IMO, the Excalibur class is one of the coolest ship designs Cryptic has made to date:
So cool, in fact, that they made it the most prominent ship on the game's box art:
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.
Yeah, I mean, that is pretty weird.
Always found it off that they haven't gotten around to making a high end ship that simply uses Excalibur and Exeter parts. Doesn't even need to be T6, could also be a T5 ship (and upgraded to T5-U, obviously).
I imagine an endgame Cruiser/Light Cruiser would be pretty popular, obviously.
Back on topic. How come nobody ever makes as big a stink over the Miranda, or the Oberth? For those of you, that even at this point, still can't figure it out, here's the deal. The Sovereign class is the evolutionary, next step of the Starfleet cruiser, as detailed below.
Constitution
Constitution refit
Excelsior
Excelsior refit
Ambassador (traditionally regarded as the first of the "modern era" cruisers)
Galaxy (traditionally regarded as the most expensive of the Starfleet vessels, whatever that means)
Sovereign (designed specifically to combat the Borg threat)
Any conjectural starship beyond this point would most certainly NOT be a 300 year step backwards.
Imagine the U.S.S. Constitution (Old Ironsides) trying to remain effective on a battlefield of Aegis cruisers, Lassen destroyers, and super carriers. Sure, you could mount radar, a nuclear reactor, modern weapons, and modern living quarters on it, but why would you want to? Unless you build a completely new ship, from the ground up, It's just a waste of time, resources, and effort. In the case of the TOS Enterprise, you have a ship that has been enduring warp stresses and metal fatigue for 300 years.
I hope that I have presented a more thorough explanation to proponents of this argument, other than "Because CBS said so."
Try to think logically, as Spock would say.
That's a great argument, except for 1 tiny problem: T6 Excelsior, which torpedoes your entire line of reasoning about not going backwards. That said, I'm not asking for a T6 Constitution. I'm asking for a T6 Excalibur, which is a modern ship in STO's time period.
Doesn't torpedo anything. A t6 Excelsior is just as dumb as a t6 Constitution.
Cryptic obviously disagrees with you. And fortunately, Cryptic is the one I'm asking for a T6 Excalibur, not you. That being the case, their own precedent of a T6 Excelsior is more relevant to my request than your opinion that it doesn't make sense.
I prefer an Annorax or the beauty of all time Jem'hadar attack ship. Then again...beauty is on the eye of the beholder. Some people trash is someone else's gold.
I know I’d like a t6 Excalibur that could use the Exeter skin along with a new t6 version. It would be fun to see it as a destroy type ship like the nandi. Give it a good turn and let it mount DHC’s so you can jj it up.
I don’t think it will happen simple because it was made to mimic the constitution and while its technical not a Connie, it basically is a Connie.
Back on topic. How come nobody ever makes as big a stink over the Miranda, or the Oberth? For those of you, that even at this point, still can't figure it out, here's the deal. The Sovereign class is the evolutionary, next step of the Starfleet cruiser, as detailed below.
Constitution
Constitution refit
Excelsior
Excelsior refit
Ambassador (traditionally regarded as the first of the "modern era" cruisers)
Galaxy (traditionally regarded as the most expensive of the Starfleet vessels, whatever that means)
Sovereign (designed specifically to combat the Borg threat)
Any conjectural starship beyond this point would most certainly NOT be a 300 year step backwards.
Imagine the U.S.S. Constitution (Old Ironsides) trying to remain effective on a battlefield of Aegis cruisers, Lassen destroyers, and super carriers. Sure, you could mount radar, a nuclear reactor, modern weapons, and modern living quarters on it, but why would you want to? Unless you build a completely new ship, from the ground up, It's just a waste of time, resources, and effort. In the case of the TOS Enterprise, you have a ship that has been enduring warp stresses and metal fatigue for 300 years.
I hope that I have presented a more thorough explanation to proponents of this argument, other than "Because CBS said so."
Try to think logically, as Spock would say.
That's a great argument, except for 1 tiny problem: T6 Excelsior, which torpedoes your entire line of reasoning about not going backwards. That said, I'm not asking for a T6 Constitution. I'm asking for a T6 Excalibur, which is a modern ship in STO's time period.
Doesn't torpedo anything. A t6 Excelsior is just as dumb as a t6 Constitution.
Cryptic obviously disagrees with you. And fortunately, Cryptic is the one I'm asking for a T6 Excalibur, not you. That being the case, their own precedent of a T6 Excelsior is more relevant to my request than your opinion that it doesn't make sense.
No Ace, it seems it's not so fortunate for you, because (for whatever reason) Cryptic has chosen to deny your request. Still no t6 Constitution, Excalibur skin, or otherwise.
No they haven't. Cryptic said that CBS said no end game connie. Cryptic has *NOT* commented on the Excalibur or variants. If you think they have, then feel free to post a link.
That said, if Cryptic *does* deny my request, that's fine. But it won't be for your reason, because the fact that they made a T6 Excelsior already shows they do not agree with your logic about not going backwards.
But what would it be...we don't need yet another Command Cruiser...perhaps Intel, but even then have several of those. She is small but in game her turn rate is pretty low...don't know if it would qualify to be Pilot.
There isn't much she can be that hasn't been done, right now.
But what would it be...we don't need yet another Command Cruiser...perhaps Intel, but even then have several of those. She is small but in game her turn rate is pretty low...don't know if it would qualify to be Pilot.
There isn't much she can be that hasn't been done, right now.
That's a great question. Whether it should be a brand new ship or simply a skin of an existing ship like the Avenger is worth discussing. Either way, it's safe to say they *are* going to be making more cruisers. There is no doubt about that.
Regardless of what happens on this issue, I'd like to put this one thought out there, for the record:
*IF* CBS has in fact told Cryptic that they cannot make end game versions of the connie variants, such as the Excalibur, then Cryptic would have no reason to not simply say so, like they did about the actual connie itself. But all of their comments to date have *only* mentioned the connie itself. They have *never* said that CBS denied the variants or the Excalibur.
That being said, if a dev wants to confirm CBS will not allow the Excalibur, that's fine. I'm completely willing to accept that, if that is indeed the case.
Back on topic. How come nobody ever makes as big a stink over the Miranda, or the Oberth? For those of you, that even at this point, still can't figure it out, here's the deal. The Sovereign class is the evolutionary, next step of the Starfleet cruiser, as detailed below.
Constitution
Constitution refit
Excelsior
Excelsior refit
Ambassador (traditionally regarded as the first of the "modern era" cruisers)
Galaxy (traditionally regarded as the most expensive of the Starfleet vessels, whatever that means)
Sovereign (designed specifically to combat the Borg threat)
Any conjectural starship beyond this point would most certainly NOT be a 300 year step backwards.
Imagine the U.S.S. Constitution (Old Ironsides) trying to remain effective on a battlefield of Aegis cruisers, Lassen destroyers, and super carriers. Sure, you could mount radar, a nuclear reactor, modern weapons, and modern living quarters on it, but why would you want to? Unless you build a completely new ship, from the ground up, It's just a waste of time, resources, and effort. In the case of the TOS Enterprise, you have a ship that has been enduring warp stresses and metal fatigue for 300 years.
I hope that I have presented a more thorough explanation to proponents of this argument, other than "Because CBS said so."
Try to think logically, as Spock would say.
That's a great argument, except for 1 tiny problem: T6 Excelsior, which torpedoes your entire line of reasoning about not going backwards. That said, I'm not asking for a T6 Constitution. I'm asking for a T6 Excalibur, which is a modern ship in STO's time period.
Doesn't torpedo anything. A t6 Excelsior is just as dumb as a t6 Constitution.
Cryptic obviously disagrees with you. And fortunately, Cryptic is the one I'm asking for a T6 Excalibur, not you. That being the case, their own precedent of a T6 Excelsior is more relevant to my request than your opinion that it doesn't make sense.
No Ace, it seems it's not so fortunate for you, because (for whatever reason) Cryptic has chosen to deny your request. Still no t6 Constitution, Excalibur skin, or otherwise.
No they haven't. Cryptic said that CBS said no end game connie. Cryptic has *NOT* commented on the Excalibur or variants. If you think they have, then feel free to post a link.
That said, if Cryptic *does* deny my request, that's fine. But it won't be for your reason, because the fact that they made a T6 Excelsior already shows they do not agree with your logic about not going backwards.
There's no link to post. The Excalibur is just a skin for the tier 2 cruiser, for which Cryptic has said there will be no tier 6 version of.
Wrong again. They *specifically* said the connie. They *never* said they cannot make an end game version of t2 cruisers. And they never said they could not make a T6 version of the Excalibur.
Matter of fact, why don't YOU post the link where Cryptic says it was CBS' decision?
No problem!
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.
Regardless of what happens on this issue, I'd like to put this one thought out there, for the record:
*IF* CBS has in fact told Cryptic that they cannot make end game versions of the connie variants, such as the Excalibur, then Cryptic would have no reason to not simply say so, like they did about the actual connie itself. But all of their comments on the record have *only* mentioned the connie itself. They have *never* said that CBS denied the variants.
That being the case, if they(Cryptic) simply dismiss the question or shut down the discussion without telling us that CBS has denied the variants, then I submit that CBS has *not* done so, and someone at Cryptic is simply not allowing this to happen. Who and why are open to interpretation.
Maybe it's a conspiracy that stretches all the way to the White House, and beyond. Why don't you see what you can dig up, and get back to us?
I don't think there is any conspiracy. The people in charge at Cryptic/PW have their personal preferences like everyone else. Some people just don't like some ideas, and those ideas will never happen as long as they are in charge. And that's their right. Whether that is the case in this situation, I have no idea. But if CBS were the ones that said they couldn't make an end game Excalibur, they would have no reason to not simply say so.
Who cares if they make a t6 constitution? I just don't understand some of these objections.
CBS does. And honest/unfortunately, it doesn't matter if we understand or not. Cryptic has to do what CBS says. But I'm not asking for a T6 Connie, I'm asking for a T6 Excalibur. To date, Cryptic has *never* said that CBS said they could not make a T6 Excalibur or any of the connie variants. They have *only* ever mentioned the connie specifically. So if a dev wants to confirm that CBS has told them they can't make any of the connie variants, including, the Excalibur, that's fine. But since that has never been stated, I'm simply making the request for the ship.
It is a nice design but it is very close to a Connie and was obviously designed as such. I doubt your idea gets made sorry.
For the record, I doubt it too. But not for the reason you just mentioned. The Excalibur is a modern ship, according to STO's own in universe story. They released a short description of it prior to launch:
The reason CBS said "no T4/5/6 connie" is because it would be silly to have a ship that old performing at end game levels. Since the Excalibur isn't old, that logic does not apply.
But again, yes, I also doubt this will actually happen. But no, your reason is not why. The real why is probably because someone influential simply doesn't want it to happen and has been blocking it.
Commissioned in 2391 by Starfleet, the design was an update of the iconic profile of the Constitution class with the Excalibur being the first of a new group of state of the art cruiser line that was intended to fill a variety of roles in the fleet.
It is a nice design but it is very close to a Connie and was obviously designed as such. I doubt your idea gets made sorry.
For the record, I doubt it too. But not for the reason you just mentioned. The Excalibur is a modern ship, according to STO's own in universe story. They released a short description of it prior to launch:
The reason CBS said "no T4/5/6 connie" is because it would be silly to have a ship that old performing at end game levels. Since the Excalibur isn't old, that logic does not apply.
But again, yes, I also doubt this will actually happen. But no, your reason is not why. The real why is probably because someone influential simply doesn't want it to happen and has been blocking it.
Commissioned in 2391 by Starfleet, the design was an update of the iconic profile of the Constitution class with the Excalibur being the first of a new group of state of the art cruiser line that was intended to fill a variety of roles in the fleet.
Right. It is an modern ship with a similar profile(see definition if you are confused) to the classic connie. That does not mean it is the same ship. And in fact, the profiles do not even line up. Kind of like how a Mustang and a Charger have similar profiles, but are different cars.
It is a nice design but it is very close to a Connie and was obviously designed as such. I doubt your idea gets made sorry.
For the record, I doubt it too. But not for the reason you just mentioned. The Excalibur is a modern ship, according to STO's own in universe story. They released a short description of it prior to launch:
The reason CBS said "no T4/5/6 connie" is because it would be silly to have a ship that old performing at end game levels. Since the Excalibur isn't old, that logic does not apply.
But again, yes, I also doubt this will actually happen. But no, your reason is not why. The real why is probably because someone influential simply doesn't want it to happen and has been blocking it.
Commissioned in 2391 by Starfleet, the design was an update of the iconic profile of the Constitution class with the Excalibur being the first of a new group of state of the art cruiser line that was intended to fill a variety of roles in the fleet.
Post fail. It's even better when the font is increased only to prove Nagus's point.
Retired. I'm now in search for that perfect space anomaly.
Back on topic. How come nobody ever makes as big a stink over the Miranda, or the Oberth? For those of you, that even at this point, still can't figure it out, here's the deal. The Sovereign class is the evolutionary, next step of the Starfleet cruiser, as detailed below.
Constitution
Constitution refit
Excelsior
Excelsior refit
Ambassador (traditionally regarded as the first of the "modern era" cruisers)
Galaxy (traditionally regarded as the most expensive of the Starfleet vessels, whatever that means)
Sovereign (designed specifically to combat the Borg threat)
Any conjectural starship beyond this point would most certainly NOT be a 300 year step backwards.
Imagine the U.S.S. Constitution (Old Ironsides) trying to remain effective on a battlefield of Aegis cruisers, Lassen destroyers, and super carriers. Sure, you could mount radar, a nuclear reactor, modern weapons, and modern living quarters on it, but why would you want to? Unless you build a completely new ship, from the ground up, It's just a waste of time, resources, and effort. In the case of the TOS Enterprise, you have a ship that has been enduring warp stresses and metal fatigue for 300 years.
I hope that I have presented a more thorough explanation to proponents of this argument, other than "Because CBS said so."
Try to think logically, as Spock would say.
That's a great argument, except for 1 tiny problem: T6 Excelsior, which torpedoes your entire line of reasoning about not going backwards. That said, I'm not asking for a T6 Constitution. I'm asking for a T6 Excalibur, which is a modern ship in STO's time period.
Doesn't torpedo anything. A t6 Excelsior is just as dumb as a t6 Constitution.
Cryptic obviously disagrees with you. And fortunately, Cryptic is the one I'm asking for a T6 Excalibur, not you. That being the case, their own precedent of a T6 Excelsior is more relevant to my request than your opinion that it doesn't make sense.
No Ace, it seems it's not so fortunate for you, because (for whatever reason) Cryptic has chosen to deny your request. Still no t6 Constitution, Excalibur skin, or otherwise.
No they haven't. Cryptic said that CBS said no end game connie. Cryptic has *NOT* commented on the Excalibur or variants. If you think they have, then feel free to post a link.
That said, if Cryptic *does* deny my request, that's fine. But it won't be for your reason, because the fact that they made a T6 Excelsior already shows they do not agree with your logic about not going backwards.
There's no link to post. The Excalibur is just a skin for the tier 2 cruiser, for which Cryptic has said there will be no tier 6 version of.
Wrong again. They *specifically* said the connie. They *never* said they cannot make an end game version of t2 cruisers. And they never said they could not make a T6 version of the Excalibur.
Matter of fact, why don't YOU post the link where Cryptic says it was CBS' decision?
No problem!
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.
Back on topic. How come nobody ever makes as big a stink over the Miranda, or the Oberth? For those of you, that even at this point, still can't figure it out, here's the deal. The Sovereign class is the evolutionary, next step of the Starfleet cruiser, as detailed below.
Constitution
Constitution refit
Excelsior
Excelsior refit
Ambassador (traditionally regarded as the first of the "modern era" cruisers)
Galaxy (traditionally regarded as the most expensive of the Starfleet vessels, whatever that means)
Sovereign (designed specifically to combat the Borg threat)
Any conjectural starship beyond this point would most certainly NOT be a 300 year step backwards.
Imagine the U.S.S. Constitution (Old Ironsides) trying to remain effective on a battlefield of Aegis cruisers, Lassen destroyers, and super carriers. Sure, you could mount radar, a nuclear reactor, modern weapons, and modern living quarters on it, but why would you want to? Unless you build a completely new ship, from the ground up, It's just a waste of time, resources, and effort. In the case of the TOS Enterprise, you have a ship that has been enduring warp stresses and metal fatigue for 300 years.
I hope that I have presented a more thorough explanation to proponents of this argument, other than "Because CBS said so."
Try to think logically, as Spock would say.
That's a great argument, except for 1 tiny problem: T6 Excelsior, which torpedoes your entire line of reasoning about not going backwards. That said, I'm not asking for a T6 Constitution. I'm asking for a T6 Excalibur, which is a modern ship in STO's time period.
Doesn't torpedo anything. A t6 Excelsior is just as dumb as a t6 Constitution.
Cryptic obviously disagrees with you. And fortunately, Cryptic is the one I'm asking for a T6 Excalibur, not you. That being the case, their own precedent of a T6 Excelsior is more relevant to my request than your opinion that it doesn't make sense.
No Ace, it seems it's not so fortunate for you, because (for whatever reason) Cryptic has chosen to deny your request. Still no t6 Constitution, Excalibur skin, or otherwise.
No they haven't. Cryptic said that CBS said no end game connie. Cryptic has *NOT* commented on the Excalibur or variants. If you think they have, then feel free to post a link.
That said, if Cryptic *does* deny my request, that's fine. But it won't be for your reason, because the fact that they made a T6 Excelsior already shows they do not agree with your logic about not going backwards.
There's no link to post. The Excalibur is just a skin for the tier 2 cruiser, for which Cryptic has said there will be no tier 6 version of.
Wrong again. They *specifically* said the connie. They *never* said they cannot make an end game version of t2 cruisers. And they never said they could not make a T6 version of the Excalibur.
Matter of fact, why don't YOU post the link where Cryptic says it was CBS' decision?
No problem!
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.
Wrong again. They *specifically* said the connie. They *never* said they cannot make an end game version of t2 cruisers. And they never said they could not make a T6 version of the Excalibur.
To be honest, I always assumed that since the Exeter was mentioned in the no T5 Connie quote, it automatically meant that the variants were off limits as well.
This bit:
I would love something along the lines of like the Exeter class.
...
I would love that but it's not going to happen. There will not be a T5 Connie.
That said, I would love a T6 Exeter light cruiser myself.
To be honest, I always assumed that since the Exeter was mentioned in the no T5 Connie quote, it automatically meant that the variants were off limits as well.
That very well could be, but Smirk was not a dev. We really don't know whether that was official fact or his educated guess. If a dev wants to confirm, that's great. I'll accept whatever the official word is. But if they won't simply say that CBS denied the variants, not just the connie itself, I have a feeling that CBS didn't.
In fact, there is even a slight contradiction between what Dan(the actual dev) said and Smirk. Dan actually said 'you never know what might happen', while Smirk made a definitive statement that it *won't* happen. Smirk was cool and all, but he wasn't a dev, and he definitely did not have the authority to override what Dan said.
I think I don't agre with either part of the premise... It's not particularly cool to me, and I am not sure if it's the most useless design. It serves it purpose at Tier 2, and that's that. I'd say the Tier 1 variants are the most useless, since you can almost not use them for anythnig in actual play, since by the time you can switch your ships, you're almost out of that tier anyway.
And the best Tier 2 Cruiser design is definitely the Exeter.
Though I suppose I understand the appeal, at least. They are basically taking the TOS/ENT-A frame and modernize it with Sovereign/Nova style nacelles. That's certainly a good update for the ship. But it also screams "low tier" ship to me, because you basically have a ship that seems to be technologically on the level of the Sovereign, but is much smaller - it obviously can't be as powerful!
Star Trek Online Advancement: You start with lowbie gear, you end with Lobi gear.
Comments
Yeah, I mean, that is pretty weird.
Always found it off that they haven't gotten around to making a high end ship that simply uses Excalibur and Exeter parts. Doesn't even need to be T6, could also be a T5 ship (and upgraded to T5-U, obviously).
I imagine an endgame Cruiser/Light Cruiser would be pretty popular, obviously.
Cryptic obviously disagrees with you. And fortunately, Cryptic is the one I'm asking for a T6 Excalibur, not you. That being the case, their own precedent of a T6 Excelsior is more relevant to my request than your opinion that it doesn't make sense.
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
I don’t think it will happen simple because it was made to mimic the constitution and while its technical not a Connie, it basically is a Connie.
No they haven't. Cryptic said that CBS said no end game connie. Cryptic has *NOT* commented on the Excalibur or variants. If you think they have, then feel free to post a link.
That said, if Cryptic *does* deny my request, that's fine. But it won't be for your reason, because the fact that they made a T6 Excelsior already shows they do not agree with your logic about not going backwards.
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
There isn't much she can be that hasn't been done, right now.
That's a great question. Whether it should be a brand new ship or simply a skin of an existing ship like the Avenger is worth discussing. Either way, it's safe to say they *are* going to be making more cruisers. There is no doubt about that.
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
*IF* CBS has in fact told Cryptic that they cannot make end game versions of the connie variants, such as the Excalibur, then Cryptic would have no reason to not simply say so, like they did about the actual connie itself. But all of their comments to date have *only* mentioned the connie itself. They have *never* said that CBS denied the variants or the Excalibur.
That being said, if a dev wants to confirm CBS will not allow the Excalibur, that's fine. I'm completely willing to accept that, if that is indeed the case.
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
Wrong again. They *specifically* said the connie. They *never* said they cannot make an end game version of t2 cruisers. And they never said they could not make a T6 version of the Excalibur.
No problem!
http://forum.arcgames.com/startrekonline/discussion/1159287/frequently-created-threads-f-c-t
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
I don't think there is any conspiracy. The people in charge at Cryptic/PW have their personal preferences like everyone else. Some people just don't like some ideas, and those ideas will never happen as long as they are in charge. And that's their right. Whether that is the case in this situation, I have no idea. But if CBS were the ones that said they couldn't make an end game Excalibur, they would have no reason to not simply say so.
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
-3rd Commmandment of Chivalry
CBS does. And honest/unfortunately, it doesn't matter if we understand or not. Cryptic has to do what CBS says. But I'm not asking for a T6 Connie, I'm asking for a T6 Excalibur. To date, Cryptic has *never* said that CBS said they could not make a T6 Excalibur or any of the connie variants. They have *only* ever mentioned the connie specifically. So if a dev wants to confirm that CBS has told them they can't make any of the connie variants, including, the Excalibur, that's fine. But since that has never been stated, I'm simply making the request for the ship.
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
Commissioned in 2391 by Starfleet, the design was an update of the iconic profile of the Constitution class with the Excalibur being the first of a new group of state of the art cruiser line that was intended to fill a variety of roles in the fleet.
Right. It is an modern ship with a similar profile(see definition if you are confused) to the classic connie. That does not mean it is the same ship. And in fact, the profiles do not even line up. Kind of like how a Mustang and a Charger have similar profiles, but are different cars.
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
Post fail. It's even better when the font is increased only to prove Nagus's point.
Nah, I'd prefer to actually ask them instead of "assuming" what they mean. And like I said, if they tell us that CBS denied the variants, that's fine.
Cool, it was fun talking to you. But just because you are done does not mean other people are.
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
Always
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
This bit:
That said, I would love a T6 Exeter light cruiser myself.
That very well could be, but Smirk was not a dev. We really don't know whether that was official fact or his educated guess. If a dev wants to confirm, that's great. I'll accept whatever the official word is. But if they won't simply say that CBS denied the variants, not just the connie itself, I have a feeling that CBS didn't.
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
I never listened to PO enough to identify host names by voice, sorry. But that's the text of what was said.
While the Excalibur was not mentioned specifically, one would assume that if it is no for the Exeter, it would be no for the other variants as well.
And the best Tier 2 Cruiser design is definitely the Exeter.
Though I suppose I understand the appeal, at least. They are basically taking the TOS/ENT-A frame and modernize it with Sovereign/Nova style nacelles. That's certainly a good update for the ship. But it also screams "low tier" ship to me, because you basically have a ship that seems to be technologically on the level of the Sovereign, but is much smaller - it obviously can't be as powerful!