STO Awakening.jpg

Talk:Upcoming content

From Star Trek Online Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

More interiors[edit source]

Daniel Stahl answered a forum question. The first answer is the interesting one: There will be TNG an VOY interiors. Link: Markonian 18:59, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Remastered Episodes[edit source]

Another Stahl-statement concerning the older missions: Markonian 12:28, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Series 4[edit source] Series 4 may not come out before Season 4 but there may be Feature Episode Re-runs. Markonian 09:55, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

References[edit source]

They all appear to be broken.

Here's the March Eng Report link. Merik

I believe this is an error with the cache not updating. Clearing cookies, signing in, and reloading the page should fix it. --MatthewM 09:55, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Upcoming vs Future Content[edit source]

The name of the page is upcoming content, the front page links to this as future content, perhaps they should both be the same so people don't get confused? -- BrooklynKnight 00:23, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Upcoming Content vs Stuff a Dev Once Said (AKA Wish List)[edit source]

A lot of the links here are a year or older out of date, from when the devs were talking about updates in the long future. Some of the stuff here has already come true, other stuff is so terribly out of date or so unlikely it hurts to read. I'm proposing the main body of the article be comprised only of upcoming content about this season or the next season, with a requirement of a link to a dev post, where the dev post must be made at oldest the season before the season the content talks about. For example: If a dev posted during season 4 about content that is being worked on in season 5, it can go in the main body. If a dev posted during season 3 about content that would be worked on in season 5, it goes somewhere else, as it's old info. If a dev told us tomorrow (currently season 5) about content that is in line for season 7, again, that goes somewhere else, as that's subject to major changes on whims.

This should cut down on the amount of crazy/fantasy that's in the main body of the article, and give folks a clear and concise view of what to expect in the near future.

The logic on the timing requirement is that it is likely this season's content is still being worked on after it's release, as is next season's content, but it is unlikely for the season after next to be worked on before next season launches, so anything said about it is subject to change the moment work begins on it. We've seen dozens of times, the devs promise something for season __, and for whatever reason, it gets cut. This isn't the devs fault, they can't see into the future any better than we can really. It's just how things are, and the article should be set about in a way to reflect that.

I believe the goal of the article should be less about what can be in store for us, and more an informative about what IS in store for us. This should be an "at-a-glance" view of what is to be expected soon for those that don't keep up with dev posts on the forums and twitter, etc. ->Syntax (1/27/2012)

I agree with a lot of this. I'd argue we should clear the entire article and start from scratch on a rolling series-by-series basis. Half the stuff in here will *never* happen.--Walshicus 13:53, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree but I have to wonder how to tell the difference between fantasy and reality with some of these folks. I hate to be negative but I've gotten to the point whenever a dev or staff member says something in the forums or elsewhere, it's in no way official. The recent back pedaling with the the "we can lose the income from an entire country instead of stopping lockboxes" discussion is a perfect example of this. Or how they promote the foundry but may of us are locked out of it and there doesn't seem to be much interest in resolving that problem.
Maybe a huge ass "None of this is official" banner across the top and anything over 6 months - 1 year gets it's own section with a "probably out of date/not likely going to happen" warning on it.
And if it;s already here, feel free to remove it yourself. ;) --Drmike 15:52, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
Here's the logic behind it: Part of the purpose of the page is to keep track of just what the developers have said they intend to do and until directly told it's not happening it should stay. Blanking the page and only putting on it what everyone knows is going to come out in next few weeks would make this page far less valuable. With that said, there are several comments that are old and those can be moved (but not deleted) to a separate section of the page. --MatthewM 16:50, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
I do agree with the above sentiments. As it is, this page is rather unclear and a bit confusing (one of the reasons why most edits that are not by you break the page somehow - it's hard to keep track!). Also, I'd argue that it's called "Upcoming Content" not "Promised Content". The focus should be a bit more clearly on the upcoming/'what everyone knows' side of things, IMO (knowing, of course, that these are not always easily distinguishable). At least the two things should be kept apart a bit more strictly, maybe by creating a suppage (á "Upcoming Content/Stuff They Once Said"). I DO appreciate all your effort but I have the feeling that at this point it would be more beneficial to point out things that re actually coming and in development - especially with official sources like the calender on the offical website gone. -- Backyardserenade 04:44, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Voth carrier?[edit source]

Been looking everywhere and have not seen enough evidence that allows this sight to claim that the upcoming episode series' reward carrier with be from the Voth. In fact, from the facts stated, I doubt it will be a Voth carrier. And, as far as I can find, the links used to support it only state that it will be a carrier, not a Voth carrier. So someone with the right authority should fix that statement.

Mirror revamp[edit source]

Where did all that info about the Mirror Universe Event revamp come from? It should be cited in a footnote. - Mitchz95 (talk) 19:53, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. --Akirasensei (talk) 20:53, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Secondary Deflectors M.I.A?[edit source]

Secondary Deflectors was first mentioned as a Science ship addition back in May 2013, on the Priority One podcast. Since that time, there has been little (if any) news on when the Deflectors might actually be added to the rest of the Science ships (currently only exists on the Dyson Science Destroyers). Latest news in the "Upcoming Content" section is;

"Will not be ready in time for Season 9 start, but WILL be part of Season 9."

As we have now moved into Season 9.5, I feel that this line of text is out-of-date, and a more up to date response from the responsible developer(s) is necessary. Until an official response is made, I declare Secondary Deflectors to be a myth, something that sounded cool on the whiteboard, but was eventually tossed aside, and quietly forgotten. Perhaps a dev will one day prove my assertion wrong? --Darkthunder84 (talk) 02:43, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

I swear I saw a dev post on the subject less than a week ago, but can't seem to find it. I believe it said secondary deflectors were still planned, but had been delayed. I'll keep searching for it. - Mitchz95 (talk) 04:09, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Close enough. - Mitchz95 (talk) 04:15, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Was it Al who recently mentioned it on PriorityOne, saying that haven't gotten around to it yet, but definitely plan to release the secondary deflectors before expansion II hits the game? --Akirasensei (talk) 10:10, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Vandalism[edit source]

Could somebody please remove all the vandalism that was added to this page today? I'd do it myself, but it's really late here and I want to go to bed. Thanks. - Mitchz95 (talk) 05:47, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

RDM?[edit source]

What's the source for Robert Duncan McNeill joining the game as Tom Paris? - Mitchz95 (talk) 02:38, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Likely IQ fleet, the only cue is a mission or map supposedly called 'From Paris', and an image of what people are assuming to be Tom Paris, thus the conjecture that RDM is doing VO work. TLDR: It's all speculation. --LordTrekie (talk) 02:46, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Oh, Cryptic's timing... Tom Paris Reporting For Duty --LordTrekie (talk) 16:16, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Teased Content[edit source]

For those who've not watched the "Temporal Front" announce video, once the "Temporal Front" title card fades, we get a view of a TOS Connie (Possibly Enterprise) followed by "5.5.16". For the last few days, I've been trying to decide if this teaser counts as 'Officially Announced Upcoming Content' despite its lack of information - only a TOS Connie and a date almost six weeks from now - with which to describe it. How should 'teased content', not just this but any 'teased content' be handled in relation to 'Upcoming Content'? --Turbomagnus (talk) 14:32, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

2016-05-05 is the First Contact Day. Given how we are entering a temporal cold war, and I have sources telling me there's a lot of TOS stuff being modified on Tribble, I suppose we can expect something to happen that day.--Emzi0767 (talk) 14:39, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure it's for First Contact Day since that's supposed to be on April 5th (4.5), not May 5th (5.5.) which is the date they teased... Actually, thinking about it, we might not even get anything for First Contact day considering it'll be on the week before Season 11.5 (Just like we didn't get a First Contact Day in 2015 because of the Delta Recruit event). Either way, that still leaves the question of how to list 'Teased Content' in relation to 'Upcoming Content'. I mean, what do we say?
May 5, 2016
*Currently unknown, but likely TOS-related content.
--Turbomagnus (talk) 04:45, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
It could be placed between "Season 11.5" and "Undetermined Release" as a new heading ("Teased", "Teased content", etc.). It sounds like something related to 50th anniversary of Trek, event or featured episode. We may get more clues as we get closer. --Damixon (talk) 05:52, 31 March 2016 (UTC)