Request for Playable TOS Klingon D5 in Game

jwhiteard1979

I would love to be able to play the TOS Klingon D5 from the Agents of Yesteryear Story Arc. As this ship is ready made making it a playable ship would not take much work. All you would need is TOS Bridge/Interior{s}, Traits, and Loadout. Please bring this ship out to play!


(Changed thread title to be less vague. - BMR)

zerokillcf2011

couple of things:
1) models for "in game" ships that are NPC are not up to the same standards by FAR as playable ships, so it would be a lot of work
2) NPC ships are not spec'd out the same as playable ships. I.E. they have completely different turn rates, hull, shields, and weapons vs what a playable version is, so a lot a of work

I'm TOTALLY with you though in thought! I would LOVE to ALL the TOS ships available for all my toons: The Klingon D5, and the dreadnoughts were cool, I would love the Gorn ships for my Gorn alts. The romulan warbirds too. I know they released a handful of lockbox ships for everybody (D7, D9, the one Rom Warbird, etc) But yes, I would agree having the TOS expanded more would have been great!

artan42

zerokillcf2011 wrote: »

1) models for "in game" ships that are NPC are not up to the same standards by FAR as playable ships, so it would be a lot of work

Well that's just wrong. The D5 is leagues better than, say, the Nova Class. And new NPC models are built to the same standard as the playable ships for the exact reason the Devs never know when they might want to sell one.

zerokillcf2011 wrote: »

2) NPC ships are not spec'd out the same as playable ships. I.E. they have completely different turn rates, hull, shields, and weapons vs what a playable version is, so a lot a of work

The model is not the same as the metadata. All they need to do is attach the model to a different set of metadata.​​

phoenixc

How does the playable D7 already in the game differ from the TOS one? Or are you talking about them making an endgame version instead of the T2 or T3 or whatever it is (I forget offhand) KDF cruiser.

rattler2

Technically there already is an endgame D7. Problem is its from the same pack as the T6 Temporal Connie so it is a Promo.

lianthelia

What does the D5 even look like, never really played a AoY character and on the STO wiki there is no info...is it like the D5 from Enterprise?

The Enterprise one wasn't a bad looking ship

rattler2

She is a good lookin' cruiser.

lianthelia

rattler2 wrote: »

She is a good lookin' cruiser.

So the TOS D5 is the same as the Enterprise one?

rattler2

No. I just found a pic of the actual D5. In game its a TOS Raptor.

artan42

The D5 ingame is the TOS BoP not the ENT Battlecruiser, ENT cargo ship, or the TAS Battlecruiser.​​

rattler2

I don't remember seeing any BoPs. I remember Raptors though.

spiritborn

The TOS D5 is what the BoP or the raptor would have looked like if designed for TOS.

As for the model, the playble and NPC ships use the exact same models as far as programming is conserned. Some older NPC only ships used less detailed models but that's no consern for the TOS/AOY designs as they're not that detailed to begin with due the limitations of TOS.

artan42

rattler2 wrote: »

I don't remember seeing any BoPs. I remember Raptors though.

The only image I have of it to hand but it's clearly more of a BoP than a Raptor...

​​

rattler2

Those look more like nacelles than cannons. The body structure looks more in line with the Raptor.

Also it wouldn't be the first in game Raptor with the nacelles lower than the hull.

The Birok variant of the Qin looks to have them lower. And the Mat'ha has them pretty level with the hull.

artan42

rattler2 wrote: »

Those look more like nacelles than cannons. The body structure looks more in line with the Raptor.

Also it wouldn't be the first in game Raptor with the nacelles lower than the hull.

The Birok variant of the Qin looks to have them lower. And the Mat'ha has them pretty level with the hull.

That's because they are nacelles not cannons. And the wings are a lot more substantial than the pylons of any Raptor.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

rattler2

artan42 wrote: »

That's because they are nacelles not cannons. And the wings are a lot more substantial than the pylons of any Raptor.

Raptors aren't limited to having dinky pylons connecting to the nacelles. And I believe that the in game D5 was classified as a Raptor.

In fact...
https://sto.gamepedia.com/Mission:_The_Battle_of_Caleb_IV
It is listed as a Raptor in the NPC ships.

No one's made a dedicated page for that NPC ship yet though.

artan42

rattler2 wrote: »

Raptors aren't limited to having dinky pylons connecting to the nacelles. And I believe that the in game D5 was classified as a Raptor.

I didn't say they were, I said the D5 has more substantial wings than any Raptor.

rattler2 wrote: »

In fact...
https://sto.gamepedia.com/Mission:_The_Battle_of_Caleb_IV
It is listed as a Raptor in the NPC ships.

No one's made a dedicated page for that NPC ship yet though.

If that's the actual ingame description then I concede (obviously) but the only description I remember seeing was D5. Though NPC ship descriptions are not the same as playable ones.​​

lianthelia

Personally I think I prefer the Enterprise D5

gaevsman

lianthelia wrote: »

Personally I think I prefer the Enterprise D5

Me too...

zerokillcf2011

artan42 wrote: »

zerokillcf2011 wrote: »

1) models for "in game" ships that are NPC are not up to the same standards by FAR as playable ships, so it would be a lot of work

Well that's just wrong. The D5 is leagues better than, say, the Nova Class. And new NPC models are built to the same standard as the playable ships for the exact reason the Devs never know when they might want to sell one.

No, the devs have said that often is the case. Esp with this ship in questions being the TOS D5 from literally a handful of missions (literally WAY uglier than the Nova class) since it had the TOS "filter" on it, they were lower rez models in general. And whereas it isn't like they TOTALLY have to redesign a NPC ship to make it playable, the devs have commented it is work hours to apply all the various skins to a ship, even just doing vanity overlays takes time. Heck the original Jupiter carrier NPC was SOOOO bad, when they DID launch it as a player ship they had to redo the model completely (made it a cool player contribution poll thing, but still the REASON was because the old model was wack)

zerokillcf2011 wrote: »

2) NPC ships are not spec'd out the same as playable ships. I.E. they have completely different turn rates, hull, shields, and weapons vs what a playable version is, so a lot a of work

The model is not the same as the metadata. All they need to do is attach the model to a different set of metadata.​​

Same as above, it's NOT just click different metadata, and poof NPC is playable. Hence one of the reasons we STILL don't have a typhoon class. Etc. CAN a NPC ship be turned into a playable ship? Yes. Does it take hours of labor to happen? Yes. Does it ever happen without MASSIVE player demand? Nope. A LOT of the older ship models are getting redone to current standards as a pet project by one of the devs. But even with your hypothesis, a dev has to come UP with the new stats for the playable ship, which I get, is probably mostly just cut and paste from certain cookie cutter layouts....but again, time.

I could be wrong post lighting 2.0; but at least in the past the devs have said NPC models do NOT get the same quality and time put in as player ships.

artan42

zerokillcf2011 wrote: »

artan42 wrote: »

zerokillcf2011 wrote: »

1) models for "in game" ships that are NPC are not up to the same standards by FAR as playable ships, so it would be a lot of work

Well that's just wrong. The D5 is leagues better than, say, the Nova Class. And new NPC models are built to the same standard as the playable ships for the exact reason the Devs never know when they might want to sell one.

No, the devs have said that often is the case. Esp with this ship in questions being the TOS D5 from literally a handful of missions (literally WAY uglier than the Nova class) since it had the TOS "filter" on it, they were lower rez models in general. And whereas it isn't like they TOTALLY have to redesign a NPC ship to make it playable, the devs have commented it is work hours to apply all the various skins to a ship, even just doing vanity overlays takes time. Heck the original Jupiter carrier NPC was SOOOO bad, when they DID launch it as a player ship they had to redo the model completely (made it a cool player contribution poll thing, but still the REASON was because the old model was wack)

zerokillcf2011 wrote: »

2) NPC ships are not spec'd out the same as playable ships. I.E. they have completely different turn rates, hull, shields, and weapons vs what a playable version is, so a lot a of work

The model is not the same as the metadata. All they need to do is attach the model to a different set of metadata.​​

Same as above, it's NOT just click different metadata, and poof NPC is playable. Hence one of the reasons we STILL don't have a typhoon class. Etc. CAN a NPC ship be turned into a playable ship? Yes. Does it take hours of labor to happen? Yes. Does it ever happen without MASSIVE player demand? Nope. A LOT of the older ship models are getting redone to current standards as a pet project by one of the devs. But even with your hypothesis, a dev has to come UP with the new stats for the playable ship, which I get, is probably mostly just cut and paste from certain cookie cutter layouts....but again, time.

I could be wrong post lighting 2.0; but at least in the past the devs have said NPC models do NOT get the same quality and time put in as player ships.

Um no, it is that simple. If you look closely at my post you'll see I never gave any sort of timeframe. Simple is not the same as quick. NPC ships do not have unchangeable values.

The reason we don't have the Typhoon is because it is a launch era kitbash and not a modern well detailed model.

As for newer NPC models, you don't have to take anybody's word for that, take a demorecord of any one you want and give it a zoom.

zerokillcf2011

artan42 wrote: »

zerokillcf2011 wrote: »

artan42 wrote: »

zerokillcf2011 wrote: »

1) models for "in game" ships that are NPC are not up to the same standards by FAR as playable ships, so it would be a lot of work

Well that's just wrong. The D5 is leagues better than, say, the Nova Class. And new NPC models are built to the same standard as the playable ships for the exact reason the Devs never know when they might want to sell one.

No, the devs have said that often is the case. Esp with this ship in questions being the TOS D5 from literally a handful of missions (literally WAY uglier than the Nova class) since it had the TOS "filter" on it, they were lower rez models in general. And whereas it isn't like they TOTALLY have to redesign a NPC ship to make it playable, the devs have commented it is work hours to apply all the various skins to a ship, even just doing vanity overlays takes time. Heck the original Jupiter carrier NPC was SOOOO bad, when they DID launch it as a player ship they had to redo the model completely (made it a cool player contribution poll thing, but still the REASON was because the old model was wack)

zerokillcf2011 wrote: »

2) NPC ships are not spec'd out the same as playable ships. I.E. they have completely different turn rates, hull, shields, and weapons vs what a playable version is, so a lot a of work

The model is not the same as the metadata. All they need to do is attach the model to a different set of metadata.​​

Same as above, it's NOT just click different metadata, and poof NPC is playable. Hence one of the reasons we STILL don't have a typhoon class. Etc. CAN a NPC ship be turned into a playable ship? Yes. Does it take hours of labor to happen? Yes. Does it ever happen without MASSIVE player demand? Nope. A LOT of the older ship models are getting redone to current standards as a pet project by one of the devs. But even with your hypothesis, a dev has to come UP with the new stats for the playable ship, which I get, is probably mostly just cut and paste from certain cookie cutter layouts....but again, time.

I could be wrong post lighting 2.0; but at least in the past the devs have said NPC models do NOT get the same quality and time put in as player ships.

Um no, it is that simple. If you look closely at my post you'll see I never gave any sort of timeframe. Simple is not the same as quick. NPC ships do not have unchangeable values.

The reason we don't have the Typhoon is because it is a launch era kitbash and not a modern well detailed model.

As for newer NPC models, you don't have to take anybody's word for that, take a demorecord of any one you want and give it a zoom.

......soooooo....we are in agreement? It IS in fact "easy", but it takes time? And time is money. And money is all cryptic cares about? Which is why they have endless pages of coding errors and bugs that remain in game for released content? Its out there and already paid for, why fix it?

But who knows what they will do? There are people that have been asking (like yourself) for the Typhoon, or for the missing "canon" ships like the yeager for years. Or players asking for the T6 Oberth or T6 Nova for years, and people asked for the Jupiter and the Vorcha and the Nebula, and eventually those randomly got released. So who ever really knows?! lol. I agree with the OP, if they released those ships, it would be cool!

artan42

zerokillcf2011 wrote: »

But who knows what they will do? There are people that have been asking (like yourself) for the Typhoon, or for the missing "canon" ships like the yeager for years. Or players asking for the T6 Oberth or T6 Nova for years, and people asked for the Jupiter and the Vorcha and the Nebula, and eventually those randomly got released. So who ever really knows?! lol. I agree with the OP, if they released those ships, it would be cool!

Look how long it took to get a useful endgame Galaxy. It seems most people are here for the ships and not the story anyway.​​

rattler2

I STILL don't get the appeal of the Typhoon. For all intents and purposes it has been replaced with the Command Battlecruisers, and you can kitbash it into basically a Typhoon.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

artan42

rattler2 wrote: »

I STILL don't get the appeal of the Typhoon. For all intents and purposes it has been replaced with the Command Battlecruisers, and you can kitbash it into basically a Typhoon.

Because the Typhoon is a big badass Sovereign. The CCs are even more bloated Excelsiors that share not a single detail with the Typhoon except the number of nacelles.

You can make a Typhoon out of the CCs in the same way you can make a Ambasador out of the Galaxys, which is to say it'll have the vaguest of similarities and be more similar than trying to make one out of, say, Defiant parts. Hell making an Ambassador out of Galaxy bits works better because both those ships have necks. The CCs (except the Concorde) have the same stupid bloated accordion neck of the Excelsior, the Typhoon doesn't have a neck (like the Sovereign).

The only true statement is that the role of the Typhoon as Starfleet's Fleet Support Battlecruiser has been taken by stupid Excelsior knockoffs, not that those ships share anything in common.​​

avoozuul

I remember wanting the Typhoon to be playable.

rattler2

artan42 wrote: »

Because the Typhoon is a big badass Sovereign.

I don't see it.

But as they say... beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Personally I never liked the look of the old Typhoon. Looked kinda lazy compared to some other ship models at the time. And by today's standards...

markhawkman

Heh, I guess not everything Drex ever made was gold. That thing looks like it was pieced together out of scrap metal found on Jakku.

avoozuul

I like the Typhoon but it does have rough edges due to it having a dated model.