test content
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc

The United Earth Defense Force Vessel (try to say that ten times fast)

2456789

Comments

  • legendarylycan#5411 legendarylycan Member Posts: 37,282 Arc User
    That people are getting paid for designing these... things... is a testament to everything wrong with modern Star Trek. Ye gads, that's not a ship, that's a building--one shaped like an elephant's head with detached ears.

    I'm sorry, this is just ridiculous. Matt Jefferies is spinning in his grave. Say what you will about his design decisions--and I've got a couple of criticisms myself--he at least did have solid reasoning behind just about every aspect of the original U.S.S. Enterprise's design. These hideous abominations? Blatantly designed to look "advanced", without any thought given to justifying them.

    Good grief.
    I really don't think Matt is spinning in his grave. He had reasons for his designs, but he also had a very clear goal to get away from the rocket ship or flying saucer aesthetic and they wanted stuff like the spindly pylons to show off that this ship is something highly advanced and uses technology we can't even imagine.

    The current designers are operating with the very same goal, but spindly pylons and dishes aren't satisfying the requirements anymore, because they have become standard and what everyone is familiar with in Star Trek. It worked to create the illusion of 23rd or 24th century, but the 32rd century needs something that looks even more advanced and out of it.

    I would not be surprised he'd be quite intrigued what a "TV show" can basiclaly pull off with CGI today. Stuff that would just not have been feasible in the 60s, 70s, 80s, or 90s. Now you can make ships that don't need to be assembled and put on a rig for filming, and finally can create stuff that genuinely is beyond what our physical technology can realize.

    Or maybe not. Who knows? He is dead, unfortunately, we can't ask him, and we can make up any reaction we like, he won't have the chance to disagree.

    Uh, to be fair, even back then, floating parts could've been done - just use thin wire and edit it out.​​
    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.
  • wolva10wolva10 Member Posts: 10 Arc User
    edited November 2021
    i for one encourage crypic to get all the flying abortions that are the 32nd cent ships done so i can pass on them and buy good zen store ships...............
    Post edited by wolva10 on
  • dragon#2626 dragon Member Posts: 275 Arc User
    I am beginning to wonder if Discovery's art people are all on psychoactive chemicals. They have yet to produce a 32nd century ship design that looks even vaguely rational; this particular misbegotten collection of random parts looks like a rejected Star Fox design.
    I swim through a sea of stars. . . .
  • psymantispsymantis Member Posts: 329 Arc User
    I haven't seen many of these 31st Century ships in game. 1 at Earth and 1 in a TFO/Red Alert IIRC.
  • solidshark214solidshark214 Member Posts: 347 Arc User
    That people are getting paid for designing these... things... is a testament to everything wrong with modern Star Trek. Ye gads, that's not a ship, that's a building--one shaped like an elephant's head with detached ears.

    I'm sorry, this is just ridiculous. Matt Jefferies is spinning in his grave. Say what you will about his design decisions--and I've got a couple of criticisms myself--he at least did have solid reasoning behind just about every aspect of the original U.S.S. Enterprise's design. These hideous abominations? Blatantly designed to look "advanced", without any thought given to justifying them.

    Good grief.
    I really don't think Matt is spinning in his grave. He had reasons for his designs, but he also had a very clear goal to get away from the rocket ship or flying saucer aesthetic and they wanted stuff like the spindly pylons to show off that this ship is something highly advanced and uses technology we can't even imagine.

    The current designers are operating with the very same goal, but spindly pylons and dishes aren't satisfying the requirements anymore, because they have become standard and what everyone is familiar with in Star Trek. It worked to create the illusion of 23rd or 24th century, but the 32rd century needs something that looks even more advanced and out of it.

    I would not be surprised he'd be quite intrigued what a "TV show" can basiclaly pull off with CGI today. Stuff that would just not have been feasible in the 60s, 70s, 80s, or 90s. Now you can make ships that don't need to be assembled and put on a rig for filming, and finally can create stuff that genuinely is beyond what our physical technology can realize.

    Or maybe not. Who knows? He is dead, unfortunately, we can't ask him, and we can make up any reaction we like, he won't have the chance to disagree.

    Yeah, sorry, I don't buy it. He had reasons beyond just "looking different". He had genuine, physics-based reasons for his specific choices. Yes, he did have an aesthetic goal in mind, but within that framework he did his best to make it plausible.

    There is nothing plausible about 32nd century ship design. You are never, ever going to convince me there's anything close to a reasonable justification for parts of the ship that will fly off to parts unknown with a simple power flicker. That is just plain insane. There is no possible level of redundancy that can justify that.

    And do not get me started on the silly interior tech. Those bizarre new control panels are plainly a case of "different for the sake of different (and showing off our cool new CGI!)". As with the detached ship parts, those are a disaster waiting to happen, and if anything with even less reason. There's no need to reinvent the keyboard, guys. Make it look fancier, sure, but there's no conceivable reason to change how they work.

    DISCO is made by people who think "looks cool" first, and "makes functional sense"... somewhere well past second.
  • admiralvondrunkadmiralvondrunk Member Posts: 23 Arc User
    This ship, like the storyline it comes from, is a sad affront to everything that Star Trek really means.

    "...The Burn, they left behind much of Starfleet's tradition of building exploration and science vessels,..."

    Starfleet's tradition of exploration and scientific discovery was infused into its being by its human members as much as anyone else. Particularly the exploration part. The ship and storyline speak more to the deeply cynical, simple, and dark view that these creators have of humanity than they do of anything else.

    This is just offensive. Discovery is offensive. The ship is offensive. What they've done to the Federation and the positive vision of humanity's future that Roddenberry created is offensive. Have you people no shame?
  • This content has been removed.
  • This content has been removed.
  • bnuts#2055 bnuts Member Posts: 35 Arc User
    edited November 2021
    To be fair, the Iconians did a fair amount of 'detached parts' ships. But you can look at them and say 'that's Iconian.' I look at this and say 'which side's the front?' I also say 'I can't tell what franchise it's from. Can't be 'Trek,' and certainly can't be Starfleet.' At least I'm right on the second count.

    It makes for an incredibly large target though, and looks very unwieldy. Nothing like the sleek, aggressive designs in 25th century 'STO.' I know they're 32nd century, but I can't even begin to guess at the evolutionary line: what are they based on, an end table?

    But it's a lockbox item with no guarantee, which means I pass on it anyway. Glad Cryptic gave us some new ships in the C-store recently. I even dig the new Steamrunner, which is odd for me since I usually don't like the disconnected secondary hull. But it's just so sleek and cool looking. This doesn't look like it'd get anywhere if you put it in the ocean to watch it run. I would hate to see it flounder in Fluidic Space.
    Post edited by bnuts#2055 on
  • legendarylycan#5411 legendarylycan Member Posts: 37,282 Arc User
    edited November 2021
    This ship, like the storyline it comes from, is a sad affront to everything that Star Trek really means.

    "...The Burn, they left behind much of Starfleet's tradition of building exploration and science vessels,..."

    Starfleet's tradition of exploration and scientific discovery was infused into its being by its human members as much as anyone else. Particularly the exploration part. The ship and storyline speak more to the deeply cynical, simple, and dark view that these creators have of humanity than they do of anything else.

    This is just offensive. Discovery is offensive. The ship is offensive. What they've done to the Federation and the positive vision of humanity's future that Roddenberry created is offensive. Have you people no shame?

    Andromeda, containing similar sociological elements as S3 of Discovery, created BY Roddenberry and was originally SUPPOSED to be Star Trek until it was rejected by CBS or NBC or whoever the hell it was at the time, says 'hi'.

    CBS did NOTHING Roddenberry didn't originally want - they just did it several decades late.​​
    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.
  • fleetcaptain5#1134 fleetcaptain5 Member Posts: 5,051 Arc User
    psymantis wrote: »
    I haven't seen many of these 31st Century ships in game. 1 at Earth and 1 in a TFO/Red Alert IIRC.

    I obtained a promo pack a couple of weeks ago. So I could basically obtain any ship I'd like.

    The Janeway and Crossfield classes aren't all that special. The Courage's design didn't appeal to me.

    But the Kirk class is a great and enjoyable ship. And I've seen a few of those.
  • captainrc1captainrc1 Member Posts: 106 Arc User
    This reminds me... I have a dental appointment.
    nwna9tm79605.jpg
  • jagdtier44jagdtier44 Member Posts: 376 Arc User
    Its an interesting looking ship.. in the context of like a marvel game or something Halo or.. yeah.. this just doesn't look like anything star trek like in the slightest. All these just floating shapes and what not.. ugh.

    Least its in a lockbox
  • phoenixc#0738 phoenixc Member Posts: 5,832 Arc User
    There is some question about whether the Iconian ship parts are actually detached or whether parts of the ship are in realspace while others are phased into subspace (or some other phasing like the Romulan ship disaster caused in one TNG episode) but still hold the ships together. Their gates extend into and retract from normalspace like a periscope in Sphere of Influence which certainly hints at that cross-dimensional structure.

    As for Jefferies, some of his views on design are well known from his comments on how he designed the TOS ship and redesigned its bridge, as well as his opinions on how impractical even the TNG bridges were, saying they took his practical design and mangled it into "the lobby of the Hilton".

    Given that, his opinion of a bridge that has "features" like:
    • plexi partitions up between the captain and some of the stations that would muffle orders
    • a number of stations without chairs so during combat the crew assigned to them would be too busy holding on to work them
    • the idiotic arrangement of controls so that the gunner has to sit in one direction to aim the weapons and then spin 180 degrees to reach the controls to fire them
    • touchscreen panels that require the person to look down at the surface all the time to work them because not only can they not feel the controls they have to hover their hands over the surface to avoid spurious control inputs
    is not too hard to imagine.
  • rangeramongyourangeramongyou Member Posts: 43 Arc User
    How about we call it the Orin Scrivello class. Seems fitting.
  • garaffegaraffe Member Posts: 1,353 Arc User
    All I can say is that I hope Trek never again returns to the 32nd century. Let's get all of these "designs" over and done with so we can move on to traditional designs.
  • dragon#2626 dragon Member Posts: 275 Arc User
    garaffe wrote: »
    All I can say is that I hope Trek never again returns to the 32nd century. Let's get all of these "designs" over and done with so we can move on to traditional designs.

    Hear, hear!
    I swim through a sea of stars. . . .
  • truewarpertruewarper Member Posts: 930 Arc User
    ragingloli wrote: »
    I think I'm going to be sick.
    The TRIBBLE production team has no respect.
    No respect for lore and canon, no respect for established aesthetics and design philosophies, no respect for story telling, no respect for its characters except the lead, and above all, no respect for the audience.

    It is not about respect...it is ORDERS, they have to do it.

    52611496918_3c42b8bab8.jpg
    Departing from Sol *Earth* by Carlos A Smith,on Flickr
    SPACE---The Last and Great Frontier. A 14th-year journey
    Vna res, una mens, unum cor et anima una. Cetera omnia, somnium est.
  • phoenixc#0738 phoenixc Member Posts: 5,832 Arc User
    truewarper wrote: »
    ragingloli wrote: »
    I think I'm going to be sick.
    The TRIBBLE production team has no respect.
    No respect for lore and canon, no respect for established aesthetics and design philosophies, no respect for story telling, no respect for its characters except the lead, and above all, no respect for the audience.

    It is not about respect...it is ORDERS, they have to do it.

    It is also from ignorance (which is a ridiculous situation for a production team), if you watch their behind the scenes features it turns out that almost none of them are fans of any Trek except for the movies (especially The Undiscovered Country which is the movie they based the DSC aesthetics on (with the addition of JJwindows from Kelvin)). The costume designer is one of the few who liked any of the series at all (she said she is a fan of TNG).

    None of them said they liked TOS even though they were setting DSC in the Cage/TOS timeframe, and they all either never saw TOS or had nothing but contempt for it. Kurtzman has said a number of times that he does not understand the Traditional Trek, that it is too cerebral for him, which makes him a very odd choice as the showrunner.

    Of course, that kind of situation is not unexpected considering how Moonves hates science-fiction in general and Star Trek especially, TOS most of all. Even after he was ousted the tone and form of DSC was already set, it would have taken a mass replacement of people in the upper echelons of the production team to change that in any way that mattered instead of just the few people they replaced.

    At this point it would take a truly spectacular shark jump, probably a temporal event that resets DSC almost entirely to do anything that would heal the breach in the fanbase and realize the potential the show had in the very early hype when people were excited that Trek would be back.
  • husanakxhusanakx Member Posts: 1,608 Arc User
    Man what an ugly ship... what a odd layout, what a terrible console, what a terrible trait.

    Well this one is not going to make money.
  • telbasta7386telbasta7386 Member Posts: 761 Arc User
    I wish they'd stop putting these steaming piles of TRIBBLE from discovery in the game. This thing is one of the ugliest ships since the universe class.

    Please, stop ruining star trek aesthetic. Discovery has got to be it's own mirror universe because it makes zero sense here.
  • rattler2rattler2 Member, Star Trek Online Moderator Posts: 58,565 Community Moderator
    rattler2 wrote: »
    A ship is a ship.

    then what is this?

    A ship.
    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!)
  • paradox#7391 paradox Member Posts: 1,800 Arc User
    rattler2 wrote: »
    A ship is a ship.

    then what is this?

    Giant Spock's Tooth.
  • paradox#7391 paradox Member Posts: 1,800 Arc User
    wolva10 wrote: »
    i for one encourage crypic to get all the flying abortions that are the 31st cent ships done so i can pass on them and buy good zen store ships...............

    Never really understood how people can confuse one century over the other, It's getting tiresome trying to explain that Discovery season 3 never took place in the 31st century, it actually took place next century over, we visited the 31st century in ENT and what we gathered was that Time Travel was legal and even practiced by the UFP in the 31st century.
  • saurializardsaurializard Member Posts: 4,404 Arc User
    (especially The Undiscovered Country which is the movie they based the DSC aesthetics on (with the addition of JJwindows from Kelvin)).
    I watched the Undiscovered Country recently and I have to ask this simple question:

    HOW?

    How does DSC even share aesthetics with TUC?
    The costume designer is one of the few who liked any of the series at all (she said she is a fan of TNG).
    Not the S1 Klingon and S1, S3 normal uniform designer, I hope, because otherwise, I won't believe her.
    #TASforSTO
    Iconian_Trio_sign.jpg?raw=1
  • exarch1701exarch1701 Member Posts: 71 Arc User
    Starfleet Dental finally took over.....
  • husanakxhusanakx Member Posts: 1,608 Arc User
    exarch1701 wrote: »
    Starfleet Dental finally took over.....

    I would agree IF the console fired disco balls of protection... and granted unlimited fleet holding access for 30 min per activation or something.
  • dragon#2626 dragon Member Posts: 275 Arc User
    truewarper wrote: »
    ragingloli wrote: »
    I think I'm going to be sick.
    The TRIBBLE production team has no respect.
    No respect for lore and canon, no respect for established aesthetics and design philosophies, no respect for story telling, no respect for its characters except the lead, and above all, no respect for the audience.

    It is not about respect...it is ORDERS, they have to do it.

    It is also from ignorance (which is a ridiculous situation for a production team), if you watch their behind the scenes features it turns out that almost none of them are fans of any Trek except for the movies (especially The Undiscovered Country which is the movie they based the DSC aesthetics on (with the addition of JJwindows from Kelvin)). The costume designer is one of the few who liked any of the series at all (she said she is a fan of TNG).

    None of them said they liked TOS even though they were setting DSC in the Cage/TOS timeframe, and they all either never saw TOS or had nothing but contempt for it. Kurtzman has said a number of times that he does not understand the Traditional Trek, that it is too cerebral for him, which makes him a very odd choice as the showrunner.

    Of course, that kind of situation is not unexpected considering how Moonves hates science-fiction in general and Star Trek especially, TOS most of all. Even after he was ousted the tone and form of DSC was already set, it would have taken a mass replacement of people in the upper echelons of the production team to change that in any way that mattered instead of just the few people they replaced.

    At this point it would take a truly spectacular shark jump, probably a temporal event that resets DSC almost entirely to do anything that would heal the breach in the fanbase and realize the potential the show had in the very early hype when people were excited that Trek would be back.

    "Too cerebral"!? Being "cerebral" is one of the main points of Trek! Egad, Kurtzman is utterly clueless.
    I swim through a sea of stars. . . .
  • starshine#7408 starshine Member Posts: 127 Arc User
    While it works in the show where, Iconians don't look like that, in STO, iconians look like that
    TOS>LDS>DSC>VOY>DS9>PRO>ENT>TNG>PIC

    Bring the Enterprise XCV-330 to STO
  • ussvaliant2#1952 ussvaliant2 Member Posts: 402 Arc User
    Now you really are going to get the feeling of pulling teeth if you choose to gamble on this design.
    https://i.imgur.com/r6F7yxj.jpeg
This discussion has been closed.