But that's kinda moot, don't you think? In STO the T5 Defiant or T5 Sabre pack significantly more firepower than Klingon battlecruisers or Galaxy class ships. Some slight changes were made for T6, but the smalles vessels are still the most powerful ones.
^ 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
The last official, or semi-official mention of the Connie and its variants I can think of was here at 1:03:04 or so.
Hosts: How about a T5 or a Fleet Exeter?
Geko: Uhhh..is that..is that some sort of compromise instead of getting a T5 Connie?
Hosts: I think so. Yes, that's what I'm hearing.
Geko: No, I don't think so.
Hosts: Uh, no, no Exeter. No Connie, stop asking.
Geko: (laughs) I'll never say never, but I'll say no. But that's as close to never...I don't like to say promise never but...
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.
Thanks for posting that. Some who have been around a while may remember some drama that happened before the Ambassador made it into game. People asked for it, and on a podcast (a certain dev) pretty much said they weren't going to make the Ambassador because HE didn't really like it. It was only *after* that got posted on the forums and Cryptic realized how bad it sounded, to tell a customer you wouldn't sell them something because you personally didn't like it, did they start warming up to the Ambassador and saying they needed to get it in game.
With that said, I actually remember the above interview you posted. And it definitely does *NOT* say that CBS will not allow the connie variants. That's what I am actually asking. Has *CBS* denied the Excalibur and the connie variants? Or does someone not personally like them, and won't allow it? Because those are two completely different answers.
You and I seem to be the only ones in this discussion that understand tiers, and what they mean.
Do you play this game? Are you aware that Cyptic added the ability to upgrade a ship's tier? Are you aware they have both low and high tier versions of the *same* ships? I understand what you are saying from a RL logic point of view, but that argument obviously doesn't apply in game. They have *already* violated your logic in game. Your logic doesn't work in this game at this point.
Thanks for posting that. Some who have been around a while may remember some drama that happened before the Ambassador made it into game. Some people asked for it, and on a podcast Geko pretty much said they weren't going to make the Ambassador because HE didn't really like it. Then when that got posted on the forums he realized how bad it sounded; he was telling his customers they weren't going to get a product they wanted because he didn't personally like it.
With that said, I actually remember the above interview. And it definitely does *NOT* say that CBS will not allow the connie variants. That's what I am actually asking. Has *CBS* denied the Excalibur and the connie variants? Or does someone not personally like them, and won't allow it? Because those are two completely different answers.
After I said that, I thought it might be nice to actually be able to prove what I said. Unfortunately, due to the forum changes over the years, I'm not sure if I will be able to find the actual thread on this forum. However, with the help of google, I have at least found another post from 2013 referring what the interview I am talking about:
On the STO forums, they are having Ambassador-gasms. Honestly, this ship should've been in the game in the first year, but the Devs think we would have been fooled in thinking it was an Galaxy-class, because they have similar look and Geko doesn't like the ship.
A big fat nope. Only thing we have heard about the ambassador lately was from Geko and Jam and both said they didnt like the ship so they werent intrested in doing it. Which grinds my gears, and apparently a lot of other peoples since there was a pretty significant respons from the players about it.
So, we definitely have a precedent of some people not allowing a ship to be made simply because they do not personally like it*. However, let me repeat: that is their "right" as the people in charge. I'm not saying otherwise. But what I *am* saying is that they should say that, if that is the reason. Not mis-imply that CBS will not allow it.
*and I'm not saying that is the case with the Excalibur, only asking the question.
Which explains why Starfleet needed to start making larger vessels like the Excelsiors, Ambassadors, Galaxies, and Sovereigns.
Then please explain why the smallest ships in game tend to have the highest firepower and ability to plow through those larger ships you refer to. Unless someone goes out of their way to make one of the few viable tank-from-hell builds in STO, escorts are built for frag. Realism be damned and has 0 to do with STO ship design.
Which explains why Starfleet needed to start making larger vessels like the Excelsiors, Ambassadors, Galaxies, and Sovereigns.
Then please explain why the smallest ships in game tend to have the highest firepower and ability to plow through those larger ships you refer to.
His problem is he is using RL logic that Cryptic *isn't* following in game. His argument about ship size is directly contradicted by Cryptic's own designs. His argument about ship tiers is directly contradicted by Cryptic's own designs. If this game hadn't launched yet, and we didn't already have all these things that contradict his logic, then he would have a really great point. But the game has launched. It's 6 years old. And over the past 6 years, Cryptic has abandoned his line of reasoning regarding ship size and tier, by making very small high end cruisers, as well as making both low and high tier versions of the *same* ship. We don't have to refute his argument, because Cryptic already has.
Which explains why Starfleet needed to start making larger vessels like the Excelsiors, Ambassadors, Galaxies, and Sovereigns.
Then please explain why the smallest ships in game tend to have the highest firepower and ability to plow through those larger ships you refer to.
His problem is he is using RL logic that Cryptic *isn't* following in game. His argument about ship size is directly contradicted by Cryptic's own designs. His argument about ship tiers is directly contradicted by Cryptic's own designs. If this game hadn't launched yet, and we didn't already have all these things that contradict his logic, then he would have a really great point. But the game has launched. It's 6 years old. And over the past 6 years, Cryptic has abandoned his line of reasoning regarding ship size and tier, by making very small high end cruisers, as well as making both low and high tier versions of the *same* ship. We don't have to refute his argument, because Cryptic already has.
and yet he's demonstrated a huge capacity for ignoring the obvious in his arguments... so I thought I'd throw some in his face where he couldn't.
T6 skins of the exeter and excaliber on the avanger would be great. The avanger is close to the refit connie design. Would love a t6 exeter as a event reward for the 50th
A big fat nope. Only thing we have heard about the ambassador lately was from Geko and Jam and both said they didnt like the ship so they werent intrested in doing it. Which grinds my gears, and apparently a lot of other peoples since there was a pretty significant respons from the players about it.
So, we definitely have a precedent of some people not allowing a ship to be made simply because they do not personally like it*. However, let me repeat: that is their "right" as the people in charge. I'm not saying otherwise. But what I *am* saying is that they should say that, if that is the reason. Not mis-imply that CBS will not allow it.
*and I'm not saying that is the case with the Excalibur, only asking the question.
A big fat nope. Only thing we have heard about the ambassador lately was from Geko and Jam and both said they didnt like the ship so they werent intrested in doing it. Which grinds my gears, and apparently a lot of other peoples since there was a pretty significant respons from the players about it.
So, we definitely have a precedent of some people not allowing a ship to be made simply because they do not personally like it*. However, let me repeat: that is their "right" as the people in charge. I'm not saying otherwise. But what I *am* saying is that they should say that, if that is the reason. Not mis-imply that CBS will not allow it.
*and I'm not saying that is the case with the Excalibur, only asking the question.
What are you talking about? The link I posted was about the Ambassador, not the connie. My comments following the link were about the Excalibur, not the connie. Nothing in that post you quoted said anything about a connie.
If you don't like this thread, that's fine. But I'm not asking for an end game connie. CBS said no to that. What I *am* asking is whether CBS said "no" to the Excalibur or other variants. No dev has *ever* told us CBS said "no" to them.
Yes, I'm aware of that. A good number of the early ships have t4 versions.
Actually, the Excelsior is T3. And guess what? The Romulan ENT era BOP is both tier *1* and *6*. But look, I get it. I understand that it doesn't make logical sense. But Cryptic has already decided that doesn't matter. They have already decided that they are not going to follow your line of reasoning about ship size and tier.
I think you just answered your own question, Ace. And if you're truly unconcerned with realism, you probably would be an advocate for a t6 flying pink elephant. I don't care for that type of stuff, because well, it's just silly. Realistically speaking, larger ships have more/larger armaments because they have the space to carry the ammo they need, which are stored in hardened spaces called magazines. This is theoretically, not a factor for ships with energy weapons, so you can build small heavily armed ships, that have all their space dedicated to those weapons, and minimal living quarters for the crew. These ships are one trick ponies, their only purpose is to fight. Small, or no engineering facilities, limited, or no science labs, and little if any cargo space. Cruisers are designed to do more than just fight, and are multi-role ships. Yes, STO is an MMO, and it needs to be pew-pew-pew to make it exciting. And if your going to have pew-pew-pew, you need to have dps so that's why Cryptic invented the "escort". Realistically speaking? If you were the captain of the defiant, and there wasn't a war going on, most of your time would be spent on DS9 wondering what quark was getting up to, just like Sisko.
no I answered your BS about why a t6 Exeter/Excalibur shouldn't exist and you expanded on that point nicely. Thank you for destroying your own BS.
p.s. we kinda have a t6 pink elephant... its called the Samsar
This thread is a perfect example of this place's residents inability to read...
Now, is anyone actually going to address the OP's argument? And not what they want him/her/it to be arguing for?
Some have. There are 3 main points:
1) they don't personally like the ship
And that's fine. We all have our own personal tastes, and I understand that just because I like how something looks does not mean you do, or vice versa. So, there is no "right" or "wrong" on this point.
2) CBS has said "no"
Except, they haven't. Cryptic told us that CBS said "no" to an end game connie. Cryptic has *never* told us that CBS said "no" to the Excalibur or variants. If a dev wants to confirm that CBS did in fact say no to this ship, that's fine. But until I find out CBS did in fact say "no" to the Excalibur or variants, I will simply ask for the ship to get made.
3) it doesn't make logical sense for a small/low tier ship to be made into an end game ship
Here is my response, to a similar post:
His problem is he is using RL logic that Cryptic *isn't* following in game. His argument about ship size is directly contradicted by Cryptic's own designs. His argument about ship tiers is directly contradicted by Cryptic's own designs. If this game hadn't launched yet, and we didn't already have all these things that contradict his logic, then he would have a really great point. But the game has launched. It's 6 years old. And over the past 6 years, Cryptic has abandoned his line of reasoning regarding ship size and tier, by making very small high end cruisers, as well as making both low and high tier versions of the *same* ship. We don't have to refute his argument, because Cryptic already has.
So, some people definitely understand what I asked. Some agree, and some disagree, for various reasons above.
On a side note, I would like to apologize for any hostile tones in my previous posts in this thread. Sometimes I get a little too excited talking about video games
Which explains why Starfleet needed to start making larger vessels like the Excelsiors, Ambassadors, Galaxies, and Sovereigns.
Then please explain why the smallest ships in game tend to have the highest firepower and ability to plow through those larger ships you refer to. Unless someone goes out of their way to make one of the few viable tank-from-hell builds in STO, escorts are built for frag. Realism be damned and has 0 to do with STO ship design.
There are things that STO doesn't model about ship capabilities. For example - freight capacity, the ability to carry troops or passengers with need for different life support settings. Conference Rooms for diplomatic missions. Medical facilities. Sensor capabilities.
Something like the Defiant is good at one thing primarily. And that'S blowing TRIBBLE up. That happens also to be what STO models about the game. A Galaxy Class ship has all types of amneties and capabilities that the Defiant doesn't have, but we don't care about in game.
I have about 10 or 20 times more Duty Officers available to me than my Tier 6 Defiant has crew!
My Pathfinder can analyze an anomaly exactly as fast as any other ship.
Clearly the differences these ships should have in these areas are not modeled by the game.
But they would exist in the setting. And the Constitution Class and its Cryptic variants were designed for the same general purpose as the Ambassador, Galaxy and Sovereign. But they are much smaller. So it seems likely they will just not have these capabilities. And there is no reason to retrofit them into Escorts - they were never designed for that purpose. Sure, it might be possible, but why bother? You got those Escorts already!
Star Trek Online Advancement: You start with lowbie gear, you end with Lobi gear.
On 2; that is exactly the point I'm addressing in the second part. No one has answered that, they've answered what they wanted you to say, or tried to change the subject onto that so that they can call for moderators to close the thread.
Which explains why Starfleet needed to start making larger vessels like the Excelsiors, Ambassadors, Galaxies, and Sovereigns.
Then please explain why the smallest ships in game tend to have the highest firepower and ability to plow through those larger ships you refer to. Unless someone goes out of their way to make one of the few viable tank-from-hell builds in STO, escorts are built for frag. Realism be damned and has 0 to do with STO ship design.
There are things that STO doesn't model about ship capabilities. For example - freight capacity, the ability to carry troops or passengers with need for different life support settings. Conference Rooms for diplomatic missions. Medical facilities. Sensor capabilities.
Something like the Defiant is good at one thing primarily. And that'S blowing TRIBBLE up. That happens also to be what STO models about the game. A Galaxy Class ship has all types of amneties and capabilities that the Defiant doesn't have, but we don't care about in game.
I have about 10 or 20 times more Duty Officers available to me than my Tier 6 Defiant has crew!
My Pathfinder can analyze an anomaly exactly as fast as any other ship.
Clearly the differences these ships should have in these areas are not modeled by the game.
But they would exist in the setting. And the Constitution Class and its Cryptic variants were designed for the same general purpose as the Ambassador, Galaxy and Sovereign. But they are much smaller. So it seems likely they will just not have these capabilities. And there is no reason to retrofit them into Escorts - they were never designed for that purpose. Sure, it might be possible, but why bother? You got those Escorts already!
See the Avenger, mentioned earlier in this thread:
Relatively the same size as the connie, at least compared to other high end cruisers like the Galaxy or Sovereign or Odyssey, yet still on their level of firepower. So yes, Cryptic *does* make small, high end cruisers. We can toss escorts out of the discussion now.
Which explains why Starfleet needed to start making larger vessels like the Excelsiors, Ambassadors, Galaxies, and Sovereigns.
Then please explain why the smallest ships in game tend to have the highest firepower and ability to plow through those larger ships you refer to. Unless someone goes out of their way to make one of the few viable tank-from-hell builds in STO, escorts are built for frag. Realism be damned and has 0 to do with STO ship design.
There are things that STO doesn't model about ship capabilities. For example - freight capacity, the ability to carry troops or passengers with need for different life support settings. Conference Rooms for diplomatic missions. Medical facilities. Sensor capabilities.
Something like the Defiant is good at one thing primarily. And that'S blowing TRIBBLE up. That happens also to be what STO models about the game. A Galaxy Class ship has all types of amneties and capabilities that the Defiant doesn't have, but we don't care about in game.
I have about 10 or 20 times more Duty Officers available to me than my Tier 6 Defiant has crew!
My Pathfinder can analyze an anomaly exactly as fast as any other ship.
Clearly the differences these ships should have in these areas are not modeled by the game.
But they would exist in the setting. And the Constitution Class and its Cryptic variants were designed for the same general purpose as the Ambassador, Galaxy and Sovereign. But they are much smaller. So it seems likely they will just not have these capabilities. And there is no reason to retrofit them into Escorts - they were never designed for that purpose. Sure, it might be possible, but why bother? You got those Escorts already!
See the Avenger, mentioned earlier in this thread:
Relatively the same size as the connie, at least compared to other high end cruisers like the Galaxy or Sovereign or Odyssey, yet still on their level of firepower. So yes, Cryptic *does* make small, high end cruisers. We can toss escorts out of the discussion now.
You're assuming it's just a size thing. But I am saying it's also a question of what they put into the ship of the size it is. And I say that Cruisers try to do a lot more than an Escort, or similar battleships. It's just not modeled in game. The Avenger is designed as a Battlecruiser. It's not designed to do deep space exploration missions, transport large and/or diverse groups of passengers, not designed to assist in emergency relief efforts and what not. They did the Escort thing and cramped it full of weapons.
I think that the Tier 2 Cruisers are not build like that, and retrofitting them to do that is not a likely approach.
Star Trek Online Advancement: You start with lowbie gear, you end with Lobi gear.
posted this to trendy earlier which hopefully will get the answer you seek -
"Hi Trendy can you please ask the EP for an answer to the end-game connie and it variants question so we can get the "One of the COOLEST and most USELESS ship designs Cryptic ever made" post on page 1 finally answered once and for all. Pretty sure the answer is no endgame variant but that thread is becoming all about semantics so and so didn't actually say variants of the connie etc. thank you vvery much, may the leek be with you "
posted this to trendy earlier which hopefully will get the answer you seek -
"Hi Trendy can you please ask the EP for an answer to the end-game connie and it variants question so we can get the "One of the COOLEST and most USELESS ship designs Cryptic ever made" post on page 1 finally answered once and for all. Pretty sure the answer is no endgame variant but that thread is becoming all about semantics so and so didn't actually say variants of the connie etc. thank you vvery much, may the leek be with you "
I hate to say this, but we're probably not going to get a direct answer. They are probably just going to repeat the "CBS said no end game connie" line and *NOT* answer my actual question of whether CBS said "no" to the Excalibur, or variants. That said, I hope to be proven wrong, and would love to get an answer to my actual question, not just the canned response.
You're assuming it's just a size thing. But I am saying it's also a question of what they put into the ship of the size it is.
Not at all. I'm talking about a cruiser, not an escort. And the Avenger proved that Cryptic will do a small high end cruiser. I know you don't like that, because it goes against your argument, but it is what it is. And as far as "deep space exploration" goes, I'm still waiting for that to be added to the game. Once it is, then we can talk about what type of ship is designed for that
This thread is a perfect example of this place's residents inability to read...
Now, is anyone actually going to address the OP's argument? And not what they want him/her/it to be arguing for?
It's an alternate skin for a low-tier ship that will probably never have a T-5 or T-6 version.
The idea of some design elements getting reused on a T-6 ship is fine, but I'm not gonna wait for it. It'll only happen if the specific ship the devs decided to build for other reasons is compatible.
posted this to trendy earlier which hopefully will get the answer you seek -
"Hi Trendy can you please ask the EP for an answer to the end-game connie and it variants question so we can get the "One of the COOLEST and most USELESS ship designs Cryptic ever made" post on page 1 finally answered once and for all. Pretty sure the answer is no endgame variant but that thread is becoming all about semantics so and so didn't actually say variants of the connie etc. thank you vvery much, may the leek be with you "
Also ask her if when can get a clarification on a t6 dirigible. I want to know if CBS is squashing this, or if someone over at Los Gatos just doesn't like zeppelins on account of them being to hard to model. Anybody else need anything answered that hasn't been specifically addressed at this point?
Great question. It could possibly be both. That said, at least they had no problem with letting the ENT era Romulan BOP be both a t1 and a t6 ship. Good stuff
Comments
But that's kinda moot, don't you think? In STO the T5 Defiant or T5 Sabre pack significantly more firepower than Klingon battlecruisers or Galaxy class ships. Some slight changes were made for T6, but the smalles vessels are still the most powerful ones.
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
Thanks for posting that. Some who have been around a while may remember some drama that happened before the Ambassador made it into game. People asked for it, and on a podcast (a certain dev) pretty much said they weren't going to make the Ambassador because HE didn't really like it. It was only *after* that got posted on the forums and Cryptic realized how bad it sounded, to tell a customer you wouldn't sell them something because you personally didn't like it, did they start warming up to the Ambassador and saying they needed to get it in game.
With that said, I actually remember the above interview you posted. And it definitely does *NOT* say that CBS will not allow the connie variants. That's what I am actually asking. Has *CBS* denied the Excalibur and the connie variants? Or does someone not personally like them, and won't allow it? Because those are two completely different answers.
Do you play this game? Are you aware that Cyptic added the ability to upgrade a ship's tier? Are you aware they have both low and high tier versions of the *same* ships? I understand what you are saying from a RL logic point of view, but that argument obviously doesn't apply in game. They have *already* violated your logic in game. Your logic doesn't work in this game at this point.
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
After I said that, I thought it might be nice to actually be able to prove what I said. Unfortunately, due to the forum changes over the years, I'm not sure if I will be able to find the actual thread on this forum. However, with the help of google, I have at least found another post from 2013 referring what the interview I am talking about:
http://www.trekbbs.com/threads/star-trek-online-discussion-thread-now-free-to-play.147305/page-150#post-7538236
It is obviously on a different board, but it backs up what I said above. I will also keep looking and post anything else if I can find it.
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
http://www.arcgames.com/en/forums/startrekonline#/discussion/comment/10547214
So, we definitely have a precedent of some people not allowing a ship to be made simply because they do not personally like it*. However, let me repeat: that is their "right" as the people in charge. I'm not saying otherwise. But what I *am* saying is that they should say that, if that is the reason. Not mis-imply that CBS will not allow it.
*and I'm not saying that is the case with the Excalibur, only asking the question.
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
His problem is he is using RL logic that Cryptic *isn't* following in game. His argument about ship size is directly contradicted by Cryptic's own designs. His argument about ship tiers is directly contradicted by Cryptic's own designs. If this game hadn't launched yet, and we didn't already have all these things that contradict his logic, then he would have a really great point. But the game has launched. It's 6 years old. And over the past 6 years, Cryptic has abandoned his line of reasoning regarding ship size and tier, by making very small high end cruisers, as well as making both low and high tier versions of the *same* ship. We don't have to refute his argument, because Cryptic already has.
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
@jodarkrider
My character Tsin'xing
What are you talking about? The link I posted was about the Ambassador, not the connie. My comments following the link were about the Excalibur, not the connie. Nothing in that post you quoted said anything about a connie.
If you don't like this thread, that's fine. But I'm not asking for an end game connie. CBS said no to that. What I *am* asking is whether CBS said "no" to the Excalibur or other variants. No dev has *ever* told us CBS said "no" to them.
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
Actually, the Excelsior is T3. And guess what? The Romulan ENT era BOP is both tier *1* and *6*. But look, I get it. I understand that it doesn't make logical sense. But Cryptic has already decided that doesn't matter. They have already decided that they are not going to follow your line of reasoning about ship size and tier.
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
no I answered your BS about why a t6 Exeter/Excalibur shouldn't exist and you expanded on that point nicely. Thank you for destroying your own BS.
p.s. we kinda have a t6 pink elephant... its called the Samsar
Now, is anyone actually going to address the OP's argument? And not what they want him/her/it to be arguing for?
Some have. There are 3 main points:
1) they don't personally like the ship
And that's fine. We all have our own personal tastes, and I understand that just because I like how something looks does not mean you do, or vice versa. So, there is no "right" or "wrong" on this point.
2) CBS has said "no"
Except, they haven't. Cryptic told us that CBS said "no" to an end game connie. Cryptic has *never* told us that CBS said "no" to the Excalibur or variants. If a dev wants to confirm that CBS did in fact say no to this ship, that's fine. But until I find out CBS did in fact say "no" to the Excalibur or variants, I will simply ask for the ship to get made.
3) it doesn't make logical sense for a small/low tier ship to be made into an end game ship
Here is my response, to a similar post:
So, some people definitely understand what I asked. Some agree, and some disagree, for various reasons above.
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
Something like the Defiant is good at one thing primarily. And that'S blowing TRIBBLE up. That happens also to be what STO models about the game. A Galaxy Class ship has all types of amneties and capabilities that the Defiant doesn't have, but we don't care about in game.
I have about 10 or 20 times more Duty Officers available to me than my Tier 6 Defiant has crew!
My Pathfinder can analyze an anomaly exactly as fast as any other ship.
Clearly the differences these ships should have in these areas are not modeled by the game.
But they would exist in the setting. And the Constitution Class and its Cryptic variants were designed for the same general purpose as the Ambassador, Galaxy and Sovereign. But they are much smaller. So it seems likely they will just not have these capabilities. And there is no reason to retrofit them into Escorts - they were never designed for that purpose. Sure, it might be possible, but why bother? You got those Escorts already!
See the Avenger, mentioned earlier in this thread:
http://www.arcgames.com/en/forums/startrekonline/#/discussion/comment/12842245
Relatively the same size as the connie, at least compared to other high end cruisers like the Galaxy or Sovereign or Odyssey, yet still on their level of firepower. So yes, Cryptic *does* make small, high end cruisers. We can toss escorts out of the discussion now.
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
I think that the Tier 2 Cruisers are not build like that, and retrofitting them to do that is not a likely approach.
"Hi Trendy can you please ask the EP for an answer to the end-game connie and it variants question so we can get the "One of the COOLEST and most USELESS ship designs Cryptic ever made" post on page 1 finally answered once and for all. Pretty sure the answer is no endgame variant but that thread is becoming all about semantics so and so didn't actually say variants of the connie etc. thank you vvery much, may the leek be with you
I hate to say this, but we're probably not going to get a direct answer. They are probably just going to repeat the "CBS said no end game connie" line and *NOT* answer my actual question of whether CBS said "no" to the Excalibur, or variants. That said, I hope to be proven wrong, and would love to get an answer to my actual question, not just the canned response.
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
Not at all. I'm talking about a cruiser, not an escort. And the Avenger proved that Cryptic will do a small high end cruiser. I know you don't like that, because it goes against your argument, but it is what it is. And as far as "deep space exploration" goes, I'm still waiting for that to be added to the game. Once it is, then we can talk about what type of ship is designed for that
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
The idea of some design elements getting reused on a T-6 ship is fine, but I'm not gonna wait for it. It'll only happen if the specific ship the devs decided to build for other reasons is compatible.
My character Tsin'xing
Great question. It could possibly be both. That said, at least they had no problem with letting the ENT era Romulan BOP be both a t1 and a t6 ship. Good stuff
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008