test content
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc

Why there are no TOS T6 ships ingame

12346»

Comments

  • lianthelialianthelia Member Posts: 7,891 Arc User
    kirk2390 wrote: »
    Ok for all the NAY Sayers out there, cars can rebuild right. Once I had a Golf GTI mark 1 in the shop for repairs he smiled and told me to look under the hood, witch I did.
    There was a brand new GTI type 5 motor under his hood they made some mods to the car to withstand the stress on the frame. Bud it did work out and the car performed very well I have to say. so why couldn't they do this with space ships.
    To be exact the took Enterprise in for some upgrades, DS9 the space station did upgrades even it was cardessian's they did it. Defiant went to dock for a rebuild. Voyager is more then once upgraded. So why would the Devs make new ships if they could upgrade the older ones to modern time. So before you start flaming on this post about old cars, learn history, learn trek then you would known not to comment or flaming on this post. And besides all of this respect other gamer's and let them have their fun and when there is enough support for a ship it's up to Cryptic to decide if ships will be made in T6 models.
    And that folks was this post about getting support for more T6 versions of TOS ships.

    A car is a completely different thing than a Starship?

    If those hulls still worked they'd be using them...take a look at the Miranda and Excelsior...those were well built ships that stood the test of time...the Connie on the other hand wasn't even old enough to be a middle aged human being (by 20th century standards even) before it was completely redone...and the Miranda ended up replacing it as the workhorse because it was more efficient to build.

    Starfleet isn't one for nostalgia...they build bigger and better ships...going back and retrofitting old tin cans isn't something they do...Klingons are the race that when they find something they like and works they stick to it...not Starfleet.



    Can't have a honest conversation because of a white knight with power
  • lianthelialianthelia Member Posts: 7,891 Arc User
    kirk2390 wrote: »
    Ok for all the NAY Sayers out there, cars can rebuild right. Once I had a Golf GTI mark 1 in the shop for repairs he smiled and told me to look under the hood, witch I did.
    There was a brand new GTI type 5 motor under his hood they made some mods to the car to withstand the stress on the frame. Bud it did work out and the car performed very well I have to say. so why couldn't they do this with space ships.
    To be exact the took Enterprise in for some upgrades, DS9 the space station did upgrades even it was cardessian's they did it. Defiant went to dock for a rebuild. Voyager is more then once upgraded. So why would the Devs make new ships if they could upgrade the older ones to modern time. So before you start flaming on this post about old cars, learn history, learn trek then you would known not to comment or flaming on this post. And besides all of this respect other gamer's and let them have their fun and when there is enough support for a ship it's up to Cryptic to decide if ships will be made in T6 models.
    And that folks was this post about getting support for more T6 versions of TOS ships.



    Plus the Lakota was an old ship that was, essentially, customized, right? And that thing gave the Defiant a run for the latinum, if I remember.

    And I'd love to see that car you mentioned......

    Yeah...and compare the ships...a full sized old Cruiser that probably took more resources than it was worth to convert was nearly matched to a Destroyer...why take the time to rebuild a ship from the inside out when you can just build a new one?

    Then lets look at Voyager...the Prometheus...a smaller vessel but larger than the Defiant...able to take out three larger ships solo...able to dominate D'deridex's. Why take the time to Refit a old ship when you can build a new ship with better things? (Like MVAM...you couldn't do that with a Excelsior)

    It's how you build things...it's more than age...it's what things are designed for...

    lets take the Sovereign for example, After refit:
    16 phaser arrays
    1 forward quantum torpedo launcher
    3 forward photon torpedo launchers
    6 aft photon torpedo launchers

    and the Connie refit,
    18 phaser emitters, 2 photon torpedo launchers

    (Going off of Memory Alpha)

    Now think...converting those emitters into arrays is going to take up a lot of space and time...then adding all of those extra launchers is going to take up a whole hell of a lot of extra space and time...why bother doing that when you can just build a new Sovereign which is designed for those armaments?

    Now why go through and rebuild a less efficient hull...when you can design something newer and better?

    This is logic...but unfortunately logic doesn't exist in this game...but some people act like other people don't have valid points because logic doesn't exist.


    Can't have a honest conversation because of a white knight with power
  • ltminnsltminns Member Posts: 12,572 Arc User
    They could only refit the Missouri class Battleships to bring them into the 'modern' world so much before needing to give up and retire them. It becomes problematic to do upgrades if the infrastructure is just not up to current needs.
    'But to be logical is not to be right', and 'nothing' on God's earth could ever 'make it' right!'
    Judge Dan Haywood
    'As l speak now, the words are forming in my head.
    l don't know.
    l really don't know what l'm about to say, except l have a feeling about it.
    That l must repeat the words that come without my knowledge.'
    Lt. Philip J. Minns
  • drakethewhitedrakethewhite Member Posts: 1,240 Arc User
    ltminns wrote: »
    They could only refit the Missouri class Battleships to bring them into the 'modern' world so much before needing to give up and retire them. It becomes problematic to do upgrades if the infrastructure is just not up to current needs.

    Budget cuts were the only reason the Battleships were retired- not effectiveness or inability to upgrade- they had at least another couple of decades of service left. Those cuts affected far more than them with the number of ships in service cut in half after the fall of the Soviet Union.

    Currently the US Navy is at its at the lowest level since pre-WWI and is unable to maintain deployment of even a single carrier group in all the world hot spots of interest. The result is extended deployments, crew burnout and increasingly unreliable equipment.

    Warships have actually sailed into those hot spots without functioning defense systems because they didn't have the money needed to get them working. Speaking as a father who saw his son sailing on one of those into the Persian Gulf, I'd think it would be interesting if STO made something like this occur as a result of Star Fleet cuts after the Iconian War. We could have random disabling of gear on people's ships along with disabling Fleet Support even as we face a new potential war in our post-Iconian arc missions. But I think we all know that cryptic only attempts ham-handed examples of a narrow set of political concerns and this would never be one of them.
  • ltminnsltminns Member Posts: 12,572 Arc User
    Sure budget cuts, but the 'infrastructure' for a ship like that, 2000 crew, in an all volunteer Navy becomes problematic. In this game we have the opposite going on, the ships are getting bigger with more crew in some cases than previous generations.
    'But to be logical is not to be right', and 'nothing' on God's earth could ever 'make it' right!'
    Judge Dan Haywood
    'As l speak now, the words are forming in my head.
    l don't know.
    l really don't know what l'm about to say, except l have a feeling about it.
    That l must repeat the words that come without my knowledge.'
    Lt. Philip J. Minns
  • lowy1lowy1 Member Posts: 964 Arc User
    Why not upgrade it., the B52 has been flying for 60 years and will fly for another 10-20. Is it our top bomber, no but it sure as hell Is still effective. Just because a ship is old doesn't mean it is obsolete. Think of it as gutting an old house and rebuilding it. And bigger doesn't always mean better.
    HzLLhLB.gif

  • drakethewhitedrakethewhite Member Posts: 1,240 Arc User
    ltminns wrote: »
    Sure budget cuts, but the 'infrastructure' for a ship like that, 2000 crew, in an all volunteer Navy becomes problematic. In this game we have the opposite going on, the ships are getting bigger with more crew in some cases than previous generations.

    Yes, budget cuts- Not "needing to give up and retire them". They didn't need to give up, they were still useful and indeed still needed. It is much more tactically wise to send a Battleship into the little pond called the Persia Gulf instead of a glass jaw Carrier (who primary defense is disappearing in large oceans) or little aluminum hull destroyers that could be seriously damage by little zodiac boat bomb. But we don't have Battleships- because budget.

    As for enough volunteers for the Navy? It's not getting volunteers that's the problem, it's keeping them. Consider the following:

    -the impact of knowing that the people sending you into hot waters don't even care enough to arm you.

    -the impact of extended tours because there's no ship to relieve yours and 6 months away becomes 9. Consider the impact of this on the sailor's wife and children back home.

    -not being supplied the parts to do your job, so you have take some gear offline to keep anything running.

    -knowing that you ship is pressed into situations it's not really suited for- because the Navy no longer has ships for that job.

    -knowing that ship count is likely as not to keep declining, meaning less chance of advancement.


    As far as I'm concerned, it's amazing that we have any volunteers willing to do this. For officers, about a third of the males stay past their first enlistment, only one in five women. Meaning that Navy has to retrain every replacement. Only the enlisted side, nearly half quit after each tour (more want to quit, but can't due to their enlistment commitment). Consider the often quoted 10-year rule to become an expert, and what retention rates like this means in respect to that.

    The fact that Budget cuts means no Battleships extends far beyond not having Battleships. It degrades *everything*.
  • drakethewhitedrakethewhite Member Posts: 1,240 Arc User
    lowy1 wrote: »
    Why not upgrade it., the B52 has been flying for 60 years and will fly for another 10-20. Is it our top bomber, no but it sure as hell Is still effective. Just because a ship is old doesn't mean it is obsolete. Think of it as gutting an old house and rebuilding it. And bigger doesn't always mean better.

    It's currently expected to be flying until 2040.

    I don't think people are aware of how old most of our military gear actually is. The B-52 design is now 65 years old. Our Assault rifle design, 53 years, our main battle tank design- 37 years. The F-15 Fighter, 41 years. Our Nimitz class Aircraft Carrier- 42 years. M109 Artillery- 54 years.

    All have been upgraded over the years. Some have been in production since their introduction.

    Attempts to replace them have had mixed results, either failure (the M16), an expense level that exceeded US willingness to pay for (F-15, B-52), or even a complete lack of a serious replacement attempt (M1 Tank). So they remain in service. Each are complete and interesting story in themselves.
  • markhawkmanmarkhawkman Member Posts: 35,236 Arc User
    ltminns wrote: »
    They could only refit the Missouri class Battleships to bring them into the 'modern' world so much before needing to give up and retire them. It becomes problematic to do upgrades if the infrastructure is just not up to current needs.
    for an example: you might need to install fiber optic cabling as part of the ship controls. It's tempting to think "oh just run the cable"... But a ship like that has airtight bulkheads, so you need to drill holes in walls, then reseal the holes after running the cable. That's going to take a long time on a battleship.
    -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
    My character Tsin'xing
    Costume_marhawkman_Tsin%27xing_CC_Comic_Page_Blue_488916968.jpg
  • drakethewhitedrakethewhite Member Posts: 1,240 Arc User
    edited May 2017
    ltminns wrote: »
    They could only refit the Missouri class Battleships to bring them into the 'modern' world so much before needing to give up and retire them. It becomes problematic to do upgrades if the infrastructure is just not up to current needs.
    for an example: you might need to install fiber optic cabling as part of the ship controls. It's tempting to think "oh just run the cable"... But a ship like that has airtight bulkheads, so you need to drill holes in walls, then reseal the holes after running the cable. That's going to take a long time on a battleship.

    You seriously think that they don't already have much more bulky copper wire running to sections that would need fiber? Have you even been aboard one as I have? You really should take the time to learn about things before stating an opinion.

    These ships were amazingly easy to refit because they were so oversized for modern tech, the only serious problem was dealing with the main gun recoil with some systems (like the tomahawk launchers- they replaced a couple of 5" gun mounts in order to have the room to harden them enough to withstand the blast from the 16" guns).
  • ltminnsltminns Member Posts: 12,572 Arc User
    OK, so you are passionate about the Missouri Class Battleships, we get that. No need to be rude about it especially, since it all pretty much off-topic anyway. :)
    'But to be logical is not to be right', and 'nothing' on God's earth could ever 'make it' right!'
    Judge Dan Haywood
    'As l speak now, the words are forming in my head.
    l don't know.
    l really don't know what l'm about to say, except l have a feeling about it.
    That l must repeat the words that come without my knowledge.'
    Lt. Philip J. Minns
  • drakethewhitedrakethewhite Member Posts: 1,240 Arc User
    ltminns wrote: »
    OK, so you are passionate about the Missouri Class Battleships, we get that. No need to be rude about it especially, since it all pretty much off-topic anyway. :)

    Sorry about coming across as rude, I was just stunned by the statement I was replying to.

    It's sort of on topic, as the topic is the ability to upgrade ships. And this is about the modern experience and how it could be extended in sci-fi.

    The Star Trek experience seems to be that you get a completely new ship for every show, or every 3rd or 4th movie. Ships are cheaper than modern automobiles it seems as I've own ones for longer than a Star Trek starship lasts. My current one for example is 8-years old- and I'm sure people here would claim that it's not even drivable anymore :)
  • lowy1lowy1 Member Posts: 964 Arc User
    Not to nit pick but it's the Iowa Class, of which the Missouri, Wisconsin, and New Jersey are the other 3 ships.
    HzLLhLB.gif

  • This content has been removed.
  • ltminnsltminns Member Posts: 12,572 Arc User
    You are certainly correct about the Iowa class, my apologies.

    Conduit may need to be brought between bulkheads.
    'But to be logical is not to be right', and 'nothing' on God's earth could ever 'make it' right!'
    Judge Dan Haywood
    'As l speak now, the words are forming in my head.
    l don't know.
    l really don't know what l'm about to say, except l have a feeling about it.
    That l must repeat the words that come without my knowledge.'
    Lt. Philip J. Minns
  • grazyc2#7847 grazyc2 Member Posts: 1,988 Arc User
    You have that film no one is able to defeat the alien, last resort to get the ship that was laying down as a museum. they get out the junk they make the ship ready for sale then put a course for the alien. and with bombs and an anchor trick they defeat the alien. Why because the U.S.S. whatever is before the time of using any electronics in WW2 this way they avoid the Alien's EMP blasts and defeat the TRIBBLE. So yeah new ain't always good sometime Old will do. I know it is SCI FI but there is a kind of truth to it also. So the statement new is better for me it goes down the drain !!
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

    "Coffee: the finest organic suspension ever devised. It's got me through the worst of the last three years. I beat the Borg with it."
  • This content has been removed.
  • This content has been removed.
  • ltminnsltminns Member Posts: 12,572 Arc User
    That would be 'Battleship'. Similar concept to how the Battlestar Galactica avoided being destroyed by the Cylons in the 2004 reincarnation of that show.
    'But to be logical is not to be right', and 'nothing' on God's earth could ever 'make it' right!'
    Judge Dan Haywood
    'As l speak now, the words are forming in my head.
    l don't know.
    l really don't know what l'm about to say, except l have a feeling about it.
    That l must repeat the words that come without my knowledge.'
    Lt. Philip J. Minns
  • kittnasty2#7704 kittnasty2 Member Posts: 6 Arc User
    Hi All,
    This is an interesting topic so topic so far. I'd just like to add, it's kinda funny that we get a T-6 NX class ship but no T-6 constitution class available in the C-Store. To me it seems like all powers that be seem to be trying to ignore the show that started it all. Yeah I know we got AOY, but we got Temprol dreadnaught, not a T-6 Connie. If they really wanted to pay homage to TOS we would have a T-6 connie not an NX.
  • ltminnsltminns Member Posts: 12,572 Arc User
    edited May 2017
    There is a T6 Constitution, available originally from R&D Promotion Packs, and later from Infinity R&D Promotion Packs. The Promotion Packs can be found on the Exchange. The ship itself is so expensive above the Exchange Limit that it is only available through private transactions announced through Trading Channels.

    The T6 NX is not a C-Store item but a Lobi Store item. They are available on the Exchange for a bit less than 300 Million EC.
    'But to be logical is not to be right', and 'nothing' on God's earth could ever 'make it' right!'
    Judge Dan Haywood
    'As l speak now, the words are forming in my head.
    l don't know.
    l really don't know what l'm about to say, except l have a feeling about it.
    That l must repeat the words that come without my knowledge.'
    Lt. Philip J. Minns
  • markhawkmanmarkhawkman Member Posts: 35,236 Arc User
    kirk2390 wrote: »
    You have that film no one is able to defeat the alien, last resort to get the ship that was laying down as a museum. they get out the junk they make the ship ready for sale then put a course for the alien. and with bombs and an anchor trick they defeat the alien. Why because the U.S.S. whatever is before the time of using any electronics in WW2 this way they avoid the Alien's EMP blasts and defeat the ****. So yeah new ain't always good sometime Old will do. I know it is SCI FI but there is a kind of truth to it also. So the statement new is better for me it goes down the drain !!
    EMPs are overrated. We already know how to shield things from them, and EMPs powerful enough to hit shielded electronics are powerful enough to directly damage non-electronics.

    Yeah.... EMPs are a broad spectrum burst of radiowaves and microwaves. Yeah... as in microwave oven... do I need to spell out what happens if you turn up the juice high enough?
    ltminns wrote: »
    You are certainly correct about the Iowa class, my apologies.

    Conduit may need to be brought between bulkheads.
    Yeah, this was my basic point. Adding new stuff might require you to do more than just swapping parts out. such as my poorly constructed example of needing to run cables through bulkheads that didn't have cables run through them. Drake actually gave a better example:
    These ships were amazingly easy to refit because they were so oversized for modern tech, the only serious problem was dealing with the main gun recoil with some systems (like the tomahawk launchers- they replaced a couple of 5" gun mounts in order to have the room to harden them enough to withstand the blast from the 16" guns).
    -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
    My character Tsin'xing
    Costume_marhawkman_Tsin%27xing_CC_Comic_Page_Blue_488916968.jpg
  • kittnasty2#7704 kittnasty2 Member Posts: 6 Arc User
    > @ltminns said:
    > @ltminns said:
    > There is a T6 Constitution, available originally from R&D Promotion Packs, and later from Infinity R&D Promotion Packs. The Promotion Packs can be found on the Exchange. The ship itself is so expensive above the Exchange Limit that it is only available through private transactions announced through Trading Channels.
    >
    > The T6 NX is not a C-Store item but a Lobi Store item. They are available on the
    > @ltminns said:
    > There is a T6 Constitution, available originally from R&D Promotion Packs, and later from Infinity R&D Promotion Packs. The Promotion Packs can be found on the Exchange. The ship itself is so expensive above the Exchange Limit that it is only available through private transactions announced through Trading Channels.
    >
    > The T6 NX is not a C-Store item but a Lobi Store item. They are available on the Exchange for a bit less than 300 Million EC.

    The point is, that the TOS T-6 ship is harder to come than a NYC pistol carry permit. For TOS Connie, that ship should be readily available as a T-6 in C-store. As T-6 ship ship you should be to put more weapons on it. I just find it strange that it seems to be easier to get a NX refit than to get the ship that started it.
  • ltminnsltminns Member Posts: 12,572 Arc User
    More people want the T6 Constitution in comparison to the NX. The manner that Cryptic/PWE choose to release it was to maximize the 'income' and ensure its rarity. Many did not and still do not like the manner they went with and there was much churn in the Forums at the time (and still).

    The Ferengi professional Trade Channel sellers rejoiced in the manner of release.
    'But to be logical is not to be right', and 'nothing' on God's earth could ever 'make it' right!'
    Judge Dan Haywood
    'As l speak now, the words are forming in my head.
    l don't know.
    l really don't know what l'm about to say, except l have a feeling about it.
    That l must repeat the words that come without my knowledge.'
    Lt. Philip J. Minns
  • smokebaileysmokebailey Member Posts: 4,668 Arc User
    ltminns wrote: »
    More people want the T6 Constitution in comparison to the NX. The manner that Cryptic/PWE choose to release it was to maximize the 'income' and ensure its rarity. Many did not and still do not like the manner they went with and there was much churn in the Forums at the time (and still).

    The Ferengi professional Trade Channel sellers rejoiced in the manner of release.

    The needs of the few, it seems, were met. >_>
    dvZq2Aj.jpg
  • lordmalak1lordmalak1 Member Posts: 4,681 Arc User
    coldnapalm wrote: »
    lordmalak1 wrote: »
    brian334 wrote: »
    You can, today, buy any number of replica Model T vehicles, either as a DIY kit or as a complete operational vehicle. Replica starships may be a stretch, but with everyone saying energy is free, man hours don't matter, and entropy doesn't exist, (outside of specific episodes in which it plays some part,) I say why not?

    Then there is the "genuine original article" club which insists their hull is still operational after hundreds of years. Sure, a late production hull of a class superceeded by a newer class might have been mothballed, or a time traveller may have stolen one from earlier in the timeline, or an ancient hull may have been renovated to stock condition, or whatever. Again I say why not?

    The fact that I headcanon my game one way and you headcanon it your way does not detract from my enjoyment of the game.

    I am not sorry that some players want options the game does not offer. I personally want my low tier ships to have a use outside of Admiralty or PvP with pre-arranged conditions, but there you go. I am sorry that some players don't choose to adapt what exists in game then headcanon the rest.

    It is, after all, a choice. You can be happy or you can be unhappy. After you make that choice, the details really don't matter.

    Off Topic Rant:

    If there were level 60 content designed for Tier 2 ships, the old Connie would be as valuable today as it was when it was the only TOS ship which players could get. We need content which will make low tier ships a good option, not T6 everythings.

    No model T replica is approved for use on the highway. In fact, nobody in their right mind would drive a model T at modern highway speeds.

    I would. Driving a model T at 100 MPH sounds like great fun. We'd need to make some modifications of course. I have driven a model T replica to 50 MPH before the owner's nerve gave out and I had to slow down. Than again, I have been in a Ford Pinto that was going 180 MPH. Great fun, great fun.

    ROFL, a Pinto going 180 mph ? Was that horizontal or did you throw it off a cliff ?
    KBF Lord MalaK
    Awoken Dead
    giphy.gif

    Now shaddup about the queues, it's a BUG
  • This content has been removed.
  • graffsandara#2895 graffsandara Member Posts: 95 Arc User
    This.
    azrael605 wrote: »
    I had a friend who made a 1980s Chevette go airborne, not sure how fast we were going, was too busy screaming and holding the oh **** handle.

    "Ex Astres Per Aspera"
    "To the Stars, despite adversity"
  • This content has been removed.
  • baddmoonrizinbaddmoonrizin Member Posts: 10,914 Community Moderator
    Alright, since there obviously are T6 TOS ships in-game, and we've ventured completely away from the topic, I'm just going to close this.
    GrWzQke.png
    Star Trek Online Volunteer Community Moderator and Resident She-Wolf
    Community Moderators are Unpaid Volunteers and NOT Employees of Gearbox/Cryptic
    Views and Opinions May Not Reflect the Views and Opinions of Gearbox/Cryptic
    ----> Contact Customer Support <----
    Moderation Problems/Issues? Please contact the Community Manager
    Terms of Service / Community Rules and Policies / FCT
    Want the latest information on Star Trek Online?
    Facebook / Twitter / Twitch
This discussion has been closed.