rebuttals like this is why these discourse turn into nothing more than people refusing to acknowledge a simple addition to a game.
You are trying to infer that a HMS Enterprise has a place in the Star Trek MMO. Lets at least try to keep it somewhat in line with a Sci-Fi themed discussion.
Now if this was Big Famous Sailing ships Online, i would say your point is valid but as this statement shows, your not really looking for a solution,just trying to impose your view point on others, and trying to make it seem like your being most reasonable.
If you would like to continue talking about the inclusion of a Constitution look alike at tier 5, and its supposedly effect on everyone's play time, i would do so.
Why does it NOT have a place in a Star Trek MMO? It had a place in a Star Trek movie. So did the aircraft carrier for that matter.
And I only use this response to people who are making arguments that can be used to justify literally anything, most especially the ones like "if you don't like it, just don't use it."
I actually have proposed a full solution to this problem, part of it being listed in my response a couple posts ago to Blayyde. If I had the time, I would have art to go with it. I have also listed numerous reasons both game related and not as to why it should not be done. It's just that people continue to wave those off with ridiculous catch-alls like "just ignore it if you don't like it. It doesn't affect you anyway."
rebuttals like this is why these discourse turn into nothing more than people refusing to acknowledge a simple addition to a game.
You are trying to infer that a HMS Enterprise has a place in the Star Trek MMO. Lets at least try to keep it somewhat in line with a Sci-Fi themed discussion.
Now if this was Big Famous Sailing ships Online, i would say your point is valid but as this statement shows, your not really looking for a solution,just trying to impose your view point on others, and trying to make it seem like your being most reasonable.
If you would like to continue talking about the inclusion of a Constitution look alike at tier 5, and its supposedly effect on everyone's play time, i would do so.
No, he is just trying to infer that an HMS Enterprise @ T5 is as ridiculous as a TOS Consititution @ T5.
rebuttals like this is why these discourse turn into nothing more than people refusing to acknowledge a simple addition to a game.
You are trying to infer that a HMS Enterprise has a place in the Star Trek MMO. Lets at least try to keep it somewhat in line with a Sci-Fi themed discussion.
Now if this was Big Famous Sailing ships Online, i would say your point is valid but as this statement shows, your not really looking for a solution,just trying to impose your view point on others, and trying to make it seem like your being most reasonable.
If you would like to continue talking about the inclusion of a Constitution look alike at tier 5, and its supposedly effect on everyone's play time, i would do so.
Well, since its not shown on screen and never said on screen that thare are no HMS ships, obviously its ok to have HMS instead of USS
This has gone insane. Dstahl is probably peeking into all of these threads thinking "Oi vey. Another ship dispute." Is a Tier 5 Retrofit Retrofit Constitution or ANY 23rd century ship Other than the excelsior that much of a dispute. We are trekkies. We can normally get along over anything.
This has gone insane. Dstahl is probably peeking into all of these threads thinking "Oi vey. Another ship dispute." Is a Tier 5 Retrofit Retrofit Constitution or ANY 23rd century ship Other than the excelsior that much of a dispute. We are trekkies. We can normally get along over anything.
I'd hate to be mean but the title was begging for antagonism in the thread.
"We can normally get along over anything." I have never found that to be the case.
While I applaud you for wanting civility, a less antagonistic thread probably would've helped.
How does the title of this thread deserve any antagonism?
As far as you have never found them to be civil, these forums tend to be one of the most mature ive ever seen.
I'm not gonna get into another argument with you.
I did not say it deserved antagonism, I said it was begging for antagonism.
"I don't want no 23rd Century ships poppin my OMGWTFPWNAGE Soverign." is pretty antagonistic.
So it shouldn't be that big of a surprise
Its just an observation, even the OP admits its getting out of hand.
And I was not speaking of the Forums civility, I was speaking of Trekkies towards each other.
Go read a TRekMovie comments page when something controversial comes up.
I did not say it deserved antagonism, I said it was begging for antagonism.
"I don't want no 23rd Century ships poppin my OMGWTFPWNAGE Soverign." is pretty antagonistic.
So it shouldn't be that big of a surprise
Its just an observation, even the OP admits its getting out of hand.
And I was not speaking of the Forums civility, I was speaking of Trekkies towards each other.
Go read a TRekMovie comments page when something controversial comes up.
Antagonistic: adjective
1.
acting in opposition; opposing, especially mutually.
2.
hostile; unfriendly.
I ask again, how does the title of this post represent the definition?
Completely agreed with William. Doesn't take a genius to see that baiting title but if you want to continue arguing for the sake of arguing ok. A negative tone opened the thread and I adtually reported it yesterday due to the overwhelming negative tone. That said after 50+ pages it seems to have now run its course and should drop off the first page soon. The argument that anything goes because it's a game is also losing steam thank goodness.
=============================
Off Topic Idea
Could we vote on a senior member to maybe make a post/thread that has maybe the main points and ideas that people talk about within these threads? In doing so maybe write a small block of text saying the Pos. & Neg. of each based on the comments of the people who replied to those topics.
Maybe if they want they could make a little flow chart for each. Sometimes a picture speaks many more words then blocks of text trying to show the idea in writing.
If someone goes away and comes back, it's kinda hard to read through all the pages of the different threads on the same topic to be brought up to date. This would also help in cutting down the amount of repeated ideas for that topic.
==============================
Why when valid points are raised and the argument seems over do some people say stupid things like, "I want an Air Force jet in STO duh hur hur hur?"
Should I view this as an indicator of surrender?
Why can't all the naysayers understand the inclusion of an Iconic ship at end game?
It's a real simple concept and I think they are all just trying to cloud the issue with TRIBBLE about how it's in game already or it's not big enough or it wouldn't be right to have a Connie beat a Sovy.
Honestly curious:
If you had to choose between having the game die to preserve it's "purity" or have a Tier 5 Connie, which would you choose?
Will all you naysayers agree to pay the subscriptions of everyone that wants a Tier 5 Connie so that it will not be included in game?
Why when valid points are raised and the argument seems over do some people say stupid things like, "I want an Air Force jet in STO duh hur hur hur?"
Should I view this as an indicator of surrender?
Why can't all the naysayers understand the inclusion of an Iconic ship at end game?
It's a real simple concept and I think they are all just trying to cloud the issue with TRIBBLE about how it's in game already or it's not big enough or it wouldn't be right to have a Connie beat a Sovy.
Honestly curious:
If you had to choose between having the game die to preserve it's "purity" or have a Tier 5 Connie, which would you choose?
Will all you naysayers agree to pay the subscriptions of everyone that wants a Tier 5 Connie so that it will not be included in game?
purity.
Since that does not mess up the last shred of internal logic this game has maintained.
Why when valid points are raised and the argument seems over do some people say stupid things like, "I want an Air Force jet in STO duh hur hur hur?"
Should I view this as an indicator of surrender?
Why can't all the naysayers understand the inclusion of an Iconic ship at end game?
It's a real simple concept and I think they are all just trying to cloud the issue with TRIBBLE about how it's in game already or it's not big enough or it wouldn't be right to have a Connie beat a Sovy.
People like me don't want an anachronistic game. We were promised a game set in the 25th century, and we want things in the game to reflect that.
Saying it's iconic, therefore it should be in the game isn't a good argument. Roman legions are an icon from Italian history, but they shouldn't be included in WW2 games simply because of that, they should be weighed up against the setting and included (and in this case rejected) based on that. We're weighing the T5 Connies and NXs against the setting and saying they don't fit, they should stay at the strength they are now.
Honestly curious:
If you had to choose between having the game die to preserve it's "purity" or have a Tier 5 Connie, which would you choose?
Will all you naysayers agree to pay the subscriptions of everyone that wants a Tier 5 Connie so that it will not be included in game?
People aren't going to quit simply because they can't get the ships they want, or they would have done so already, and you have no idea if people will buy the game simply because they can play their favourite ships at max level, so you can't argue based on any guesses on what money they would bring in, if any.
Comments
Why does it NOT have a place in a Star Trek MMO? It had a place in a Star Trek movie. So did the aircraft carrier for that matter.
And I only use this response to people who are making arguments that can be used to justify literally anything, most especially the ones like "if you don't like it, just don't use it."
I actually have proposed a full solution to this problem, part of it being listed in my response a couple posts ago to Blayyde. If I had the time, I would have art to go with it. I have also listed numerous reasons both game related and not as to why it should not be done. It's just that people continue to wave those off with ridiculous catch-alls like "just ignore it if you don't like it. It doesn't affect you anyway."
No, he is just trying to infer that an HMS Enterprise @ T5 is as ridiculous as a TOS Consititution @ T5.
And it is.
<chuckle> Don't make me pull this car over and hafta reach back there....
Well, since its not shown on screen and never said on screen that thare are no HMS ships, obviously its ok to have HMS instead of USS
Well..., It could stand for Harcourt's Mighty Starships....
A new endeavor for the originals off-spring....
off-topic....
Does anybody else here think that Harry actually 'slept with' the original Stella????
...ewww....... :eek:
stella? who's that?
His wife. She made a brief appearance in robot form on a TOS episode.
Sure, something for everyone
I'd hate to be mean but the title was begging for antagonism in the thread.
"We can normally get along over anything." I have never found that to be the case.
While I applaud you for wanting civility, a less antagonistic thread probably would've helped.
How does the title of this thread deserve any antagonism?
As far as you have never found them to be civil, these forums tend to be one of the most mature ive ever seen.
I'm not gonna get into another argument with you.
I did not say it deserved antagonism, I said it was begging for antagonism.
"I don't want no 23rd Century ships poppin my OMGWTFPWNAGE Soverign." is pretty antagonistic.
So it shouldn't be that big of a surprise
Its just an observation, even the OP admits its getting out of hand.
And I was not speaking of the Forums civility, I was speaking of Trekkies towards each other.
Go read a TRekMovie comments page when something controversial comes up.
Antagonistic: adjective
1.
acting in opposition; opposing, especially mutually.
2.
hostile; unfriendly.
I ask again, how does the title of this post represent the definition?
"hostile; unfriendly."
All I'm gonna say.
Look, I made an observation about how the thread came off to me.
You are perfectly free to disagree with me and "prove" my opinion wrong.
I'm not going to take part in it.
I think you need a little break.
Depends on who you are. For me, canon IS fun. If it weren't "Star Trek" Online, most of us wouldn't even be here.
That'll be hard to do since I don't PVP in this game.
That statement isn't entirely based on PVP. Its based on running into you on the way to Earthspacedock, Qo'nos what have you.
You arent goign to be flying a Fed ship at Qo'nos. Do you actually play this game?
Uh...I already can run into TOSC pretty much anywhere in the game...so...?
Refitting or retrofitting more storage space onto starships, I think.....
Off Topic Idea
Could we vote on a senior member to maybe make a post/thread that has maybe the main points and ideas that people talk about within these threads? In doing so maybe write a small block of text saying the Pos. & Neg. of each based on the comments of the people who replied to those topics.
Maybe if they want they could make a little flow chart for each. Sometimes a picture speaks many more words then blocks of text trying to show the idea in writing.
If someone goes away and comes back, it's kinda hard to read through all the pages of the different threads on the same topic to be brought up to date. This would also help in cutting down the amount of repeated ideas for that topic.
==============================
Should I view this as an indicator of surrender?
Why can't all the naysayers understand the inclusion of an Iconic ship at end game?
It's a real simple concept and I think they are all just trying to cloud the issue with TRIBBLE about how it's in game already or it's not big enough or it wouldn't be right to have a Connie beat a Sovy.
Honestly curious:
If you had to choose between having the game die to preserve it's "purity" or have a Tier 5 Connie, which would you choose?
Will all you naysayers agree to pay the subscriptions of everyone that wants a Tier 5 Connie so that it will not be included in game?
purity.
Since that does not mess up the last shred of internal logic this game has maintained.
noone will leave over not having a t5 connie.
Saying it's iconic, therefore it should be in the game isn't a good argument. Roman legions are an icon from Italian history, but they shouldn't be included in WW2 games simply because of that, they should be weighed up against the setting and included (and in this case rejected) based on that. We're weighing the T5 Connies and NXs against the setting and saying they don't fit, they should stay at the strength they are now.
False dichotomy
People aren't going to quit simply because they can't get the ships they want, or they would have done so already, and you have no idea if people will buy the game simply because they can play their favourite ships at max level, so you can't argue based on any guesses on what money they would bring in, if any.