test content
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc

STO: Age of Discovery - Excited YEAH/NAY

12425272930

Comments

  • markhawkmanmarkhawkman Member Posts: 35,231 Arc User
    meimeitoo wrote: »
    meimeitoo wrote: »
    jonsills wrote: »
    It's not moving, atrox. And it never was. All that fundraising was for Peters' own private studio, not to make any Trek movies, and he was using the Star Trek IP to sell it - on everything from his movie that never even had a script, to T-shirts, to four varieties of coffee.
    That's bad; because it looked promising, and I likely would have watched it.
    That's because Peters didn't really make Prelude and the guys who did jumped ship when they realized Peters had no intention of actually making Axanar.

    I still don't get why people liked it. To me it feels like the most grimdark interpretation of Star Trek yet. But you don't need ME to tell you what it was when you can watch it yourselves:
    Still looks like the best Trek movie I would ever have seen. No Hur'q or Iconians who just suddenly call off the war, but an enemy you truly fear by the end of the trailer. All TRIBBLE fanbois should take a note: THOSE were the Klingons Trek was about, not the lethargic idiots in TRIBBLE.

    Sadly Peters was a total douche, and it all went nowhere. But it was sure promising.
    Problem with this piece is that it makes it look like the Federation is getting overrun rather quickly if not for the actions of our heroic hero.
    -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
    My character Tsin'xing
    Costume_marhawkman_Tsin%27xing_CC_Comic_Page_Blue_488916968.jpg
  • meimeitoomeimeitoo Member Posts: 12,434 Arc User
    meimeitoo wrote: »
    meimeitoo wrote: »
    jonsills wrote: »
    It's not moving, atrox. And it never was. All that fundraising was for Peters' own private studio, not to make any Trek movies, and he was using the Star Trek IP to sell it - on everything from his movie that never even had a script, to T-shirts, to four varieties of coffee.
    That's bad; because it looked promising, and I likely would have watched it.
    That's because Peters didn't really make Prelude and the guys who did jumped ship when they realized Peters had no intention of actually making Axanar.

    I still don't get why people liked it. To me it feels like the most grimdark interpretation of Star Trek yet. But you don't need ME to tell you what it was when you can watch it yourselves:
    Still looks like the best Trek movie I would ever have seen. No Hur'q or Iconians who just suddenly call off the war, but an enemy you truly fear by the end of the trailer. All TRIBBLE fanbois should take a note: THOSE were the Klingons Trek was about, not the lethargic idiots in TRIBBLE.

    Sadly Peters was a total douche, and it all went nowhere. But it was sure promising.
    Problem with this piece is that it makes it look like the Federation is getting overrun rather quickly if not for the actions of our heroic hero.


    That is true. But I liked the idea of the peace-loving Federation simply being wholly unprepared for such a brutal war. Like the way Germany invaded large portions of Europe, with relative ease, the first year of WW II. And by the time they introduced the D7 to battle in that trailer, the Klingons really have instilled fear in your heart. :) That's my archetype of a Klingon, someone like General Martok: not just a rogue beast, but someone you don't want to see in battle against you.

    I often just feel Trek is too 'white picket fence-y'. Which is why I liked Babylon 5 so much: it's decidedly grimmer, and few things come easy. But yeah, it remains a guess what an actual Axanar movie would have looked like.
    ChCDpuh.jpg
  • duaths1duaths1 Member Posts: 1,232 Arc User
    szim wrote: »
    I don't have any problems with Discovery's apparant "liberal message". My problem is the lack of character development. I mean after one season we still know absolutely nothing about most of the bridge crew. And the one person we do get to know more closely, Burnham, is the least likeable lead character in Star Trek history. Star Trek is undergoing the same transition as many big franchises these days. It is moving away from more complex storytelling and "boring" character development towards more action and violence.

    The trailer for season 2 looks a bit more promising though. It seems that war will no longer be a major concern and mystery and exploration might play a larger role. Maybe 'helmslady with head implants' and 'black ops lady' even get a few lines. That would truely be something...

    yessss, i can agree with this. also, there WOULD be funny characters to explore and there WERE good dialogues with Mirror Lorca, and the Mirror Empress, which me hopes we'll encounter in the future. Burnham is just... sad. She is a dream of all the Spock TRIBBLE fan-fics, but sadly turned into a black woman, which in itself is just a sad story which pales in comparison how strong, independent and sexy Uhura has been and is.
  • flash525flash525 Member Posts: 5,441 Arc User
    I'm pretty sure the Discovery-era will be very similar to your TOS-era characters (Agents of Yesterday?); a new character will be created, have a bunch of episodes that cater to their pre-TOS story, then maybe they'll do the TOS story and cycle through Agents of Yesterday before moving on into the 25th Century. There's not nearly enough content to keep a character in the Discovery-era long-term.

    attachment.php?attachmentid=42556&d=1518094222
  • markhawkmanmarkhawkman Member Posts: 35,231 Arc User
    meimeitoo wrote: »
    meimeitoo wrote: »
    meimeitoo wrote: »
    jonsills wrote: »
    It's not moving, atrox. And it never was. All that fundraising was for Peters' own private studio, not to make any Trek movies, and he was using the Star Trek IP to sell it - on everything from his movie that never even had a script, to T-shirts, to four varieties of coffee.
    That's bad; because it looked promising, and I likely would have watched it.
    That's because Peters didn't really make Prelude and the guys who did jumped ship when they realized Peters had no intention of actually making Axanar.

    I still don't get why people liked it. To me it feels like the most grimdark interpretation of Star Trek yet. But you don't need ME to tell you what it was when you can watch it yourselves:
    Still looks like the best Trek movie I would ever have seen. No Hur'q or Iconians who just suddenly call off the war, but an enemy you truly fear by the end of the trailer. All TRIBBLE fanbois should take a note: THOSE were the Klingons Trek was about, not the lethargic idiots in TRIBBLE.

    Sadly Peters was a total douche, and it all went nowhere. But it was sure promising.
    Problem with this piece is that it makes it look like the Federation is getting overrun rather quickly if not for the actions of our heroic hero.
    That is true. But I liked the idea of the peace-loving Federation simply being wholly unprepared for such a brutal war. Like the way Germany invaded large portions of Europe, with relative ease, the first year of WW II. And by the time they introduced the D7 to battle in that trailer, the Klingons really have instilled fear in your heart. :) That's my archetype of a Klingon, someone like General Martok: not just a rogue beast, but someone you don't want to see in battle against you.

    I often just feel Trek is too 'white picket fence-y'. Which is why I liked Babylon 5 so much: it's decidedly grimmer, and few things come easy. But yeah, it remains a guess what an actual Axanar movie would have looked like.
    The problem is that it just doesn't match TOS at all. Wars of that scale weren't something Starfleet was on the losing end of.
    -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
    My character Tsin'xing
    Costume_marhawkman_Tsin%27xing_CC_Comic_Page_Blue_488916968.jpg
  • legendarylycan#5411 legendarylycan Member Posts: 37,033 Arc User
    meimeitoo wrote: »
    meimeitoo wrote: »
    meimeitoo wrote: »
    jonsills wrote: »
    It's not moving, atrox. And it never was. All that fundraising was for Peters' own private studio, not to make any Trek movies, and he was using the Star Trek IP to sell it - on everything from his movie that never even had a script, to T-shirts, to four varieties of coffee.
    That's bad; because it looked promising, and I likely would have watched it.
    That's because Peters didn't really make Prelude and the guys who did jumped ship when they realized Peters had no intention of actually making Axanar.

    I still don't get why people liked it. To me it feels like the most grimdark interpretation of Star Trek yet. But you don't need ME to tell you what it was when you can watch it yourselves:
    Still looks like the best Trek movie I would ever have seen. No Hur'q or Iconians who just suddenly call off the war, but an enemy you truly fear by the end of the trailer. All TRIBBLE fanbois should take a note: THOSE were the Klingons Trek was about, not the lethargic idiots in TRIBBLE.

    Sadly Peters was a total douche, and it all went nowhere. But it was sure promising.
    Problem with this piece is that it makes it look like the Federation is getting overrun rather quickly if not for the actions of our heroic hero.
    That is true. But I liked the idea of the peace-loving Federation simply being wholly unprepared for such a brutal war. Like the way Germany invaded large portions of Europe, with relative ease, the first year of WW II. And by the time they introduced the D7 to battle in that trailer, the Klingons really have instilled fear in your heart. :) That's my archetype of a Klingon, someone like General Martok: not just a rogue beast, but someone you don't want to see in battle against you.

    I often just feel Trek is too 'white picket fence-y'. Which is why I liked Babylon 5 so much: it's decidedly grimmer, and few things come easy. But yeah, it remains a guess what an actual Axanar movie would have looked like.
    The problem is that it just doesn't match TOS at all. Wars of that scale weren't something Starfleet was on the losing end of.

    as opposed to a war of that scale like we see in discovery, where not only was starfleet on the losing end of it, but the federation itself was very nearly wiped out with the impending loss of earth? right up until they deus-ex machina'd their way out of it, like the good guys always do​​
    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.
  • mustrumridcully0mustrumridcully0 Member Posts: 12,962 Arc User
    patrickngo wrote: »
    flash525 wrote: »
    I'm pretty sure the Discovery-era will be very similar to your TOS-era characters (Agents of Yesterday?); a new character will be created, have a bunch of episodes that cater to their pre-TOS story, then maybe they'll do the TOS story and cycle through Agents of Yesterday before moving on into the 25th Century. There's not nearly enough content to keep a character in the Discovery-era long-term.

    Maybe not initially. But as time goes on and the SHOW continues to build upon itself, so to will the Discovery side of things. The only way to connect it to the 25th century would be the same way they did the 23rd century. But I don't really want to see them do that. What is so wrong with the idea of experiencing a different era's content is to just play that content with a character from that era. And if you ask me, that pretty much allows them the option to add to an era's content.

    And so what if they don't go back and add new missions... This is a theme park game...

    When you go to Disney World, you've got your choice of Epcot, Magic Kingdom, Animal Kingdom, and MGM. They are separate unto themselves and run for years without significant changes. When you are in Animal Kingdom, you cannot do the Epcot attractions... But with a park hopper pass, you can take a shuttle from Animal Kingdom to Epcot... Disney is a network of multiple theme parks

    When you play STO, you've got your choice of 25th Century UFP, 25th Century KDF, Legacy of Romulus, Agents of Yesterday, and Victory Is Life. They start off as separate unto themselves and individually can run for years without significant changes. When you are in the pre-transition part of Legacy of Romulus, you cannot do the missions in "Agents of Yesterday". But you log out to the character screen and switch to your 23rd Century captain, and load into "Agents of Yesterday..." STO is a network of multiple themed virtual environments.

    I never really bought the idea that we cannot really have a third viable faction. I mean, when LoR launched, you could do pretty much everything with a NRR character as you could with a KDF or UFP character, with the exception of a LoR-specific fleet holding and the ability to fight against both the UFP and KDF in PvP... But for all intents and purposes the LoR pre-transition sector space had the potential to be as co-op friendly as the original UFP and KDF sector block groups were. the NRR could have been its own series.

    Let me ask all LoR players out there: If they were to add a five-episode mission arc to LoR, would you not stop whatever you are doing and be willing to return to Romulan-only space to run those missions? And if there are C-Store items available for your LoR character that are showcased in those missions, would you buy them? Assuming, of course, that you buy things on the C-store... If the answer is yes, then this demonstrates the viability of running multiple branches of STO...

    The flaw in your argument is simply thus: The dev team couldn't even manage two full factions when they started working on Legacy of Romulus, and the KDF only got their starter missions because someone did them 'off the books' in their vanishing spare time. KDF had the skeleton of a faction back then, with fewer missions of their own (once you remove the fed missions that had "text" changed to make them "Cross faction") than Agents of Yesterday got in their new-starter-zone-for-feds.

    The devs have been pushing to homogenize, because they literally don't have the manpower to develop for TWO full factions, much less three, or four, or five, or six...

    They've got barely enough to do what they've been doing since Legacy of Romulus-that is, fewer and fewer 'new' faction-specific missions with each 'new' faction. (hence, AoY got six, and the jem'hadar got one.)

    The only reason KDF still exists as a separate faction, is that it's too complicated to remove that aspect now that the game is covered in spaghetti code and the coders at Cryptic told Geko and co. "NO" when they asked for it.

    If Cryptic had 10 times the man power, it would probably deliver ten times as much Fed content and 10 times as much KDF and 10 times as much RR content. But would the ratios really shift?

    For launch, it's clear there is a certain amount that each faction would need to make a "minimally viable product". With the available resources and time frame, they couldn't make KDF and FED equally large, and they really wanted content for 40 levels.

    After launch, things could be a bit more flexible. They could release 1 mission for the Feds, than one mission for the KDF, and keep doing it for a while, for how ever long it takes. But, if the population is 70 % Fed and 30 % KDF, it would mean the KDF work would appeal to less players than the Fed content.

    They quickly switched to faction-agnostic content. That's something every player can play.

    Come F2P, their business model changed. Story content is what they use to get players into the game and return regularly when new content comes. Queues and Reputations are what they use to improve retention, as we palyers love our little gadget and the satisfaction of levelling up.

    Ships and lockboxes are what makes money. And there, releasing a ship for a particular faction means it only appeals to people playing that faction. Making a ship for a less played faction means you basically already say you want to make less money with that ship than you could if you had made one for the more popular faction.


    So I would say regardless of the manpower Cryptic will have, making Fed content will probably be always more lucrative, and thus the disparity between new material for each faction will stay. Maybe the ratio would shift a bit, but it would never reach equality in content.
    Star Trek Online Advancement: You start with lowbie gear, you end with Lobi gear.
  • markhawkmanmarkhawkman Member Posts: 35,231 Arc User
    meimeitoo wrote: »
    meimeitoo wrote: »
    meimeitoo wrote: »
    jonsills wrote: »
    It's not moving, atrox. And it never was. All that fundraising was for Peters' own private studio, not to make any Trek movies, and he was using the Star Trek IP to sell it - on everything from his movie that never even had a script, to T-shirts, to four varieties of coffee.
    That's bad; because it looked promising, and I likely would have watched it.
    That's because Peters didn't really make Prelude and the guys who did jumped ship when they realized Peters had no intention of actually making Axanar.

    I still don't get why people liked it. To me it feels like the most grimdark interpretation of Star Trek yet. But you don't need ME to tell you what it was when you can watch it yourselves:
    Still looks like the best Trek movie I would ever have seen. No Hur'q or Iconians who just suddenly call off the war, but an enemy you truly fear by the end of the trailer. All TRIBBLE fanbois should take a note: THOSE were the Klingons Trek was about, not the lethargic idiots in TRIBBLE.

    Sadly Peters was a total douche, and it all went nowhere. But it was sure promising.
    Problem with this piece is that it makes it look like the Federation is getting overrun rather quickly if not for the actions of our heroic hero.
    That is true. But I liked the idea of the peace-loving Federation simply being wholly unprepared for such a brutal war. Like the way Germany invaded large portions of Europe, with relative ease, the first year of WW II. And by the time they introduced the D7 to battle in that trailer, the Klingons really have instilled fear in your heart. :) That's my archetype of a Klingon, someone like General Martok: not just a rogue beast, but someone you don't want to see in battle against you.

    I often just feel Trek is too 'white picket fence-y'. Which is why I liked Babylon 5 so much: it's decidedly grimmer, and few things come easy. But yeah, it remains a guess what an actual Axanar movie would have looked like.
    The problem is that it just doesn't match TOS at all. Wars of that scale weren't something Starfleet was on the losing end of.
    as opposed to a war of that scale like we see in discovery, where not only was starfleet on the losing end of it, but the federation itself was very nearly wiped out with the impending loss of earth? right up until they deus-ex machina'd their way out of it, like the good guys always do​​
    Sure, they lost fleet engagements, but I don't remember the Klingons in Disco bombing colonies into oblivion. Yes, they attacked colonies, but they didn't bomb them into oblivion like in the Prelude. And in Prelude it was just casually tossed in as "see how bad we were losing!"
    -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
    My character Tsin'xing
    Costume_marhawkman_Tsin%27xing_CC_Comic_Page_Blue_488916968.jpg
  • redvengeredvenge Member Posts: 1,425 Arc User
    Sure, they lost fleet engagements, but I don't remember the Klingons in Disco bombing colonies into oblivion. Yes, they attacked colonies, but they didn't bomb them into oblivion like in the Prelude. And in Prelude it was just casually tossed in as "see how bad we were losing!"
    That's because the Klingon War was poorly developed in Star Trek: Discovery. They destroyed everything during the "terror raids". They even shot Burnham in her soul. Sarek had to put a piece of his soul inside her so her soul did not leak out. Think of all the Federation worlds that did not have Spock's dad around to save their souls. The death count is probably astronomical.
  • redvengeredvenge Member Posts: 1,425 Arc User
    azrael605 wrote: »
    Michael's childhood injury that required Sarek to place part of his katra in her was at the hands of Vulcans, not Klingons. The Klingons killed her parents before Sarek adopted her. The bombing at her school was by the Vulcan Logic Extremists who were specifically targeting her and Spock. Geeze at least learn the basic facts so your complaints make the tiniest bit of sense.
    Ah. So the Vulcans put the hole in her soul. That fits with their xenophobic hatred of other races.

    Then the Klingons just murdered all the adults across the majority of the Federation, while leaving the children unharmed. I approve of these progressive, PG-13 Klingons. This situation is believable, considering how accurate Klingon weapons are. They managed to precisely shoot around Burnham's prison cell, leaving her unharmed.

    In light of this you are right. Axenar Klingons are much more violent for destroying a dozen worlds as opposed to TRIBBLE Klingons, who simply murdered every single adult across 90% of the Federation.
  • smokebaileysmokebailey Member Posts: 4,515 Arc User
    meimeitoo wrote: »
    jonsills wrote: »
    It's not moving, atrox. And it never was. All that fundraising was for Peters' own private studio, not to make any Trek movies, and he was using the Star Trek IP to sell it - on everything from his movie that never even had a script, to T-shirts, to four varieties of coffee.


    That's bad; because it looked promising, and I likely would have watched it.

    Yep. Like I said many times....George Lucas, when he saw good fan films, that impressed him, he offers those folks jobs to work for him. I really feel CBS needs to do this. I'd like to see, say, James Cawley, got example, get hired for CBS, when he's not doing his Elvis impersonator job (and he's a GOOD one). I also feel it's also an ego issues with CBS....they think fan film, the automatically thought toy ships on a string, uniforms made from old pajamas, and Blair Witch camera work at best. Only when they saw the fan films being as good...in some cases better, than the official/professional stuff. And as someone who watched Showtime at the Apollo years ago, the BEST comedians on stage were the amateurs.

    And it's funny....we go from Axxanar to "The Michael Burnham Show!" Looks like making a decent prequel.....or anything is a lost art. Just reboots, visual or not. :/
    dvZq2Aj.jpg
  • redvengeredvenge Member Posts: 1,425 Arc User
    The Klingons only took over like 20% of the Federation in Discovery.
    This figure is based on what? The Klingons crushed Starfleet. They were parked in orbit over Earth, ready to bomb us into the stone age. You are telling me they ignored all the other Federation worlds and beelined for Earth? This does not make any sense.

    Oh wait. It does make sense if you have failed to show the scope of your "war" and need the audience to feel "impending doom". So, you park enemy ships over the planet your audience lives on so they can feel the danger.
    azrael605 wrote: »
    Burnham hid when the Klingons killed her parents, they didn't find her, they also didn't spare any other children that they did find.
    Saved by juvenile plot armor.

    So, the Klingons in Star Trek: Discovery DID murder whole planets then. We just never saw it, because TRIBBLE was not really focused on the Klingon War. I'm not sure that the Axenar Klingons are worse. At this point, I think they are the same (with the body count being much higher for the TRIBBLE Klingons).
    azrael605 wrote: »
    The Logic Extremists actually do fit in with the rampant Vulcan bigotry that has been present in Trek since TOS, and which was seen in every Trek series, including the Vulcan terrorist in TNG's The Gambit, and was especially highlighted in DS9's Take Me Out to the Holosuite.
    Ok. Vulcans have always been xenophobic racists, with Tuvok being the only exception. Your argument has convinced me. All Vulcans never believed in peaceful coexistence with other races; clearly, TOS was mistaken when Surak emphasized the importance of peace to Vulcans.

    Vulcans have a cultural mandate to not allow emotions to dictate their actions. Terrorism requires your target to make decisions based on emotions. Logic Extremists are not logical. Since we have established that Vulcans are xenophobic racists, they might as well be hypocrites too.

    It's almost as if there has been a succession of writers who have no clue what they are writing about. And every one refuses to learn from the mistakes of those that came before.
  • markhawkmanmarkhawkman Member Posts: 35,231 Arc User
    Which makes it even more interesting since it's clear when you look at the map that the Klingons weren't doing scorched earth as they went along. They were picking targets to smash, but seemed more interested in conquest than annihilation. Seriously, one of the marked planets was RISA... obviously they didn't bomb Risa.
    -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
    My character Tsin'xing
    Costume_marhawkman_Tsin%27xing_CC_Comic_Page_Blue_488916968.jpg
  • talonxvtalonxv Member Posts: 4,252 Arc User
    > @markhawkman said:
    > meimeitoo wrote: »
    >
    > markhawkman wrote: »
    >
    > meimeitoo wrote: »
    >
    > markhawkman wrote: »
    >
    > meimeitoo wrote: »
    >
    > jonsills wrote: »
    >
    > It's not moving, atrox. And it never was. All that fundraising was for Peters' own private studio, not to make any Trek movies, and he was using the Star Trek IP to sell it - on everything from his movie that never even had a script, to T-shirts, to four varieties of coffee.
    >
    >
    >
    > That's bad; because it looked promising, and I likely would have watched it.
    >
    >
    >
    > That's because Peters didn't really make Prelude and the guys who did jumped ship when they realized Peters had no intention of actually making Axanar.
    >
    > I still don't get why people liked it. To me it feels like the most grimdark interpretation of Star Trek yet. But you don't need ME to tell you what it was when you can watch it yourselves:
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > Still looks like the best Trek movie I would ever have seen. No Hur'q or Iconians who just suddenly call off the war, but an enemy you truly fear by the end of the trailer. All TRIBBLE fanbois should take a note: THOSE were the Klingons Trek was about, not the lethargic idiots in TRIBBLE.
    >
    > Sadly Peters was a total douche, and it all went nowhere. But it was sure promising.
    >
    >
    >
    > Problem with this piece is that it makes it look like the Federation is getting overrun rather quickly if not for the actions of our heroic hero.
    >
    >
    >
    > That is true. But I liked the idea of the peace-loving Federation simply being wholly unprepared for such a brutal war. Like the way Germany invaded large portions of Europe, with relative ease, the first year of WW II. And by the time they introduced the D7 to battle in that trailer, the Klingons really have instilled fear in your heart. :) That's my archetype of a Klingon, someone like General Martok: not just a rogue beast, but someone you don't want to see in battle against you.
    >
    > I often just feel Trek is too 'white picket fence-y'. Which is why I liked Babylon 5 so much: it's decidedly grimmer, and few things come easy. But yeah, it remains a guess what an actual Axanar movie would have looked like.
    >
    >
    >
    > The problem is that it just doesn't match TOS at all. Wars of that scale weren't something Starfleet was on the losing end of.

    Thing is though it never said the Federation won that war without breaking a sweat. Just said they didn't lose.
    afMSv4g.jpg
    Star Trek Battles member. Want to roll with a good group of people regardless of fleets and not have to worry about DPS while doing STFs? Come join the channel and join in the fun!

    http://forum.arcgames.com/startrekonline/discussion/1145998/star-trek-battles-channel-got-canon/p1
  • talonxvtalonxv Member Posts: 4,252 Arc User
    Also no offense to who brought up Axanar again, but how is it early on in the thread I brought up a comparison to Axanar and I got so burned felt like I was in the heart of a sun. Now it gets brought up and its a nice friendly comparison. Guess the white knights gave up.
    afMSv4g.jpg
    Star Trek Battles member. Want to roll with a good group of people regardless of fleets and not have to worry about DPS while doing STFs? Come join the channel and join in the fun!

    http://forum.arcgames.com/startrekonline/discussion/1145998/star-trek-battles-channel-got-canon/p1
  • valsum#3247 valsum Member Posts: 3 Arc User
    I'm very interested, new content, keeping up with current ST story, and besides I found the first season fairly amusing.
  • markhawkmanmarkhawkman Member Posts: 35,231 Arc User
    azrael605 wrote: »
    > @talonxv said:
    > Also no offense to who brought up Axanar again, but how is it early on in the thread I brought up a comparison to Axanar and I got so burned felt like I was in the heart of a sun. Now it gets brought up and its a nice friendly comparison. Guess the white knights gave up.

    I've got no idea who you think is making "a nice friendly comparison" but there was nothing good about the scam known as Axanar. Peters never had a script, at any time, and as multiple people who worked on Axanar (such as Tony Todd) would later reveal that was only the start of his lies. The whole thing was just a scam to use Trek fans to fund Peters's studio, it deserves to be burned buried and forgotten like the trash it is.
    Yeah, when it comes to Axanar, I'm a black knight. Nothing worth defending there, just a charred heap of what may have been garbage before Peters doused it in gasoline and lit it on fire repeatedly.
    -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
    My character Tsin'xing
    Costume_marhawkman_Tsin%27xing_CC_Comic_Page_Blue_488916968.jpg
This discussion has been closed.