test content
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc

Wishful Thinking: A T5 Connie...

13

Comments

  • logicalspocklogicalspock Member Posts: 836 Arc User
    edited February 2013
    PREDICTION: Knowing how much money it will make and using the reasoning for allowing the alien ships in lockboxes, Cryptic will introduce a TOS lockbox ship within the next 24 months, perhaps with a refit and NX follow-up.

    As soon as I saw how much the Jem'hadar attack ship lottery made, I suspected this was coming. As soon as I saw Cryptic give away a Breen ship to everyone and watched Starfleet commission more of them than all ships combined, I knew this was coming.
  • twg042370twg042370 Member Posts: 2,312 Arc User
    edited February 2013
    doogie74 wrote: »
    Do people not understand that the reason a T-5 Connie is not in the game is not because of PWE or Cryptic. It is because CBS says No to the T-5 Connie.

    People have been asking for a T-5 Connie since launch and if it hasn't been added since launch nor since PWE has taken over unless CBS has a change of heart it will not happen.

    We know from lock-boxes and other things in the C-store that PWE is about milking as much money as they can out of people. If it were up to PWE, the T-5 Connie would be in this game already.

    If people are so set on the T-5 Connie, go to CBS they are the ones stopping it from happening not PWE or Cryptic.

    I'm pretty sure most of the players in this thread are well aware of CBS' objections.
    <3
  • doogie74doogie74 Member Posts: 103 Arc User
    edited February 2013
    twg042370 wrote: »
    I'm pretty sure most of the players in this thread are well aware of CBS' objections.

    Hard to tell since people come to Cryptic to change it when players know Cryptic can't. CBS is the origination you need to talk into making this happen. PWE is about making money and I am sure they would gladly put a T5 Connie in the game but CBS controls that option so take it up with CBS.

    If constantly asking in the forums for the T5 Connie is not working, try pestering CBS with the request.


    http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Who_first_said_that_the_definition_of_insanity_is_to_do_the_same_thing_over_and_over_and_expect_different_results
  • hereticknight085hereticknight085 Member Posts: 3,783 Arc User
    edited February 2013
    Personal Opinion: Constitution-Class is fugly as hell, and if they ever made a Tier 5 version, I would probably heave a sigh, facepalm for a few minutes, then go back to slaughtering everything in my path with my Imperial.

    Objective View:

    The Constitution was THE Enterprise. I wasn't around in the 70s (not gonna lie), but she was still the first Enterprise I was introduced to, shortly thereafter I met the Enterprise-A (yes, they were different ships), then the Enterprise-D, then the B and E. Then I met the NX-01, and then the NCC-1701-J (or more accurately got a look out of her observation deck and a look at her schematics on a view screen behind the conversation). So the Constitution, as much as I personally hate her design, was the original Enterprise, and I think it's a shame that players that actually like that ship can't have an end-game version.

    I know players love that ship, due to the fact I keep on seeing them in ESTFs (and after a facepalm, I go back to killing Borg), and I see so many in Sirius, even on level 20+ Captains. She's a popular ship, a popular design, a popular icon.

    Would I support a Tier 5 Connie? No. I hold her in the same place I hold the Excel: in the trash. Would I complain if one came out? No. As long as she didn't become the stupidly overpowered pain in my rear that the F-Excel became, then I would have no complaints. Would I ever fly one? Try... HELL NO. -.-
    It is said the best weapon is one that is never fired. I disagree. The best weapon is one you only have to fire... once. B)
  • souli76souli76 Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited February 2013
    There's always Chris Madden's Dedication Class from the Design the Next Enterprise contest.

    ent-f_final_small.jpg

    With some fine tuning this could work! (more to the point hull could be a bit larger in proportion to the saucer, and sprucing up the back of the hull a bit it would work well).

    This way we have our cake and eat it too, looks like a connie, has the silouette of a connie, but it isn't a connie!

    Oh and I guess he or someone atleast was making a 3d model of it here:

    http://www.scifi-meshes.com/forums/showthread.php?77955-Chris-Madden-s-Dedication-Class
  • cidstormcidstorm Member Posts: 1,220 Arc User
    edited February 2013
    doogie74 wrote: »
    Hard to tell since people come to Cryptic to change it when players know Cryptic can't. CBS is the origination you need to talk into making this happen. PWE is about making money and I am sure they would gladly put a T5 Connie in the game but CBS controls that option so take it up with CBS.

    If constantly asking in the forums for the T5 Connie is not working, try pestering CBS with the request.


    http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Who_first_said_that_the_definition_of_insanity_is_to_do_the_same_thing_over_and_over_and_expect_different_results

    I already explained why it's important to do both, do you disagree? Do you really think messages from people carry more weight than messages from one corporate figure to another?
  • twg042370twg042370 Member Posts: 2,312 Arc User
    edited February 2013
    Personal Opinion: Constitution-Class is fugly as hell, and if they ever made a Tier 5 version, I would probably heave a sigh, facepalm for a few minutes, then go back to slaughtering everything in my path with my Imperial.

    Objective View:

    The Constitution was THE Enterprise. I wasn't around in the 70s (not gonna lie), but she was still the first Enterprise I was introduced to, shortly thereafter I met the Enterprise-A (yes, they were different ships), then the Enterprise-D, then the B and E. Then I met the NX-01, and then the NCC-1701-J (or more accurately got a look out of her observation deck and a look at her schematics on a view screen behind the conversation). So the Constitution, as much as I personally hate her design, was the original Enterprise, and I think it's a shame that players that actually like that ship can't have an end-game version.

    I know players love that ship, due to the fact I keep on seeing them in ESTFs (and after a facepalm, I go back to killing Borg), and I see so many in Sirius, even on level 20+ Captains. She's a popular ship, a popular design, a popular icon.

    Would I support a Tier 5 Connie? No. I hold her in the same place I hold the Excel: in the trash. Would I complain if one came out? No. As long as she didn't become the stupidly overpowered pain in my rear that the F-Excel became, then I would have no complaints. Would I ever fly one? Try... HELL NO. -.-

    Kids these days with their Gagas and PSYs and their lack of knowing a sexy starship when they see one. Sheesh.
    <3
  • snoggymack22snoggymack22 Member Posts: 7,084 Arc User
    edited February 2013
    doogie74 wrote: »
    Did I? I like that movie and the crew of the Enterprise your point is?

    My point is, the posts I made were funny, somewhat lighthearted. The posts you made were mean personal attacks that violate the forum posting guidelines.
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • bpharmabpharma Member Posts: 2,022
    edited February 2013
    Actually I take it back, can I have a T5 connie with 2 skins, TOS version and the JJ Abrams film version. I liked the look of the new version quite a lot, made it look futuristic by our standards but still tried to look like TOS version.

    *runs to hide behind flame proof wall*

    It is through repetition that we learn our weakness.
    A master with a stone is better than a novice with a sword.

    Has damage got out of control?
    This is the last thing I will post.
  • doogie74doogie74 Member Posts: 103 Arc User
    edited February 2013
    My point is, the posts I made were funny, somewhat lighthearted. The posts you made were mean personal attacks that violate the forum posting guidelines.

    Your post was not lighthearted and funny it was mean and a personal attack. Zinging someone is negative not positive you started the personal attack.

    I tried to take this to email but this new forum I can't find an option to send you an email.

    You then completely changed the meaning of my reply to your zing thus trolling my post.
  • snoggymack22snoggymack22 Member Posts: 7,084 Arc User
    edited February 2013
    doogie74 wrote: »
    Your post was not lighthearted and funny it was mean and a personal attack. Zinging someone is negative not positive you started the personal attack.

    I didn't personally attack you. I made a zinger. Look it up. It's not negative. It's completely lighthearted.

    You, however, called me a jerk and a troll. Both of which are clear violations of the forum guidelines.

    Me? I just made a zinger. A joke out of a comment about the Galaxy. You, you went right at me and called me names.

    You then completely changed the meaning of my reply to your zing thus trolling my post.

    I'm convinced you don't know what zing or troll actually mean.
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • doogie74doogie74 Member Posts: 103 Arc User
    edited February 2013
    I didn't personally attack you. I made a zinger. Look it up. It's not negative. It's completely lighthearted.

    You, however, called me a jerk and a troll. Both of which are clear violations of the forum guidelines.

    Me? I just made a zinger. A joke out of a comment about the Galaxy. You, you went right at me and called me names.




    I'm convinced you don't know what zing or troll actually mean.

    Zinging someone where I am at is negative. What you may have intended as a positive reply was not how it came across. I am through feeding this issue.
  • stardestroyer001stardestroyer001 Member Posts: 2,615 Arc User
    edited February 2013
    Reading this whole forum thread, I'd have to say that the "Zing" wasn't offensive at all, it's just one of those lousy Internet slang words which holds no meaning.

    If you can't take the heat, don't comment. :)


    Anyways, back to the T5 Connie. Even if CBS approved it, it's still a bad idea. The Connie is almost 160 years old, by the current ingame year of 2413. Why are we piloting old junkers? What's next? The NASA Space Shuttle?
    stardestroyer001, Admiral, Explorers Fury PvE/PvP Fleet | Retired PvP Player
    Missing the good ol' days of PvP: Legacy of Romulus to Season 9
    My List of Useful Links, Recently Updated November 25 2017!
  • hereticknight085hereticknight085 Member Posts: 3,783 Arc User
    edited February 2013
    twg042370 wrote: »
    Kids these days with their Gagas and PSYs and their lack of knowing a sexy starship when they see one. Sheesh.

    For the record, think PSY is stupid, as is Lady Gaga. Also for the record... I likes the pretty lights... XD (I.E. CGI for all you ancient people XD)

    Also as stated in another thread, my taste is weird, since I think the best looking ship in the series was the Xindi Aquatic Cruiser, but as most bad-TRIBBLE looking ship goes, Nicor Cruiser. Not a fan of Fed or KDF designs =P
    It is said the best weapon is one that is never fired. I disagree. The best weapon is one you only have to fire... once. B)
  • tymerstotymersto Member Posts: 433 Arc User
    edited February 2013
    Anyways, back to the T5 Connie. Even if CBS approved it, it's still a bad idea. The Connie is almost 160 years old, by the current ingame year of 2413. Why are we piloting old junkers? What's next? The NASA Space Shuttle?

    :::sighs:::

    As I and others have mentioned, it's because we would like to be able to pilot our 'First Enterprise' properly in the end-game content.

    Think of it in these terms: Right now 5 of the ship classes that have bared the name Enterprise are playable in the end game. Also the classes 2 other series ships are playable in end game. Since this is a game, why not allow players to have the opportunity to pilot the most iconic version of the Enterprise legacy as well?

    Even in the workup in my OP, my intent was something that wouldn't necessarily be as powerful or durable as some of the other ships. What I was trying to come up with as something respectful of what a Connie at T5 could be.

    Do I honestly expect to see a T5 Connie in STO? No, I do not. Can I try to figure out what a T5 Connie could maybe be like? Why not. Who knows, if Cryptic actually gets the go ahead, maybe a thread like this could be helpful.

    Thank you for the time...
    STO CBT Player - 400 day+ Vet, Currently Silver
    Cryptic, would you actulaly like me to spend actual Money? It's Simple:
    • Full, Story-driven, select from start 1-50 Klingon Side
    • Scrap current Lock Box & Lobi system for something more reasonable
    • Expand Dil and Rep/Fleet Marks to regular story content
  • spork87spork87 Member Posts: 239 Arc User
    edited February 2013
    tymersto wrote: »
    :::sighs:::

    As I and others have mentioned, it's because we would like to be able to pilot our 'First Enterprise' properly in the end-game content.

    Think of it in these terms: Right now 5 of the ship classes that have bared the name Enterprise are playable in the end game. Also the classes 2 other series ships are playable in end game. Since this is a game, why not allow players to have the opportunity to pilot the most iconic version of the Enterprise legacy as well?

    Even in the workup in my OP, my intent was something that wouldn't necessarily be as powerful or durable as some of the other ships. What I was trying to come up with as something respectful of what a Connie at T5 could be.

    Do I honestly expect to see a T5 Connie in STO? No, I do not. Can I try to figure out what a T5 Connie could maybe be like? Why not. Who knows, if Cryptic actually gets the go ahead, maybe a thread like this could be helpful.

    Thank you for the time...

    only 4 enterprise classes are in game, Excelsior, Ambassador, Galaxy, and Sovereign. The Odessy isn't Canon and thus is not considered Cannon. Now for Enterprise's not in Endgame. NX Class, Constitution Class, Constitution Class Refit, Enterprise J class. Seems to me a pretty even breakdown of whats at endgame and whats not at endgame. Asking for a T5 Connie is like a T5 Oberth or Miranda, it can't be reasonably justified to have something retired from service in 2291 when the Enterprise A was recalled to be decommissioned, a fairly new starship as she wasn't even ready for shakedown when it was called out of Spacedock in STV. So it can be surmised they where all decommissioned around this time period to make way for the Excelsior and Constellation class's then entering service, as there mission profiles where identical, and the overall ship itself was based on Dutronics, not on Isolinear circuitry we saw in the Excelsior class thanks to the ENT B. It was the age of the space-frames being 50 years old along with the massive cost to do a second refit to the entire class, to gut all computer systems, along with its smaller size, and likely higher upkeep cost compared to the Constellation Class. Another limiting factor is the stated warp maximum of Warp 7 on screen, sure the Enterprise went faster, but it was always about to fly apart remember?

    So at the end of the day instead of refitting the fleet to keep the ship in service and bring its computer and warp systems up to par with newer ships it was retired because the new cruisers entering service could fill the same role. While its boarder patrol, resupply, and scientific duties could be full-filled by the Miranda and Oberth ships which required fewer crew and resources to maintain.

    So why after being retired from the fleet for more than likely 122 years would Starfleet Recommission the ships, the fact they are at T-2 as a skin option is silly, right up there with the NX Class, but at least for that they say its all new construction but still an odd idea. Now I love the connie as much as anyone else, but to bring it up to modern specs would require a very extensive refit almost rebuilding the class again for the 2nd time, while they have class's more advanced of the same size ready to go. Now if they call it the Exter class that's fine, its new, and would be alright with me but let the connie stay where it belongs, blowing up D-7's.
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • stardestroyer001stardestroyer001 Member Posts: 2,615 Arc User
    edited February 2013
    Well, I have only one request to say, in the face of such enthusiasm for a T1 ship becoming upgraded to T5.

    Can I get the NASA OV-type Space Shuttle? T5, of course. :)
    stardestroyer001, Admiral, Explorers Fury PvE/PvP Fleet | Retired PvP Player
    Missing the good ol' days of PvP: Legacy of Romulus to Season 9
    My List of Useful Links, Recently Updated November 25 2017!
  • cidstormcidstorm Member Posts: 1,220 Arc User
    edited February 2013
    spork87 wrote: »
    only 4 enterprise classes are in game, Excelsior, Ambassador, Galaxy, and Sovereign. The Odessy isn't Canon and thus is not considered Cannon. Now for Enterprise's not in Endgame. NX Class, Constitution Class, Constitution Class Refit, Enterprise J class. Seems to me a pretty even breakdown of whats at endgame and whats not at endgame. Asking for a T5 Connie is like a T5 Oberth or Miranda, it can't be reasonably justified to have something retired from service in 2291 when the Enterprise A was recalled to be decommissioned, a fairly new starship as she wasn't even ready for shakedown when it was called out of Spacedock in STV. So it can be surmised they where all decommissioned around this time period to make way for the Excelsior and Constellation class's then entering service, as there mission profiles where identical, and the overall ship itself was based on Dutronics, not on Isolinear circuitry we saw in the Excelsior class thanks to the ENT B. It was the age of the space-frames being 50 years old along with the massive cost to do a second refit to the entire class, to gut all computer systems, along with its smaller size, and likely higher upkeep cost compared to the Constellation Class. Another limiting factor is the stated warp maximum of Warp 7 on screen, sure the Enterprise went faster, but it was always about to fly apart remember?

    So at the end of the day instead of refitting the fleet to keep the ship in service and bring its computer and warp systems up to par with newer ships it was retired because the new cruisers entering service could fill the same role. While its boarder patrol, resupply, and scientific duties could be full-filled by the Miranda and Oberth ships which required fewer crew and resources to maintain.

    So why after being retired from the fleet for more than likely 122 years would Starfleet Recommission the ships, the fact they are at T-2 as a skin option is silly, right up there with the NX Class, but at least for that they say its all new construction but still an odd idea. Now I love the connie as much as anyone else, but to bring it up to modern specs would require a very extensive refit almost rebuilding the class again for the 2nd time, while they have class's more advanced of the same size ready to go. Now if they call it the Exter class that's fine, its new, and would be alright with me but let the connie stay where it belongs, blowing up D-7's.

    There are several misconceptions in there, the connie refit was not retired from service, that was just the enterprise. There was one at the battle of wolf 359, where an admiral stated that he was collecting a fleet of ships that were already available.
  • gpgtxgpgtx Member Posts: 1,579 Arc User
    edited February 2013
    Reading this whole forum thread, I'd have to say that the "Zing" wasn't offensive at all, it's just one of those lousy Internet slang words which holds no meaning.

    If you can't take the heat, don't comment. :)


    Anyways, back to the T5 Connie. Even if CBS approved it, it's still a bad idea. The Connie is almost 160 years old, by the current ingame year of 2413. Why are we piloting old junkers? What's next? The NASA Space Shuttle?


    i want to fly an air craft carrier damn it:D

    and as i do i will play the theme form space battleship yamato or starblazers as it appeared in the US
    victoriasig_zps23c45368.jpg
  • captainamericaxcaptainamericax Member Posts: 2 Arc User
    edited February 2013
    I don't know if it was mentioned already, but the only reason why we haven't seen a new type of Connie is because CBS wont give PWE the rights to use it. I don't know what it is to the exact extent, but the copyright deal they have keeps us from getting the ship.

    I mean think about it. Cryptic would have added a T5 or T4 Connie in here by now just for the money from the die hard fans who want it.

    And if we do get a Connie some how, just imagine how they'll let us get it.

    Original Series Lock Boxes...
    "The Easiest Day, was Yesterday"
  • cidstormcidstorm Member Posts: 1,220 Arc User
    edited February 2013
    gpgtx wrote: »
    i want to fly an air craft carrier damn it:D

    and as i do i will play the theme form space battleship yamato or starblazers as it appeared in the US

    It would be crazy awesome if the game had a Japanese navy styled space ship homage in the game.


    *Edit
    And I've always hoped it would be one of the genuine federation carriers.
  • spork87spork87 Member Posts: 239 Arc User
    edited February 2013
    cidstorm wrote: »
    There
    are several misconceptions in there, the connie refit was not retired from service, that was just the enterprise. There was one at the battle of wolf 359, where an admiral stated that he was collecting a fleet of ships that were already available.

    Never saw the ship intact just what appears to be an engineering hull also any ship available could very well be museum ships. You can try to justify tour reasons all I'd like but a Connie has not been in active service for over 100 years
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • cidstormcidstorm Member Posts: 1,220 Arc User
    edited February 2013
    spork87 wrote: »
    Never saw the ship intact just what appears to be an engineering hull also any ship available could very well be museum ships. You can try to justify tour reasons all I'd like but a Connie has not been in active service for over 100 years

    False, we know what model they used on the set. It was a connie. It was not a museum ship either because the fleet admiral said they were bringing all available ships, as in ships that are available for duty.
  • hravikhravik Member Posts: 1,203 Arc User
    edited February 2013
    cidstorm wrote: »
    False, we know what model they used on the set. It was a connie. It was not a museum ship either because the fleet admiral said they were bringing all available ships, as in ships that are available for duty.

    Do I really have to go over this again with you? :D
  • captainbmoneycaptainbmoney Member Posts: 1,323 Arc User
    edited February 2013
    Do I need to step in on this shindig? I'm pretty sure My CitterMeter isn't running out anytime soon.

    Like my fanpage!
    https://www.facebook.com/CaptainBMoney913
    Join Date: August 29th 2010
  • hravikhravik Member Posts: 1,203 Arc User
    edited February 2013
    Do I need to step in on this shindig? I'm pretty sure My CitterMeter isn't running out anytime soon.

    I ran across his twitter the other day, have you tried tweeting him?
  • cidstormcidstorm Member Posts: 1,220 Arc User
    edited February 2013
    :rolleyes:

    Hravik last time I argued you into the ground, the only thing you didn't give up on was whether or not the cadets in TWOK were purposely sent into battle by Star Fleet command. They weren't by the way, it was supposed to be a training cruise. The only thing I was wrong on was Star Fleet putting cadets into combat purposefully, it's too bad for you that doesn't mean anything for the argument about the connies service status.
  • captainbmoneycaptainbmoney Member Posts: 1,323 Arc User
    edited February 2013
    hravik wrote: »
    I ran across his twitter the other day, have you tried tweeting him?

    I've never seen his twitter. link? PM me

    Like my fanpage!
    https://www.facebook.com/CaptainBMoney913
    Join Date: August 29th 2010
  • hravikhravik Member Posts: 1,203 Arc User
    edited February 2013
    I've never seen his twitter. link? PM me

    I'll see if I can dig it up again, its been a couple weeks.
    cidstorm wrote: »
    :rolleyes:

    Hravik last time I argued you into the ground, the only thing you didn't give up on was whether or not the cadets in TWOK were purposely sent into battle by Star Fleet command. They weren't by the way, it was supposed to be a training cruise. The only thing I was wrong on was Star Fleet putting cadets into combat purposefully, it's too bad for you that doesn't mean anything for the argument about the connies service status.

    You were wrong about quite a lot of things, but whatever makes you feel better.
  • cidstormcidstorm Member Posts: 1,220 Arc User
    edited February 2013
    hravik wrote: »
    You were wrong about quite a lot of things, but whatever makes you feel better.

    There was a connie refit at Wolf 359, the ships sent were stated to be available for combat. Unless you can wisp these two facts out of existence then you're flat out plain wrong in the argument.

    Moving on, whats this twitter business about?
Sign In or Register to comment.