hiccupmistress.bsky.social
I'm a fan of Star Trek, Star Wars and Doctor Who, among other things. I'm mostly just posting Virtual Photography on here at the moment, but might get more talkative as I get more settled on bsky.
172 posts
235 followers
127 following
Regular Contributor
Active Commenter
comment in response to
post
Just cancelled my P+ subscription over this and gave my reasons why in the feedback. The account stays open until what would have been my next billing date, so I guess they have until March 24 to announce they’re retaining inclusive hiring if they want me to stick around and renew 🤷
comment in response to
post
Agreed on both of these points. If it had been a one-season miniseries as originally intended, the supporting characters could have had the time to be developed properly. And Kacey Rohl's casting as Garrett was the absolute highlight for me. I really hope they can find a reason to bring her back.
comment in response to
post
Yeah, I had a good time with it too. It's never going to be my favourite, but I found it enjoyable for what it was. The way some people talk (even some positive figureheads in the fandom I trust to be reasonable), you'd think Michelle Yeoh personally came to their home and forced them to watch it.
comment in response to
post
good figures, bad reception will probably make that difference.
4/4
comment in response to
post
direct-to-streaming Star Trek movies may get greenlit, but with more care put into making things that people are more likely to resonate with. The good viewing figures don't exist in some vacuum where the critical reception doesn't exist. Going forward, the combination of
3/4
comment in response to
post
also clearly see that the film was poorly-received critically. S31 making it so high on the streaming charts is a good thing, as it shows them that there is interest in direct-to-streaming Star Trek movies, and the reception can show them that S31 specifically wasn't "it". This can mean more
2/4
comment in response to
post
And no, it's not my phone signal; the occasional "Your call is important to us" is crystal clear.
comment in response to
post
I've felt like this before and bounced back, so no worries I'm not going anywhere. The joy I get from interacting with fandoms vastly outweighs the negative. Just sometimes, a whole lot of negativity shows up all at once. Its rarely even anything new, its often the same old complaints recycled.😒
2/2
comment in response to
post
True, it might look a bit too cheerful if they took the same lighting and skybox from the TFO into the Memorial. Maybe they could find a happy-medium.
comment in response to
post
Yeah, I don't mind pew pew phasers either. I know some people find that beams were a more distinct mark of Star Trek and feel pew pews are more generic, and fair enough. It's this weird Mandela Effect that's happened with TWOK specifically that drives me up the wall though.
comment in response to
post
TBF, the lighting in the Memorial map is more faithful to how much light is given out by the real-life Wolf 359 star, so I guess maybe they started with that & made the TFO map brighter for the sake of gameplay, but yeah, I'd rather swap out accuracy for easier access to such nice lighting & skybox
comment in response to
post
comment in response to
post
What is this supposed to mean? The revamped effect is meant to look more like it did in TWOK.
comment in response to
post
It looks good with your frame rate! 😅 On my rig, I’m just not seeing enough frames of the sped-up animation, so it looks off. I can’t expect them to bow to everyone with less-powerful PCs though. Great tweak overall though.
comment in response to
post
👀 ooh… making a guess that this is a take on the Excelsior II that draws a little more heavily from the Duderstadt, Titan and Sagan aesthetics?
comment in response to
post
Well there’s that, but some people were saying the initial revamped effect was “too slow”, which is why they’ve now updated the animation to be a lot faster. Except for one prominent screenshot artist who decided they were already too fast for some reason?
comment in response to
post
A static screenshot can't really do them justice, but the visual effects on the cannons, dual cannons, dual heavy cannons and turrets for the new Breen Imperium weapons are GORGEOUS. #StarTrekOnline
comment in response to
post
That makes sense
Moreover, I chose to reference the Sierra uniforms in the name of my headcanon 2010-era-STO-timeline mostly because its a strong visual association with launch era STO rather than because they're no longer used. Sort of like distinguishing TNG seasons by whether uniforms had collars
comment in response to
post
I didn't mean to imply you were criticising me either, I was just acknowledging the reality that by choosing to reference that lore, I may unwittingly cause some confusion.
comment in response to
post
Yeah, I think the Sierra uniforms are still part of STO canon, but with them now only appearing in the Fleet Starbase display and that one pre-rendered "previously on" cutscene, it's become a little harder to parse whether they still went out of service at the time they originally did
comment in response to
post
I mean, I'm not on the dev team, I'm just a fan who does screenshots! 😅 Based on things that were said in the latest mission, I have headcanons about how things unfold into a lack of Enterprise-G, but I'll wait until more people have had time to play it to avoid spoiling anyone
comment in response to
post
For anyone wondering what I mean by "Timeline Sierra-10"...
bsky.app/profile/hicc...
comment in response to
post
It's nothing official. "Timeline Sierra-10" is how I'm categorising lore that was in STO when it launched that has since been retconned. (A nod to the old Sierra uniforms & the 2010 release date). Going forward, I might also refer to current-STO as "Timeline Foxtrot" in reference to the Enterprise-F
comment in response to
post
Yeah, that's the problem with citing 15 year old lore, I guess. When that was written, the Odyssey was much newer and the Ross hadn't been planned for. Since it was a STO launch-era ship, I figured I'd go back to the launch-era lore.
comment in response to
post
Here's a better shot of the conference room windows; I grabbed the wrong "screenshot that's intended to show both listed details" screenshot when I made the above post.
comment in response to
post
Good question, I may have misinterpreted the old official lore for the class. Seems it was more a case of the Stargazer being one of the only exploration classes from 2381 specifically.
comment in response to
post
Some cool details I noticed on the remaster:
Along the sides of the saucer are wide windows with conference rooms visible, just like on the Protostar the remaster was inspired by.
Rows of escape pods have numbers on them - something I believe is unique to this model for STO (so far). #StarTrekOnline
comment in response to
post
Yeah, I certainly understand people being disappointed at those kinds of beam arrays having an odd acceleration at different ranges in STO, but the number of people piling on saying things like "How can they call those Lost Era beams when they do the JJ thing of looking like cannons?" is eye-rolling
comment in response to
post
Seriously, have Star Trek fans just gaslit themselves into thinking pulse phasers weren’t in the early movies? I keep seeing this kind of take whining that people are trying to “Kurtzman-ify wrath of Khan”. 🙄
comment in response to
post
Was 100% expecting a 2256 style given what the old nacelles looked like, but more protostar era ships is more than welcome!
Are we to take it that 77290 is the new official registry? I know the Path to 2409 Academy Lore missions specifically reference 2893-A, but so much of those have changed anyway