Its not my argument it's CBS'. I don't agree with it or belive it makes sense but that's what it is. Your counter to it doesn't make sense either. It's a T1 ship which makes it unsuitable for everybody to fly all the time therfor it isn't. Make it T5/6 and that will be everywhere.
Why do people keep brining up the age thing? You know that's not the reason. We have the NX, T'varo, Vulan ship and several Xindi ships all older as well as the comparably aged D7, T'Liss, Constellation, Excelsior, and Miranda. They are not hidden ships snuck in under the radar to hide from CBS, they're out in the open and most are endgame capable.
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
If it's CBS's argument that would mean...wait for it...wait for it...CBS actually said it. And where, pray tell, did they say this?
In a shuttered, sound-proof room with the lights out and armed Redshirt Guards at the door.
STO Member since February 2009. I Was A Trekkie Before It Was Cool ... Sept. 8th, 1966 ... Not To Mention Before Most Folks Around Here Were Born! Forever a STO Veteran-Minion
If it's CBS's argument that would mean...wait for it...wait for it...CBS actually said it. And where, pray tell, did they say this?
In a shuttered, sound-proof room with the lights out and armed guards at the door.
LOL. Honestly, I know the "answer" to this question: this is one of those urban legends from the early STO days. Some dev supposedly said this. The funny thing is, even though I have been around since beta, I've never seen any actual proof. No actual quote. So if someone has it, let's see!
If it's CBS's argument that would mean...wait for it...wait for it...CBS actually said it. And where, pray tell, did they say this?
It's the single reason that's being going around these forums since the questions were first asked. It's the only line any devs or staff have mentioned whenever they've being persuaded to offer anything at all. There used to be a post somewhere people used to trot out, but after two forum moves I haven't the foggiest where it would be now.
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
If it's CBS's argument that would mean...wait for it...wait for it...CBS actually said it. And where, pray tell, did they say this?
It's the single reason that's being going around these forums since the questions were first asked. It's the only line any devs or staff have mentioned whenever they've being persuaded to offer anything at all. There used to be a post somewhere people used to trot out, but after two forum moves I haven't the foggiest where it would be now.
See my last post. I've been around here a long time, and I've never actually seen proof this was said. Even before the forum migrations, I've never seen a link to a dev post saying this. And BTW, what dev are you claiming said this?
Also, your first sentence is 100% wrong. I have seen MANY "explanations" going around since the beginning.
"CBS said "no", period"
"CBS won't let them because of the JJ-movie"
"The ship is too old in STO's time period"
"CBS doesn't want us flying Kirk's ship"
There has never been a "single reason" because Cryptic has never actually elaborated on the CBS decision. That is why there has always been speculation, because no actual explanation was ever given.
Regardless of which company hypothetically "owns" what ship, I think CBS still has the authority to approve/deny anything in the game. So even if Cryptic owns the ship, CBS could still say "no", in theory.
Indeed, that sums it up pretty nicely. That was kinda' my point as well - Cryptic can't go rogue on CBS even if it's something that they designed themselves for STO, within STO. If they (CBS) prohibit any of those ships @talonxv mentioned, then those ships won't make it at end-game. That's kinda' the point of this entire thread, isn't it? We don't actually know their stance (or wheather there is one at all) on those ships.
If it's CBS's argument that would mean...wait for it...wait for it...CBS actually said it. And where, pray tell, did they say this?
It's the single reason that's being going around these forums since the questions were first asked. It's the only line any devs or staff have mentioned whenever they've being persuaded to offer anything at all. There used to be a post somewhere people used to trot out, but after two forum moves I haven't the foggiest where it would be now.
See my last post. I've been around here a long time, and I've never actually seen proof this was said. Even before the forum migrations, I've never seen a link to a dev post saying this. And BTW, what dev are you claiming said this?
Also, your first sentence is 100% wrong. I have seen MANY "explanations" going around since the beginning.
"CBS said "no", period"
"CBS won't let them because of the JJ-movie"
"The ship is too old in STO's time period"
"CBS doesn't want us flying Kirk's ship"
There has never been a "single reason" because Cryptic has never actually elaborated on the CBS decision. That is why there has always been speculation, because no actual explanation was ever given.
Oh, you've never seen the proof? I guess it doesn't exist then.
Yes, many reasons, all but one were never stated by a dev. As for which one, I don't know, it was a yellow name, but even now there's very few Devs I'd recognise the name of, but they had a yellow name and that means staff.
As for your list, the first isn't a reason, it's a statement that means nothing, the second doesn't matter as CBS has no control over Bad Robots' stuff and CBS owns the license for STO. If you mean competing advertising then that doesn't work. We have elements form the AR films (abait from the prime universe) ingame. And the next one is bollocks and was at the time so stop propagating it.
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
If it's CBS's argument that would mean...wait for it...wait for it...CBS actually said it. And where, pray tell, did they say this?
It's the single reason that's being going around these forums since the questions were first asked. It's the only line any devs or staff have mentioned whenever they've being persuaded to offer anything at all. There used to be a post somewhere people used to trot out, but after two forum moves I haven't the foggiest where it would be now.
See my last post. I've been around here a long time, and I've never actually seen proof this was said. Even before the forum migrations, I've never seen a link to a dev post saying this. And BTW, what dev are you claiming said this?
Also, your first sentence is 100% wrong. I have seen MANY "explanations" going around since the beginning.
"CBS said "no", period"
"CBS won't let them because of the JJ-movie"
"The ship is too old in STO's time period"
"CBS doesn't want us flying Kirk's ship"
There has never been a "single reason" because Cryptic has never actually elaborated on the CBS decision. That is why there has always been speculation, because no actual explanation was ever given.
Oh, you've never seen the proof? I guess it doesn't exist then.
No, I'm not saying that. But here is what I *AM* saying:
I've been around the forums for a really long time, and I've never seen it.
You are claiming it was said, but have no proof.
Not only do you have no proof, you don't even know who supposedly said it.
Maybe it was said, but without any actual proof, that "explanation" means no more than any other random explanation that any other random joe has come up with since the start.
PS: by the way, if that *HAD* actually been said, and was the *SINGLE* official explanation like you claim, don't you think they would have put that in the FCT thread? The fact that they *didn't* makes it even less likely to be legitimate.
If it's CBS's argument that would mean...wait for it...wait for it...CBS actually said it. And where, pray tell, did they say this?
It's the single reason that's being going around these forums since the questions were first asked. It's the only line any devs or staff have mentioned whenever they've being persuaded to offer anything at all. There used to be a post somewhere people used to trot out, but after two forum moves I haven't the foggiest where it would be now.
See my last post. I've been around here a long time, and I've never actually seen proof this was said. Even before the forum migrations, I've never seen a link to a dev post saying this. And BTW, what dev are you claiming said this?
Also, your first sentence is 100% wrong. I have seen MANY "explanations" going around since the beginning.
"CBS said "no", period"
"CBS won't let them because of the JJ-movie"
"The ship is too old in STO's time period"
"CBS doesn't want us flying Kirk's ship"
There has never been a "single reason" because Cryptic has never actually elaborated on the CBS decision. That is why there has always been speculation, because no actual explanation was ever given.
Oh, you've never seen the proof? I guess it doesn't exist then.
No, I'm not saying that. But here is what I *AM* saying:
I've been around the forums for a really long time, and I've never seen it.
You are claiming it was said, but have no proof.
Not only do you have no proof, you don't even know who supposedly said it.
Maybe it was said, but without any actual proof, that "explanation" means no more than any other random explanation that any other random joe has come up with since the start.
PS: by the way, if that *HAD* actually been said, and *WAS* the official explanation, don't you think they would have put that in the FCT thread? The fact that they *didn't* makes it even less likely to be legitimate.
Really? Never seen it? Because a new T5/6 Conni thread comes out every other week for years and every other time somebody would trot out the quote.
I don't know why it's not in the FCT list, I don't know why Devs really discuss it, I don't think it matters which staff member said it because a yellow name was good enough for me.
In the end all I really care about is stopping people claiming it's because of the age of the Conni or because of the PR/AR split, both of which are definitely wrong.
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
Yep, that is me. And I appreciate you finding that, because now I get to use it to help support my case. First, to explain what that was about.
1) Geko was on the show that week, taking questions
2) Geko was asked if we could get a T5 Excalibur
Geko's response? To paraphrase:
Is that another way of asking for a T5 connie? If so, no
Either he wasn't paying attention, didn't understand what he was asked, or was intentionally avoiding the question, because he did *NOT* answer what he was asked. He was *NOT* asked about a T5 connie, he was asked about a T5 Excalibur. And notice that he did *NOT* say CBS told them they couldn't do that.
So that is the question I am asking with this thread. Did CBS actually tell them they couldn't make an end game Excalibur? Because they have *NEVER* told us that. They have always *ONLY* told us that CBS said they couldn't make an end game connie.
If it's CBS's argument that would mean...wait for it...wait for it...CBS actually said it. And where, pray tell, did they say this?
It's the single reason that's being going around these forums since the questions were first asked. It's the only line any devs or staff have mentioned whenever they've being persuaded to offer anything at all. There used to be a post somewhere people used to trot out, but after two forum moves I haven't the foggiest where it would be now.
See my last post. I've been around here a long time, and I've never actually seen proof this was said. Even before the forum migrations, I've never seen a link to a dev post saying this. And BTW, what dev are you claiming said this?
Also, your first sentence is 100% wrong. I have seen MANY "explanations" going around since the beginning.
"CBS said "no", period"
"CBS won't let them because of the JJ-movie"
"The ship is too old in STO's time period"
"CBS doesn't want us flying Kirk's ship"
There has never been a "single reason" because Cryptic has never actually elaborated on the CBS decision. That is why there has always been speculation, because no actual explanation was ever given.
Oh, you've never seen the proof? I guess it doesn't exist then.
No, I'm not saying that. But here is what I *AM* saying:
I've been around the forums for a really long time, and I've never seen it.
You are claiming it was said, but have no proof.
Not only do you have no proof, you don't even know who supposedly said it.
Maybe it was said, but without any actual proof, that "explanation" means no more than any other random explanation that any other random joe has come up with since the start.
PS: by the way, if that *HAD* actually been said, and *WAS* the official explanation, don't you think they would have put that in the FCT thread? The fact that they *didn't* makes it even less likely to be legitimate.
Really? Never seen it? Because a new T5/6 Conni thread comes out every other week for years and every other time somebody would trot out the quote.
So you're telling me...
A dev made an official statement explaining a major "issue" in the communty.
Various people would quote that statement every other week for YEARS.
And you don't have one single example?
And you don't even have any idea what dev supposedly said this?
LOL. Honestly, I know the "answer" to this question: this is one of those urban legends from the early STO days. Some dev supposedly said this. The funny thing is, even though I have been around since beta, I've never seen any actual proof. No actual quote. So if someone has it, let's see!
I don't believe it's an urban legend. Seems to me that believing CBS never said "no" to be true is like believing Cryptic (or anyone for that matter) would say no to an obvious mountain of cash.
No, you misunderstood. The urban legend I was referring to was NOT that "CBS said no". That is a fact. If you will trace back the conversation, artan42 is claiming that a dev actually explained *why* CBS said "no", and that explanation was because the connie was Kirk's ship, and CBS didn't want a lot of people flying around in Kirk's ship. That explanation is the "urban legend" I was referring to.
The only quote that rele matters it Dstalls when he said "never say never". Every thing else that's been mention like "CBS Said no". "Its to old in TSO's time frame", "they don't want us flying Kirks ship" is just speculation.
Anyway the OP said this was ABOUT the T2 VARIENTS of the TOS Connie and the TMP connie. So NAMELY the Exeter, The EXCLABIER and the VESPER. Nothing to do with the T1
No, you misunderstood. The urban legend I was referring to was NOT that "CBS said no". That is a fact. The "urban legend" I am referring to is that a dev explained it by saying "the connie is Kirk's ship, and CBS doesn't want a lot of people using Kirk's ship".
Ah, ok. I seem to recall that quote from somewhere. I want to say it was Dan Stahl in a podcast interview, but I'm probably wrong.
I recall it from somewhere too: I recall seeing people mention it as one of the many guesses as to why CBS said 'no end game connie'. So yes, I do remember it being one of the many possible explanations, over the years. I just don't remember ever seeing it posted by a dev. And maybe it was. But if it was truly posted as often as artan says, it shouldn't be that hard to find should it?
End Game Constitution Class ship
The answer to the T5 connie ship has been a no for 4 years and that answer comes from CBS. As such, there will not be a T5 constitution class ship in STO. This also means that any version of the ship will not be available as an End game ship. Exert from a Q&A with DStahl & from the livestream by Smirk -
Q: (thmichael) Are you going to implement the Ambassador Class at some point? And would it be possible to implement the Old Constitution Class for higher ranks?
Dstahl: Yes. The Ambassador class is coming in 2013. CBS is still pretty adamant about the Old Connie not being an end game ship, but you never know what can happen as time rolls by.
A: I personally think it is more of a forum issue right now because there are so many threads that pop up. Not going to come into the game I think ever! The T5 Connie, it was something that used to drive Branflakes insane, he would make me delete those threads, hide them. It doesnt bother me that much. I would love something along the lines of like the Exeter class. I would love to have a traditional Connie with a 1960s kind of bussard collector on the nacelles, something that is really big and powerful, like if you gave the regular constitution class a "grow mushroom" from Mario Bros and it just got big and super OP. I would love that but its not going to happen. There will not be a T5 Connie.
Three things to note in the above quote:
1) When community moderator Askray says, "This also means that any version of the ship...", it appears to be conjecture based on what was said by, then, Sr. Producer, Dan Stahl (Dstahl). However, what Dan said and what Ray said that Dan said are not the same: "Boss said 'X', so he must have meant 'X and X+ and Y too'."
2) Smirk's quote, remembering former Community Manager Brandon's (Branflake) pet-peeve, he is specifically describing the Old Connie--meaning the ship from TOS with no bloody A, no bloody B, C, or D. What @thegrandnagus is asking for is the Excalibur Class, a variant of the Constitution refit, a.k.a. Enterprise class. He's not asking for the Old Connie... he (I probably should say "we", shouldn't I?) isn't even asking for the refit.
3) Nowhere, in the above quotes, is John Van Citters ever mentioned. Yes, Mr. Van Citters is VP of Product Development at CBS Consumer Products. Yes, "Product Development" includes managing licensed products. However, considering how high he is in the studio food chain, and the sheer volume of licensed Trek products that his office handles, I highly doubt that he, personally, had any direct statement on the subject of a single component within a single licensed product. Not that it's impossible--he very well might have--but if he did, it would be the most egregious example of micromanaging since Michael Eisner's tenure at Disney.
Speaking of Smirk's quote from the FCT thread, what makes it so bad is that Smirk outright *CONTRADICTS* what Dan said. In Dan's quote, he acknowledges CBS still isn't allowing the end game connie, but then he goes on to say "but you never know what might happen in the future". However, in Smirk's quote he definitively states that it is NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. Period. Smirk was never a dev, and definitely did not have the authority to contradict what Dan the man said. So, IMO, the fact that Smirk did that pretty much invalidates anything else he said in that comment, because it shows he was only giving his own personal opinion, not speaking for Cryptic or Perfect World. And that being the case, Askray's personal opinion based on Smirk's post means no more than any other random joe posting on the forums.
Is that another way of asking for a T5 connie? If so, no
Either he wasn't paying attention, didn't understand what he was asked, or was intentionally avoiding the question, because he did *NOT* answer what he was asked. He was *NOT* asked about a T5 connie, he was asked about a T5 Excalibur.
Once again... for all intents and purposes, the Excalibur IS a Connie. Doesn't matter what skin you put on her, she's a Connie under the hood. Its no different than taking a VW Bug and turning into a dune buggy. Its still a VW Bug under the hood.
Think about it. We've got T5 Retrofits of the T2 Escort and T2 Science ship (Saber and Nova). WHY haven't we seen a T5 Cruiser Retrofit? Because its a Connie. ANY variant of the Connie, be it T1 or T2, was veto'd. So yes. The question WAS answered. You're just not accepting that answer because "it wasn't specific enough".
Also the fact that EVERY TIME this topic in one form or another comes out, the answer is always THE SAME.
Speaking of Smirk's quote from the FCT thread, what makes it so bad is that Smirk outright *CONTRADICTS* what Dan said.
The Dev was keeping an optimistic view because no one knows what the future holds. However, the current track record is still a resounding No, and will most likely be a resounding No for the foreseeable future.
It has nothing to do with it being an Excalibur or anything. Cryptic KNOWS an endgame Cruiser based on the Connie would sell, let alone an Endgame Connie. The fact is its been veto'd by CBS so they CAN'T do it.
Is that another way of asking for a T5 connie? If so, no
Either he wasn't paying attention, didn't understand what he was asked, or was intentionally avoiding the question, because he did *NOT* answer what he was asked. He was *NOT* asked about a T5 connie, he was asked about a T5 Excalibur.
Once again... for all intents and purposes, the Excalibur IS a Connie. Doesn't matter what skin you put on her, she's a Connie under the hood. Its no different than taking a VW Bug and turning into a dune buggy. Its still a VW Bug under the hood.
Yes, the T2 cruiser variants are all the same ship as far as game mechanics go; I'm not arguing that point. But I'm not asking for a T2 ship, I'm asking for a T6 Excalibur with no connie parts. A T6 Excal would definitely *not* be the same "under the hood" as the T2 connie.
Also the fact that EVERY TIME this topic in one form or another comes out, the answer is always THE SAME.
No dev has Ever, I repeat EVER, told us that CBS said they could not make an end game Excalibur. They have always ONLY told us that CBS said no end game connie. So I'm trying to find out if CBS actually said "no" to the Excalibur, or not.
The Dev was keeping an optimistic view because no one knows what the future holds.
His name is Dan, not "the dev". And regardless of how you try to spin it, that doesn't change the fact that he left the possibility open while Smirk directly contradicted that by making a definitive statement that it won't happen.
PLEASE say something because this dead horse has been beaten to the point its become Mashed Potatoes.
Once again, no one is forcing you to click on this thread. You've already pinged the mods before, so stop harassing them just because you don't like this thread.
Comments
Why do people keep brining up the age thing? You know that's not the reason. We have the NX, T'varo, Vulan ship and several Xindi ships all older as well as the comparably aged D7, T'Liss, Constellation, Excelsior, and Miranda. They are not hidden ships snuck in under the radar to hide from CBS, they're out in the open and most are endgame capable.
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!
If it's CBS's argument that would mean...wait for it...wait for it...CBS actually said it. And where, pray tell, did they say this?
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
In a shuttered, sound-proof room with the lights out and armed Redshirt Guards at the door.
I Was A Trekkie Before It Was Cool ... Sept. 8th, 1966 ... Not To Mention Before Most Folks Around Here Were Born!
Forever a STO Veteran-Minion
LOL. Honestly, I know the "answer" to this question: this is one of those urban legends from the early STO days. Some dev supposedly said this. The funny thing is, even though I have been around since beta, I've never seen any actual proof. No actual quote. So if someone has it, let's see!
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
It's the single reason that's being going around these forums since the questions were first asked. It's the only line any devs or staff have mentioned whenever they've being persuaded to offer anything at all. There used to be a post somewhere people used to trot out, but after two forum moves I haven't the foggiest where it would be now.
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!
See my last post. I've been around here a long time, and I've never actually seen proof this was said. Even before the forum migrations, I've never seen a link to a dev post saying this. And BTW, what dev are you claiming said this?
Also, your first sentence is 100% wrong. I have seen MANY "explanations" going around since the beginning.
There has never been a "single reason" because Cryptic has never actually elaborated on the CBS decision. That is why there has always been speculation, because no actual explanation was ever given.
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
Like my fanpage!
https://www.facebook.com/CaptainBMoney913
Join Date: August 29th 2010
Indeed, that sums it up pretty nicely. That was kinda' my point as well - Cryptic can't go rogue on CBS even if it's something that they designed themselves for STO, within STO. If they (CBS) prohibit any of those ships @talonxv mentioned, then those ships won't make it at end-game. That's kinda' the point of this entire thread, isn't it? We don't actually know their stance (or wheather there is one at all) on those ships.
Oh, you've never seen the proof? I guess it doesn't exist then.
Yes, many reasons, all but one were never stated by a dev. As for which one, I don't know, it was a yellow name, but even now there's very few Devs I'd recognise the name of, but they had a yellow name and that means staff.
As for your list, the first isn't a reason, it's a statement that means nothing, the second doesn't matter as CBS has no control over Bad Robots' stuff and CBS owns the license for STO. If you mean competing advertising then that doesn't work. We have elements form the AR films (abait from the prime universe) ingame. And the next one is bollocks and was at the time so stop propagating it.
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!
No, I'm not saying that. But here is what I *AM* saying:
Maybe it was said, but without any actual proof, that "explanation" means no more than any other random explanation that any other random joe has come up with since the start.
PS: by the way, if that *HAD* actually been said, and was the *SINGLE* official explanation like you claim, don't you think they would have put that in the FCT thread? The fact that they *didn't* makes it even less likely to be legitimate.
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
I don't know if its the same grand nagus but you seemed to respond to a dev comment on the T5 connie topic. Available here:
http://priorityonepodcast.com/po151/
Really? Never seen it? Because a new T5/6 Conni thread comes out every other week for years and every other time somebody would trot out the quote.
I don't know why it's not in the FCT list, I don't know why Devs really discuss it, I don't think it matters which staff member said it because a yellow name was good enough for me.
In the end all I really care about is stopping people claiming it's because of the age of the Conni or because of the PR/AR split, both of which are definitely wrong.
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!
Like my fanpage!
https://www.facebook.com/CaptainBMoney913
Join Date: August 29th 2010
Yep, that is me. And I appreciate you finding that, because now I get to use it to help support my case. First, to explain what that was about.
1) Geko was on the show that week, taking questions
2) Geko was asked if we could get a T5 Excalibur
Geko's response? To paraphrase:
Either he wasn't paying attention, didn't understand what he was asked, or was intentionally avoiding the question, because he did *NOT* answer what he was asked. He was *NOT* asked about a T5 connie, he was asked about a T5 Excalibur. And notice that he did *NOT* say CBS told them they couldn't do that.
So that is the question I am asking with this thread. Did CBS actually tell them they couldn't make an end game Excalibur? Because they have *NEVER* told us that. They have always *ONLY* told us that CBS said they couldn't make an end game connie.
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
So you're telling me...
- A dev made an official statement explaining a major "issue" in the communty.
- Various people would quote that statement every other week for YEARS.
- And you don't have one single example?
- And you don't even have any idea what dev supposedly said this?
That's what you're saying?The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
No, you misunderstood. The urban legend I was referring to was NOT that "CBS said no". That is a fact. If you will trace back the conversation, artan42 is claiming that a dev actually explained *why* CBS said "no", and that explanation was because the connie was Kirk's ship, and CBS didn't want a lot of people flying around in Kirk's ship. That explanation is the "urban legend" I was referring to.
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
Anyway the OP said this was ABOUT the T2 VARIENTS of the TOS Connie and the TMP connie. So NAMELY the Exeter, The EXCLABIER and the VESPER. Nothing to do with the T1
I recall it from somewhere too: I recall seeing people mention it as one of the many guesses as to why CBS said 'no end game connie'. So yes, I do remember it being one of the many possible explanations, over the years. I just don't remember ever seeing it posted by a dev. And maybe it was. But if it was truly posted as often as artan says, it shouldn't be that hard to find should it?
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
The connie is a fan favorite, to be sure. But that's not what I'm asking for. I'm asking for an end game Excalibur with *NO* connie parts.
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
Encouraging John Van Citters isn't going to make him any less of an idiot. A ship without a skin is as bad as going to a prostitute without a condom.
Like my fanpage!
https://www.facebook.com/CaptainBMoney913
Join Date: August 29th 2010
Three things to note in the above quote:
1) When community moderator Askray says, "This also means that any version of the ship...", it appears to be conjecture based on what was said by, then, Sr. Producer, Dan Stahl (Dstahl). However, what Dan said and what Ray said that Dan said are not the same: "Boss said 'X', so he must have meant 'X and X+ and Y too'."
2) Smirk's quote, remembering former Community Manager Brandon's (Branflake) pet-peeve, he is specifically describing the Old Connie--meaning the ship from TOS with no bloody A, no bloody B, C, or D. What @thegrandnagus is asking for is the Excalibur Class, a variant of the Constitution refit, a.k.a. Enterprise class. He's not asking for the Old Connie... he (I probably should say "we", shouldn't I?) isn't even asking for the refit.
3) Nowhere, in the above quotes, is John Van Citters ever mentioned. Yes, Mr. Van Citters is VP of Product Development at CBS Consumer Products. Yes, "Product Development" includes managing licensed products. However, considering how high he is in the studio food chain, and the sheer volume of licensed Trek products that his office handles, I highly doubt that he, personally, had any direct statement on the subject of a single component within a single licensed product. Not that it's impossible--he very well might have--but if he did, it would be the most egregious example of micromanaging since Michael Eisner's tenure at Disney.
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
Once again... for all intents and purposes, the Excalibur IS a Connie. Doesn't matter what skin you put on her, she's a Connie under the hood. Its no different than taking a VW Bug and turning into a dune buggy. Its still a VW Bug under the hood.
Think about it. We've got T5 Retrofits of the T2 Escort and T2 Science ship (Saber and Nova). WHY haven't we seen a T5 Cruiser Retrofit? Because its a Connie. ANY variant of the Connie, be it T1 or T2, was veto'd. So yes. The question WAS answered. You're just not accepting that answer because "it wasn't specific enough".
Also the fact that EVERY TIME this topic in one form or another comes out, the answer is always THE SAME.
The Dev was keeping an optimistic view because no one knows what the future holds. However, the current track record is still a resounding No, and will most likely be a resounding No for the foreseeable future.
It has nothing to do with it being an Excalibur or anything. Cryptic KNOWS an endgame Cruiser based on the Connie would sell, let alone an Endgame Connie. The fact is its been veto'd by CBS so they CAN'T do it.
@pwlaughingtrendy
@jodarkrider
PLEASE say something because this dead horse has been beaten to the point its become Mashed Potatoes.
Yes, the T2 cruiser variants are all the same ship as far as game mechanics go; I'm not arguing that point. But I'm not asking for a T2 ship, I'm asking for a T6 Excalibur with no connie parts. A T6 Excal would definitely *not* be the same "under the hood" as the T2 connie.
No dev has Ever, I repeat EVER, told us that CBS said they could not make an end game Excalibur. They have always ONLY told us that CBS said no end game connie. So I'm trying to find out if CBS actually said "no" to the Excalibur, or not.
His name is Dan, not "the dev". And regardless of how you try to spin it, that doesn't change the fact that he left the possibility open while Smirk directly contradicted that by making a definitive statement that it won't happen.
Once again, no one is forcing you to click on this thread. You've already pinged the mods before, so stop harassing them just because you don't like this thread.
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
Like my fanpage!
https://www.facebook.com/CaptainBMoney913
Join Date: August 29th 2010