Star Trek Online thread

[Darkthunder]

Reading comprehension is a valuable thing. I suggest you re-read my last post. Better yet, i'll quote my own post and the section I meant for you to re-read:

Other than having 4 nacelles, they have virtually nothing in common.

Calling the "obvious" Cheyenne Class the "Constellation Class" is a gross error in judgment as far as i'm concerned. Bad enough that they call a custom Akira Class, the "Oslo Class", or a custom Constitution Class, the "Excalibur Class".

[Dalek]

And clearly you did not read what I said.

Well, if they have nothing in common, why did Cryptic call the Cheyenne the Constellation?

I didn't call it a TNG Constellation. I'm saying that Cryptic made a mistake in calling it the Constellation.

[Darkthunder]

On the part about Cryptic making a mistake, that much we both agree on.

What I meant about your previous post, was your assumption that "If they have nothing in common...". I said OTHER THAN, the 4 nacelles (which is obvious commonality), OTHER THAN that aspect to the design, there are virtually no similarities to the two classes. Do you understand it more clearly this time around?

Or shall I draw a map, and connect the dots too?

[baz1701]

Well I see where Dalek is coming from, it may fit the profile of a Constellation class but it is clearly to extensive a change for a refitted ship. So yes indeed why call it a Constellation class when in true Star Trek fashion Starfleet would have come up with a new class name.

for example the Nebula class should have carried the Miranda label and the Galaxy should have been a Constitution class.

Calling this ship a Constellation Class is plan lazy.

[Darkthunder]

Calling this ship a Constellation Class is plan lazy.

Exactly my point. Thanks for making it

[NeoSilverThorn]

Calling this ship a Constellation Class is plan lazy.

Exactly my point. Thanks for making it

WE GET IT ALREADY!  Lord almighty...

[Barihawk]

I'd like to know where people are getting the idea that this is a "Constellation Class" starship. I'm looking at the STO pages and there's no title for the picture, or anything saying Constellation.

[Nebula]

It was stated in the PC gamer magazine.... IMO it was an error with the writer of the article....

[NeoSilverThorn]

It was stated in the PC gamer magazine.... IMO it was an error with the writer of the article....
[/quote

Just looks a lot like a Constellation; you don't see a lot of ships with quad nacelles in that particular assembly.  Suppose it'd be easy to, say, mix the two classes up.

[Darkthunder]

WE GET IT ALREADY!  Lord almighty...

#1: Do not use thy lords name in vein (although i'm an atheist so I don't really give a crap about those things)

#2: As far as I know, Freedom of Speech still applies and unless i'm in violation of any rules, I am perfectly free to express my opinions.

Lastly... there are atleast 3 completely distinct ship classes that utilize the "quad nacelle" design:

Constellation Class
Cheyenne Class
Prometheus Class

Neither of these can "easily" be confused for any of the other. They all have "at least" 4 nacelles, not counting the extra nacelles during MVAM on the Prometheus. But the similarities between the 3 classes stops there.

In short: Whoever wrote the article, or whoever came up with the idea for the Cheyenne Class to be a "Constellation Class", doesn't know diddly-do about what they are doing. If it was an error on the part of a magazine writer, then it's an obvious "non trekkie" who has written the article. Any "trekkie" with atleast enough attention span to see the difference between two distinct ship classes, would never make the mistake to confuse one for the other.


In conclusion: Can we lay off with all the name calling and angry attitudes toward one and other, and perhaps segway back onto topic at some point? If it's official that STO is calling their Cheyenne Class, the "Constellation Class", it's just one more strike against it in my book. I'm already on the fence regarding if I like what i'm seeing, and completely boycotting the game. What i've seen and read about the game, does give me quite a few concerns. Some of which I hope will be rectified pre-launch, and some most likely will never get changed.

[Tuskin38]

I didn't notice it wasn't a Constellation class until one of you pointed it out and I actually looked at it again.

Besides there are different types of Trekkies, there are ones who just watch the show, and there are the ones who dive into the mythos among others. He maybe a casual fan, who noticed the ships was similar.

[Barihawk]

I am fairly sure that Cryptic is calling it the Cheyenne considering I've read the forum posts where people are nitpicking impulse engine placement (wtf...we saw a blown up version less than an inch wide at the corner of a screen...get a life people) but a Cryptic employee said "Cheyenne."

Take it out of your crusade against them, the magazine got it wrong, cryptic got it right. And it's even a hundred times better than any Cheyenne created as a mod for any Trek game.

Edit: Only five times better than the Excalbur version I was just pointed to, although Cryptics engine details are better in my opinion. This is perhaps Cryptic's best looking ship so far.

[Dalek]

I may have to have the Cheyenne a my ship...it is very pretty.

[Phaser]

I love the explanation given by the STO peoples as to why Klingon ships look like ships from ENT:

"It doesn't look like it, but the Klingon Raptor class is actually a 22nd century design from Enterprise. We solve that problem by pretending it didnt happen..."

 

Awesome.

Ooh, this is pretty.

I was thinking 'Klingon' with those buildings until I saw the UFP logo.

Wow.  Now that's a press shot!  That makes the game look amazing!

Wow, the cheyenne class has never looked better.

Agreed!  They actually made a ship look better than usual with this game!

[Darkthunder]

Don't think i've seen this one before.

[086gf]

Yeah, that ones new. http://trekmovie.com/2009/09/20/sto-update-new-shots-ranks-progression-details-awards-more/

New Game details: Ranks & progression explained ? not all via combat
There have been two new updates to STO?s Ask Cryptic. While the past several updates have been about combat these new updates talk about player progression. According to the update the following ranks will be available at launch:

?Lieutenant
?Lieutenant Commander
?Commander
?Captain
?Admiral

Each new rank will allow you to have more and more skills. Quoting this section of the article really clarifies the skill style:

When you think of progressing in Star Trek Online, it?s best to picture an inverted triangle. You begin the game with broad skills available to you ? the wide part of the triangle ? and as you progress in rank, the skills you select become more specialized as the triangle narrows to a point.

Cryptic also explained how you earn you skill points:

They?re primarily rewarded by mission completion and kills, but there are other ways you can gain skills, too. There are ?missions? like ?Protect the Ambassador? or ?Explore this Sector? or ?Discover this many systems/special anomalies,? which don?t feel like a traditional MMO mission. So it?s missions, but the missions aren?t just ?go here and kill 10 guys? or ?go here and clean out this dungeon.? Star Trek missions are about exploration and doing things. You go out and look for things and go on Tours of Duty, which require you to go out and discover things, or explore sectors of space.

While combat will still be a big part of STO this sounds like some individuals will be able to take some time off from blowing up Federation or Klingon cruisers. The entire Ask Cryptic can be found here and here.

[NeoSilverThorn]

Don't think i've seen this one before.

Can't say I have, either.

[Darkthunder]

Yet another botched ship class has been revealed: The Discovery Class (aka Custom Intrepid Class)

http://www.startrekonline.com/ships/discovery

Looks like crap tbh. Much like most of their custom designs that have been given "new" class names.

[Kirk]

Yeah, I don't get that design at all. How could anyone perceive that as looking good.

[Ryles]

I'm more disappointed by this: "Voyager successfully completed a 70,000 light year journey with no access to Starfleet supplies or facilities. Its success made the Intrepid class the gold standard for deep space explorer ships."