Galaxy events aren't a problem as long as you have 30 minutes to click during the weekend (there's a steam version of the game after all) as long as you're organized. That's what it took me last time.
The issue with faction events is that it's a pain for newer, low spending and more casual players because of a limited roster, it's also very time consuming as you have to have perfect attendance for 4 days (which is insane) and it lacks community rewards. Why you would subject you to that over 30 minutes of clicking I don't know, but what I've learnt from my time here is that if you're not a high spender your feedback goes to the trash bin so why bother, it's not going to change, pay to win players asked for it and the devs delivered.
Galaxy events aren't a problem as long as you have 30 minutes to click during the weekend (there's a steam version of the game after all) as long as you're organized. That's what it took me last time.
The issue with faction events is that it's a pain for newer, low spending and more casual players because of a limited roster, it's also very time consuming as you have to have perfect attendance for 4 days (which is insane) and it lacks community rewards. Why you would subject you to that over 30 minutes of clicking I don't know, but what I've learnt from my time here is that if you're not a high spender your feedback goes to the trash bin so why bother, it's not going to change, pay to win players asked for it and the devs delivered.
I dispute that 30 min is going to get you to clear all thresholds on a galaxy event or make top 1500. Unless you are suggesting just getting to 130k and leaving everything else. Galaxies require chrons which newer players are often short on. Also, the best way to get chrons is thru voyages which is completely dependent on having very good crew you cannot use for anything else while they are voyaging.
Galaxy events aren't a problem as long as you have 30 minutes to click during the weekend (there's a steam version of the game after all) as long as you're organized. That's what it took me last time.
The issue with faction events is that it's a pain for newer, low spending and more casual players because of a limited roster, it's also very time consuming as you have to have perfect attendance for 4 days (which is insane) and it lacks community rewards. Why you would subject you to that over 30 minutes of clicking I don't know, but what I've learnt from my time here is that if you're not a high spender your feedback goes to the trash bin so why bother, it's not going to change, pay to win players asked for it and the devs delivered.
I dispute that 30 min is going to get you to clear all thresholds on a galaxy event or make top 1500. Unless you are suggesting just getting to 130k and leaving everything else. Galaxies require chrons which newer players are often short on. Also, the best way to get chrons is thru voyages which is completely dependent on having very good crew you cannot use for anything else while they are voyaging.
Saving chronitons for the usual command/dip/sec galaxy event crew to get to 6h voyages is how I started. The first ones are rather costly but it's doable. 130k with the community rewards gets you all of the useful stuff, anything else is either too expensive or here for your own ego. There's some use for a voyage revive but unless you're consistently hitting 8h the odds of you getting interesting chains is rather slim.
I've airlocked a few Disco crew (off-hand, Pike and Landry), but with the volume of them in the game now, I'll still be plenty deep.
The event line-up is one of those things that DB simply cannot win. There are no perfect mixes. Just mixes that person A likes, and mixes that person B dislikes.
Pike is actually from TOS.
We're talking about the Disco version of Pike.
I kept all my Gold Disco wins from the Events, so I have about 26 crew ready for the Faction Events. About 2/3 of them golds. Most of the purples are frozen, and I appreciate the heads up on the crew roster so I don't actually have to thaw anyone from the freezer!
I find it interesting that some people find the Idea of time crystals, amongst other things, a reason to deride Discovery yet are quite happy with concept of a being (looking at you Q) capable of anything at the snap of the fingers.
I think your point is a good one; however, I find the difference for me is whether or not I’m willing to suspend my disbelief.
For example, right now I’m re-watching Next Gen, and I’m struck with just how many plot lines are hung together with ridiculous scenario A, or deus ex machina B. But if we are willing to suspend our disbelief, where Next Gen shines is the character moments, moral dilemmas, and storytelling that the (often-times) illogical frameworks set-up.
Did Q-Pid have a ridiculous set up to get the crew to Nottingham Forest? It did, but once the crew got there, it was a great little romp! Add in a fantastic, morally ambiguous guest star (Vash), and John de Lancie chewing the scenery (magnificently as usual) and you have a recipe for a fun episode that people will enjoy without thinking too hard about.
This illustrates the point I’m about to make: if you’re going to introduce a McGuffin to advance the plot, you have to make sure it fits with the general theme (a ridiculous McGuffin is okay for a silly story, not so much for a dramatic one, and vice versa). You also don’t want your McGuffin to be too attention grabbing. You want your McGuffin to advance the story, not be so jarring that it pulls people out of the narrative.
You also have to make sure that the story you’re telling is good enough that people are willing to overlook the McGuffin. A fantastic story means your audience will forgive and overlook a lot. A mediocre story, on the other hand, calls everything into question.
So the criticism about the time crystals is not about the time crystals per se. It’s about whether the time crystals were a suitable McGuffin, and whether the story they were telling was good enough to overlook the logical inconsistency of using them.
I agree on that. That's probably one of the main reasons why I loved season 1 and was disappointed by season 2. I'm not disputing the fact that season 1 didn't have a strong Trek vibe, that it was very dark or that the Klingons looked weird, but in the context of the world that the writers created, everything they showed us worked and appeared plausible. It had a very consistent tone and atmosphere (except for the last two episodes).
Season 2 had way too many moments where I missed that and the time crystals may have been one of them, although there were other things that bothered me more.
But I guess it's also subjective to some degree, what we're willing to believe while we're watching the show and what not.
And it's not like previous Trek shows never had this sort of problem. The fact that DSC has fewer episodes and only one story-arc for every season just makes it more apparent (and maybe worse, since one of those moments can influence how people feel about an entire season).
I find it interesting that some people find the Idea of time crystals, amongst other things, a reason to deride Discovery yet are quite happy with concept of a being (looking at you Q) capable of anything at the snap of the fingers.
I think your point is a good one; however, I find the difference for me is whether or not I’m willing to suspend my disbelief.
For example, right now I’m re-watching Next Gen, and I’m struck with just how many plot lines are hung together with ridiculous scenario A, or deus ex machina B. But if we are willing to suspend our disbelief, where Next Gen shines is the character moments, moral dilemmas, and storytelling that the (often-times) illogical frameworks set-up.
Did Q-Pid have a ridiculous set up to get the crew to Nottingham Forest? It did, but once the crew got there, it was a great little romp! Add in a fantastic, morally ambiguous guest star (Vash), and John de Lancie chewing the scenery (magnificently as usual) and you have a recipe for a fun episode that people will enjoy without thinking too hard about.
This illustrates the point I’m about to make: if you’re going to introduce a McGuffin to advance the plot, you have to make sure it fits with the general theme (a ridiculous McGuffin is okay for a silly story, not so much for a dramatic one, and vice versa). You also don’t want your McGuffin to be too attention grabbing. You want your McGuffin to advance the story, not be so jarring that it pulls people out of the narrative.
You also have to make sure that the story you’re telling is good enough that people are willing to overlook the McGuffin. A fantastic story means your audience will forgive and overlook a lot. A mediocre story, on the other hand, calls everything into question.
So the criticism about the time crystals is not about the time crystals per se. It’s about whether the time crystals were a suitable McGuffin, and whether the story they were telling was good enough to overlook the logical inconsistency of using them.
I agree on that. That's probably one of the main reasons why I loved season 1 and was disappointed by season 2. I'm not disputing the fact that season 1 didn't have a strong Trek vibe, that it was very dark or that the Klingons looked weird, but in the context of the world that the writers created, everything they showed us worked and appeared plausible. It had a very consistent tone and atmosphere (except for the last two episodes).
Season 2 had way too many moments where I missed that and the time crystals may have been one of them, although there were other things that bothered me more.
But I guess it's also subjective to some degree, what we're willing to believe while we're watching the show and what not.
And it's not like previous Trek shows never had this sort of problem. The fact that DSC has fewer episodes and only one story-arc for every season just makes it more apparent (and maybe worse, since one of those moments can influence how people feel about an entire season).
Hmm, I liked season 2 of Discovery more than season 1. I felt there was good character development, an interesting mystery, and I thought Anson Mount Pike was great. I loved tying in Pike and learning more of who he was. I will agree that there is less science and more fantasy feel in Discovery compared to TNG but all the trek series fall short of TNG when it comes to science. Every trek series has pros and cons. TNG was good but honestly, how many times did they cheat by saying the deflector dish could magically do something else that we had never seen it do before? It could apparently be configured to do anything necessary for the crisis. TNG started to get into a rut where they were doing the same episode over and over. Run into an anomally, get the ship trapped by it, almost die but geordie has some last second solution. Discovery is less formulaic with lots of different story avenues. I will admit that it seems like even the writers don't always know where the show is going but it gets there in the end. I also feel that Discovery characters are allowed to evolve and change and as such have more depth than many characters in the other treks.
I find it interesting that some people find the Idea of time crystals, amongst other things, a reason to deride Discovery yet are quite happy with concept of a being (looking at you Q) capable of anything at the snap of the fingers.
I think your point is a good one; however, I find the difference for me is whether or not I’m willing to suspend my disbelief.
For example, right now I’m re-watching Next Gen, and I’m struck with just how many plot lines are hung together with ridiculous scenario A, or deus ex machina B. But if we are willing to suspend our disbelief, where Next Gen shines is the character moments, moral dilemmas, and storytelling that the (often-times) illogical frameworks set-up.
Did Q-Pid have a ridiculous set up to get the crew to Nottingham Forest? It did, but once the crew got there, it was a great little romp! Add in a fantastic, morally ambiguous guest star (Vash), and John de Lancie chewing the scenery (magnificently as usual) and you have a recipe for a fun episode that people will enjoy without thinking too hard about.
This illustrates the point I’m about to make: if you’re going to introduce a McGuffin to advance the plot, you have to make sure it fits with the general theme (a ridiculous McGuffin is okay for a silly story, not so much for a dramatic one, and vice versa). You also don’t want your McGuffin to be too attention grabbing. You want your McGuffin to advance the story, not be so jarring that it pulls people out of the narrative.
You also have to make sure that the story you’re telling is good enough that people are willing to overlook the McGuffin. A fantastic story means your audience will forgive and overlook a lot. A mediocre story, on the other hand, calls everything into question.
So the criticism about the time crystals is not about the time crystals per se. It’s about whether the time crystals were a suitable McGuffin, and whether the story they were telling was good enough to overlook the logical inconsistency of using them.
I agree on that. That's probably one of the main reasons why I loved season 1 and was disappointed by season 2. I'm not disputing the fact that season 1 didn't have a strong Trek vibe, that it was very dark or that the Klingons looked weird, but in the context of the world that the writers created, everything they showed us worked and appeared plausible. It had a very consistent tone and atmosphere (except for the last two episodes).
Season 2 had way too many moments where I missed that and the time crystals may have been one of them, although there were other things that bothered me more.
But I guess it's also subjective to some degree, what we're willing to believe while we're watching the show and what not.
And it's not like previous Trek shows never had this sort of problem. The fact that DSC has fewer episodes and only one story-arc for every season just makes it more apparent (and maybe worse, since one of those moments can influence how people feel about an entire season).
Hmm, I liked season 2 of Discovery more than season 1. I felt there was good character development, an interesting mystery, and I thought Anson Mount Pike was great. I loved tying in Pike and learning more of who he was. I will agree that there is less science and more fantasy feel in Discovery compared to TNG but all the trek series fall short of TNG when it comes to science. Every trek series has pros and cons. TNG was good but honestly, how many times did they cheat by saying the deflector dish could magically do something else that we had never seen it do before? It could apparently be configured to do anything necessary for the crisis. TNG started to get into a rut where they were doing the same episode over and over. Run into an anomally, get the ship trapped by it, almost die but geordie has some last second solution. Discovery is less formulaic with lots of different story avenues. I will admit that it seems like even the writers don't always know where the show is going but it gets there in the end. I also feel that Discovery characters are allowed to evolve and change and as such have more depth than many characters in the other treks.
I agree on the character development and on the fact that Pike was a refreshing change after Lorca. And I liked the mystery plot very much. Also, the fact that they gave some of the characters a chance to shine and have their own plot-lines. And Burnham's family stuff, which was much better than I expected.
But the things that bothered me were not so much the weird science stuff (there's plenty of that in every Trek show, I think) as the fact that sometimes the plot and dialogues felt "crafted" or even forced. It was as if I could hear the writers in the writers' room say "hey, we haven't had a joke in 10 minutes, let's add one here!" or "this episode has all the feelings except for sadness, let's kill off a secondary character in a pointless way!". Sorry for the sarcasm, it's that it's difficult to explain. It was often clear where the show was going with the characters and what points it was trying to make and I don't like that. There was lots of exposition. And I think that that made certain other aspects that marschalling mentioned stand out more, or at least for me it had that effect, because I was less immersed in it and so I paid more attention to the "technical" aspects of the writing and to the logic of what moved the plot forward. If I can see the strings, then I expect that to be some sort of challenge and an enjoyable experience in itself. I guess it was that way for those who predicted all the plot twists in season one, for example. In season 2, it just pulled me out of the fiction.
To make one example of what I mean,
L'Rell's baby, that just appeared out of nowhere with no forshadowing whatsoever, because it was a quick way to get the story where they wanted to take it.
Also, TNG has a different, lighter tone and doesn't take itself very seriously a lot of the time, so those things don't stand out that much. And the fact that in DSC the whole season has one plot-line also has an impact. If something like that, a deus ex machina or a very apparent plot device, happens in a self-contained episode, it's relevant only to that episode. If it happens in a DSC season, and you notice it and it pulls you out of the story, it will influence the way you see everything that happens later.
I hope what I wrote makes sense. I'm not a native speaker and I find it difficult to explain these things in English.
I find it interesting that some people find the Idea of time crystals, amongst other things, a reason to deride Discovery yet are quite happy with concept of a being (looking at you Q) capable of anything at the snap of the fingers.
I think your point is a good one; however, I find the difference for me is whether or not I’m willing to suspend my disbelief.
For example, right now I’m re-watching Next Gen, and I’m struck with just how many plot lines are hung together with ridiculous scenario A, or deus ex machina B. But if we are willing to suspend our disbelief, where Next Gen shines is the character moments, moral dilemmas, and storytelling that the (often-times) illogical frameworks set-up.
Did Q-Pid have a ridiculous set up to get the crew to Nottingham Forest? It did, but once the crew got there, it was a great little romp! Add in a fantastic, morally ambiguous guest star (Vash), and John de Lancie chewing the scenery (magnificently as usual) and you have a recipe for a fun episode that people will enjoy without thinking too hard about.
This illustrates the point I’m about to make: if you’re going to introduce a McGuffin to advance the plot, you have to make sure it fits with the general theme (a ridiculous McGuffin is okay for a silly story, not so much for a dramatic one, and vice versa). You also don’t want your McGuffin to be too attention grabbing. You want your McGuffin to advance the story, not be so jarring that it pulls people out of the narrative.
You also have to make sure that the story you’re telling is good enough that people are willing to overlook the McGuffin. A fantastic story means your audience will forgive and overlook a lot. A mediocre story, on the other hand, calls everything into question.
So the criticism about the time crystals is not about the time crystals per se. It’s about whether the time crystals were a suitable McGuffin, and whether the story they were telling was good enough to overlook the logical inconsistency of using them.
I agree on that. That's probably one of the main reasons why I loved season 1 and was disappointed by season 2. I'm not disputing the fact that season 1 didn't have a strong Trek vibe, that it was very dark or that the Klingons looked weird, but in the context of the world that the writers created, everything they showed us worked and appeared plausible. It had a very consistent tone and atmosphere (except for the last two episodes).
Season 2 had way too many moments where I missed that and the time crystals may have been one of them, although there were other things that bothered me more.
But I guess it's also subjective to some degree, what we're willing to believe while we're watching the show and what not.
And it's not like previous Trek shows never had this sort of problem. The fact that DSC has fewer episodes and only one story-arc for every season just makes it more apparent (and maybe worse, since one of those moments can influence how people feel about an entire season).
Hmm, I liked season 2 of Discovery more than season 1. I felt there was good character development, an interesting mystery, and I thought Anson Mount Pike was great. I loved tying in Pike and learning more of who he was. I will agree that there is less science and more fantasy feel in Discovery compared to TNG but all the trek series fall short of TNG when it comes to science. Every trek series has pros and cons. TNG was good but honestly, how many times did they cheat by saying the deflector dish could magically do something else that we had never seen it do before? It could apparently be configured to do anything necessary for the crisis. TNG started to get into a rut where they were doing the same episode over and over. Run into an anomally, get the ship trapped by it, almost die but geordie has some last second solution. Discovery is less formulaic with lots of different story avenues. I will admit that it seems like even the writers don't always know where the show is going but it gets there in the end. I also feel that Discovery characters are allowed to evolve and change and as such have more depth than many characters in the other treks.
I agree on the character development and on the fact that Pike was a refreshing change after Lorca. And I liked the mystery plot very much. Also, the fact that they gave some of the characters a chance to shine and have their own plot-lines. And Burnham's family stuff, which was much better than I expected.
But the things that bothered me were not so much the weird science stuff (there's plenty of that in every Trek show, I think) as the fact that sometimes the plot and dialogues felt "crafted" or even forced. It was as if I could hear the writers in the writers' room say "hey, we haven't had a joke in 10 minutes, let's add one here!" or "this episode has all the feelings except for sadness, let's kill off a secondary character in a pointless way!". Sorry for the sarcasm, it's that it's difficult to explain. It was often clear where the show was going with the characters and what points it was trying to make and I don't like that. There was lots of exposition. And I think that that made certain other aspects that marschalling mentioned stand out more, or at least for me it had that effect, because I was less immersed in it and so I paid more attention to the "technical" aspects of the writing and to the logic of what moved the plot forward. If I can see the strings, then I expect that to be some sort of challenge and an enjoyable experience in itself. I guess it was that way for those who predicted all the plot twists in season one, for example. In season 2, it just pulled me out of the fiction.
To make one example of what I mean,
L'Rell's baby, that just appeared out of nowhere with no forshadowing whatsoever, because it was a quick way to get the story where they wanted to take it.
Also, TNG has a different, lighter tone and doesn't take itself very seriously a lot of the time, so those things don't stand out that much. And the fact that in DSC the whole season has one plot-line also has an impact. If something like that, a deus ex machina or a very apparent plot device, happens in a self-contained episode, it's relevant only to that episode. If it happens in a DSC season, and you notice it and it pulls you out of the story, it will influence the way you see everything that happens later.
I hope what I wrote makes sense. I'm not a native speaker and I find it difficult to explain these things in English.
I understand what you mean and you said it quite clearly. I agree with some of it. The two seasons have ended a little flat. The exposition can be a bit annoying sometimes though TNG had a lot of exposition too it's just that Picard would say "Captain's Log Stardate....." before he did his. It's interesting because I really liked the humor and found the Burnham family stuff annoying but you thought the opposite. I liked her relationship with her brother once he stopped being a jerk but I feel that there is way too much of the show driven around Burnham's family.
We had her relationship with her adoptive father Sarek in season 1 which was great and we had some of her relationship with her adoptive mother Amanda which was good too. But then there is her brother Spock, okay, and then they started bringing back her bio parents and it looks like there is gonna be more of her bio mom in season 3. I didnt mind the L'Rell baby cause I felt it did fit as she had talked and alluded to hiw close she was to Voq and that scene with Section 31 Georgiou coming to the rescue was awesome.
like how Tyler had to go into hiding from the Klingon Empire but could appear later in the season on a Klingon ship. Or why Discovery went into the future after the threat was ended. I would have liked more explanation on that.
but I enjoy it and I feel the writing is getting better and the characters are better defined now. Remember too that Discovery has only had two seasons and not to compare it too much to later seasons of other treks as all treks improve in later seasons.
why Discovery went into the future after the threat was ended
To quote Alex Kurtzman
Yes. We are jumping 950 years into the future for season three. ... We’re now completely free of canon, and we have a whole new universe to explore... There will be canonical references to everything that has happened in the various shows; we’re not erasing that. But we’re so far past that point that all of that is a very distant memory. We’re very excited to see how you put the elements of Star Trek in an entirely new universe
In these 2 season writters had problems with canon. They had to stick to it but it wasn't really something they wanted for their new story. It is hard to create new story when your existing canon is in the future from your new story. So they jumped "over the canon". So now they do not longer have to stick to "original" canon as they have 950 years of history hole.
Hmm, I liked season 2 of Discovery more than season 1. I felt there was good character development, an interesting mystery, and I thought Anson Mount Pike was great. I loved tying in Pike and learning more of who he was. I will agree that there is less science and more fantasy feel in Discovery compared to TNG but all the trek series fall short of TNG when it comes to science. Every trek series has pros and cons. TNG was good but honestly, how many times did they cheat by saying the deflector dish could magically do something else that we had never seen it do before? It could apparently be configured to do anything necessary for the crisis. TNG started to get into a rut where they were doing the same episode over and over. Run into an anomally, get the ship trapped by it, almost die but geordie has some last second solution. Discovery is less formulaic with lots of different story avenues. I will admit that it seems like even the writers don't always know where the show is going but it gets there in the end. I also feel that Discovery characters are allowed to evolve and change and as such have more depth than many characters in the other treks.
I agree on the character development and on the fact that Pike was a refreshing change after Lorca. And I liked the mystery plot very much. Also, the fact that they gave some of the characters a chance to shine and have their own plot-lines. And Burnham's family stuff, which was much better than I expected.
But the things that bothered me were not so much the weird science stuff (there's plenty of that in every Trek show, I think) as the fact that sometimes the plot and dialogues felt "crafted" or even forced. It was as if I could hear the writers in the writers' room say "hey, we haven't had a joke in 10 minutes, let's add one here!" or "this episode has all the feelings except for sadness, let's kill off a secondary character in a pointless way!". Sorry for the sarcasm, it's that it's difficult to explain. It was often clear where the show was going with the characters and what points it was trying to make and I don't like that. There was lots of exposition. And I think that that made certain other aspects that marschalling mentioned stand out more, or at least for me it had that effect, because I was less immersed in it and so I paid more attention to the "technical" aspects of the writing and to the logic of what moved the plot forward. If I can see the strings, then I expect that to be some sort of challenge and an enjoyable experience in itself. I guess it was that way for those who predicted all the plot twists in season one, for example. In season 2, it just pulled me out of the fiction.
To make one example of what I mean,
L'Rell's baby, that just appeared out of nowhere with no forshadowing whatsoever, because it was a quick way to get the story where they wanted to take it.
Also, TNG has a different, lighter tone and doesn't take itself very seriously a lot of the time, so those things don't stand out that much. And the fact that in DSC the whole season has one plot-line also has an impact. If something like that, a deus ex machina or a very apparent plot device, happens in a self-contained episode, it's relevant only to that episode. If it happens in a DSC season, and you notice it and it pulls you out of the story, it will influence the way you see everything that happens later.
I hope what I wrote makes sense. I'm not a native speaker and I find it difficult to explain these things in English.
I understand what you mean and you said it quite clearly. I agree with some of it. The two seasons have ended a little flat. The exposition can be a bit annoying sometimes though TNG had a lot of exposition too it's just that Picard would say "Captain's Log Stardate....." before he did his. It's interesting because I really liked the humor and found the Burnham family stuff annoying but you thought the opposite. I liked her relationship with her brother once he stopped being a jerk but I feel that there is way too much of the show driven around Burnham's family.
We had her relationship with her adoptive father Sarek in season 1 which was great and we had some of her relationship with her adoptive mother Amanda which was good too. But then there is her brother Spock, okay, and then they started bringing back her bio parents and it looks like there is gonna be more of her bio mom in season 3. I didnt mind the L'Rell baby cause I felt it did fit as she had talked and alluded to hiw close she was to Voq and that scene with Section 31 Georgiou coming to the rescue was awesome.
I think a lot of people found the family stuff annoying But I think that it was way better than I feared it would be. I mean, it made sense and it worked.
I also appreciated the humor, but I think that they overdid it on some occasions, either because it's just not in their writing style or because they were trying too hard to please the fans and follow all their requests. I think this was a problem in general in season 2 and possibly another reason why the writing felt forced from time to time. There were too many moments where the writers explained stuff, it was as if they were trying to justify themselves and in the end it was as if they were trying to make season 1 unhappen, which I didn't like at all.
TNG was made in another time and it had a slower paced plot, less action and less phatos, which is probably why the exposition there doesn't bother me.
Also, I liked season one's "GoT vibe", where everything was possible. I missed that and I think that the writers played it very safe in season 2.
I very much preferred season 1 over season 2. I can’t really pinpoint why. I thought a few things were out there. Like Saru losing his ganglia and finding out it was for the best. You mean to tell me an entire species over all that time and no one discovered this until him?
I very much preferred season 1 over season 2. I can’t really pinpoint why. I thought a few things were out there. Like Saru losing his ganglia and finding out it was for the best. You mean to tell me an entire species over all that time and no one discovered this until him?
It was explained.
The Ba'ul were almost killed by the evolved kelpiens and so they found a way to change kelpien society and kill all kelpiens before they could evolve. It was very much like the TNG ep Transfigurations where the government convinced the people that the process of change would kill them so the people would turn themselves in.
I like factions because they do not require an incessant grind, which equals less of a time commitment... You can set it and forget it.
“A committee is a cul-de-sac, down which good ideas are lured and quietly strangled.” —Mark TwainMEMBER: [BoB] Barrel of Bloodwine... We are recruiting and putting the “curv” in scurvy! Best Event Finish: #3 Honor Debt: Inconceivable...Honor Bank Account: Slowly building...
I very much preferred season 1 over season 2. I can’t really pinpoint why. I thought a few things were out there. Like Saru losing his ganglia and finding out it was for the best. You mean to tell me an entire species over all that time and no one discovered this until him?
It was explained.
The Ba'ul were almost killed by the evolved kelpiens and so they found a way to change kelpien society and kill all kelpiens before they could evolve. It was very much like the TNG ep Transfigurations where the government convinced the people that the process of change would kill them so the people would turn themselves in.
Ah. And since he was the first to leave his world....I get it now. Makes more sense
I very much preferred season 1 over season 2. I can’t really pinpoint why. I thought a few things were out there. Like Saru losing his ganglia and finding out it was for the best. You mean to tell me an entire species over all that time and no one discovered this until him?
It was explained.
The Ba'ul were almost killed by the evolved kelpiens and so they found a way to change kelpien society and kill all kelpiens before they could evolve. It was very much like the TNG ep Transfigurations where the government convinced the people that the process of change would kill them so the people would turn themselves in.
Ah. And since he was the first to leave his world....I get it now. Makes more sense
And the process for Saru was sped up by the living planetoid so he experienced it sooner than he would have otherwise.
At least shuttle event dont require endless mashing of keys. . . Just log in every 3 hrs send shuttles rinse and repeat.
For those of us with families and busy weekend lives, setting alarms on our cell phones to play a mobile game every 3 hours seems batshit crazy to "normies".
False, it's about making your narrative make sense within the context of its own rules. Time crystals would be welcomed if they were consistent. At this point it's basically "They'll do whatever the plot demands. Make a plant grow in front of Pike? Sure. Age the albino to an adult? Sure. Show Pike his future, but apparently its not set in stone until he takes it? Why not? Soooo... are the crystals sentient, or what's going on here, kids?
Why are we taking a religious orders views on the crystals as fact?
Were the Prophets in DS9 gods or aliens? The Bajora believed they were gods, Starfleet not so much.
The Klingons could believe that once the crystal is taken that future is set, which is different from it being a fact. It could just show you a possible future. Had Pike gone up with the torpedo, that future would've been proved wrong, but we know - because it's a prequel - that wasn't going to happen. His future is set narratively for us.
It might have been better played had he seen a future that was different to one that is going to happen, maybe something even more horrific than what the delta radiation did to make his sacrifice remain meaningful.
And it's not like Trek hasn't history on tweaking tech for reasons of plot - the transporter can make good/evil clones, or just clones. Or make you a kid. Or take you to a mirror universe. Or freeze you in time in a buffer. Or go through shields if you've the right doodad.
The time crystals have at least been relatively consistent in that they muck about with time.
At least shuttle event dont require endless mashing of keys. . . Just log in every 3 hrs send shuttles rinse and repeat.
I once would have agreed with this, but now I'm past 30k chrons and two new 5* that'll take me an hour to FE when I can be faffed, I've come to appreciate galaxies a lot more than I once did.
Factions used to be my favourite, but I like being able to hit thresholds and out when I'm busy. I'm on a holiday this weekend, so will be unlikely to playing all 4 days, so I suspect Thursday I'll be getting to 4k shuttles PDQ and then going through a chunk of my 120 tokens, 3* timers and time triplers to reach the 130k in personal record time before I board the plane early Friday.
False, it's about making your narrative make sense within the context of its own rules. Time crystals would be welcomed if they were consistent. At this point it's basically "They'll do whatever the plot demands. Make a plant grow in front of Pike? Sure. Age the albino to an adult? Sure. Show Pike his future, but apparently its not set in stone until he takes it? Why not? Soooo... are the crystals sentient, or what's going on here, kids?
Why are we taking a religious orders views on the crystals as fact?
Were the Prophets in DS9 gods or aliens? The Bajora believed they were gods, Starfleet not so much.
The Klingons could believe that once the crystal is taken that future is set, which is different from it being a fact. It could just show you a possible future. Had Pike gone up with the torpedo, that future would've been proved wrong, but we know - because it's a prequel - that wasn't going to happen. His future is set narratively for us.
It might have been better played had he seen a future that was different to one that is going to happen, maybe something even more horrific than what the delta radiation did to make his sacrifice remain meaningful.
And it's not like Trek hasn't history on tweaking tech for reasons of plot - the transporter can make good/evil clones, or just clones. Or make you a kid. Or take you to a mirror universe. Or freeze you in time in a buffer. Or go through shields if you've the right doodad.
The time crystals have at least been relatively consistent in that they muck about with time.
I would like to place an order for 37 "doodads"?
Founding ADM - PoF family of fleets (POF, POF2 & POF3) - Dear TP: Non sequitur. Your facts are uncoordinated.
At least shuttle event dont require endless mashing of keys. . . Just log in every 3 hrs send shuttles rinse and repeat.
For those of us with families and busy weekend lives, setting alarms on our cell phones to play a mobile game every 3 hours seems batshit crazy to "normies".
You can set your shuttles to go longer, each event has pros and cons for different people. For me I have some hand tendon issues that repeated tapping can aggravate so I like shuttles though my favorite is hybrids so I can do a little of each but not too much of either.
Factions are extremely easy to chill and clear tresholds, definitely my favourite. I personally love hybrid galaxy/faction as it has community awards and you can clear the tresholds in about 2 days with just shuttles but pure factions give you unlimited 0* items with the winner's bonus. For the life of me I can't see how people enjoy pure galaxies - same grind as Skirmish but no rewards. I totally enjoy the schedule.
Agree, people complain a lot about faction events but they are by far my favourite... and really the only ones I can compete in because they require far less time put into them
Is it just me or is that excessive, stressful, and most importantly NOT enjoyable?
Certainly not "just you", but I much prefer a faction heavy mega to a skirmish heavy mega. Don't get me wrong, I got a reasonable outcome in the most recent skirmish (about place 1200 which was OK - at least for a new player :-), but it took hours and skirmishes are dead dull. Factions are at least "5 minutes every 3 hours...". I can't compete for a top spot - never will - but I can get the personal acievements with relatively little stress.
Weekend events are the marmite of the timelines world...
I don't participate in them anymore - not for almost a year now - just can't compete. Not really complaining. I just wait for the other event types.
I agree, as I only seem to get 2* on the threshold crew. I usually shoot for 30k VP's, but that's rough with factions. I hate how the crew get weaker and weaker as the event unfolds, sometimes 2 out of 3 missions fail in the stretch.
Like I too see the benefits of full faction or part faction because it does save time in the long run.... however variety is much desired in my honest opinion.... like it’s been probably over a year since our last expedition.... but more so I hope they introduce new events or even mix them up more! Like make it a three parter! Or like mix them all.... so an away mission for x items to have to battle a ship in order to get it to its destination.... or warp to X planet to pick up someone, a landing mission to get them and then ensure they reach where Starfleet command needs them to go.... like come on, let’s get creative here!
At least shuttle event dont require endless mashing of keys. . . Just log in every 3 hrs send shuttles rinse and repeat.
For those of us with families and busy weekend lives, setting alarms on our cell phones to play a mobile game every 3 hours seems batshit crazy to "normies".
This. That's why I'd rather click for 30 minutes and be done with it in addition to getting community rewards of course, which is the only way to progress unless you've been playing for 2+ years or spent a lot. I loathe faction events with a passion. It's way too demanding in terms of attention as I often visit friends and family. Not gonna lock every weekend to play some silly mobile game, I have other goals in my life... Galaxy events are the best.
...Like make it a three parter!
... like come on, let’s get creative here!
Edited your comment for brevity.
Regarding part 2 - I think most players can get behind that sentiment.
Regarding part 1 - so, they did that once already. Some players liked it (I think), but my recollection is a generally negativity toward it. ("The Weak Will Perish, 4th week of the Superior Ambition DS9-Augment mega-event).
Comments
The issue with faction events is that it's a pain for newer, low spending and more casual players because of a limited roster, it's also very time consuming as you have to have perfect attendance for 4 days (which is insane) and it lacks community rewards. Why you would subject you to that over 30 minutes of clicking I don't know, but what I've learnt from my time here is that if you're not a high spender your feedback goes to the trash bin so why bother, it's not going to change, pay to win players asked for it and the devs delivered.
I dispute that 30 min is going to get you to clear all thresholds on a galaxy event or make top 1500. Unless you are suggesting just getting to 130k and leaving everything else. Galaxies require chrons which newer players are often short on. Also, the best way to get chrons is thru voyages which is completely dependent on having very good crew you cannot use for anything else while they are voyaging.
Saving chronitons for the usual command/dip/sec galaxy event crew to get to 6h voyages is how I started. The first ones are rather costly but it's doable. 130k with the community rewards gets you all of the useful stuff, anything else is either too expensive or here for your own ego.
We're talking about the Disco version of Pike.
I kept all my Gold Disco wins from the Events, so I have about 26 crew ready for the Faction Events. About 2/3 of them golds. Most of the purples are frozen, and I appreciate the heads up on the crew roster so I don't actually have to thaw anyone from the freezer!
I agree on that. That's probably one of the main reasons why I loved season 1 and was disappointed by season 2. I'm not disputing the fact that season 1 didn't have a strong Trek vibe, that it was very dark or that the Klingons looked weird, but in the context of the world that the writers created, everything they showed us worked and appeared plausible. It had a very consistent tone and atmosphere (except for the last two episodes).
Season 2 had way too many moments where I missed that and the time crystals may have been one of them, although there were other things that bothered me more.
But I guess it's also subjective to some degree, what we're willing to believe while we're watching the show and what not.
And it's not like previous Trek shows never had this sort of problem. The fact that DSC has fewer episodes and only one story-arc for every season just makes it more apparent (and maybe worse, since one of those moments can influence how people feel about an entire season).
Hmm, I liked season 2 of Discovery more than season 1. I felt there was good character development, an interesting mystery, and I thought Anson Mount Pike was great. I loved tying in Pike and learning more of who he was. I will agree that there is less science and more fantasy feel in Discovery compared to TNG but all the trek series fall short of TNG when it comes to science. Every trek series has pros and cons. TNG was good but honestly, how many times did they cheat by saying the deflector dish could magically do something else that we had never seen it do before? It could apparently be configured to do anything necessary for the crisis. TNG started to get into a rut where they were doing the same episode over and over. Run into an anomally, get the ship trapped by it, almost die but geordie has some last second solution. Discovery is less formulaic with lots of different story avenues. I will admit that it seems like even the writers don't always know where the show is going but it gets there in the end. I also feel that Discovery characters are allowed to evolve and change and as such have more depth than many characters in the other treks.
I agree on the character development and on the fact that Pike was a refreshing change after Lorca. And I liked the mystery plot very much. Also, the fact that they gave some of the characters a chance to shine and have their own plot-lines. And Burnham's family stuff, which was much better than I expected.
But the things that bothered me were not so much the weird science stuff (there's plenty of that in every Trek show, I think) as the fact that sometimes the plot and dialogues felt "crafted" or even forced. It was as if I could hear the writers in the writers' room say "hey, we haven't had a joke in 10 minutes, let's add one here!" or "this episode has all the feelings except for sadness, let's kill off a secondary character in a pointless way!". Sorry for the sarcasm, it's that it's difficult to explain. It was often clear where the show was going with the characters and what points it was trying to make and I don't like that. There was lots of exposition. And I think that that made certain other aspects that marschalling mentioned stand out more, or at least for me it had that effect, because I was less immersed in it and so I paid more attention to the "technical" aspects of the writing and to the logic of what moved the plot forward. If I can see the strings, then I expect that to be some sort of challenge and an enjoyable experience in itself. I guess it was that way for those who predicted all the plot twists in season one, for example. In season 2, it just pulled me out of the fiction.
To make one example of what I mean,
Also, TNG has a different, lighter tone and doesn't take itself very seriously a lot of the time, so those things don't stand out that much. And the fact that in DSC the whole season has one plot-line also has an impact. If something like that, a deus ex machina or a very apparent plot device, happens in a self-contained episode, it's relevant only to that episode. If it happens in a DSC season, and you notice it and it pulls you out of the story, it will influence the way you see everything that happens later.
I hope what I wrote makes sense. I'm not a native speaker and I find it difficult to explain these things in English.
I understand what you mean and you said it quite clearly. I agree with some of it. The two seasons have ended a little flat. The exposition can be a bit annoying sometimes though TNG had a lot of exposition too it's just that Picard would say "Captain's Log Stardate....." before he did his. It's interesting because I really liked the humor and found the Burnham family stuff annoying but you thought the opposite. I liked her relationship with her brother once he stopped being a jerk but I feel that there is way too much of the show driven around Burnham's family.
To quote Alex Kurtzman
In these 2 season writters had problems with canon. They had to stick to it but it wasn't really something they wanted for their new story. It is hard to create new story when your existing canon is in the future from your new story. So they jumped "over the canon". So now they do not longer have to stick to "original" canon as they have 950 years of history hole.
I think a lot of people found the family stuff annoying
I also appreciated the humor, but I think that they overdid it on some occasions, either because it's just not in their writing style or because they were trying too hard to please the fans and follow all their requests. I think this was a problem in general in season 2 and possibly another reason why the writing felt forced from time to time. There were too many moments where the writers explained stuff, it was as if they were trying to justify themselves and in the end it was as if they were trying to make season 1 unhappen, which I didn't like at all.
TNG was made in another time and it had a slower paced plot, less action and less phatos, which is probably why the exposition there doesn't bother me.
Also, I liked season one's "GoT vibe", where everything was possible. I missed that and I think that the writers played it very safe in season 2.
It was explained.
Ah. And since he was the first to leave his world....I get it now. Makes more sense
And the process for Saru was sped up by the living planetoid so he experienced it sooner than he would have otherwise.
For those of us with families and busy weekend lives, setting alarms on our cell phones to play a mobile game every 3 hours seems batshit crazy to "normies".
Why are we taking a religious orders views on the crystals as fact?
Were the Prophets in DS9 gods or aliens? The Bajora believed they were gods, Starfleet not so much.
The Klingons could believe that once the crystal is taken that future is set, which is different from it being a fact. It could just show you a possible future. Had Pike gone up with the torpedo, that future would've been proved wrong, but we know - because it's a prequel - that wasn't going to happen. His future is set narratively for us.
It might have been better played had he seen a future that was different to one that is going to happen, maybe something even more horrific than what the delta radiation did to make his sacrifice remain meaningful.
And it's not like Trek hasn't history on tweaking tech for reasons of plot - the transporter can make good/evil clones, or just clones. Or make you a kid. Or take you to a mirror universe. Or freeze you in time in a buffer. Or go through shields if you've the right doodad.
The time crystals have at least been relatively consistent in that they muck about with time.
I once would have agreed with this, but now I'm past 30k chrons and two new 5* that'll take me an hour to FE when I can be faffed, I've come to appreciate galaxies a lot more than I once did.
Factions used to be my favourite, but I like being able to hit thresholds and out when I'm busy. I'm on a holiday this weekend, so will be unlikely to playing all 4 days, so I suspect Thursday I'll be getting to 4k shuttles PDQ and then going through a chunk of my 120 tokens, 3* timers and time triplers to reach the 130k in personal record time before I board the plane early Friday.
I would like to place an order for 37 "doodads"?
You can set your shuttles to go longer, each event has pros and cons for different people. For me I have some hand tendon issues that repeated tapping can aggravate so I like shuttles though my favorite is hybrids so I can do a little of each but not too much of either.
Agree, people complain a lot about faction events but they are by far my favourite... and really the only ones I can compete in because they require far less time put into them
Certainly not "just you", but I much prefer a faction heavy mega to a skirmish heavy mega. Don't get me wrong, I got a reasonable outcome in the most recent skirmish (about place 1200 which was OK - at least for a new player :-), but it took hours and skirmishes are dead dull. Factions are at least "5 minutes every 3 hours...". I can't compete for a top spot - never will - but I can get the personal acievements with relatively little stress.
Weekend events are the marmite of the timelines world...
I agree, as I only seem to get 2* on the threshold crew. I usually shoot for 30k VP's, but that's rough with factions. I hate how the crew get weaker and weaker as the event unfolds, sometimes 2 out of 3 missions fail in the stretch.
lv 94 - 600+ immortalized w/ 572 unique - 15 collections max level - VIP14 - Missing 17 1/4 SR characters.
This. That's why I'd rather click for 30 minutes and be done with it in addition to getting community rewards of course, which is the only way to progress unless you've been playing for 2+ years or spent a lot. I loathe faction events with a passion. It's way too demanding in terms of attention as I often visit friends and family. Not gonna lock every weekend to play some silly mobile game, I have other goals in my life... Galaxy events are the best.
Edited your comment for brevity.
Regarding part 2 - I think most players can get behind that sentiment.
Regarding part 1 - so, they did that once already. Some players liked it (I think), but my recollection is a generally negativity toward it. ("The Weak Will Perish, 4th week of the Superior Ambition DS9-Augment mega-event).
Yeah, that is why you said goodbye to this silly mobile game around a year ago and are still here