test content
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc

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

1246789

Comments

  • paradox#7391 paradox Member Posts: 1,800 Arc User
    edited November 2021
    You could argue that, of all the currently existing 31st-32nd century ship designs, only a couple doesn't look or have ridiculous features:
    2021-11-13%2003_46_35-Star_Trek_Shipyards_Starfleet_Ships_2294_to_the_Future_2nd_ed%2C_pp._252-253_sprea.png?raw=1
    The Mars and Eisenberg classes.

    The Mars due to having a smaller, flat, compact design which would work for a scout ship whose job is to sneak around and pass through narrow passages, IF its nacelles are designed to move to the level of the hull.

    The Eisenberg because it's overall the closest thing that looks like a reasonably-designed and detailed starship.

    You could argue for the Intrepid and Connie, but the Connie tries too hard and is full of structural weaknesses with all those holes and the Intrepid has that freaking bottle opener tail for no reason.

    The rest screams of impractical designs.

    And I'm sorry, but the Dresselhaus-type (the black one) was made by someone who tried to unplug a cable by pulling the wire instead of the connector and exposed the shredded inner wires, you can't convince me otherwise.

    IDK I really like the Rainforest one, kind of curious how the bridge looks, might also double as a nice vacation spot, might have to call it the USS Flat Earth as a Joke.
  • kayajaykayajay Member Posts: 1,990 Arc User
    You could argue that, of all the currently existing 31st-32nd century ship designs, only a couple doesn't look or have ridiculous features:
    2021-11-13%2003_46_35-Star_Trek_Shipyards_Starfleet_Ships_2294_to_the_Future_2nd_ed%2C_pp._252-253_sprea.png?raw=1
    The Mars and Eisenberg classes.

    The Mars due to having a smaller, flat, compact design which would work for a scout ship whose job is to sneak around and pass through narrow passages, IF its nacelles are designed to move to the level of the hull.

    The Eisenberg because it's overall the closest thing that looks like a reasonably-designed and detailed starship.

    You could argue for the Intrepid and Connie, but the Connie tries too hard and is full of structural weaknesses with all those holes and the Intrepid has that freaking bottle opener tail for no reason.

    The rest screams of impractical designs.

    And I'm sorry, but the Dresselhaus-type (the black one) was made by someone who tried to unplug a cable by pulling the wire instead of the connector and exposed the shredded inner wires, you can't convince me otherwise.

    Okay, so I see the Toilet, the Toilet Seat, the Stapler, the Speculum/Jockstrap, the Haemorrhoid Pillow, the Wrench, the Bottle Opener...

    My guess is that the "designer" has piles and spends a lot of time in the bathroom. He works in an office, goes to the gym or plays sports, is a DIY enthusiast and he drinks beer.
  • kayajaykayajay Member Posts: 1,990 Arc User
    out of all of those, these two look best. ymmv.
    however, still not great. but something that can work.

    [img][/img]Screenshot-2021-11-12-212655.jpg

    Hmm, I think he was watching "Galaxy Quest" and playing with a stapler.
  • questeriusquesterius Member Posts: 8,462 Arc User
    rattler2 wrote: »
    A ship is a ship.

    The shape is something i would associate with a starbase, but not with a ship.
    I guess to each their own as far as starship designs, but this one doesn't work for me.

    The positive thing is that it is the FIRST command specialization warship.

    This program, though reasonably normal at times, seems to have a strong affinity to classes belonging to the Cat 2.0 program. Questerius 2.7 will break down on occasion, resulting in garbage and nonsense messages whenever it occurs. Usually a hard reboot or pulling the plug solves the problem when that happens.
  • kayajaykayajay Member Posts: 1,990 Arc User
    You know, if the game REALLY insisted on this thing...that is clearly a space station, but to be flown like a ship, then there was actually a cool way to do it.

    You take a page out of DS9's book.

    It's a space station, with say six working thrusters, so it can move, but INCREDIBLY slowly....HOWEVER.

    It's ship-bound Universal Console "modifies the subspace field output of the deflector generators just enough to create a low-level field around the station". It lowers the inertial mass, makes the station lighter and those six thrusters allow it to move...just a little and for a small period of time, until the console recharges.

    For the majority of the time, you're just sitting there, so it would be massively annoying and barely unusable in any mission, but if it came with built in fire-at-will and pets, then it MIGHT have been mildly interesting...although there's no getting away from the Tooth beating the Toilet to the crown for the most awful design in the game.
  • psiameesepsiameese Member Posts: 1,649 Arc User
    rattler2 wrote: »
    A ship is a ship.

    James T. Kirk, Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home. :)
    (/\) Exploring Star Trek Online Since July 2008 (/\)
  • k20vteck20vtec Member Posts: 535 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.

    yeah, i agree
    Hast thou not gone against sincerity
    Hast thou not felt ashamed of thy words and deeds
    Hast thou not lacked vigor
    Hast thou exerted all possible efforts
    Hast thou not become slothful
  • fleetcaptain5#1134 fleetcaptain5 Member Posts: 5,051 Arc User
    You could argue that, of all the currently existing 31st-32nd century ship designs, only a couple doesn't look or have ridiculous features:
    2021-11-13%2003_46_35-Star_Trek_Shipyards_Starfleet_Ships_2294_to_the_Future_2nd_ed%2C_pp._252-253_sprea.png?raw=1
    The Mars and Eisenberg classes.

    The Mars due to having a smaller, flat, compact design which would work for a scout ship whose job is to sneak around and pass through narrow passages, IF its nacelles are designed to move to the level of the hull.

    The Eisenberg because it's overall the closest thing that looks like a reasonably-designed and detailed starship.

    You could argue for the Intrepid and Connie, but the Connie tries too hard and is full of structural weaknesses with all those holes and the Intrepid has that freaking bottle opener tail for no reason.

    The rest screams of impractical designs.

    And I'm sorry, but the Dresselhaus-type (the black one) was made by someone who tried to unplug a cable by pulling the wire instead of the connector and exposed the shredded inner wires, you can't convince me otherwise.

    I actually like the Kirk class a lot. Not just because it's a fun ship to fly, but also because it has a nice futuristic look while still staying true to the original design features.

    Most other designs are weird or unoriginal (with the Janeway class being the best example of the latter).

    'Most', because I like the one with the big open space inside, besides the flying saucer that looks like it's the missing piece of the other one. The flying saucer looks nice because it looks like it's more than just a ship. Most Star Trek designs don't really give you that feeling of being anything besides a flying engine - sure, the Galaxy was huge if you think about how much windows and hence rooms there are, but you really need to think about it.

    This ship, with all its forest and seas, immediately gives off the impression of being what I expect a ship to be: being a place where you actually want to spend years or even decades of your life while doing other things like being a researcher, supporting and travelling to colonies and so on.

    Depending on its stats, I think I'll get it either for my main Sci who's close to retirement, for my military researcher tactical toon or, if it sucks, for my Vulcan or Voth citizen-researcher toons.
  • kayajaykayajay Member Posts: 1,990 Arc User
    Just looking at the "Toilet Seat"...that's taken a LOT of inspiration from an Ori Mothership, only without actually being cool.

    I just don't understand why with so much original and unique inspiration available from so many films and series in the franchise...why is Disco is drawing "inspiration" from Star Wars, Stargate, ripping off other films and series too, to create what looks like an entirely new franchise? At this point, I just really wish Disco wasn't a Star Trek series, or at least calls itself one.

    Let there be a universe of spore drives, floaty bits, flying bathroom, gynaecological equipment and dentistry equipment...I'm fine with that, but not when it Tribbles all over everything that came before.

    At this point, Disco should have been like Earth: Final Conflict and something that stood on its own, because it not only does want to be "Star Trek", but it seemingly wants Star Trek not to be Star Trek, but pulling the rug out from under it.
  • dragon#2626 dragon Member Posts: 270 Arc User
    questerius wrote: »
    rattler2 wrote: »
    A ship is a ship.

    The shape is something i would associate with a starbase, but not with a ship.
    I guess to each their own as far as starship designs, but this one doesn't work for me.

    The positive thing is that it is the FIRST command specialization warship.

    Not sure how that's a positive; command specialization is of limited utility.
    I swim through a sea of stars. . . .
  • seaofsorrowsseaofsorrows Member Posts: 10,918 Arc User
    Not sure how that's a positive; command specialization is of limited utility.

    Command was buffed a while back and is currently one of the most desirable specializations.
    Insert witty signature line here.
  • aftulusaftulus Member Posts: 668 Arc User
    edited November 2021
    When do we get this ship? It's from a parody universe. It could be what happens after the mirror universe! 8)

    277.JPG


  • fleetcaptain5#1134 fleetcaptain5 Member Posts: 5,051 Arc User
    questerius wrote: »
    rattler2 wrote: »
    A ship is a ship.

    The shape is something i would associate with a starbase, but not with a ship.
    I guess to each their own as far as starship designs, but this one doesn't work for me.

    The positive thing is that it is the FIRST command specialization warship.

    Not sure how that's a positive; command specialization is of limited utility.

    Some command abilities can be interesting. I began using it on the Kirk class. The ability that buffs your own shields based on damage you deal is useful if it only uses up a tactical slot that I couldn't really use for anything else.
  • saurializardsaurializard Member Posts: 4,404 Arc User
    This ship, with all its forest and seas, immediately gives off the impression of being what I expect a ship to be: being a place where you actually want to spend years or even decades of your life while doing other things like being a researcher, supporting and travelling to colonies and so on.
    My main issue with the Angelou-class is how this thing looks fragile and utterly ill-adapted for any kind of combat, unless it's designed to manage to have monstrous amounts of power to create and maintain lots and lots of massive force fields in case of breaches to avoid exposing the entire ecosystem to space.
    #TASforSTO
    Iconian_Trio_sign.jpg?raw=1
  • xarynn2058xarynn2058 Member Posts: 158 Arc User
    To be fair, the modelling team did a good job of reproducing the thing for the game. Sadly it's, well, that... thing.
    S1J6m8B.jpg
  • jagdtier44jagdtier44 Member Posts: 376 Arc User
    questerius wrote: »
    rattler2 wrote: »
    A ship is a ship.

    The shape is something i would associate with a starbase, but not with a ship.
    I guess to each their own as far as starship designs, but this one doesn't work for me.

    The positive thing is that it is the FIRST command specialization warship.

    It is the first but the way the seating is done it's going to be incredibly hard to make use of that command seating and not have to few or to much tactical
  • legendarylycan#5411 legendarylycan Member Posts: 37,282 Arc User
    edited November 2021
    Yes, the issue isn't that they gave it a command seat (Some of the abilities are actually worth using now if you have some stat support behind them)...the issue is that the command seat is on tactical and engineering, and no command ability is worth giving up APB2/3, TS3, FAW3, CRF3, CSV3 or EPtW3 for, and any seat below Ltc the abilities are too weak to use or you can't even use the decent ones at all.​​
    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.
  • kayajaykayajay Member Posts: 1,990 Arc User
    I know some people base the decision of the ship they fly based on stats, seating, command abilities, etc...I personally base mine on the the ship that's most fun and that I get the most kick out of. I make it work whatever that is...but I just wouldn't accept Disco's Rotten Tooth if I was paid to. I don't care if it has the most amazing endgame stats of absolutely every ship in the game.
  • davefenestratordavefenestrator Member Posts: 10,607 Arc User
    kayajay wrote: »
    I know some people base the decision of the ship they fly based on stats, seating, command abilities, etc...I personally base mine on the the ship that's most fun and that I get the most kick out of. I make it work whatever that is...but I just wouldn't accept Disco's Rotten Tooth if I was paid to. I don't care if it has the most amazing endgame stats of absolutely every ship in the game.

    Yes, Space Barbie is the real endgame :)

    Not all of it of course, but an important part for many of us. None of those designs make me go "cool, I want to fly that!" and one of my captains has a full set of Herald ships and ground gear. Detached parts worked for the Iconians but these fail for me.

    That's just my own feelings I'm not going to claim that "looks awful to me" means "it's bad for everyone."
  • vedauwoovedauwoo Member Posts: 215 Arc User
    jonsills wrote: »
    That's not a ship. That's a collection of random ship parts flying in close formation.

    !00%

    I mean, what is the fascination with things not being attached? Looks like shoddy craftsmanship....."Well, we couldn't figure out how to design and EPS or Warp Plasma conduit, so we decided just the tractor beam everything and use the transporter....." ?

    I mean, seems like a serious investment in extraneous energy that is not needed.....

  • paradox#7391 paradox Member Posts: 1,800 Arc User
    Do we need to make Space Dentists aka Sci/Med Officers with Dentistry as their medical profession, then give the USS Toothache add Tholian Web console, I would consider it an improve, might need some Cryo builds to also simulate minty freshness.
  • paradox#7391 paradox Member Posts: 1,800 Arc User
    this would be a perfect fit for our fleet admirals and other ranks above captain, in and around other species and races as well.
    but it would need to be a fleet carrier/support floating mini starbase.
    it would have been better portrayed as such with very slow movement while in battle and little to know turn radius.
    a ship? nope. something like the above, sure.

    I'd rather have a Borg Cube than this Ship or a Space Station.
  • phoenixc#0738 phoenixc Member Posts: 5,762 Arc User
    edited November 2021
    You could argue that, of all the currently existing 31st-32nd century ship designs, only a couple doesn't look or have ridiculous features:
    2021-11-13%2003_46_35-Star_Trek_Shipyards_Starfleet_Ships_2294_to_the_Future_2nd_ed%2C_pp._252-253_sprea.png?raw=1
    The Mars and Eisenberg classes.

    The Mars due to having a smaller, flat, compact design which would work for a scout ship whose job is to sneak around and pass through narrow passages, IF its nacelles are designed to move to the level of the hull.

    The Eisenberg because it's overall the closest thing that looks like a reasonably-designed and detailed starship.

    You could argue for the Intrepid and Connie, but the Connie tries too hard and is full of structural weaknesses with all those holes and the Intrepid has that freaking bottle opener tail for no reason.

    The rest screams of impractical designs.

    And I'm sorry, but the Dresselhaus-type (the black one) was made by someone who tried to unplug a cable by pulling the wire instead of the connector and exposed the shredded inner wires, you can't convince me otherwise.

    I actually like the Kirk class a lot. Not just because it's a fun ship to fly, but also because it has a nice futuristic look while still staying true to the original design features.

    Most other designs are weird or unoriginal (with the Janeway class being the best example of the latter).

    'Most', because I like the one with the big open space inside, besides the flying saucer that looks like it's the missing piece of the other one. The flying saucer looks nice because it looks like it's more than just a ship. Most Star Trek designs don't really give you that feeling of being anything besides a flying engine - sure, the Galaxy was huge if you think about how much windows and hence rooms there are, but you really need to think about it.

    This ship, with all its forest and seas, immediately gives off the impression of being what I expect a ship to be: being a place where you actually want to spend years or even decades of your life while doing other things like being a researcher, supporting and travelling to colonies and so on.

    Depending on its stats, I think I'll get it either for my main Sci who's close to retirement, for my military researcher tactical toon or, if it sucks, for my Vulcan or Voth citizen-researcher toons.

    I don't see the resemblance between the Kirk and the Constitution at all beyond just the fact that it has the generic saucer(ish)/secondary/nacelles arrangement of Starfleet ships in general. The design language of the TOS ship was googie, and while there are a few googie-like elements (like the arch-with-pod in the center over the hole in the "saucer") it is all scrambled and mis-proportioned instead of golden ratio and is more a mashup of neo-futurism, parametric design, and art deco.

    I do kind of like the nacelles though (they are a good example of parametric design principles with a hint of googie), and if CBS would allow STO to make kitbash sets like a lot of the older game ships have there might be a way to make a whole ship that looks good out of it, but I don't see that ever happening with the possessive OCD way CBS is acting over the cell-shading issue.

    The really sad thing is, the Kirk (which despite the idiotic voids it has all over is at least salvageable if they think up practical reasons for the voids and put a neck option in) really is the closest they come to anything Trek-like in that whole floating pile of random junk ships CBS seems to think of as good Star Trek ship design.
  • ricosakararicosakara Member Posts: 422 Arc User
    edited November 2021
    While I personally have nothing against these 32nd century ships like everyone else (I personally LOVE the Janeway and Kirk Classes that I fly, and am current waiting for both the Eisenberg and Saturn Classes to be made), I will say the UEDF Ship does look like both an Elephant AND a Tooth.

    I think we should name this ship the "Elephant's Tooth." =B

    On a continuing note, The designers are just following what they're told by the producers @ CBS, and they really have no choice. STO and other games are their money-to-pay-bills, so yeah.
    As much as well hate these ship designs, and hate them more as lock-box ships, for them they're both the only ways STO staff get more funds to make new content for us. Both content we want, and content we don't.

    The only person to blame here is "Star Wars Fan-boy wants to turn Trek into generic Sci-Fi to compete with Star Wars," Alex Kurtzman.
  • alcyoneserenealcyoneserene Member Posts: 2,413 Arc User
    edited November 2021
    A shame the artistic talent at Cryptic is caught up designing such space debris coming from a supposed Star Trek IP.

    It doesn't look Star Trek in the least. Or like a ship meant to follow any plausible Star Trek dynamics of sci-fi travel in the far future despite somehow appearing to function (unless I'm mistaken, I don't watch Discovery) like other ships, with warp fields, deflectors, impulse engines, structural integrity, weapons, and whatever else.

    I hope people gamble for it at least to keep the lights on, but at the same time I hope they don't, so Cryptic can tell them your space trash non-art isn't helping our game.
    Y945Yzx.jpg
    Devs: Provide the option to Turn OFF full screen flashes from enemy ship explosions
    · ♥ · ◦.¸¸. ◦'¯`·. (Ɏ) V A N U _ S O V E R E I G N T Y (Ɏ) .·´¯'◦.¸¸. ◦ · ♡ ·
    «» \▼/ T E R R A N ¦ R E P U B L I C \▼/ «»
    ﴾﴿ ₪ṩ ||| N A N I T E S Y S T E M S : B L A C K | O P S ||| ₪ṩ ﴾﴿
  • raijinmeister#1931 raijinmeister Member Posts: 195 Arc User
    edited November 2021
    I like how they slapped 5 tac consoles in this aberration just to make dps chasers open the wallet and grab one. Damn Sovereign that was built to fight the Borgs doesn't have even 4 tac consoles, same for the fleet D'deridex, a damn "warbird" and both don't have the warship mastery BUT this TRIBBLE, voilà, 5 tac consoles, and passive crit dmg.
  • kayajaykayajay Member Posts: 1,990 Arc User
    ricosakara wrote: »
    While I personally have nothing against these 32nd century ships like everyone else (I personally LOVE the Janeway and Kirk Classes that I fly, and am current waiting for both the Eisenberg and Saturn Classes to be made), I will say the UEDF Ship does look like both an Elephant AND a Tooth.

    I think we should name this ship the "Elephant's Tooth." =B

    On a continuing note, The designers are just following what they're told by the producers @ CBS, and they really have no choice. STO and other games are their money-to-pay-bills, so yeah.
    As much as well hate these ship designs, and hate them more as lock-box ships, for them they're both the only ways STO staff get more funds to make new content for us. Both content we want, and content we don't.

    The only person to blame here is "Star Wars Fan-boy wants to turn Trek into generic Sci-Fi to compete with Star Wars," Alex Kurtzman.

    I'm not being holier than thou and I know sometimes you have to do things to keep a crust of bread on the table...but I would quit before I had something that awful sullying my reputation as a designer. You've got to have some integrity.
  • truewarpertruewarper Member Posts: 929 Arc User
    kayajay wrote: »
    ricosakara wrote: »
    While I personally have nothing against these 32nd century ships like everyone else (I personally LOVE the Janeway and Kirk Classes that I fly, and am current waiting for both the Eisenberg and Saturn Classes to be made), I will say the UEDF Ship does look like both an Elephant AND a Tooth.

    I think we should name this ship the "Elephant's Tooth." =B

    On a continuing note, The designers are just following what they're told by the producers @ CBS, and they really have no choice. STO and other games are their money-to-pay-bills, so yeah.
    As much as well hate these ship designs, and hate them more as lock-box ships, for them they're both the only ways STO staff get more funds to make new content for us. Both content we want, and content we don't.

    The only person to blame here is "Star Wars Fan-boy wants to turn Trek into generic Sci-Fi to compete with Star Wars," Alex Kurtzman.

    I'm not being holier than thou and I know sometimes you have to do things to keep a crust of bread on the table...but I would quit before I had something that awful sullying my reputation as a designer. You've got to have some integrity.

    Integrity at the moment...is not around.
    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.
  • athan#5519 athan Member Posts: 78 Arc User
    STO should have laughed at CBS and said "Nah fam, we gonna just do another Vorgon ship instead."
  • gaevsmangaevsman Member Posts: 3,190 Arc User
    ricosakara wrote: »
    While I personally have nothing against these 32nd century ships like everyone else (I personally LOVE the Janeway and Kirk Classes that I fly, and am current waiting for both the Eisenberg and Saturn Classes to be made), I will say the UEDF Ship does look like both an Elephant AND a Tooth.

    I think we should name this ship the "Elephant's Tooth." =B

    On a continuing note, The designers are just following what they're told by the producers @ CBS, and they really have no choice. STO and other games are their money-to-pay-bills, so yeah.
    As much as well hate these ship designs, and hate them more as lock-box ships, for them they're both the only ways STO staff get more funds to make new content for us. Both content we want, and content we don't.

    The only person to blame here is "Star Wars Fan-boy wants to turn Trek into generic Sci-Fi to compete with Star Wars," Alex Kurtzman.

    Toothlefant!
    The forces of darkness are upon us!
This discussion has been closed.