test content
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc

Re: Tier 5 Connie

salynraydersalynrayder Member Posts: 139 Arc User
edited August 2014 in Federation Discussion
So I was going to jump in my old Constitution and tool around a little bit when the fleet called for ISE participants. Not thinking I joined and didn't realize I was in the Constitution until it was too late. So I was able to complete ISE in the Connie without dying until I got caught up in the explosion of the last Tac Cube. It was a lot of fun which brings me to my question.

No, I don't care if we ever get a T5 Constituion, and I'm not asking for it. My question is why not? You see, I returned to STO AFTER the T5 Connie decision was made. From what I read on the forum, it seems to be that CBS said no T5. I was just wondering what their reason was.

You see, thats it. No one asking for the T5 Connie, just curious as to why there won't be one.

Happy gaming everyone.
Post edited by salynrayder on
«13456720

Comments

  • anazondaanazonda Member Posts: 8,399 Arc User
    edited January 2014
    Because CBS said no...

    Nothing more, nothing less...

    To my knowledge, no other explanation exists.
    Don't look silly... Don't call it the "Z-Store/Zen Store"...
    Let me put the rumors to rest: it's definitely still the C-Store (Cryptic Store) It just takes ZEN.
    Like Duty Officers? Support effords to gather ideas
  • salynraydersalynrayder Member Posts: 139 Arc User
    edited January 2014
    anazonda wrote: »
    Because CBS said no...

    Nothing more, nothing less...

    To my knowledge, no other explanation exists.

    Really? Well, that's a bummer. I was hoping for something that made sense. Oh well, thanks for the reply. Peace.
  • stf65stf65 Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited January 2014
    How is this not like any other t5 connie thread? They all want justification for CBS' decision.

    CBS thinks on a much bigger scale for Trek then STO. STO is a pimple to them. On any given day they have hundreds of Trek licenses to deal with. Sometimes those licenses conflict. The Enterprise is iconic and a huge money maker for CBS. For example, it's the Connie in a twizzler commercials, not the galaxy class; and that twizzler commercial probably paid them more royalties then Cryptic did. How CBS wants to market, and doesn't want to market, that iconic ship is entirely up to them.
  • oldravenman3025oldravenman3025 Member Posts: 1,892 Arc User
    edited January 2014
    Personally, I think the new Enterprise from the Abrams films would make a nice Tier 5 Constitution Class. It's sleeker, larger, and more advanced than the Prime Universe classic.

    But that would require some serious negotiation with both Paramount and CBS. So, would be unlikely to happen anytime soon.
  • johngazmanjohngazman Member Posts: 2,826 Arc User
    edited January 2014
    anazonda wrote: »
    Because CBS said no...

    I'm having this tatooed onto my forehead so that people get the message.

    It really is that simple, people. Get over it and get on with your lives.
    You're just a machine. And machines can be broken.
    StarTrekFirstContactBorgBattleonetumblr_lln3v6QoT31qzrtqe.gif
  • captainoblivouscaptainoblivous Member Posts: 2,284 Arc User
    edited January 2014
    Personally, I think the new Enterprise from the Abrams films would make a nice Tier 5 Constitution Class. It's sleeker, larger, and more advanced than the Prime Universe classic.

    BS! lol Utter utter BS. Your statement is so full of BS, that the global prices of BS plummeted due to the sudden oversupply of BS thanks to you.
    I need a beer.

  • anazondaanazonda Member Posts: 8,399 Arc User
    edited January 2014
    BS! lol Utter utter BS. Your statement is so full of BS, that the global prices of BS plummeted due to the sudden oversupply of BS thanks to you.

    Apart from the Licence issues, I am going to assume you don't like JJ-Trek?
    Don't look silly... Don't call it the "Z-Store/Zen Store"...
    Let me put the rumors to rest: it's definitely still the C-Store (Cryptic Store) It just takes ZEN.
    Like Duty Officers? Support effords to gather ideas
  • stf65stf65 Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited January 2014
    BS! lol Utter utter BS. Your statement is so full of BS, that the global prices of BS plummeted due to the sudden oversupply of BS thanks to you.
    How is it full of BS? Abram's Connie is bigger then a Sovereign. It's a huge ship full of a lot of tech that Gene never thought of.
  • charliescot25charliescot25 Member Posts: 269 Arc User
    edited January 2014
    Put it this way, The Sovereign class is more lovely sleek design than that ugly JJ Enterprise ship. I'm sorry, but that ship is just absolutely horrible, it's a laughing stock.
    [SIGPIC]USSDundee_zpsfcfe716b.jpg[/SIGPIC]
  • charliescot25charliescot25 Member Posts: 269 Arc User
    edited January 2014
    stf65 wrote: »
    How is it full of BS? Abram's Connie is bigger then a Sovereign. It's a huge ship full of a lot of tech that Gene never thought of.

    hahah! You do realize that JJ Enterprise is in a different universe and you cannot compare it with the Sovereign in her universe:P
    [SIGPIC]USSDundee_zpsfcfe716b.jpg[/SIGPIC]
  • stf65stf65 Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited January 2014
    hahah! You do realize that JJ Enterprise is in a different universe and you cannot compare it with the Sovereign in her universe:P
    You do realize that appearance appeal is subjective to the individual?

    My point was that the JJprize is a big ship; as big as the Odyssey or Sovereign. It has plenty of room to fit 25th century technology; assuming that size is the big complaint by many as to why the TOS Connie shouldn't be t5.
  • dareaudareau Member Posts: 2,390 Arc User
    edited January 2014
    stf65 wrote: »
    How is this not like any other t5 connie thread? They all want justification for CBS' decision.

    However, doesn't every other T5 Connie thread start with "and this is why I believe we need a T5 Connie, now take this to CBS and convince them to give it to us"?
    stf65 wrote: »
    CBS thinks on a much bigger scale for Trek then STO. STO is a pimple to them. On any given day they have hundreds of Trek licenses to deal with. Sometimes those licenses conflict. The Enterprise is iconic and a huge money maker for CBS. For example, it's the Connie in a twizzler commercials, not the galaxy class; and that twizzler commercial probably paid them more royalties then Cryptic did. How CBS wants to market, and doesn't want to market, that iconic ship is entirely up to them.

    First off, I'd like to know what license conflict? Does the existence of that model site with the subscriptions that has been pushed by Cryptic's dev team (via contest) create a problem with AMT and their "regular" model? Or Micro Machine's "mini" cruisers vs. the minis for SFB / FASA / any other unknown Trek tabletop wargame? Or even minis vs models vs toys? The only time a company winds up with a licensing conflict is if they issue some sort of exclusivity agreement, of which we are not aware of. Obviously, that Twizzler commercial uses the ToS styled Connie, not the JJ-Connie, so if there was an exclusivity window restricting the Connie to JJ's to "prevent confusion with the movie ship", that ship has sailed...

    On the issue of a proposed "royalty issue", ie, CBS wants way too much per ship than Cryptic's "regular" price structure would support, one would think that Cryptic would have somehow "let slip" the projected price of the Connie to cover royalties, to see what kind of response it would draw... And even then, given the fact that "creating" a T5 Connie could be nothing more than copy/pasting a ship (say, Galaxy-R), telling it to point at the T1 (or T2) Connie assets instead of the Galaxy assets, then selling at whatever price would need to keep CBS happy, viola...

    Therefore, there has to be some other esoteric reason that CBS keeps saying "no", and before we start yet another speculative flame war as to finding a way to "convince" CBS to change their mind, the OP has elected to go straight to find the problem that needs to be solved. Now, I've heard much speculation in the previous threads that CBS has issue with the Connie being portrayed as a cruiser (tank) that can keep up with the Galaxy/Soverign/Oddy that CBS has approved as the replacement flagship of the fleet. Fine. With confirmation of this being the issue, the playerbase can focus on solutions that meet this criteria (and before you ask, yes, I do have one as alluded to in my sig, however, since this is not a "solutions" thread, I'll refrain from spelling it out...)

    Still, this thread is an attempt to find the problem first, to know where to aim the solution, instead of arguing the arguments then finding the answer to change CBS's mind...
    Detecting big-time "anti-old-school" bias here. NX? Lobi. TOS/TMP Connie? Super-promotion-box. (aka the two hardest ways to get ships) Excelsior & all 3 TNG "big hero" ships? C-Store. Please Equalize...

    To rob a line: [quote: Mariemaia Kushrenada] Forum Posting is much like an endless waltz. The three beats of war, peace and revolution continue on forever. However, opinions will change upon the reading of my post.[/quote]
  • oldravenman3025oldravenman3025 Member Posts: 1,892 Arc User
    edited January 2014
    @captainoblivous:




    BS! lol Utter utter BS. Your statement is so full of BS, that the global prices of BS plummeted due to the sudden oversupply of BS thanks to you.



    You have anything else to add besides this typical fanboy meltdown over anything Abrams Trek related? As it stands now, you are coming across as a twelve year old basement dweller.

    No wonder people think Trek fans are like that insane crossing guard with his Uhura blowup doll from "National Lampoon's Senior Trip".





    @charliescot25


    Put it this way, The Sovereign class is more lovely sleek design than that ugly JJ Enterprise ship. I'm sorry, but that ship is just absolutely horrible, it's a laughing stock.



    I have to politely disagree with you. I was never a big fan of the Sovereign design. But I like the sleek updated lines of the updated Constitution. It also looks more like a classic Starfleet design, as opposed to many of the newer designs from The Next Generation film era. And I say this despite being a big fan of the Akira and Norway class starships.
  • stf65stf65 Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited January 2014
    dareau wrote: »
    First off, I'd like to know what license conflict?
    The point is we don't know how they might conflict. Do we know what type of license CBS has with Paramount and Abrams as far as how each Connie image can be used? No, we have no idea. Do we know what licenses CBS has had with other gaming companies over the years about how the image can be used? Again, no. So I'll say it again: we have no way of knowing how allowing X might be a problem due to license conflicts. CBS does know.
    On the issue of a proposed "royalty issue", ie, CBS wants way too much per ship than Cryptic's "regular" price structure would support, one would think that Cryptic would have somehow "let slip" the projected price of the Connie to cover royalties, to see what kind of response it would draw... And even then, given the fact that "creating" a T5 Connie could be nothing more than copy/pasting a ship (say, Galaxy-R), telling it to point at the T1 (or T2) Connie assets instead of the Galaxy assets, then selling at whatever price would need to keep CBS happy, viola...
    My point about royalties was to get across the idea that while gamers on this forum think STO is a big and important that's not the case to CBS. To CBS STO is just another license; and a license that probably isn't paying them as much as many of their other licenses.
  • stofskstofsk Member Posts: 1,744 Arc User
    edited January 2014
    stf65 wrote: »
    How is it full of BS? Abram's Connie is bigger then a Sovereign. It's a huge ship full of a lot of tech that Gene never thought of.
    What, like a brewery in the engine room?
  • captainoblivouscaptainoblivous Member Posts: 2,284 Arc User
    edited January 2014
    stofsk wrote: »
    What, like a brewery in the engine room?

    I'm starting to like this abrams guy...
    I need a beer.

  • stf65stf65 Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited January 2014
    stofsk wrote: »
    What, like a brewery in the engine room?
    You might not like the imagery but I actually enjoyed seeing the bowels of the ship in a realistic manner. Processing and purifying waste would be a huge process for longterm space travel. That was only lightly toughed upon in Enterprise where Archer talks about solid waste being converted into other components on the ship.
  • misterde3misterde3 Member Posts: 4,195 Arc User
    edited January 2014
    stf65 wrote: »
    You might not like the imagery but I actually enjoyed seeing the bowels of the ship in a realistic manner. Processing and purifying waste would be a huge process for longterm space travel. That was only lightly toughed upon in Enterprise where Archer talks about solid waste being converted into other components on the ship.

    What we saw was not waste processing unless...they use plutonium in their sandwiches.

    http://static1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20091116140254/memoryalpha/en/images/d/d8/USS_Enterprise_%28alternate_reality%29_engineering_from_above.jpg
  • haldan1968haldan1968 Member Posts: 80 Arc User
    edited January 2014
    Here is what they could do. Make a new ship with the aesthetics of the connie in mind, but give it a 'modern' look. Circular saucer section with tube shaped elongated engineering hull and long sweptback high mounted nacelles, but have twin pylons to mount the saucer section to the engineering hull and modern detailing.

    Since it is a cruiser, bump the size up a little to accommodate.

    It would probably look a lot like the Avenger does now, but slimmer and more graceful and without that triangular primary hull shape.

    In fact, I would even go so far as to suggest simply making it a new skin for the Avenger.

    Just my 2 cents. But it would make me happy.
  • stofskstofsk Member Posts: 1,744 Arc User
    edited January 2014
    stf65 wrote: »
    You might not like the imagery but I actually enjoyed seeing the bowels of the ship in a realistic manner. Processing and purifying waste would be a huge process for longterm space travel. That was only lightly toughed upon in Enterprise where Archer talks about solid waste being converted into other components on the ship.
    Nothing about the engine room as depicted in either of the two films was realistic. Not even in a kind of speculative, 'what would a real matter/anti-matter powerplant look like?' sort of way.

    Now you could argue that 'well, neither was the engine room on the original Enterprise or the Enterprise-D', but then that would be a tacit admission that the JJprise isn't realistic either.

    But leave that aside. The biggest problem I had with the engine room set, is that it wasn't an engine room set. It literally was filmed inside of a brewery. Because they decided to do it on the cheap. And because the script called for a whacky, zany scene where Kirk gets beamed inside of a pipe. If you're ok with that fine. But it doesn't qualify as 'tech Gene never thought of'. But if you want an example of tech that the original producers didn't think of, then how about the viewscreen on the bridge? In the original shows, it's a viewscreen. In JJTrek, it's also a window. Which is stupid.
  • kyeto13kyeto13 Member Posts: 3 Arc User
    edited January 2014
    haldan1968 wrote: »
    Here is what they could do. Make a new ship with the aesthetics of the connie in mind, but give it a 'modern' look. Circular saucer section with tube shaped elongated engineering hull and long sweptback high mounted nacelles, but have twin pylons to mount the saucer section to the engineering hull and modern detailing.

    Since it is a cruiser, bump the size up a little to accommodate.

    It would probably look a lot like the Avenger does now, but slimmer and more graceful and without that triangular primary hull shape.

    In fact, I would even go so far as to suggest simply making it a new skin for the Avenger.

    Just my 2 cents. But it would make me happy.

    They already have an updated look to the Connie. The Excalibur Class. However, again, CBS just says "no" and that is that. It is not a money issue or a licensing limit issue.

    CBS

    says

    NO!


    Final Answer.
    Live on Earth. Work in Space. Play with Dragons. Join the best add on to STO, the Neverwinter holodeck program! Only 14 GPL a month.
  • kantazo1kantazo1 Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited January 2014
    CBS said NO. There is no other way to explain it. It is not Cryptic or PWE, it is CBS.
    Seek and ye shall find. Yeshua
  • stf65stf65 Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited January 2014
    stofsk wrote: »
    Nothing about the engine room as depicted in either of the two films was realistic. Not even in a kind of speculative, 'what would a real matter/anti-matter powerplant look like?' sort of way.
    Serve on an aircraft carrier for a couple of years and then come back and tell me about realistic again. :)

    The bowels of ships are full of pipes, tubes, railings, and so on. From that aspect what JJ was trying to do was give us a realistic idea of what the interior workings of a multi-year starship should look like: rather then empty corridors that walk in circles.
  • haldan1968haldan1968 Member Posts: 80 Arc User
    edited January 2014
    kyeto13 wrote: »
    They already have an updated look to the Connie. The Excalibur Class. However, again, CBS just says "no" and that is that. It is not a money issue or a licensing limit issue.

    CBS

    says

    NO!


    Final Answer.

    I think what some of us are trying to say here is that we like the aesthetics of the original series. You don?t have to give us the Constitution class, but allowing us to fly some ships whose design is reflective of that aesthetic can not be a bad thing.

    And I do not think CBS said no to any of that.
  • joshglassjoshglass Member Posts: 159 Arc User
    edited January 2014
    So I was going to jump in my old Constitution and tool around a little bit when the fleet called for ISE participants. Not thinking I joined and didn't realize I was in the Constitution until it was too late. So I was able to complete ISE in the Connie without dying until I got caught up in the explosion of the last Tac Cube. It was a lot of fun which brings me to my question.

    No, I don't care if we ever get a T5 Constituion, and I'm not asking for it. My question is why not? You see, I returned to STO AFTER the T5 Connie decision was made. From what I read on the forum, it seems to be that CBS said no T5. I was just wondering what their reason was.

    You see, thats it. No one asking for the T5 Connie, just curious as to why there won't be one.

    Happy gaming everyone.

    I've read many places where posters point out that CBS has said no, but I've never seen the original Dev post explaining it.

    I'd like to see it.

    If CBS did have an issue with it, they would have explained it to the company in the original contract negotiations and it could be completely explained by Cryptic as to why not. The fact that I've never seen it explained means that there is something they don't want to explain about it and at this point I'm just going to say Cryptic doesn't want it made and that it has nothing to do with CBS.

    If someone knows where the original post concerning CBS and a T5 Connie is in these forums, and can point to a Cryptic employee as the original poster, I'd like to see it.
  • stofskstofsk Member Posts: 1,744 Arc User
    edited January 2014
    stf65 wrote: »
    Serve on an aircraft carrier for a couple of years and then come back and tell me about realistic again. :)
    Yeah but the Enterprise isn't an aircraft carrier :v

    Hey, I never said the original Enterprise/s were realistic. They're not. But they at least had a style which I liked.
  • stf65stf65 Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited January 2014
    joshglass wrote: »
    I've read many places where posters point out that CBS has said no, but I've never seen the original Dev post explaining it.

    I'd like to see it.
    It's been said many times on the forum by the devs, but they're hard to find now because the forums where changed and the ability to search by old forum names was lost. Here's one from the November 2012 ask cryptic:
    Q: (thmichael) Are you going to implement the Ambassador Class at some point? And would it be possible to implement the Old Constitution Class for higher ranks?

    Dstahl: Yes. The Ambassador class is coming in 2013. CBS is still pretty adamant about the Old Connie not being an end game ship, but you never know what can happen as time rolls by.
    And Cryptic doesn't need to explain its business dealings to us. We asked, they asked, they got a no, they told us no. That's all there is to it.
  • hravikhravik Member Posts: 1,203 Arc User
    edited January 2014
    joshglass wrote: »
    If someone knows where the original post concerning CBS and a T5 Connie is in these forums, and can point to a Cryptic employee as the original poster, I'd like to see it.


    Here.
    Q: dorko1 I know that the refit is still a touchy subject, but could you guys shed any light on what might happen? I understand that there should be obvious misgivings about the idea of the Constitution class outmatching a vessel 200 yrs new and twice its size, but a replica that?s really more of an Excalibur class vessel might be able to add something to the mix.

    A: You are correct that it is a touchy subject amongst the community and based on the discussions we?ve had with CBS about ships, I don?t think we?re going to put a high-end Constitution Class refit into the game. You can still have a lower tier TOS Connie use the Squad Leader feature to bring their stats up to a higher level, but the odds of an end game Connie refit is a long shot.

    And here.
    Q: (thmichael) Are you going to implement the Ambassador Class at some point? And would it be possible to implement the Old Constitution Class for higher ranks?

    Dstahl: Yes. The Ambassador class is coming in 2013. CBS is still pretty adamant about the Old Connie not being an end game ship, but you never know what can happen as time rolls by.

    Those are two I could think of right away, there's also several interviews with various devs saying as much over the years, plus a bunch of other posts and ask cryptics I don't care to look up right now. One recently on Priority One with Geko saying no to even an Exeter as a compromise. You can find those on your own though.
  • kyeto13kyeto13 Member Posts: 3 Arc User
    edited January 2014
    haldan1968 wrote: »
    I think what some of us are trying to say here is that we like the aesthetics of the original series. You don?t have to give us the Constitution class, but allowing us to fly some ships whose design is reflective of that aesthetic can not be a bad thing.

    And I do not think CBS said no to any of that.

    Except that they have.. repeatedly. There is a T5 connie thread about 4 times a month. Either with ranting and raving, or calm rational negotiations in mind. And the answer has been, and always shall be:
    NO!

    Get over it. It is not going to happen. We have asked for a T5 Connie, A T5 Connie look-a-like, and updated version of a T5 Connie Look. Lockbox Connie. Limited Edition Connie. the $200 Connie. Connie holograms. Connie Skins. Connie ship parts for X, Y, and Z ship. It has all been discussed. It has all be shot down. This is one of the most dead horses in the game, and I wish fanboys would find something else to beat up.

    That being said, I love the Connie. I love the ship-tease scene in the TMP/WoK. I cried watching it be destroyed in SFS. It is graceful, elegant, majestic, sturdy. It is an awesome looking ship. However, CBS has denied Cryptic the T5 Connie for 4 years now. I doubt any amount of forum rage or boycotts will change their mind.
    Live on Earth. Work in Space. Play with Dragons. Join the best add on to STO, the Neverwinter holodeck program! Only 14 GPL a month.
  • haldan1968haldan1968 Member Posts: 80 Arc User
    edited January 2014
    kyeto13 wrote: »
    They already have an updated look to the Connie. The Excalibur Class. However, again, CBS just says "no" and that is that. It is not a money issue or a licensing limit issue.

    CBS

    says

    NO!


    Final Answer.

    But I am not asking for a T5 connie that seems to bring out so much emotion on both sides.

    I am asking for a circular primary hull and elongated nacelles. They already exist in the game on other ships. The Ambassador has a circular primary hull. The Avenger (non elite version) has high placed elongated nacelles.

    I am asking for greater flexibility in how I customize the appearance of my ship. But nevermind. Everyone gets all emotional over this topic, and any request that even hints at the remote possibility of making a ship that even slightly resembles a connie tends to bring out the worst of those emotions.

    So forget I mentioned anything. Bottom line is that it is just a stupid game anyway.

    But here is the thing. A T5 connie will happen, and it will happen when the company want's to cash in on the value of that ship. A year from now, or perhaps two, you will see one in the C-Store. Guaranteed. It is just a matter of time.
This discussion has been closed.