How did I prove your point? You were basically saying this just came out of nowhere and "How dare they come to us NOW".
I brought up the issue in a thread that at the time was newly posted by our CM, and he actually took point on gathering more information from us because of it. How did I prove your point?
The only point it shows is that our CM is actually a good guy and actively gathering feedback to give to the bug team when something was brought up.
I really liked ViL and was looking forward to the rest of the series. It ended rather abruptly. There were a few stories here and there showing that some Vorta and Jem'Hadar were "in" Starfleet and that the H'urq were far from "tamed". We have Loriss who can "hear" the Prophets and that's it. And then we get a full 180 degrees and get back in time again. Prequels and prequels of prequels ... Keep this disease that is DSC out of STO!
If you were paying attention... we are not traveling back in time. The past has come forward to us. We're still in the 25th Century. We got a renegade Klingon who's house was destroyed, leading a fleet, and could potentially destabilize the Alliance by causing a Klingon Civil War.
which will be solved out in 2-3 more episodes by a Starfleet Captain and everyone will be friends, because reasons.
'reasons' in this case being "the Formula". everything is always solved by the starfleet ADMIRAL that is your main, the other faction characters are just NPCs re-watching your ADMIRAL's adventures in a holodeck and congratulating them on their awesomeness.
Everything is always solved by the Supremely Invincible Superman-Time Lord hybrid Alien ADMIRAL that is my main, employed by the Romulan Republic, allied to Starfleet (because the stupid game didn't let me ally with both options despite common sense clearly demanding it) and commanding my huge fleet of starships and crew collected from all across time and space.
And all the other "faction" characters are just grinding dil and Recruit event rewards for my main and storing stuff and EC to trade.
Nah, read the dialogue in context, your ADMIRAL is a Starfleet Officer with a Romulan backstory.
Tell that to the tailor who refuses to let me wear their clothes.
Then pull up a seat because you, just like the rest of us, are just a sidekick.
A sidekick is what you call the only person in the story who successfully kills an iconian? The only person in general who can get pretty much anything at all done? You have a weird definition of "sidekick."
The 4 boffs that tag along me and are useless except as to throw heals and draw enemy fire, those are the sidekicks.
In context: trying to decide who should or should not be allowed to participate with the franchise by filtering what content gets into STO. Saying "There should be no DSC in STO" effectively means "there should be no DSC fans in STO" (because the original proposition maintains that in spite of the difference in tastes and opinion [something we respect for TOS/TNG/DS9/VOY/ENT/ect.], a group shouldn't have their interests affirmed in game in any material way. What they identify with is verboten.)
People are certainly free to complain about content in discussion, it's healthy discourse and incidentally good fodder for creative inspiration when the subject is story and character arcs (see. getting to the nub of an idea which fell apart through implementation and running with it in a better direction for writing/foundrying/player head-canoning). IMO, it's tying that to "No DSC in STO, it's not Trek/isn't canon/sucks!" advocacy which completely disregards the interests of DSC fans (ie. the fact that they can have interests) that crosses the line and creates a hostile environment for any kind of meaningful discussion. When someone tells someone else more directly that they aren't a Trek fan or shouldn't be playing STO [it's only for certain parts of the franchise], then that's just unambiguous gatekeeping. Ergo. flaming/trolling.
Post edited by duncanidaho11 on
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!
How does that even work? I do not recall the forums giving random people the ability to ban or silence others, so as far as I know, nobody can actually do that.
They may not be able to ban people they don't agree with, but they can launch personal attacks until the victim either backs down, rage quits, or is otherwise subdued. Or antagonize them into rule breaking conduct themselves, thus allowing said antagonizer to report the victim for rule violations and thus potential ban.
Granted that is going up to the extreme case in the last instance, but still a potential result of gatekeeping. Silencing "descent" in one form or another because it doesn't conform to another's percieved reality or their beliefs.
In this case, as mentioned above, anything Discovery related. Anyone who is pro Discovery or voices pro Discovery ideas will generally be attacked, even with valid counterarguments against the haters. No amount of reason will get through the hate.
One of the favorite arguments used against Discovery is trying to rally support by waving the "True Fan" card, saying that "True Fans will stand against it". Essentially declaring anyone who doesn't believe as they do as not being fans at all.
I use myself as an example here. I'm a Trek fan. I grew up watching TNG. I recognize the fact that every series in the franchise has had high and low points, and know that sometimes it takes a season or two to gain footing. I give things a chance. I didn't like the redesign of the Kelvin Connie at first, but its grown on me. I gave Discovery a chance and I see potential. I did NOT rage against Enterprise for looking "more advanced than TOS", I didn't rage against the Kelvin Timeline because "it destroys canon and everything we know", and I don't rage against Discovery for "looking too advanced, Spore Drive, 'mary sue Burnham', and 'klingorcs'".
Yet I am a target of gatekeeping because I am not against everything Discovery. Because I'm actually willing to give it a chance... I am apparently not a fan of Star Trek according to the "True Fans" because I am not "defending the Faith of Saint Roddenberry".
That's basically gatekeeping.
If anyone is on a "crusade", its anyone who uses said "True Fan" card to rally support to their cause.
I can't take it anymore! Could everyone just chill out for two seconds before something CRAZY happens again?!
The nut who actually ground out many packs. The resident forum voice of reason (I HAZ FORUM REP! YAY!)
normal text = me speaking as fellow formite colored text = mod mode
> @rattler2 said: > ruinthefun wrote: » > > How does that even work? I do not recall the forums giving random people the ability to ban or silence others, so as far as I know, nobody can actually do that. > > > > > They may not be able to ban people they don't agree with, but they can launch personal attacks until the victim either backs down, rage quits, or is otherwise subdued. Or antagonize them into rule breaking conduct themselves, thus allowing said antagonizer to report the victim for rule violations and thus potential ban. > > Granted that is going up to the extreme case in the last instance, but still a potential result of gatekeeping. Silencing "descent" in one form or another because it doesn't conform to another's percieved reality or their beliefs. > > In this case, as mentioned above, anything Discovery related. Anyone who is pro Discovery or voices pro Discovery ideas will generally be attacked, even with valid counterarguments against the haters. No amount of reason will get through the hate. > > One of the favorite arguments used against Discovery is trying to rally support by waving the "True Fan" card, saying that "True Fans will stand against it". Essentially declaring anyone who doesn't believe as they do as not being fans at all. > > I use myself as an example here. I'm a Trek fan. I grew up watching TNG. I recognize the fact that every series in the franchise has had high and low points, and know that sometimes it takes a season or two to gain footing. I give things a chance. I didn't like the redesign of the Kelvin Connie at first, but its grown on me. I gave Discovery a chance and I see potential. I did NOT rage against Enterprise for looking "more advanced than TOS", I didn't rage against the Kelvin Timeline because "it destroys canon and everything we know", and I don't rage against Discovery for "looking too advanced, Spore Drive, 'mary sue Burnham', and 'klingorcs'". > Yet I am a target of gatekeeping because I am not against everything Discovery. Because I'm actually willing to give it a chance... I am apparently not a fan of Star Trek according to the "True Fans" because I am not "defending the Faith of Saint Roddenberry". > > That's basically gatekeeping. > > If anyone is on a "crusade", its anyone who uses said "True Fan" card to rally support to their cause.
People can like what they want, but I am absolutely sick to death people protecting the complete continuity screwup DSC has going towards TOS. Like the Enterprise being 33% bigger or some other inconsistencies.
If they want it to be Prime, fine. If you like it, fine. But take the blinders off for one dang minute and realize that the 1st season of DSC is disjointed from the rest of Trek.
And the fact the showrunners are taking steps to rectify that. Season 2 uniforms are starting to look more like TOS. But IMHO what Pike was wearing in the beginning SHOULD of been the uniforms they are wearing from the get go.
Also add in they redid the Klingons to actually LOOK MORE KLINGON.
I really hope that the show runners heard loud and clear that they done screwed up with a lot of fans. Whether you like DSC or not, they have done exactly that.
I mean hell the JJ Klingons looked more like Klingons than DSC season 1, and it's a completely different universe.
I really hope 2nd season is better than season 1. I'd rather watch ANY season start over DSC, including VOY or ENT and many fans hated them beyond words.
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!
> @somtaawkhar said: > talonxv wrote: » > > Like the Enterprise being 33% bigger or some other inconsistencies. > > > > It is impossible for the Enterprise to be 33% bigger when the Enterprise has no canonical size.
Wrong. But nice try as CBS has said the shows and movies ARE canon. The books, games and other externals are not. So that point is moot and you are wrong. Any other points you want to try and pivot to?
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!
The Enterprise is as big or small as you want it to be as long as you believe in the power of love.
Your pain runs deep.
Let us explore it... together. Each man hides a secret pain. It must be exposed and reckoned with. It must be dragged from the darkness and forced into the light. Share your pain. Share your pain with me... and gain strength from the sharing.
0
rattler2Member, Star Trek Online ModeratorPosts: 58,672Community Moderator
Wrong. But nice try as CBS has said the shows and movies ARE canon. The books, games and other externals are not. So that point is moot and you are wrong. Any other points you want to try and pivot to?
I think the only Enterprise we got a firm size on, that I remember mind you, was the Enterprise-E in First Contact when Picard was telling Lilly how big the ship is, stating she was about 700 meters and 24 decks. But then I think we have the issue of non existant decks being called out during battle scenes, and apparently she went through a refit between FC and Insurrection, and again between Insurrection and Nemesis.
Another size anomaly is in the '09 Star Trek, where the first time we see the Enterprise, she's got a shuttlebay big enough for two of the "military" shuttles to go in and out side by side and have some room to spare. But then when we see Pike take a shuttle out... the shuttlebay only has enough room for that same class of shuttle to come out on its own, making her about the same size as the original.
There are the official sizes, there are the fan accepted sizes (which mostly line up with official most of the time), and there's headcanon sizes.
The TOS Connie is generally accepted at around 285 meters. Official... I have no idea as I don't remember the size of the Connie ever being stated on screen. Officially the size of the Sovereign is 685 meters, which lines up with Picard generalizing around 700. I headcanon the KT Connie at 366 meters due to the fact that she changes size in the same movie she was revealed in and the details line up more with a smaller ship than larger.
If the Discovery version was scaled up... they obviously made sure to keep the DETAILS size appropriate. Besides... length is only one measurement. MASS is another. Scale wise, the Discovery Connie is proportionately the same as the TOS one. Neck is a bit shorter, but its thicker too. Maybe about as thick as the Refit Connie. The swept back nacelle pylons would add some length as well vs the straight pylons. But overall she's within the same proportions as her origin.
Bit bigger or not, the design for her is very well done. I can easily see her fighting the Romulan BoP, Klingon D7s, and even the Tholians.
I can't take it anymore! Could everyone just chill out for two seconds before something CRAZY happens again?!
The nut who actually ground out many packs. The resident forum voice of reason (I HAZ FORUM REP! YAY!)
normal text = me speaking as fellow formite colored text = mod mode
Seems like the only consistent thing about ship sizes is they are inconsistent
Your pain runs deep.
Let us explore it... together. Each man hides a secret pain. It must be exposed and reckoned with. It must be dragged from the darkness and forced into the light. Share your pain. Share your pain with me... and gain strength from the sharing.
> @rattler2 said: > talonxv wrote: » > > Wrong. But nice try as CBS has said the shows and movies ARE canon. The books, games and other externals are not. So that point is moot and you are wrong. Any other points you want to try and pivot to? > > > > > I think the only Enterprise we got a firm size on, that I remember mind you, was the Enterprise-E in First Contact when Picard was telling Lilly how big the ship is, stating she was about 700 meters and 24 decks. But then I think we have the issue of non existant decks being called out during battle scenes, and apparently she went through a refit between FC and Insurrection, and again between Insurrection and Nemesis. > > Another size anomaly is in the '09 Star Trek, where the first time we see the Enterprise, she's got a shuttlebay big enough for two of the "military" shuttles to go in and out side by side and have some room to spare. But then when we see Pike take a shuttle out... the shuttlebay only has enough room for that same class of shuttle to come out on its own, making her about the same size as the original. > > There are the official sizes, there are the fan accepted sizes (which mostly line up with official most of the time), and there's headcanon sizes. > > The TOS Connie is generally accepted at around 285 meters. Official... I have no idea as I don't remember the size of the Connie ever being stated on screen. Officially the size of the Sovereign is 685 meters, which lines up with Picard generalizing around 700. I headcanon the KT Connie at 366 meters due to the fact that she changes size in the same movie she was revealed in and the details line up more with a smaller ship than larger. > > If the Discovery version was scaled up... they obviously made sure to keep the DETAILS size appropriate. Besides... length is only one measurement. MASS is another. Scale wise, the Discovery Connie is proportionately the same as the TOS one. Neck is a bit shorter, but its thicker too. Maybe about as thick as the Refit Connie. The swept back nacelle pylons would add some length as well vs the straight pylons. But overall she's within the same proportions as her origin. > > Bit bigger or not, the design for her is very well done. I can easily see her fighting the Romulan BoP, Klingon D7s, and even the Tholians.
I never said the design was bad. I like the design. But canonically it makes no sense.
I just hope Kurtzman grows a set and deems everything that came before is legends much like Lucas Films did with the EU books and now has a clean canvas.
I won't like it, but I'll respect him more for it.
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!
Seems like the only consistent thing about ship sizes is they are inconsistent
Yeah, especially when compositing physical models the sizes of ships and stations varied from scene to scene. With digital there's more control but just as well the immediate needs of a particular shot (see. providing visual entertainment, communicating information to the audience) will always outweigh canon because creative folks don't (generally) use canon as an absolute dictate for what can or can't go into a show (differing their responsibility as writers to people in associated projects who often could not have envisioned their creative problem, or cared sufficiently to accommodate it.)
Fans do that, in contrast, because canon is what they self-identify with. If that changes, their identity likewise changes to some degree. Folks don't like questioning who they are when seeking affirmation. Ergo, some level of whining about every new iteration of the series for reasons that are strictly to do with how it doesn't fit with "established canon" (without consideration for the flexibility shown in accepted parts of the IP. Imagine what Voyager would have been if it used Final Frontier's galactic travel times.)
Post edited by duncanidaho11 on
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!
i am not a fan of discovery and never will be but i understand this the way the sto has to go as cbs calls the shots and has told cryptic to put discovery in the game i could get angry rant and such but there is no point the best way to protest this is not to put another penny of you own money in to the game
i am a life time subscriber and will continue to come on and do reps and continue with my fleet and the winter event
i would say that discovery has split the star trek fanbase lets debate it a friendly civil debate rather then ranting and Arguing
i am not a fan of discovery and never will be but i understand this the way the sto has to go as cbs calls the shots and has told cryptic to put discovery in the game
Okay, have to take an aside on this one: Cryptic wasn't ordered to make AoD from on high. From everything we've been told and can otherwise infer, Cryptic approached CBS about greater integration with DSC.
Post edited by duncanidaho11 on
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!
I do not mind DSC in STO at all. After all, its not the aired show... >.<
New stuff makes me giddy.
What I find shameful is NO NEWKLINGONS?!?!! No at all? Ffs? Wth?
A show that started out with the whole FED-Klingon war... ...AND NO KLINGONS in the game? Ffs! WTH!?
I do not comprehend the reasoning behind NO KLINGONS!
Why on earth is the Klingons not a choice upon creating a new toon?
That plain out suck hard. No Klingons. No outfits, no guns. What a shameful display, Cryptic. Cookies with sand in to You all.
Booo!
> @r24681012 said: > i am not a fan of discovery and never will be but i understand this the way the sto has to go as cbs calls the shots and has told cryptic to put discovery in the game i could get angry rant and such but there is no point the best way to protest this is not to put another penny of you own money in to the game > > i am a life time subscriber and will continue to come on and do reps and continue with my fleet and the winter event > > i would say that discovery has split the star trek fanbase lets debate it a friendly civil debate rather then ranting and Arguing
Well said. I’ll admit that I will still support the game, but the company shouldn’t ignore the non-Discovery crowd. This next year looks to be a lost year for the rest of us.
Well said. I’ll admit that I will still support the game, but the company shouldn’t ignore the non-Discovery crowd. This next year looks to be a lost year for the rest of us.
They've explicitly stated on ten forward weekly that while "Age of Discovery" will incorporate DSC elements into the STO universe, it will not be exclusively focused on DSC content. See. bringing J'ula forward to 2409 rather than maintaining a retrospective temporal arc. This is to introduce complications for the current state of the Empire for example (Mua'dib style), involving characters such as Martok and B'Vat (whose house was instrumental in the downfall of House Mo'kai, which was J'Ula's by marriage.)
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!
0
rattler2Member, Star Trek Online ModeratorPosts: 58,672Community Moderator
Who said they are ignoring anyone? The way its set up, the Discovery content is pulling J'Ula and her house into the 25th Century, where she will have to deal with Sovereign class starships, D'Deridex Warbirds, and Negh'var warships. And the Jem'Hadar.
Saying they're "ignoring the non-Discovery crowd" would be like saying they ignored the non-Voyager crowd with Delta Rising, or the non-DS9 crowd when they did Victory is Life, or the non-TOS crowd when they did Agents of Yesterday, or the non-Romulan crowd with Legacy of Romulus.
Frankly it doesn't make sense. No one cried foul over being ignored with any other content drop. What makes this one so different? The mere fact its Discovery related?
I can't take it anymore! Could everyone just chill out for two seconds before something CRAZY happens again?!
The nut who actually ground out many packs. The resident forum voice of reason (I HAZ FORUM REP! YAY!)
normal text = me speaking as fellow formite colored text = mod mode
I do not mind DSC in STO at all. After all, its not the aired show... >.<
New stuff makes me giddy.
What I find shameful is NO NEWKLINGONS?!?!! No at all? Ffs? Wth?
A show that started out with the whole FED-Klingon war... ...AND NO KLINGONS in the game? Ffs! WTH!?
I do not comprehend the reasoning behind NO KLINGONS!
Why on earth is the Klingons not a choice upon creating a new toon?
That plain out suck hard. No Klingons. No outfits, no guns. What a shameful display, Cryptic. Cookies with sand in to You all.
Booo!
I made sure to ask Andre Emerson about that last leek for the livestream: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zgv4L5g7fVo
Skip to 1:08:00, Andre basically said that it'd take a long time.
Frankly it doesn't make sense. No one cried foul over being ignored with any other content drop. What makes this one so different? The mere fact its Discovery related?
I don't mean to sound rude, but I'm troubled by the way it seems things are going. Sompek breaks, then there's talk of Herculean efforts, then nothing.
Three days go by, no word. Absolutely nothing. So? When stuff breaks (which seems frequently every time so far) then there's no more?
Many fans were not exactly pleased with ViL, or Age Of Discovery while most of the things players have shown much enthusiasm for such as Summer Event, Sompek, Nimbus 3 (ground games in general) seem to all be getting shafted for newer content that has been minimally praise at best.
I'm very troubled by what appears to be a lack of concern for maintaining events that were well liked, and continued emphasis of newer content that hasn't earner much enthusiasm or praise. Sure, you can't recapture lightning in a bottle, but how about maintaining the lightning that's proven to work?
Pushing out new stuff that's not keeping players/fans interested while ditching the content well cherished seems a consistent pattern that's leading to more people leaving STO completely. I want STO to succeed, and what I see happening is concerning.
I can't be the only person seeing, and thinking this, from a generalised standpoint.
0
rattler2Member, Star Trek Online ModeratorPosts: 58,672Community Moderator
I can't take it anymore! Could everyone just chill out for two seconds before something CRAZY happens again?!
The nut who actually ground out many packs. The resident forum voice of reason (I HAZ FORUM REP! YAY!)
normal text = me speaking as fellow formite colored text = mod mode
I don't mean to sound rude, but I'm troubled by the way it seems things are going. Sompek breaks, then there's talk of Herculean efforts, then nothing.
The effort was to bring it back before the weekend. It was a weekend event. They weren't able to complete that work on Friday. So, they replaced it with Borg RA (now fixed) so folks wouldn't have to try struggling through a broken PVE for a few days. Then there was the weekend. Today is Monday. Folks just got back into work (see again. the weekend and Cryptic developers being fortunate enough not to work in sweatshop conditions). When Sompek is fixed (probably in the very near future), we'll get another weekend for it.
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!
Comments
The 4 boffs that tag along me and are useless except as to throw heals and draw enemy fire, those are the sidekicks.
Gatekeeping: When someone takes it upon themselves to decide who does or does not have access or rights to a community or identity.
In context: trying to decide who should or should not be allowed to participate with the franchise by filtering what content gets into STO. Saying "There should be no DSC in STO" effectively means "there should be no DSC fans in STO" (because the original proposition maintains that in spite of the difference in tastes and opinion [something we respect for TOS/TNG/DS9/VOY/ENT/ect.], a group shouldn't have their interests affirmed in game in any material way. What they identify with is verboten.)
People are certainly free to complain about content in discussion, it's healthy discourse and incidentally good fodder for creative inspiration when the subject is story and character arcs (see. getting to the nub of an idea which fell apart through implementation and running with it in a better direction for writing/foundrying/player head-canoning). IMO, it's tying that to "No DSC in STO, it's not Trek/isn't canon/sucks!" advocacy which completely disregards the interests of DSC fans (ie. the fact that they can have interests) that crosses the line and creates a hostile environment for any kind of meaningful discussion. When someone tells someone else more directly that they aren't a Trek fan or shouldn't be playing STO [it's only for certain parts of the franchise], then that's just unambiguous gatekeeping. Ergo. flaming/trolling.
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!
They may not be able to ban people they don't agree with, but they can launch personal attacks until the victim either backs down, rage quits, or is otherwise subdued. Or antagonize them into rule breaking conduct themselves, thus allowing said antagonizer to report the victim for rule violations and thus potential ban.
Granted that is going up to the extreme case in the last instance, but still a potential result of gatekeeping. Silencing "descent" in one form or another because it doesn't conform to another's percieved reality or their beliefs.
In this case, as mentioned above, anything Discovery related. Anyone who is pro Discovery or voices pro Discovery ideas will generally be attacked, even with valid counterarguments against the haters. No amount of reason will get through the hate.
One of the favorite arguments used against Discovery is trying to rally support by waving the "True Fan" card, saying that "True Fans will stand against it". Essentially declaring anyone who doesn't believe as they do as not being fans at all.
I use myself as an example here. I'm a Trek fan. I grew up watching TNG. I recognize the fact that every series in the franchise has had high and low points, and know that sometimes it takes a season or two to gain footing. I give things a chance. I didn't like the redesign of the Kelvin Connie at first, but its grown on me. I gave Discovery a chance and I see potential. I did NOT rage against Enterprise for looking "more advanced than TOS", I didn't rage against the Kelvin Timeline because "it destroys canon and everything we know", and I don't rage against Discovery for "looking too advanced, Spore Drive, 'mary sue Burnham', and 'klingorcs'".
Yet I am a target of gatekeeping because I am not against everything Discovery. Because I'm actually willing to give it a chance... I am apparently not a fan of Star Trek according to the "True Fans" because I am not "defending the Faith of Saint Roddenberry".
That's basically gatekeeping.
If anyone is on a "crusade", its anyone who uses said "True Fan" card to rally support to their cause.
normal text = me speaking as fellow formite
colored text = mod mode
> ruinthefun wrote: »
>
> How does that even work? I do not recall the forums giving random people the ability to ban or silence others, so as far as I know, nobody can actually do that.
>
>
>
>
> They may not be able to ban people they don't agree with, but they can launch personal attacks until the victim either backs down, rage quits, or is otherwise subdued. Or antagonize them into rule breaking conduct themselves, thus allowing said antagonizer to report the victim for rule violations and thus potential ban.
>
> Granted that is going up to the extreme case in the last instance, but still a potential result of gatekeeping. Silencing "descent" in one form or another because it doesn't conform to another's percieved reality or their beliefs.
>
> In this case, as mentioned above, anything Discovery related. Anyone who is pro Discovery or voices pro Discovery ideas will generally be attacked, even with valid counterarguments against the haters. No amount of reason will get through the hate.
>
> One of the favorite arguments used against Discovery is trying to rally support by waving the "True Fan" card, saying that "True Fans will stand against it". Essentially declaring anyone who doesn't believe as they do as not being fans at all.
>
> I use myself as an example here. I'm a Trek fan. I grew up watching TNG. I recognize the fact that every series in the franchise has had high and low points, and know that sometimes it takes a season or two to gain footing. I give things a chance. I didn't like the redesign of the Kelvin Connie at first, but its grown on me. I gave Discovery a chance and I see potential. I did NOT rage against Enterprise for looking "more advanced than TOS", I didn't rage against the Kelvin Timeline because "it destroys canon and everything we know", and I don't rage against Discovery for "looking too advanced, Spore Drive, 'mary sue Burnham', and 'klingorcs'".
> Yet I am a target of gatekeeping because I am not against everything Discovery. Because I'm actually willing to give it a chance... I am apparently not a fan of Star Trek according to the "True Fans" because I am not "defending the Faith of Saint Roddenberry".
>
> That's basically gatekeeping.
>
> If anyone is on a "crusade", its anyone who uses said "True Fan" card to rally support to their cause.
People can like what they want, but I am absolutely sick to death people protecting the complete continuity screwup DSC has going towards TOS. Like the Enterprise being 33% bigger or some other inconsistencies.
If they want it to be Prime, fine. If you like it, fine. But take the blinders off for one dang minute and realize that the 1st season of DSC is disjointed from the rest of Trek.
And the fact the showrunners are taking steps to rectify that. Season 2 uniforms are starting to look more like TOS. But IMHO what Pike was wearing in the beginning SHOULD of been the uniforms they are wearing from the get go.
Also add in they redid the Klingons to actually LOOK MORE KLINGON.
I really hope that the show runners heard loud and clear that they done screwed up with a lot of fans. Whether you like DSC or not, they have done exactly that.
I mean hell the JJ Klingons looked more like Klingons than DSC season 1, and it's a completely different universe.
I really hope 2nd season is better than season 1. I'd rather watch ANY season start over DSC, including VOY or ENT and many fans hated them beyond words.
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
> talonxv wrote: »
>
> Like the Enterprise being 33% bigger or some other inconsistencies.
>
>
>
> It is impossible for the Enterprise to be 33% bigger when the Enterprise has no canonical size.
Wrong. But nice try as CBS has said the shows and movies ARE canon. The books, games and other externals are not. So that point is moot and you are wrong. Any other points you want to try and pivot to?
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
Let us explore it... together. Each man hides a secret pain. It must be exposed and reckoned with. It must be dragged from the darkness and forced into the light. Share your pain. Share your pain with me... and gain strength from the sharing.
I think the only Enterprise we got a firm size on, that I remember mind you, was the Enterprise-E in First Contact when Picard was telling Lilly how big the ship is, stating she was about 700 meters and 24 decks. But then I think we have the issue of non existant decks being called out during battle scenes, and apparently she went through a refit between FC and Insurrection, and again between Insurrection and Nemesis.
Another size anomaly is in the '09 Star Trek, where the first time we see the Enterprise, she's got a shuttlebay big enough for two of the "military" shuttles to go in and out side by side and have some room to spare. But then when we see Pike take a shuttle out... the shuttlebay only has enough room for that same class of shuttle to come out on its own, making her about the same size as the original.
There are the official sizes, there are the fan accepted sizes (which mostly line up with official most of the time), and there's headcanon sizes.
The TOS Connie is generally accepted at around 285 meters. Official... I have no idea as I don't remember the size of the Connie ever being stated on screen. Officially the size of the Sovereign is 685 meters, which lines up with Picard generalizing around 700. I headcanon the KT Connie at 366 meters due to the fact that she changes size in the same movie she was revealed in and the details line up more with a smaller ship than larger.
If the Discovery version was scaled up... they obviously made sure to keep the DETAILS size appropriate. Besides... length is only one measurement. MASS is another. Scale wise, the Discovery Connie is proportionately the same as the TOS one. Neck is a bit shorter, but its thicker too. Maybe about as thick as the Refit Connie. The swept back nacelle pylons would add some length as well vs the straight pylons. But overall she's within the same proportions as her origin.
Bit bigger or not, the design for her is very well done. I can easily see her fighting the Romulan BoP, Klingon D7s, and even the Tholians.
normal text = me speaking as fellow formite
colored text = mod mode
Let us explore it... together. Each man hides a secret pain. It must be exposed and reckoned with. It must be dragged from the darkness and forced into the light. Share your pain. Share your pain with me... and gain strength from the sharing.
> talonxv wrote: »
>
> Wrong. But nice try as CBS has said the shows and movies ARE canon. The books, games and other externals are not. So that point is moot and you are wrong. Any other points you want to try and pivot to?
>
>
>
>
> I think the only Enterprise we got a firm size on, that I remember mind you, was the Enterprise-E in First Contact when Picard was telling Lilly how big the ship is, stating she was about 700 meters and 24 decks. But then I think we have the issue of non existant decks being called out during battle scenes, and apparently she went through a refit between FC and Insurrection, and again between Insurrection and Nemesis.
>
> Another size anomaly is in the '09 Star Trek, where the first time we see the Enterprise, she's got a shuttlebay big enough for two of the "military" shuttles to go in and out side by side and have some room to spare. But then when we see Pike take a shuttle out... the shuttlebay only has enough room for that same class of shuttle to come out on its own, making her about the same size as the original.
>
> There are the official sizes, there are the fan accepted sizes (which mostly line up with official most of the time), and there's headcanon sizes.
>
> The TOS Connie is generally accepted at around 285 meters. Official... I have no idea as I don't remember the size of the Connie ever being stated on screen. Officially the size of the Sovereign is 685 meters, which lines up with Picard generalizing around 700. I headcanon the KT Connie at 366 meters due to the fact that she changes size in the same movie she was revealed in and the details line up more with a smaller ship than larger.
>
> If the Discovery version was scaled up... they obviously made sure to keep the DETAILS size appropriate. Besides... length is only one measurement. MASS is another. Scale wise, the Discovery Connie is proportionately the same as the TOS one. Neck is a bit shorter, but its thicker too. Maybe about as thick as the Refit Connie. The swept back nacelle pylons would add some length as well vs the straight pylons. But overall she's within the same proportions as her origin.
>
> Bit bigger or not, the design for her is very well done. I can easily see her fighting the Romulan BoP, Klingon D7s, and even the Tholians.
I never said the design was bad. I like the design. But canonically it makes no sense.
I just hope Kurtzman grows a set and deems everything that came before is legends much like Lucas Films did with the EU books and now has a clean canvas.
I won't like it, but I'll respect him more for it.
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
Yeah, especially when compositing physical models the sizes of ships and stations varied from scene to scene. With digital there's more control but just as well the immediate needs of a particular shot (see. providing visual entertainment, communicating information to the audience) will always outweigh canon because creative folks don't (generally) use canon as an absolute dictate for what can or can't go into a show (differing their responsibility as writers to people in associated projects who often could not have envisioned their creative problem, or cared sufficiently to accommodate it.)
Fans do that, in contrast, because canon is what they self-identify with. If that changes, their identity likewise changes to some degree. Folks don't like questioning who they are when seeking affirmation. Ergo, some level of whining about every new iteration of the series for reasons that are strictly to do with how it doesn't fit with "established canon" (without consideration for the flexibility shown in accepted parts of the IP. Imagine what Voyager would have been if it used Final Frontier's galactic travel times.)
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!
i am a life time subscriber and will continue to come on and do reps and continue with my fleet and the winter event
i would say that discovery has split the star trek fanbase lets debate it a friendly civil debate rather then ranting and Arguing
Okay, have to take an aside on this one: Cryptic wasn't ordered to make AoD from on high. From everything we've been told and can otherwise infer, Cryptic approached CBS about greater integration with DSC.
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!
New stuff makes me giddy.
What I find shameful is NO NEWKLINGONS?!?!! No
A show that started out with the whole FED-Klingon war... ...AND NO KLINGONS in the game? Ffs! WTH!?
I do not comprehend the reasoning behind NO KLINGONS!
Why on earth is the Klingons not a choice upon creating a new toon?
That plain out suck hard. No Klingons. No outfits, no guns. What a shameful display, Cryptic. Cookies with sand in to You all.
Booo!
> i am not a fan of discovery and never will be but i understand this the way the sto has to go as cbs calls the shots and has told cryptic to put discovery in the game i could get angry rant and such but there is no point the best way to protest this is not to put another penny of you own money in to the game
>
> i am a life time subscriber and will continue to come on and do reps and continue with my fleet and the winter event
>
> i would say that discovery has split the star trek fanbase lets debate it a friendly civil debate rather then ranting and Arguing
Well said. I’ll admit that I will still support the game, but the company shouldn’t ignore the non-Discovery crowd. This next year looks to be a lost year for the rest of us.
They've explicitly stated on ten forward weekly that while "Age of Discovery" will incorporate DSC elements into the STO universe, it will not be exclusively focused on DSC content. See. bringing J'ula forward to 2409 rather than maintaining a retrospective temporal arc. This is to introduce complications for the current state of the Empire for example (Mua'dib style), involving characters such as Martok and B'Vat (whose house was instrumental in the downfall of House Mo'kai, which was J'Ula's by marriage.)
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!
Saying they're "ignoring the non-Discovery crowd" would be like saying they ignored the non-Voyager crowd with Delta Rising, or the non-DS9 crowd when they did Victory is Life, or the non-TOS crowd when they did Agents of Yesterday, or the non-Romulan crowd with Legacy of Romulus.
Frankly it doesn't make sense. No one cried foul over being ignored with any other content drop. What makes this one so different? The mere fact its Discovery related?
normal text = me speaking as fellow formite
colored text = mod mode
Skip to 1:08:00, Andre basically said that it'd take a long time.
My character Tsin'xing
Three days go by, no word. Absolutely nothing. So? When stuff breaks (which seems frequently every time so far) then there's no more?
Many fans were not exactly pleased with ViL, or Age Of Discovery while most of the things players have shown much enthusiasm for such as Summer Event, Sompek, Nimbus 3 (ground games in general) seem to all be getting shafted for newer content that has been minimally praise at best.
I'm very troubled by what appears to be a lack of concern for maintaining events that were well liked, and continued emphasis of newer content that hasn't earner much enthusiasm or praise. Sure, you can't recapture lightning in a bottle, but how about maintaining the lightning that's proven to work?
Pushing out new stuff that's not keeping players/fans interested while ditching the content well cherished seems a consistent pattern that's leading to more people leaving STO completely. I want STO to succeed, and what I see happening is concerning.
I can't be the only person seeing, and thinking this, from a generalised standpoint.
Touche...
normal text = me speaking as fellow formite
colored text = mod mode
The effort was to bring it back before the weekend. It was a weekend event. They weren't able to complete that work on Friday. So, they replaced it with Borg RA (now fixed) so folks wouldn't have to try struggling through a broken PVE for a few days. Then there was the weekend. Today is Monday. Folks just got back into work (see again. the weekend and Cryptic developers being fortunate enough not to work in sweatshop conditions). When Sompek is fixed (probably in the very near future), we'll get another weekend for it.
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!