test content
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc

Star Trek Online: Age of Discovery

1222325272836

Comments

  • This content has been removed.
  • legendarylycan#5411 legendarylycan Member Posts: 37,284 Arc User
    yeah...i get the ship was supposed to be intimidating, but they could've removed like...half the spikes and it still would've gotten the job done - hell, they could've removed ALL the spikes because the size alone compared to the kelvin should've done it

    and if not, the shield-bypassing cluster torpedoes would have​​
    Like special weapons from other Star Trek games? Wondering if they can be replicated in STO even a little bit? Check this out: https://forum.arcgames.com/startrekonline/discussion/1262277/a-mostly-comprehensive-guide-to-star-trek-videogame-special-weapons-and-their-sto-equivalents

    #LegalizeAwoo

    A normie goes "Oh, what's this?"
    An otaku goes "UwU, what's this?"
    A furry goes "OwO, what's this?"
    A werewolf goes "Awoo, what's this?"


    "It's nothing personal, I just don't feel like I've gotten to know a person until I've sniffed their crotch."
    "We said 'no' to Mr. Curiosity. We're not home. Curiosity is not welcome, it is not to be invited in. Curiosity...is bad. It gets you in trouble, it gets you killed, and more importantly...it makes you poor!"
    Passion and Serenity are one.
    I gain power by understanding both.
    In the chaos of their battle, I bring order.
    I am a shadow, darkness born from light.
    The Force is united within me.
  • markhawkmanmarkhawkman Member Posts: 35,236 Arc User
    yeah...i get the ship was supposed to be intimidating, but they could've removed like...half the spikes and it still would've gotten the job done - hell, they could've removed ALL the spikes because the size alone compared to the kelvin should've done it

    and if not, the shield-bypassing cluster torpedoes would have​​
    ACTUALLY... those are more spikes. :p Yes, it fires spikes at people!
    valoreah wrote: »
    I'm actually with @patrickngo on the spikes thing... the new Klingon weapons are designed to look like they have spikes just for the sake of having them. I can't see how one would holster or shoulder these without stabbing themself. Very poorly thought out design IMO. I liked the older stuff better.
    186481831b59648fd683766db94dc5a8712c0e68.jpg
    e48274e39f14764b7cb58fb405770ec32ee775ee.jpg
    You holster those the same way you holster a d'ktag or bat'leth. Why are they there? So that when you either buttstroke or pistol whip someone it hurts more.
    -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
    My character Tsin'xing
    Costume_marhawkman_Tsin%27xing_CC_Comic_Page_Blue_488916968.jpg
  • majorcharvenakmajorcharvenak Member Posts: 231 Arc User
    valoreah wrote: »
    Reincorporating the IP could have allowed CBS to create a Star Trek without many of the changes they were forced to do with Discovery. Possibly reducing some of the friction this series has met by parts of the fanbase. While I'll concide that at the time of Discovery inception, there possibly wasn't talk of a merger within the halls of CBS, but there was no need to roll out new Trek as the flagship series of their new streaming service. As @captainwells noted, its pretty. Visually stunning, but it feels (at least to me) somewhat incomplete and its due to CBS moving forward the way they did instead of coming up with a way to reacquire the rights that Paramount inherited when the two split.

    I still don't see what this has to do with anything. No one forced anyone to make any changes for Discovery. There is also a very good reason why CBS rolled it out for All Access - they want to build on their own streaming service. Selling the series to Netflix would not help that.

    Fair enough and my thanks to you and @angrytarg for refreshing my memory with respect to that initial leak and its debunking. For the record, I have no problem with CBS putting together All Access. It's their shows...knock themselves out. Especially when everyone else seems to be jumping on that bandwagon. However, I do not care for many of the aesthetic and technical changes nor making the principle focus on a single character and I still believe the show would have been better recieved with an ensembled cast, some toned down aesthetics, and on broadcast television vice the streaming service. My two ec.
    ~Shia~

    Member - Houseclan t'Charvon (STO)
    Shiarrael e'Tal'Aura t'Charvon, LvL 65, Rom Sci
    S'aana ir'Virinat t'Charvon, Lvl 65, Rom Eng
    T'Lyra, LvL 65, Fed, Vul Sci
    Ta'el, Lvl 63, Rom Tac
    Sukima, Lvl 65, Fed Vul Sci

    House Miliskeera in exile (NW)
    Sereska Miliskeera, Lvl 70 OP - Devotion (Just.)/Protection (Just.)
    Shizlee Miliskeera, Lvl 70 DC - Divine Oracle (Right.)/Anointed Champion (Faith.)
    Finithey Miliskeera, Lvl 70 HR - Stormwarden (Combat)/Pathfinder (Trapper)
    Maya Sik-Miliskeera, Lvl 70 CW - Spellstorm
    Irae Sik-Miliskeera, Lvl 70 TR - Master Inflitrator
  • This content has been removed.
  • duncanidaho11duncanidaho11 Member Posts: 7,980 Arc User
    edited August 2018
    valoreah wrote: »
    I'm actually with @patrickngo on the spikes thing... the new Klingon weapons are designed to look like they have spikes just for the sake of having them. I can't see how one would holster or shoulder these without stabbing themself. Very poorly thought out design IMO. I liked the older stuff better.

    If I'm stabbing myself with the pistol's in-line spikes then the barrel's probably gone through my femur. What's happening with the ornaments really isn't the biggest issue with the scenario...
    Bipedal mammal and senior Foundry author.
    Notable missions: Apex [AEI], Gemini [SSF], Trident [AEI], Evolution's Smile [SSF], Transcendence
    Looking for something new to play? I've started building Foundry missions again in visual novel form!
  • marty123#3757 marty123 Member Posts: 674 Arc User
    Here's a look at one of the "new" playable species:
    Dj2pUUzV4AAKjhd.jpg
  • This content has been removed.
  • markhawkmanmarkhawkman Member Posts: 35,236 Arc User
    patrickngo wrote: »
    there's no 'butt' on the rifle, just the back of the mechanism, teh forward spikes don't work well as a bayonet, either (Wrong profile for slashing and too short/set back too far for stabbing.) same problem with the pistol's "Knuckle spikes"-they're just long enough to hang up on whatever you come in contact with when it's holstered, and just wrongly placed to enhance strikes as an augment to your fist.
    Interesting take on it... I don't agree. the fact they don't protrude past the end of the barrel makes them LESS likely to get caught on things than if they did.
    the Pre-and-post discovery Disruptors tended to be relatively clean,mechanical looking designs,
    Simple designs... some of which you could make a decent replica of in a few minutes... because they are made of blocks and cylinders with a pistol grip attached.
    12652_1.jpg

    As for practical... no.
    latest?cb=20050924114400&format=original&path-prefix=en

    Or this crude bit of metal:
    latest?cb=20160328194907&format=original&path-prefix=en

    But since older is obviously better.... Feast your eyes on this beauty!
    klingon_phaser.jpg
    Yes, really, some Klingons actually used those in TOS.

    It looks even dumber from this angle:
    Klingon_disruptor_pistol.jpg
    -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
    My character Tsin'xing
    Costume_marhawkman_Tsin%27xing_CC_Comic_Page_Blue_488916968.jpg
  • This content has been removed.
  • markhawkmanmarkhawkman Member Posts: 35,236 Arc User
    patrickngo wrote: »
    latest?cb=20050924114400&format=original&path-prefix=en
    shows conceptual links to
    090814-M-7376M-044-1.jpg
    except that the form follows function axiom doesn't apply. the only actual commonality is that they're both ranged weapons.
    The second example is clearly converted by the prop department from a commercial shotgun. Since energy weapons don't recoil, the lack of a visible buttstock isn't a deal-killer and it's relatively handy.
    So you're saying it's fine to make dumb looking energy weapons if the reason is that the prop department was lazy?
    The TOS disruptor pistol is small, handy, and has very few protrusions, the sort of thing that you probably can sling or pocket, like many 20th century small pistols.
    "Few protrusions"? Yeah, except fo the emitter array which is shaped in a manner that looks like it'd be easily broken and catch on everything if you tried to pocket it.
    latest?cb=20110531072115&path-prefix=en
    actually makes a lot of sense, because 2-3 points of contact (shoulder and one or two handed grip) will tend to make for more accurate shots-which during a boarding action is NOT a bad idea, if you don't want to destroy critical equipment or punch holes in the hull from inside.
    except that the barrel is so short that aiming would be easier without the stock. To me the only logical purpose for the butt stock is to hold extra power cells to increase weapon damage.
    -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
    My character Tsin'xing
    Costume_marhawkman_Tsin%27xing_CC_Comic_Page_Blue_488916968.jpg
  • This content has been removed.
  • markhawkmanmarkhawkman Member Posts: 35,236 Arc User
    In other words.... The Klingon weapon in the picture is a niche item that most likely wouldn't see mass-production. Yeah, that stuff you compared it to? None of it's a commonly encountered item. They're low accuracy(due to the short barrels) and low caliber, so they don't have a whole lot of stopping power. Which means that it's an "awkward middle ground" weapon that has the power of a sidearm but is almost as bulky as a proper rifle. Which of course is why most of those were never popular. Adding a stock to make aiming somewhat more accurate isn't a high-priority for a pistol because it sacrifices the main reason people use pistols. That and it's never as good as an actual rifle.
    -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
    My character Tsin'xing
    Costume_marhawkman_Tsin%27xing_CC_Comic_Page_Blue_488916968.jpg
  • This content has been removed.
  • markhawkmanmarkhawkman Member Posts: 35,236 Arc User
    patrickngo wrote: »
    the main use of a pistol (if you're really using one) is self-defense, ranges under 7 meters (per FBI statistics) and the deadliest BULLET on earth (by number of people killed yearly) is the .22 long rifle cartridge, which is a rimfire, low pressure, low velocity, light bullet. it's killed (and kills) more people worldwide than anything else.
    Why?

    Yes, that's right, because .22 cal pistols are easily concealed.
    Carbines are weapons of offense. thus, why the military's gotten real friendly with the M-4 over the M-16, or why britain chose a bullpup wth the SA-80. reduced length, handy, but with rifle-like qualities.
    M-4 IS a rifle.... It's nearly the same as the M-16.
    -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
    My character Tsin'xing
    Costume_marhawkman_Tsin%27xing_CC_Comic_Page_Blue_488916968.jpg
  • phoenixc#0738 phoenixc Member Posts: 5,883 Arc User
    The TOS disrupter pistol is actually quite practical in design.

    Notice the lack of anything like a firearm trigger assembly? Klingons used thumb triggers like medieval crossbows, which as a side effect make it very easy to shift grip and use the pistol but to strike with in melee without turning he pistol all the way around and gripping it like a hammer. The emitter spike does not have to be a big heavy pipe because they would not be punching with it (though it and the things on the sides of the barrel are probably made of duranium and easily strong enough to take the abuse).


    As for the diamond shaped things on the sides, they are probably handgrips for long range shots, but they could a so be heat sinks for whatever the barrel shaped thing is and neither the designer nor dialog ever said which (I personally think they are grips, one of my friends had one identical to the original props and it fit well in the hand when held with both hands like a crossbow using those flanges to grip with the fingers while the bottom of the gun rested on the palm).
  • smokebaileysmokebailey Member Posts: 4,668 Arc User
    The TOS disrupter pistol is actually quite practical in design.

    Notice the lack of anything like a firearm trigger assembly? Klingons used thumb triggers like medieval crossbows, which as a side effect make it very easy to shift grip and use the pistol but to strike with in melee without turning he pistol all the way around and gripping it like a hammer. The emitter spike does not have to be a big heavy pipe because they would not be punching with it (though it and the things on the sides of the barrel are probably made of duranium and easily strong enough to take the abuse).


    As for the diamond shaped things on the sides, they are probably handgrips for long range shots, but they could a so be heat sinks for whatever the barrel shaped thing is and neither the designer nor dialog ever said which (I personally think they are grips, one of my friends had one identical to the original props and it fit well in the hand when held with both hands like a crossbow using those flanges to grip with the fingers while the bottom of the gun rested on the palm).

    Yep, and they look elegant. :)
    dvZq2Aj.jpg
  • This content has been removed.
  • ucgsquawk#5883 ucgsquawk Member Posts: 279 Arc User
    I believe there is a scene in STIII when the Klingon boarding party is getting ready where one of them attached the stock to a pistol, it's brief but there in one of the editions.
    It probably works on the same fashion as the old type I and type II fed phasers, one is basically a larger power pack, you attach one to the other and you have a stronger phaser/disruptor.
    In this case it means they have the equivalent of disruptor rifles in a more convenient form, being more powerful than the pistol but not too unwieldy. Especially useful for boarding and enemy ship.

    The weapon seems very logical actually as it's not much different in layout from a modern bullpup design.
  • kadisweetkadisweet Member Posts: 1 Arc User
    star trek discovery is not a very good show. you be better off doing a star trek: enterprise storyline
  • jrdobbsjr#3264 jrdobbsjr Member Posts: 431 Arc User
    CBS wants TRIBBLE content....since they hold the license we get what they want.
  • clearbeardclearbeard Member Posts: 100 Arc User
    You know what else "isn't really Trek?" Almost all of Star Trek Online. In all of Star Trek shows, how many real wars has the Federation seen? Klingon War in Discovery, arguably a Borg War in TNG/Voyager, and the Dominion War in DS9. Not shown on screen, we have the Romulan War between Enterprise and TOS. That is 4, over more than 230 years, from Enterprise in 2151 to the Hobus Supernova of 2387. And now we have how many, taking place in less than 2 years, 2409-10? So lets not complain too much about Discovery being "not Trek" shall we?
  • phoenixc#0738 phoenixc Member Posts: 5,883 Arc User
    clearbeard wrote: »
    You know what else "isn't really Trek?" Almost all of Star Trek Online. In all of Star Trek shows, how many real wars has the Federation seen? Klingon War in Discovery, arguably a Borg War in TNG/Voyager, and the Dominion War in DS9. Not shown on screen, we have the Romulan War between Enterprise and TOS. That is 4, over more than 230 years, from Enterprise in 2151 to the Hobus Supernova of 2387. And now we have how many, taking place in less than 2 years, 2409-10? So lets not complain too much about Discovery being "not Trek" shall we?


    STO is Trek mélange but it is still essentially Trek despite the DCU-like multiverse approach, and it is much closer than Discovery since it is mostly consistent with the source shows which Discovery is not. That said, Discovery itself is not at all bad for modern gee-wiz style sci-fi, it shares a lot style-wise with the very popular and well done Killjoys for instance. It is Discovery's incompatibilities with the original Star Trek shows that irritate the fans more than anything else.


    As for wars, there were more than those though not all of them made it past oblique references. Two major ones you forgot on your list are the Xindi war that occupied most of third season if I recall correctly, and the temporal war (cold or hot it is still armed conflict).

    TOS makes reference to a war about twenty years or so before Kirk got command of the Enterprise (which FASA, in collaboration with Paramount later called The Four Years War) which was why the peace-loving Federation started building "heavy cruisers" which were bigger and more heavily armed than battlecruisers (and of which Roddenberry often said were really battleships in all but name).

    There may have been other wars during the ENT-TOS gap that were never talked about as well (like for instance Burnham's war in Discovery and the many little brushwars that are vaguely mentioned in the first DSC episode).


    A lot of people assume that nothing happened between the TOS movie era and TNG but again I seem to remember a reference or two to incidents that could very well have been brush wars glossed over. And while much of the STO stuff is desperate enough for those concerned they are still mostly handled by one ship or a small handful of them just like things in the shows were. Even in the real world wars are not always called wars.


    One thing that might seem odd to STO players is that the Hobus explosion has not happened yet in Prime and might not necessarily happen at all since Spock's spinner ship is nothing like the normal Trek tech which may mean it was from a different parallel timeline itself (and there are thousands of known alternates care of an episode where a great many versions of Ent-D showed up at the same time). Remember, the last Prime movie was before Hobus and if CBS has decided whether they will honor it as a Kelvin reference or not I have not heard about it.

    It would be nice if Discovery would take an expansive, inclusive approach like STO but I seriously doubt that they will. On the other hand, unless CBS demands STO get rid of all the original series stuff it should not be a problem in STO's more adaptable format to incorporate it as another alternate of some kind even if it is a parallel existing in the same timespace.
  • This content has been removed.
  • starkaosstarkaos Member Posts: 11,556 Arc User
    since Spock's spinner ship is nothing like the normal Trek tech which may mean it was from a different parallel timeline itself
    According to the "Countdown" tie in comics that serve as the prequel to 2009 Trek, the Jellyfish, as the ship is called, was a unique prototype vessel built by LaForge.

    Still doesn't explain why we don't have the Jellyfish in STO. We have the Enterprise and Vengeance from the JJTrek movies, 26th Century starships, 29th Century starships, 31st Century starships, and the Galaxy-X from a timeline that no longer exists, but the Jellyfish was created in the 24th Century STO universe. So it makes sense to have the Jellyfish since it makes sense for the Federation to have it unlike the other mentioned examples.
  • This content has been removed.
  • starkaosstarkaos Member Posts: 11,556 Arc User
    starkaos wrote: »
    Still doesn't explain why we don't have the Jellyfish in STO. We have the Enterprise and Vengeance from the JJTrek movies, 26th Century starships, 29th Century starships, 31st Century starships, and the Galaxy-X from a timeline that no longer exists, but the Jellyfish was created in the 24th Century STO universe. So it makes sense to have the Jellyfish since it makes sense for the Federation to have it unlike the other mentioned examples.
    the Jellyfish is like the size of a shuttle, and all the Kelvin movie stuff has to be okayed by Paramount and Bad Robot.

    I would put the blame on not having a Jellyfish due to its animations rather than Paramount not OKing it. If we have the JJEnterprise and Vengeance, then it doesn't make sense for the Jellyfish to not be included. We already have a few shuttles in the Lobi Store so there is no reason why it being a shuttle would be an excuse to not having it.
  • allan1974#4107 allan1974 Member Posts: 1 Arc User
    I could have sworn TRIBBLE was supposed to 20 years AFTER Nemesis. I have not seen Discovery but have seen some vines about the Pro and Con of TRIBBLE. I listened to the audio of STLV about discovery and I for one will wait and see how well if at all it plays out. Changing ques to Task forces seemed at best far fetched but who knows. More grinding and another Rep to grind for. Yeah, NOT!

    I am sorry but having a First Officer on the first Episode commit Mutiny is TRIBBLE. Starfleet never fires first.
  • mustrumridcully0mustrumridcully0 Member Posts: 12,963 Arc User
    I could have sworn TRIBBLE was supposed to 20 years AFTER Nemesis. I have not seen Discovery but have seen some vines about the Pro and Con of TRIBBLE. I listened to the audio of STLV about discovery and I for one will wait and see how well if at all it plays out. Changing ques to Task forces seemed at best far fetched but who knows. More grinding and another Rep to grind for. Yeah, NOT!

    I am sorry but having a First Officer on the first Episode commit Mutiny is ****. Starfleet never fires first.
    Well, Starfleet still doesn't, because she fails. And a Star Trek that doesn't allow a person to recover from its biggest failure would not feel right to me. And seeing a person pick herself or himself up from such a failure is of course a much more interesting story than seeing a perfect person staying perfect.
    Star Trek Online Advancement: You start with lowbie gear, you end with Lobi gear.
  • edited August 2018
    This content has been removed.
Sign In or Register to comment.