test content
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc

New Ship Prefixs: NCX and EX

124»

Comments

  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited December 2010
    Callasan wrote: »
    Since the only playable Federation ships are part of Starfleet, using a civillian designation would be a terrible idea. Those would have to wait until there were non-Starfleet ships playable in-game...good luck with that.


    Well, with Cryptic leaving Section 31 open as a possibility, it's possible. Technically, S31 ships are part of Starfleet, but that doesn't mean they would carry a USS/NCC designation. To-date, there's really no records of what S31 would call their ships, which leaves the possibility of entirely new designations.

    Not to mention, with Enterprise, ToS, and other uniform styles available, who's to say Cryptic won't allow ship designations?
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited December 2010
    Wow....are we still arguing about the registry prefixes? For a group of supposedly open-minded people, it sure seems like there are a lot of arguments over minutiae.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited December 2010
    Cuatela wrote:
    Well, with Cryptic leaving Section 31 open as a possibility, it's possible. Technically, S31 ships are part of Starfleet, but that doesn't mean they would carry a USS/NCC designation. To-date, there's really no records of what S31 would call their ships, which leaves the possibility of entirely new designations.

    Not to mention, with Enterprise, ToS, and other uniform styles available, who's to say Cryptic won't allow ship designations?

    Ya, that's become one of the major things pointed out over at TvTropes, that STO is turning into a "Star Trek Mashup" due to the devs trying to please a Unpleasable Fanbase.

    What you're talking about with the whole S31 thing is a Q-ship Not only would that be a tad much for ANY Starfleet officer to handle, the instant one was exposed they would ALL become useless, ALL civillian ships of any kind would become legitimate military targets - AND (being that a Q-ship's based on a merchantman hull) the ship itself would be a failure at it's role (just like the real Q-ships were) due to the fact they couldn't be as heavily armed and armored as a real warship and still fulfill their role.

    One thing Starfleet (at least, before Berman/Braga had their way) seemed to have done is to actually have learned from things like the past experiences of all the member races. Even the amoral Drake - a rogue officer if I've ever seen one) knows there are lines you do not cross After all, the whole B'Vat incident coould have been avoided with one phaser shot to the head on a young Captain B'Vat, before he started his whole lifted-from-many-sources beliefs (notably, the B'Vat plotline is VERY simular to the entire plot for Wing Commander IV)...

    Anyway, again there are lines you shouldn't cross, and I'm sure Drake knows that making every merchant ship anywhere a legit military target is a Bhad Idea.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited December 2010
    Laediin wrote: »
    Wow....are we still arguing about the registry prefixes? For a group of supposedly open-minded people, it sure seems like there are a lot of arguments over minutiae.

    Welcome to true fandom - this is what True Fans DO, repeatedly :)
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited December 2010
    Cuatela wrote:
    Well, with Cryptic leaving Section 31 open as a possibility, it's possible. Technically, S31 ships are part of Starfleet, but that doesn't mean they would carry a USS/NCC designation. To-date, there's really no records of what S31 would call their ships, which leaves the possibility of entirely new designations.

    Not to mention, with Enterprise, ToS, and other uniform styles available, who's to say Cryptic won't allow ship designations?

    I am sorry, but the idea of the super secret black ops team using specially marked starship kinda defeats the purpose. It'd be like undercover police cars using police licence plates, anyone who knew the system would see it sticking out. The idea of Section 31 is to blend in to Starfleet, so they'd do what they did in the TV shows and call upon agents apart of starfleet crews to do their work and save suspicion.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited December 2010
    That Phoenix Shows was just completely lame. If that is the direction Star trek is heading, then count me out as a future Star Trek Fan.

    Not to mention that ship looks like it fell out of the ugly tree and hit every branch on the way down.

    And sorry, but anything other than NX and NCC is just out of the question. Hell, if I wanted, I could write a book and add QCCFD as a prefix. Now it's in a book, we can use that one too! Hell no.

    Sorry, mate. You get too far from what we see on TV or the Movies (with the exception of that latest flop that JJ Trek) and you will start losing a lot of fans. Including me. I'm honestly not even a big fan of NX prefixes, but unfortunately it's here to stay, so I have to get over it.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited December 2010
    Callasan wrote: »
    NEITHER ONE was a Starfleet vessel, and since the only playable Federation ships are part of Starfleet, using a civillian designation would be a terrible idea. Those would have to wait until there were non-Starfleet ships playable in-game...good luck with that.

    Actually I didn't say I was in favour of it. However since the Raven was a Federation-registered vessel I see no issue with it. Your comment about non-Starfleet ships is interesting, since we are getting playable Vulcan and Andorian ships added into the game. If we can excuse their existence here then adding another type of Federation registry wouldn't be an issue at all, since it'd look odd for them to use both "USS" and "NCC" for their vessels. The Vulcan National Merchant Fleet had used "NSP" for their ships, while the Vulcan government vessels used the "VS" prefix. So something similar would be appropriate for both of these non-Starfleet ships.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited December 2010
    Amosov wrote:
    Actually I didn't say I was in favour of it. However since the Raven was a Federation-registered vessel I see no issue with it. Your comment about non-Starfleet ships is interesting, since we are getting playable Vulcan and Andorian ships added into the game. If we can excuse their existence here then adding another type of Federation registry wouldn't be an issue at all, since it'd look odd for them to use both "USS" and "NCC" for their vessels. The Vulcan National Merchant Fleet had used "NSP" for their ships, while the Vulcan government vessels used the "VS" prefix. So something similar would be appropriate for both of these non-Starfleet ships.

    Thing is, we aren't getting the actual non-Starfleet ships.

    We're getting Andorian and Vulcan ships with grey hulls and Starfleet insignia, indicating they've been drafted into service.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited December 2010
    Thing is, we aren't getting the actual non-Starfleet ships.

    We're getting Andorian and Vulcan ships with grey hulls and Starfleet insignia, indicating they've been drafted into service.

    I've not read that in the Dev log, got a link where they mention that?

    The only reference recently that's cropped up is this post: http://forums.startrekonline.com/showthread.php?p=3115172#post3115172

    Having played the mission in which that ship appears on Tribble, it was the same brown/red colour as seen on Enterprise.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited December 2010
    Those mentioning the NX designation are completely missing the most prominent example of its use.

    The USS Excelsior, NX-2000. At least, NX-2000 while she had a transwarp drive fitted. Changed to NCC-2000 when the experiment was scrapped, and she was fitted with a standard drive.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited December 2010
    Amosov wrote:
    I've not read that in the Dev log, got a link where they mention that?

    The only reference recently that's cropped up is this post: http://forums.startrekonline.com/showthread.php?p=3115172#post3115172

    Having played the mission in which that ship appears on Tribble, it was the same brown/red colour as seen on Enterprise.

    Look at the forum header. It's grey. It's also not the class of ship seen on Enterprise but a 25th century cousin, hence the windows, size, and glowing deflector.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited December 2010
    Look at the forum header. It's grey. It's also not the class of ship seen on Enterprise but a 25th century cousin, hence the windows, size, and glowing deflector.

    Sector space on tribble is pretty unreliable to see accurate colors at the best of times. My ship looks blue most of the time due to the current lighting alteration on Tribble.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited December 2010
    /bump for Thread

    at least you guys might see it in holdeck soon
    :)
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2011
    NCX Prefix appears on ship in Web Series called Star Trek: Phoenix. :eek:
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2011
    The only ship NAME prefix is USS

    the only 2 ship registry number prefix is NCC and NX
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2011
    Srafa wrote: »
    The only ship NAME prefix is USS

    the only 2 ship registry number prefix is NCC and NX

    In the future this will become a Starfleet prefix, possibly specifically denoting timeships.

    For our current era, you are absolutely right. only NX and NCC are in use as far as we know.

    I imagine even other vessels, such as D'kyrs in Starfleet service, should be given an NCC number as opposed to a special designation.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2011
    superlink1 wrote: »
    NCX Prefix appears on ship in Web Series called Star Trek: Phoenix. :eek:

    Which is pointless since it's a fan-series.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2011
    ISS plox!!!!:eek:
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2011
    Kill the Zombies!!!
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2011
    Necromancy +5
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2011
    Turn unthread! Turn unthread!:D
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2011
    mister_dee wrote:
    Which is pointless since it's a fan-series.

    wrong.
    with support they have, they will become the Next Star Trek Series wih Blessings from CBS and Parmount.
    so it is very highly likely they will become Canon someday. plus i know Star Trek Phoenix Actors. and their Show is Based in Seattle and i live very close just in Puyallup, which is not far from Seattle.
    check your facts next time
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2011
    superlink1 wrote: »
    wrong.
    with support they have, they will become the Next Star Trek Series wih Blessings from CBS and Parmount.
    so it is very highly likely they will become Canon someday. plus i know Star Trek Phoenix Actors. and their Show is Based in Seattle and i live very close just in Puyallup, which is not far from Seattle.
    check your facts next time

    It won't become canon. Even "Of Gods and Men" (with a bunch of actors from the canon series) or Star Trek Phase II (with guest stars like Walter Koenig and George Takei) aren't canon.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2011
    Callasan wrote: »
    Learn the difference between Soft Canon (otherwise known as FAN FICTION, or derogatorily known as Fan ****) and actual CANON (what the creators actually are doping with the property in question).

    <snip>

    Further information on this topic can be found here

    While that is a great site, with hundreds of references supporting the author's viewpoint on canon, it is still nothing more than their personal viewpoint, or opinion of the evidence they chose to quote.

    As you said before, the Fandom of Star Trek will debate this continually. It is only my opinion, but Star Trek Canon is a bit of a Paradox, and always open for debate. Because Roddenberry, Berman and others have back pedaled, and contradicted themselves on many things canon, it has left us (the fanbase) in a state of flux on many items, and why we endlessly debate them.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2011
    superlink1 wrote: »
    wrong.
    with support they have, they will become the Next Star Trek Series wih Blessings from CBS and Parmount.
    so it is very highly likely they will become Canon someday. plus i know Star Trek Phoenix Actors. and their Show is Based in Seattle and i live very close just in Puyallup, which is not far from Seattle.
    check your facts next time

    No fan series has ever become canon.
    None, not even New Voyages, which had Roddenberry's son onboard at times, which now makes episodes like "Blood and Fire" that were supposed to be made for canon Trek bud never were.
    I know my facts.
    And what does the location have to do with anything?
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2011
    has it come to the point where moderators need to lock down all threads that are over three months old?
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2011
    SP3CTREnyc wrote:
    has it come to the point where moderators need to lock down all threads that are over three months old?

    Months old is not the problem, inactive for over one or two months would be the more important question IMO.
    In this case the OP bumped his own thread, it's not like many of the others where someone accidentally reactivated it.
    Which kinda makes it less of a Zombie but more of a...Lazarus thread.
Sign In or Register to comment.