test content
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc

Any news on a new exploration system yet?

245

Comments

  • nikeixnikeix Member Posts: 3,972 Arc User
    The thing about the looming nature of Star citizen is that it has been looming for a long time, and looks to continue to loom for a long time to come.

    Honestly, I don't understand why people say that. Triple A games are routinely 5 year projects and with that frame of reference it's pretty much right on schedule. All that's different here is the public heard about it "day one" instead of at "launch day minus 12 months". Its got playable components right now. You can watch them patching in new features. They're very open about their progress. And ultimately, robust procedural generation systems are suppose to take 2-3 years to produce the first mission... and under 8 seconds to produce the next thousand missions. That's actually the point of procedural generation.
    I still have my doubts that it will ever actually come out, as they keep putting the cart before the horse with all the bloody feature creep that keeps on growing and growing and growing.

    Ironic, condemning feature creep, in a thread about requesting feature creep (in STO). I have no doubts about it coming out, and no special demands that it does moment-to-moment gameplay all that much better than I can experience right now, today, by logging in and playing the alpha. The framework in which that play will take place is expanding, and that's great, but gameplay is what keeps me playing STO and gameplay is something Star Citizen already does in spades.

    And even if you have no faith in it, I still say the STO Devs are wise enough not to throw themselves in the path of that juggernaut. They're playing to their strength: the Star Trek license. Leaning on the things that have appeared on screen and not a lot else is not a bad bet for them. I mean come on, we just got a end game stats Reliant. That ship is a dinosaur within their own continuity. Yet here it is buy and play the fantasy now for $30.

    Straight up pandering to movie nostalgia. And it will Make Them Money.
  • warpangelwarpangel Member Posts: 9,427 Arc User
    nikeix wrote: »
    I still have my doubts that it will ever actually come out, as they keep putting the cart before the horse with all the bloody feature creep that keeps on growing and growing and growing.

    Ironic, condemning feature creep, in a thread about requesting feature creep (in STO).
    Not ironic at all. Adding features to a game that actually exists is quite different from adding them to one that may get released at some point if they ever finish it.
  • brian334brian334 Member Posts: 2,214 Arc User
    edited May 2017
    I side with those who are looking forward to Tier 7.

    They said there would never be levels beyond 50. The cap is now 60. They said there would be nothing beyond T5, and even concocted T5U as a way to prevent power creep from forcing a T6. We now have T6.

    Before they began to sell T6 ships, they upgraded many lower tier ships to T5. Strike a familiar chord yet?

    It is my belief that the new heavy weapons are a way to keep current T6 designs viable when T7 rolls around. My guess is next spring just before the next big season.

    What would I like to see at T7? Spinal weapons supported by multiple heavy weapons slots.
    Gimme a T7 Klingon D8 Battlecruiser, a T7 Federation Enterprise J, and a Romulan T7 Warbird evolved from the D'Deridex model. Each would have a spinal weapon unique to its faction: Disruptor, phaser, and plasma. Because of inertia and turn rate these weapons would be useful mostly against one another, with smaller, older ships able to quickly maneuver out of their forward arc.

    I also anticipate that T7 will further blur the lines between escorts, science ships, cruisers, raiders, and battlecruisers. While I would prefer more diversity of ship design and playstyle the trend toward homogenization is well underway already, and I never expect stones to stop rolling downhill until they hit the bottom.
  • brian334brian334 Member Posts: 2,214 Arc User
    I was not saying Cryptic said. Everything in my post was based on what the player consensus was prior to the expansions which introduced the features. My apologies for the lack of clarity. I intended 'they' to mean the generic majority, as in, "They say you should wait a half hour after eating before you swim."
  • warpangelwarpangel Member Posts: 9,427 Arc User
    brian334 wrote: »
    I was not saying Cryptic said. Everything in my post was based on what the player consensus was prior to the expansions which introduced the features. My apologies for the lack of clarity. I intended 'they' to mean the generic majority, as in, "They say you should wait a half hour after eating before you swim."
    Player concussions means nothing, especially when the devs had debunked it several times.

    Likewise, Cryptic has said
    -They wont raise the level cap again(since we are at the highest obtainable rank already)
    -There wont be T7 ships(since the levels aren't there to support it)
    -That the whole point of the specialization system was to allow players to advance their character without needing to raise the level cap(and thus introduce something like T7 ships)
    And they will keep saying that, until one day they say "T7's coming, get your Zen ready" instead. ;)
  • markhawkmanmarkhawkman Member Posts: 35,231 Arc User
    warpangel wrote: »
    I would like to take the opportunity to point out that there is a new MMO on the way, called "Ashes of Creation" in which the bulk of the game is player-driven. Cities will be built over time by the direct involvement of players. Imagine such a city as being like an open-to-the-entire-community Fleet Holding. Where anyone in the region can participate in tasks which result in the city's growth from a camp site all the way up to a sprawling metropolis. I find it amusing that what I have suggested here to essentially do the same thing with new content where we explore, discover, expand and move on has been crapped on for no other reason than people don't want to see a system replace hand-crafted episodic content, even though I have never suggested that happening.
    The problem with such lofty ideals as player driven things such as city creation is that most people don't care enough too put the work into that, and even more still just love finding ways to tear it down. Player driven MMOs always end up failing, or being populated by a very small hardcore group, even smaller then STOs playerbase.
    And sometimes this is because it's filled with cities named "Wang", "Dong", "New Wang", "Coast Dong".... well you see how deep this gutter is....
    Yes, though failure from that doesn't come from those things existing. It comes from prudes who hate freedom of speech and expression getting everything censored to the point it stops being fun.
    "expression" eh? heheh.... People are amazingly creative when it comes to sharing "the bird". The problem is that most people don't like that.... which is part of why some of these people do it.
    -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
    My character Tsin'xing
    Costume_marhawkman_Tsin%27xing_CC_Comic_Page_Blue_488916968.jpg
  • orangeitisorangeitis Member Posts: 5,222 Arc User
    The problem with such lofty ideals as player driven things such as city creation is that most people don't care enough too put the work into that, and even more still just love finding ways to tear it down. Player driven MMOs always end up failing, or being populated by a very small hardcore group, even smaller then STOs playerbase.

    That's not saying much. STO's player base is pretty healthy for a F2P game.
  • warpangelwarpangel Member Posts: 9,427 Arc User
    warpangel wrote: »
    I would like to take the opportunity to point out that there is a new MMO on the way, called "Ashes of Creation" in which the bulk of the game is player-driven. Cities will be built over time by the direct involvement of players. Imagine such a city as being like an open-to-the-entire-community Fleet Holding. Where anyone in the region can participate in tasks which result in the city's growth from a camp site all the way up to a sprawling metropolis. I find it amusing that what I have suggested here to essentially do the same thing with new content where we explore, discover, expand and move on has been crapped on for no other reason than people don't want to see a system replace hand-crafted episodic content, even though I have never suggested that happening.
    The problem with such lofty ideals as player driven things such as city creation is that most people don't care enough too put the work into that, and even more still just love finding ways to tear it down. Player driven MMOs always end up failing, or being populated by a very small hardcore group, even smaller then STOs playerbase.
    And sometimes this is because it's filled with cities named "Wang", "Dong", "New Wang", "Coast Dong".... well you see how deep this gutter is....
    Yes, though failure from that doesn't come from those things existing. It comes from prudes who hate freedom of speech and expression getting everything censored to the point it stops being fun.
    "expression" eh? heheh.... People are amazingly creative when it comes to sharing "the bird". The problem is that most people don't like that.... which is part of why some of these people do it.
    Different people inevitably like different things. Which is why suppressing people's creativity just because someone else doesn't like it is a road to failure.
  • markhawkmanmarkhawkman Member Posts: 35,231 Arc User
    That or it leads to the people who don't like it leaving. In case you were wondering it's not a theoretical thought experiment. The Sims had issues with it.
    -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
    My character Tsin'xing
    Costume_marhawkman_Tsin%27xing_CC_Comic_Page_Blue_488916968.jpg
  • warpangelwarpangel Member Posts: 9,427 Arc User
    That or it leads to the people who don't like it leaving. In case you were wondering it's not a theoretical thought experiment. The Sims had issues with it.
    People who don't like player creativity would never be happy with a game centered around it in the first place.

    The Sims? That's single player.
  • dareaudareau Member Posts: 2,390 Arc User
    I'm not talking about a system as shallow as we had with the previous one. I'm talking about a system that lets us actually explore star systems, actual new civilizations that have a personality based on many interacting varriables. Diplomacy could bring those civilization into the UFP... Subjugation could bring them into the KDF... Intrigue could bring them into the NRR. Facilities and colonies could be constructed a la the same mechanics used in fleet holdings and reputation progressions. So it wouldn't just be running madlib missions. It would be progressing through scenario-driven mechanics where by places are actually discovered, things are actually built, all through cooperative player involvement.

    And if the system is designed correctly, the devs could drop their next episodic content arc into it, and the next star system to be discovered would be where it is located. Or they could even take one of those civilizations the players discover and write episodic content dealing with it, and suddenly what was procedurally deployed into the game becomes a centerpoint of that hand-crafted episodic narrative.

    Is this what you've been calling "meaningful" exploration?

    I have two words for you: Blue Plague...

    It is directly caused by the following "human habits"
    1. Since Star Trek is "Federation Centric", most players play Federation
    2. Since the Federation is the Good guys, they must always win - which typically deflates all but the most sadomachoistic "opposition" forces, or leads to many many flamewars because "there's no way that the Bad Guys can be allowed to win, but something went "wrong" in the game that allowed them to win! It's never our fault, the good guys win all the time!"

    For those who are still around that remember where I got that term from, feel free to pile on... :)
    Detecting big-time "anti-old-school" bias here. NX? Lobi. TOS/TMP Connie? Super-promotion-box. (aka the two hardest ways to get ships) Excelsior & all 3 TNG "big hero" ships? C-Store. Please Equalize...

    To rob a line: [quote: Mariemaia Kushrenada] Forum Posting is much like an endless waltz. The three beats of war, peace and revolution continue on forever. However, opinions will change upon the reading of my post.[/quote]
  • warpangelwarpangel Member Posts: 9,427 Arc User
    dareau wrote: »
    I'm not talking about a system as shallow as we had with the previous one. I'm talking about a system that lets us actually explore star systems, actual new civilizations that have a personality based on many interacting varriables. Diplomacy could bring those civilization into the UFP... Subjugation could bring them into the KDF... Intrigue could bring them into the NRR. Facilities and colonies could be constructed a la the same mechanics used in fleet holdings and reputation progressions. So it wouldn't just be running madlib missions. It would be progressing through scenario-driven mechanics where by places are actually discovered, things are actually built, all through cooperative player involvement.

    And if the system is designed correctly, the devs could drop their next episodic content arc into it, and the next star system to be discovered would be where it is located. Or they could even take one of those civilizations the players discover and write episodic content dealing with it, and suddenly what was procedurally deployed into the game becomes a centerpoint of that hand-crafted episodic narrative.

    Is this what you've been calling "meaningful" exploration?

    I have two words for you: Blue Plague...

    It is directly caused by the following "human habits"
    1. Since Star Trek is "Federation Centric", most players play Federation
    2. Since the Federation is the Good guys, they must always win - which typically deflates all but the most sadomachoistic "opposition" forces, or leads to many many flamewars because "there's no way that the Bad Guys can be allowed to win, but something went "wrong" in the game that allowed them to win! It's never our fault, the good guys win all the time!"

    For those who are still around that remember where I got that term from, feel free to pile on... :)
    All the "opposition" forces in the game are NPCs. NPCs don't complain.
  • markhawkmanmarkhawkman Member Posts: 35,231 Arc User
    warpangel wrote: »
    That or it leads to the people who don't like it leaving. In case you were wondering it's not a theoretical thought experiment. The Sims had issues with it.
    People who don't like player creativity would never be happy with a game centered around it in the first place.

    The Sims? That's single player.
    You seem to have a strange idea of creativity. Naming something "Wang" or "Dong" or similar things is not creative in the least. Neither is spelling it out with random objects.

    This is an example of something that is actually creative:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=304q7mmbJe4

    I suppose one could say that making a wang shaped house could be considered creative, but... it's still in bad taste.

    And yes there IS an online version of the sims.
    https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=sims+online+multiplayer
    -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
    My character Tsin'xing
    Costume_marhawkman_Tsin%27xing_CC_Comic_Page_Blue_488916968.jpg
  • warpangelwarpangel Member Posts: 9,427 Arc User
    warpangel wrote: »
    That or it leads to the people who don't like it leaving. In case you were wondering it's not a theoretical thought experiment. The Sims had issues with it.
    People who don't like player creativity would never be happy with a game centered around it in the first place.

    The Sims? That's single player.
    You seem to have a strange idea of creativity. Naming something "Wang" or "Dong" or similar things is not creative in the least. Neither is spelling it out with random objects.

    This is an example of something that is actually creative:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=304q7mmbJe4

    I suppose one could say that making a wang shaped house could be considered creative, but... it's still in bad taste.
    In your opinion. The people who make them would probably disagree.

    Some people inevitably get butthurt over other players' things like names and such. People like that will never be happy playing a game highly focused in users-generated content, because there will always be something to be offended about. There's a point at which UCG game has to recognize them as a lost cause and focus on the players who actually like what the genre represents.

    Because if you upset the players who like your game in a futile attempt to appease the ones that don't, you'll have a game nobody likes.
    And yes there IS an online version of the sims.
    https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=sims+online+multiplayer
    Oh, yeah, now I remember. Didn't that tank like a decade ago, though?
  • talonxvtalonxv Member Posts: 4,257 Arc User
    I hope something comes around, that "other" exploration game was terrible.
    afMSv4g.jpg
    Star Trek Battles member. Want to roll with a good group of people regardless of fleets and not have to worry about DPS while doing STFs? Come join the channel and join in the fun!

    http://forum.arcgames.com/startrekonline/discussion/1145998/star-trek-battles-channel-got-canon/p1
  • markhawkmanmarkhawkman Member Posts: 35,231 Arc User
    warpangel wrote: »
    In your opinion. The people who make them would probably disagree.

    Some people inevitably get butthurt over other players' things like names and such. People like that will never be happy playing a game highly focused in users-generated content, because there will always be something to be offended about. There's a point at which UCG game has to recognize them as a lost cause and focus on the players who actually like what the genre represents.
    Ah, but which part do you think most developers would actually want to have: people who are polite to others, or people who build obscene architecture just to be obnoxious?
    And yes there IS an online version of the sims.
    Oh, yeah, now I remember. Didn't that tank like a decade ago, though?
    No idea, never played it. But the point is that it's players were about as courteous to each other as GTAO players:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tbn13B0fbik
    Which is saying a lot considering that in GTAO you can hire hitmen(third party players) to kill other players.
    -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
    My character Tsin'xing
    Costume_marhawkman_Tsin%27xing_CC_Comic_Page_Blue_488916968.jpg
  • warpangelwarpangel Member Posts: 9,427 Arc User
    Stupid forums keep eating my posts...<sigh>
    warpangel wrote: »
    In your opinion. The people who make them would probably disagree.

    Some people inevitably get butthurt over other players' things like names and such. People like that will never be happy playing a game highly focused in users-generated content, because there will always be something to be offended about. There's a point at which UCG game has to recognize them as a lost cause and focus on the players who actually like what the genre represents.
    Ah, but which part do you think most developers would actually want to have: people who are polite to others, or people who build obscene architecture just to be obnoxious?
    That's not the point. I'm not talking about players who are polite, I'm talking about players who hate the idea of other players being free to do their own things. Those players are never going to like that kind of game anyway, so trying to keep them is a fool's errand. Driving away other players to try to keep them is commercial suicide.

    I'd also say it's not exactly polite to make derogatory comments of other people's names and/or works, either.

    Or in other words, which players do you think most developers should actually want to have: people who like the game and play it for fun or people who hate it and play it only to find things to complain about?

    It's impossible to please everyone at once.
    And yes there IS an online version of the sims.
    Oh, yeah, now I remember. Didn't that tank like a decade ago, though?
    No idea, never played it. But the point is that it's players were about as courteous to each other as GTAO players:

    Which is saying a lot considering that in GTAO you can hire hitmen(third party players) to kill other players.
    Yet GTAO is successful. Players being courteous to each other clearly isn't a requirement.
  • markhawkmanmarkhawkman Member Posts: 35,231 Arc User
    GTAO appeals to the sort of people who enjoy shooting, stabbing, exploding, running over... etc. other players on a daily basis. Do all game companies want to appeal to that sort of audience? Apparently not. You can make whatever claims about "suppressing freedom of expression" but sometimes it's not about that. You keep equating "creativity" with vulgar behavior... and that doesn't make a whole lot of sense simply because vulgar behavior isn't actually all that creative. Seriously... you would applaud making a list of words for certain body parts that the censors don't cover and slapping them on everything? And again, why would a company want to encourage that sort of behavior? You say "that kind of game" but... what kind of game do you really mean? You play it off like you mean games where people are free to build their own houses and stuff, but the specific examples you've chosen are outside what most developers would consider normal behavior.
    -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
    My character Tsin'xing
    Costume_marhawkman_Tsin%27xing_CC_Comic_Page_Blue_488916968.jpg
  • warpangelwarpangel Member Posts: 9,427 Arc User
    GTAO appeals to the sort of people who enjoy shooting, stabbing, exploding, running over... etc. other players on a daily basis. Do all game companies want to appeal to that sort of audience? Apparently not. You can make whatever claims about "suppressing freedom of expression" but sometimes it's not about that. You keep equating "creativity" with vulgar behavior... and that doesn't make a whole lot of sense simply because vulgar behavior isn't actually all that creative. Seriously... you would applaud making a list of words for certain body parts that the censors don't cover and slapping them on everything? And again, why would a company want to encourage that sort of behavior? You say "that kind of game" but... what kind of game do you really mean? You play it off like you mean games where people are free to build their own houses and stuff, but the specific examples you've chosen are outside what most developers would consider normal behavior.
    Well no surprise, different games appeal to different audiences. We are talking about here games where people are free to build their own stuff (houses or whatever, doesn't matter). That would imply an audience interested in the freedom to build their own stuff. Their own stuff, meaning stuff as they themselves want to build it. Not stuff as approved by whoever else.

    You have chosen all the specific examples. The wangs and the dongs spelled with random objects and the shapes of houses. You have equated creativity with "vulgar behavior" and suggested games shouldn't give players creative freedom to avoid said behavior. But what's the point of having a game based on creative freedom, if you don't have creative freedom in it?

    And I do have to ask, how many people do you suppose game companies should hire to police the shapes of people's houses, arrangements of random objects, etc to make sure nothing is outside what they (or you) would consider normal behavior?

    No, I wouldn't "applaud" a list of words. But then neither would I throw a hissy fit over a list of words, or support people who did. There's a reason profanity filters are limited. There's only so far you can go before the Scunthorpe problem gets totally out of hand.
  • darakossdarakoss Member Posts: 850 Arc User
    edited May 2017
    GTAO appeals to the sort of people who enjoy shooting, stabbing, exploding, running over... etc. other players on a daily basis. Do all game companies want to appeal to that sort of audience? Apparently not. You can make whatever claims about "suppressing freedom of expression" but sometimes it's not about that. You keep equating "creativity" with vulgar behavior... and that doesn't make a whole lot of sense simply because vulgar behavior isn't actually all that creative. Seriously... you would applaud making a list of words for certain body parts that the censors don't cover and slapping them on everything? And again, why would a company want to encourage that sort of behavior? You say "that kind of game" but... what kind of game do you really mean? You play it off like you mean games where people are free to build their own houses and stuff, but the specific examples you've chosen are outside what most developers would consider normal behavior.

    lol...STO appeals to people who enjoy shooting (phasers), stabbing (batleths), exploding (ships), etc......
    i-dont-always-funny-meme.jpg
    original join date 2010

    Member: Team Trekyards. Visit Trekyards today!
  • markhawkmanmarkhawkman Member Posts: 35,231 Arc User
    warpangel wrote: »
    GTAO appeals to the sort of people who enjoy shooting, stabbing, exploding, running over... etc. other players on a daily basis. Do all game companies want to appeal to that sort of audience? Apparently not. You can make whatever claims about "suppressing freedom of expression" but sometimes it's not about that. You keep equating "creativity" with vulgar behavior... and that doesn't make a whole lot of sense simply because vulgar behavior isn't actually all that creative. Seriously... you would applaud making a list of words for certain body parts that the censors don't cover and slapping them on everything? And again, why would a company want to encourage that sort of behavior? You say "that kind of game" but... what kind of game do you really mean? You play it off like you mean games where people are free to build their own houses and stuff, but the specific examples you've chosen are outside what most developers would consider normal behavior.
    Well no surprise, different games appeal to different audiences. We are talking about here games where people are free to build their own stuff (houses or whatever, doesn't matter). That would imply an audience interested in the freedom to build their own stuff. Their own stuff, meaning stuff as they themselves want to build it. Not stuff as approved by whoever else.

    You have chosen all the specific examples. The wangs and the dongs spelled with random objects and the shapes of houses. You have equated creativity with "vulgar behavior" and suggested games shouldn't give players creative freedom to avoid said behavior. But what's the point of having a game based on creative freedom, if you don't have creative freedom in it?

    And I do have to ask, how many people do you suppose game companies should hire to police the shapes of people's houses, arrangements of random objects, etc to make sure nothing is outside what they (or you) would consider normal behavior?
    I have a better question: why do you think it's all or nothing? It's quite possible to setup the system so that GMs only check things if they've been reported.
    No, I wouldn't "applaud" a list of words. But then neither would I throw a hissy fit over a list of words, or support people who did. There's a reason profanity filters are limited. There's only so far you can go before the Scunthorpe problem gets totally out of hand.
    Ah, but the Scunthorpe problem is an artifact of using simplistic pattern matching. The profanity filter in STO has it's own weird quirks, but not that one.
    -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
    My character Tsin'xing
    Costume_marhawkman_Tsin%27xing_CC_Comic_Page_Blue_488916968.jpg
  • warpangelwarpangel Member Posts: 9,427 Arc User
    warpangel wrote: »
    GTAO appeals to the sort of people who enjoy shooting, stabbing, exploding, running over... etc. other players on a daily basis. Do all game companies want to appeal to that sort of audience? Apparently not. You can make whatever claims about "suppressing freedom of expression" but sometimes it's not about that. You keep equating "creativity" with vulgar behavior... and that doesn't make a whole lot of sense simply because vulgar behavior isn't actually all that creative. Seriously... you would applaud making a list of words for certain body parts that the censors don't cover and slapping them on everything? And again, why would a company want to encourage that sort of behavior? You say "that kind of game" but... what kind of game do you really mean? You play it off like you mean games where people are free to build their own houses and stuff, but the specific examples you've chosen are outside what most developers would consider normal behavior.
    Well no surprise, different games appeal to different audiences. We are talking about here games where people are free to build their own stuff (houses or whatever, doesn't matter). That would imply an audience interested in the freedom to build their own stuff. Their own stuff, meaning stuff as they themselves want to build it. Not stuff as approved by whoever else.

    You have chosen all the specific examples. The wangs and the dongs spelled with random objects and the shapes of houses. You have equated creativity with "vulgar behavior" and suggested games shouldn't give players creative freedom to avoid said behavior. But what's the point of having a game based on creative freedom, if you don't have creative freedom in it?

    And I do have to ask, how many people do you suppose game companies should hire to police the shapes of people's houses, arrangements of random objects, etc to make sure nothing is outside what they (or you) would consider normal behavior?
    I have a better question: why do you think it's all or nothing? It's quite possible to setup the system so that GMs only check things if they've been reported.
    That's not an answer.
    No, I wouldn't "applaud" a list of words. But then neither would I throw a hissy fit over a list of words, or support people who did. There's a reason profanity filters are limited. There's only so far you can go before the Scunthorpe problem gets totally out of hand.
    Ah, but the Scunthorpe problem is an artifact of using simplistic pattern matching. The profanity filter in STO has it's own weird quirks, but not that one.
    Because STO filters very little.
  • josemialotjosemialot Member Posts: 46 Arc User
    The fact that an Star Trek game has NO exploration system at all, it does not speak well of the game.
  • angrytargangrytarg Member Posts: 11,001 Arc User
    josemialot wrote: »
    The fact that an Star Trek game has NO exploration system at all, it does not speak well of the game.

    The thing is that the exploration system was one of the main selling points. Some of us bought STO retail back in the day and the box advertises the genesis system as one of the main selling points pig-2.gif​​
    lFC4bt2.gif
    ^ Memory Alpha.org is not canon. It's a open wiki with arbitrary rules. Only what can be cited from an episode is. ^
    "No. Men do not roar. Women roar. Then they hurl heavy objects... and claw at you." -Worf, son of Mogh
    "A filthy, mangy beast, but in its bony breast beat the heart of a warrior" - "faithful" (...) "but ever-ready to follow the call of the wild." - Martok, about a Targ
    "That pig smelled horrid. A sweet-sour, extremely pungent odor. I showered and showered, and it took me a week to get rid of it!" - Robert Justman, appreciating Emmy-Lou
  • hanover2hanover2 Member Posts: 1,053 Arc User
    I have to believe people calling for a return of the genesis system didn't spend hours and hours grinding B'Tran for marks back in the day.

Sign In or Register to comment.