Lieutenant
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 74
Lets go ahead and get something out of the way: we all know CBS said "no T5 connie". Whether you agree with that decision or not, Cryptic still has to do what CBS says. So that is really all there is to that subject.

However, for some reason Cryptic has refused to make a T5(fleet) Excalibur class. For any who may not be familiar, this is the Excalibur class:

http://files.startrekonline.com/wall...-1280x1024.jpg

Cryptic's own CBS approved game lore states that this is a modern 25th century ship. It is not a refit of the old Connie class, it is a completely new ship and ship class. And since Cryptic can actually make their game do what they tell it to do, they could make a fleet version of the Excalibur that does not include a Connie skin option. So the question is, why do they refuse to do this?

Some people have said "it will just upset the people who want a T5 connie". But that logic is the same as saying "if one group cant have what they want, then no one else should have what they want either". If a group of friends go to a restaurant and the thing that 1 person wanted is not available, that does not mean that no one else in the group should be able to get what they want if the restaurant is able to make it.

Cryptic can make a T5/fleet Excalibur class. No dev has ever stated that CBS will not allow this. Cryptic's own game lore states this is a modern ship, like many of the other low level ships that have T5/fleet versions. So why do they refuse to make this ship?
Career Officer
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 2,483
# 2
12-11-2013, 08:38 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by jjprize View Post
So why do they refuse to make this ship?
Because it's pointless?

What role would it fill that isn't already filled by either the Ambassador/Fleet Ambassador (Sci-oriented Cruiser), Avenger/Fleet Avenger (Tac-Oriented Cruiser) or Odyssey (Eng, Sci or Tac oriented Cruiser)?

Adding a T5 Excalibur would simply mean another cruiser. And at this point, not only do we have enough Fed cruisers, I think we have enough cruisers full stop.

How about this - Klingon's have a range of Birds-Of-Prey, Raptors and Science Vessels as you rank up, including C-Store ships and Refit Ships. None of these ships have T5 fleet or retrofit versions.

I refer of course to the Ki'Tang/Ch'Tang Bird Of Prey, the Qorgh/SuQob Raptor, the Pach/Puyjaq Raptor, the Phalanx and Draguas science vessels and the Dacoit Flight-Deck cruiser.

That's a mass of ships that don't have T5 versions that are no less deserving than a T5 Excalibur. More so, in fact, given that not only does the Federation have a pretty wide choice of ships already, but some of the above mentioned ships have/are C-Store purchases that can't be used again due to the lack of a T5 variant.
Iconian? A label created by the Dewans to give voice to their destruction.
In the end, what they chose to call us is irrelevant.
We simply... are.


Last edited by johngazman; 12-11-2013 at 08:41 AM.
Lieutenant
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 74
# 3
12-11-2013, 08:41 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by johngazman View Post
Because it's pointless?
To put it pretty simply, the "point" of having ANY fleet ships is to make Cryptic money. That is why they require fleet modules from the C-store. Even if it may fill a similar tactical role as other ships, if it is something people want to buy then that means money for Cryptic.
Captain
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,933
# 4
12-11-2013, 08:43 AM
How bout many people LIKED having an Exeter or Excalibur. Maybe some of us WANT to fly on at end game.
Marrek Steele: RAdm CO 99th Pursuit Squadron Flagship USS Nike(Avenger)
Lunimara Hawk: LT Gen IKS Eclipse(Dyson Destroyer)
Altair: Rear Admiral: RRW Anduril( Ak'rif Carrier)
Republic Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 2,906
# 5
12-11-2013, 08:43 AM
I was gonna post a thought out reply but with the name jjprise there is no point because you're obviously just another one of those connie fanatics who wont listen to reason no matter how logical and true a statement is.
Lieutenant
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 74
# 6
12-11-2013, 08:44 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by lianthelia View Post
I was gonna post a thought out reply but with the name jjprise there is no point because you're obviously just another one of those connie fanatics who wont listen to reason no matter how logical and true a statement is.
That is the flaw in judging a book by its cover, as it were. I actually dont want a T5 connie. Just to be clear, I'm not opposed to it, I just dont personally want it.
Captain
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,933
# 7
12-11-2013, 08:44 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by lianthelia View Post
I was gonna post a thought out reply but with the name jjprise there is no point because you're obviously just another one of those connie fanatics who wont listen to reason no matter how logical and true a statement is.
Don't want a connie, want an EXETER. Ya know the tier 2 750 Zen ship. Yeah I'd like one at tier 5 please. I mean U.S.S. Kirk is an Exeter class. Class was launched in 2391.

So again, what's the reason I can't have an Exeter?
Marrek Steele: RAdm CO 99th Pursuit Squadron Flagship USS Nike(Avenger)
Lunimara Hawk: LT Gen IKS Eclipse(Dyson Destroyer)
Altair: Rear Admiral: RRW Anduril( Ak'rif Carrier)
Career Officer
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 2,483
# 8
12-11-2013, 08:45 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by jjprize View Post
To put it pretty simply, the "point" of having ANY fleet ships is to make Cryptic money. That is why they require fleet modules from the C-store. Even if it may fill a similar tactical role as other ships, if it is something people want to buy then that means money for Cryptic.
In which case spending the time developing six or seven T5 KDF ships based on existing sub-T5 versions probably presents a better case for profit than one ship that isn't neccessarily going to be any better than the mass of exisitng cruisers.

Bearing in mind that as I said above, the T1 Excalibur is one of maybe three Fed ships that don't have a T5 variant - along with the Oberth and the NX-01 (which I imagine is another ship that CBS vetoed).
Iconian? A label created by the Dewans to give voice to their destruction.
In the end, what they chose to call us is irrelevant.
We simply... are.

Captain
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 11,022
# 9
12-11-2013, 08:46 AM
More ships that aren't stupidly huge at T5 please.
http://i1151.photobucket.com/albums/o633/centersolace/189cux9khvl6ojpg_zpsca7ccff0.jpg

So inhumane superweapons, mass murder, and canon nonsense is okay, but speedos are too much for some people.
Captain
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,933
# 10
12-11-2013, 08:48 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by johngazman View Post
In which case spending the time developing six or seven T5 KDF ships based on existing sub-T5 versions probably presents a better case for profit than one ship that isn't neccessarily going to be any better than the mass of exisitng cruisers.

Bearing in mind that as I said above, the T1 Excalibur is one of maybe three Fed ships that don't have a T5 variant - along with the Oberth and the NX-01 (which I imagine is another ship that CBS vetoed).
Excalibur is a tier 2, buddy. The tier 1 zen cruiser is the original Connie from the TOS. Excalibur is tier 2.
Marrek Steele: RAdm CO 99th Pursuit Squadron Flagship USS Nike(Avenger)
Lunimara Hawk: LT Gen IKS Eclipse(Dyson Destroyer)
Altair: Rear Admiral: RRW Anduril( Ak'rif Carrier)
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:22 AM.