You mean besides the fact that your suggestion is the equivalent of putting sails on an aircraft carrier or submarine because you think they look pretty?
And each of those designs are functionally different vessels. No designer will simply slap on an extra part just because they like the way it looks. There needs to be a functional reason to do so, which by the way you've yet to provide beyond "waaaah I want my special idea to happen".
Ho, excuse me? Because you don't think every vessel got his own design for special purpose?
The Cheyenne and stargazzer are created for get exactly the same specific if it was "real"?
It's that just another cosmethic stuff?
The dreadnought didn't get his third nacelle for something right? But on the game, what is the use of this third nacelle? Explain?
Why can we make hybrid vessel how can for most of them completly look stupid. (just try to take the saucer of a cheyenne with the body of a stargazzer).
Because it's called "personalisation". Like you can make your own character, your own vessel. Even if at the end. It's just a pack of pixel behind your computer screen.
Again.
Feel FREE to not use them if you want. But don't forbide this because YOU don't like it.
Btw: Star Wars? Are you kidding me? The design's of the vessel made by Abram's and his team are completly on the line of Star Trek Series.
Don't even tell me it's because they got turret.
Because the first Enterprise got also a phaser firing like "turret". (just watch the episode when they try to catch a romulan bird of prey.)
Feel FREE to not use what you don't like. But leave thread and stuff you don't like doing there suggestion.
If you read my message, you will see that the main problem is the licence... not the ship.
As I said, since the Kelvin was build before Nero joined the alternate timeline, it's technically canon, and not an issue on that point...
But yes... it was a very bad movie.
Not sure how anybody playing STO, can say the last Star Trek movie was bad. Why? Because it didn't have busty, captains in bikini top, miniskirt, "uniforms" flying alien starships, crewed by Tholian, duty officers, single-handedly defeating Borg armadas, building their own starbases in the middle of nowhere, and buying stuff with lobi jewels, and dilithium crystals?
Ho, excuse me? Because you don't think every vessel got his own design for special purpose?
The Cheyenne and stargazzer are created for get exactly the same specific if it was "real"?
It's that just another cosmethic stuff?
Cheyenne already existed in-universe prior to STO. And the four nacelles? To balance the warp field.
Why can we make hybrid vessel how can for most of them completly look stupid. (just try to take the saucer of a cheyenne with the body of a stargazzer).
Because it's called "personalisation". Like you can make your own character, your own vessel. Even if at the end. It's just a pack of pixel behind your computer screen.
There's a massive difference between ships of the same design using similar parts and slapping random bits from one ship onto a completely different ship design. Try retrofitting a Coast Guard cutter with an aircraft carrier's hangar deck. I'm sure you'll end up with something both functional and aesthetically pleasing...
Btw: Star Wars? Are you kidding me? The design's of the vessel made by Abram's and his team are completly on the line of Star Trek Series.
Don't even tell me it's because they got turret.
Because the first Enterprise got also a phaser firing like "turret". (just watch the episode when they try to catch a romulan bird of prey.)
You really need to decide who you're arguing with. I've made no mention of Star Wars or Abrams-Trek. Spouting off at people for things they haven't actually said doesn't exactly do much to support any other arguments you might make. Instead...it just makes you look petty, and frankly more than a bit ludicrous.
Then either quote who you're ranting at, or don't include it in the same post as comments made to someone else. It's hard enough to understand what you're writing without having to guess who you're writing at.
So why add new design or new ship with new design? Why?
Because it's not "star trek"?
Because it's "cosmetic stuff"?
You seriously should open your mind a little more.
Once again, there is a massive difference between adding more starship classes that are visually distinct from one another, and randomly gluing pieces from one ship class to another completely different one.
I have absolutely nothing against adding more classes to STO, in fact a deep selection of ships is something I very strongly advocate. What I absolutely do not advocate is the idiotic idea of taking a piece of a Defiant, tossing in a little bit of a Sovereign and wrapping it all up with some chunks from a Steamrunner.
Not sure how anybody playing STO, can say the last Star Trek movie was bad. Why? Because it didn't have busty, captains in bikini top, miniskirt, "uniforms" flying alien starships, crewed by Tholian, duty officers, single-handedly defeating Borg armadas, building their own starbases in the middle of nowhere, and buying stuff with lobi jewels, and dilithium crystals?
Wow... lazy...
I thought it was boring... that's why I think it was bad...
Try to read all posts please.
Don't look silly... Don't call it the "Z-Store/Zen Store"...
I thought it was boring... that's why I think it was bad...
Try to read all posts please.
Boring? Not sure what movie you were watching, but amongst the plethora of Trek IP, previously available, for public consumption, I hardly think "boring" applies to what was basically "Star Trek: Non-Stop Explosionfest", which, oddly enough, is pretty much the only redeemable quality of STO. Spaceships blowing each other up. The movie was great. It really captured that "StarFleety" feeling, better than any of the previous movies. The only reason I don't give it 5 stars, was no cameo by Shatner.
While technically the Kelvin class could be considered part of the prime universe, since it was build before Nero messed it all up, there is still the issue of CBS owning the licence that STO is part of, but Paramount still owns the movies, so Cryptic can't really use it without some hard prices payed.
Also, you will find that JJ-Verse stuff dosen't really go that well around here.
The "Kelvin" specifically, is from JJs movie which is owned by Paramount. However, the Kelvin "design" is clearly influenced by the likes of the TOS Saladin and the TNG Freedom Classes. Both of which, CBS owns the rights to, and thus Cryptic DO have access to those.
And you're erroneously assuming the game's conventions are the only ones that matter when it comes to starship design, for any faction.
Well, you are telling me that design are here for special purpose for the ship in the series.
For example the Stargazzer and Cheyenne probably haven't exactly the same capacity do to there design, and configuration.
Well they are exactly the same ingame.
Once again, there is a massive difference between adding more starship classes that are visually distinct from one another, and randomly gluing pieces from one ship class to another completely different one.
Visually distinct? Because the cheyenne and stargazzer aren't "visually distinct" from one another?
All I want to know is WHY for you we shouldn't be able to get new class (understand: new ship to buy for dilithium, or free vessel when you level up) who got difference with the already know class, and with there own design?
For example:
2 type of Cruiser for level 10 player's available.
The cruiser "Enterprise-like" like we have already.
And another one with a different design (like one nacelle only, or one nacelle up the saucer, and one down.)
It would put more diversity in the game, and more choice for the player. So tell me: WHY?
Ideally, you should have 2 (or more) ships that can be purchased with your "Rank Up" token, and an additional 2 (or more) ships that are considered "Premium" and purchasable with Dilithium/Zen. In that regard, STO is sorely lacking if you want to add additional ships.
The problem with adding low level ships however, is that the game is currently so "sped up" that you pass by the ranks with relative ease, and little regard to which ship you are in (until you reach max tier/level).
Really? Never noticed it myself, where is that seen or are you joking?
NVM, I just googled it, LOL that does not count!
R2D2 is also in Star Trek (2009) as an easter egg that appears for a split second:
"I walked away from the last great Time War. I marked the passing of the Time Lords. I saw the birth of the universe and watched as time ran out, moment by moment, until nothing remained. No time, no space. Just me!"
It just adds to the total abortion that was ST2009, I bet Charlie Sheen is in the bar somewhere too, I wonder what way he will cheapen his already TRIBBLE record in the next movie?
Are you implying that First Contact was an 'Abortion' because the Millenium Falcon is in that?
JJ most likely had no idea that ILM had done that is the whole point of an easter egg.
Industrial Light and Magic which was owned by George Lucas until Disney bought it as part of the take over of Lucasfilm, has a history of inserting Star Wars references into films they have worked on (I think R2 also is in Transformers 2).
"I walked away from the last great Time War. I marked the passing of the Time Lords. I saw the birth of the universe and watched as time ran out, moment by moment, until nothing remained. No time, no space. Just me!"
So the Star Trek seires should have slowly be forgot because no one create stuff about it anymore?
Open your mind dude!
The 2009 movie brought a new generation of "Trekie" who will watch the "old star trek stuff."
Even if that movie was in part a fail talking about the scenario. It was anyway a huge fresh air for the Franchise, like it or not.
This movie contribute a lot to the popularity of the Franchise. Lot's of guy are playing this game and before 2009, they didn't even know about this franchise!
And I'm waiting the new Star Trek movie, not for the scenario, not for the actor. Just for watch again the U.S.S. Enterprise moving, and get again the "Trek passion".
The "Kelvin" specifically, is from JJs movie which is owned by Paramount. However, the Kelvin "design" is clearly influenced by the likes of the TOS Saladin and the TNG Freedom Classes. Both of which, CBS owns the rights to, and thus Cryptic DO have access to those.
I like the idea of adding in the Canon ships from the Best of Both Worlds in the place of the Kelvin, such as the Freedom Class, I designed it as a mod for Start Trek Legacy quite some time ago, along with the Niagara and Challenger class.
"I walked away from the last great Time War. I marked the passing of the Time Lords. I saw the birth of the universe and watched as time ran out, moment by moment, until nothing remained. No time, no space. Just me!"
Fine, hope you enjoy it, if TRIBBLE a genre of all that we knew rather than using imagination and building on the incredible stories of the past is what floats your boat then go for it.
Okay, so you are without doubt on the "NostalRage" category of Treekie... Probably the worst...
Do you even read the complete post before posting your whine?
No wonder why community's are getting bad with that kind of lock minded people.
Well, you are telling me that design are here for special purpose for the ship in the series.
For example the Stargazzer and Cheyenne probably haven't exactly the same capacity do to there design, and configuration.
Well they are exactly the same ingame.
100% making my point for me. Things that exist in-universe rarely translate perfectly over to a video game, especially when one has to deal with things like "balance"
Visually distinct? Because the cheyenne and stargazzer aren't "visually distinct" from one another?
You're comparing two heavy cruiser archetype ships that were selected specifically to be similar to one another. Of course they're going to look very close to each other.
For example:
2 type of Cruiser for level 10 player's available.
The cruiser "Enterprise-like" like we have already.
And another one with a different design (like one nacelle only, or one nacelle up the saucer, and one down.)
It would put more diversity in the game, and more choice for the player. So tell me: WHY?
1) Because the IP, and by extension CBS doesn't support doing stupid TRIBBLE like that.
2) Ships of a given archetype are technologically very similar to one another. Randomly throwing around pieces that fundamentally change the performance of a vessel goes 100% contrary to that idea.
3) Because it would look completely idiotic to randomly cut and paste pieces from random ships together.
No, it have not ... it simply another dumbass summer action blockbuster movie.
It will get people to "watch old Star Trek stuff" as much as Transformers did for people to "watch old Transfomers cartoons".
Its just brand recognition, nothing more and nothing else ... we could say at least JJ clean slate made the pill easier to swallow as we can downright dismiss it.
I have a friend who literally HATES Star Trek. Up until 2009, he refused to watch a single episode or movie. Than the 2009 movie came around, and we went to see the movie together. Me (being a long-time Trek fan), and him (hater of all things Trek), BOTH enjoyed the movie immensely.
And for what it's worth (@ mattjohnsonva)... The 2009 movie (and the upcoming Into Darkness), does in no way "erase" what previously existed. The movie goes out of it's way to state in no uncertain terms, that the events are part of an ALTERNATE REALITY (or alternate timeline, if you prefer to call it such).
Do you think all the 800+ episodes and 10 feature films suddenly become erased, just because a new director gets their hands on the Trek IP? I still watch the old episodes from time to time, and the movies. AND I've seen the 2009 movie repeatedly.
It's fine if you guys don't like the 2009 movie (most "purists" don't). But don't continuously keep trashing the movie(s). We get it. We know you hate it. I'd love for these sort of discussions to quietly disappear into the night, but for some reason or another, whenever someone mentions ANYTHING related to the 2009 movie, there are always a bunch of haters who jump at the chance to trash it.
Science has yet to confirm that alternate realities can and do exist. This is a cop out for the film's apologists. Us haters bring it up because we are about to be subject to another helping of this TRIBBLE and it constantly reminds us of the lost opportunities, to take the genre to new heights rather than jumping on the batman in space type bandwagon.
The OP asked why the Kelvin was not in STO, my answer was because it is not part of the real ST universe, I stick by that.
And yet you appear to have NO ISSUE whatsoever, with the same "alternate reality" plot being applied, to an episode of TNG, named 'Parallels'. The writers of the 2009 movie have referenced said episode as the inspiration for the alternate reality concept of the 2009 movie.
You also mentioned 'First Contact' as being (according to you), the best of the previous 10 movies. Did you not realize that the crew of the Enterprise-E "witnessed" a sort-of alternate reality, before traveling back in time to prevent it?
Alternate Reality/Timeline is a common sci-fi plot device. That's why it's called science-FICTION. In my mind, most science-FICTION is only fiction until proven reality.
Comments
Ho, excuse me? Because you don't think every vessel got his own design for special purpose?
The Cheyenne and stargazzer are created for get exactly the same specific if it was "real"?
It's that just another cosmethic stuff?
The dreadnought didn't get his third nacelle for something right? But on the game, what is the use of this third nacelle? Explain?
Why can we make hybrid vessel how can for most of them completly look stupid. (just try to take the saucer of a cheyenne with the body of a stargazzer).
Because it's called "personalisation". Like you can make your own character, your own vessel. Even if at the end. It's just a pack of pixel behind your computer screen.
Again.
Feel FREE to not use them if you want. But don't forbide this because YOU don't like it.
Btw: Star Wars? Are you kidding me? The design's of the vessel made by Abram's and his team are completly on the line of Star Trek Series.
Don't even tell me it's because they got turret.
Because the first Enterprise got also a phaser firing like "turret". (just watch the episode when they try to catch a romulan bird of prey.)
Feel FREE to not use what you don't like. But leave thread and stuff you don't like doing there suggestion.
Not sure how anybody playing STO, can say the last Star Trek movie was bad. Why? Because it didn't have busty, captains in bikini top, miniskirt, "uniforms" flying alien starships, crewed by Tholian, duty officers, single-handedly defeating Borg armadas, building their own starbases in the middle of nowhere, and buying stuff with lobi jewels, and dilithium crystals?
Cheyenne already existed in-universe prior to STO. And the four nacelles? To balance the warp field.
Aside from breaking the warp 10 barrier or allowing high warp under cloak without detection?
There's a massive difference between ships of the same design using similar parts and slapping random bits from one ship onto a completely different ship design. Try retrofitting a Coast Guard cutter with an aircraft carrier's hangar deck. I'm sure you'll end up with something both functional and aesthetically pleasing...
You really need to decide who you're arguing with. I've made no mention of Star Wars or Abrams-Trek. Spouting off at people for things they haven't actually said doesn't exactly do much to support any other arguments you might make. Instead...it just makes you look petty, and frankly more than a bit ludicrous.
And in game, what are these stuff are for?
Cosmetic stuff. Nothing more.
Your argue doesn't follow the concept of the game.
Cheyenne and stargazzer are exactly the same ingame.
Same capacity, same potential.
Just the size who is different.
So why add new design or new ship with new design? Why?
Because it's not "star trek"?
Because it's "cosmetic stuff"?
You seriously should open your mind a little more.
Then either quote who you're ranting at, or don't include it in the same post as comments made to someone else. It's hard enough to understand what you're writing without having to guess who you're writing at.
And you're erroneously assuming the game's conventions are the only ones that matter when it comes to starship design, for any faction.
Your point is what exactly?
Once again, there is a massive difference between adding more starship classes that are visually distinct from one another, and randomly gluing pieces from one ship class to another completely different one.
I have absolutely nothing against adding more classes to STO, in fact a deep selection of ships is something I very strongly advocate. What I absolutely do not advocate is the idiotic idea of taking a piece of a Defiant, tossing in a little bit of a Sovereign and wrapping it all up with some chunks from a Steamrunner.
Wow... lazy...
I thought it was boring... that's why I think it was bad...
Try to read all posts please.
Boring? Not sure what movie you were watching, but amongst the plethora of Trek IP, previously available, for public consumption, I hardly think "boring" applies to what was basically "Star Trek: Non-Stop Explosionfest", which, oddly enough, is pretty much the only redeemable quality of STO. Spaceships blowing each other up. The movie was great. It really captured that "StarFleety" feeling, better than any of the previous movies. The only reason I don't give it 5 stars, was no cameo by Shatner.
The "Kelvin" specifically, is from JJs movie which is owned by Paramount. However, the Kelvin "design" is clearly influenced by the likes of the TOS Saladin and the TNG Freedom Classes. Both of which, CBS owns the rights to, and thus Cryptic DO have access to those.
Well, you are telling me that design are here for special purpose for the ship in the series.
For example the Stargazzer and Cheyenne probably haven't exactly the same capacity do to there design, and configuration.
Well they are exactly the same ingame.
Visually distinct? Because the cheyenne and stargazzer aren't "visually distinct" from one another?
All I want to know is WHY for you we shouldn't be able to get new class (understand: new ship to buy for dilithium, or free vessel when you level up) who got difference with the already know class, and with there own design?
For example:
2 type of Cruiser for level 10 player's available.
The cruiser "Enterprise-like" like we have already.
And another one with a different design (like one nacelle only, or one nacelle up the saucer, and one down.)
It would put more diversity in the game, and more choice for the player. So tell me: WHY?
The problem with adding low level ships however, is that the game is currently so "sped up" that you pass by the ranks with relative ease, and little regard to which ship you are in (until you reach max tier/level).
Not everyone believes explosions, fights and killing every 5 mins is entertaining you know?
Agreed. I like combat as much as the next person, but Star Trek is more than just that.
There should be no problem to get new design.
[insert trollface here]
R2D2 is also in Star Trek (2009) as an easter egg that appears for a split second:
"I walked away from the last great Time War. I marked the passing of the Time Lords. I saw the birth of the universe and watched as time ran out, moment by moment, until nothing remained. No time, no space. Just me!"
Are you implying that First Contact was an 'Abortion' because the Millenium Falcon is in that?
JJ most likely had no idea that ILM had done that is the whole point of an easter egg.
Industrial Light and Magic which was owned by George Lucas until Disney bought it as part of the take over of Lucasfilm, has a history of inserting Star Wars references into films they have worked on (I think R2 also is in Transformers 2).
"I walked away from the last great Time War. I marked the passing of the Time Lords. I saw the birth of the universe and watched as time ran out, moment by moment, until nothing remained. No time, no space. Just me!"
Open your mind dude!
The 2009 movie brought a new generation of "Trekie" who will watch the "old star trek stuff."
Even if that movie was in part a fail talking about the scenario. It was anyway a huge fresh air for the Franchise, like it or not.
This movie contribute a lot to the popularity of the Franchise. Lot's of guy are playing this game and before 2009, they didn't even know about this franchise!
And I'm waiting the new Star Trek movie, not for the scenario, not for the actor. Just for watch again the U.S.S. Enterprise moving, and get again the "Trek passion".
But again. THIS IS NOT THE SUBJECT OF THE THREAD.
I like the idea of adding in the Canon ships from the Best of Both Worlds in the place of the Kelvin, such as the Freedom Class, I designed it as a mod for Start Trek Legacy quite some time ago, along with the Niagara and Challenger class.
"I walked away from the last great Time War. I marked the passing of the Time Lords. I saw the birth of the universe and watched as time ran out, moment by moment, until nothing remained. No time, no space. Just me!"
Okay, so you are without doubt on the "NostalRage" category of Treekie... Probably the worst...
Do you even read the complete post before posting your whine?
No wonder why community's are getting bad with that kind of lock minded people.
100% making my point for me. Things that exist in-universe rarely translate perfectly over to a video game, especially when one has to deal with things like "balance"
You're comparing two heavy cruiser archetype ships that were selected specifically to be similar to one another. Of course they're going to look very close to each other.
1) Because the IP, and by extension CBS doesn't support doing stupid TRIBBLE like that.
2) Ships of a given archetype are technologically very similar to one another. Randomly throwing around pieces that fundamentally change the performance of a vessel goes 100% contrary to that idea.
3) Because it would look completely idiotic to randomly cut and paste pieces from random ships together.
I have a friend who literally HATES Star Trek. Up until 2009, he refused to watch a single episode or movie. Than the 2009 movie came around, and we went to see the movie together. Me (being a long-time Trek fan), and him (hater of all things Trek), BOTH enjoyed the movie immensely.
And for what it's worth (@ mattjohnsonva)... The 2009 movie (and the upcoming Into Darkness), does in no way "erase" what previously existed. The movie goes out of it's way to state in no uncertain terms, that the events are part of an ALTERNATE REALITY (or alternate timeline, if you prefer to call it such).
Do you think all the 800+ episodes and 10 feature films suddenly become erased, just because a new director gets their hands on the Trek IP? I still watch the old episodes from time to time, and the movies. AND I've seen the 2009 movie repeatedly.
It's fine if you guys don't like the 2009 movie (most "purists" don't). But don't continuously keep trashing the movie(s). We get it. We know you hate it. I'd love for these sort of discussions to quietly disappear into the night, but for some reason or another, whenever someone mentions ANYTHING related to the 2009 movie, there are always a bunch of haters who jump at the chance to trash it.
"Fresh minds, fresh ideas, Be tolerant."
And yet you appear to have NO ISSUE whatsoever, with the same "alternate reality" plot being applied, to an episode of TNG, named 'Parallels'. The writers of the 2009 movie have referenced said episode as the inspiration for the alternate reality concept of the 2009 movie.
You also mentioned 'First Contact' as being (according to you), the best of the previous 10 movies. Did you not realize that the crew of the Enterprise-E "witnessed" a sort-of alternate reality, before traveling back in time to prevent it?
Alternate Reality/Timeline is a common sci-fi plot device. That's why it's called science-FICTION. In my mind, most science-FICTION is only fiction until proven reality.