But I think it's also likely that the fundamental design will always be deemed too similar to the Connie that these variants are even contractually linked to its fate.
And if CBS has said that, that's fine. But no dev has ever told us CBS said they cannot make an end game Excalibur, so until we find out otherwise, that's what I'm going to be asking for.
Why don't you quiz them about their daily log in number and their exact monthly income while you're at it? I mean, every MMO everywhere is just falling over themselves trying to share internal business information with the public, right?
Really, people, IS IT SO HARD? Is 5+ years of silence not enough to tell you that in all likelihood the Cryptic employee who said anything about it at all probably overstepped themselves and got dressed down to the tune of "Talk about Paramount/CBS division of the assets out loud again and we pull your license on the spot"? Because that kind of flawlessly holding a line aside from a single slip says PRIVATE MATTER in big bold letters to me. Information control about essential company business is routine in this industry. Its something you need to get used to when dealing with the corporate world and multi-million dollar ventures, which the larger Star Trek brand most definitely is... Even if we're just puttering around in a relative backwater.
The problem is, your post ignores basic logic. The question I'm asking about is not some random detail about their internal business activity, it is directly related to something they already voluntarily shared with is. They are the ones that *told* us CBS won't allow an end game connie, and they didn't just say it once, they said it multiple times, in multiple venues(forum posts, podcast interviews). And it wasn't just some random joe employee that didn't know what they were doing, it was actual executive producers. If it had been some big slip up, they would have switched to "sorry, we can't discuss that" instead of repeating that CBS won't allow it. That in itself is proof that they are not restricted from mentioning what CBS will/won't allow.
All of that said, if you think this is a pointless/useless question to ask, that is fine. No one is forcing you to agree with me asking it, or even to read this thread.
The thing is though, the question about a "Connie-like" ship in the higher tiers of the game, really has never been "ignored" here in the forums...
To the contrary, it has almost always been immediately stomped on and shut down in a most severe and meaningful manner, every single time one has appeared...
Till now...
STO Member since February 2009. I Was A Trekkie Before It Was Cool ... Sept. 8th, 1966 ... Not To Mention Before Most Folks Around Here Were Born! Forever a STO Veteran-Minion
The only stupid question is the one that goes unasked.
That's what people with no appreciation of context tell themselves.
Shrewder individuals know there are plenty of occasions that asking a question can be a terrible idea.
The question here is likely harmless, because it'll be ignored just like it has been for the last half-decade. But people act like its such a mystery when perfectly reasonable explanations for all observable behavior abound.
Well that's not a comment on the validity of the question so much as the timing and setting in asking it.
Normally i wouldent push for an answer / clarfication. But when another game (aka Startrek Timlines) has a TOS constitution (even tho its a mirror variant) at its top tier it begins to make me wonder if things have changed. We are only asking for the excaliber to keep in with the games lore.
The only resons i can c for timelines being allowed this are
A) CBS gave them special permission to use her but its generally not allowed
its the 50th annie and they want to promote TOS
C) there are no restrictions on varients of the TOS connie
I think it's worth mentioning that the game is called Star Trek Timelines. Unlike many people here, CBS actually does care about enforcing certain aspects of canon quite a bit, including not having the Constitution outside of the 23rd century. It's the same reason that androids are such a restricted species in game, Data is still unique.
"Rise like Lions after slumber, In unvanquishable number, Shake your chains to earth like dew, Which in sleep had fallen on you-Ye are many they are few"
I think it's worth mentioning that the game is called Star Trek Timelines. Unlike many people here, CBS actually does care about enforcing certain aspects of canon quite a bit, including not having the Constitution outside of the 23rd century. It's the same reason that androids are such a restricted species in game, Data is still unique.
Even though "timelines" obviously involves time travel, that still does not reconcile the "issue" of a ship from TOS era being able to stand up to modern TNG+ ships in that game. And if you want to say "oh well they just upgraded it with modern technology", that logic would apply equally in this game's setting(which also has it's share of time travel as well).
That said, I don't think "that game over there has it" matters one way or the other.
The thing is though, the question about a "Connie-like" ship in the higher tiers of the game, really has never been "ignored" here in the forums...
To the contrary, it has almost always been immediately stomped on and shut down in a most severe and meaningful manner, every single time one has appeared...
Till now...
I can't speak to threads I didn't post or what those people were asking for. What I can speak to are these 2 points:
I am asking for an end game Excalibur with NO connie parts
No dev has ever told us CBS said they cannot make an end game Excalibur
To clarify one the first point, it's not that I am *opposed* to the idea of an end game connie, but apparently CBS is. Therefore, I have to ask for an end game Excalibur with NO connie parts to make the idea obedient to CBS ruling.
I got that, no need to repeat it for the umpteenth time.
But my point was that discussions "similar to this", have all been curtailed (usually rather swiftly), in the past.
Perhaps it's just because Trendy (usually) has a kinder disposition in Her dealings with the forums...
(never rattle the tigers cage)
But I'd like to believe that it's because the policy in question, is about to get updated from it's original derivation with the coming of Trek's 50th Anniversary.
I'm hopeful that in the next few months we will get an answer to your opening post that is more positive in nature.
STO Member since February 2009. I Was A Trekkie Before It Was Cool ... Sept. 8th, 1966 ... Not To Mention Before Most Folks Around Here Were Born! Forever a STO Veteran-Minion
Yes i am hopefull 2 that something has changed which is why they have not closed the thread. I think most ppl understand that a tos / tmp connie at t6 wont happen. They havent said bout the varienrs which would make sence at t6
The only stupid question is the one that goes unasked.
That's what people with no appreciation of context tell themselves.
Shrewder individuals know there are plenty of occasions that asking a question can be a terrible idea.
The question here is likely harmless, because it'll be ignored just like it has been for the last half-decade. But people act like its such a mystery when perfectly reasonable explanations for all observable behavior abound.
I was thinking more a 1.5x and give her a 'light cruiser' designation, which would slot intel or pilot nicely. As to the size, irrelevant, escorts pack just as much heat as those behemoths in game. Similarly I disagree about nimble or not.
Nice screen shots the Command ship looks really majestic.
Slow and Exalted? What you think she looks like a crane instead of a sparrow?
Put her next to a Voth Fortress ship and I assure you she looks plenty agile, it's a matter of scale and perspective.
Not necessarily.
If you look at the TOS movies, do you want to have that ship (or better said, a ship that looks similar) zip around like a Tie fighter? I don't know about you, but to me this would looks pretty rediculus, no matter how small it may be compared to a Jem Hadar Dreadnought or voth cityship.
You see, my point is that it is NOT a matter of perspective.
It's about the overall construction and configuration of that design itself. If you want to build a fast moving fighter like ship you wouldn't build it like the Excalibur (what you want is the opposite). Just look at those extended pylons and comparable heavy nacelles and the tiny neck that connects the Engineering hull with a (comparable) massive saucer.
A fighter like ship needs to withstand shearing forces and a lot other things, the last thing you need are small undersized joints that connect a (comparable) massive saucer or nacelles with a engineering hull. Why do you think the defiant or other Escorts have such a small profiles?
Sure there are SIF (Structural Integrety fields) and other space magic stuff that can hold a ship together, but remember all this costs energy, lots of energy the stronger the forces are that you need to withstand. And we all know in emergency situations energy always fails, lol.
If that happens the ship just breaks apart... Usually ship designers try to avoid that, by designing ships in a more efficient way, to make their energy requirements rather low.
And on the other hand it is way to small compared to other up to date Starfleet cruiser to be beliveably on par with them (as i said in my previous post). That's the dilemma i see when i think about a T6 Exeter/Vesper/Excalibur and that's why i suggested to scale it up.
By doing that, they would archieve two things at the same time. First, they could have the ship move roughly at the same speeds like the ship in the movies and second, it would look more on par with other endgame cruisers.
Please remember, we are not talking about a constitution class but about a new 25th century starfleet Cruiser that is INSPIRED by the classic constitution design.
In my opinion, the most easy and satisfying thing would be to rework and scale up the Vesper/Exeter/Excalibur ship parts and add them to the Guardian Class Cruiser. That ship desperately needs some good/different looking ship parts.
The box also advertises the "Exploration mechanic" as one of the main selling points of the game. They also got rid of that, so...
I'm still mad because of that...
"...'With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured...the first thought forbidden...the first freedom denied--chains us all irrevocably.' ... The first time any man's freedom is trodden on, we're all damaged. I fear that today--"
- (TNG) Picard, quoting Judge Aaron Satie
Usually ship designers try to avoid that, by designing ships in a more efficient way, to make their energy requirements rather low.
If we're gonna try and argue that... Im afraid Im gonna have to throw out the entire neck of these ships, and to a lesser exent those pylons... Ever had a model of the Enterprise? ToS or Movie will do... in a gravity environment they just dont support the weight of the nacelle and thats just as hollow plastic. Similarly the saucer is way too heavy for that neck... Ye kinna go around applyin reality to Trek ships!!
The question I'm asking about is not some random detail about their internal business activity, it is directly related to something they already voluntarily shared with is. They are the ones that *told* us CBS won't allow an end game connie, and they didn't just say it once, they said it multiple times, in multiple venues(forum posts, podcast interviews). And it wasn't just some random joe employee that didn't know what they were doing, it was actual executive producers. If it had been some big slip up, they would have switched to "sorry, we can't discuss that" instead of repeating that CBS won't allow it. That in itself is proof that they are not restricted from mentioning what CBS will/won't allow.
Got some links? Because my understanding is it was said exactly once, in a pod cast, arguably the most informal setting they have for talking (and for talking out of turn).
The question I'm asking about is not some random detail about their internal business activity, it is directly related to something they already voluntarily shared with is. They are the ones that *told* us CBS won't allow an end game connie, and they didn't just say it once, they said it multiple times, in multiple venues(forum posts, podcast interviews). And it wasn't just some random joe employee that didn't know what they were doing, it was actual executive producers. If it had been some big slip up, they would have switched to "sorry, we can't discuss that" instead of repeating that CBS won't allow it. That in itself is proof that they are not restricted from mentioning what CBS will/won't allow.
Got some links? Because my understanding is it was said exactly once, in a pod cast, arguably the most informal setting they have for talking (and for talking out of turn).
Are you joking? STO launched in 2010. We've known since launch that CBS wasn't allowing an end game connie. The quote from Dan in the FCT thread is from 2012, and says "CBS is still pretty adamant...", and he was referencing what we already knew. Yet you somehow think it was only said ONCE, meaning his 2012 quote would have been the very first time it was ever said. Is that actually what you are saying?
Oh, and guess what? The quote from Dan cited in the FCT was *not* from some informal podcast setting. It was actually in an official "Ask Cryptic" published on the website:
That's fine. But at this point we have established that Cryptic voluntarily told us about the CBS decision and repeated it multiple times, meaning they are not "restricted" from telling us what CBS won't allow. That being the case, your theory that they can't tell us if CBS also won't allow an end game Excalibur simply doesn't add up.
The main problem will be, though, that if anyone of the devs comes out and sais "we might do a T6 Vesper in the future", some people will suddenly talk about "promises". So they don't do that anymore.
The 'problem' you are referencing has nothing to do with this *specific* issue, and applies equally to ALL requests made on the forums. So if you are saying the devs do not reply to ANY requests because their reply could be taken as a promise, you are simply wrong. They reply to plenty of requests, as the dev tracker and various podcast interviews show.
Perhaps they are keeping silent because something like this is already in the works.
With the time travel arc, it's a cinch we'll be going back to TOS/Movie days again, as we did in the Night Of The Comet mission, and we may well see some new low tier ships, including that gosh-aweful Excelsior. Perhaps we'll even have the chance to take one forward in time with us, as we did in Ambassador.
Wishful thinking, I know, but stranger things have happened on STO.
If you look at the TOS movies, do you want to have that ship (or better said, a ship that looks similar) zip around like a Tie fighter? I don't know about you, but to me this would looks pretty rediculus, no matter how small it may be compared to a Jem Hadar Dreadnought or voth cityship.
You see, my point is that it is NOT a matter of perspective.
It's about the overall construction and configuration of that design itself. If you want to build a fast moving fighter like ship you wouldn't build it like the Excalibur (what you want is the opposite). Just look at those extended pylons and comparable heavy nacelles and the tiny neck that connects the Engineering hull with a (comparable) massive saucer.
A fighter like ship needs to withstand shearing forces and a lot other things, the last thing you need are small undersized joints that connect a (comparable) massive saucer or nacelles with a engineering hull. Why do you think the defiant or other Escorts have such a small profiles?
Sure there are SIF (Structural Integrety fields) and other space magic stuff that can hold a ship together, but remember all this costs energy, lots of energy the stronger the forces are that you need to withstand. And we all know in emergency situations energy always fails, lol.
If that happens the ship just breaks apart... Usually ship designers try to avoid that, by designing ships in a more efficient way, to make their energy requirements rather low.
I didn't say that she would be zipping around like a TIE fighter that would be ridiculous but there are other factors in how a ship moves.
For instance impulse engines and warp fields substantially alter the apparent mass that a ship has. If I was going to do a quick U-turn with a Constitution then I would bank her to the side and let the weight of the stardrive section work for me and pivot around the base of the saucer for the fulcrum. Fun Fact: The Nacelles are actually the heaviest single parts of the ship. On the Galaxy a quarter of the mass of the ship is the warp coils. And don't undersell the value of the SIF the ships wouldn't do much maneuvering at all without them. That said I don't know how magical it is, a magnetic (or otherwise) field reinforcing the stability of a vessel doesn't sound that far out of the bounds of reality.
I was thinking about how the Enterprise boosted out of Earth orbit at half light speed. Newer ships may have higher top speeds, but man she had a sweet acceleration curve.
Anyway, the Constitution and Excalibur are still smaller, lighter, and more maneuverable ships than the Command ship in that pic. I she gonna tear around a battlefield like a Defiant with Dax at the helm of course not. But the Constitution is no space whale.
And on the other hand it is way to small compared to other up to date Starfleet cruiser to be beliveably on par with them (as i said in my previous post). That's the dilemma i see when i think about a T6 Exeter/Vesper/Excalibur and that's why i suggested to scale it up.
By doing that, they would archieve two things at the same time. First, they could have the ship move roughly at the same speeds like the ship in the movies and second, it would look more on par with other endgame cruisers.
Please remember, we are not talking about a constitution class but about a new 25th century starfleet Cruiser that is INSPIRED by the classic constitution design.
In my opinion, the most easy and satisfying thing would be to rework and scale up the Vesper/Exeter/Excalibur ship parts and add them to the Guardian Class Cruiser. That ship desperately needs some good/different looking ship parts.
If you consider that the size requirement to be classified a cruiser scales up over time, then arguably the current size for the Excalibur is more of a Destroyer or Heavy Frigate than a cruiser.
The main problem will be, though, that if anyone of the devs comes out and sais "we might do a T6 Vesper in the future", some people will suddenly talk about "promises". So they don't do that anymore.
Which is a two fold issue. First of course they should say something that they have no intention of doing of course, but second, the lack of communication as silence still works against them. If they say we had to cancel this because reasons, then that's fine.
I've seen it where a Dev took on a feature as a personal project and it was going to be implemented only for that Dev to leave the company and thus the project vanishes with them. First one that pops into mind was the old species specific combadges.
In this instance simply saying it's a possibility would be nice, or just shutting it down since the energy that would be spent upscaling and reworking could likely be spent just making a new ship from scratch. That said, once their finished upgrading all the current T5 C-store ships to T6 is done, this thread may show that there's a desire for a top tier ship with a more classic styling.
"Rise like Lions after slumber, In unvanquishable number, Shake your chains to earth like dew, Which in sleep had fallen on you-Ye are many they are few"
So I played "Sunrise" again on an under played alt.... Magically a whole new way to shut up people complaining about the size of the Excalibur/Exeter at T6 appeared..... Compactified Subspace Folds... "Its bigger on the inside"
We ARE after all starting the journey that leads to Dano's shuttle craft with the firepower of a battleship. A workhorse vessel like the Excalibur is the perfect place to begin testing this stuff!
So I played "Sunrise" again on an under played alt.... Magically a whole new way to shut up people complaining about the size of the Excalibur/Exeter at T6 appeared..... Compactified Subspace Folds... "Its bigger on the inside"
We ARE after all starting the journey that leads to Dano's shuttle craft with the firepower of a battleship. A workhorse vessel like the Excalibur is the perfect place to begin testing this stuff!
That's about six hundred years too early to be testing that technology, Kal Dano is from the 31st century. Even the 29th century Wells class doesn't use it.
"Rise like Lions after slumber, In unvanquishable number, Shake your chains to earth like dew, Which in sleep had fallen on you-Ye are many they are few"
So I played "Sunrise" again on an under played alt.... Magically a whole new way to shut up people complaining about the size of the Excalibur/Exeter at T6 appeared..... Compactified Subspace Folds... "Its bigger on the inside"
We ARE after all starting the journey that leads to Dano's shuttle craft with the firepower of a battleship. A workhorse vessel like the Excalibur is the perfect place to begin testing this stuff!
That's about six hundred years too early to be testing that technology, Kal Dano is from the 31st century. Even the 29th century Wells class doesn't use it.
BAH!
1)Whats logic got to do with Cryptic's game? Or its in universe fiction/plot devices?
2)Its 600 years too early for a battleship the size of a type 8 shuttle.... not too early for much less extreme tests. Consider the Excelsior's transwarp drive. About a hundred years ahead of its time.(at least if we follow STO's use of transwarp)
Never understand what's the hype on the Excalibur. It is such a small ship based on a completely outdated design that won't even able to compete with the Galaxy (which is already way too outdated for me). But I guess someone just love the TOS so much. (To me, even TNG is too old).
Never understand what's the hype on the Excalibur. It is such a small ship based on a completely outdated design that won't even able to compete with the Galaxy (which is already way too outdated for me). But I guess someone just love the TOS so much. (To me, even TNG is too old).
not payin too much attention are you? Its newer than the Galaxy class and not much smaller than the Avenger.
from this very thread:
Never understand what's the hype on the Excalibur. It is such a small ship based on a completely outdated design that won't even able to compete with the Galaxy (which is already way too outdated for me). But I guess someone just love the TOS so much. (To me, even TNG is too old).
not payin too much attention are you? Its newer than the Galaxy class and not much smaller than the Avenger.
from this very thread:
Oh yes, my bad. I understand the Excalibur class is a new design by Crytpics which should be newer than the original Galaxy. But I mean, a ship that is based on an outdated ship (The Constitution class) just does not have much appeal to me to be an end-game ship. What role will this play? It was one of the strongest cruisers when it first came out (referring to Constitution), but now it is even smaller and looks not as powerful or durable as the avenger. So what purpose will it do? As a battlecruiser it looks too weak, as a cruiser it is way too small, as an escort it is way too slow either. Therefore, making an end-game ship that's basically a re-designed Constitution really doesn't appeal me too much.
Comments
The problem is, your post ignores basic logic. The question I'm asking about is not some random detail about their internal business activity, it is directly related to something they already voluntarily shared with is. They are the ones that *told* us CBS won't allow an end game connie, and they didn't just say it once, they said it multiple times, in multiple venues(forum posts, podcast interviews). And it wasn't just some random joe employee that didn't know what they were doing, it was actual executive producers. If it had been some big slip up, they would have switched to "sorry, we can't discuss that" instead of repeating that CBS won't allow it. That in itself is proof that they are not restricted from mentioning what CBS will/won't allow.
All of that said, if you think this is a pointless/useless question to ask, that is fine. No one is forcing you to agree with me asking it, or even to read this thread.
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
To the contrary, it has almost always been immediately stomped on and shut down in a most severe and meaningful manner, every single time one has appeared...
Till now...
I Was A Trekkie Before It Was Cool ... Sept. 8th, 1966 ... Not To Mention Before Most Folks Around Here Were Born!
Forever a STO Veteran-Minion
Well that's not a comment on the validity of the question so much as the timing and setting in asking it.
I think it's worth mentioning that the game is called Star Trek Timelines. Unlike many people here, CBS actually does care about enforcing certain aspects of canon quite a bit, including not having the Constitution outside of the 23rd century. It's the same reason that androids are such a restricted species in game, Data is still unique.
We can only hope.
Even though "timelines" obviously involves time travel, that still does not reconcile the "issue" of a ship from TOS era being able to stand up to modern TNG+ ships in that game. And if you want to say "oh well they just upgraded it with modern technology", that logic would apply equally in this game's setting(which also has it's share of time travel as well).
That said, I don't think "that game over there has it" matters one way or the other.
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
I can't speak to threads I didn't post or what those people were asking for. What I can speak to are these 2 points:
To clarify one the first point, it's not that I am *opposed* to the idea of an end game connie, but apparently CBS is. Therefore, I have to ask for an end game Excalibur with NO connie parts to make the idea obedient to CBS ruling.
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
But my point was that discussions "similar to this", have all been curtailed (usually rather swiftly), in the past.
Perhaps it's just because Trendy (usually) has a kinder disposition in Her dealings with the forums...
(never rattle the tigers cage)
But I'd like to believe that it's because the policy in question, is about to get updated from it's original derivation with the coming of Trek's 50th Anniversary.
I'm hopeful that in the next few months we will get an answer to your opening post that is more positive in nature.
I Was A Trekkie Before It Was Cool ... Sept. 8th, 1966 ... Not To Mention Before Most Folks Around Here Were Born!
Forever a STO Veteran-Minion
Terrible idea does not equal stupid question.
Same I could say about the Exeter from the C-Store. Such a great design, it hurts to not see it playable other than T2.
"Let them eat static!"
Not necessarily.
If you look at the TOS movies, do you want to have that ship (or better said, a ship that looks similar) zip around like a Tie fighter? I don't know about you, but to me this would looks pretty rediculus, no matter how small it may be compared to a Jem Hadar Dreadnought or voth cityship.
You see, my point is that it is NOT a matter of perspective.
It's about the overall construction and configuration of that design itself. If you want to build a fast moving fighter like ship you wouldn't build it like the Excalibur (what you want is the opposite). Just look at those extended pylons and comparable heavy nacelles and the tiny neck that connects the Engineering hull with a (comparable) massive saucer.
A fighter like ship needs to withstand shearing forces and a lot other things, the last thing you need are small undersized joints that connect a (comparable) massive saucer or nacelles with a engineering hull. Why do you think the defiant or other Escorts have such a small profiles?
Sure there are SIF (Structural Integrety fields) and other space magic stuff that can hold a ship together, but remember all this costs energy, lots of energy the stronger the forces are that you need to withstand. And we all know in emergency situations energy always fails, lol.
If that happens the ship just breaks apart... Usually ship designers try to avoid that, by designing ships in a more efficient way, to make their energy requirements rather low.
And on the other hand it is way to small compared to other up to date Starfleet cruiser to be beliveably on par with them (as i said in my previous post). That's the dilemma i see when i think about a T6 Exeter/Vesper/Excalibur and that's why i suggested to scale it up.
By doing that, they would archieve two things at the same time. First, they could have the ship move roughly at the same speeds like the ship in the movies and second, it would look more on par with other endgame cruisers.
Please remember, we are not talking about a constitution class but about a new 25th century starfleet Cruiser that is INSPIRED by the classic constitution design.
In my opinion, the most easy and satisfying thing would be to rework and scale up the Vesper/Exeter/Excalibur ship parts and add them to the Guardian Class Cruiser. That ship desperately needs some good/different looking ship parts.
I'm still mad because of that...
Got some links? Because my understanding is it was said exactly once, in a pod cast, arguably the most informal setting they have for talking (and for talking out of turn).
Are you joking? STO launched in 2010. We've known since launch that CBS wasn't allowing an end game connie. The quote from Dan in the FCT thread is from 2012, and says "CBS is still pretty adamant...", and he was referencing what we already knew. Yet you somehow think it was only said ONCE, meaning his 2012 quote would have been the very first time it was ever said. Is that actually what you are saying?
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
http://www.arcgames.com/en/games/star-trek-online/news/detail/1020330-ask-cryptic_-november-2012
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
Thank you for the links. More to follow.
That's fine. But at this point we have established that Cryptic voluntarily told us about the CBS decision and repeated it multiple times, meaning they are not "restricted" from telling us what CBS won't allow. That being the case, your theory that they can't tell us if CBS also won't allow an end game Excalibur simply doesn't add up.
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
The 'problem' you are referencing has nothing to do with this *specific* issue, and applies equally to ALL requests made on the forums. So if you are saying the devs do not reply to ANY requests because their reply could be taken as a promise, you are simply wrong. They reply to plenty of requests, as the dev tracker and various podcast interviews show.
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
With the time travel arc, it's a cinch we'll be going back to TOS/Movie days again, as we did in the Night Of The Comet mission, and we may well see some new low tier ships, including that gosh-aweful Excelsior. Perhaps we'll even have the chance to take one forward in time with us, as we did in Ambassador.
Wishful thinking, I know, but stranger things have happened on STO.
I didn't say that she would be zipping around like a TIE fighter that would be ridiculous but there are other factors in how a ship moves.
For instance impulse engines and warp fields substantially alter the apparent mass that a ship has. If I was going to do a quick U-turn with a Constitution then I would bank her to the side and let the weight of the stardrive section work for me and pivot around the base of the saucer for the fulcrum. Fun Fact: The Nacelles are actually the heaviest single parts of the ship. On the Galaxy a quarter of the mass of the ship is the warp coils. And don't undersell the value of the SIF the ships wouldn't do much maneuvering at all without them. That said I don't know how magical it is, a magnetic (or otherwise) field reinforcing the stability of a vessel doesn't sound that far out of the bounds of reality.
I was thinking about how the Enterprise boosted out of Earth orbit at half light speed. Newer ships may have higher top speeds, but man she had a sweet acceleration curve.
Anyway, the Constitution and Excalibur are still smaller, lighter, and more maneuverable ships than the Command ship in that pic. I she gonna tear around a battlefield like a Defiant with Dax at the helm of course not. But the Constitution is no space whale.
If you consider that the size requirement to be classified a cruiser scales up over time, then arguably the current size for the Excalibur is more of a Destroyer or Heavy Frigate than a cruiser.
Aren't we all.
Which is a two fold issue. First of course they should say something that they have no intention of doing of course, but second, the lack of communication as silence still works against them. If they say we had to cancel this because reasons, then that's fine.
I've seen it where a Dev took on a feature as a personal project and it was going to be implemented only for that Dev to leave the company and thus the project vanishes with them. First one that pops into mind was the old species specific combadges.
In this instance simply saying it's a possibility would be nice, or just shutting it down since the energy that would be spent upscaling and reworking could likely be spent just making a new ship from scratch. That said, once their finished upgrading all the current T5 C-store ships to T6 is done, this thread may show that there's a desire for a top tier ship with a more classic styling.
We ARE after all starting the journey that leads to Dano's shuttle craft with the firepower of a battleship. A workhorse vessel like the Excalibur is the perfect place to begin testing this stuff!
That's about six hundred years too early to be testing that technology, Kal Dano is from the 31st century. Even the 29th century Wells class doesn't use it.
BAH!
1)Whats logic got to do with Cryptic's game? Or its in universe fiction/plot devices?
2)Its 600 years too early for a battleship the size of a type 8 shuttle.... not too early for much less extreme tests. Consider the Excelsior's transwarp drive. About a hundred years ahead of its time.(at least if we follow STO's use of transwarp)
not payin too much attention are you? Its newer than the Galaxy class and not much smaller than the Avenger.
from this very thread: