test content
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc

Serious question: why no Excelsior, Ambassador, Nebula, etc?

SystemSystem Member, NoReporting Posts: 178,019 Arc User
I know people have asked for this ships(among others) many times. However, I'm actually curious WHY these canon ships arent in game. Has Cryptic ever really commented on WHY?
Post edited by Unknown User on
«13

Comments

  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited May 2010
    Most likely they have to get approval from CBS to use the ship models in-game. Cryptic is working on getting the ships in the game, I beleive.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited May 2010
    Would be nice to knwo for sure if we will EVEr see the ship forms we are all familiar with.

    I know I'd give much to have the option of starting the game in an Oberth rather than a miranda for example :)
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited May 2010
    They'll probally be in game at some point as a C-store item.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited May 2010
    Voyager24 wrote: »
    They'll probally be in game at some point as a C-store item.

    Or some new RAF perk, since people really want them.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited May 2010
    I would cite the age of the ships, but the Miranda and Constitution class break that argument in half.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited May 2010
    NeoWolf wrote: »
    Would be nice to knwo for sure if we will EVEr see the ship forms we are all familiar with.

    I know I'd give much to have the option of starting the game in an Oberth rather than a miranda for example :)

    dstahl's posted about the excelsior. It's something they are pushing hard for, but CBS and licensing issues are what's holding it up.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited May 2010
    Has Cryptic ever really commented on WHY?

    Yes. dstahl has for sure I know that.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited May 2010
    I know people have asked for this ships(among others) many times. However, I'm actually curious WHY these canon ships arent in game. Has Cryptic ever really commented on WHY?

    CBS has ultimate approval over anything and everything that goes into the game. If something isn't in the game and Crytpic isn't talking about it, the reason is most likely that CBS hasn't approved it.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited May 2010
    fuzun wrote: »
    CBS has ultimate approval over anything and everything that goes into the game. If something isn't in the game and Crytpic isn't talking about it, the reason is most likely that CBS hasn't approved it.

    Its just so odd; why would CBS approve the Connie and Miranda(from TMP) but not the excelsior? Why would CBS approve the Galaxy/Constellation(from TNG) but not the Ambassador/Nebula? The fact that those same ships have been approved in other games makes it even more odd.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited May 2010
    Its just so odd; why would CBS approve the Connie and Miranda(from TMP) but not the excelsior? Why would CBS approve the Galaxy/Constellation(from TNG) but not the Ambassador/Nebula? The fact that those same ships have been approved in other games makes it even more odd.

    IT maybe things we and Cryptic aren't privu to. Agreements which give eclusive use of those shiips to others for example. I've learned to don't even try to figure out what a coporation is going to do even if I'm a part of that corporation.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited May 2010
    Its just so odd; why would CBS approve the Connie and Miranda(from TMP) but not the excelsior? Why would CBS approve the Galaxy/Constellation(from TNG) but not the Ambassador/Nebula? The fact that those same ships have been approved in other games makes it even more odd.

    The Constellation isn't in-game yet. The Stargazer class is not the Constellation class. The U.S.S. Stargazer WAS a Constellation class. It's really confusing too, cause of the 4 nacelles.

    The Constellation class may eventually be put in-game (as a recent typo/error in one of the patch notes hints). But it's not there yet.

    I'm not sure about CBS' motivations. I know the players desperately want the Excelsior. And I know Cryptic is letting CBS know that. I don't know what the hold up there is.

    As far as the Ambassador ... again I have no clue. But I do have a guess. My guess is that the Ambassador looks too similar to the Galaxy. And so CBS might not want both in-game for that reason. Weak reason? Maybe. But that's the best guess I could make.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited May 2010
    superchum wrote: »
    The Constellation isn't in-game yet. The Stargazer class is not the Constellation class. The U.S.S. Stargazer WAS a Constellation class. It's really confusing too, cause of the 4 nacelles.

    The Constellation class may eventually be put in-game (as a recent typo/error in one of the patch notes hints). But it's not there yet.

    I'm not sure about CBS' motivations. I know the players desperately want the Excelsior. And I know Cryptic is letting CBS know that. I don't know what the hold up there is.

    As far as the Ambassador ... again I have no clue. But I do have a guess. My guess is that the Ambassador looks too similar to the Galaxy. And so CBS might not want both in-game for that reason. Weak reason? Maybe. But that's the best guess I could make.

    Ambassador was in ST:Legacy as well as Nebula and Excelsior and lokota refit
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited May 2010
    kekvin85 wrote: »
    Ambassador was in ST:Legacy as well as Nebula and Excelsior and lokota refit

    That right there could be the hold up.

    Marvel made its own movie studio and did Iron Man. But couldn't make a Spider-man movie.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited May 2010
    Cynical answer: They are being reserved either for future C-Store purchases or "go buy 5 boxed sets and subscriptions and get this ship" scams.

    There really isn't a good reason for this.

    The Excelsior should have been the T3 cruiser, Ambassador T4, and the Galaxy the T5 exploration cruiser.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited May 2010
    I think they are not in the game because they are T6. I think we will get them when we get the increased levels.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited May 2010
    Englebert wrote:
    I think they are not in the game because they are T6. I think we will get them when we get the increased levels.

    None of the ships I mentioned in the OP are more powerful than the existing T5 ships, so that doesnt really make sense.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited May 2010
    wildcat84 wrote: »
    Cynical answer: They are being reserved either for future C-Store purchases or "go buy 5 boxed sets and subscriptions and get this ship" scams.

    There really isn't a good reason for this.

    The Excelsior should have been the T3 cruiser, Ambassador T4, and the Galaxy the T5 exploration cruiser.

    The tinfoil in me expects the Excelsior will be sold off in some extortionate promotion as a T2 with some nonsensical bonus and the Ambassador as the same but T3.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited May 2010
    wildcat84 wrote: »
    Cynical answer: They are being reserved either for future C-Store purchases or "go buy 5 boxed sets and subscriptions and get this ship" scams.

    There really isn't a good reason for this.

    The Excelsior should have been the T3 cruiser, Ambassador T4, and the Galaxy the T5 exploration cruiser.

    This.
    .....
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited May 2010
    You can unlock them when you refer eleventeen referrals that all buy lifetime subs.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited May 2010
    I know people have asked for this ships(among others) many times. However, I'm actually curious WHY these canon ships arent in game. Has Cryptic ever really commented on WHY?

    in game answer "the ships have been phased out"

    cryptics out of game reason in a nut shell

    it costs money to get the copy rights to use the canon ships in game, currently we a) don't have enough money b) still negotiating with cbs or c) cbs doesn't want to give us the rights at all (depending on the ship )
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited May 2010
    I can understand the phase out excuse if it wasn't for the existence of Galaxy and classic Connie,

    If the Galaxy is still in service its stands to reason the Nebula would be too, and if the TMP connie is in, then the excelsior should be too. (It would make an awesome alternate T3 cruiser)

    Now if this is CBS's fault, well... bang goes all those dreams of lovely elegant Excelsior variants.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited May 2010
    I can understand the phase out excuse if it wasn't for the existence of Galaxy and classic Connie,

    If the Galaxy is still in service its stands to reason the Nebula would be too, and if the TMP connie is in, then the excelsior should be too. (It would make an awesome alternate T3 cruiser)

    Since writers have all sorts of gimmicks and are cagey and clever lot ... I believe the "loophole" is already in place for them.

    From the Star Trek Online novel, The Needs of the Many, the timeline, the year 2402 entry, page 411:

    "The Starfleet Corps of Engineers suggests that Starfleet begin building its ships using a modular system. The new system allows captains to customize their ships and permits quick repairs."

    This tidbit is in the timeline to help justify/explain how consoles work and equipment can be rationalized from the game into the storyline.

    It also opens the door for an explanation like this:

    1- This system is still in development. And as such, some older model ships already fit well into the modular technology. And were able to be fit back into starfleet standards. While other models did not fit as well and are still being worked on to get up to par.

    Or

    2- This systems permitted some ships, like the Constitution class to be modified extensively for current service. Unfortunately, design differences in a class like the Excelsior meant that it couldn't fit this new modular system and so you see some ships like the Constitution getting reborn and used at the frontlines, while other ships like the Excelsior remain mothballed out of service.

    See? It's writing. It's creativity. It's flexible. There's a lot of potential there to explain both ... why we have to wait for one of these ships to get in use ... or why one might never be in use.

    It's just a storyline. It can be retconned.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited May 2010
    ever wonder why cbs is holding out on the ships and not letting craptic (cryptic) have them, just look at the state of the game is all the answer you need. if it was doing well theyed be in game in a heart beat and you know it.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited May 2010
    superchum wrote: »
    Since writers have all sorts of gimmicks and are cagey and clever lot ... I believe the "loophole" is already in place for them.

    From the Star Trek Online novel, The Needs of the Many, the timeline, the year 2402 entry, page 411:

    "The Starfleet Corps of Engineers suggests that Starfleet begin building its ships using a modular system. The new system allows captains to customize their ships and permits quick repairs."

    This tidbit is in the timeline to help justify/explain how consoles work and equipment can be rationalized from the game into the storyline.

    It also opens the door for an explanation like this:

    1- This system is still in development. And as such, some older model ships already fit well into the modular technology. And were able to be fit back into starfleet standards. While other models did not fit as well and are still being worked on to get up to par.

    Or

    2- This systems permitted some ships, like the Constitution class to be modified extensively for current service. Unfortunately, design differences in a class like the Excelsior meant that it couldn't fit this new modular system and so you see some ships like the Constitution getting reborn and used at the frontlines, while other ships like the Excelsior remain mothballed out of service.

    See? It's writing. It's creativity. It's flexible. There's a lot of potential there to explain both ... why we have to wait for one of these ships to get in use ... or why one might never be in use.

    It's just a storyline. It can be retconned.

    i agree, mostly atm the out of game reason of cbs+ copy rights, leads to the canon reasons stated by churn, so as to keep it realistic in game as to why the ships aren't there, why the real reason is dealt with
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited May 2010
    in game answer "the ships have been phased out"

    cryptics out of game reason in a nut shell

    it costs money to get the copy rights to use the canon ships in game, currently we a) don't have enough money b) still negotiating with cbs or c) cbs doesn't want to give us the rights at all (depending on the ship )

    I believe the license gives them full access to the visual IP, minus music and actor likenesses which CBS doesn't own.

    The likely answer is probably two fold:

    Which classes would you kitbash those ships with? The goal is one core canon ship per tier and two new variants to kitbash them with and each tier looking visually distinct from all other tiers. So to include Excelsior, you'd have to bump the Connie or kitbash it with the Connie.

    Beyond that, they do have to design a model that meets with the approval of some person at CBS and it may be that he's especially picky about those models of ship.

    But the big thing is, I think Cryptic wanted a limit of roughly fifteen canon ships in the game (three types, five tiers) and they didn't want any that looked very much alike. So anything with a remotely similar shape and size to the Constitution class would have been ruled out for inclusion right now.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited May 2010
    Oh, I bet if you offered a non customizable (parts at least) excellsior, people would buy it.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited May 2010
    The Excelsior could easily be slipped into the T2 ships since it's reasonably similar. The only issue would be giving it a neck from the other ships (or its neck to the existing ones) would made it looks strange. Though, that does allow for a certain degree of creativity not present before.

    On top of that, we have the Vesper, an inferior facsimile for the Excelsior, already in place.

    As for the Ambassador. While it would be awesome, it's harder to justify bringing that one in. It would be a great replacement for the existing T3 Cruisers, that's for sure, but on the other hand, the existing T3 ships are unique. They have a different look and feel than the other cruisers. And what's more, each other tier does the same thing; Akiras look and feel different from Sabers and Defiants, Olympics look (a lot) and feel different fromm Novas and Intrepids. There isn't a clear "natural progression" to any of them, and that allows players access to a wider variety of ship styles to play.

    What could be most easily done is have the Ambassador as a T4 unlockable skin, preferably not in the C-Store, but if that's what it takes, so be it. The Ambassador would be a big improvement from the hideous Galaxy variants, anyway, so I would gladly pay money for more, non-ugly, options...

    Lastly, the Nebula. Hoo boy, the Nebula. It's a great ship, no doubt, and I've love to see it and the New Orleans in STO somewhere. But the problems are; it's an obvious Galaxy kitbash and it doesn't fit with any configuration above T1 Mirandas.

    My answer to this would be, convince CBS to hold a design contest. Have players submit Nebula-themed redesigns for the modern time period and vote. Release the winner and two runners-up as T6 Science ships for whatever comes after RA10. Will it be the Nebula you want? No. Will it be a Nebula-themed group of ships occupying an entire section of a tier? Yes. Also, using it as a ship like the T1 Connie for T4 sci ships might... MIGHT work.

    Other than those, the only way I can think to include the Nebula would be to replace the T4 Sci ships with them and bump the Intrepid and spinoffs down to T3, but that is easily the least likely of the scenarios I've suggested... Which pains me, because I'd love to see a pure Nebula in-game.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited May 2010
    if it is CBS, then i dont get why there holding back?




















    NVM, i just realised we are talking about CBS here, one of the most stupid/greedy companys there is...:rolleyes:
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited May 2010
    Lord_Q wrote:
    ever wonder why cbs is holding out on the ships and not letting craptic (cryptic) have them, just look at the state of the game is all the answer you need. if it was doing well theyed be in game in a heart beat and you know it.

    No, not really. Before the game was even released, Cryptic was running up against approval issues. It can be as precise as "the holodeck has x gridlines not y" to "the KDF ships need to appear more agile, smaller."

    One is very concrete feedback (and something easily resubmitted for approval) - the other is abstract and open for rounds of interpretation.

    The holodeck example was one that I believe either ZInc or Gozer mentioned.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited May 2010
    Jexsam wrote: »
    The Excelsior could easily be slipped into the T2 ships since it's reasonably similar. The only issue would be giving it a neck from the other ships (or its neck to the existing ones) would made it looks strange. Though, that does allow for a certain degree of creativity not present before.

    The issue is, more than one canon ship per tier will upset people who want both canon ships and also cause people to skew towards that class of ship.

    In the case of cruisers, there's already a disproportionate "lore factor" skew towards flying them.
Sign In or Register to comment.