test content
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc

Janeway Class (First 32nd Century Ship for STO) Incoming

1131416181921

Comments

  • evilmark444evilmark444 Member Posts: 5,837 Arc User
    I was able to get one off the Tribble exchange to test out, seems like a very nice ship and I really like the design, if I was more into science then I would definitely be tempted but one science toon is enough for me and I'm happy using the Legendary Intrepid on that character.
    angrytarg wrote: »
    how are the weapons? Do they come with unique visuals?

    They're currently bugged and don't have the correct visuals, but they will be unique once that's fixed. Kael's stream last night had the correct weapon visuals, very nice looking green beams.
    Lifetime Subscriber since Beta
    QIBp95C.png
  • navar#3536 navar Member Posts: 188 Arc User
    edited March 5
    I am taking a stance...if anyone joins any of my teams with that hideous ship, they will be kicked immediately and placed on global ignore without any explanations whatsoever. Furthermore I will find out what Fleet they belong to and I will systematically Global Ignore every last one of them for the crime of harboring a known criminal who has been charged with buying fugly ships in the 1st degree with intent to hurt thine eyes. These are very serious crimes...and these criminals will be ignored to the fullest extent of the law.

    Furthermore, anyone caught flying one of these monstrosities will be hunted down like the dogs they are and ignored repeatedly until they die, where there will be a medic on sight to revive them, just so that they can be ignored yet again.

    Buy a Janeway Class Pukeship...I dare you.

    The game does not have a ‘kick’ feature, so good luck with that.

    Also if you think you can hunt someone down to ignore them then the word ‘ignore’ does not mean what you think it means.

    First my feeble minded ninny...

    hqdefault.jpg
    Secondly, you are fired for not recognizing a joke when you see one.
  • foxheart07foxheart07 Member Posts: 3 Arc User
    Someone email the devs and tell them they forgot to finish developing the ship. It's missing pieces of its hull, and has no pylons connecting the nacells.

    This is why I dislike CBS. It's really ruining Star Trek. I'm all for Sci-Fi, but at least Sci-Fi TRIED to make sense. This is just... nonsense for the sake of nonsense.
  • foxheart07foxheart07 Member Posts: 3 Arc User
    Ugly. Luckily its a box ship so we won't see many.

    Except, everyone and their dog will start buying up lock boxes, and keys, and shelling out $600.00 of real hard earned cash just to get one of these, and then they'll sell them, and those 1% of people who have like 90-trillion energy credits will unbox them, and start flying them around ESD.

    It happens with every new Gamble Box ship.
  • colonelmarikcolonelmarik Member Posts: 1,845 Arc User
    angrytarg wrote: »
    > @truewarper said:
    > *Ahem* A Certain Pig Lady, would have issue with that. :D

    Ah no, it's fine... Oh, I see... 🐗😅

    But back on topic, how are the weapons? Do they come with unique visuals?

    The Janeway comes with 32c phaser weapons but they're non-upgradable.

    Cryptic decided you have to buy the 32c phaser upgradable weapons separately.

    & they do seem to have a new visual for them. Also, I think the Janeway's new cloaking is a new visual as well.

    Do they instantly obliterate anything they shoot at? Because they SHOULD. There's 700 years between STO's regular 25th Century ships and this thing. It would be like a modern ship shooting a Tomahawk at a 14th Century wooden sailing ship.

    That's my main complaint. They're not appropriate for the setting. If they're not ridiculously OP, then they're not believeably made. Consider that the argument made against using TOS ships in the current century was that in the 200 years or so, they'd be utterly outclassed by modern ships. The Janeway is 700 years more advanced. It should be outclassing everything.

    I really dislike all the time travel nonsense that's crept into Star Trek, and by extension into STO. The writers on Star Trek never did it well... the writers at STO certainly aren't going to do it any better. Time travel stories are VERY hard to do properly, it takes a skilled writer and a carefully constructed story that considers all the ramifications of the events included.
    Once, I was simply called Mojo. Now, I'm forced into a new name, but don't be fooled, I'm the original STO Mojo!

    This game needs detailed crafting, exploration and interaction systems.
  • evilmark444evilmark444 Member Posts: 5,837 Arc User
    They're not appropriate for the setting. If they're not ridiculously OP, then they're not believeably made.
    The Janeway isn't in STO to make story sense, it's in STO so that players who like it can have fun because STO is a GAME. For STO canon we are all flying stock, faction appropriate 2409 ships, if you must have an explanation then pretend it's all holograms or something.
    Consider that the argument made against using TOS ships in the current century was that in the 200 years or so, they'd be utterly outclassed by modern ships.
    That went out the window with AoY.
    Lifetime Subscriber since Beta
    QIBp95C.png
  • peterconnorfirstpeterconnorfirst Member Posts: 6,076 Arc User
    edited March 5
    That's my main complaint. They're not appropriate for the setting. If they're not ridiculously OP, then they're not believeably made. Consider that the argument made against using TOS ships in the current century was that in the 200 years or so, they'd be utterly outclassed by modern ships. The Janeway is 700 years more advanced. It should be outclassing everything.

    God Marik you are making it another hard one. How many times did I tell you not to do that?! I looked it up just for you and it took some doing. STO is giving you a reasonable explanation for you to be at peace.

    Tholians as remnants of the temporal cold war keep on bringing ships back from the future with their multidimensional technology. Profiteers from the Lobi Crystal Consortium have found ways to exploit that to be able to offer the stuff they find to the highest bidders: ME!

    https://www.arcgames.com/de/games/star-trek-online/news/detail/1025010-temporal-lock-box

    https://fr-fr.facebook.com/StarTrekOnlineGame/posts/temporal-lockbox-lobi-spotlight-the-wells-temporal-science-ship-the-temporal-des/10152645003018603/

    Those ships are already stripped of their most advanced technology so you have also an explanation why future ships are not overpowered and over gunned: AWW!

    https://intl.startrek.com/article/the-romulan-temporal-ships

    I hope for your sake (and mine lol) that this background is of enough substance for you to swallow. If not ask yourself in how many other thin elements in game you belief in already and how this is not different to the slightest. Thank you. ;)
    Post edited by peterconnorfirst on
    animated.gif
    Looking for a fun PvE fleet? Join us at Omega Combat Division today.
    felisean wrote: »
    teamwork to reach a goal is awesome and highly appreciated
    Bring it on
    coldnapalm wrote: »
    wishful thinking is not really a reliable source
  • peterconnorfirstpeterconnorfirst Member Posts: 6,076 Arc User
    edited March 5
    I really dislike all the time travel nonsense that's crept into Star Trek, and by extension into STO. The writers on Star Trek never did it well... the writers at STO certainly aren't going to do it any better. Time travel stories are VERY hard to do properly, it takes a skilled writer and a carefully constructed story that considers all the ramifications of the events included.

    That’s the key to your trouble here right?

    You dislike?!? :D

    You can do so as much as you want man, no problem there. I dislike A LOT of things! The trouble just starts when your disliking of stuff leads to dismissing central elements from a story as a whole. If those elements miss out then other elements suddenly don’t make sense anymore. Yea… that’s a problem for sure… but hey its exclusively yours! For otheres its all there, all explained.
    animated.gif
    Looking for a fun PvE fleet? Join us at Omega Combat Division today.
    felisean wrote: »
    teamwork to reach a goal is awesome and highly appreciated
    Bring it on
    coldnapalm wrote: »
    wishful thinking is not really a reliable source
  • mikecobalt#1974 mikecobalt Member Posts: 23 Arc User
    edited March 5
    :) That weird ship sure sparked alot of scrutiny and criticism.
  • szimszim Member Posts: 2,462 Arc User
    That's my main complaint. They're not appropriate for the setting. If they're not ridiculously OP, then they're not believeably made. Consider that the argument made against using TOS ships in the current century was that in the 200 years or so, they'd be utterly outclassed by modern ships. The Janeway is 700 years more advanced. It should be outclassing everything.

    That would not be consistent with what we saw on screen. Remember? An entire fleet of 32nd century ships firing at Discovery, a refitted 23rd century ship, couldn't make as much as a dent into their shields.
  • fallenkezef#4581 fallenkezef Member Posts: 633 Arc User
    Would weapons evolution be that much, when you think about it.

    Take today's infantry weapons. The modern assault rifle uses the exact same principle as the matchlock musket of the English civil war era of the 17th century.

    In the past 400 years we have increased range, rate of fire, ergonomics and a myriad other advances but the basic technology is still no different. A chemical explosive propellant sends a metal object through a barrel into your flesh.

    The limitations of hand held, infantry weaponry is still there. We don't magicly, after 400 years, have a weapon that reduces an opponent to ash in one hit.

    The same applies to phasers when you think about it. Discovery S3 still seems to be using the same basic phaser tech as TOS. How much can it be improved when you think about it?
  • szimszim Member Posts: 2,462 Arc User
    Would weapons evolution be that much, when you think about it.

    Take today's infantry weapons. The modern assault rifle uses the exact same principle as the matchlock musket of the English civil war era of the 17th century.

    In the past 400 years we have increased range, rate of fire, ergonomics and a myriad other advances but the basic technology is still no different. A chemical explosive propellant sends a metal object through a barrel into your flesh.

    The limitations of hand held, infantry weaponry is still there. We don't magicly, after 400 years, have a weapon that reduces an opponent to ash in one hit.

    The same applies to phasers when you think about it. Discovery S3 still seems to be using the same basic phaser tech as TOS. How much can it be improved when you think about it?

    For infantry weapons, sure, you have a point. (I don't see how you could improve a hand phaser other than make it more powerful when you need it to be.) But ship weapons have improved a lot. From a cannon only effective at close range, highly inaccurate, barely able to penetrate a wooden plank, to high explosive/armor piercing shells, cruise missiles and rail guns. An entire fleet of 18th century ships wouldn't stand a chance against even one modern day destroyer.
  • saurializardsaurializard Member Posts: 3,632 Arc User
    Didn't Discovery, a science vessel, tank a volley of 32nd century quantum torpedoes at one point and survive, even she was left disabled with her shields gone?
    #TASforSTO
    Iconian_Trio_sign.jpg?raw=1
  • cbrjwrrcbrjwrr Member Posts: 2,782 Arc User
    edited March 5
    That... that is one ridiculously ugly ship. In fact, it's the most ugly ship in the franchise.

    I mean, the artists have done a brilliant job with it, no question, but...

    Edit to add - I really don't want that to sound disparaging on the ship artists, because they've done a brilliant job rendering it. But man, that design is... inexpressibly bad.
    szim wrote: »
    Would weapons evolution be that much, when you think about it.

    Take today's infantry weapons. The modern assault rifle uses the exact same principle as the matchlock musket of the English civil war era of the 17th century.

    In the past 400 years we have increased range, rate of fire, ergonomics and a myriad other advances but the basic technology is still no different. A chemical explosive propellant sends a metal object through a barrel into your flesh.

    The limitations of hand held, infantry weaponry is still there. We don't magicly, after 400 years, have a weapon that reduces an opponent to ash in one hit.

    The same applies to phasers when you think about it. Discovery S3 still seems to be using the same basic phaser tech as TOS. How much can it be improved when you think about it?

    For infantry weapons, sure, you have a point. (I don't see how you could improve a hand phaser other than make it more powerful when you need it to be.) But ship weapons have improved a lot. From a cannon only effective at close range, highly inaccurate, barely able to penetrate a wooden plank, to high explosive/armor piercing shells, cruise missiles and rail guns. An entire fleet of 18th century ships wouldn't stand a chance against even one modern day destroyer.

    It doesn't really stand in infantry weapons either; assuming the modern infantrymen had the ammunition for a such an engagement, a single fireteam would obliterate an entire 17th century army, and the 17th century army's best option is wasting the infantry while hoping artillery can beat them, and the nature of a fireteam is such that they should be able to reposition in time. Add a sniper for taking out the artillerymen - as a modern day sniper rifle has proven killing range to a 17th century cannon's maximum range - and I wouldn't bet on the 17th century army to do much more than rout.

    We will be seeing massive changes over the next century however, because railguns will go from theoretical research/low end testing to battlefield capable. "Primitive" lasers are already in naval service, although not viable for infantry at all yet.

  • reyan01reyan01 Member Posts: 14,378 Arc User
    edited March 5
    Didn't Discovery, a science vessel, tank a volley of 32nd century quantum torpedoes at one point and survive, even she was left disabled with her shields gone?

    Two torpedoes, and they immediately collapsed Discovery's shields completely:


    It was made pretty clear she wouldn't have survived anything more.


  • foxrockssocksfoxrockssocks Member Posts: 2,179 Arc User
    valoreah wrote: »
    Given that in official Trek canon, the Trek novelverse, and in STO's timeline, that relationship didn't work out... have you ever considered she just fell for her first crush, and like most first crushes, it wasn't really what she ended up settling on later in life?

    That is absolutely possible. Again, I have no objection to her character development. Let her have a relationship with Kermit the frog for all I care. I just find the notion she was always bisexual a bit of a stretch, but that is just an opinion.

    However, suddenly changing a character's sexual orientation or changing their race from their original identity becomes a huge issue for many people. People get bent out of shape if even the smallest of detail in a movie, comic or book contradicts what they know of a character...if that drives fans insane, imagine how they feel when you change a major detail such as sexual orientation or ethnicity?

    This same logic can be applied to why so many people absolutely hate the Janeway 32nd century ship.

    Yes people don't like that, because everything has told us that when people come out as not straight, it isn't a whim, it isn't something that just happened, it was a long procession of clues, tells, and was always there whether the person ignored it, kept it secret, or just didn't understand. It is why for a character, an audience rightly expects hints and clues to that, where they can look back and go, "yeah I believe it," because that is often how it works IRL.
    In regard to Seven: sexuality is fluid and dynamic. No one is born anything. It develops and it can change over time. That being said, any assumption of someone's sexuality is inherently a flawed one because you don't know. And basing that assumption on the relationships people have (the ones you know about anyway) is even more flawed. Also bisexual people, are still bisexual even if they have heterosexual relationships. Even if they have a stronger preference for the opposite sex, they are still bisexual. Just because Seven had only been seen having relationships with men never at any point negated the possibility of her being bisexual.

    Also the "assumed straight until proven otherwise" is a really gross and unintelligent way to think about characters and real people too, actually. Unfortunately we live in a society where LGBTQ+ characters need to be like covertly revealed instead of just having their existence explicitly stated and without debate, unlike straight characters who are literally shoved down everyone's throats in almost everything on TV and in films. And even more unfortunately is that this is usually done for the comfort of the straight viewer, because apparently their comfort matters when they could just change the channel or some TRIBBLE.

    Basically its not as simple as people are making it out to be in this thread. And I see a lot of the same, old, tired arguments used by straight people to argue why a character should be straight, and nah. This ain't it.

    Total nonsense. If sexuality is fluid and dynamic, then conversion therapy is a legitimate thing and should be encouraged for the benefit of the quality of life of the outliers. Why should someone suffer a dating pool that is a tiny fraction of the population when it could be half?

    As for the rest of that nonsense, no one needs to live covertly. That's completely untrue. The entertainment industry has also gone on a long spree of simply converting straight characters to TRIBBLE or bi over the last years, disrespecting the character and the audience. I think there are stats suggesting that some 30% of characters in entertainment are non-straight these days, which is wildly above the real world percentage, and in some examples its so absurdly disproportionate that it sets up a world that could never exist because humanity would have gone extinct.
  • sirsitsalotsirsitsalot Member Posts: 2,338 Arc User
    valoreah wrote: »
    Given that in official Trek canon, the Trek novelverse, and in STO's timeline, that relationship didn't work out... have you ever considered she just fell for her first crush, and like most first crushes, it wasn't really what she ended up settling on later in life?

    That is absolutely possible. Again, I have no objection to her character development. Let her have a relationship with Kermit the frog for all I care. I just find the notion she was always bisexual a bit of a stretch, but that is just an opinion.

    However, suddenly changing a character's sexual orientation or changing their race from their original identity becomes a huge issue for many people. People get bent out of shape if even the smallest of detail in a movie, comic or book contradicts what they know of a character...if that drives fans insane, imagine how they feel when you change a major detail such as sexual orientation or ethnicity?

    This same logic can be applied to why so many people absolutely hate the Janeway 32nd century ship.

    Yes people don't like that, because everything has told us that when people come out as not straight, it isn't a whim, it isn't something that just happened, it was a long procession of clues, tells, and was always there whether the person ignored it, kept it secret, or just didn't understand. It is why for a character, an audience rightly expects hints and clues to that, where they can look back and go, "yeah I believe it," because that is often how it works IRL.

    The thing is, they did drop hints about it. As I said earlier, Seven's interactions with bajazel implied an involvement between the two that went way beyond professional activities. The didn't come out and say it directly, But I guess the writers felt the audience was smart enough to put two and two together and get four.

    The revelation may be jarring to the audience, but we seem to be forgetting that many years had passed since Voyager got back to Earth. And Seven would have been exposed to way more potential interactions on Earth. More than enough to gradually alter her perspective on her sexuality. Or at leased opened her to exploring a different branch of it. I remember reading an article before Picard was released that said that there would be a TRIBBLE element included. They didn't say who. But the audience was given a general heads-up.
    In regard to Seven: sexuality is fluid and dynamic. No one is born anything. It develops and it can change over time. That being said, any assumption of someone's sexuality is inherently a flawed one because you don't know. And basing that assumption on the relationships people have (the ones you know about anyway) is even more flawed. Also bisexual people, are still bisexual even if they have heterosexual relationships. Even if they have a stronger preference for the opposite sex, they are still bisexual. Just because Seven had only been seen having relationships with men never at any point negated the possibility of her being bisexual.

    Also the "assumed straight until proven otherwise" is a really gross and unintelligent way to think about characters and real people too, actually. Unfortunately we live in a society where LGBTQ+ characters need to be like covertly revealed instead of just having their existence explicitly stated and without debate, unlike straight characters who are literally shoved down everyone's throats in almost everything on TV and in films. And even more unfortunately is that this is usually done for the comfort of the straight viewer, because apparently their comfort matters when they could just change the channel or some TRIBBLE.

    Basically its not as simple as people are making it out to be in this thread. And I see a lot of the same, old, tired arguments used by straight people to argue why a character should be straight, and nah. This ain't it.

    Total nonsense. If sexuality is fluid and dynamic, then conversion therapy is a legitimate thing and should be encouraged for the benefit of the quality of life of the outliers. Why should someone suffer a dating pool that is a tiny fraction of the population when it could be half?

    As for the rest of that nonsense, no one needs to live covertly. That's completely untrue. The entertainment industry has also gone on a long spree of simply converting straight characters to TRIBBLE or bi over the last years, disrespecting the character and the audience. I think there are stats suggesting that some 30% of characters in entertainment are non-straight these days, which is wildly above the real world percentage, and in some examples its so absurdly disproportionate that it sets up a world that could never exist because humanity would have gone extinct.

    Lol...

    My biggest gripe about the inclusion of TRIBBLE characters in shows is not that there are TRIBBLE characters being included. But rather the WAY that they are included. In far too many cases, they are added as just a token representation of a demographic. And it usually happens in a very out-from-left-field way. Case in point, Ruby and Dorothy in Once Upon A Time. All throughout the show, Ruby/Red was established as not only straight, but promiscuously so. In fact there were a lot of wisecracks in the scripts about her choice in attire. And hen all of a sudden, she's TRIBBLE. And it was in one episode. They didn't really explore it anymore than that. It screamed "Okay... we've included a TRIBBLE character. The PC crowd can be quiet now."

    Unlike in Buffy the Vampire Slayer, and turning Willow into a Lsbian. But at least in that show, they wove her sexuality into the fabric of the storytelling throughout the entirety of the rest of the show's run. It wasn't just a token inclusion.

    In a way, it's like the same gripe I have about the 32nd Century's token representation in STO taking the form of a lockbox ship, rather than a branch of the game that allows us to explore and participate in events contained within the 32nd Century. It is an official setting for an active Star Trek production. It deserves more than just a "let's slap a ship in a gamble box and call it done" treatment.
    When it comes to MMOs, I wear prescription glasses. Whether or not they are rose-tinted is beside the point.
  • seaofsorrowsseaofsorrows Member Posts: 10,068 Arc User
    edited March 5
    Finally saw a couple of these out 'in the wild'.. Wow..

    The screen shots and even the YouTube Videos just don't do justice to how insanely hideous this ship really is. I will admit, I didn't think anyone could ever make a more visually offensive design then the puke sack that is the Enterprise J but man.. I was wrong. This ship is somehow even worse. They spent absolutely no time or effort making the Enterprise J and somehow this thing looks worse.

    This is not a bag on Cryptic.. actually the opposite. They did a remarkable job as always with what they were given, their ship artists are truly fantastic and always get the most out of what they are given.. but this design.. ugg..

    I am a big fan of the new shows, but the one area I definitely find myself at odds is the future ship designs. The Crossfield I think is ok, it doesn't bother me, and they did a great job on the new version of the Constitution Class, but otherwise I really am not a fan of the new directions in ship design. The ships from the past like the Shepard and Shenzhou were cool enough, but all the 'future' designs are just terrible to me. I haven't seen a 'future' ship that I liked yet.. the Janeway though, is the worst of the lot.

    I seriously hate this ship.
    animated.gif
    Discovery is good, it's you that sucks.
  • reyan01reyan01 Member Posts: 14,378 Arc User
    Finally saw a couple of these out 'in the wild'.. Wow..

    The screen shots and even the YouTube Videos just don't do justice to how insanely hideous this ship really is. I will admit, I didn't think anyone could ever make a more visually offensive design then the puke sack that is the Enterprise J but man.. I was wrong. This ship is somehow even worse. They spent absolutely no time or effort making the Enterprise J and somehow this thing looks worse.

    This is not a bag on Cryptic.. actually the opposite. They did a remarkable job as always with what they were given, their ship artists are truly fantastic and always get the most out of what they are given.. but this design.. ugg..

    I am a big fan of the new shows, but the one area I definitely find myself at odds is the future ship designs. The Crossfield I think is ok, it doesn't bother me, and they did a great job on the new version of the Constitution Class, but otherwise I really am not a fan of the new directions in ship design. The ships from the past like the Shepard and Shenzhou were cool enough, but all the 'future' designs are just terrible to me. I haven't seen a 'future' ship that I liked yet.. the Janeway though, is the worst of the lot.

    I seriously hate this ship.

    Well damn - won a prize pack using my Stipend..... and despite the misgivings about how this ship looks, am sorely tempted to open the box and claim one....


  • saurializardsaurializard Member Posts: 3,632 Arc User
    reyan01 wrote: »
    Didn't Discovery, a science vessel, tank a volley of 32nd century quantum torpedoes at one point and survive, even she was left disabled with her shields gone?

    Two torpedoes, and they immediately collapsed Discovery's shields completely:


    It was made pretty clear she wouldn't have survived anything more.
    I know, but my point was that it still survived relatively intact when quantum torpedoes in the 24th century tended to blow up a good chunk of the hull of any other 24th century ship that wasn't a very powerful one, no matter the shields protecting it like when the Defiant severely damaged a Breen WARSHIP with a pair of quantum torpedoes and then a second pair tore the ship in half, right before the fleet got its TRIBBLE kicked during the Second Battle of Chin'toka.
    #TASforSTO
    Iconian_Trio_sign.jpg?raw=1
  • foxrockssocksfoxrockssocks Member Posts: 2,179 Arc User
    edited March 5
    valoreah wrote: »
    Given that in official Trek canon, the Trek novelverse, and in STO's timeline, that relationship didn't work out... have you ever considered she just fell for her first crush, and like most first crushes, it wasn't really what she ended up settling on later in life?

    That is absolutely possible. Again, I have no objection to her character development. Let her have a relationship with Kermit the frog for all I care. I just find the notion she was always bisexual a bit of a stretch, but that is just an opinion.

    However, suddenly changing a character's sexual orientation or changing their race from their original identity becomes a huge issue for many people. People get bent out of shape if even the smallest of detail in a movie, comic or book contradicts what they know of a character...if that drives fans insane, imagine how they feel when you change a major detail such as sexual orientation or ethnicity?

    This same logic can be applied to why so many people absolutely hate the Janeway 32nd century ship.

    Yes people don't like that, because everything has told us that when people come out as not straight, it isn't a whim, it isn't something that just happened, it was a long procession of clues, tells, and was always there whether the person ignored it, kept it secret, or just didn't understand. It is why for a character, an audience rightly expects hints and clues to that, where they can look back and go, "yeah I believe it," because that is often how it works IRL.

    The thing is, they did drop hints about it. As I said earlier, Seven's interactions with bajazel implied an involvement between the two that went way beyond professional activities. The didn't come out and say it directly, But I guess the writers felt the audience was smart enough to put two and two together and get four.

    The revelation may be jarring to the audience, but we seem to be forgetting that many years had passed since Voyager got back to Earth. And Seven would have been exposed to way more potential interactions on Earth. More than enough to gradually alter her perspective on her sexuality. Or at leased opened her to exploring a different branch of it. I remember reading an article before Picard was released that said that there would be a TRIBBLE element included. They didn't say who. But the audience was given a general heads-up.

    Yes, I can kinda see where you're coming from, but I quickly disregarded all of that when Seven turned her into a red mist. If Seven was that willing to kill her so permanently, I can't imagine there was ever anything real there. If anything the sum of all of that told me that Seven got used, in a way that was just based on lies and manipulation. She had enough regret/hate for what happened that she made sure that would never happen to her or anyone else again. I don't see that as reasonable if they had a legitimate relationship that just turned sour. Most people just don't try to kill their ex, even after an abusive relationship.

    Afterall we would not consider prison TRIBBLE as an indication a man was bi or TRIBBLE, nor do we look at a TRIBBLE man married for 20 years as some refutation of being TRIBBLE. They were forced into it or suppressing their actual desires, and that can come from pressure and manipulation, but it doesn't define their sexuality. And what is the more reasonable and sympathetic reaction, vaping your ex, or vaping your rapist?

    But was Seven legitimately bi, or was she manipulated? We still can't ignore her time on Voyager. Why wouldn't she explore it then? If she's bi, she should always have been bi, and we never saw that in Voyager. Are we to believe that the crew/doctor was going to push her one way or another, or are they going to help her explore whatever she wants to explore? I don't think it is rational to believe they wouldn't let her explore, and she only explored one way.

    And in general I don't even think she needed to explore. She was linked to the Collective for a good part of her life. She's had to have seen memories of sexual relations from millions of drones, not to mention whatever videos and images they assimilated and that's basically a lot of TRIBBLE to figure out what you like or don't like. She also grew from a child, and the Borg very obviously did nothing to suppress her body's sexual development as she matured, so why would her sexuality be repressed beyond the ability to act on it?

    If they wanted a bi/TRIBBLE relationship in the show they had other options. Seven was an established character, and Raffi wasn't built up for it properly either. It was, as we know, improvised by the actresses, and it felt very much exactly that. And they still could have turned Seven into a bi character, but it needed more backstory for her, some answers on Chakotay and so forth so the audience doesn't feel like it was a cheap, disrespectful ploy.

    EDIT: And why the F. is G. and L. censored? They are legitimate human sexualities not some slur.
  • jonsillsjonsills Member Posts: 9,290 Arc User
    I know, but my point was that it still survived relatively intact...
    "Didn't dent the shields"

    "Tanked an entire volley"

    "Relatively intact"

    Where will our goalposts be moving next, one wonders?
    Lorna-Wing-sig.png
  • saurializardsaurializard Member Posts: 3,632 Arc User
    edited March 5
    jonsills wrote: »
    I know, but my point was that it still survived relatively intact...
    "Didn't dent the shields"

    "Tanked an entire volley"

    "Relatively intact"

    Where will our goalposts be moving next, one wonders?
    You're gonna have to point to me the quote where I said it didn't dent the shields because I clearly didn't. And the 2 latter aren't mutually exclusive (even if you added the "entire" that wasn't in my quotes).
    Didn't Discovery, a science vessel, tank a volley of 32nd century quantum torpedoes at one point and survive, even she was left disabled with her shields gone?
    #TASforSTO
    Iconian_Trio_sign.jpg?raw=1
  • somtaawkharsomtaawkhar Member Posts: 9,034 Arc User
    edited March 5
    Yes, I can kinda see where you're coming from, but I quickly disregarded all of that when Seven turned her into a red mist. If Seven was that willing to kill her so permanently, I can't imagine there was ever anything real there.
    Ahh yes, because no one has ever brutally killed someone they loved after they got betrayed by them... nope.
    Most people just don't try to kill their ex, even after an abusive relationship.
    Most Exes don't order doctors to remove Borg implants, without anesthesia, from the adoptive children of the person they are dating, leading to such horrible pain that the parent has to mercy kill them either.
    In a way, it's like the same gripe I have about the 32nd Century's token representation in STO taking the form of a lockbox ship, rather than a branch of the game that allows us to explore and participate in events contained within the 32nd Century. It is an official setting for an active Star Trek production. It deserves more than just a "let's slap a ship in a gamble box and call it done" treatment.
    You keep acting like they are never, ever, going to do any 32nd century stories, and that this ship is the only thing of it we will ever get.... nothing has even remotely suggested that
  • doctorstegidoctorstegi Member Posts: 694 Arc User
    At first I didn't like it (the visual) but its growing on me. It's a fun boat. Using a Ba'ul Vanity Shield on it.
    C-Store Inc. is still looking for active members on the fed side. If you don't have a fleet feel free to contact me in game @stegi.
  • sirsitsalotsirsitsalot Member Posts: 2,338 Arc User
    edited March 5
    In a way, it's like the same gripe I have about the 32nd Century's token representation in STO taking the form of a lockbox ship, rather than a branch of the game that allows us to explore and participate in events contained within the 32nd Century. It is an official setting for an active Star Trek production. It deserves more than just a "let's slap a ship in a gamble box and call it done" treatment.
    You keep acting like they are never, ever, going to do any 32nd century stories, and that this ship is the only thing of it we will ever get.... nothing has even remotely suggested that

    I never said never.

    But what you continue to ignore is that each element revealed about the era in the show is an element that could be built off of to form the rudimentary branch of the era in STO. We may not know everything about the era. But we know enough to start a central story arc that can be expanded as Season 4 reveals more and more.

    And as I said once before which you more or less ignored, they could set the 32nd century arca few years before Discovery arrives. That way they can do whatever they want without stepping on the shows toes. Let CBS give them a blanket statement of what they are NOT allowed to do and turn them loose on everything else. Has Cryptic even bothered to ASK CBS if they could tell a story set in the 32nd Century covering material prior to Discovery's arrival using the state of the galaxy as presented so far as a basis?

    During the 10 forward weekly, they were asked if there were plans for a 32nd century experience. They gave the usual it would be cool to do response that they give whenever asked about future content. They implied that if they did it would lead back to the 25th century, so nothing self contained, which would feed their party line about not creating origin story specific content beyond what they initially release. I guess I can accept that. I mean if two origin stories can move someone from the past to the present, then nothing stops them from moving someone from the future to the past. Bit to me it still would make more sense to keep the 32nd century content self-contained.
    When it comes to MMOs, I wear prescription glasses. Whether or not they are rose-tinted is beside the point.
  • vegeta50024vegeta50024 Member Posts: 2,178 Arc User
    In a way, it's like the same gripe I have about the 32nd Century's token representation in STO taking the form of a lockbox ship, rather than a branch of the game that allows us to explore and participate in events contained within the 32nd Century. It is an official setting for an active Star Trek production. It deserves more than just a "let's slap a ship in a gamble box and call it done" treatment.
    You keep acting like they are never, ever, going to do any 32nd century stories, and that this ship is the only thing of it we will ever get.... nothing has even remotely suggested that

    I never said never.

    But what you continue to ignore is that each element revealed about the era in the show is an element that could be built off of to form the rudimentary branch of the era in STO. We may not know everything about the era. But we know enough to start a central story arc that can be expanded as Season 4 reveals more and more.

    And as I said once before which you more or less ignored, they could set the 32nd century arca few years before Discovery arrives. That way they can do whatever they want without stepping on the shows toes. Let CBS give them a blanket statement of what they are NOT allowed to do and turn them loose on everything else. Has Cryptic even bothered to ASK CBS if they could tell a story set in the 32nd Century covering material prior to Discovery's arrival using the state of the galaxy as presented so far as a basis?

    During the 10 forward weekly, they were asked if there were plans for a 32nd century experience. They gave the usual it would be cool to do response that they give whenever asked about future content. They implied that if they did it would lead back to the 25th century, so nothing self contained, which would feed their party line about not creating origin story specific content beyond what they initially release. I guess I can accept that. I mean if two origin stories can move someone from the past to the present, then nothing stops them from moving someone from the future to the past. Bit to me it still would make more sense to keep the 32nd century content self-contained.

    It doesn't sound like they want to have a big separation between groups of players, I think that's what they're trying to get at here, hence why they replied that it would get the usual treatment, and also why DIscovery and TOS Federation players end up getting sent to the 25th century.

    Its all about keeping the game's focus in the 25th century. We know that the game's initial dev team over a decade ago set out to create a game that at the time was set in 30 years after Nemesis, and designed it with the mindset that everything about the game would stay in the 25th century, minus the occasional time travel stories. Like the two faction approach, they really did not count on 6-8 years down the road of them going and introducing starting eras into the game.

    I do have a question for you though, when you say keep the content self-contained, are you talking about stuff like only 32nd century characters having access to the stories, TFOs, Patrols etc. And not allowing them to group up with the 25th century players (since doing that would necessitate time travel, something in which would be lore wise impossible for that timeline)?

    TSC_Signature_Gen_4_-_Vegeta_Small.png
  • sirsitsalotsirsitsalot Member Posts: 2,338 Arc User
    In a way, it's like the same gripe I have about the 32nd Century's token representation in STO taking the form of a lockbox ship, rather than a branch of the game that allows us to explore and participate in events contained within the 32nd Century. It is an official setting for an active Star Trek production. It deserves more than just a "let's slap a ship in a gamble box and call it done" treatment.
    You keep acting like they are never, ever, going to do any 32nd century stories, and that this ship is the only thing of it we will ever get.... nothing has even remotely suggested that

    I never said never.

    But what you continue to ignore is that each element revealed about the era in the show is an element that could be built off of to form the rudimentary branch of the era in STO. We may not know everything about the era. But we know enough to start a central story arc that can be expanded as Season 4 reveals more and more.

    And as I said once before which you more or less ignored, they could set the 32nd century arca few years before Discovery arrives. That way they can do whatever they want without stepping on the shows toes. Let CBS give them a blanket statement of what they are NOT allowed to do and turn them loose on everything else. Has Cryptic even bothered to ASK CBS if they could tell a story set in the 32nd Century covering material prior to Discovery's arrival using the state of the galaxy as presented so far as a basis?

    During the 10 forward weekly, they were asked if there were plans for a 32nd century experience. They gave the usual it would be cool to do response that they give whenever asked about future content. They implied that if they did it would lead back to the 25th century, so nothing self contained, which would feed their party line about not creating origin story specific content beyond what they initially release. I guess I can accept that. I mean if two origin stories can move someone from the past to the present, then nothing stops them from moving someone from the future to the past. Bit to me it still would make more sense to keep the 32nd century content self-contained.

    It doesn't sound like they want to have a big separation between groups of players, I think that's what they're trying to get at here, hence why they replied that it would get the usual treatment, and also why DIscovery and TOS Federation players end up getting sent to the 25th century.

    Its all about keeping the game's focus in the 25th century. We know that the game's initial dev team over a decade ago set out to create a game that at the time was set in 30 years after Nemesis, and designed it with the mindset that everything about the game would stay in the 25th century, minus the occasional time travel stories. Like the two faction approach, they really did not count on 6-8 years down the road of them going and introducing starting eras into the game.

    It was also their intention to make the UFP/KDF war a central element which necessitated them to hard-code a 2-faction system. They likely did not count on their successors abandoning PVP and rolling everything into a single alliance that still cannot truly be because of the technical modifications Cryptic would actually have to put forth a real effort to make to bring down the walls that divide us. It was also their intent that exploration was going to play a central focus in the game, and would drive the economy of both the UFP and KDF independently. They did not count on players getting lost in what amounted to big square rooms with only one door and no obstructions, necessitating the removal of exploration (which clearly was never developed beyond a minimally functional place-holder mechanic.

    There is a difference between the 32nd century and the other origin stories. They are all eaither from shows that have no active production or represent a parallel story arc that naturally leads them into current events. The 32nd century is the active setting of an active show. and the indications are that this will remain the case going forward. That is why I feel that it should be given its own branch.
    I do have a question for you though, when you say keep the content self-contained, are you talking about stuff like only 32nd century characters having access to the stories, TFOs, Patrols etc. And not allowing them to group up with the 25th century players (since doing that would necessitate time travel, something in which would be lore wise impossible for that timeline)?

    Keeping era-specific characters confined to their own eras makes sense. But I do see how that would be divisive to the player base. So... the TFOs and other group-oriented activities would be better served confined to the 25th century era, thus keeping it the most relevant in terms of player involvement. The 32nd century would have its story arcs, or at the very least, meta-driven gameplay loops based directly on the state of the galaxy as initially defined in S3 of discovery and will continue to be defined as the show continues its run.

    I mean nothing stops someone from switching between toons they've created. People do it all the time.
    When it comes to MMOs, I wear prescription glasses. Whether or not they are rose-tinted is beside the point.
  • vegeta50024vegeta50024 Member Posts: 2,178 Arc User
    edited March 5
    In a way, it's like the same gripe I have about the 32nd Century's token representation in STO taking the form of a lockbox ship, rather than a branch of the game that allows us to explore and participate in events contained within the 32nd Century. It is an official setting for an active Star Trek production. It deserves more than just a "let's slap a ship in a gamble box and call it done" treatment.
    You keep acting like they are never, ever, going to do any 32nd century stories, and that this ship is the only thing of it we will ever get.... nothing has even remotely suggested that

    I never said never.

    But what you continue to ignore is that each element revealed about the era in the show is an element that could be built off of to form the rudimentary branch of the era in STO. We may not know everything about the era. But we know enough to start a central story arc that can be expanded as Season 4 reveals more and more.

    And as I said once before which you more or less ignored, they could set the 32nd century arca few years before Discovery arrives. That way they can do whatever they want without stepping on the shows toes. Let CBS give them a blanket statement of what they are NOT allowed to do and turn them loose on everything else. Has Cryptic even bothered to ASK CBS if they could tell a story set in the 32nd Century covering material prior to Discovery's arrival using the state of the galaxy as presented so far as a basis?

    During the 10 forward weekly, they were asked if there were plans for a 32nd century experience. They gave the usual it would be cool to do response that they give whenever asked about future content. They implied that if they did it would lead back to the 25th century, so nothing self contained, which would feed their party line about not creating origin story specific content beyond what they initially release. I guess I can accept that. I mean if two origin stories can move someone from the past to the present, then nothing stops them from moving someone from the future to the past. Bit to me it still would make more sense to keep the 32nd century content self-contained.

    It doesn't sound like they want to have a big separation between groups of players, I think that's what they're trying to get at here, hence why they replied that it would get the usual treatment, and also why DIscovery and TOS Federation players end up getting sent to the 25th century.

    Its all about keeping the game's focus in the 25th century. We know that the game's initial dev team over a decade ago set out to create a game that at the time was set in 30 years after Nemesis, and designed it with the mindset that everything about the game would stay in the 25th century, minus the occasional time travel stories. Like the two faction approach, they really did not count on 6-8 years down the road of them going and introducing starting eras into the game.

    It was also their intention to make the UFP/KDF war a central element which necessitated them to hard-code a 2-faction system. They likely did not count on their successors abandoning PVP and rolling everything into a single alliance that still cannot truly be because of the technical modifications Cryptic would actually have to put forth a real effort to make to bring down the walls that divide us. It was also their intent that exploration was going to play a central focus in the game, and would drive the economy of both the UFP and KDF independently. They did not count on players getting lost in what amounted to big square rooms with only one door and no obstructions, necessitating the removal of exploration (which clearly was never developed beyond a minimally functional place-holder mechanic.

    There is a difference between the 32nd century and the other origin stories. They are all eaither from shows that have no active production or represent a parallel story arc that naturally leads them into current events. The 32nd century is the active setting of an active show. and the indications are that this will remain the case going forward. That is why I feel that it should be given its own branch.

    Yes, the 32nd century IS an active setting for an active show, but, it won't be the ONLY active setting moving forward. Remember, Picard Season 2 will continue to explore stuff 10 years before STO's 25th century storyline & Strange New Worlds will be an active setting for the small window of time that Pike still has command of the Enterprise.

    I don't really know what to expect with Strange New Worlds as of yet (nor does really anyone), so that one I'll box off for now. However, Picard we know has done its own thing in regards to the post-Supernova state of the quadrants. We know of the Romulan Free State as essentially the successor to the Romulan Star Empire, but we do not know a lot about it beyond the fact that the Tal Shiar (and the Zhat Vash for that matter) still might be a strong influence for the power. We also do not really know how the state of the rest of the galaxy is currently, and since Picard is working on Season 2, they could explore more of that.

    Perhaps in a separate thread, maybe you could detail what it is that they could explore exactly with the 32nd century setting, so that people could discuss it in a separate thread, based on what we know already exists of Discovery in that setting.
    Keeping era-specific characters confined to their own eras makes sense. But I do see how that would be divisive to the player base. So... the TFOs and other group-oriented activities would be better served confined to the 25th century era, thus keeping it the most relevant in terms of player involvement. The 32nd century would have its story arcs, or at the very least, meta-driven gameplay loops based directly on the state of the galaxy as initially defined in S3 of discovery and will continue to be defined as the show continues its run.

    I mean nothing stops someone from switching between toons they've created. People do it all the time.

    What exactly would meta-driven gameplay entail? Would it be stuff like for example like a battle zone where players do things like taking back zones and then after enough progress is made, they trigger an event to happen?

    I remember you talking about doing things like this that you think could potentially keep people engaged and help drive the content, but I don't know if its something that could be sustained long term.

    TSC_Signature_Gen_4_-_Vegeta_Small.png
  • doctorstegidoctorstegi Member Posts: 694 Arc User
    B)janewayclass.png
    C-Store Inc. is still looking for active members on the fed side. If you don't have a fleet feel free to contact me in game @stegi.
Sign In or Register to comment.