test content
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc

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

1235789

Comments

  • vedauwoovedauwoo Member Posts: 212 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.....

  • keepcalmchiveonkeepcalmchiveon Member Posts: 3,508 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.
    meh

  • paradox#7391 paradox Member Posts: 1,145 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: 1,145 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.
  • keepcalmchiveonkeepcalmchiveon Member Posts: 3,508 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.

    wont argue the aesthetics part, but in reality, this would have been a perfect fit for such a thing. slow movement, slow turn radius, carrier, support drones as well (shield and hull repairs), torp platforms, canon platforms.
    large radius support boosts, like the shield one it has, but also for hull healing. maybe larger and more effective grav wells, or similar.

    oh well. not gonna get it as a ship, still think it looks odd, but it was and is portrayed incorrectly. in my opinion, ymmv. (and obvious cryptics does vary...lol)
    meh

  • phoenixc#0738 phoenixc Member Posts: 3,881 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: 416 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.
  • corinthalascorinthalas Member Posts: 1,537 Arc User
    edited November 2021
    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.

    We don't know who is in charge of the ship designs. We know they're originating from CBS/Paramount. And that's it. Could be Kurtzman. Could be what he's given and told to work with (and maybe that bothers him or maybe it doesn't). Bureaucracy is like that. No one person is calling all the shots. Regardless, *WHOEVER* is designing these ships has no understanding of or appreciation for Star Trek. It's all a mess of greeble gobbledygook.
  • alcyoneserenealcyoneserene Member Posts: 2,404 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: 153 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: 887 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.
    SPACE---The Last and Great Frontier. A 12th-year journey
    49158602353_d7aa42e67a_w.jpg


  • athan#5519 athan Member Posts: 54 Arc User
    STO should have laughed at CBS and said "Nah fam, we gonna just do another Vorgon ship instead."
  • gaevsmangaevsman Member Posts: 3,096 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!
  • paradox#7391 paradox Member Posts: 1,145 Arc User
    edited November 2021
    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 know I would get a lot of flak for saying this, but I like Star Wars (Except for the awful sequel trillogy) and it's literally the farthest thing from Generic Sci-fi, like it or not Generic Sci-fi actually has more in common with Star Trek than it does with Star Wars, Star Wars is basically Medieval Fantasy but in Space.
  • phoenixc#0738 phoenixc Member Posts: 3,881 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 know I would get a lot of flak for saying this, but I like Star Wars (Except for the awful sequel trillogy) and it's literally the farthest thing from Generic Sci-fi, like it or not Generic Sci-fi actually has more in common with Star Trek than it does with Star Wars, Star Wars is basically Medieval Fantasy but in Space.

    I like Star Wars too, it is (or was before Disney got a hold of it) a great space opera. I don't think ricosakara was bashing Star Wars itself, just Abrams and Kurtzman making Star Trek a space opera too instead of soft sci-fi like it always was before 2009 (with a partial exception for the pre 2009 movies since they were a hybrid of sorts).

    And yes, Star Wars is not generic. It has a very distinct style of its own, the issue is a lot of generic TV shows and movies try to coat-tail on Star Wars's success and all use watered-down versions of that style so much that that stuff has become the go-to generic standard.

    It is an especially sore point with a lot of the older Star Trek fans that first Paramount's movie division hijacked the Phase II series and made all sorts of changes to try and cash in the success of Star Wars by making the movies more of a space opera than soft sci-fi (which TNG and the rest of the old series counterbalanced back to sci-fi).

    Then with all kinds of hype and fanfare about Star Trek returning, Abrams instead gutted any trace of soft sci-fi and went with a pure space opera romp, which a lot of the fanbase saw as a bait-and-switch (in fact some fans accused him of using ST:2009 as nothing but a demo to show that he could do Star Wars).

    And it has been that way ever since because Moonves wanted to coattail the success of the Kelvin movies up until then (Beyond was not out yet at the time DSC was greenlighted), and he hated traditional Star Trek, so he got Abrams's chief disciple Kurtzman to lead DSC after Fuller pulled out of it. And the ships (especially in DSC season three) mostly look like they would fit better in Star Wars, Transformers, Dark Matter, and Killjoys than in Trek. The flying rainforest looks like something from Macross 7 (without the metal covers that are usually open in the Macross stuff) more than anything else.
  • keepcalmchiveonkeepcalmchiveon Member Posts: 3,508 Arc User
    edited November 2021
    how big is this thing compared to the toilet bowl and others?
    meh

  • phoenixc#0738 phoenixc Member Posts: 3,881 Arc User
    edited November 2021
    how big is this thing compared to the toilet bowl and others?

    I doubt even CBS knows (or cares about) the answer to that one. Very few of the ships are shown in any way that is measurable on the screen, and they apparently do nothing whatsoever to keep any of the ships in scale to each other and none of their promotional illustrations show the ships at the same scale so they are useless as reference for that.

    Another example is a supposedly large ship that became measurable when caught in Discovery's tractor beam turns out to have been only ten meters long, which is obviously wrong. They plop the models in with whatever size makes them look the coolest without bothering to figure out what it should actually look like at whatever range they are at.
  • reyan01reyan01 Member Posts: 15,349 Arc User
    I don't know.... I mean, I'm not going to say I like it or anything..... but I will say that there are (32c) ships I dislike more than this.

    I mean, I find Book's ship (aka Kwejian Pilot Frigate) even more ridiculous and the perfect example of something that looks like it was ripped straight out of Star Wars.
    And the one with the 'keyhole' in the saucer looks pretty daft too.

    And as controversial as this opinion may be.... I think the Eisenberg class looks damn stupid too. Honestly - I can't help but feel that if the one we've seen hadn't been named the way it was everyone would be discussing how stupid it looks alongside the other designs they dislike. However, it seems like a few players/fans don't want to express an opinion like that because it was named in tribute. I, however, don't feel like saying that I think the design of a ship named in tribute of the late actor is stupid reflects on my thoughts about the late actor himself (whom I respected a great deal) at all.
    And I really don't think I'm wrong here - just watch; I guarantee you that there'll be an overwhelming number of Eisenberg class ships named 'USS Nog' when it does finally arrive. And not saying that's wrong - simply saying that it proves the point that the ship is 'popular' for being a tribute, not a sound ship design.

    I don't know - not trying to defend them or anything but I would argue that they needed to make something a bit different - they have 'Picard', 'Lower Decks' and 'Prodigy' to feature ship design elements we're more familiar with (heck, I think the USS Protostar is excellent).

    Eitherway - a disappointing element of this is that it seems like we're going to have threads here discussing how awful these 32c ship design are every time one appears in-game. As many have already said, most of them are in prize-boxes and are, therefore, pretty easy to 'ignore' anyway. If anything we should be grateful - if these things sell badly it might send a message that 'vocal minorities' on the forum and social media can't project.

  • fleetcaptain5#1134 fleetcaptain5 Member Posts: 2,960 Arc User
    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.

    The Legendary Sovereign has 4 tac consoles and a bonus universal one, so console-wise it's just as good.

    And honestly, who even needs 5 tac console slots? Especially today, with all the universal damage booster consoles that can be put in whatever slot you get for getting one less tac slot?
    [4:46] [Combat {self}] Your Haymaker deals 23337 (9049) Physical Damage(Critical) to Spawnmother

    [3/25 10:41][Combat (Self)]Your Haymaker deals 26187 (10692) Physical Damage(Critical) to Orinoco.
  • fleetcaptain5#1134 fleetcaptain5 Member Posts: 2,960 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.

    True, but in my opinion, that's just another reason to like it.

    Ships with clear weapon compartments like the Andorian pilot escorts are nice to have, but it's also nice to have ships that appear as if they're more than just that. I don't need each and every one of my ships to be flying weapons.

    So yeah, I just like it for what it is. A flying city/ecosystem/world thingy.
    [4:46] [Combat {self}] Your Haymaker deals 23337 (9049) Physical Damage(Critical) to Spawnmother

    [3/25 10:41][Combat (Self)]Your Haymaker deals 26187 (10692) Physical Damage(Critical) to Orinoco.
  • toraknutoraknu Member Posts: 78 Arc User
    i am sorry seing the picture and reading the text and
    i am not willing to give any money for such a joke of the designers... sorry

    damm jjverse schoud have an own seperatet part of the game and dont disturb us here

    make it as an sold extra part downloadable or create an own
    but not here in star trek.

    that is not my TIMELINE sorry
  • questeriusquesterius Member Posts: 7,715 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.

    It used to be, but after the update a while back it has made a comeback.
    While i am not a part of the DPS community i understand that command spec and torpedo boats rank high on the charts.
    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.
  • sirsitsalotsirsitsalot Member Posts: 2,530 Arc User
    You know, I do respect the Discovery creators for trying to come up with ship designs that are worlds beyond anything seen before, as we are dealing with the biggest time jump in Star Trek history... 700 years...

    BUT...

    These ships with detached segments are just horrible looking. Maybe, tech-wise, the detached segments have been made practical so it takes more than a power loss to cause a ship to just fly apart, but it just looks horrible.

    But hey... whatever... I love the sovereign class design. Some people hate it. So to each their own...

    I just wish that, assuming the far future is where Discovery will call home for the rest of its run, that Crypric would do a separate branch of the game for that era and keep everything from that era IN that era. Not because I think that Discovery doesn't belong in Star Trek, but because the stuff from that far future era does not belong in the 25th century. But if they did something like that, that era would likely be the only era that gets updates, because Cryptic cannot be bothered to create multiple content branches. Not enough available talent...

    Cryptic Studios CAN'T
    because
    Perfect World Entertainment WON'T
  • phoenixc#0738 phoenixc Member Posts: 3,881 Arc User
    edited November 2021
    You know, I do respect the Discovery creators for trying to come up with ship designs that are worlds beyond anything seen before, as we are dealing with the biggest time jump in Star Trek history... 700 years...

    BUT...

    These ships with detached segments are just horrible looking. Maybe, tech-wise, the detached segments have been made practical so it takes more than a power loss to cause a ship to just fly apart, but it just looks horrible.

    But hey... whatever... I love the sovereign class design. Some people hate it. So to each their own...

    I just wish that, assuming the far future is where Discovery will call home for the rest of its run, that Crypric would do a separate branch of the game for that era and keep everything from that era IN that era. Not because I think that Discovery doesn't belong in Star Trek, but because the stuff from that far future era does not belong in the 25th century. But if they did something like that, that era would likely be the only era that gets updates, because Cryptic cannot be bothered to create multiple content branches. Not enough available talent...

    Some of it might be improved if the devs made alternate era versions like they did with some of the DSC season one and two ships like the Nimitz/Europa classes or the Hernandez/Somerville and others.

    They would still have the problem of coming up with plausible explanations for all the idiotic holes in the ships since in space they would not act like the light-and-air shafts in ground buildings since there is no sky to diffuse the light in a usable way in space, and no air, but at least for science ships they could use the quarantinable sections excuse.

    For instance, the Toilet Seat could be spun as a warship and part-time tug that carries round or saucer-shaped cargo pods (or even various ship saucers for emergency replacements or hauling saucersep survivors home along with the saucer between the inner systems and the frontier, or even for placing station sections in forward areas so they don't have to spend the time to build-in-place).

    Less plausible, but it could have been built around a ring accelerator for some reason (like for instance some kind of tokamak-like alternate way of handling matter/antimatter reactions after the Burn), or maybe as part of some kind of exotic particle weapon that requires a huge accelerator ring but there was not enough else to justify enclosing the ring in a saucer that big.
  • paradox#7391 paradox Member Posts: 1,145 Arc User
    edited November 2021
    toraknu wrote: »
    i am sorry seing the picture and reading the text and
    i am not willing to give any money for such a joke of the designers... sorry

    damm jjverse schoud have an own seperatet part of the game and dont disturb us here

    make it as an sold extra part downloadable or create an own
    but not here in star trek.

    that is not my TIMELINE sorry

    JJverse has it's own separate part of the game and it's the mission called Terminal Expanse Daniels pretty much calls it another Dimension, the Original Timeline doesn't exist anymore due to First Contact messing up the timeline, Both ENT and Discovery take place in the timeline where Picard and Crew travelled back in time and met Zefram Cochrane and as a result the new timeline rewrote over the old one. Besides if it was in JJ Trek's universe Planet Vulcan would be a pile of rubble, rather than being renamed as something as stupid as Ni'Var.
  • phoenixc#0738 phoenixc Member Posts: 3,881 Arc User
    edited November 2021
    toraknu wrote: »
    i am sorry seing the picture and reading the text and
    i am not willing to give any money for such a joke of the designers... sorry

    damm jjverse schoud have an own seperatet part of the game and dont disturb us here

    make it as an sold extra part downloadable or create an own
    but not here in star trek.

    that is not my TIMELINE sorry

    JJverse has it's own separate part of the game and it's the mission called Terminal Expanse Daniels pretty much calls it another Dimension, the Original Timeline doesn't exist anymore due to First Contact messing up the timeline, Both ENT and Discovery take place in the timeline where Picard and Crew travelled back in time and met Zefram Cochrane and as a result the new timeline rewrote over the old one.

    Technically it would have to have been even earlier than that, Zefram Cocrane invented warp on the Alpha Centauri colony (which was probably settled in "fast impulse" ships capable of making the trip in five or six years) in TOS, not an old missile silo in Montana, so the timeline was changed to some degree even before Picard and company got there.

    Also, the TOS timeline was set enough to naturally flow back to normal if a distortion was fixed as shown several times during the series, so it is probably not overwritten so much as branched similar to Kelvin in relation to the new "Prime" that CBS uses.
  • raijinmeister#1931 raijinmeister Member Posts: 153 Arc User
    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.

    The Legendary Sovereign has 4 tac consoles and a bonus universal one, so console-wise it's just as good.

    And honestly, who even needs 5 tac console slots? Especially today, with all the universal damage booster consoles that can be put in whatever slot you get for getting one less tac slot?

    The legendary, the one almost nobody has because it's locked to one of these overpriced packs that is the way of Cryptic to scam players into buying pseudo T7 ships after they saying how they regret making people buying T6 ships? That one?
    Who needs 5 tac consoles? Well, looks like Flying Elephant-Pig Space table needs it.
  • keepcalmchiveonkeepcalmchiveon Member Posts: 3,508 Arc User
    edited November 2021
    when did they say that?
    saying how they regret making people buying T6 ships?
    meh

  • jonsillsjonsills Member Posts: 9,597 Arc User
    when did they say that?
    saying how they regret making people buying T6 ships?
    What, now you want people to start citing sources? Poor Phoenix is going to be typing for the next month! :lol:
    Lorna-Wing-sig.png
Sign In or Register to comment.