happened. It will not happen. CBS has veto'd endgame Connie in any form, otherwise we'd already have one by now.
@pwlaughingtrendy can we please have an official verdict on this?
Look, I do understand your point. However, the Excalibur parts are only interchangeable with the connie parts because Cryptic plugged them into that slot. With me so far? Great. Now, I'm not sure if you have noticed, but Cryptic can actually change their game. They have done it before and will do it again. That being the case, Cryptic could disconnect the Excalibur parts, severing all ties with the connie. So no, I am not asking for an end game connie. I am asking for an end game Excalibur, with NO connie parts. I am asking for a completely different ship that would have no connection to the connie.
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
As I said, literally EVERY avenue has been tried to get any form of Endgame Cruiser Retrofit. INCLUDING locking out the Connie parts. Tried and Veto'd.
I'm sorry, but that's just the way it is. We all would love some form of endgame Cruiser Retrofit, but it just won't happen.
I'm not denying that. I'm asking for a change to a game that has been changed many times.
There is nothing to be "sorry" for. This is a thread on a video game forum asking for a space ship. It's not some "big deal", just a request. If you agree, fine. If you don't, that's also fine.
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
I would like to point out THIS particular line you bypassed. We've tried. MANY TIMES. Hence why Endgame Connie (in any form) is part of the FCT. What your suggesting has been tried time and time again. If it didn't happen before, it ain't happening now. Its the same argument that has been explored.
No, I'm not with you, because that statement is COMPLETELY UNTRUE. It's not a coincidence those parts can be used on the Connie skeleton... they were MADE SPECIFICALLY to fit on that skeleton. Otherwise Fedies would have something like 25 nacelle choices on ever single ship in the roster.
Other than the trifling fact it's specifically and inextricably built on a connie skeleton. Making it a connie variant with zero room for finagling about the hard reality of the underlying code.
Dude. The ship is dead and has been in its grave SEVEN YEARS NOW. Maybe we'll see more circular saucers in the future... thought frankly Crypic has shied away from that in such an amazingly consistent way that the observant player has probably noticed they don't want even the slightest wiff of 'looks faintly like a connie' on anything they design and have to submit to CBS's scrutiny.
I think you're really failing to grasp how thoroughly the well has been poisoned. The grass has died in a half mile radius around it and even the dead patch dares not be circular for fear of looking like a Connie.
I saw your line, but no matter how many times you say it, I'm not asking for an end game connie. I *do* understand the connection between the T2 Excalibur and the connie(see the OP), but I am asking for an end game ship that has *NO* connection. Different stats, and no connie parts. You can't have an end game connie that doesn't actually have connie parts. The connie parts are what make a connie a connie. So no connie parts + different stats = different ship.
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
You misunderstand. I'm not saying the Excalibur isn't inspired by the connie design, or that it wasn't intentionally designed to be interchangeable. But there is no law of nature that says it's parts have to be connected to the connie. That was a design choice that they *could* change, and I am simply asking for that change. You don't have to agree, but this is simply my request.
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
We TRIED suggesting locking out the Connie parts in the past. MANY TIMES. It didn't work. For all intents and purposes the Excalibur, Vesper, and Exeter are CONNIES. Doesn't matter if they use any Connie parts or not. They are considered Connies.
This argument of locking out the Connie parts has been tried and tried and TRIED countless times. With the same result.
*facedesk*
I'm not sure why you are getting so hysterical. If you think this is a useless or pointless request, that's fine. You are not obligated to agree with it or read it if it bothers you so much.
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
Because you're not suggesting anything that hasn't been tried to death in the past.
Again, if you think this is useless or pointless, that's fine. You don't have to agree with my request or read this thread if it bothers you. You do have free will, so if a thread on a message board is causing you such emotional distress, just use your free will don't read it.
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
Cryptic has not released ANY circular primary hulls since launch and those got in only due to a promotional TRIBBLE up that made them have to fight tooth and claw or lose Gamestop's support. In whatever split that Paramount and CBS agreed on so they could both go back to making money hand over fist, Paramount got the classic profile/circular saucers and has been milking it like mad with two movies that could both be re-titled "Enterprise rising out of stuff!" CBS got all the ovals and blunted triangles and that's the beginning and end of the shapes they and their sub-licensees will EVER use in the future.
Cryptic being one of those sub-licensors.
Who, given the chance to design the next Enterprise quite assiduously DID NOT give it a round hull which would have been by FAR the easiest way to evoke the classic.
I don't think its a rule against no "endgame connies" that's driving this . I think that's a microscopic subset of a truly iron-clad rule of "no more circular saucers, EVER".
I'm gonna put my tinfoil hat back on now and go back to analyzing the skill revamp. You keep on having fun here.
That's rather circular.
That is an interesting theory, but it is contradicted by the Excelsior, which I'm pretty sure came out *after* launch. Also, the Ambassador. Also one of the Command cruisers has a circular hull.
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
Yea... I actually have to agree on this one. The Excelsior came out with an Endgame version back in T5 days, and the T6 can use the older Excelsior parts, with a round saucer. The Ambassador Support Cruiser Retrofit (promo) and Fleet Support Cruiser are both T5, and have round saucers...
Is it likely? No. It probably won't happen. But again, this is just my request on a video game forum.
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
She's too heavily integrated to just flip a switch. We're talking lots of code, serious impact on players who now have to recustomize their ships...
The Ambassador is a canonical design appearing in a TV episode and therefore something CBS owns and can sub-license.
I'll grant you the Geneva is pretty round
I would call the Andromeda's primary hull an oval. To my eye it's clearly wider than it is long. In my crack pot theory CBS and co. can do ovals, since that's pretty much the Galaxy in a nutshell.
But I imagine Paramount doesn't want anything wandering too close to their reboot baby (without someone paying an astronomical licensing fee). And notice the Vengeance is also a circular hull (as were the other ships you see in dock). I think Paramount picked out their space and are staying in their yard and simply expect CBS to do the same. (and by 'expect' I mean enforced with weapons-grade attack lawyers...)
The thing is the two houses do have very different looks that are distinct from each other and a big component of that distinctiveness is primary hull shape.