Survivor of Romulus
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 984
# 21
01-27-2014, 08:49 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by stf65 View Post
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.
Captain
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 772
# 22
01-27-2014, 08:49 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by haldan1968 View Post
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.
Captain
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 825
# 23
01-27-2014, 08:51 AM
CBS said NO. There is no other way to explain it. It is not Cryptic or PWE, it is CBS.
Captain
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 574
# 24
01-27-2014, 08:53 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by stofsk View Post
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.
Lieutenant
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 78
# 25
01-27-2014, 08:58 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by kyeto13 View Post
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.
Career Officer
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 59
# 26
01-27-2014, 08:59 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by salynrayder View Post
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.
Survivor of Romulus
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 984
# 27
01-27-2014, 09:03 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by stf65 View Post
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.
Captain
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 574
# 28
01-27-2014, 09:04 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by joshglass View Post
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:

Quote:
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.

Last edited by stf65; 01-27-2014 at 09:06 AM.
Starfleet Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 649
# 29
01-27-2014, 09:06 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by joshglass View Post
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.
http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/image.php?type=sigpic&userid=91851990000&dateline=  1341951426
Captain
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 772
# 30
01-27-2014, 09:07 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by haldan1968 View Post
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.
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 04:45 PM.