That be really cool.
Additionally they could add a "disable" function to space weapons which changes the "destroyed"(blow up)-animation to "disabled". (like you can disable some ships in DQ patrol mission)
I agree, ship disabling (player and NPC) is something I'd like to see. Plus if you disable/manage to talk a enemy captain into powering down weapons you could earn diplomacy XP in the process, giving a possibility to earn those in XP. Klingons could earn marauder XP with a mechanic to board and capture, Science abilities could grant science XP when you disable the ship via viral matrix and they give up etc.
^ Memory Alpha.org is not canon. It's a open wiki with arbitrary rules. Only what can be cited from an episode is. ^
"No. Men do not roar. Women roar. Then they hurl heavy objects... and claw at you." -Worf, son of Mogh
"A filthy, mangy beast, but in its bony breast beat the heart of a warrior" - "faithful" (...) "but ever-ready to follow the call of the wild." - Martok, about a Targ
"That pig smelled horrid. A sweet-sour, extremely pungent odor. I showered and showered, and it took me a week to get rid of it!" - Robert Justman, appreciating Emmy-Lou
I agree, ship disabling (player and NPC) is something I'd like to see. Plus if you disable/manage to talk a enemy captain into powering down weapons you could earn diplomacy XP in the process, giving a possibility to earn those in XP. Klingons could earn marauder XP with a mechanic to board and capture, Science abilities could grant science XP when you disable the ship via viral matrix and they give up etc.
As much as i would love that, i don't see Cryptics devs introduce such a mechanic to the mass battles we have in STO.
But a more sophisticated small scale space combat gameplay could include such game mechanics more easily. If there are only 2, 3 or even 5 ships ships involved, i can imagine that you could get the some ships of a NPC fleet to surrender.
Surely it wouldn't be as "exciting" as slaughtering 5 waves of each 3 ships or 20 at once. :rolleyes:
But some other (future) star trek game could easily have such a feature, at least if none of Cryptics devs are involved. (isn't that depressing somehow?)
EDIT:
There's an old game called Starflight, which was very very Trek-ish. It's almost 31 years old where you had the option to force a enemy ship to surrender. I think it wouldn't be that hard to implement such a mechanic if Cryptics devs where interested in it. (or if they thought people would want it.)
Man i tell you, i miss that game... why doesn't anyone make new games like that?
Instead we get tons of games where you kill enemies all the time, as if there where no other ways to solve conflicts.
That game had more Star Trek in it than STO.
"...'With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured...the first thought forbidden...the first freedom denied--chains us all irrevocably.' ... The first time any man's freedom is trodden on, we're all damaged. I fear that today--"
- (TNG) Picard, quoting Judge Aaron Satie
We've never seen a "random fly by" of ships in space. It's always either a ship on an intercept course approaching the hero, or the hero Captain orders up an intercept course to meet the hostile.
Therefore, since there's all this intercepting going on, wouldn't it be natural that the ship(s) seem to be nose-to-nose every meeting?
Also, people who grew up with a surface orientation / navigational bent - you know, all us ground-originating surface dweller types - tend to "project" three dimensional surfaces onto two-dimensional navigational tools. Look at STO itself for a prime example, "entire sectors" are represented as "hovering" over the two-dimensional "astrometrics" grid. We don't "fly down" from Sol to Vulcan, we fly "southeast with a touch of descent"...
And, on that thought, can anyone show me a situation - in "any" sci-fi world, of "stacked" systems (planets) where they exist on the same "point" of the two-dimensional map but differ (signficantly) on that third dimensional plane?
I understand that, but isn't it a fundamental error to treat Space as a 2D ocean?
Sure if two ships meet, it looks nice to see them aligned to each other. But in Combat, it's complete nonsense imo. Why sould they restrict themselves to only 2 dimensions and not 3?
First off, I'm not going to say that treating space as a "2D ocean" is what's going on in Trek per-se. Right off the top of my head, I can name 4 incidents of "3D movement" in combat:
1. TWOK - Mutara Nebula fight. The whole "Kahn is an excellent gamesman, but he's stuck thinking in 2 dimensions. Blather Blather down Z axis, back up Z axis, blast Reliant"...
2. First Contact - Defiant is doing an awful lot of up and down buzzes as it's blasting away at the poor cube.
3. Nemesis - The Valdores and Enterprise were doing lots of yo-yos and other climb/dive type moves as they zipped around the Scimitar and the Scim sure put some "climbs and dives" into it's maneuvers...
4. Watch that seeking torp in Star Trek VI... Probably the closest to "true space activity" that we've seen in a Trek episode...
Though I will say that the scenes in First Contact and Nemesis sure had an "aircraft" flight/evasion pattern vibe to them than starships...
Same with TWOK. Heck, I think the "novelization showing thought processes" went so far as to have Kirk "resist the urge to scream 'dive' vs. 'descend on Z axis' and 'surface' like submarine warfare"...
Because, as I alluded to earlier, it seems to be a "curse" or "natural thought process" for ground / surface oriented beings such as ourselves to "project" a "surface" level to all our navigational systems. And said orientational tendency engages itself as the ships meet, whatever "angle of approach" they took to intercept each other becomes the "ground plane".
Also note that of the remaining combat(s) depicted in Trek, it always seems to be of a "maneuver light" variety (aka sit and blast). Of course there's little need to depict climbs and dives while just sitting around...
Detecting big-time "anti-old-school" bias here. NX? Lobi. TOS/TMP Connie? Super-promotion-box. (aka the two hardest ways to get ships) Excelsior & all 3 TNG "big hero" ships? C-Store. Please Equalize...
To rob a line: [quote: Mariemaia Kushrenada] Forum Posting is much like an endless waltz. The three beats of war, peace and revolution continue on forever. However, opinions will change upon the reading of my post.[/quote]
Because, as I alluded to earlier, it seems to be a "curse" or "natural thought process" for ground / surface oriented beings such as ourselves to "project" a "surface" level to all our navigational systems. And said orientational tendency engages itself as the ships meet, whatever "angle of approach" they took to intercept each other becomes the "ground plane".
This surely counts for Starfleet ships, but what about aliens that have never heard of Starfleet or have a complete different way of navigating through space? (just because you and i can't imagine any other way, doesn't mean there is none)
About "natural thought process", Humans are adaptive and especially trained Starship faring people (with several hundreds of years of experience) should be capable to think in 3 dimensions, it's really not that hard tbh.
Sure, for the audience it would look weird to see two ships not on the same plane or even one turned upside down, but isn't that too unrealistic?
Even if every alien species would magicly have the need to fly on the galactic plane there's no guarantee they would also do so in combat or even have the same up/down orientation in general.
The Galaxy isn't completely flat, it's several thousands lightyears "thick", so navigating on that plane only makes sense if you want to travel a according distance. If not, there's no real reason to stay on that plane imo.
Sure, if you enter a solar system it's a good idea to navigate on the same plane of the planets, but there's no real need for a interstellar ship to do so if they just going to approach one planet coming from another star system.
Personally i find it pretty antiquated to have all ships "flying" on the same plane, especially in space combat. Why should one do such a favour to the enemy if they can outmaneuver it in 3 dimensions?
"...'With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured...the first thought forbidden...the first freedom denied--chains us all irrevocably.' ... The first time any man's freedom is trodden on, we're all damaged. I fear that today--"
- (TNG) Picard, quoting Judge Aaron Satie
Because, as I alluded to earlier, it seems to be a "curse" or "natural thought process" for ground / surface oriented beings such as ourselves to "project" a "surface" level to all our navigational systems. And said orientational tendency engages itself as the ships meet, whatever "angle of approach" they took to intercept each other becomes the "ground plane".
This surely counts for Starfleet ships, but what about aliens that have never heard of Starfleet or have a complete different way of navigating through space? (just because you and i can't imagine any other way, doesn't mean there is none)
About "natural thought process", Humans are adaptive and especially trained Starship faring people (with several hundreds of years of experience) should be capable to think in 3 dimensions, it's really not that hard tbh.
Sure, for the audience it would look weird to see two ships not on the same plane or even one turned upside down, but isn't that too unrealistic?
Even if every alien species would magicly have the need to fly on the galactic plane there's no guarantee they would also do so in combat or even have the same up/down orientation in general.
The Galaxy isn't completely flat, it's several thousands lightyears "thick", so navigating on that plane only makes sense if you want to travel a according distance. If not, there's no real reason to stay on that plane imo.
Sure, if you enter a solar system it's a good idea to navigate on the same plane of the planets, but there's no real need for a interstellar ship to do so if they just going to approach one planet coming from another star system.
Personally i find it pretty antiquated to have all ships "flying" on the same plane, especially in space combat. Why should one do such a favour to the enemy if they can outmaneuver it in 3 dimensions?
Again, I ask you this: In Nemesis, the Enterprise-E and Valdore squadron were portrayed in a "3 dimensional" combat sequence pulling off Split-S turns, Yo-yos, and other "aircraft oriented" flight maneuvers, to dump the forward weapon hardpoints (arrays and torpedoes) repeatedly into the Scimitar. What about the ventral secondary hull array that should have been firing when the -E was in (as we saw it on the screen) the climb portion of the yo-yo? Or even pull off a broadside with a bit of a twist (as we'd see it) to have the pylon-arrays join that ventral array in spamming fire? And the Valdores? Did it fire any other weapon that was not on a forward facing hardpoint? Are you going to believe that the Romulans don't design their ships with the same contingencies that the Feddies do?
All too often, when "humans" are involved in the depiction of space combat, they're going to do so with various planes involved. Master Galactic Plane. Plane of the ship through it's centerline. Plane of overall travel. Etc. etc.
So, in Nemesis, the authors created a "plane of travel" that the combatants were travelling on/over, and gave the entire sequence an "aerial dogfight" feel. They even went so far as to rarely (never if I remember the Valdores correctly) fire their non-forward weapons, just like dogfighting aircraft don't have anything but forward arc weaponry.
Game creators, much like movie authors, fall into the "trap" of depicting interstellar combat(s) as occurring as if it were "wet navy surface combat" or "aerial dogfighting" instead of the extremely hard for us to conceptualize "true 3d space" combat. It would "confuse" the general viewership of a TV show if the Enterprise were depicted as "approaching" the ventral aft of a Vor'Cha that's "climbing against" the plane created by the Enterprise's travel direction, unless the intent of said demonstration was to illustrate an "ambush". Etc. etc. It's less "problems" with how combat works and more how our "surface oriented society" perceives combat on the televised screen...
Detecting big-time "anti-old-school" bias here. NX? Lobi. TOS/TMP Connie? Super-promotion-box. (aka the two hardest ways to get ships) Excelsior & all 3 TNG "big hero" ships? C-Store. Please Equalize...
To rob a line: [quote: Mariemaia Kushrenada] Forum Posting is much like an endless waltz. The three beats of war, peace and revolution continue on forever. However, opinions will change upon the reading of my post.[/quote]
Again, I ask you this: In Nemesis, the Enterprise-E and Valdore squadron were portrayed in a "3 dimensional" combat sequence pulling off Split-S turns, Yo-yos, and other "aircraft oriented" flight maneuvers, to dump the forward weapon hardpoints (arrays and torpedoes) repeatedly into the Scimitar. What about the ventral secondary hull array that should have been firing when the -E was in (as we saw it on the screen) the climb portion of the yo-yo? Or even pull off a broadside with a bit of a twist (as we'd see it) to have the pylon-arrays join that ventral array in spamming fire? And the Valdores? Did it fire any other weapon that was not on a forward facing hardpoint? Are you going to believe that the Romulans don't design their ships with the same contingencies that the Feddies do?
I think we are talking at crossed purpose.
I'm not talking about fed ships being more (or less) able to do 3D combat than alien ships. I'm talking about that spaceflight in general is not very realistic pictured in movies and series.
Even that combat in ST10 is not real 3d, it's more like a aircraft dogfight (as you said).
No one is leaving the general orientation or plane, like the G-X in the TNG finale iirc.
But if ships would fully utilize their 3d environment, starship maneuvers would look very different.
All too often, when "humans" are involved in the depiction of space combat, they're going to do so with various planes involved. Master Galactic Plane. Plane of the ship through it's centerline. Plane of overall travel. Etc. etc.
So, in Nemesis, the authors created a "plane of travel" that the combatants were travelling on/over, and gave the entire sequence an "aerial dogfight" feel. They even went so far as to rarely (never if I remember the Valdores correctly) fire their non-forward weapons, just like dogfighting aircraft don't have anything but forward arc weaponry.
Game creators, much like movie authors, fall into the "trap" of depicting interstellar combat(s) as occurring as if it were "wet navy surface combat" or "aerial dogfighting" instead of the extremely hard for us to conceptualize "true 3d space" combat. It would "confuse" the general viewership of a TV show if the Enterprise were depicted as "approaching" the ventral aft of a Vor'Cha that's "climbing against" the plane created by the Enterprise's travel direction, unless the intent of said demonstration was to illustrate an "ambush". Etc. etc. It's less "problems" with how combat works and more how our "surface oriented society" perceives combat on the televised screen...
That's my point.
But are people really that stupid? Can't they really comprehend a 3d environment, because it would look too alien to them?
I don't think so tbh.
But i think TV producers think that people are more stupid than they really are.
Instead of pretending that "space is an ocean", they could take advantage of that 3d envronment and make ships do some really cool stuff, like barrel rolls or corkscrew maneuvers. Even big ships could do that (which would look really awesome imo .
For example the new JJ Trek movies have some really nice camera movement, starting from upside down and all sorts of unusual angles. I don't think people left screaming the cinema en masse, because of that, lol.
It's all just a matter of familiarization.
"...'With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured...the first thought forbidden...the first freedom denied--chains us all irrevocably.' ... The first time any man's freedom is trodden on, we're all damaged. I fear that today--"
- (TNG) Picard, quoting Judge Aaron Satie
I don't think so tbh.
But i think TV producers think that people are more stupid than they really are.
Instead of pretending that "space is an ocean", they could take advantage of that 3d envronment and make ships do some really cool stuff, like barrel rolls or corkscrew maneuvers. Even big ships could do that (which would look really awesome imo .
For example the new JJ Trek movies have some really nice camera movement, starting from upside down and all sorts of unusual angles. I don't think people left screaming the cinema en masse, because of that, lol.
It's all just a matter of familiarization.
In inverse order:
But it came across that all those "odd angle" shots of JJs were "beauty shots" showing off the ship, not any kind of "movement to realism".
Yeah, JJ also had the Enterprise barrel rolling through debris fields, etc. He also had shots of the ship "climbing" through space (bottom left to top right) more often than just "straight across". So JJ's been "the most modern" at Starship maneuvers in space...
But at the end of the day, when JJ-prise went against Vengeance, it was either "same plane" 2D based combat again or if they met at odd angles it was to highlight the element of surprise against the other ship.
Which leads me to a point that I wish I made explicit a few posts ago instead of just dancing / building around. Is it that the producers/writers think we're stupid, or is it that the producers/writers want (practically have) to draw upon "common planetary concepts" (surface navy, aircraft dogfighting) to "dramatically" illustrate their points (aka head-on is "equal" fight, even pointing at ventral "belly" areas / aft areas of a moving ship is catching foe at a moment of vulnerability)
I ask you, if a D'Kora suddenly pulled up underneath the Enterprise-D, would you be screaming at Picard for letting the Ferengi get the drop on him, or would you just shrug it off as a "chance space encounter"?
First, you've fallen into the trap the producers use all this "space is a 2d ocean" stuff to avoid...
Detecting big-time "anti-old-school" bias here. NX? Lobi. TOS/TMP Connie? Super-promotion-box. (aka the two hardest ways to get ships) Excelsior & all 3 TNG "big hero" ships? C-Store. Please Equalize...
To rob a line: [quote: Mariemaia Kushrenada] Forum Posting is much like an endless waltz. The three beats of war, peace and revolution continue on forever. However, opinions will change upon the reading of my post.[/quote]
Since in the timeline of STO, the factions are fighting the Iconians. I think it is a good time to introduce an improved version of the ablative generator for the ships.
What happened to the plasma phaser and the coaxial warp drive?
What happened to the plasma phaser and the coaxial warp drive?
What happened to remodulating phasers (the orange/blue fluorescent beams), what happened to compression phasers? There's a lot of technology STO doesn't have for problems already solved in canon.
^ Memory Alpha.org is not canon. It's a open wiki with arbitrary rules. Only what can be cited from an episode is. ^
"No. Men do not roar. Women roar. Then they hurl heavy objects... and claw at you." -Worf, son of Mogh
"A filthy, mangy beast, but in its bony breast beat the heart of a warrior" - "faithful" (...) "but ever-ready to follow the call of the wild." - Martok, about a Targ
"That pig smelled horrid. A sweet-sour, extremely pungent odor. I showered and showered, and it took me a week to get rid of it!" - Robert Justman, appreciating Emmy-Lou
Comments
I agree, ship disabling (player and NPC) is something I'd like to see. Plus if you disable/manage to talk a enemy captain into powering down weapons you could earn diplomacy XP in the process, giving a possibility to earn those in XP. Klingons could earn marauder XP with a mechanic to board and capture, Science abilities could grant science XP when you disable the ship via viral matrix and they give up etc.
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
But a more sophisticated small scale space combat gameplay could include such game mechanics more easily. If there are only 2, 3 or even 5 ships ships involved, i can imagine that you could get the some ships of a NPC fleet to surrender.
Surely it wouldn't be as "exciting" as slaughtering 5 waves of each 3 ships or 20 at once. :rolleyes:
But some other (future) star trek game could easily have such a feature, at least if none of Cryptics devs are involved. (isn't that depressing somehow?)
EDIT:
There's an old game called Starflight, which was very very Trek-ish. It's almost 31 years old where you had the option to force a enemy ship to surrender. I think it wouldn't be that hard to implement such a mechanic if Cryptics devs where interested in it. (or if they thought people would want it.)
Man i tell you, i miss that game... why doesn't anyone make new games like that?
Instead we get tons of games where you kill enemies all the time, as if there where no other ways to solve conflicts.
That game had more Star Trek in it than STO.
First off, I'm not going to say that treating space as a "2D ocean" is what's going on in Trek per-se. Right off the top of my head, I can name 4 incidents of "3D movement" in combat:
1. TWOK - Mutara Nebula fight. The whole "Kahn is an excellent gamesman, but he's stuck thinking in 2 dimensions. Blather Blather down Z axis, back up Z axis, blast Reliant"...
2. First Contact - Defiant is doing an awful lot of up and down buzzes as it's blasting away at the poor cube.
3. Nemesis - The Valdores and Enterprise were doing lots of yo-yos and other climb/dive type moves as they zipped around the Scimitar and the Scim sure put some "climbs and dives" into it's maneuvers...
4. Watch that seeking torp in Star Trek VI... Probably the closest to "true space activity" that we've seen in a Trek episode...
Though I will say that the scenes in First Contact and Nemesis sure had an "aircraft" flight/evasion pattern vibe to them than starships...
Same with TWOK. Heck, I think the "novelization showing thought processes" went so far as to have Kirk "resist the urge to scream 'dive' vs. 'descend on Z axis' and 'surface' like submarine warfare"...
Because, as I alluded to earlier, it seems to be a "curse" or "natural thought process" for ground / surface oriented beings such as ourselves to "project" a "surface" level to all our navigational systems. And said orientational tendency engages itself as the ships meet, whatever "angle of approach" they took to intercept each other becomes the "ground plane".
Also note that of the remaining combat(s) depicted in Trek, it always seems to be of a "maneuver light" variety (aka sit and blast). Of course there's little need to depict climbs and dives while just sitting around...
To rob a line: [quote: Mariemaia Kushrenada] Forum Posting is much like an endless waltz. The three beats of war, peace and revolution continue on forever. However, opinions will change upon the reading of my post.[/quote]
About "natural thought process", Humans are adaptive and especially trained Starship faring people (with several hundreds of years of experience) should be capable to think in 3 dimensions, it's really not that hard tbh.
Sure, for the audience it would look weird to see two ships not on the same plane or even one turned upside down, but isn't that too unrealistic?
Even if every alien species would magicly have the need to fly on the galactic plane there's no guarantee they would also do so in combat or even have the same up/down orientation in general.
The Galaxy isn't completely flat, it's several thousands lightyears "thick", so navigating on that plane only makes sense if you want to travel a according distance. If not, there's no real reason to stay on that plane imo.
Sure, if you enter a solar system it's a good idea to navigate on the same plane of the planets, but there's no real need for a interstellar ship to do so if they just going to approach one planet coming from another star system.
Personally i find it pretty antiquated to have all ships "flying" on the same plane, especially in space combat. Why should one do such a favour to the enemy if they can outmaneuver it in 3 dimensions?
Again, I ask you this: In Nemesis, the Enterprise-E and Valdore squadron were portrayed in a "3 dimensional" combat sequence pulling off Split-S turns, Yo-yos, and other "aircraft oriented" flight maneuvers, to dump the forward weapon hardpoints (arrays and torpedoes) repeatedly into the Scimitar. What about the ventral secondary hull array that should have been firing when the -E was in (as we saw it on the screen) the climb portion of the yo-yo? Or even pull off a broadside with a bit of a twist (as we'd see it) to have the pylon-arrays join that ventral array in spamming fire? And the Valdores? Did it fire any other weapon that was not on a forward facing hardpoint? Are you going to believe that the Romulans don't design their ships with the same contingencies that the Feddies do?
All too often, when "humans" are involved in the depiction of space combat, they're going to do so with various planes involved. Master Galactic Plane. Plane of the ship through it's centerline. Plane of overall travel. Etc. etc.
So, in Nemesis, the authors created a "plane of travel" that the combatants were travelling on/over, and gave the entire sequence an "aerial dogfight" feel. They even went so far as to rarely (never if I remember the Valdores correctly) fire their non-forward weapons, just like dogfighting aircraft don't have anything but forward arc weaponry.
Game creators, much like movie authors, fall into the "trap" of depicting interstellar combat(s) as occurring as if it were "wet navy surface combat" or "aerial dogfighting" instead of the extremely hard for us to conceptualize "true 3d space" combat. It would "confuse" the general viewership of a TV show if the Enterprise were depicted as "approaching" the ventral aft of a Vor'Cha that's "climbing against" the plane created by the Enterprise's travel direction, unless the intent of said demonstration was to illustrate an "ambush". Etc. etc. It's less "problems" with how combat works and more how our "surface oriented society" perceives combat on the televised screen...
To rob a line: [quote: Mariemaia Kushrenada] Forum Posting is much like an endless waltz. The three beats of war, peace and revolution continue on forever. However, opinions will change upon the reading of my post.[/quote]
I'm not talking about fed ships being more (or less) able to do 3D combat than alien ships. I'm talking about that spaceflight in general is not very realistic pictured in movies and series.
Even that combat in ST10 is not real 3d, it's more like a aircraft dogfight (as you said).
No one is leaving the general orientation or plane, like the G-X in the TNG finale iirc.
But if ships would fully utilize their 3d environment, starship maneuvers would look very different.
That's my point.
But are people really that stupid? Can't they really comprehend a 3d environment, because it would look too alien to them?
I don't think so tbh.
But i think TV producers think that people are more stupid than they really are.
Instead of pretending that "space is an ocean", they could take advantage of that 3d envronment and make ships do some really cool stuff, like barrel rolls or corkscrew maneuvers. Even big ships could do that (which would look really awesome imo
For example the new JJ Trek movies have some really nice camera movement, starting from upside down and all sorts of unusual angles. I don't think people left screaming the cinema en masse, because of that, lol.
It's all just a matter of familiarization.
In inverse order:
But it came across that all those "odd angle" shots of JJs were "beauty shots" showing off the ship, not any kind of "movement to realism".
Yeah, JJ also had the Enterprise barrel rolling through debris fields, etc. He also had shots of the ship "climbing" through space (bottom left to top right) more often than just "straight across". So JJ's been "the most modern" at Starship maneuvers in space...
But at the end of the day, when JJ-prise went against Vengeance, it was either "same plane" 2D based combat again or if they met at odd angles it was to highlight the element of surprise against the other ship.
Which leads me to a point that I wish I made explicit a few posts ago instead of just dancing / building around. Is it that the producers/writers think we're stupid, or is it that the producers/writers want (practically have) to draw upon "common planetary concepts" (surface navy, aircraft dogfighting) to "dramatically" illustrate their points (aka head-on is "equal" fight, even pointing at ventral "belly" areas / aft areas of a moving ship is catching foe at a moment of vulnerability)
I ask you, if a D'Kora suddenly pulled up underneath the Enterprise-D, would you be screaming at Picard for letting the Ferengi get the drop on him, or would you just shrug it off as a "chance space encounter"?
First, you've fallen into the trap the producers use all this "space is a 2d ocean" stuff to avoid...
To rob a line: [quote: Mariemaia Kushrenada] Forum Posting is much like an endless waltz. The three beats of war, peace and revolution continue on forever. However, opinions will change upon the reading of my post.[/quote]
What happened to the plasma phaser and the coaxial warp drive?
What happened to remodulating phasers (the orange/blue fluorescent beams), what happened to compression phasers? There's a lot of technology STO doesn't have for problems already solved in canon.
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!