test content
Logo
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc
New Connie coming to your Infinity Lockbox
doctorstegi
Member Posts: 1,183 Arc User
C-Store Inc. is still looking for active members on the fed side. If you don't have a fleet feel free to contact me in game @stegi.
Post edited by baddmoonrizin on
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Wouldn't mind that Connie either. But I need to restock my lobi.
And CBS didn't want an Endgame Constitution, hah!!
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.'
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
It was kinda large in the show as well tho. The TOS-phasers were a lot sleeker.
And before anyone says anything... we DID see a DSC Rifle firing a beam to try and cut through a door, so beam settings do exist. Those particular models just happened to mostly use bolt settings in combat.
I don't think it's misrepresentation at all. For many years, CBS wouldn't allow it. Then, we had a complete reversal (which is great IMO, because I wanted one). But it's no misrepresentation to say they completely flipped their decision and abandoned whatever logic was behind their original position.
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
Edit: I just had an interesting thought about the Mirror Connie...
Will her parts be compatable with existing DSC Connies? We know that the later Mirror Crossfield's parts were made compatable with the existing Crossfield. So... maybe? *shrug*
Yeah, that's just not correct. It wasn't about CBS not wanting an iconic ship to be readily available; there are plenty of those in game and there always have been. According to the devs, CBS didn't want an end game connie because of STO's time period. They cited the example of a ship as old as the connie shouldn't be able to destroy a Borg cube.
So yes, they did completely flip that script. And like I said, that's ok because I was happy to finally get one
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
Especially since the legendary bundle, that old CBS-said-no-stuff is really just meaningless duck-talk now anyways.
Even when misrepresented, the fact that there are now multiple options of getting a T6-Constitution doesn't change.
Sorry, but you're still wrong.
Just to be clear though, the thing your wrong about is their original reason for not allowing an end game connie.
You aren't wrong about the connie being the most iconic ship in Trek; that's definitely true. But that in itself was not the original reason CBS said 'no end game connie'. Again, it was about STO's time period. I specifically remember the statement about them not wanting to see a connie being able to destroy a Borg cube.
So no, their original reason for not allowing an end game connie was not the ship's iconic status, it was about a certain in game story logic that was since abandoned.
Now, regarding the rarity issue: once they did finally give permission for add the connie, they ALSO wanted it to be rare. But lockboxes(the mechanism for keeping certain ships rare) have been in the game since 2012. CBS finally allowed the connie in 2016. So Cryptic didn't suddenly figure out how to keep the ship rare in 2016; they knew how to do that since 2012.
So you are in fact wrong about CBS's original reason for not allowing an end game connie that you claim people are misconstruing(they aren't, but you are).
You are not wrong that the ship is iconic, and that once they finally did give permission they also wanted it to be rare.
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
Availability has nothing to do with CBS not wanting to see a connie be able to destroy a Borg cube. That was based on them caring about in game logic, which they no longer do.
But yes, once they finally did abandon that in game logic they wanted to release the connie in the way that would make the most money (lockboxes and promo packs). That is a simple (and understandable) business decision.
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
It depends on whether anyone is going to continue disputing the point about what CBS original reason was. That's not up to me at all.
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
> (Quote)
> I always love how people misrepresent this.
CBS didn't want A Endgame Constitution, but they have no problem with a plethora of Endgame Constitutions.
And I know what you were trying to imply, that they didn't want them to be ubiquitous.
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.'
Yeah, and I should correct something I said earlier. CBS doesn't actually care if the connies are "rare", they just want them to be expensive. If rarity was actually a concern, then only a set number of them would be allowed to enter the game in any given amount of time.
For example, to control rarity only X number of legendary bundles would be allowed to be sold at a time, and once that number was gone then no more could be sold until the next approved time period. But they don't limit the number, because rarity isn't actually the concern. The concern is simply selling them in the way that will make the most money, and that way is lockboxes/promopacks and the legendary bundle. As sometalker mentioned earlier (and nobody disputes) the connie is the iconic ship of Trek, so they know the demand is extremely high and they can charge more for it than other ships.
And yes, that is understandable from a marketing perspective.
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
My guess is they will do like in the past and put it in the console pack and trait pack so KDF can get them and most likely cheaper than Feds.
They haven't done that in a year and a half since the S31 Intel Science Destroyer
Well the last few ships added to it where cross faction so there was no point.
They had no reason to "lie" about CBS not allowing the end game connie back in the day. I mean, actually think about it:
An end game connie was the #1 most requested ship since launch.
There was clearly a huge demand for it, and it would have made a ton of money.
So if Cryptic were lying about CBS not allowing it, that would mean...what? That they just didn't WANT all that money?
No, that clearly makes no sense. They definitely WANTED that money. They simply didn't have permission until 2016.
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008