You mean besides the fact that your suggestion is the equivalent of putting sails on an aircraft carrier or submarine because you think they look pretty?
And each of those designs are functionally different vessels. No designer will simply slap on an extra part just because they like the way it looks. There needs to be a functional reason to do so, which by the way you've yet to provide beyond "waaaah I want my special idea to happen".
Ho, excuse me? Because you don't think every vessel got his own design for special purpose?
The Cheyenne and stargazzer are created for get exactly the same specific if it was "real"?
It's that just another cosmethic stuff?
The dreadnought didn't get his third nacelle for something right? But on the game, what is the use of this third nacelle? Explain?
Why can we make hybrid vessel how can for most of them completly look stupid. (just try to take the saucer of a cheyenne with the body of a stargazzer).
Because it's called "personalisation". Like you can make your own character, your own vessel. Even if at the end. It's just a pack of pixel behind your computer screen.
Again.
Feel FREE to not use them if you want. But don't forbide this because YOU don't like it.
Btw: Star Wars? Are you kidding me? The design's of the vessel made by Abram's and his team are completly on the line of Star Trek Series.
Don't even tell me it's because they got turret.
Because the first Enterprise got also a phaser firing like "turret". (just watch the episode when they try to catch a romulan bird of prey.)
Feel FREE to not use what you don't like. But leave thread and stuff you don't like doing there suggestion.
If you read my message, you will see that the main problem is the licence... not the ship.
As I said, since the Kelvin was build before Nero joined the alternate timeline, it's technically canon, and not an issue on that point...
But yes... it was a very bad movie.
Not sure how anybody playing STO, can say the last Star Trek movie was bad. Why? Because it didn't have busty, captains in bikini top, miniskirt, "uniforms" flying alien starships, crewed by Tholian, duty officers, single-handedly defeating Borg armadas, building their own starbases in the middle of nowhere, and buying stuff with lobi jewels, and dilithium crystals?
Ho, excuse me? Because you don't think every vessel got his own design for special purpose?
The Cheyenne and stargazzer are created for get exactly the same specific if it was "real"?
It's that just another cosmethic stuff?
Cheyenne already existed in-universe prior to STO. And the four nacelles? To balance the warp field.
Why can we make hybrid vessel how can for most of them completly look stupid. (just try to take the saucer of a cheyenne with the body of a stargazzer).
Because it's called "personalisation". Like you can make your own character, your own vessel. Even if at the end. It's just a pack of pixel behind your computer screen.
There's a massive difference between ships of the same design using similar parts and slapping random bits from one ship onto a completely different ship design. Try retrofitting a Coast Guard cutter with an aircraft carrier's hangar deck. I'm sure you'll end up with something both functional and aesthetically pleasing...
Btw: Star Wars? Are you kidding me? The design's of the vessel made by Abram's and his team are completly on the line of Star Trek Series.
Don't even tell me it's because they got turret.
Because the first Enterprise got also a phaser firing like "turret". (just watch the episode when they try to catch a romulan bird of prey.)
You really need to decide who you're arguing with. I've made no mention of Star Wars or Abrams-Trek. Spouting off at people for things they haven't actually said doesn't exactly do much to support any other arguments you might make. Instead...it just makes you look petty, and frankly more than a bit ludicrous.
Then either quote who you're ranting at, or don't include it in the same post as comments made to someone else. It's hard enough to understand what you're writing without having to guess who you're writing at.
So why add new design or new ship with new design? Why?
Because it's not "star trek"?
Because it's "cosmetic stuff"?
You seriously should open your mind a little more.
Once again, there is a massive difference between adding more starship classes that are visually distinct from one another, and randomly gluing pieces from one ship class to another completely different one.
I have absolutely nothing against adding more classes to STO, in fact a deep selection of ships is something I very strongly advocate. What I absolutely do not advocate is the idiotic idea of taking a piece of a Defiant, tossing in a little bit of a Sovereign and wrapping it all up with some chunks from a Steamrunner.
Not sure how anybody playing STO, can say the last Star Trek movie was bad. Why? Because it didn't have busty, captains in bikini top, miniskirt, "uniforms" flying alien starships, crewed by Tholian, duty officers, single-handedly defeating Borg armadas, building their own starbases in the middle of nowhere, and buying stuff with lobi jewels, and dilithium crystals?
Wow... lazy...
I thought it was boring... that's why I think it was bad...
Try to read all posts please.
Don't look silly... Don't call it the "Z-Store/Zen Store"...
I thought it was boring... that's why I think it was bad...
Try to read all posts please.
Boring? Not sure what movie you were watching, but amongst the plethora of Trek IP, previously available, for public consumption, I hardly think "boring" applies to what was basically "Star Trek: Non-Stop Explosionfest", which, oddly enough, is pretty much the only redeemable quality of STO. Spaceships blowing each other up. The movie was great. It really captured that "StarFleety" feeling, better than any of the previous movies. The only reason I don't give it 5 stars, was no cameo by Shatner.
While technically the Kelvin class could be considered part of the prime universe, since it was build before Nero messed it all up, there is still the issue of CBS owning the licence that STO is part of, but Paramount still owns the movies, so Cryptic can't really use it without some hard prices payed.
Also, you will find that JJ-Verse stuff dosen't really go that well around here.
The "Kelvin" specifically, is from JJs movie which is owned by Paramount. However, the Kelvin "design" is clearly influenced by the likes of the TOS Saladin and the TNG Freedom Classes. Both of which, CBS owns the rights to, and thus Cryptic DO have access to those.
And you're erroneously assuming the game's conventions are the only ones that matter when it comes to starship design, for any faction.
Well, you are telling me that design are here for special purpose for the ship in the series.
For example the Stargazzer and Cheyenne probably haven't exactly the same capacity do to there design, and configuration.
Well they are exactly the same ingame.
Once again, there is a massive difference between adding more starship classes that are visually distinct from one another, and randomly gluing pieces from one ship class to another completely different one.
Visually distinct? Because the cheyenne and stargazzer aren't "visually distinct" from one another?
All I want to know is WHY for you we shouldn't be able to get new class (understand: new ship to buy for dilithium, or free vessel when you level up) who got difference with the already know class, and with there own design?
For example:
2 type of Cruiser for level 10 player's available.
The cruiser "Enterprise-like" like we have already.
And another one with a different design (like one nacelle only, or one nacelle up the saucer, and one down.)
It would put more diversity in the game, and more choice for the player. So tell me: WHY?
Ideally, you should have 2 (or more) ships that can be purchased with your "Rank Up" token, and an additional 2 (or more) ships that are considered "Premium" and purchasable with Dilithium/Zen. In that regard, STO is sorely lacking if you want to add additional ships.
The problem with adding low level ships however, is that the game is currently so "sped up" that you pass by the ranks with relative ease, and little regard to which ship you are in (until you reach max tier/level).
Really? Never noticed it myself, where is that seen or are you joking?
NVM, I just googled it, LOL that does not count!
R2D2 is also in Star Trek (2009) as an easter egg that appears for a split second:
"I walked away from the last great Time War. I marked the passing of the Time Lords. I saw the birth of the universe and watched as time ran out, moment by moment, until nothing remained. No time, no space. Just me!"
It just adds to the total abortion that was ST2009, I bet Charlie Sheen is in the bar somewhere too, I wonder what way he will cheapen his already TRIBBLE record in the next movie?
Are you implying that First Contact was an 'Abortion' because the Millenium Falcon is in that?
JJ most likely had no idea that ILM had done that is the whole point of an easter egg.
Industrial Light and Magic which was owned by George Lucas until Disney bought it as part of the take over of Lucasfilm, has a history of inserting Star Wars references into films they have worked on (I think R2 also is in Transformers 2).
"I walked away from the last great Time War. I marked the passing of the Time Lords. I saw the birth of the universe and watched as time ran out, moment by moment, until nothing remained. No time, no space. Just me!"
So the Star Trek seires should have slowly be forgot because no one create stuff about it anymore?
Open your mind dude!
The 2009 movie brought a new generation of "Trekie" who will watch the "old star trek stuff."
Even if that movie was in part a fail talking about the scenario. It was anyway a huge fresh air for the Franchise, like it or not.
This movie contribute a lot to the popularity of the Franchise. Lot's of guy are playing this game and before 2009, they didn't even know about this franchise!
And I'm waiting the new Star Trek movie, not for the scenario, not for the actor. Just for watch again the U.S.S. Enterprise moving, and get again the "Trek passion".
The "Kelvin" specifically, is from JJs movie which is owned by Paramount. However, the Kelvin "design" is clearly influenced by the likes of the TOS Saladin and the TNG Freedom Classes. Both of which, CBS owns the rights to, and thus Cryptic DO have access to those.
I like the idea of adding in the Canon ships from the Best of Both Worlds in the place of the Kelvin, such as the Freedom Class, I designed it as a mod for Start Trek Legacy quite some time ago, along with the Niagara and Challenger class.
"I walked away from the last great Time War. I marked the passing of the Time Lords. I saw the birth of the universe and watched as time ran out, moment by moment, until nothing remained. No time, no space. Just me!"
Fine, hope you enjoy it, if TRIBBLE a genre of all that we knew rather than using imagination and building on the incredible stories of the past is what floats your boat then go for it.
Okay, so you are without doubt on the "NostalRage" category of Treekie... Probably the worst...
Do you even read the complete post before posting your whine?
No wonder why community's are getting bad with that kind of lock minded people.
Well, you are telling me that design are here for special purpose for the ship in the series.
For example the Stargazzer and Cheyenne probably haven't exactly the same capacity do to there design, and configuration.
Well they are exactly the same ingame.
100% making my point for me. Things that exist in-universe rarely translate perfectly over to a video game, especially when one has to deal with things like "balance"
Visually distinct? Because the cheyenne and stargazzer aren't "visually distinct" from one another?
You're comparing two heavy cruiser archetype ships that were selected specifically to be similar to one another. Of course they're going to look very close to each other.
For example:
2 type of Cruiser for level 10 player's available.
The cruiser "Enterprise-like" like we have already.
And another one with a different design (like one nacelle only, or one nacelle up the saucer, and one down.)
It would put more diversity in the game, and more choice for the player. So tell me: WHY?
1) Because the IP, and by extension CBS doesn't support doing stupid TRIBBLE like that.
2) Ships of a given archetype are technologically very similar to one another. Randomly throwing around pieces that fundamentally change the performance of a vessel goes 100% contrary to that idea.
3) Because it would look completely idiotic to randomly cut and paste pieces from random ships together.
No, it have not ... it simply another dumbass summer action blockbuster movie.
It will get people to "watch old Star Trek stuff" as much as Transformers did for people to "watch old Transfomers cartoons".
Its just brand recognition, nothing more and nothing else ... we could say at least JJ clean slate made the pill easier to swallow as we can downright dismiss it.
I have a friend who literally HATES Star Trek. Up until 2009, he refused to watch a single episode or movie. Than the 2009 movie came around, and we went to see the movie together. Me (being a long-time Trek fan), and him (hater of all things Trek), BOTH enjoyed the movie immensely.
And for what it's worth (@ mattjohnsonva)... The 2009 movie (and the upcoming Into Darkness), does in no way "erase" what previously existed. The movie goes out of it's way to state in no uncertain terms, that the events are part of an ALTERNATE REALITY (or alternate timeline, if you prefer to call it such).
Do you think all the 800+ episodes and 10 feature films suddenly become erased, just because a new director gets their hands on the Trek IP? I still watch the old episodes from time to time, and the movies. AND I've seen the 2009 movie repeatedly.
It's fine if you guys don't like the 2009 movie (most "purists" don't). But don't continuously keep trashing the movie(s). We get it. We know you hate it. I'd love for these sort of discussions to quietly disappear into the night, but for some reason or another, whenever someone mentions ANYTHING related to the 2009 movie, there are always a bunch of haters who jump at the chance to trash it.
Science has yet to confirm that alternate realities can and do exist. This is a cop out for the film's apologists. Us haters bring it up because we are about to be subject to another helping of this TRIBBLE and it constantly reminds us of the lost opportunities, to take the genre to new heights rather than jumping on the batman in space type bandwagon.
The OP asked why the Kelvin was not in STO, my answer was because it is not part of the real ST universe, I stick by that.
And yet you appear to have NO ISSUE whatsoever, with the same "alternate reality" plot being applied, to an episode of TNG, named 'Parallels'. The writers of the 2009 movie have referenced said episode as the inspiration for the alternate reality concept of the 2009 movie.
You also mentioned 'First Contact' as being (according to you), the best of the previous 10 movies. Did you not realize that the crew of the Enterprise-E "witnessed" a sort-of alternate reality, before traveling back in time to prevent it?
Alternate Reality/Timeline is a common sci-fi plot device. That's why it's called science-FICTION. In my mind, most science-FICTION is only fiction until proven reality.
100% making my point for me. Things that exist in-universe rarely translate perfectly over to a video game, especially when one has to deal with things like "balance"
They got no problem with constitution, cheyenne, Galaxy, and other stuff.
Should be no problem for other's class like the Freedom...
Dude, they even succed in placing the very first Enterprise ingame!
You're comparing two heavy cruiser archetype ships that were selected specifically to be similar to one another. Of course they're going to look very close to each other.
Cheyenne and Stargazzer? Very close to each other?
One is just a giant Constitution with 4 nacelle.
The other.... first time I saw it, didn't think a second it was a federation vessel...
(Btw: the REAL stargazzer should be ingame too...And don't tell me license blablabla stuff. Or "it's an old ship" stuff because we already got the Constitution...)
1) Because the IP, and by extension CBS doesn't support doing stupid TRIBBLE like that.
TRIBBLE like what? Huh? Explain. Creating new ship still on the line of Star Trek design is "TRIBBLE" for you? Strange for a guy playing Star Trek where the action take place ON THE FUTUR? where there is already Enterprise-F and other stuff like that.
Even if there is also "old" constitution design" and also in the series class of ship still not used here like the Freedom class.
2) Ships of a given archetype are technologically very similar to one another. Randomly throwing around pieces that fundamentally change the performance of a vessel goes 100% contrary to that idea.
And other type of ship with "similar" design and also there own performance in the series, and no difference here isn't "contrary to that idea?"
I think you don't undestand what was coming out of the discussion before you started your whine.
We were thinking about new vessel. Not just Skin, but new vessel with there own caracteristic. AND with new design STILL in the Star Trek line. (Freedom Class for example, and why not '"futur" and other "skin" for that ship. Making understand they are new class
3) Because it would look completely idiotic to randomly cut and paste pieces from random ships together.
Ho? So for you adding new vessel with there own design (NOT JUST NEW "SKIN" FOR SHIP BUT TOTAL AND COMPLETE NEW SHIP AVAILABLE WITH DIFFERENT CARACTERISTIC!!!) is just like taking piece of vessel and mixed them together?
...
...
Do you EVEN read suggestion and thread?
I really doubt about it.
They got no problem with constitution, cheyenne, Galaxy, and other stuff.
Should be no problem for other's class like the Freedom...
Dude, they even succed in placing the very first Enterprise ingame!
I must have missed the part where a Galaxy and the TOS Connie were statistically identical.
Cheyenne and Stargazzer? Very close to each other?
One is just a giant Constitution with 4 nacelle.
The other.... first time I saw it, didn't think a second it was a federation vessel...
(Btw: the REAL stargazzer should be ingame too...And don't tell me license blablabla stuff. Or "it's an old ship" stuff because we already got the Constitution...)
All heavy cruisers with a central engineering section and four nacelles. And seriously, would it kill you to spell Stargazer right?
TRIBBLE like what? Huh? Explain. Creating new ship still on the line of Star Trek design is "TRIBBLE" for you? Strange for a guy playing Star Trek where the action take place ON THE FUTUR? where there is already Enterprise-F and other stuff like that.
Even if there is also "old" constitution design" and also in the series class of ship still not used here like the Freedom class.
Did you completely miss the part where I've gone over, more than once, why randomly cutting and pasting from one ship to another not only looks moronic, but also has no functional purpose?
Ho? So for you adding new vessel with there own design (NOT JUST NEW "SKIN" FOR SHIP BUT TOTAL AND COMPLETE NEW SHIP AVAILABLE WITH DIFFERENT CARACTERISTIC!!!) is just like taking piece of vessel and mixed them together?
...
...
Do you EVEN read suggestion and thread?
I really doubt about it.
That's right, I didn't read any of your replies, yet somehow managed to quote and respond to subsections of each with specific rebuttals. I guess I'm just that talented.
In addition, please quote for me where I equated adding a (in the case of your suggestions a completely idiotic, technologically unsound and untenable) reskin option for existing ships with adding completely new ship types. In fact, I've done the exact opposite: advocating for more functionally different ship types. What you're asking for is about one step removed from separating ship performance from appearance simply because you want to play lego with starfleet ship parts, something that just flat out doesn't work either logically, or by the technological underpinnings of starfleet's ship design theories.
The Defiant is a totally different Design and you know it.
And what is the problem?
DIVERSITY? Ever heard of that? At the moment, almost every federation starship look the same. And in the series, movie and other stuff. You have lot's of different design.
Come on in "First Contact" you even have a Millenium Falcon!
You don't like a design, feel free to not use it. But don't tell that no one has the right to use them because YOU don't like them.
Ho, excuse me? Because you don't think every vessel got his own design for special purpose?
The Cheyenne and stargazzer are created for get exactly the same specific if it was "real"?
It's that just another cosmethic stuff?
The dreadnought didn't get his third nacelle for something right? But on the game, what is the use of this third nacelle? Explain?
Why can we make hybrid vessel how can for most of them completly look stupid. (just try to take the saucer of a cheyenne with the body of a stargazzer).
Because it's called "personalisation". Like you can make your own character, your own vessel. Even if at the end. It's just a pack of pixel behind your computer screen.
Again.
Feel FREE to not use them if you want. But don't forbide this because YOU don't like it.
Btw: Star Wars? Are you kidding me? The design's of the vessel made by Abram's and his team are completly on the line of Star Trek Series.
Don't even tell me it's because they got turret.
Because the first Enterprise got also a phaser firing like "turret". (just watch the episode when they try to catch a romulan bird of prey.)
Feel FREE to not use what you don't like. But leave thread and stuff you don't like doing there suggestion.
I could go on, but three examples completely contradicting your current position is enough.
You're talking about adding additional costume elements (and by additional I mean randomly cutting a pasting components from one ship to another) to already existing ships, not creating entirely new ones. That, for STO, is the equivalent of a reskin.
This discussion with you is over.
You're right, because no matter how wrong it's shown to be, you're still sticking to the absurd notion that playing Frankenstein with ship components simply to satisfy your need to be unique somehow isn't a bad thing.
Science has yet to confirm that alternate realities can and do exist. This is a cop out for the film's apologists. Us haters bring it up because we are about to be subject to another helping of this TRIBBLE and it constantly reminds us of the lost opportunities, to take the genre to new heights rather than jumping on the batman in space type bandwagon.
The OP asked why the Kelvin was not in STO, my answer was because it is not part of the real ST universe, I stick by that.
"I walked away from the last great Time War. I marked the passing of the Time Lords. I saw the birth of the universe and watched as time ran out, moment by moment, until nothing remained. No time, no space. Just me!"
I'm with you on this - I didn't find it to be a very entertaining movie. I wouldn't go so far as to say that it was a bad movie, but I DO feel that it was a poor TREK movie.
Though I willingly admit, the 'opening' of the movie, the backstory if you will, involving the Kelvin, George Kirk etc, was great; my problem is that the rest of the movie didn't have the 'heart' that said opening/backstory had and became a dull explosion/aciton fest that didn't give you much to think about and expected us to swallow some, frankly, ridiculous coincidences that brought the crew together.
And so far as the destruction of Vulcan goes, I'll quote Bernd Schnieder of EAS fame on that one:
And I quote: "The RIGHT timeline is something that is only, selfishly, perceived, by someone travelling back in time, to the past, from the future." Or, to quote Yoda: "Difficult to say, always in motion, the future is."
Besides, Trek is lousy with some, frankly, ridiculous coincidences, contradictions, and contrivances. That's why it's so entertaining.
First Contact was probably the best ST movie of the lot and you know it. Abram's pop corn TRIBBLE with a script that could be written on the back of a beer mat and the total disregard for 43 years of Star Trek history was produced for the modern "push button get bacon" generation, it requires no thought, it contains no passion for the genre, it is an unimaginitive rehash of something that should never have been touched. Just wait until he works his magic with Star Wars!
Yea, right, and STO is SOOOO much deeper. It's overflowing with passion for the genre. Remember when Kirk was promoted to Admiral, and had to go on the big Epohh roundup for the Romulans? Neither do I, on account of it never happened, and never would happen.
Anyone that knows Trek will tell you WoK was the best Trek film. Talk about a popcorn script, FC couldn't get out of it's own way. Let's see, the Borg queen, Picard "remembering" that there actually is a single, vulnerability on a Cube (way less thought than the original "sleep" command, I might add) a borg cube having an escape ship, a drunk building a starship... You get the picture. As for remaking Star Wars, I think Jason Statham would make an awsome Fett!
Science has yet to confirm that alternate realities can and do exist. This is a cop out for the film's apologists. Us haters bring it up because we are about to be subject to another helping of this TRIBBLE and it constantly reminds us of the lost opportunities, to take the genre to new heights rather than jumping on the batman in space type bandwagon.
The OP asked why the Kelvin was not in STO, my answer was because it is not part of the real ST universe, I stick by that.
Dude, just don't watch the movie. Play STO instead. Even though it has about as much to do with Star Trek, as growing heirloom tomatoes does
Comments
Ho, excuse me? Because you don't think every vessel got his own design for special purpose?
The Cheyenne and stargazzer are created for get exactly the same specific if it was "real"?
It's that just another cosmethic stuff?
The dreadnought didn't get his third nacelle for something right? But on the game, what is the use of this third nacelle? Explain?
Why can we make hybrid vessel how can for most of them completly look stupid. (just try to take the saucer of a cheyenne with the body of a stargazzer).
Because it's called "personalisation". Like you can make your own character, your own vessel. Even if at the end. It's just a pack of pixel behind your computer screen.
Again.
Feel FREE to not use them if you want. But don't forbide this because YOU don't like it.
Btw: Star Wars? Are you kidding me? The design's of the vessel made by Abram's and his team are completly on the line of Star Trek Series.
Don't even tell me it's because they got turret.
Because the first Enterprise got also a phaser firing like "turret". (just watch the episode when they try to catch a romulan bird of prey.)
Feel FREE to not use what you don't like. But leave thread and stuff you don't like doing there suggestion.
Not sure how anybody playing STO, can say the last Star Trek movie was bad. Why? Because it didn't have busty, captains in bikini top, miniskirt, "uniforms" flying alien starships, crewed by Tholian, duty officers, single-handedly defeating Borg armadas, building their own starbases in the middle of nowhere, and buying stuff with lobi jewels, and dilithium crystals?
Cheyenne already existed in-universe prior to STO. And the four nacelles? To balance the warp field.
Aside from breaking the warp 10 barrier or allowing high warp under cloak without detection?
There's a massive difference between ships of the same design using similar parts and slapping random bits from one ship onto a completely different ship design. Try retrofitting a Coast Guard cutter with an aircraft carrier's hangar deck. I'm sure you'll end up with something both functional and aesthetically pleasing...
You really need to decide who you're arguing with. I've made no mention of Star Wars or Abrams-Trek. Spouting off at people for things they haven't actually said doesn't exactly do much to support any other arguments you might make. Instead...it just makes you look petty, and frankly more than a bit ludicrous.
And in game, what are these stuff are for?
Cosmetic stuff. Nothing more.
Your argue doesn't follow the concept of the game.
Cheyenne and stargazzer are exactly the same ingame.
Same capacity, same potential.
Just the size who is different.
So why add new design or new ship with new design? Why?
Because it's not "star trek"?
Because it's "cosmetic stuff"?
You seriously should open your mind a little more.
Then either quote who you're ranting at, or don't include it in the same post as comments made to someone else. It's hard enough to understand what you're writing without having to guess who you're writing at.
And you're erroneously assuming the game's conventions are the only ones that matter when it comes to starship design, for any faction.
Your point is what exactly?
Once again, there is a massive difference between adding more starship classes that are visually distinct from one another, and randomly gluing pieces from one ship class to another completely different one.
I have absolutely nothing against adding more classes to STO, in fact a deep selection of ships is something I very strongly advocate. What I absolutely do not advocate is the idiotic idea of taking a piece of a Defiant, tossing in a little bit of a Sovereign and wrapping it all up with some chunks from a Steamrunner.
Wow... lazy...
I thought it was boring... that's why I think it was bad...
Try to read all posts please.
Boring? Not sure what movie you were watching, but amongst the plethora of Trek IP, previously available, for public consumption, I hardly think "boring" applies to what was basically "Star Trek: Non-Stop Explosionfest", which, oddly enough, is pretty much the only redeemable quality of STO. Spaceships blowing each other up. The movie was great. It really captured that "StarFleety" feeling, better than any of the previous movies. The only reason I don't give it 5 stars, was no cameo by Shatner.
The "Kelvin" specifically, is from JJs movie which is owned by Paramount. However, the Kelvin "design" is clearly influenced by the likes of the TOS Saladin and the TNG Freedom Classes. Both of which, CBS owns the rights to, and thus Cryptic DO have access to those.
Well, you are telling me that design are here for special purpose for the ship in the series.
For example the Stargazzer and Cheyenne probably haven't exactly the same capacity do to there design, and configuration.
Well they are exactly the same ingame.
Visually distinct? Because the cheyenne and stargazzer aren't "visually distinct" from one another?
All I want to know is WHY for you we shouldn't be able to get new class (understand: new ship to buy for dilithium, or free vessel when you level up) who got difference with the already know class, and with there own design?
For example:
2 type of Cruiser for level 10 player's available.
The cruiser "Enterprise-like" like we have already.
And another one with a different design (like one nacelle only, or one nacelle up the saucer, and one down.)
It would put more diversity in the game, and more choice for the player. So tell me: WHY?
The problem with adding low level ships however, is that the game is currently so "sped up" that you pass by the ranks with relative ease, and little regard to which ship you are in (until you reach max tier/level).
Not everyone believes explosions, fights and killing every 5 mins is entertaining you know?
Agreed. I like combat as much as the next person, but Star Trek is more than just that.
There should be no problem to get new design.
[insert trollface here]
R2D2 is also in Star Trek (2009) as an easter egg that appears for a split second:
"I walked away from the last great Time War. I marked the passing of the Time Lords. I saw the birth of the universe and watched as time ran out, moment by moment, until nothing remained. No time, no space. Just me!"
Are you implying that First Contact was an 'Abortion' because the Millenium Falcon is in that?
JJ most likely had no idea that ILM had done that is the whole point of an easter egg.
Industrial Light and Magic which was owned by George Lucas until Disney bought it as part of the take over of Lucasfilm, has a history of inserting Star Wars references into films they have worked on (I think R2 also is in Transformers 2).
"I walked away from the last great Time War. I marked the passing of the Time Lords. I saw the birth of the universe and watched as time ran out, moment by moment, until nothing remained. No time, no space. Just me!"
Open your mind dude!
The 2009 movie brought a new generation of "Trekie" who will watch the "old star trek stuff."
Even if that movie was in part a fail talking about the scenario. It was anyway a huge fresh air for the Franchise, like it or not.
This movie contribute a lot to the popularity of the Franchise. Lot's of guy are playing this game and before 2009, they didn't even know about this franchise!
And I'm waiting the new Star Trek movie, not for the scenario, not for the actor. Just for watch again the U.S.S. Enterprise moving, and get again the "Trek passion".
But again. THIS IS NOT THE SUBJECT OF THE THREAD.
I like the idea of adding in the Canon ships from the Best of Both Worlds in the place of the Kelvin, such as the Freedom Class, I designed it as a mod for Start Trek Legacy quite some time ago, along with the Niagara and Challenger class.
"I walked away from the last great Time War. I marked the passing of the Time Lords. I saw the birth of the universe and watched as time ran out, moment by moment, until nothing remained. No time, no space. Just me!"
Okay, so you are without doubt on the "NostalRage" category of Treekie... Probably the worst...
Do you even read the complete post before posting your whine?
No wonder why community's are getting bad with that kind of lock minded people.
100% making my point for me. Things that exist in-universe rarely translate perfectly over to a video game, especially when one has to deal with things like "balance"
You're comparing two heavy cruiser archetype ships that were selected specifically to be similar to one another. Of course they're going to look very close to each other.
1) Because the IP, and by extension CBS doesn't support doing stupid TRIBBLE like that.
2) Ships of a given archetype are technologically very similar to one another. Randomly throwing around pieces that fundamentally change the performance of a vessel goes 100% contrary to that idea.
3) Because it would look completely idiotic to randomly cut and paste pieces from random ships together.
I have a friend who literally HATES Star Trek. Up until 2009, he refused to watch a single episode or movie. Than the 2009 movie came around, and we went to see the movie together. Me (being a long-time Trek fan), and him (hater of all things Trek), BOTH enjoyed the movie immensely.
And for what it's worth (@ mattjohnsonva)... The 2009 movie (and the upcoming Into Darkness), does in no way "erase" what previously existed. The movie goes out of it's way to state in no uncertain terms, that the events are part of an ALTERNATE REALITY (or alternate timeline, if you prefer to call it such).
Do you think all the 800+ episodes and 10 feature films suddenly become erased, just because a new director gets their hands on the Trek IP? I still watch the old episodes from time to time, and the movies. AND I've seen the 2009 movie repeatedly.
It's fine if you guys don't like the 2009 movie (most "purists" don't). But don't continuously keep trashing the movie(s). We get it. We know you hate it. I'd love for these sort of discussions to quietly disappear into the night, but for some reason or another, whenever someone mentions ANYTHING related to the 2009 movie, there are always a bunch of haters who jump at the chance to trash it.
"Fresh minds, fresh ideas, Be tolerant."
And yet you appear to have NO ISSUE whatsoever, with the same "alternate reality" plot being applied, to an episode of TNG, named 'Parallels'. The writers of the 2009 movie have referenced said episode as the inspiration for the alternate reality concept of the 2009 movie.
You also mentioned 'First Contact' as being (according to you), the best of the previous 10 movies. Did you not realize that the crew of the Enterprise-E "witnessed" a sort-of alternate reality, before traveling back in time to prevent it?
Alternate Reality/Timeline is a common sci-fi plot device. That's why it's called science-FICTION. In my mind, most science-FICTION is only fiction until proven reality.
So you couldn't actually be bothered to reply in a way that's easy to respond to. How nice.
I must have missed the part where a Galaxy and the TOS Connie were statistically identical.
All heavy cruisers with a central engineering section and four nacelles. And seriously, would it kill you to spell Stargazer right?
Did you completely miss the part where I've gone over, more than once, why randomly cutting and pasting from one ship to another not only looks moronic, but also has no functional purpose?
That's right, I didn't read any of your replies, yet somehow managed to quote and respond to subsections of each with specific rebuttals. I guess I'm just that talented.
In addition, please quote for me where I equated adding a (in the case of your suggestions a completely idiotic, technologically unsound and untenable) reskin option for existing ships with adding completely new ship types. In fact, I've done the exact opposite: advocating for more functionally different ship types. What you're asking for is about one step removed from separating ship performance from appearance simply because you want to play lego with starfleet ship parts, something that just flat out doesn't work either logically, or by the technological underpinnings of starfleet's ship design theories.
What I'm suggesting:
is NEW SHIP (like you are suggesting TOO) and there own caracteristic! AND NOT JUST RESKIN!
IS THAT TO HARD TO UNDERSTAND?
This discussion with you is over.
Make up your mind:
I could go on, but three examples completely contradicting your current position is enough.
You're talking about adding additional costume elements (and by additional I mean randomly cutting a pasting components from one ship to another) to already existing ships, not creating entirely new ones. That, for STO, is the equivalent of a reskin.
You're right, because no matter how wrong it's shown to be, you're still sticking to the absurd notion that playing Frankenstein with ship components simply to satisfy your need to be unique somehow isn't a bad thing.
I believe you stated it here:
"I walked away from the last great Time War. I marked the passing of the Time Lords. I saw the birth of the universe and watched as time ran out, moment by moment, until nothing remained. No time, no space. Just me!"
That pretty much, sums up STO, though.
And I quote: "The RIGHT timeline is something that is only, selfishly, perceived, by someone travelling back in time, to the past, from the future." Or, to quote Yoda: "Difficult to say, always in motion, the future is."
Besides, Trek is lousy with some, frankly, ridiculous coincidences, contradictions, and contrivances. That's why it's so entertaining.
Yea, right, and STO is SOOOO much deeper. It's overflowing with passion for the genre. Remember when Kirk was promoted to Admiral, and had to go on the big Epohh roundup for the Romulans? Neither do I, on account of it never happened, and never would happen.
Anyone that knows Trek will tell you WoK was the best Trek film. Talk about a popcorn script, FC couldn't get out of it's own way. Let's see, the Borg queen, Picard "remembering" that there actually is a single, vulnerability on a Cube (way less thought than the original "sleep" command, I might add) a borg cube having an escape ship, a drunk building a starship... You get the picture. As for remaking Star Wars, I think Jason Statham would make an awsome Fett!
Dude, just don't watch the movie. Play STO instead. Even though it has about as much to do with Star Trek, as growing heirloom tomatoes does