> > > Hi Captains. Thank you for your patience! We've got our top Engineers checking in on the errors you are reporting. More updates as they become available, so watch this announcement section. < < <
UPDATE! We will be bringing down STO in 1hr 22min for emergency maintenance. ETA is 2 hrs (2AM) PDT. Details here.
Update! The queue is clear for now :) Thanks for your patience as we worked to get all players in. (Note: There may be small, sporadic queues as more players log in.)
Update! We are aware that some players are seeing an error upon login and are working to resolve this.
Jolan tru Captain!
Welcome to Legacy of Romulus!
If you have purchased a Legacy or Starter Pack, please see this thread for instructions on how to claim your items in-game. (Please see the yellow text in the linked thread for instructions on creating a Reman.)
If you have additional questions about the Legacy or Starter pack, please read this FAQ.
Thanks SO MUCH for all your support, and we'll see you in-game!
- The Star Trek Online Team
***Resolved Issues***
"Login failed for unknown reason" error
Missing additional character slot for current/ lapsed Gold Members
I think there's more that could be done while staying true to the saucer and nacelle sort of shindig. I think a ship with "over/under" nacelles and a nose mounted deflector could be pretty cool, sort of like a cross between a Stargazer and Excalibur in game, I'd imagine it'd work best as a science or escort ship.
But in the end, there is no "big mess" about those very simple rules. Especially when it comes to basic Starfleet Designs like the classic Federation Cruiser design, the core of Star Trek.
The mess in my view is that they decide when they rules should apply.
Oh I dunno...A bit totalitarian or whatever? :p By all means have the rules(still prefer to call them guidelines) but do have some consistency as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ebeneezergoode
I think there's more that could be done while staying true to the saucer and nacelle sort of shindig. I think a ship with "over/under" nacelles and a nose mounted deflector could be pretty cool, sort of like a cross between a Stargazer and Excalibur in game, I'd imagine it'd work best as a science or escort ship.
Then let's use the circular nacelle(s) of the D'Kyr!
/getting slight stress headpains
I think I don´t like you anymore. :p
The Vulcan version is actually a completely different way to generate a warp field than the dual nacelle method. Rademacher´s Ringship from the SotL calender is a great model to show us Earth´s early experiments with that propulsion method. They obviously went for the nacelles.
/getting slight stress headpains
I think I don´t like you anymore. :p
The Vulcan version is actually a completely different way to generate a warp field than the dual nacelle method. Rademacher´s Ringship from the SotL calender is a great model to show us Earth´s early experiments with that propulsion method. They obviously went for the nacelles.
Hate to tell you, but Mark Rademaker didn't create that concept. He simply brought an old Matt Jefferies concept to life.
I'd like to see Cryptic get back to doing things that people actually want, rather than setting themselves up as a Lottery Commission.
You, things like:
More New Ships and Ship Costumes, that don't come in grab bags, boxes or whatever.
More New Interiors (Properly Scaled of course)
More New Bridges (Properly Scaled of course)
More New Uniforms
More New Weapon Skins
More New Trophies and filling in the Old trophy gaps. (Ship Models for example)
If they are going to be so heavily focused on the C-Store, then for crying out loud, at least make things that people want, and not make them frickin lotto boxes.
Yes, let's have some 1 nacelle ships. And more 3 nacelle ships. And more 2 and 4 nacelle ships.
Actually Bob your wrong on that. He did not set those rules till sometime just before next gen came out. He actually athorized the Starfleet Technical manual back in like 71 or 72. in that book there where two single nacelle ship designs and a 3 nacelle design called the dreadnaught. hence the reason we refer to the gal x as a dreadnaught.
The Franz Joseph tech manual occupies an interesting place in Trek lore and canonicity. It's been 'officiallly' removed from canon and yet, (like the Animated Series) it remained in print for all this time. Aside from a few shoutouts to it in TMP (a dreadnought schematic appears when V'Ger is reading the ship's databanks, and the name and hull number of the Hermes-class scout USS Columbia are mentioned) it has not been referenced in any "official" Trek canon. This further muddies what is or is not canon and what is or is not 'official.'
I [snip]
As was pointed out before, a lot of the single-nacelle designs we're aware of were created pretty much just to fill up the starship wreckage at Wolf 359. They were kitbashes of store-bought models, and there was really only so much they could do there. One should really take those ships with a grain of salt.
No. You just can't take them with a grain of salt. Regardless of the reasons, they appear on screen however small or obscure. The fact that fans have gone to great lengths to view screen grabs of those scenes to tease out any detail of the wreck should tell you that it matters. Even after the show went off of the air. Fans went to conventions and talked with the art department folks about any details of those wrecks.