test content
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc

One of the COOLEST ship designs Cryptic ever made...wasted =(

2456733

Comments

  • thegrandnagus1thegrandnagus1 Member Posts: 5,165 Arc User
    @rattler2 neither the quote from stahl or smirk(who was never a dev) say anything about CBS denying connie variants. That was what I asked you about. Or did you misread my post? So again, do you have any source that actually talks about the variants?

    The-Grand-Nagus
    Join Date: Sep 2008

    og9Zoh0.jpg
  • oldravenman3025oldravenman3025 Member Posts: 1,892 Arc User
    rattler2 wrote: »
    Yea... good luck getting a personal letter. The most official we'll get is word from the Devs. In this case, its pretty safe to say the answer hasn't changed.



    I don't expect a personal letter.

    Just a statement from CBS somewhere online would be fine.

    But it will never happen. And I will continue to remain skeptical.

  • twg042370twg042370 Member Posts: 2,312 Arc User
    Flying a ship that's a couple of centuries old at this point at end game is silly! Silly I say!

    cstore25.jpg

    Oh! How'd that picture get there?
    <3
  • thegrandnagus1thegrandnagus1 Member Posts: 5,165 Arc User
    I don't need any letter. If a Dev will actually say that CBS said no end game Exaclibur, that's fine with me. But I have honestly never read or heard any Dev actually say anything other than that CBS said no end game connie. And btw, I actually remember that podcast interview with Dan and Smirk. They never said that CBS denied the variant ships. Whoever wrote that intro to their quotes was editorializing.

    The-Grand-Nagus
    Join Date: Sep 2008

    og9Zoh0.jpg
  • kavasekavase Member Posts: 771 Arc User
    I don't need any letter. If a Dev will actually say that CBS said no end game Exaclibur, that's fine with me. But I have honestly never read or heard any Dev actually say anything other than that CBS said no end game connie. And btw, I actually remember that podcast interview with Dan and Smirk. They never said that CBS denied the variant ships. Whoever wrote that intro to their quotes was editorializing.

    Well if it is okay and possible, it'd be nice to have. I remember using this variant specifically on release. It was tough to pass up on I must say, a very nice design and probably the best design Cryptic ever did.
    Retired. I'm now in search for that perfect space anomaly.
  • sevexparsevexpar Member Posts: 66 Arc User
    Okay, guys? I would love a T6 Connie, but CBS said no. Also a T6 Excelsior, but again CBS said no.

    We can't push CBS on this or anything else since they have gone lawsuit-happy. Remember: CBS hates Trekkers, but loves our money.

    All we can do is shut up and take what they toss us (and give them money).

    We should all just enjoy Star Trek Online, buy stuff to support Cryptic (so they keep making STO), and hope we don't all get sued by CBS if we reference Star Trek in our conversations.
  • thegrandnagus1thegrandnagus1 Member Posts: 5,165 Arc User
    edited February 2016
    @sevexpar said "Also a T6 Excelsior, but again CBS said no."

    See, this is why people are so confused. We just GOT a T6 excelsior. Its in game right now.
    Post edited by thegrandnagus1 on

    The-Grand-Nagus
    Join Date: Sep 2008

    og9Zoh0.jpg
  • sevexparsevexpar Member Posts: 66 Arc User
    thegrandnagus1: That was a typo: I meant Excalibur. The rest of the comment stands.
  • thegrandnagus1thegrandnagus1 Member Posts: 5,165 Arc User
    @sevexpar said :"The rest of the comment stands"

    Except they never said anything about the Excalibur.

    The-Grand-Nagus
    Join Date: Sep 2008

    og9Zoh0.jpg
  • kapla5571kapla5571 Member Posts: 103 Arc User
    They wouldn't have to name varients by name to exclude them.

    An endgame variant Constitution class would not necessarily look like the classic from TOS, and pretty sure an endgame Constitution class variant would be a no-brainer for sales even if it was just for nostalgias sake. Legalese typically covers all the bases about what you are restricted from doing when the authorizing corp allows a seperate company to use their logo.

    By stating no endgame Constitution or any variant shall be created or produced in any way, shape, form. That would pretty much make their intentions clear. Whether you call it the Excaliber, the Xcaliber, or Generation Next if it resembles the classic TOS Constitution at heart it would not matter. I'm sure if there was a way around it Cryptic would have found it after 6 years.

    Though for some hope will spring eternal so even if there is a 99.999999% chance of it not occurring there will always be that .000001% of the group that says they didn't say that, thats not what they said exactly, but this is a different name than that, etc. Still not gonna happen.
  • thegrandnagus1thegrandnagus1 Member Posts: 5,165 Arc User
    edited February 2016
    kapla5571 wrote: »
    They wouldn't have to name varients by name to exclude them.

    And if a dev confirms CBS actually said no variants, then I'll accept that. But again, nothing I have ever read or heard actually said that. Even the dev quotes from the FCT don't say that. Everything I have read has *only* mentioned the actual connie itself. I have seen no quote, nor listened to any podcast interview, which mentioned the variant ships. But if someone has an actual link, please share it.

    Whether you call it the Excaliber, the Xcaliber, or Generation Next if it resembles the classic TOS Constitution at heart it would not matter.

    The problem with that logic is that the Ambassador looks approximately as similar to the connie as the Excalibur does. The Excalibur doesn't even have a round saucer. So if your above statement were true, then that would have meant no end game Ambassador. Or even Excelsior. Clearly, simply being visually similar is not the deciding factor. It is actually *being* a connie that matters, which neither of those ships are.

    On a related note, here is a question I have. Let's imagine that the Excalibur class weren't in game at all(meaning it was never plugged in as a variant of the connie). Now, lets say that in 2016, the devs design the Excalibur class and submit it to CBS for approval. Would CBS say "no, this looks too similar to the connie" and deny it? Honestly, I highly doubt it. Which leads me to believe CBS has not actually denied the Excalibur class itself.

    But again, if a dev confirms CBS actually said no to the Exalibur, I'll gladly accept that. I did not post this thread to troll or argue or sneak a T6 connie in the back door. I am asking only about the Excalibur class.
    Post edited by thegrandnagus1 on

    The-Grand-Nagus
    Join Date: Sep 2008

    og9Zoh0.jpg
  • angrybobhangrybobh Member Posts: 420 Arc User
    edited February 2016
    I'd love it. I'd buy it even. We could use a light cruiser at t6 and that ship is pretty. Also, you would think that if Cryptic designed it, they could do whatever they wanted with it. Whatever, my 2 cents anyhow.
  • shpoksshpoks Member Posts: 6,967 Arc User
    The devs, in the past, have said a lot of things that turned out to be bullsh*t.


    To be honest, I will never buy it unless I see it straight from the horse's mouth. That "horse" would be CBS.


    But that's just me.

    You and me both.
    I've been saying the exact same thing on that particular topic since forever and I'll keep calling BS on that until I hear/read it from a CBS representative or from an official CBS venue.
    HQroeLu.jpg
  • thegrandnagus1thegrandnagus1 Member Posts: 5,165 Arc User
    shpoks wrote: »
    The devs, in the past, have said a lot of things that turned out to be bullsh*t.


    To be honest, I will never buy it unless I see it straight from the horse's mouth. That "horse" would be CBS.


    But that's just me.

    You and me both.
    I've been saying the exact same thing on that particular topic since forever and I'll keep calling BS on that until I hear/read it from a CBS representative or from an official CBS venue.

    That's never going to happen. At least, not unless someone happens to be friends with someone at CBS. But realistically speaking, we have to accept what the devs say. And while I have certainly read/heard them say that CBS said 'no end game connie', I have not read/heard them say what CBS said about the Excalibur or variants. But again, if someone has a link to quote or interview that actually addresses that, please share.

    The-Grand-Nagus
    Join Date: Sep 2008

    og9Zoh0.jpg
  • kavasekavase Member Posts: 771 Arc User
    shpoks wrote: »
    The devs, in the past, have said a lot of things that turned out to be bullsh*t.


    To be honest, I will never buy it unless I see it straight from the horse's mouth. That "horse" would be CBS.


    But that's just me.

    You and me both.
    I've been saying the exact same thing on that particular topic since forever and I'll keep calling BS on that until I hear/read it from a CBS representative or from an official CBS venue.

    I'd like to call BS on this too, but....it's probably a safe bet that if they did, they'd make very good return in sales for a end game Connie. So why would Cryptic not want to capitalize on that?
    Retired. I'm now in search for that perfect space anomaly.
  • thegrandnagus1thegrandnagus1 Member Posts: 5,165 Arc User
    kavase wrote: »
    shpoks wrote: »
    The devs, in the past, have said a lot of things that turned out to be bullsh*t.


    To be honest, I will never buy it unless I see it straight from the horse's mouth. That "horse" would be CBS.


    But that's just me.

    You and me both.
    I've been saying the exact same thing on that particular topic since forever and I'll keep calling BS on that until I hear/read it from a CBS representative or from an official CBS venue.

    I'd like to call BS on this too, but....it's probably a safe bet that if they did, they'd make very good return in sales for a end game Connie. So why would Cryptic not want to capitalize on that?

    Yes, that really is the most important question. And the potential money that could be made really is the best proof there is that CBS really did tell them they couldn't make an end game connie. I don't think anyone is lying or BSing about that. I'm not as sure about the variant ships, as I have not seen any official statement about them.

    The-Grand-Nagus
    Join Date: Sep 2008

    og9Zoh0.jpg
  • ltminnsltminns Member Posts: 12,572 Arc User
    Why wouldn't Cryptic want to do It? Because they would be afraid it would make a bunch of their other ships moot. Good sales on one and poorer sales on a bunch of other Federation ships.
    'But to be logical is not to be right', and 'nothing' on God's earth could ever 'make it' right!'
    Judge Dan Haywood
    'As l speak now, the words are forming in my head.
    l don't know.
    l really don't know what l'm about to say, except l have a feeling about it.
    That l must repeat the words that come without my knowledge.'
    Lt. Philip J. Minns
  • jtoney3448jtoney3448 Member Posts: 642 Arc User
    I support a T6 excalibur and its non connie variants. They are new designs, just like how the andorian escorts are new design based on old ship, just like the vulcan ship is new design based on old ship etc etc etc. And they said no only to the connie, not a cruiser refit. A vesper isnt a connie, its a cruiser. Just like how a Galaxy-class is an exploration crusier.
  • kapla5571kapla5571 Member Posts: 103 Arc User
    kapla5571 wrote: »

    The problem with that logic is that the Ambassador looks approximately as similar to the connie as the Excalibur does. The Excalibur doesn't even have a round saucer. So if your above statement were true, then that would have meant no end game Ambassador. Or even Excelsior. Clearly, simply being visually similar is not the deciding factor. It is actually *being* a connie that matters, which neither of those ships are.

    Really the Excaliber doesn't look more similar to a TOS connie vs the Ambassador [even though 1 of these is on the T2 Constitution refit page? and is infact a skin for the ship?]

    ok B)



  • ltminnsltminns Member Posts: 12,572 Arc User
    According to Memory Beta wasn't the Excalibur designed as a DUM, DUM, DUM.... Science Ship. Confab it, people ain't gonna cotton to no more of that Sciency stuff. We just got ourselves a whole heap of them last week. True 'mericans need to blow stuff up real good and not blind them with Science don't you know.
    'But to be logical is not to be right', and 'nothing' on God's earth could ever 'make it' right!'
    Judge Dan Haywood
    'As l speak now, the words are forming in my head.
    l don't know.
    l really don't know what l'm about to say, except l have a feeling about it.
    That l must repeat the words that come without my knowledge.'
    Lt. Philip J. Minns
  • thegrandnagus1thegrandnagus1 Member Posts: 5,165 Arc User
    kapla5571 wrote: »
    Really the Excaliber doesn't look more similar to a TOS connie vs the Ambassador [even though 1 of these is on the T2 Constitution refit page? and is infact a skin for the ship?]

    The Excalibur is only a connie variant because Cryptic put it there. They could have done the same thing with the Ambassador if they wanted to, except for the fact that that was already a known ship. But neither the Excalibur or the Ambassador are actually connies, they are both separate classes. And please don't reply inside your quotes, it makes no sense.

    The-Grand-Nagus
    Join Date: Sep 2008

    og9Zoh0.jpg
  • thegrandnagus1thegrandnagus1 Member Posts: 5,165 Arc User
    edited February 2016
    With the Excalibur question on the table for any official answer that is out there, I will say this...

    A certain combination of the Resolute and Excelsior actually scratches my T6 connie itch pretty well:

    http://imgur.com/a/vggDK

    The-Grand-Nagus
    Join Date: Sep 2008

    og9Zoh0.jpg
  • daveynydaveyny Member Posts: 8,227 Arc User
    I'm hoping that the coming 50th Anniversary of The Original Series, is gonna change the status-quo and we are going to see some form of that iconic ship made into an end-game element.

    I know it's not likely, but logic be damned!
    B)
    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
    upside-down-banana-smiley-emoticon.gif
  • zellkarrathzellkarrath Member Posts: 182 Arc User
    I always assumed that the point of releasing the Excalibur variant was so we could have a brand new vessel inspired by the Constitution's design. In fact if I recall there was even an article about this variant leading up to the games release. The entire point of this variant was to give players a new generation Constitution.

    So while I get that in the past, there have been rules set in place over no high tier Connie, it frankly doesn't make sense within the confines of the universe Cryptic has been creating. I fly around in a T5U Steamrunner on one of my characters, a ship which is normally a tier below the Excalibur variant. I'm sure people can argue technicalities all day long about whether or not this ship should be a higher tier, but it just seems odd how many other ships that are over 30 years old in this setting are still hitting tier 5-6, and are able to easily compete with newer designs such as the Odyssey. Regardless, this is not a discussion I want to get too bogged down in, but I've always found the excuses against this rather weak. It is what it is, but it frankly borders on silly that this is not allowed.
  • eugenesyseugenesys Member Posts: 115 Arc User
    coldnapalm wrote: »
    Humm...this could work. But could you imagine the TRIBBLE storm that would happen if they do this and they forget to lock out the connie parts?

    I doubt they will intentially forget to lock out the connie part

    More like "game bug" that connie parts can suddenly be used.....
    and no one willing to report it as a bug... :P
  • zombieman149zombieman149 Member Posts: 29 New User
    a bug may be
  • artan42artan42 Member Posts: 10,450 Bug Hunter
    IMO, the Excalibur class is one of the coolest ship designs Cryptic has made to date:

    smNs64F.jpg


    So cool, in fact, that they made it the most prominent ship on the game's box art:

    51Xy%2BrmotkL._AC_UL320_SR230,320_.jpg


    Unfortunately, it is also one of the most useless ships in the game. Why? Because they decided to tie it to the Constitution class, and CBS said there can be no end game level constitution class ship. Well, regardless of how you feel about the CBS decision, I say it is time to stop wasting this awesome ship design on a low level ship.

    Long story short:

    Make a T6 Excalibur.

    Lock out the Constitution parts to remain obedient to CBS.

    Make money.

    I never really clicked with any of the post Nemesis/pre-2409 ships in STO (with the exceptions of the Monarch and Typhoon). The Excalibur just seems too over designed to me, all that chamfering along the saucer and hull just doesn't do it for me.
    Still, this, the Vesper, and the Exeter, could still be a T5 or 6 ship, I just would't get it.


    Also, we all know full well the CBS edict is about the Constitution's status as Kirk's iconic ship, not because it's too old. Pointing at T'Varos and D'ykar means nothing as that's not the reason for its exclusion.

    Still, if CBS bend for the 50th then we may see a T5 or 6 TMP era Conni as I'd argue it's only about as well known as the Galaxy. But I can't ever see a endgame TOS era Conni.​​
    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!
  • kekvinkekvin Member Posts: 633 Arc User
    With this being the 50th. Im hoping for the t6 exeter. Its not the "old connie". And they can lock out modes. Look at the t4 and t5 galaxy
  • angrytargangrytarg Member Posts: 11,001 Arc User
    edited February 2016
    The Excalibur and Vesper designs don't strike me as particularly desireable, I'm with @artan42 on this one - but it's the same for almost all Cryptic designs that are not Type-6 refits. Those are "new" ships, though. Vesper and Excalibur are 24th century variants and the Exeter refits all of them into the 25th century.

    But a T6 version can only be justified when we accept that there is absolutely no logical basis for ship performance in STO, it's just vanity skins we switch. Because there is no halfway sensible explanation why a Exeter should be equal if not superior to a Venture or Andromeda.

    The only thing this can make any sense is to introduce a T6 "light cruiser" which is to cruisers what the Aquarius "light escort" is to other escorts. Fewer weapons, fewer hull but universal boffs and maybe flanking bonus, but it cannot logically play in the same weightclass as "heavier" ships.

    Ship tiers in STO make no sense in terms of ship age. We have type-6 refits in all ship tiers, those are modern refits. A "real" STO fleet going into battle would not be made up of only T6s - they would have all tiers present, as a Gladius escort just cannot be as powerful as a battle cruiser - the lower tiers just have fewer weapons, it's the limit of their classification. Promoting those to T5/T6 really makes no sense - see the "escort retrofit". The escort (Sabre/Gladius) is a frigate like ship with 3/1 weapon slots etc - it doesn't make sense to "retrofit" that to have 4/2 weapons (where do those go?) and improved hull points (how is this possible?) - so the modern 25th century "cruiser" is already in-game - you would have to use the T2 ship at end-game. That is it's "realistic" performance.​​
    lFC4bt2.gif
    ^ Memory Alpha.org is not canon. It's a open wiki with arbitrary rules. Only what can be cited from an episode is. ^
    "No. Men do not roar. Women roar. Then they hurl heavy objects... and claw at you." -Worf, son of Mogh
    "A filthy, mangy beast, but in its bony breast beat the heart of a warrior" - "faithful" (...) "but ever-ready to follow the call of the wild." - Martok, about a Targ
    "That pig smelled horrid. A sweet-sour, extremely pungent odor. I showered and showered, and it took me a week to get rid of it!" - Robert Justman, appreciating Emmy-Lou
  • shpoksshpoks Member Posts: 6,967 Arc User
    edited February 2016
    That's never going to happen. At least, not unless someone happens to be friends with someone at CBS. But realistically speaking, we have to accept what the devs say. And while I have certainly read/heard them say that CBS said 'no end game connie', I have not read/heard them say what CBS said about the Excalibur or variants. But again, if someone has a link to quote or interview that actually addresses that, please share.

    Believe me, I'm fully aware that there's like 0.1% chance of that happening. I'm just saying that I'm maintaining my right to have doubts about the source of the "Connie prohibition" ;) until I hear it from the one real authority on the matter, if that ever happens.
    Different devs have said a lot of different things throughout the years, I've also certainly heard/read them say that CBS explicitly wants to restrict alien (non-faction) ships to a small minority of players as premium prizes in order to keep things thematic, but then a couple of months later it was a free Breen ship for everyone. You get a Breen ship, I get a Breen ship, everyone gets a Breen ship!!!

    I just find it funny and even confusing as to why would CBS be so adamant against that in this game, while they've obviously allowed it to happen in other, far worse and lower profile games they've licensed. And if the theory of "they don't want every nincompoop commanding and blowing Kirk's legendary ship into smithereens" is to hold any water, then why even allow a T1 Connie in the first place, which "fanatical TOS fans" can take into end-game content and get their posteriors handed to them over and over and over again anyway? It's still Kirk's iconic ship and it's an even worse portrayal of her.
    kavase wrote: »
    I'd like to call BS on this too, but....it's probably a safe bet that if they did, they'd make very good return in sales for a end game Connie. So why would Cryptic not want to capitalize on that?

    Well, one thing I have in the back of my mind in regards to this is what @ltminns already mentioned. It's just a fringe theory and I'm probably off the mark with it, but ever since the Galaxy Class issue I have this doubt about Cryptic actually being reluctant to release the most iconic ships with stats that'd be relevant for the end-game because they're afraid it would kill sales on other ships and because they think that after players get their fanboy dream ship, they won't need to buy another ship. This is not true, ofcourse, and I hope that now at Tier 6 they're finally realizing that - and if not, they've at least made a mechanism against that happening via the ship traits which would make other ship purchases necessary. I mean, look at the old Galaxy Class - it's one of the most iconic pieces of Star Trek and it was hands down the worst cruiser in the history of the game. It took 3 years, half a dozen of threadnoughts, a dozen more angry/rant threads and in-game & forum campaigns to make the T6 Galaxy with relevant stats happen.

    daveyny wrote: »
    I'm hoping that the coming 50th Anniversary of The Original Series, is gonna change the status-quo and we are going to see some form of that iconic ship made into an end-game element.

    I know it's not likely, but logic be damned!
    B)

    Heh :) Somewhere in the back of my head, I've also thought the same thing and hold my hopes on that. I certainly hope you're right on this one. :)


    But in terms of what the Nagus has proposed here, I really see no issues with making this happen, at least. Cryptic tied this particular design (and a couple of others) to the TMP Constitution Class and they could just as easily break them apart at end-game if they wanted to. Call it a T6 Light Cruiser, restrict the use of Connie parts and voila.
    I really do disagree with people saying it's a derivative of the Constitution design and therefore if off limits at end-game, because if we start restricting derivatives from the old Connie design we should probably ban like 90% of the Starfleet ship roster as the vast majority of designs have evolved from that old design and carry the same basic design elements. Now, if CBS is supposed to have a thing against ships even resembling a Constitution Class I'm afraid that's beyond my comprehension skills about the sanity behind those decisions.
    HQroeLu.jpg
This discussion has been closed.