Erm, my intents are irrelevant for the purpose of current course of discussion, but since you brought it up - I've always wanted to make a character, which indeed, does go away from 'hourglass' form (or barbie form).. it is doable currently, with little trial & error. Is it 100% to my liking? No. But it's defo better than it used to be.
Glad things are coming along for you. I'd suggest white as a uniform colour as in my experience it reduces the hourglass effect, the problem is that it makes the TRIBBLE look bigger.
I personally find it ridiculous, that this form is 'standard' in Trek game.. as some uniforms definitelly would hide these, rather than show them more.. but eh. Again.. having choices though, is what matters, not taking this from others, and that's what I always proposed & will continue to do so. *shrug*
It would be nice if there was a slider that managed this effect while modifying other related sliders to maintain the form you've customised to have elsewhere. None of my characters care for maintaining that sort of figure, problem is there is a limit to how straight one can make a character's sides. I tend to use black as a uniform colour because it's slimming so I might be missing something.
Alas, back to the original question of yours - Some of us are rather baffled by logic.. or lack of thereof in some posts from one individual. See.. it's okay to disagree with an opinion of someone, but when they enter the level of derogatory comments and tell us how and what to think, and what to like.. that's when I unleash the Targs.
I kind of skipped over capnkirk4's many posts there, maybe if he had made one instead of four...
No, It isn't. It just doesn't work that way, no matter how badly you wish it did. You're born male or female. It's an act of God... [snip, rest is irrelevant after that point for me]
I stopped reading there. You're entitled to your beliefs... but that doesn't mean them correct or better than mine or anyone else, because of your religion. Have a nice day.
[10:20] Your Lunge deals 4798 (2580) Physical Damage(Critical) to Tosk of Borg.
Star Trek Online Volunteer Community Moderator "bIghojchugh DaneH, Dumev pagh. bIghojqangbe'chugh, DuQaHlaH pagh." "Learn lots. Don't judge. Laugh for no reason. Be nice. Seek happiness."~Day[9] "Your fun isn't wrong."~LaughingTrendy
No, It isn't. It just doesn't work that way, no matter how badly you wish it did. You're born male or female. It's an act of God and can't be changed. To be biologically male or female you need to be born with functional male, or female, sex/reproductive organs. Or both if you happen to be a chimeric hermaphrodite. Crudely applying appendages to, or cutting orifices in, ones body, just means your a man or woman who mutilated their sexuality, due to self-loathing. Understand?
Thankfully it can be changed.
Norway and Yeager dammit... I still want my Typhoon and Jupiter though. JJ Trek The Kelvin Timeline is just Trek and it's fully canon... get over it. But I still prefer TAR.
#TASforSTO
'...I can tell you that we're not in the military and that we intend no harm to the whales.' Kirk: The Voyage Home
'Starfleet is not a military organisation. Its purpose is exploration.' Picard: Peak Performance
'This is clearly a military operation. Is that what we are now? Because I thought we were explorers!' Scotty: Into Darkness
'...The Federation. Starfleet. We're not a military agency.' Scotty: Beyond
'I'm not a soldier anymore. I'm an engineer.' Miles O'Brien: Empok Nor
'...Starfleet could use you... It's a peacekeeping and humanitarian armada...' Admiral Pike: Star Trek
I've managed to (mostly) get away from the hourglass form on my main Delta captain (a female joined trill who, for the record, is very much on the muscular side). I'll take some screen caps after maintenance and post links to them if you're interested.
If I recall correctly, Flores (your first boff) hasn't really got hourglass form either. She is in fact quite stocky around the middle, something I noticed when I put her in the female TOS uniform.
Logic is the beginning of wisdom, not the end of it.
Male faces are too haggard. The exaggerated wrinkles and cheekbones are fine for middle-aged men, but not everyone wants to play that type of character. Youthful male faces are difficult or impossible to make because of the automatic brown beard stubble, wrinkles/pitting, and so forth.
Another problem is the "identical guy" syndrome where so many characters look like the same guy -- facially. Randomize the facial features for new characters so people have to actually make an effort to customize..
..to express my desire to have the option of more gentle features and long hairstyles for male characters,etc.
Not stereotypical things bound to how should look a woman and how should look a man.
The customization in STO is good....better than many online games. But with more face-body manipulation and less stereotypical features,it would be much better.
LOL. The only "Reality" that ST is based upon, is that it's creator(s) were/are real people. It doesn't accurately model physics, space travel, biology, or anything else it portrays. All of these things are instead modeled by "future magic", and the corresponding techno babble that goes with it. Dude, it's pure 100% fantasy. Accept it.
In science fiction, science does tend toward the slightly inaccurate. However, in several instances, Trek dealt with real physics and legitimate science. I mean, hell, it was scientifically sound enough that its FTL system was scientifically modeled, and now NASA is building it. Fantasy uses straight magic. Sci-fi uses Clark's Third Law (any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic). But it is still based on the real, the scientific, and the technological. It is NOT, as you claim, "pure fantasy." It may have diverged greatly from the source material, but it is still tied to it.
Common sense like Ferengi merchants shrinking down alien spacecraft, with what, shrinkrays, and then putting them in lockboxes, and selling them? Or the common sense of my character and his murderous crew having singlehandedly, defeated the combined armadas of virtually every other species in the galaxy? Face it, guy, it's an MMO with about as much "common sense" regarding the ST franchise, as Willy Wonka's chocolate factory.
Actually, a more plausible explanation for Lock Box ships is that the packages "containing" the ships merely contain vouchers or other items which you use to claim ownership of the vessel. The vessel isn't "shrunk" into a box. it's likely at a storage location and sent to you when you claim it. As for the inaccuracy of the combat, that is due merely to the MMO aspect that comes into a Star Trek MMO. In similar fashion, a hero in, say, Guild Wars 2, would not normally go around murdering every living thing in the area they're in. The combat is an aspect of gameplay, not of story, and is done to keep you playing. Were this game to be made in the show's style, even DPS ships would take several minutes slugging out against single targets. Every fight would be a mini-boss, and things would get absurd. The game would slow to molasses, and most people would get bored and leave. This is not an indication that this is not a Trek game. This indicates that it IS a Trek game, but must have the ASPECTS of a game. Every MMO does this. You cannot claim that SWTOR is not a Star Wars game for the same reason, despite that game necessarily forcing you to carve a path of death and agony, murdering easily a hundred people through every area to reach an objective (something never shown in Star Wars, as skirmishes were smaller, rarer, and far less bloody). The game's theme and IP is shown through its lore and the styles of its abilities and art. This game has Trek lore, Trek ships, and Trek RULES, which are only bent when needed to make gameplay less boring.
Picard, and Archer, were portrayed by real actors, before STO was even conceived. And no you can't have a flat chested female captain, because the creator won't allow it, which incidently, was the whole point of this rant thread. Honestly, this game has other more urgent issues to address than letting people make flat chested females. Development time should NOT be squandered on this folly.
But that's the thing: Trek is portrayed by real people. Its characters all LOOK like real people. And guess what? Flat-chested women ARE REAL PEOPLE. We saw it in the show. As for "development time being squandered" on this slight dip toward the sane and rational, it's actually EASIER to allow a flat character model to expand in areas than to force a base amount as a mandatory minimum setting. It would actually waste development time to do as YOU want, because they would have to alter every racial character model in the game, and that would upset more people than it would please. On top of it all, you are a minority. The people that would be offended by a mandatory D-cup far outweigh the small number of people that agree with you. So, it saves Cryptic more money, and gives Cryptic more players, with the ability to let people do as they wish. You want all your female character models to have big mammaries? Do it yourself. Don't tell people they're not allowed to do something just because you don't like it. Your position is selfish, derogatory, sexist, and disgusting. The choices of others outweigh the immature desires you are putting forth and vehemently arguing in favor of.
Or instead, why don't you go find an MMO that allows you to be a flat chested woman? I have just as much right to be here as you. Who made you the STO sheriff?
I have an MMO that lets me make a flat-chested woman: This one. If you are unsatisfied with this product or an aspect of it, you should not use this product. You do not force the product to change to suit your wants at the expense of everyone else, and you do not force everyone else to leave. This is not YOUR game, it is a game you have access to.
Not sure what relevance this has, but yes, some organisms can biologically (that is non-surgically) alter their sex. Human beings can't. That's just how it is. To believe otherwise is just new age, touchy, feely, transsexual nonsense. The logic is the same as the weirdos who put canine inserts in their mouth and think they're vampires, see? Even though they wish to believe they're vampires they are not. They're people who need help, and fifty years ago, probably would have been committed to a state hospital.
But it's not 50 years ago, it's TODAY. And today, gender reassignment surgery is a scientifically legitimate and legally recognized procedure. The relevance of bringing the matter up was to show that, simply because a life form is genetically designated male, does not mean it cannot be female. Gender is not a purely genetic thing.
Well these forums are a place to voice opinions. If hearing someone "tell" you an opinion that you do not wish to hear, causes you this much distress, do yourself a favor, and don't read, or respond to them. Again not sure who appointed you the Forum Fascist.
This is a place to voice opinions. MY opinions are that YOUR opinions are derogatory to a large number of people, generally discriminatory, and directly offensive. I am voicing that opinion now and giving citation and reasons. And, when you attempt to diminish what another person can do because of your opinions on it, you open yourself to criticism. Saying that people shouldn't be allowed to make flat-chested women because you don't like flat-chested women is to necessarily open your opinions to criticism. You have a right to your opinion, true. Up until your opinion affects the ability of someone else, as you claim it should. Your opinion has led you to repeatedly demand others play to your liking instead of theirs. So, I quote again: "The right for you to swing your fist ends where the other person's nose begins." Your opinions are valid up until the point you demand others comply with them.
Edit: Ergo, if someone artificially, transforms their gender from one to the other, they are classified "scientifically" (biologically) as 'transgender", Ipso Facto. Just because you put a Ferrari body on a Prius, doesn't make it a Ferrari. Underneath, it's still a Prius, no matter how many times you tell someone it's a Ferrari. That's just how it is.
I find it amusing you make a car analogy to defend your position, when your own analogy actually proves my point. You see, a sex change is not "putting a new body on it" - that's COSMETIC surgery. A sex change alters the inner workings - quite like putting a Ferrari body on a Prius... and then putting a Ferrari ENGINE in a Prius. You have rebuilt the Prius, inside and out, AS a Ferrari. It can perform almost as well as one, and there are few indications of what it once was. If the person looked like a girl and still had male parts, it is a male. But if the parts and internal workings have been altered to female, that person has become female. And your only argument against this fact - backed up by the very definition of the words as well as general scientific and legal consensus - is to call it nonsense and to tell me to "go back to bed." This is a non-case. You have made no argument against the evidence, and you have presented no counter-evidence to refute. You are wrong. End of discussion.
Edit: Ergo, if someone artificially, transforms their gender from one to the other, they are classified "scientifically" (biologically) as 'transgender", Ipso Facto. Just because you put a Ferrari body on a Prius, doesn't make it a Ferrari. Underneath, it's still a Prius, no matter how many times you tell someone it's a Ferrari. That's just how it is.
Wow, cool, you can look at an actual definition and still think you're right 'coz god'.
It's funny, but if you look really close at a car you can see it has neither a biological sex or a psychological gender. If you manage to come up with an example that involves something with a working psyche, let us know eh?
Norway and Yeager dammit... I still want my Typhoon and Jupiter though. JJ Trek The Kelvin Timeline is just Trek and it's fully canon... get over it. But I still prefer TAR.
#TASforSTO
'...I can tell you that we're not in the military and that we intend no harm to the whales.' Kirk: The Voyage Home
'Starfleet is not a military organisation. Its purpose is exploration.' Picard: Peak Performance
'This is clearly a military operation. Is that what we are now? Because I thought we were explorers!' Scotty: Into Darkness
'...The Federation. Starfleet. We're not a military agency.' Scotty: Beyond
'I'm not a soldier anymore. I'm an engineer.' Miles O'Brien: Empok Nor
'...Starfleet could use you... It's a peacekeeping and humanitarian armada...' Admiral Pike: Star Trek
heh I've brought back this old thread "linking" to this words:
..to express my desire to have the option of more gentle features and long hairstyles for male characters,etc.
Not stereotypical things bound to how should look a woman and how should look a man.
The customization in STO is good....better than many online games. But with more face-body manipulation and less stereotypical features,it would be much better.
...Something I've pointed out on many an occasion, though not sure how safe it was to dig it up and not create a new thread. Anyway since it's up and slightly off-topic already, you might as well know if you don't, stereotypes are all the rage in society nowadays, with the few non-conformists being considered the oddballs nobody should care about.
Back to topic, yes the virtual world created for STO would benefit visually from having the additions elaborated by the OP incorporated into the character creator. That is supposing the designers want STO chars to have that level of realism in the first place. Their plan so far has been to stick to the looks of rough hardboiled men and male-fantasy inspired women and usually in reverse order because that's what they feel best portrays the world of Star Trek. But that is a world of fiction.
The problem is appearances many times reflect our attitudes and the real world is heading in the opposite direction. With the continued expansion of city lifestyle, men are finding usefulness in the effeminate and women in their rougher natures as each compete and strive to find a comfortable niche to fit in which makes them feel accepted in our highly critical (and hence, stereotypical) modern culture. Where the real and STO worlds collide, you get the rifts that spawn threads like these.
Making people's individual ideas of realism compatible with STO is not a job designers get paid for. I doubt any of us would care for the job anyway, that's why we have the characters of STO looking the way they are, not the we would prefer them. At least they attempt realism and it doesn't look worse, like something out of a comic book. I'm in support of and suggest improvements to character design, but in the end it's up to the designers. STO is virtual reality. Knowing that, I think we can be content even when we're not satisfied with the way we look.
Besides, when have we ever been satisfied with that? *glances at the highly profitable multi-billion dollar beauty industry* hm? My point exactly. ^_^
err..actually I tried to go back to the thread in some way..
As an anti-conformist I don't agree with people that don't care about a minority.
I know what you mean about character appearances but still...it's a pity. Maybe because I know they could do better (for example,when I think of games like the old "smackdown vs raw"..the wrestler creation...damn that was great and detailed).
But I still love the customization of STO.
Anti-conformist, huh? You own a cell phone? If you do, you're a conformist. Follow social media? You're a conformist. Unless you've found a way to live in a vacuum, completely independent from the rest of the human race, you're a conformist.
Seriously. Stop labeling people and think you have right to do so. We've disagreed with you, and no matter what you say, you can't really control what people think or want. You can keep trying, wasting your time, but it's just not happening. And exactly this attitude puts people off - when you try to tell people how they think, for them, as if you smehow knew us better than we do ourselves.
[10:20] Your Lunge deals 4798 (2580) Physical Damage(Critical) to Tosk of Borg.
Star Trek Online Volunteer Community Moderator "bIghojchugh DaneH, Dumev pagh. bIghojqangbe'chugh, DuQaHlaH pagh." "Learn lots. Don't judge. Laugh for no reason. Be nice. Seek happiness."~Day[9] "Your fun isn't wrong."~LaughingTrendy
No, NASA isn't. They're not building an engine they saw on Star Trek. Who tells you this stuff? Do you really think things like tractor beams, transporters, and replicators, deal with real physics, and legitimate science? Really? What about when the chief engineer has to fire a reverse, magneton, beam, through the main deflector array, piggybacked on a carrier wave through subspace, to get the ship out of whatever seemingly hopeless jam it's in? You think that's legitimate science, too? You must also think that spaceships fly around through the vacuum of space like airplanes as depicted in ST too, right? And that there's also an "up", and a "down" in three dimensional space too, huh? Clark's Third Law, while interesting from a stone age perspective, is not a law of physical science. Here's the deal. Magic is creating something from nothing. Technology is the linear progression of a better standard of living for a society. See?
Yes, NASA is. Using calculations made in the mid-90s by Mexican physicist Miguel Alcubierre, and refined in 2012 by Harold White of NASA, the US aeronautics division has been preparing on creating small-scale experimental space-warping technology, alongside other next-gen propulsion systems (like the EMDrive they were testing - separate entirely from NASA's warp research - that gave false signatures of a warp field). And the Alcubierre formula? Details the same kind of warp drive seen in Star Trek - using negative energy to fold a bubble of space-time around a vessel and using that to travel faster than light. It's not quite science FACT, but it's no linger science FICTION.
Just as well, because that's not the only thing. We have invented small-scale tractor beams. Experiments in the quantum mechanics field have actually proved the principle Einstein jokingly (and disbelievingly) called "spooky action at a distance" - which, combined with our new-found ability to quantum entangle photons and effectively "teleport" them means that we are, at worst, maybe a century away from transporters, with the technology also having the potential to be used to make replicators. All of this is legitimate, real science being done on this Earth at this very moment. The points you made were in reference to a thing SciFi refers to as "technobabble" - which is, quite literally, making **** up for the plot. That's the fiction part of science fiction. Though, funny you say "magneton" - as that is actually the shorthand name for a hypothetical magnetic monopole (a particle with only one magnetic pole, theorized but at present not observed - theorized, in fact, to exist but have as little as one in the universe; though we have simulated quasi-magnetons at the LHC). Other real technobabble particles include (but are not limited to) the graviton, the positron, the antiproton, and the lepton. So, Trek may USE them wrong, but it IS tied to real science. Technology may be the "linear" (I laugh at that, by the way, as technology has NEVER expanded linearly and our technological capabilities actually tend to increase exponentially), but technology CAN one day create something from nothing - or, at least, appear to. Hence Clark's Third Law. Either way, you are entirely incorrect. Little did you know, we live in the future - or, at least, what scifi writers would classify as the future.
Actually, no. The idea of ferengis handing out vouchers for Jem Hadar dreadnaughts, is just as ridiculous, as the scenario I mentioned. If the Ferengi had all these surplus alien starships lying around, it would make more sense to form an armada and conquer everybody else, Or at the very least, increase the size of their own merchant fleets.
But that's not what the Ferengi do. Why conquer everyone? They're less likely to buy your junk. Why not, instead, you sell the ships you have salvaged or captured (as is the lore for virtually every Lock Box and Lobi ship) to the highest bidder, financing a war where both sides buy guns... from you? The Ferengi don't give two shakes of a rat's aft about conquest. Rule of Acquisition number nine: "Opportunity plus instinct equals profit."
Good. You agree with me that STO is an MMO, complete with all the outlandishness that being an MMO entails, which is significantly different from what the shows, and movies portray. You basically just regurgitated everything I pointed out to you earlier. Star Trek is about the drama of exploration, and strange, new, worlds. STO is about killing stuff, so you can get better gear, so you can be better at killing more stuff.
No. I said that STO has MMO components. STO has an ASPECT of killing stuff and getting items. But you can level off non-combat through DOffing. There is also the aspect of an RPG, where you can make a character and pretend - to an extent - that you live in the Star Trek universe. Just because it's an MMO doesn't mean it's a generic cookie-cutter superhero game where every dude needs to be a hulking glob of muscle and every woman has to be a pair of bowling balls shrink-wrapped onto a stick figure. You are still operating within a universe, with set precedents and possibilities. Disregarding the entire history and precedent for the entire setting of the game because a mostly unrelated gameplay aspect doesn't fit perfectly is absurd.
I don't want mandatory D-cups for everyone. I never said that. Pay attention. I'm content with the sliders as they are now. It would waste resources to change it for a small minority of people. Like it, or not, big jugs are just NOT a big issue for most players. For cryin' out loud most of the game is spent looking a the back of your character, anyhow!
As I've stated previously, I'm perfectly satisfied with the sliders as they are. People who want flatter chests for females are the one's that wish to change the product to suit their wants. Seriously, guy, you should try reading the stuff you type before hitting the reply button.
Clearly you are not "content with the sliders", if you tell someone to make another gender of character instead of using those sliders the as they please. You were the one that started all of this, claimed all characters need to look "heroic". And you were the one that claimed that Cryptic allowing people to do this (even though it's existed for years) would waste development time, despite the fact that not allowing them to do that would actually take effort. So I don't see why you're making the "it's not a big deal" argument when the only person making a big deal of it is you.
You're right. It's not a genetic thing. It's a biological thing.
And in a world where we can alter the biology of a thing with surgeries and supplements, refusing to believe in the validity of a sex change (as clearly you have been) is absurd and baseless.
My opinion is just that. An opinion. It doesn't affect anyone else. I have no control over what the Devs do with the character generator, or any other aspect of STO, either in whole or in part. I can demand anything I wish. People in Hell can demand ice water. Doesn't mean they're gettin' any.
I think the real bee in your bonnet is the fact that I can voice an opinion that you vehemently disagree with. Whereas you could simply see the Capnkirk tag and say to yourself "He ain't got nuthin' I want to read", and ignore my post, as I'm sure a lot of people do, You'd rather jump in and tell me to either leave or shut up. Like I said, it's always the loudest advocates for tolerance that are the most intolerant.
You are using your opinion as base for telling someone else how to operate, as you very directly did in the first post I responded to. Clearly, your opinions at that point DO affect others. You are correct that you can demand things. But to demand that others alter their tastes to suit yours is still offensive and confrontational. You do not have the right to make such a demand. To simply say "I want" is fine. To say "I want YOU" implies that you believe yourself to have an authority over someone else to ask them to do something.
I don't mind that you say things, or that you can say them. I have no offense at that. You have your free speech. As do I, to use my free speech to take up an opposing position. It is not that I disagree with your position - though I do, had you used that position differently I would not have objected. But to demand something of others based on your opinion defies free speech, as you seek to use it to limit the freedom of expression of others. I wouldn't have cared less if you said "I don't like flat-chested women". But that you said that someone else should change themselves to fit you - to alter their character's gender instead of doing as they pleased, merely because of that opinion - is what I object to. When you issue a retraction to that statement, and an apology for being discriminatory against transgendered individuals (which was entirely unacceptable and rude), I will be done with you.
Pretty sure the parts you get in a sex change aren't actual working parts, only facsimiles thereof. I know the 'females" need to stock up on orgy butter to keep from getting dry gulched during sex. No eggs, ovaries, or testes, so no, a sex change does not alter the inner workings, as you say. Interesting, in your analogy of a person looking female but possessing male genitalia , you used the term "it".
Again, it's only my opinion. This isn't court, and there is no "evidence" to present. Now please, demonstrate the maturity to allow me my opinion, ignore my posts if you must, and trouble me with this no further. Or not.
Science has not progressed quite that far. But we are close. We can create sperm and ovum from the skin cells of a donor. So, one day, they may HAVE functioning parts. However, the lack of functionality does not, and never will, give you the right to invalidate that other person's very personal choice to become something else. You do not have the right to say that a person is not what they chose to be because you believe that it should not be allowed.
Anti-conformist, huh? You own a cell phone? If you do, you're a conformist. Follow social media? You're a conformist. Unless you've found a way to live in a vacuum, completely independent from the rest of the human race, you're a conformist.
hey,you don't know me and I'm not gonna tell you here all the details of my lifestyle...what I like...what I do..what I think...what I hate...what I love etc etc..
If you knew me...you'd swallow your own tongue for what you've said! really.
Seriously. Stop labeling people and think you have right to do so. We've disagreed with you, and no matter what you say, you can't really control what people think or want. You can keep trying, wasting your time, but it's just not happening. And exactly this attitude puts people off - when you try to tell people how they think, for them, as if you smehow knew us better than we do ourselves.
People who think they're vampires because they wear black and have fang implants. People who think they are witches, and wizards, and possess magical powers. Lycanthropes who think they turn into wolves during lunar cycles. The insane asylums are probably chock full of people who think they are things they are not. You want me to keep goin', eh?
So you can't tell the difference between psychological issues and delusions. I didn't expect you to as that is what we have experts for, so people like you aren't allowed anywhere near people with any form of mental dislocation.
Norway and Yeager dammit... I still want my Typhoon and Jupiter though. JJ Trek The Kelvin Timeline is just Trek and it's fully canon... get over it. But I still prefer TAR.
#TASforSTO
'...I can tell you that we're not in the military and that we intend no harm to the whales.' Kirk: The Voyage Home
'Starfleet is not a military organisation. Its purpose is exploration.' Picard: Peak Performance
'This is clearly a military operation. Is that what we are now? Because I thought we were explorers!' Scotty: Into Darkness
'...The Federation. Starfleet. We're not a military agency.' Scotty: Beyond
'I'm not a soldier anymore. I'm an engineer.' Miles O'Brien: Empok Nor
'...Starfleet could use you... It's a peacekeeping and humanitarian armada...' Admiral Pike: Star Trek
Comments
Glad things are coming along for you. I'd suggest white as a uniform colour as in my experience it reduces the hourglass effect, the problem is that it makes the TRIBBLE look bigger.
It would be nice if there was a slider that managed this effect while modifying other related sliders to maintain the form you've customised to have elsewhere. None of my characters care for maintaining that sort of figure, problem is there is a limit to how straight one can make a character's sides. I tend to use black as a uniform colour because it's slimming so I might be missing something.
I kind of skipped over capnkirk4's many posts there, maybe if he had made one instead of four...
Star Trek Online Volunteer Community Moderator
"bIghojchugh DaneH, Dumev pagh. bIghojqangbe'chugh, DuQaHlaH pagh."
"Learn lots. Don't judge. Laugh for no reason. Be nice. Seek happiness." ~Day[9]
"Your fun isn't wrong." ~LaughingTrendy
Find me on Twitterverse - @jodarkrider
Thankfully it can be changed.
Norway and Yeager dammit... I still want my Typhoon and Jupiter though.
JJ Trek The Kelvin Timeline is just Trek and it's fully canon... get over it. But I still prefer TAR.
#TASforSTO
'...I can tell you that we're not in the military and that we intend no harm to the whales.' Kirk: The Voyage Home
'Starfleet is not a military organisation. Its purpose is exploration.' Picard: Peak Performance
'This is clearly a military operation. Is that what we are now? Because I thought we were explorers!' Scotty: Into Darkness
'...The Federation. Starfleet. We're not a military agency.' Scotty: Beyond
'I'm not a soldier anymore. I'm an engineer.' Miles O'Brien: Empok Nor
'...Starfleet could use you... It's a peacekeeping and humanitarian armada...' Admiral Pike: Star Trek
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
If I recall correctly, Flores (your first boff) hasn't really got hourglass form either. She is in fact quite stocky around the middle, something I noticed when I put her in the female TOS uniform.
..to express my desire to have the option of more gentle features and long hairstyles for male characters,etc.
Not stereotypical things bound to how should look a woman and how should look a man.
The customization in STO is good....better than many online games. But with more face-body manipulation and less stereotypical features,it would be much better.
In science fiction, science does tend toward the slightly inaccurate. However, in several instances, Trek dealt with real physics and legitimate science. I mean, hell, it was scientifically sound enough that its FTL system was scientifically modeled, and now NASA is building it. Fantasy uses straight magic. Sci-fi uses Clark's Third Law (any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic). But it is still based on the real, the scientific, and the technological. It is NOT, as you claim, "pure fantasy." It may have diverged greatly from the source material, but it is still tied to it.
Actually, a more plausible explanation for Lock Box ships is that the packages "containing" the ships merely contain vouchers or other items which you use to claim ownership of the vessel. The vessel isn't "shrunk" into a box. it's likely at a storage location and sent to you when you claim it. As for the inaccuracy of the combat, that is due merely to the MMO aspect that comes into a Star Trek MMO. In similar fashion, a hero in, say, Guild Wars 2, would not normally go around murdering every living thing in the area they're in. The combat is an aspect of gameplay, not of story, and is done to keep you playing. Were this game to be made in the show's style, even DPS ships would take several minutes slugging out against single targets. Every fight would be a mini-boss, and things would get absurd. The game would slow to molasses, and most people would get bored and leave. This is not an indication that this is not a Trek game. This indicates that it IS a Trek game, but must have the ASPECTS of a game. Every MMO does this. You cannot claim that SWTOR is not a Star Wars game for the same reason, despite that game necessarily forcing you to carve a path of death and agony, murdering easily a hundred people through every area to reach an objective (something never shown in Star Wars, as skirmishes were smaller, rarer, and far less bloody). The game's theme and IP is shown through its lore and the styles of its abilities and art. This game has Trek lore, Trek ships, and Trek RULES, which are only bent when needed to make gameplay less boring.
But that's the thing: Trek is portrayed by real people. Its characters all LOOK like real people. And guess what? Flat-chested women ARE REAL PEOPLE. We saw it in the show. As for "development time being squandered" on this slight dip toward the sane and rational, it's actually EASIER to allow a flat character model to expand in areas than to force a base amount as a mandatory minimum setting. It would actually waste development time to do as YOU want, because they would have to alter every racial character model in the game, and that would upset more people than it would please. On top of it all, you are a minority. The people that would be offended by a mandatory D-cup far outweigh the small number of people that agree with you. So, it saves Cryptic more money, and gives Cryptic more players, with the ability to let people do as they wish. You want all your female character models to have big mammaries? Do it yourself. Don't tell people they're not allowed to do something just because you don't like it. Your position is selfish, derogatory, sexist, and disgusting. The choices of others outweigh the immature desires you are putting forth and vehemently arguing in favor of.
I have an MMO that lets me make a flat-chested woman: This one. If you are unsatisfied with this product or an aspect of it, you should not use this product. You do not force the product to change to suit your wants at the expense of everyone else, and you do not force everyone else to leave. This is not YOUR game, it is a game you have access to.
But it's not 50 years ago, it's TODAY. And today, gender reassignment surgery is a scientifically legitimate and legally recognized procedure. The relevance of bringing the matter up was to show that, simply because a life form is genetically designated male, does not mean it cannot be female. Gender is not a purely genetic thing.
This is a place to voice opinions. MY opinions are that YOUR opinions are derogatory to a large number of people, generally discriminatory, and directly offensive. I am voicing that opinion now and giving citation and reasons. And, when you attempt to diminish what another person can do because of your opinions on it, you open yourself to criticism. Saying that people shouldn't be allowed to make flat-chested women because you don't like flat-chested women is to necessarily open your opinions to criticism. You have a right to your opinion, true. Up until your opinion affects the ability of someone else, as you claim it should. Your opinion has led you to repeatedly demand others play to your liking instead of theirs. So, I quote again: "The right for you to swing your fist ends where the other person's nose begins." Your opinions are valid up until the point you demand others comply with them.
I find it amusing you make a car analogy to defend your position, when your own analogy actually proves my point. You see, a sex change is not "putting a new body on it" - that's COSMETIC surgery. A sex change alters the inner workings - quite like putting a Ferrari body on a Prius... and then putting a Ferrari ENGINE in a Prius. You have rebuilt the Prius, inside and out, AS a Ferrari. It can perform almost as well as one, and there are few indications of what it once was. If the person looked like a girl and still had male parts, it is a male. But if the parts and internal workings have been altered to female, that person has become female. And your only argument against this fact - backed up by the very definition of the words as well as general scientific and legal consensus - is to call it nonsense and to tell me to "go back to bed." This is a non-case. You have made no argument against the evidence, and you have presented no counter-evidence to refute. You are wrong. End of discussion.
Wow, cool, you can look at an actual definition and still think you're right 'coz god'.
It's funny, but if you look really close at a car you can see it has neither a biological sex or a psychological gender. If you manage to come up with an example that involves something with a working psyche, let us know eh?
Norway and Yeager dammit... I still want my Typhoon and Jupiter though.
JJ Trek The Kelvin Timeline is just Trek and it's fully canon... get over it. But I still prefer TAR.
#TASforSTO
'...I can tell you that we're not in the military and that we intend no harm to the whales.' Kirk: The Voyage Home
'Starfleet is not a military organisation. Its purpose is exploration.' Picard: Peak Performance
'This is clearly a military operation. Is that what we are now? Because I thought we were explorers!' Scotty: Into Darkness
'...The Federation. Starfleet. We're not a military agency.' Scotty: Beyond
'I'm not a soldier anymore. I'm an engineer.' Miles O'Brien: Empok Nor
'...Starfleet could use you... It's a peacekeeping and humanitarian armada...' Admiral Pike: Star Trek
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
...Something I've pointed out on many an occasion, though not sure how safe it was to dig it up and not create a new thread. Anyway since it's up and slightly off-topic already, you might as well know if you don't, stereotypes are all the rage in society nowadays, with the few non-conformists being considered the oddballs nobody should care about.
Back to topic, yes the virtual world created for STO would benefit visually from having the additions elaborated by the OP incorporated into the character creator. That is supposing the designers want STO chars to have that level of realism in the first place. Their plan so far has been to stick to the looks of rough hardboiled men and male-fantasy inspired women and usually in reverse order because that's what they feel best portrays the world of Star Trek. But that is a world of fiction.
The problem is appearances many times reflect our attitudes and the real world is heading in the opposite direction. With the continued expansion of city lifestyle, men are finding usefulness in the effeminate and women in their rougher natures as each compete and strive to find a comfortable niche to fit in which makes them feel accepted in our highly critical (and hence, stereotypical) modern culture. Where the real and STO worlds collide, you get the rifts that spawn threads like these.
Making people's individual ideas of realism compatible with STO is not a job designers get paid for. I doubt any of us would care for the job anyway, that's why we have the characters of STO looking the way they are, not the we would prefer them. At least they attempt realism and it doesn't look worse, like something out of a comic book. I'm in support of and suggest improvements to character design, but in the end it's up to the designers. STO is virtual reality. Knowing that, I think we can be content even when we're not satisfied with the way we look.
Besides, when have we ever been satisfied with that? *glances at the highly profitable multi-billion dollar beauty industry* hm? My point exactly. ^_^
As an anti-conformist I don't agree with people that don't care about a minority.
I know what you mean about character appearances but still...it's a pity. Maybe because I know they could do better (for example,when I think of games like the old "smackdown vs raw"..the wrestler creation...damn that was great and detailed).
But I still love the customization of STO.
Star Trek Online Volunteer Community Moderator
"bIghojchugh DaneH, Dumev pagh. bIghojqangbe'chugh, DuQaHlaH pagh."
"Learn lots. Don't judge. Laugh for no reason. Be nice. Seek happiness." ~Day[9]
"Your fun isn't wrong." ~LaughingTrendy
Find me on Twitterverse - @jodarkrider
This flamefest isn't closed yet? WOW!
We come in peace, SHOOT TO KILL!
Yes, NASA is. Using calculations made in the mid-90s by Mexican physicist Miguel Alcubierre, and refined in 2012 by Harold White of NASA, the US aeronautics division has been preparing on creating small-scale experimental space-warping technology, alongside other next-gen propulsion systems (like the EMDrive they were testing - separate entirely from NASA's warp research - that gave false signatures of a warp field). And the Alcubierre formula? Details the same kind of warp drive seen in Star Trek - using negative energy to fold a bubble of space-time around a vessel and using that to travel faster than light. It's not quite science FACT, but it's no linger science FICTION.
Just as well, because that's not the only thing. We have invented small-scale tractor beams. Experiments in the quantum mechanics field have actually proved the principle Einstein jokingly (and disbelievingly) called "spooky action at a distance" - which, combined with our new-found ability to quantum entangle photons and effectively "teleport" them means that we are, at worst, maybe a century away from transporters, with the technology also having the potential to be used to make replicators. All of this is legitimate, real science being done on this Earth at this very moment. The points you made were in reference to a thing SciFi refers to as "technobabble" - which is, quite literally, making **** up for the plot. That's the fiction part of science fiction. Though, funny you say "magneton" - as that is actually the shorthand name for a hypothetical magnetic monopole (a particle with only one magnetic pole, theorized but at present not observed - theorized, in fact, to exist but have as little as one in the universe; though we have simulated quasi-magnetons at the LHC). Other real technobabble particles include (but are not limited to) the graviton, the positron, the antiproton, and the lepton. So, Trek may USE them wrong, but it IS tied to real science. Technology may be the "linear" (I laugh at that, by the way, as technology has NEVER expanded linearly and our technological capabilities actually tend to increase exponentially), but technology CAN one day create something from nothing - or, at least, appear to. Hence Clark's Third Law. Either way, you are entirely incorrect. Little did you know, we live in the future - or, at least, what scifi writers would classify as the future.
But that's not what the Ferengi do. Why conquer everyone? They're less likely to buy your junk. Why not, instead, you sell the ships you have salvaged or captured (as is the lore for virtually every Lock Box and Lobi ship) to the highest bidder, financing a war where both sides buy guns... from you? The Ferengi don't give two shakes of a rat's aft about conquest. Rule of Acquisition number nine: "Opportunity plus instinct equals profit."
No. I said that STO has MMO components. STO has an ASPECT of killing stuff and getting items. But you can level off non-combat through DOffing. There is also the aspect of an RPG, where you can make a character and pretend - to an extent - that you live in the Star Trek universe. Just because it's an MMO doesn't mean it's a generic cookie-cutter superhero game where every dude needs to be a hulking glob of muscle and every woman has to be a pair of bowling balls shrink-wrapped onto a stick figure. You are still operating within a universe, with set precedents and possibilities. Disregarding the entire history and precedent for the entire setting of the game because a mostly unrelated gameplay aspect doesn't fit perfectly is absurd.
Clearly you are not "content with the sliders", if you tell someone to make another gender of character instead of using those sliders the as they please. You were the one that started all of this, claimed all characters need to look "heroic". And you were the one that claimed that Cryptic allowing people to do this (even though it's existed for years) would waste development time, despite the fact that not allowing them to do that would actually take effort. So I don't see why you're making the "it's not a big deal" argument when the only person making a big deal of it is you.
And in a world where we can alter the biology of a thing with surgeries and supplements, refusing to believe in the validity of a sex change (as clearly you have been) is absurd and baseless.
You are using your opinion as base for telling someone else how to operate, as you very directly did in the first post I responded to. Clearly, your opinions at that point DO affect others. You are correct that you can demand things. But to demand that others alter their tastes to suit yours is still offensive and confrontational. You do not have the right to make such a demand. To simply say "I want" is fine. To say "I want YOU" implies that you believe yourself to have an authority over someone else to ask them to do something.
I don't mind that you say things, or that you can say them. I have no offense at that. You have your free speech. As do I, to use my free speech to take up an opposing position. It is not that I disagree with your position - though I do, had you used that position differently I would not have objected. But to demand something of others based on your opinion defies free speech, as you seek to use it to limit the freedom of expression of others. I wouldn't have cared less if you said "I don't like flat-chested women". But that you said that someone else should change themselves to fit you - to alter their character's gender instead of doing as they pleased, merely because of that opinion - is what I object to. When you issue a retraction to that statement, and an apology for being discriminatory against transgendered individuals (which was entirely unacceptable and rude), I will be done with you.
Science has not progressed quite that far. But we are close. We can create sperm and ovum from the skin cells of a donor. So, one day, they may HAVE functioning parts. However, the lack of functionality does not, and never will, give you the right to invalidate that other person's very personal choice to become something else. You do not have the right to say that a person is not what they chose to be because you believe that it should not be allowed.
Helpful Tools: Dictionary.com - Logical fallacies - Random generator - Word generator - Color tool - Extra Credits - List of common English language errors - New T6 Big booty tutorial
hey,you don't know me and I'm not gonna tell you here all the details of my lifestyle...what I like...what I do..what I think...what I hate...what I love etc etc..
If you knew me...you'd swallow your own tongue for what you've said! really.
True
Yeah,I kind of feel guilty for have brought back this thread.
So you can't tell the difference between psychological issues and delusions. I didn't expect you to as that is what we have experts for, so people like you aren't allowed anywhere near people with any form of mental dislocation.
Norway and Yeager dammit... I still want my Typhoon and Jupiter though.
JJ Trek The Kelvin Timeline is just Trek and it's fully canon... get over it. But I still prefer TAR.
#TASforSTO
'...I can tell you that we're not in the military and that we intend no harm to the whales.' Kirk: The Voyage Home
'Starfleet is not a military organisation. Its purpose is exploration.' Picard: Peak Performance
'This is clearly a military operation. Is that what we are now? Because I thought we were explorers!' Scotty: Into Darkness
'...The Federation. Starfleet. We're not a military agency.' Scotty: Beyond
'I'm not a soldier anymore. I'm an engineer.' Miles O'Brien: Empok Nor
'...Starfleet could use you... It's a peacekeeping and humanitarian armada...' Admiral Pike: Star Trek
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!