test content
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc

NX class Retrofit for Vice Admiral

maxfive00maxfive00 Member Posts: 48 Arc User
edited September 2013 in Federation Discussion
«13

Comments

  • born2bwild1born2bwild1 Member Posts: 1,329 Arc User
    edited March 2013
    Hum - No.


    Why the heck would you refit - assuming there were any left

    Putting it in game as a T1 ship was fine - a reworked ship - re-built just for fun

    but to flield one at end game battle strenght? There is no logic in that. It's just a kit bash thing anyway.
  • snoggymack22snoggymack22 Member Posts: 7,084 Arc User
    edited March 2013
    maxfive00 wrote: »

    That's a great idea. People want more escorts at VA levels anyways. This works.
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • born2bwild1born2bwild1 Member Posts: 1,329 Arc User
    edited March 2013
    That's a great idea. People want more escorts at VA levels anyways. This works.

    The OP might not know you are being sarcastic:eek::P
  • snoggymack22snoggymack22 Member Posts: 7,084 Arc User
    edited March 2013
    I'm not really being sarcastic. The ship already almost exists at fleet level as is. Just flipping the nacelles the opposite way. Also I don't buy the whole jibba jabba about what could and could not work at end-game. Every single ship can work at end-game. It's just a graphic. Put the appropriate slots in there and fly away. The KDF has a T1 ship at end-game, the B'rel.

    The Federation already has T2 ships at End-game, with the fleet Saber.

    It's just not the big deal it appears to be. It wouldn't be an NX from Archer's era. It would be a photonic skin around a 25th century ship that appeared to be something from Archer's era, but completely wasn't.

    Not a big deal at all.
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • maxfive00maxfive00 Member Posts: 48 Arc User
    edited March 2013
    it will have Spatial torpedo and NX-01 command bridge
  • johnnymo1johnnymo1 Member Posts: 697 Arc User
    edited March 2013
    sure, as long as it is a shuttlecraft. the nx class is outdated in every way, just as the original series constitution class is outdated. I know people hate the comparison to naval ships, but the nx class is like a war ship of the 1700's, wood, couple of pretty inaccurate guns, slow. The constitution class is at least like the early iron clad ships of the late 1800's
  • archofwinterarchofwinter Member Posts: 215 Arc User
    edited March 2013
    CBS already disallowed Connie and NX as anything outside of T1.

    I like the NX refit too, but that will never be a T5.
    Even if they do put it in game, I hope it won't be T5. Maybe a T2 at best.
    It just doesn't make sense for such an out of date ship to be in this era. The Connie-refit for T2 is pushing the logic within canon already.

    New ENT bundle with interior and the T2 NX refit would be the best choice to put it in game with lots of MACO related ground gears and costume.
  • johnnymo1johnnymo1 Member Posts: 697 Arc User
    edited March 2013
    yeah MACO gear would be pretty sweet. I want my stun batton!
  • stardestroyer001stardestroyer001 Member Posts: 2,615 Arc User
    edited March 2013
    Archofwinter's idea is a good one. a T5 NX-refit class isn't feasible, but a bundle featuring a T3 NX-class refit with scaling MACO-related sets and a full interior would be nice.

    Then again, I'd like Cryptic to focus on fixing the problems already in this game before they add more stuff. *cough Galaxy class cough* *cough ship models cough*
    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!
  • snoggymack22snoggymack22 Member Posts: 7,084 Arc User
    edited March 2013
    CBS already disallowed Connie and NX as anything outside of T1.

    There's never been anything said about the NX. The only things mentioned were DStahl said CBS wasn't keen on a T5 TOS Constitution. And that they nixed the idea for the Enterprise J. Which then became the Enterprise F, and the Design the Enterprise contest so no big deal.
    I like the NX refit too, but that will never be a T5.

    It already is a T5, just with its nacelles flipped upside down.

    It just doesn't make sense for such an out of date ship to be in this era.

    Both the vulcan ship and the klingon ship from that same show can be flown at T5.
    The Connie-refit for T2 is pushing the logic within canon already.

    The game's ship situation doesn't follow logic or canon. And never has. The tiers are just a levelling mechanism. The ships themselves are not placed in some sort of hierarchy based on age, size, or anything else. At T5 you can currently fly a Saber, a B'Rel, a D'Kyr, an Excelsior, a D'Kora, a Galaxy, a Sovereign, a Cheyenne, a Vo'Quv, a Somraw, a Chel Grett. There's no rhyme or reason to it. This isn't based on ship age. Ship size. Ship performance.

    The NX, the Miranda, the New Orleans (which is coming, according to Geko), the Oberth ... it's all just visuals. That's all it is.
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • trypwyrtrypwyr Member Posts: 30 Arc User
    edited March 2013
    The game's ship situation doesn't follow logic or canon. And never has. The tiers are just a levelling mechanism. The ships themselves are not placed in some sort of hierarchy based on age, size, or anything else. At T5 you can currently fly a Saber, a B'Rel, a D'Kyr, an Excelsior, a D'Kora, a Galaxy, a Sovereign, a Cheyenne, a Vo'Quv, a Somraw, a Chel Grett. There's no rhyme or reason to it. This isn't based on ship age. Ship size. Ship performance.

    The NX, the Miranda, the New Orleans (which is coming, according to Geko), the Oberth ... it's all just visuals. That's all it is.

    *Belly clap*

    Well stated. Make it an alt skin to the Akira/Armitage if you have to... I just want to fly that NX-01.5!
  • stardestroyer001stardestroyer001 Member Posts: 2,615 Arc User
    edited March 2013
    The game's ship situation doesn't follow logic or canon. And never has. The tiers are just a levelling mechanism. The ships themselves are not placed in some sort of hierarchy based on age, size, or anything else. At T5 you can currently fly a Saber, a B'Rel, a D'Kyr, an Excelsior, a D'Kora, a Galaxy, a Sovereign, a Cheyenne, a Vo'Quv, a Somraw, a Chel Grett. There's no rhyme or reason to it. This isn't based on ship age. Ship size. Ship performance.

    The NX, the Miranda, the New Orleans (which is coming, according to Geko), the Oberth ... it's all just visuals. That's all it is.

    Well, if it's just all visuals, I should be able to fly the Phoenix as a competitive escort, or the Space Shuttle as a science vessel. Looks are just looks!

    But you can't.

    Why?

    Because this is the 2400's. Although the Excelsior is generally considered competitive (Lords of Kobol, why...), the other older design starships are simply too old. No sense flying a retrofitted F-4 when the F-22 does a much better job. Same principle applies in STO.

    Keep in mind, for clarity's sake, I am not against a Refitted NX-01. It just should not be a T5 ship, competitive with designs that are 200+ years newer.
    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!
  • astro2244astro2244 Member Posts: 623 Arc User
    edited March 2013
    I can understand and i even supported the canon arguement. until, tholian ships, dominion ships, cardassian ships, breen ships, timeships and eleventy buhmillion other pieces of junk that don't belong either in the timeline, or in the kdf or federation started popping up. I mean at this point with 29th century ships floating around, i just don't see how a t5 connie or nx could mess anything up more.

    And if nx and connies would be wood battleships and early ironclads what would a 25th century odyssey vesta or kumari look like to a temporal destroyer from the 29th century? perhaps a visual will help.


    http://http://www.sz-wholesale.com/uploadFiles/upimg2/Rubber-duck_550392.jpg




    :P
    [SIGPIC]583px-Romulan_Star_Empire_logo%2C_2379.svg.png
    [/SIGPIC]
  • snoggymack22snoggymack22 Member Posts: 7,084 Arc User
    edited March 2013
    or the Space Shuttle as a science vessel.

    According to Wishstone, NASA said no to a T5 Space Shuttle.
    Because this is the 2400's.

    The D'Kyr, the B'Rel, the Somraw, the Nebula, the Excelsior, and the Cheyenne are all T5 ships. Your reasoning might make sense in your head. But it doesn't apply to this game. At all.
    Same principle applies in STO.

    That's just it, it really doesn't apply. Hop into a T5 Cheyenne. You know the Cheyenne? The four nacelled cruiser that only was seen as floating wreckage at Wolf 359? Or a D'Kyr, a ship from Archer's era. And so on and so on and so on.
    It just should not be a T5 ship, competitive with designs that are 200+ years newer.

    Every other ship from that show is already a T5 ship. And the NX design is almost there as the Akira.
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • stardestroyer001stardestroyer001 Member Posts: 2,615 Arc User
    edited March 2013
    According to Wishstone, NASA said no to a T5 Space Shuttle.
    That was sarcasm. :)
    The D'Kyr, the B'Rel, the Somraw, the Nebula, the Excelsior, and the Cheyenne are all T5 ships. Your reasoning might make sense in your head. But it doesn't apply to this game. At all.

    That's just it, it really doesn't apply. Hop into a T5 Cheyenne. You know the Cheyenne? The four nacelled cruiser that only was seen as floating wreckage at Wolf 359? Or a D'Kyr, a ship from Archer's era. And so on and so on and so on.

    Every other ship from that show is already a T5 ship. And the NX design is almost there as the Akira.

    First, I'm going to correct some of the ships you put in that list. The Nebula class isn't in the same time bracket as the other ships you mentioned, so I'll omit that for ya. As for the other ships, with the exception of the B'Rel and Excelsior, all of the ships you mentioned are rarely seen as T5 ships flying around the cosmos, or are highly retrofitted versions (a 25th century equivalent to a 22nd century Raptor - since we haven't seen any Raptors other than in Enterprise, I'm willing to allow a little creative license in the Raptor type alone).

    There's a reason why no one flies these ships around anymore. Sure, they're retrofitted with competitive layouts and consoles and doo-dads. But they're nowhere as effective as other ship classes. They are simply too old. Cryptic knows this, and the reason they sell is because people like buying the old designs, and not because they are actually effective ships.

    I don't understand why you continue to advocate for the NX-refit to be a competitive T5 vessel. It's not. It's old. It's inefficient. It's outdated. And it is simply not feasible. Look at the T5 Connie idea; it was denied by CBS for a reason - STO is set in the 25th century, and having 2250's starships running around just won't do for whatever continuity is left in this game. To CBS, looks are important.
    ...it's all just visuals. That's all it is.
    CBS is the real boss here. And to CBS, visuals are important to them.
    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!
  • hravikhravik Member Posts: 1,203 Arc User
    edited March 2013
    The elephant in the room, regardless of if it should be allowed or not, is Doug Drexler. The NX retrofit is his baby, and not CBS.

    What Cryptic is going to look at first and foremost is how much its going to cost them to get the rights to it. Geko already said its doubtful we'll see the Merian class because of the ROI on it, with the Vesta being that one exception because of how well know and popular it was among the fandom. Here we're talking about negotiating the rights to a refit of what is arguably the least popular Trek series, so I wouldn't hold my breath on it.
  • snoggymack22snoggymack22 Member Posts: 7,084 Arc User
    edited March 2013
    As for the other ships, with the exception of the B'Rel and Excelsior, all of the ships you mentioned are rarely seen as T5 ships flying around the cosmos, or are highly retrofitted versions (a 25th century equivalent to a 22nd century Raptor - since we haven't seen any Raptors other than in Enterprise, I'm willing to allow a little creative license in the Raptor type alone).

    As established by the Path to 2409, they're ALL 25th century versions of older era ships. Even the Nebula.

    But the Somraw raptor IS the same raptor from Enterprise. The D'Kyr IS the same D'Kyr from Enterprise.

    And right now, someone is flying a T5 Akira, which IS the NX design save for the nacelles being flipped upside down.

    It's just a visual.
    But they're nowhere as effective as other ship classes.

    The Fleet raptor is one of the more effective KDF ships in the fleet. The Fleet Cheyenne is more effective than a Fleet Galaxy. The T5 D'Kyr is an effective science ship. The T5 Akira design belongs to an effective and popular group of escorts I see flown all the time.
    I don't understand why you continue to advocate for the NX-refit to be a competitive T5 vessel.

    Because it already IS. If they just added a costume option to the Fleet Akira, people would have a T5 NX.
    It's not. It's old. It's inefficient. It's outdated.

    T5 is filled with old ships. But they're all just 25th century ships with older retro visuals. The path to 2409 explains that. None of them are outdated.
    Look at the T5 Connie idea; it was denied by CBS for a reason

    That reason was licensing.
    - STO is set in the 25th century, and having 2250's starships running around just won't do for whatever continuity is left in this game.

    What continuity? The myriad of Jem'Hadar, Breen, Cardassian, Tholian, Ferengi and 29th Century ships don't follow any sort of continuity. Neither do the Fleet Sabers, Fleet Novas, Fleet Cheyennes, Fleet Olympics. Neither does the entirety of the Cruiser makeup at T5. The Ambassador, Excelsior, Galaxy, Sovereign and Odyssey are all crammed into the top tier. Continuity? Not in this game. And then at the very end of the argument, stands the D'Kyr. A T5 ship. That is the same exact ship from the Enterprise show. I know people don't understand enough about the Somraw, so they like to try and sidestep the Klingons having the Archer era ship at T5. But there's no sidestepping the Vulcan ship. It is what it is. Archer era and T5. No continuity whatsoever.
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • elandarkskyelandarksky Member Posts: 1,013 Arc User
    edited March 2013
    I'm not really being sarcastic. The ship already almost exists at fleet level as is. Just flipping the nacelles the opposite way. Also I don't buy the whole jibba jabba about what could and could not work at end-game. Every single ship can work at end-game. It's just a graphic. Put the appropriate slots in there and fly away. The KDF has a T1 ship at end-game, the B'rel.

    not the KDF's fault that the makers dont bother giving us unique/new ships :P
    [Combat (Self)] Your Bite deals 2378 (1475) Physical Damage(Critical) to Spawnmother.
  • lizweilizwei Member Posts: 936 Arc User
    edited March 2013
    Because it already IS. If they just added a costume option to the Fleet Akira, people would have a T5 NX.

    Why, because it has a similar hull shape? By that logic, a Sovereign is no more capable than a Constitution.

    T5 is filled with old ships. But they're all just 25th century ships with older retro visuals. The path to 2409 explains that. None of them are outdated.

    And an upgraded NX gets you a T0 grade ship. It's already upgraded. That's the best one can do with a ludicrously old design that was never meant to be a warship.
  • snoggymack22snoggymack22 Member Posts: 7,084 Arc User
    edited March 2013
    lizwei wrote: »
    Why, because it has a similar hull shape? By that logic, a Sovereign is no more capable than a Constitution.

    Which is the more capable cruiser in STO?

    The Odyssey? The Galaxy? The Ambassador? The Excelsior? The Nomad? The Mirror Nomad? The Sovereign? The D'Kora? Or the Cheyenne?
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • andorianblueandorianblue Member Posts: 88 Arc User
    edited March 2013
    I'd love to see that model in game, since it has been stated that it was planned to be used in the show if it had made it to a 5th season, but a T5 NX class will never happen (not as long as I can't have a T5 TOS Constitution! grrrr!).

    Maybe throw in a T2 escort retrofit since the Constitution refit is T2, give it a special console like they've done in the past and be done with it.
  • stardestroyer001stardestroyer001 Member Posts: 2,615 Arc User
    edited March 2013
    This will be long, just giving all of you a heads-up.
    Me wrote:
    First, I'm going to correct some of the ships you put in that list. The Nebula class isn't in the same time bracket as the other ships you mentioned, so I'll omit that for ya. As for the other ships, with the exception of the B'Rel and Excelsior, all of the ships you mentioned are rarely seen as T5 ships flying around the cosmos, or are highly retrofitted versions (a 25th century equivalent to a 22nd century Raptor - since we haven't seen any Raptors other than in Enterprise, I'm willing to allow a little creative license in the Raptor type alone).

    There's a reason why no one flies these ships around anymore. Sure, they're retrofitted with competitive layouts and consoles and doo-dads. But they're nowhere as effective as other ship classes. They are simply too old. Cryptic knows this, and the reason they sell is because people like buying the old designs, and not because they are actually effective ships.



    As established by the Path to 2409, they're ALL 25th century versions of older era ships. Even the Nebula.

    But the Somraw raptor IS the same raptor from Enterprise. The D'Kyr IS the same D'Kyr from Enterprise.

    And right now, someone is flying a T5 Akira, which IS the NX design save for the nacelles being flipped upside down.

    It's just a visual.

    The Fleet raptor is one of the more effective KDF ships in the fleet. The Fleet Cheyenne is more effective than a Fleet Galaxy. The T5 D'Kyr is an effective science ship. The T5 Akira design belongs to an effective and popular group of escorts I see flown all the time.

    The Somraw Raptor, although sharing a common design, is not the same ship as seen in Enterprise. Last time I checked, that ship is now over 200 years old. I doubt the Klingons would keep the same design, unchanged ship for two centuries - heck, it's old enough to not be seen in DS9's many Dominion War battles! Please use your common sense.

    I will address the Akira in more detail, later on in this post.

    I have seen Raptors flying around, yes. but in no way is a Fleet Cheyenne outperforming a Fleet Galaxy. I checked the stats last week, and I can check them again. The ship loses hull in favour of increased turn rate, making it less effective at tanking and/or healing, depending on player roles. And I haven't seen more than a handful of D'Kyrs in Ker'rat or PVP matches, or even elite STF's, in over three to six months. And that's being generous.

    EDIT: Correction: Fleet Cheyenne also has the Dreadnought BOFF seating layout - although I can argue in favour of this, it does affect engineering potential abilities and the lower hull rating is a concern. I'd rather fly the Dreadnought.

    Sure, yeah, I'll go with your "it'z just a vissual" excuse. Then why are these ships not being flown? Simply put; Cryptic, although their sense of historical accuracy in this game is questionable, do at least recognize that certain ships are just too old, and they make the ships in this game reflect that.

    Same deal will go with this thread's proposal. Don't get me wrong. I love the NX-class look (as someone in the ENT production staff once said, it was a photogenic ship) and raw feel. I love the scenes in ENT where it showed its teeth. But it's not a feasible T5 ship, nor can it be a costume visual for another ship which is twice the size and ~200 years newer.
    lizwei wrote: »
    Why, because it has a similar hull shape? By that logic, a Sovereign is no more capable than a Constitution.

    And an upgraded NX gets you a T0 grade ship. It's already upgraded. That's the best one can do with a ludicrously old design that was never meant to be a warship.

    Which is the more capable cruiser in STO?

    The Odyssey? The Galaxy? The Ambassador? The Excelsior? The Nomad? The Mirror Nomad? The Sovereign? The D'Kora? Or the Cheyenne?

    You missed the entire point (as well as my entire point in the second page). Let me make it perfectly clear, so there is no misunderstanding.

    1) CBS is the one who authorizes or denies which ships are allowed, and in what tier they are in. It doesn't matter why. That is just how it is.

    2) An Akira-class is NOT the same as the NX-class. Why? The size is different, and the following characteristics vary: NX-class ships have a shuttlepod bay on the ventral side, a forward deflector in the saucer, no fighter launch capability, a warp core in the pod thing between the nacelle pylons, torpedo bays in the saucer. Akira-class ships have launch bays in the rear of the saucer (perhaps even the front), a deflector in the ventral bulge of the saucer, a torpedo module between the nacelle pylons, a different design auxiliary impulse engines in the saucer (P/S), and phaser beam arrays along the fore of the saucer, ventral and dorsal. These are very specific characteristics which prove that the Akira, although sharing common generic design features, is NOT the same ship as an NX-class. Nor should a NX-refit (a ship of exploration) have the same statistics as a leading escort starship which can launch fighters, fire pulse cannons, etc. If you say looks are just looks and they don't really matter, consider those looks when applied to a completely different ship. For you, ship abilities should matter.

    This chart from Ex Astris Scientia shows the size differences clearly. http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/schematics/fleet-chart.jpg

    3) We are not talking about more capable cruisers, and I'm not sure why you are derailing the conversation away from the main point - at least try to stick to the topic.
    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!
  • thratch1thratch1 Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited March 2013
    This chart from Ex Astris Scientia shows the size differences clearly. http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/schematics/fleet-chart.jpg[/url

    Ex Astris blocks hotlinking, so here's another size chart that works:

    http://www.phan.org/sto/pics/ShipChart.jpg
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • stardestroyer001stardestroyer001 Member Posts: 2,615 Arc User
    edited March 2013
    thratch1 wrote: »
    Ex Astris blocks hotlinking, so here's another size chart that works:

    http://www.phan.org/sto/pics/ShipChart.jpg

    Ah, thank you.
    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!
  • snoggymack22snoggymack22 Member Posts: 7,084 Arc User
    edited March 2013
    I doubt the Klingons would keep the same design, unchanged ship for two centuries - heck, it's old enough to not be seen in DS9's many Dominion War battles! Please use your common sense.

    Common sense? Here's the C-Store TEXT from the D'Kyr, the Vulcan contemporary or the Somraw:
    A Vulcan design that has been in continual use since the 22nd century, this craft has seen use as a combat cruiser, a planetary defense ship, an exploration vessel and a rescue ship.

    That's what the STORE says about the D'Kyr.

    Can we now end any and all debate about how 200 year old ships don't work? That one does. Says so right in the store when you purchase it.
    yes. but in no way is a Fleet Cheyenne outperforming a Fleet Galaxy. I checked the stats last week, and I can check them again. The ship loses hull in favour of increased turn rate, making it less effective at tanking and/or healing, depending on player roles.

    The Fleet Cheyenne has a turn rate of 8, 3 tactical consoles, and a Lt. and Ensign Tactical BOFF slot.

    It's out performs the Fleet Galaxy.
    Then why are these ships not being flown?

    Primarily has to do with none of them, save the Somraw, being DPS centric. As far as science ships go, the D'Kyr stacks up just fine against T5. Problem is ... science ships in general. How many science ships do you bump into in Elite STFs? Compared to, say, Fleet Defiants?

    But just in case you've forgotten in the past few seconds since reading the quote, here's what Cryptic wrote about the D'Kyr:
    A Vulcan design that has been in continual use since the 22nd century

    Continual use! 22nd Century!
    1) CBS is the one who authorizes or denies which ships are allowed, and in what tier they are in. It doesn't matter why. That is just how it is.

    CBS does not choose ship tier. This has never been said by any cryptic employee ever. Cryptic chose the ship tiers. And the mechanics of how they worked. CBS said no to a T5 TOS Constitution. And said no to an Enterprise J. They did not choose which ships went into which tiers. Cryptic did. Which is why there's an Excelsior at T3 AND T5. A Cheyenne, Ambassador, Sovereign, Galaxy, and Odyssey joining that Excelsior at T5. CBS didn't choose or have any input on that. That's a game mechanic Cryptic created and then broke all by themselves.

    So once again with feeling: No Cryptic employee has ever said CBS chose the ship tiers or what ships went in what tier.
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • stardestroyer001stardestroyer001 Member Posts: 2,615 Arc User
    edited March 2013
    Since it seems you are so vehement about further breaking continuity in this game, I feel I should not contradict such an emotionally driven argument.

    Sure. T5 NX-refit, here you go. Stats:

    5 Fore Weapons
    3 Aft Weapons

    4 Device slots

    3 Eng consoles
    3 Sci consoles
    4 Tac consoles

    Hull 44,000
    Shields 7,000
    Crew 1,000
    Turn rate 17
    Shield modifier 1.3

    I have now presented a refit of the venerable NX-class! It is capable of huge offensive capability, can handle hits with little skill needed, and it has the design of a 200 year old ship. Congratulations! Star Trek Online is much better off with these improvements!

    P.S. Just thought I should add this in, just for future reference.
    Can we now end any and all debate about how 200 year old ships don't work? That one does. Says so right in the store when you purchase it.
    The D'Kyr has been in continual use since the 22nd century, but not all 22nd century ships are in continual use - or are even feasible platforms in which to carry modern armaments and defensive capabilities.
    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!
  • snoggymack22snoggymack22 Member Posts: 7,084 Arc User
    edited March 2013
    P.S. Just thought I should add this in, just for future reference.

    At this point I'm far more fascinated by your assertion that the Fleet Galaxy outperforms the Fleet Cheyenne. The Fleet Cheyenne has the best turn rate of a cruiser, at 8. Right up there with the Excelsior. And has the combat capability of the Assault Cruiser with three tactical consoles and the same BOFF setup. It's like a Sovereign that can turn better. And still has enough engineering and science consoles and BOFF slots to kit itself out to tank or heal.

    Since the entirety of STO's end-game hinges on damage dealing capability ...

    How is it the Galaxy outperforms the Cheyenne?
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • thecosmic1thecosmic1 Member Posts: 9,365 Arc User
    edited March 2013
    CBS does not choose ship tier. This has never been said by any cryptic employee ever. Cryptic chose the ship tiers. And the mechanics of how they worked. CBS said no to a T5 TOS Constitution. And said no to an Enterprise J. They did not choose which ships went into which tiers. Cryptic did. Which is why there's an Excelsior at T3 AND T5. A Cheyenne, Ambassador, Sovereign, Galaxy, and Odyssey joining that Excelsior at T5. CBS didn't choose or have any input on that. That's a game mechanic Cryptic created and then broke all by themselves.
    While I agree with most of your points, above, I would simply say that we have no knowledge of other things beyond a T5 Connie and Ent J that CBS has said "no" to. There could be hundreds of things that CBS has not agreed to.

    We should also keep in mind that every ship put into the game needed to be approved by CBS; and the Tier of the ship also needed to be approved. After all, if CBS could say no to a T5 Connie they clearly had the right to say no to a T3, T5, and T5.5 Ambassador.

    And yes, it is true that Cryptic screwed up its own Tier structure by trying to please every fan-boy who wanted their favorite ship put into the game for end-game usage. All the Fleet Ship glut at T5.5, especially Cruiser glut, basically takes away Class distinctions. There's only so many ways you can configure Consoles and Boffs.
    STO is about my Liberated Borg Federation Captain with his Breen 1st Officer, Jem'Hadar Tactical Officer, Liberated Borg Engineering Officer, Android Ops Officer, Photonic Science Officer, Gorn Science Officer, and Reman Medical Officer jumping into their Jem'Hadar Carrier and flying off to do missions for the new Romulan Empire. But for some players allowing a T5 Connie to be used breaks the canon in the game.
This discussion has been closed.