Fantastic Game - Suggestions

posted on November 23rd, 2013, 5:54 pm

well you're alone then. everyone else has agreed on 4 eras. ENT, TOS, TMP (movies 1-6 and early times in 7) and TNG era (TNG pilot to Nemesis).

You forgot the Lost Era (TLE) covering the time between the TMP and TNG eras.

there's a reason it's called lost: never shown in canon. it's not really an era, per se, TLE is just a convenient misnomer to describe a gap between defined eras. there's also another lost era between ENT and TOS that's even bigger.

There is at least one canon design originating from there so mentioning it seemed prudent.

posted on November 23rd, 2013, 11:39 pm

Well I don't actually think that because I see the eras in their design lineage because of the recurrent themes that go through the ship designs, you have;

well you're alone then. everyone else has agreed on 4 eras. ENT, TOS, TMP (movies 1-6 and early times in 7) and TNG era (TNG pilot to Nemesis).

and this era scheme does match ship designs, TOS and TMP era ships are easy to categorise. TNG era ships all have red bussard collectors with blue nacelle glows and more windows on the hull. even TMP ships like the miranda got the blue glows added to them when DS9 switched to CGI. phasers were blue in TOS, red in TMP, and finally stayed orange for all of TNG. photon torps also made the change from red to orange from TMP to TNG.

The defiant clearly belongs in TNG era as it was built during the years TNG was set. sisko worked on the design of the defiant before he transferred to DS9, it was only shelved when the borg didn't immediately come back for more after BoBW. starfleet apparently assumed the borg had just forgotten about the cube they lost.

DS9 and VOY are clearly part of TNG era.

Or maybe the Defiant just isn't the wonder ship you think it is. It also had massive design flaws but lets not talk about that eh? Lets pretend that didn't happen.

posted on November 24th, 2013, 12:09 am

That post is about starship design lineage and eras, the Defiant hate is out of place here. Wrong thread?

posted on November 24th, 2013, 1:04 am

...
Or maybe the Defiant just isn't the wonder ship you think it is. It also had massive design flaws but lets not talk about that eh? Lets pretend that didn't happen.

Which was just meant to be for the story arc, to show off how insanely strong the Defiant is (too much power for such a little ship), as well as to establish O'Brian as some sort of Geordi like engineer, who saves the day.

Or with some technobabble: the first Defiant was a prototype, too early in use due the Dominion threat, O'Brian fixes it (who else), and Starfleet realizes "oh, now it works, let's build some more"
(that is actually canon)


I kinda like the 4 Era separation. Is there actually anything written down for the "first lost era" between ENT and TOS?

posted on November 24th, 2013, 3:42 am

Diamond, why are you so fixated on hating the Defiant? You love the Galaxy and that's fine and all but you hate the Defiant because it was made buildable where the Galaxy isn't. You point out that the ship has flaws, which is common knowledge and talking about how it isn't a great ship. Frankly when looking at federation ships it really isn't a great ship, it was built for a single purpose, combat and defeating the Borg. Its a powerful battleship and its exactly where it belongs on the tech tree. No one here is ignoring the flaws the ship had, but by the time DS9 ended, most of them were already fixed in one way or another. A good example is the mirror episode where the terrans kidnapped Sisko to help solve some of the core design issues the Defiant had. It wasn't a perfect ship and no on here has said that, but it is unique among federation ships, its a dedicated warship period. All I see here is you crying because your favorite ship isn't buildable, too bad, that's how it is. If you don't like it don't play the game, or make your own game with a OP buildable Galaxy. I really don't know what your here to achieve. The devs don't have to cater to your whims, its their mod, they can do what they please.

I also find it ironic how you are so caught up in telling everyone how wrong they are about the Galaxy, but what what makes you any more correct then anyone else here? How are you any different then someone here who may feel the same way about the Defiant that you do about the Galaxy? Its personal preference, you cant come here and dictate youre correct and everyone else is wrong when youre talking about opinions and assumptions.

posted on November 24th, 2013, 10:00 am

Or maybe the Defiant just isn't the wonder ship you think it is. It also had massive design flaws but lets not talk about that eh? Lets pretend that didn't happen.

are you high? if you'd read my post you'd have noticed i didn't mention the strength of the defiant. i mentioned the time it was built. hate the defiant all you like, it doesn't change the fact that it was built during TNG the show.

I kinda like the 4 Era separation. Is there actually anything written down for the "first lost era" between ENT and TOS?

there's nothing "written down" in canon for either of the sandwiched eras we have no info for. ENT to TOS and TMP to TNG. literally all we have from either era is the ambassador, which fits closer to TNG than TMP, and the constellation which fits closer to TMP than TNG.

it's possible that in those 80 years TMP designs continued for a while, then when the ambas was built, TNG design took over. the new orleans, nebula and the graveyard ships from BoBW probably pre-date the galaxy, yet share its looks, so the galaxy probably didn't start its design lineage.

the ENT to TOS gap is huge, and so many things could go there. there's time for several design ideas. shields and phasers had to be developed and become common in starfleet. and the UFP had to more formally form, with the member planets' fleets getting absorbed into starfleet.

posted on November 25th, 2013, 1:55 pm

Sorry but the Prometheus, Intrepid and Defiant are NOT TNG-era ships so I really think you should take that back.

I can't say how LHoffman defines it, but I think of "TNG era" as encompassing the period between "Encounter at Farpoint" and "Nemesis". As these bookends of the timespan are adventures starring Picard & co, it seems reasonable to me to use "TNG era" as a term that encompasses all of the screen material set in the 24th century.

Sorry... gone for the weekend. Missed a lot of action it seems.

Yes, that is how I would and do define TNG era. Thank you for explaining that MH.

You can't really define Star Trek eras based solely on ship designs. While there is a general patter in that, it is not absolute. And it will fall apart at times, like in Diamond's "MOV Era". Plus it makes more sense to define based on some sort of temporal parameter and not a visual one. TNG was the first of the 'next generation' of Star Trek shows. TNG, DS9 and VOY are all roughly concurrent; same time, same technology same problems in the Galaxy. Actions in each show and movie affect or are related to actions in another show. The writers didn't include those tie-ins on a weekly basis, but they are there. And yeah, like somebody said, it is only a time period of about 14 years for all three shows/movies. Definitely all the same era.

Separating eras by ship-types does a disservice to your argument for the Galaxy still being relevant as a buildable class, Diamond. If we can follow the pattern and imply that each era's ships are more advanced and more capable than the last, and that they no longer build vessels of previous eras, ... you can follow my logic. Well, no. I suppose I should not assume that based on previous experience here.

[086gf]

posted on December 4th, 2013, 7:26 pm

Last edited by 086gf on December 4th, 2013, 8:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Or maybe the Defiant just isn't the wonder ship you think it is. It also had massive design flaws but lets not talk about that eh? Lets pretend that didn't happen.

Your avatar alone makes it impossible to take you seriously. Your posts arn't helping either lol.

posted on December 4th, 2013, 7:47 pm

Or maybe the Defiant just isn't the wonder ship you think it is. It also had massive design flaws but lets not talk about that eh? Lets pretend that didn't happen.

Your avatar alone makes it impossible to take you seriously.

Yes, because the donator with a My Little Pony Avatar is really the paragon on seriousness. Unfortunatly, those sick little bronies get everywhere these days. So if you think I'm wierd, then him/her has already got that down in spades.

posted on December 4th, 2013, 8:04 pm

Yes, because the donator with a My Little Pony Avatar is really the paragon on seriousness. Unfortunatly, those sick little bronies get everywhere these days. So if you think I'm wierd, then him/her has already got that down in spades.

you just jealous of my swagger.

but i actually partially agree with your point, your avatar shouldn't be how people judge you, you do a perfectly fine job of making yourself look foolish in your posts.

posted on December 4th, 2013, 8:48 pm

Yes, because the donator with a My Little Pony Avatar is really the paragon on seriousness.

Ponies are srs bzns.

(As is a 7' Viking-esque assassin who's as likely to bake you a muffin as slip a knife into your kidneys, and I oh so wish I could find the original picture I excerpted the head from as it's the only portrait of any MMO character I've ever created).

posted on December 4th, 2013, 10:25 pm

Yes, because the donator with a My Little Pony Avatar is really the paragon on seriousness. Unfortunatly, those sick little bronies get everywhere these days. So if you think I'm wierd, then him/her has already got that down in spades.

You'd think a Trekkie would know better than to make a post like that...

posted on December 4th, 2013, 10:27 pm

Not sure, since Myles is using that "my little pony" avatar, he definitely lost a lot of credibility.
(Besides his refusal to actually play any FOPS game)

posted on December 5th, 2013, 8:17 am

Yes, because the donator with a My Little Pony Avatar is really the paragon on seriousness. Unfortunatly, those sick little bronies get everywhere these days. So if you think I'm wierd, then him/her has already got that down in spades.

you just jealous of my swagger.

but i actually partially agree with your point, your avatar shouldn't be how people judge you, you do a perfectly fine job of making yourself look foolish in your posts.

Says the Bronie... Now queue the persecution complex that so many bronies have. "Why are you hating on me!?", "Why is "Friendship not Magic?".... Eh maybe because you have no identity apart from some TV show meant for 5 year olds?

That's all I need to say...

Can we get back on topic please?

posted on December 5th, 2013, 12:28 pm

You'd think a Trekkie would know better than to make a post like that...

yeah it is pot calling the kettle black.

Not sure, since Myles is using that "my little pony" avatar, he definitely lost a lot of credibility.
(Besides his refusal to actually play any FOPS game)

i'll be back when i get the chance. i finally fixed my computer problems, but i've been playing a lot of controller based games to ease my RSI.

Can we get back on topic please?

nope.bzn