test content
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc

Holo-emitters as part of space missions

2

Comments

  • rattler2rattler2 Member Posts: 57,973 Community Moderator
    Keep it as it is
    I never said there is. I just provided a plausible reason that would fit in lore wise.
    db80k0m-89201ed8-eadb-45d3-830f-bb2f0d4c0fe7.png?token=eyJ0eXAiOiJKV1QiLCJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiJ9.eyJzdWIiOiJ1cm46YXBwOjdlMGQxODg5ODIyNjQzNzNhNWYwZDQxNWVhMGQyNmUwIiwiaXNzIjoidXJuOmFwcDo3ZTBkMTg4OTgyMjY0MzczYTVmMGQ0MTVlYTBkMjZlMCIsIm9iaiI6W1t7InBhdGgiOiJcL2ZcL2ExOGQ4ZWM2LTUyZjQtNDdiMS05YTI1LTVlYmZkYmJkOGM3N1wvZGI4MGswbS04OTIwMWVkOC1lYWRiLTQ1ZDMtODMwZi1iYjJmMGQ0YzBmZTcucG5nIn1dXSwiYXVkIjpbInVybjpzZXJ2aWNlOmZpbGUuZG93bmxvYWQiXX0.8G-Pg35Qi8qxiKLjAofaKRH6fmNH3qAAEI628gW0eXc
    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!)
  • rattler2rattler2 Member Posts: 57,973 Community Moderator
    Keep it as it is
    I don't see how its marketing. When that TFO was made we didn't have any of those ships at all. Not only that... there is no C-Store T6 Malachouski, which is one of the options we can turn into.
    db80k0m-89201ed8-eadb-45d3-830f-bb2f0d4c0fe7.png?token=eyJ0eXAiOiJKV1QiLCJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiJ9.eyJzdWIiOiJ1cm46YXBwOjdlMGQxODg5ODIyNjQzNzNhNWYwZDQxNWVhMGQyNmUwIiwiaXNzIjoidXJuOmFwcDo3ZTBkMTg4OTgyMjY0MzczYTVmMGQ0MTVlYTBkMjZlMCIsIm9iaiI6W1t7InBhdGgiOiJcL2ZcL2ExOGQ4ZWM2LTUyZjQtNDdiMS05YTI1LTVlYmZkYmJkOGM3N1wvZGI4MGswbS04OTIwMWVkOC1lYWRiLTQ1ZDMtODMwZi1iYjJmMGQ0YzBmZTcucG5nIn1dXSwiYXVkIjpbInVybjpzZXJ2aWNlOmZpbGUuZG93bmxvYWQiXX0.8G-Pg35Qi8qxiKLjAofaKRH6fmNH3qAAEI628gW0eXc
    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!)
  • blitzy4blitzy4 Member Posts: 839 Arc User
    Make it optional
    Personally I find it amusing that a period DSC Constitution or a older kelvin class gets reworked.
    jKixCmJ.jpg
    "..and like children playing after sunset, we were surrounded by darkness." -Ruri Hoshino



  • warpangelwarpangel Member Posts: 9,427 Arc User
    edited March 2020
    rattler2 wrote: »
    warpangel wrote: »
    Couldn't care less about the holos honestly. But I do think if they want us to fly Disco ships in that mission, they should make us fly a real Disco ship instead of just covering up the visuals.

    Then people will complain about not being able to fly their own ships. As it is now its a compromise. You have your own ship with your own build. Just the APPEARANCE of an era appropriate ship.

    Or do you really want to see the forums ignite on fire again over being forced into a standard Cryptic build?
    As a matter of fact, yes. The whinefests here tend to be quite amusing.

    But I didn't actually say anything about a "standard Cryptic build" in this instance, I said a real Disco ship. As in, you'd have to get and gear one yourself.
  • kikskenkiksken Member Posts: 664 Arc User
    edited March 2020
    Keep it as it is
    (response to redacted post removed) - darkbladejk
    Post edited by darkbladejk on
    Klingons don't get drunk.
    They just get less sober.
  • foxrockssocksfoxrockssocks Member Posts: 2,482 Arc User
    Remove the feature
    rattler2 wrote: »
    I DO mind you lose ship abilities. Saucer Seper, the Aquarius escort no workie. I assume the multi mode assaultr vector escort also no workie.

    Photonic Fleet still works.
    It is "fun" maneuvering a Scimitar around when you don't remember you're flying one, when you see this little thing that looks escortish.

    Never had that problem myself.

    Fourth, as I remember, the premise of the mission is to learn the tactics of the Klingons of the time period, because we have to fight them now, not historical reenactment for history's sake. So why would we even want to use anything but our actual ships with our actual abilities?

    We ARE using our actual ships still. Our loadouts haven't changed, our BOff abilities haven't changed, our performance hasn't changed. The ONLY thing that has changed is the visual appearance. Something that has no effect on performance. So it doesn't matter if you're ship looks like a Malachouski or a Shepard. It will behave EXACTLY like whatever you were flying when you queued up for it. May look like a Malachouski, but is actually a Vengeance, complete with Broadside Emitters. Or it may look like a Shepard, but is actually a Crossfield with 300+ ControlX spamming Gravity Wells.

    We're not being stuck in era appropriate Cryptic Builds. We're still using our own. Thus we ARE using 25th Century tactics in a historical simulation. What are ship looks like doesn't matter. We're not losing our ship for this thing. Literally the ONLY thing that changes is cosmetic.
    Not having access to Fleet Support or other pet summoning abilities may be because this is a simulation for us to gather data. Not just turkey shoot for the lulz. Lore wise it makes sense that we wouldn't be able to call in for reinforcements because the Federation forces present at the Binary Stars couldn't either. So the simulation is keeping at least that element historically accurate. Other than that, we're flying in there with 25th Century tech in a 23rd Century skin.

    I don't even know where this idea of "we're not using OUR ships" for it comes from. Because WE ARE USING OUR SHIPS. It honestly sounds like people are upset they can't see their Scimitars, Borg Juggernoughts, and Tzenkethi Dreadnoughts blasting the Klingons. Purely cosmetic.
    Would I like to see my Discovery Connie or Crossfield in there? Sometimes. But it really doesn't matter to me. Its ONE queue, that injects an element of immersion into the game. As I said before, the visual change is a compromise. Would you rather that, or getting stuck in the ever popular stock Cryptic Build for "historical accuracy"?

    Actually it can have a serious effect on performance. Take a Galaxy, put saucer separation on it, and a bunch of dual beam banks. Now enjoy the "fun" when you're stuck with DBBs and no ability to separate because of this silly STF's rules, and insult to injury, your ship looks really ugly too. Or how about using one of the traits that warps in extra support, like the command spec trait or the section 31 trait, only to realize those won't work in this silly simulation?

    So yes, I'd rather either we have full capabilities and no holoemitter or give us a stock ship build and balance around that.
  • jennycolvinjennycolvin Member Posts: 1,100 Arc User
    Remove the feature
    warpangel wrote: »
    rattler2 wrote: »
    warpangel wrote: »
    Couldn't care less about the holos honestly. But I do think if they want us to fly Disco ships in that mission, they should make us fly a real Disco ship instead of just covering up the visuals.

    Then people will complain about not being able to fly their own ships. As it is now its a compromise. You have your own ship with your own build. Just the APPEARANCE of an era appropriate ship.

    Or do you really want to see the forums ignite on fire again over being forced into a standard Cryptic build?
    As a matter of fact, yes. The whinefests here tend to be quite amusing.

    But I didn't actually say anything about a "standard Cryptic build" in this instance, I said a real Disco ship. As in, you'd have to get and gear one yourself.
    You really wanna see heads exploding left and right, warp?
    We already have a thread with people demanding that others gets nerfed because they themselves don't want to put time and effort to actually learn how to play the game and get better at it... can you imagine the whinefest if Cryptic were to do something like this? ROFL

    All in all, as @coldnapalm have said a number of times already, we are in a simulation and, as such, there's absolutely no need for our ships to appear as anything different than what we are - and it's also extremely ironic that going in there with and actual Discovery-era starships counts for nothing, because you get the holo emitter anyway.
    This is not Night of the Comet, nor is it The Dragon's Deceit, where masking our ships actually make sense. It's just a sim...​​
    kv1Ohsx.png
    Not agreeing with someone doesn't give you the right to be an TRIBBLE.

    Ci sono tre tipi di giocatori:
    - quelli a cui non va mai bene niente... e vanno sul forum a trollare;
    - quelli che sono talmente imbesuiti da credere a qualunque cosa i dev dicano, perfino che la luna è fatta di formaggio... e vanno sul forum a trollare;
    - quelli che credono a quello a cui è giusto credere, sono d'accordo con quello con cui è giusto essere d'accordo e sono critici con quello che non va;

    Ai giocatori dei primi due tipi, gratis in omaggio un bello specchio lucente su cui arrampicarsi. E una mazzata in testa per la loro poca intelligenza e compassione verso gli altri giocatori che non la pensano come loro.
    Agli appartenenti al terzo tipo, invece, dico grazie. Anche se non sempre si riesce a mantenere la calma, siete quelli per cui vale la pena incazzarsi.
  • kikskenkiksken Member Posts: 664 Arc User
    edited March 2020
    Keep it as it is
    (flame/troll post removed) - darkbladejk
    Post edited by darkbladejk on
    Klingons don't get drunk.
    They just get less sober.
  • meimeitoomeimeitoo Member Posts: 12,587 Arc User
    edited March 2020
    Remove the feature
    Personally I strongly dislike these holo-emitters.

    I invest heavily in my ship visuals, space barbie truly is an important part of the end-game content for me.

    I've even bought variants of the Vesta, and quite expensive vanity shields just to further customise my ships. When I'm flying it, I want it to look the way I made it.


    ^^ This goes for me as well, in its entirety.

    It's not that bad a deal for just this 1 misson, but I'm flying this fugly brown Earheart in that Event, and it even remames my ship. No longer me in my pink-ish ship. the 'LSS Cutie Pi.' :wink: Identity matters.
    3lsZz0w.jpg
  • kikskenkiksken Member Posts: 664 Arc User
    edited March 2020
    Keep it as it is
    meimeitoo wrote: »
    Personally I strongly dislike these holo-emitters.

    I invest heavily in my ship visuals, space barbie truly is an important part of the end-game content for me.

    I've even bought variants of the Vesta, and quite expensive vanity shields just to further customise my ships. When I'm flying it, I want it to look the way I made it.


    ^^ This goes for me as well, in its entirety.

    It's not that bad a deal for just this 1 misson, but I'm flying this fugly brown Earheart in that Event, and it even remames my ship. No longer me in my pink-ish ship. the 'LSS Cutie Pi.' :wink: Identity matters.
    Dislike, that I can deal with, yes, but once they throw in things like "simulation" without seemingly even understanding what simulation means, then I draw the line.
    Then again, it is part of the story...
    Now contradictive to that is the fact it is not done alover the other simulations, which invalidates that line... as sir @coldnapalm said, making a darn nice point.

    STO is a weird thing, for sure...
    Klingons don't get drunk.
    They just get less sober.
  • fleetcaptain5#1134 fleetcaptain5 Member Posts: 4,754 Arc User
    Make it optional
    blitzy4 wrote: »
    Personally I find it amusing that a period DSC Constitution or a older kelvin class gets reworked.

    Same with the Discovery / Crossfield class. Or my Section 31 intel ship.

    Besides what has been said, the whole thing seems strangely inconsistent and basically limited to just a handful of ships the developers decided needed to be flown more or something like that.


    It has nothing to do with 'era-appropriateness'.

    Nor is there, as has been pointed out by many, much logic as to why you'd need an era-appropriate ship in a holo-simulation anyway.

    warpangel wrote: »
    rattler2 wrote: »
    warpangel wrote: »
    Couldn't care less about the holos honestly. But I do think if they want us to fly Disco ships in that mission, they should make us fly a real Disco ship instead of just covering up the visuals.

    Then people will complain about not being able to fly their own ships. As it is now its a compromise. You have your own ship with your own build. Just the APPEARANCE of an era appropriate ship.

    Or do you really want to see the forums ignite on fire again over being forced into a standard Cryptic build?
    As a matter of fact, yes. The whinefests here tend to be quite amusing.

    But I didn't actually say anything about a "standard Cryptic build" in this instance, I said a real Disco ship. As in, you'd have to get and gear one yourself.
    You really wanna see heads exploding left and right, warp?
    We already have a thread with people demanding that others gets nerfed because they themselves don't want to put time and effort to actually learn how to play the game and get better at it... can you imagine the whinefest if Cryptic were to do something like this? ROFL

    All in all, as @coldnapalm have said a number of times already, we are in a simulation and, as such, there's absolutely no need for our ships to appear as anything different than what we are - and it's also extremely ironic that going in there with and actual Discovery-era starships counts for nothing, because you get the holo emitter anyway.
    This is not Night of the Comet, nor is it The Dragon's Deceit, where masking our ships actually make sense. It's just a sim...​​

    The Dragon's Deceit, now that is indeed a case where it makes sense to have a holo-emitter on your ship.
    [4:46] [Combat {self}] Your Haymaker deals 23337 (9049) Physical Damage(Critical) to Spawnmother

    [3/25 10:41][Combat (Self)]Your Haymaker deals 26187 (10692) Physical Damage(Critical) to Orinoco.
  • kikskenkiksken Member Posts: 664 Arc User
    edited March 2020
    Keep it as it is
    Simulation: a time/lore/science correct imitation of an existing or scientific underlayed theoretical situation.
    To run a simulation is to get as close as possible to reality.
    Therefore the use of the holo-altering is a must have.

    This being said, I do have to say, as said before, that sir @coldnapalm had a darn good point, saying this is not done in other situations that should have similar holo-alterings.
    Now either you do this over the whole game, or you do not, but stay with one or the other to avoid confusement?

    Therefore I would like, as logic commands me to, alter my vote from not altering this holo-altering to: have it optional.
    Seems to be the best of both worlds.
    Klingons don't get drunk.
    They just get less sober.
  • fleetcaptain5#1134 fleetcaptain5 Member Posts: 4,754 Arc User
    edited March 2020
    Make it optional
    kiksken wrote: »
    meimeitoo wrote: »
    Personally I strongly dislike these holo-emitters.

    I invest heavily in my ship visuals, space barbie truly is an important part of the end-game content for me.

    I've even bought variants of the Vesta, and quite expensive vanity shields just to further customise my ships. When I'm flying it, I want it to look the way I made it.


    ^^ This goes for me as well, in its entirety.

    It's not that bad a deal for just this 1 misson, but I'm flying this fugly brown Earheart in that Event, and it even remames my ship. No longer me in my pink-ish ship. the 'LSS Cutie Pi.' :wink: Identity matters.
    Dislike, that I can deal with, yes, but once they throw in things like "simulation" without seemingly even understanding what simulation means, then I draw the line.
    Then again, it is part of the story...
    Now contradictive to that is the fact it is not done alover the other simulations, which invalidates that line... as sir @coldnapalm said, making a darn nice point.

    STO is a weird thing, for sure...

    Semantics aside, the 'story' argument doesn't hold.

    Why not? Because the whole mission is ridiculous, story-wise.


    As noted before, the simulation doesn't even adapt to the fact that our ships enjoy a huge victory over the Klingons. We have (/the alliance has), supposedly, created a holo-scenario to learn more about an enemy who has resurfaced and who was somehow connected to this battle.

    How does one learn anything if the programme doesn't even properly respond to the inputs of the participants? This problem is exemplified by Cmdr. Burgess's pointless comments about how the Yeager and one of the other ships are disabled, which he described as 'fascinating data' that are coming in.

    The idiot apparently isn't even aware that he could have gotten that information from the historical logs - which were probably even used by the Alliance to create the programme in the first place.


    There is, in short, zero reason why our ships need to mimic those of the time the programme is set in. Because it doesn't recognise the participants in any way, it does not respond to them and it would not respond to someone flying a Vesta, a ship from the 31st century or a Romulan Scimitar fighting alongside the Federation ships.

    Contrary to some of the other cases that have been mentioned by people, where such a reaction would have been expected and a holo-emitter was thus necessary.
    [4:46] [Combat {self}] Your Haymaker deals 23337 (9049) Physical Damage(Critical) to Spawnmother

    [3/25 10:41][Combat (Self)]Your Haymaker deals 26187 (10692) Physical Damage(Critical) to Orinoco.
  • kikskenkiksken Member Posts: 664 Arc User
    Keep it as it is
    Ah darn, if only I had responded later.
    Well, it goes both ways, I guess, seeing as we have the Prime Directive, it is logical to alter ship appearances.
    Then again... why only in that one?
    Hence I shifted my vote.

    As for the story on said mission... I cannot disagree with you, sir @fleetcaptain5#1134
    Klingons don't get drunk.
    They just get less sober.
  • fleetcaptain5#1134 fleetcaptain5 Member Posts: 4,754 Arc User
    Make it optional
    Unless of course the story doesn't matter at all and the mission is supposed to be an exact re-enactment.

    But then you'd have to wonder why Starfleet would care about this - since they obviously have the logs and already know what is happening.


    A real-world reason exists of course: an excuse was needed to have this battle feature in the game and promote discovery-related content. Which is, by itself, fine, but then there is still zero in-game reason to force players to use holographic, randomised ships. And even a very small selection of ships too.

    If the real world reason of marketing discovery related content was leading, then it still makes little sense that so many other ships related to that show are excluded.


    The whole thing seems rather arbitrary and whichever argument I can think of why it would be a good idea or necessary to have these emitters, results in inconsistencies.
    [4:46] [Combat {self}] Your Haymaker deals 23337 (9049) Physical Damage(Critical) to Spawnmother

    [3/25 10:41][Combat (Self)]Your Haymaker deals 26187 (10692) Physical Damage(Critical) to Orinoco.
  • kikskenkiksken Member Posts: 664 Arc User
    Keep it as it is
    Well, they are a sad bunch of individuals... ROFL...
    JK there.

    Whichever reason there is, ANY simulation should be a close to reality as possible, if not, then apply this nowhere.
    It just makes no sense having a half of either...
    The whole thing seems rather arbitrary and whichever argument I can think of why it would be a good idea or necessary to have these emitters, results in inconsistencies.
    As the good captain said.
    Or is it Admiral now?
    Klingons don't get drunk.
    They just get less sober.
  • meimeitoomeimeitoo Member Posts: 12,587 Arc User
    Remove the feature
    Unless of course the story doesn't matter at all and the mission is supposed to be an exact re-enactment.

    But then you'd have to wonder why Starfleet would care about this - since they obviously have the logs and already know what is happening.


    A real-world reason exists of course: an excuse was needed to have this battle feature in the game and promote discovery-related content. Which is, by itself, fine, but then there is still zero in-game reason to force players to use holographic, randomised ships. And even a very small selection of ships too.

    If the real world reason of marketing discovery related content was leading, then it still makes little sense that so many other ships related to that show are excluded.

    The whole thing seems rather arbitrary and whichever argument I can think of why it would be a good idea or necessary to have these emitters, results in inconsistencies.


    The entire game is replete with holo-simulations (Defense of Star Base One, for instance). And we always use our own ships -- which I prefer. As a re-enactment of a specific historic event, for training purposes, I can see them going all-out on the holo thingy. But even in the show, space at the Binary stars was just black, not this fugly brown hue that makes all ships be brown as well. Everything looks like a rusty Minmatar ship that way. :p
    3lsZz0w.jpg
  • warpangelwarpangel Member Posts: 9,427 Arc User
    edited March 2020
    warpangel wrote: »
    rattler2 wrote: »
    warpangel wrote: »
    Couldn't care less about the holos honestly. But I do think if they want us to fly Disco ships in that mission, they should make us fly a real Disco ship instead of just covering up the visuals.

    Then people will complain about not being able to fly their own ships. As it is now its a compromise. You have your own ship with your own build. Just the APPEARANCE of an era appropriate ship.

    Or do you really want to see the forums ignite on fire again over being forced into a standard Cryptic build?
    As a matter of fact, yes. The whinefests here tend to be quite amusing.

    But I didn't actually say anything about a "standard Cryptic build" in this instance, I said a real Disco ship. As in, you'd have to get and gear one yourself.
    You really wanna see heads exploding left and right, warp?
    We already have a thread with people demanding that others gets nerfed because they themselves don't want to put time and effort to actually learn how to play the game and get better at it... can you imagine the whinefest if Cryptic were to do something like this? ROFL
    Yes, it would be delicious. :D

    But I would really like the feature itself as well. I've seen build-limited content in many games always good to spice up the meta.
  • arabaturarabatur Member Posts: 407 Arc User
    Keep it as it is
    For me it's all about the pew-pew, not the aesthetics.
    Definitely not an Arc User.
  • jennycolvinjennycolvin Member Posts: 1,100 Arc User
    Remove the feature
    warpangel wrote: »
    warpangel wrote: »
    rattler2 wrote: »
    warpangel wrote: »
    Couldn't care less about the holos honestly. But I do think if they want us to fly Disco ships in that mission, they should make us fly a real Disco ship instead of just covering up the visuals.

    Then people will complain about not being able to fly their own ships. As it is now its a compromise. You have your own ship with your own build. Just the APPEARANCE of an era appropriate ship.

    Or do you really want to see the forums ignite on fire again over being forced into a standard Cryptic build?
    As a matter of fact, yes. The whinefests here tend to be quite amusing.

    But I didn't actually say anything about a "standard Cryptic build" in this instance, I said a real Disco ship. As in, you'd have to get and gear one yourself.
    You really wanna see heads exploding left and right, warp?
    We already have a thread with people demanding that others gets nerfed because they themselves don't want to put time and effort to actually learn how to play the game and get better at it... can you imagine the whinefest if Cryptic were to do something like this? ROFL
    Yes, it would be delicious. :D
    LOL, of course! XD
    But I would really like the feature itself as well. I've seen build-limited content in many games always good to spice up the meta.
    Maybe not for an event, but why not?
    kv1Ohsx.png
    Not agreeing with someone doesn't give you the right to be an TRIBBLE.

    Ci sono tre tipi di giocatori:
    - quelli a cui non va mai bene niente... e vanno sul forum a trollare;
    - quelli che sono talmente imbesuiti da credere a qualunque cosa i dev dicano, perfino che la luna è fatta di formaggio... e vanno sul forum a trollare;
    - quelli che credono a quello a cui è giusto credere, sono d'accordo con quello con cui è giusto essere d'accordo e sono critici con quello che non va;

    Ai giocatori dei primi due tipi, gratis in omaggio un bello specchio lucente su cui arrampicarsi. E una mazzata in testa per la loro poca intelligenza e compassione verso gli altri giocatori che non la pensano come loro.
    Agli appartenenti al terzo tipo, invece, dico grazie. Anche se non sempre si riesce a mantenere la calma, siete quelli per cui vale la pena incazzarsi.
  • rattler2rattler2 Member Posts: 57,973 Community Moderator
    Keep it as it is
    I've seen people complain when they have to use a ship that isn't their own. And in most cases I can understand as a standard Cryptic build tends to mix weapon types, like on the Enterprise-C. And oh boy the rage over the loadout on the Dyson. Only one I really don't hear about though is the Obilesk carrier...
    db80k0m-89201ed8-eadb-45d3-830f-bb2f0d4c0fe7.png?token=eyJ0eXAiOiJKV1QiLCJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiJ9.eyJzdWIiOiJ1cm46YXBwOjdlMGQxODg5ODIyNjQzNzNhNWYwZDQxNWVhMGQyNmUwIiwiaXNzIjoidXJuOmFwcDo3ZTBkMTg4OTgyMjY0MzczYTVmMGQ0MTVlYTBkMjZlMCIsIm9iaiI6W1t7InBhdGgiOiJcL2ZcL2ExOGQ4ZWM2LTUyZjQtNDdiMS05YTI1LTVlYmZkYmJkOGM3N1wvZGI4MGswbS04OTIwMWVkOC1lYWRiLTQ1ZDMtODMwZi1iYjJmMGQ0YzBmZTcucG5nIn1dXSwiYXVkIjpbInVybjpzZXJ2aWNlOmZpbGUuZG93bmxvYWQiXX0.8G-Pg35Qi8qxiKLjAofaKRH6fmNH3qAAEI628gW0eXc
    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!)
  • legendarylycan#5411 legendarylycan Member Posts: 37,276 Arc User
    Make it optional
    that's because the combination of hero skills and not-too-bloated/OP enemies doesn't make it NEARLY as much of a chore as step between stars...which, ever since the level cap increase has become damn near impossible to complete the dyson ship section because cryptic can't build for TRIBBLE - and they KNOW it; that's why they had to make neth parr's ship in renegade's regret one-shot everything, whether you use skills or not​​
    Like special weapons from other Star Trek games? Wondering if they can be replicated in STO even a little bit? Check this out: https://forum.arcgames.com/startrekonline/discussion/1262277/a-mostly-comprehensive-guide-to-star-trek-videogame-special-weapons-and-their-sto-equivalents

    #LegalizeAwoo

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


    "It's nothing personal, I just don't feel like I've gotten to know a person until I've sniffed their crotch."
    "We said 'no' to Mr. Curiosity. We're not home. Curiosity is not welcome, it is not to be invited in. Curiosity...is bad. It gets you in trouble, it gets you killed, and more importantly...it makes you poor!"
    Passion and Serenity are one.
    I gain power by understanding both.
    In the chaos of their battle, I bring order.
    I am a shadow, darkness born from light.
    The Force is united within me.
  • ishigami2ishigami2 Member Posts: 138 Arc User
    Remove the feature
    I don't like it. I want to see my ship as is.
  • fallenkezef#4581 fallenkezef Member Posts: 644 Arc User
    Keep it as it is
    Isn't this a bit of a non-issue? How many missions/tfos have holo emiiters? I think it's a lot of fuss over nothing.
  • darkbladejkdarkbladejk Member Posts: 3,698 Community Moderator
    edited March 2020
    Certain folks in here need to dial it way back and drop the flamethrowers. If I have to come back here again to clean it up, this thread will be locked. Some folks like the holo-ships some don't. There is no correct answer here. Simply because someone does not agree with you does not make them wrong. I suggest certain people move along since you will not convince the other person.
    "Someone once told me that time was a predator that stalked us all our lives. I rather believe that time is a companion who goes with us on the journey and reminds us to cherish every moment, because it will never come again." - Jean Luc Picard in Star Trek Generations

    Star Trek Online volunteer Community Moderator
  • foxrockssocksfoxrockssocks Member Posts: 2,482 Arc User
    Remove the feature
    Isn't this a bit of a non-issue? How many missions/tfos have holo emiiters? I think it's a lot of fuss over nothing.

    No. If BotBS is going to be repeatedly used for a featured STF and be in the random queue, then this really needs addressed. How many times has it been the featured STF? Is it 3 times now? 4?

    Some people spend a lot of time on their visuals and buy ships they like to look at and don't particularly like looking at hideously ugly ships.

    More than that though, as I laid out earlier, this STF causes a serious performance problem for certain builds because of the restrictions it forces on you. No one likes going into a random STF and find out their build is suddenly crippled because the STF turns off critical portions of their build.
This discussion has been closed.