Why is it that the Raptor-class replica is playable as a Tier 5 starship, but the NX-class is not? They are both remakes (or *replicas*) of Enterprise-era ships, and surely the NX-class has plenty of loving fans.
I have always been a massive enthusiast for allowing all starships to (ultimately) be retrofit-able. The Raptor-class is the ultimate expression of this, and the rule should extend out to all of the favorite starship classes. Certainly, I would expect to see the Akira and Cheyenne (for example) retrofits happen before the Constitution and NX; (and we are all very patient) however TOS and ENT era starships should be acknowledged as being in line for retrofitting, even if they are at the back of the line.
P.S. Im not out to spark a cannon vs non-cannon war. (or worse, an "argument" over *fictional* technology) I think that a HUGE number of players would absolutely flip for C-Store Tier-5 retrofits of their favorite starship... *cough*TOS-Contisution*cough*
The T5 raptor is not the same one as seen in Enterprise. The one that looks like Somraw is...drum roll please...Tier 1!
Nobody is arguing against a 'based on' but updated design for the NX. The NX as it is now at T5? No thank you. Same goes for the Constitution and Miranda.
Nobody is arguing against a 'based on' but updated design for the NX.
As long as the "Based on" models include the option to set the vessels visually identical to the ones from the show/films, then yeah; I'm onboard 100%.
Another brief comment:
(at no one in particular)
I'm not sure why the idea of allowing a Vice Admiral Constitution to exist sparks such negative responses from some players; save for the idea that it warps the cannon lore by a degree. Taking into account that we have Vice Admiral uniforms, personal weapons, and soon whole starship interiors straight from TOS and readily available to players, why is piloting TOS flagship as an endgame vessel such a stretch? Surely a 25th century Constitution could run equal to an Intrepid-class, just as an Excelsior can currently challenge a Sovereign.
They would have to change what ship type it is. There just isn't enough structure there in a Constitution to make me believe it could ever under any circumstances take as much of a pounding as my star cruiser can.
I'm not sure why the idea of allowing a Vice Admiral Constitution to exist sparks such negative responses from some players; save for the idea that it warps the cannon lore by a degree. Taking into account that we have Vice Admiral uniforms, personal weapons, and soon whole starship interiors straight from TOS and readily available to players, why is piloting TOS flagship as an endgame vessel such a stretch? Surely a 25th century Constitution could run equal to an Intrepid-class, just as an Excelsior can currently challenge a Sovereign.
I think some fans believe the game has warped too far and that there needs to be a point where it stops diverging this much from canon. Every addition to the game just pushes it that farther away from any semblance of canon consistency.
Ultimately the game has become its own entity where individual wants and desires are more important then canon consistency. There's no way to please both groups: those who want to play in a 25th century Star Trek universe and those who want to live out the adventures of their favorite era. Cryptic's going to cater to the second group of fans because it needs to keep subscribers and the wider the brush the more gets covered.
I think some fans believe the game has warped too far and that there needs to be a point where it stops diverging this much from canon. Every addition to the game just pushes it that farther away from any semblance of canon consistency.
Ultimately the game has become its own entity where individual wants and desires are more important then canon consistency. There's no way to please both groups: those who want to play in a 25th century Star Trek universe and those who want to live out the adventures of their favorite era. Cryptic's going to cater to the second group of fans because it needs to keep subscribers and the wider the brush the more gets covered.
I think this was going to happen from day one, one of the things that specified a ST "era" was the uniforms (as much as the ships), at launch there was so many variations in uniforms that the UFP looks disjointed. I would have preferred that they kept the uniforms more military like (conforming to a uniform standard /w minor variations).
I think another idea would to allow (as the cost of a equipment slot) to equip a holoimitter to "disguise" your ship as one of the ships, that way you are still a "Star Cruiser" but looks like an old school connie.
To be fair ST "cannon" has always been a bit muddled :cool:
I didnt really articulate myself very well. Long story short, what I meant to convey was that the only *truly* non-arbitrary & non-subjective characteristic of a starship class is its visual appearance: its form (or shape) and model size. In STO, that essentially translates into a Hull Integrity HP value. And on that note...
There just isn't enough structure there in a Constitution to make me believe it could ever under any circumstances take as much of a pounding as my star cruiser can.
I dont think it is even possible to argue against that point, given my first comment. I was using the Intrepid-Constitution comparison to propose a solution that makes sense. In other words, consider this:
With the Excelsior-class Retrofit, we see an increase in Hull Integrity from 26,000 HP to 39,000 HP. (A whopping + 13000 HP; or, alternatively, a +50% increase)
Applying the same improvement to the Constitution (starting with 19500 HP), we would arrive somewhere within the range of 29250HP - 32500 HP, depending on which of the two rules you like better. (either +13K or +50%) I would call it at an even 30000HP. Now, we have a Constitution that is able to take the same beating as an Intrepid; far less HP than a Vanguard-class, but plenty for the PvE setting.
Furthermore, since we are rebuilding the thing and not simply *retrofitting* it like the others, (for the sake of preserving our preconceived concept of Naval Development) converting it (the T-5 version) into a pseudo-Science-Cruiser is not that far out, for obvious reasons. (i.e., cannot fill the role of Star-Cruiser as well as a Vanguard-class, but can still be a high-end *Science Cruiser*)
I think some fans believe the game has warped too far and that there needs to be a point where it stops diverging this much from canon. Every addition to the game just pushes it that farther away from any semblance of canon consistency.
I always assumed that the *Cannon vs Fantasy* question was not even on the table when it came to Star Trek Video Games. I would claim that the simple fact that STOs existence as an MMORPG automatically wipes out its ability to be 25th Century cannon. (The premise of thousands of Vice Admirals zipping around the galaxy under their own free whimsy and at any given time is REALLY non-cannon.
Ultimately the game has become its own entity where individual wants and desires are more important than canon consistency. There's no way to please both groups: those who want to play in a 25th century Star Trek universe and those who want to live out the adventures of their favorite era. Cryptic's going to cater to the second group of fans because it needs to keep subscribers and the wider the brush the more gets covered.
Again, Cannon vs Fantasy: I propose that in a setting (MMO) that is supposed to encourage creativity and uniqueness, a strict definition of cannon-ness is virtually impossible. What really defines cannon? What the official Star Trek Writers + Directors presented? How can an whole community of players thrive on an online experience that is fueled exclusively on the creativity of a finite set of such writers and their published works? (as opposed to being player-generated?) Cannon would suggest an extremely rigid and limited set of things to play with, and thats no fun at all.
I've no problem with the Conny being updated to T5 - their going to change it's scale/abilities to reflect the update... seeing a carbon copy of the NX updated to T5 upsets me not because I'm a canon purist but because seeing a dinky NX beating the beans out of a Negh'Var, Defiant or Sovereign would be wrong on SO many levels... I use it at T0 - love it - but T5 just doesn't work for me
And people say 'so don't use it' it's not using it that bothers me - it's seeing people beating up the Galaxy Refit or the Defiant Refit or the Sovereign or the Vorcha or the Negh'Var that bugs me. It's bad enough when your doing so at the low-level missions... but vice admirals going to battle and WINNING in the NX... yeah... wrong
Comments
Nobody is arguing against a 'based on' but updated design for the NX. The NX as it is now at T5? No thank you. Same goes for the Constitution and Miranda.
As long as the "Based on" models include the option to set the vessels visually identical to the ones from the show/films, then yeah; I'm onboard 100%.
Another brief comment:
(at no one in particular)
I'm not sure why the idea of allowing a Vice Admiral Constitution to exist sparks such negative responses from some players; save for the idea that it warps the cannon lore by a degree. Taking into account that we have Vice Admiral uniforms, personal weapons, and soon whole starship interiors straight from TOS and readily available to players, why is piloting TOS flagship as an endgame vessel such a stretch? Surely a 25th century Constitution could run equal to an Intrepid-class, just as an Excelsior can currently challenge a Sovereign.
How about the NX-01 refit? I saw this a while back and thought it was a good progression.
Ultimately the game has become its own entity where individual wants and desires are more important then canon consistency. There's no way to please both groups: those who want to play in a 25th century Star Trek universe and those who want to live out the adventures of their favorite era. Cryptic's going to cater to the second group of fans because it needs to keep subscribers and the wider the brush the more gets covered.
I think this was going to happen from day one, one of the things that specified a ST "era" was the uniforms (as much as the ships), at launch there was so many variations in uniforms that the UFP looks disjointed. I would have preferred that they kept the uniforms more military like (conforming to a uniform standard /w minor variations).
I think another idea would to allow (as the cost of a equipment slot) to equip a holoimitter to "disguise" your ship as one of the ships, that way you are still a "Star Cruiser" but looks like an old school connie.
To be fair ST "cannon" has always been a bit muddled :cool:
I didnt really articulate myself very well. Long story short, what I meant to convey was that the only *truly* non-arbitrary & non-subjective characteristic of a starship class is its visual appearance: its form (or shape) and model size. In STO, that essentially translates into a Hull Integrity HP value. And on that note...
I dont think it is even possible to argue against that point, given my first comment. I was using the Intrepid-Constitution comparison to propose a solution that makes sense. In other words, consider this:
With the Excelsior-class Retrofit, we see an increase in Hull Integrity from 26,000 HP to 39,000 HP. (A whopping + 13000 HP; or, alternatively, a +50% increase)
Applying the same improvement to the Constitution (starting with 19500 HP), we would arrive somewhere within the range of 29250HP - 32500 HP, depending on which of the two rules you like better. (either +13K or +50%) I would call it at an even 30000HP. Now, we have a Constitution that is able to take the same beating as an Intrepid; far less HP than a Vanguard-class, but plenty for the PvE setting.
Furthermore, since we are rebuilding the thing and not simply *retrofitting* it like the others, (for the sake of preserving our preconceived concept of Naval Development) converting it (the T-5 version) into a pseudo-Science-Cruiser is not that far out, for obvious reasons. (i.e., cannot fill the role of Star-Cruiser as well as a Vanguard-class, but can still be a high-end *Science Cruiser*)
Very cool.
I always assumed that the *Cannon vs Fantasy* question was not even on the table when it came to Star Trek Video Games. I would claim that the simple fact that STOs existence as an MMORPG automatically wipes out its ability to be 25th Century cannon. (The premise of thousands of Vice Admirals zipping around the galaxy under their own free whimsy and at any given time is REALLY non-cannon.
Again, Cannon vs Fantasy: I propose that in a setting (MMO) that is supposed to encourage creativity and uniqueness, a strict definition of cannon-ness is virtually impossible. What really defines cannon? What the official Star Trek Writers + Directors presented? How can an whole community of players thrive on an online experience that is fueled exclusively on the creativity of a finite set of such writers and their published works? (as opposed to being player-generated?) Cannon would suggest an extremely rigid and limited set of things to play with, and thats no fun at all.
And people say 'so don't use it' it's not using it that bothers me - it's seeing people beating up the Galaxy Refit or the Defiant Refit or the Sovereign or the Vorcha or the Negh'Var that bugs me. It's bad enough when your doing so at the low-level missions... but vice admirals going to battle and WINNING in the NX... yeah... wrong