I can see the purpose in the idea. For new players, the skill system is very baffling so restricting it to "pure" Tac-Escort etc. would help this. However, new players and old alike will want to fly whatever ship looks cooler and I have to agree I prefer it the way it is.
In regards to the space/ground tree split, I personally would like this change as it would make balancing skill investment easier on the player (though it does limit the choices, I will admit) and means there will be less disparity between those who invest a balance and those who go space all the way (why they do this is due to ground combat's game play, not the skills in my opinion).
However I think, for me, the issue with skills doesn't lie with skills being too open to confuse and providing too many choices. The system is good. It's the presentation I find lacking. Each box needs a complete list of skills it will affect with its current bonus with skills and a separate number with your equipment as well.
In the same way, I feel Admiral level ship skills are too broad. The choices should compact just as lower tiers to(in my opinion) be as follows:
FED/KLG
"We are discussing both simple and radical changes that could be made to the skillpoint system, and we are still deliberating on exactly how we want to resolve the issue you point out. One popular idea is to break up skillpoints between ground and space so that you don't have to decide which region to focus on. Another radical idea is to restrict the ship classes you can fly to your captain's class until later levels. This would mean that if your captain was a Tactical officer, she could only fly escorts up until admiral ranks. This along with a restructuring of the space skillpoint tree could lead to some clearer skillpoint choices later on in ranks. Just an idea, nothing confirmed yet. I'm interested what you all would think of this."
Sorry Dstahl, but that's the absolutely worst idea from you I ever read. Not only would it reduce the playable class combinations from 9 to 3 for most of the game (putting STO under every MMO I know of), it also would hurt the Star Trek feeling. You want to be like Kirk and fly a Constitution as a tactical officer? Wait till you're admiral and the Constitution is useless. You want to fly a Galaxy as a scientist like Picard did? Well, wait for your next promotion.. Engineer in an escort like Sisko? Become an admiral first. You want to play like Janeway? Have fun!
Considering the other idea to divide skill points automatically between ground and space is not as bad, but simply not needed. If people want to focus on one area don't hinder them. All my characters have their specializations spread out and it works great, but part of the fun is to find a build that works for you. If people want to play without ground skills that's their right. They just shouldn't complain when they get their butts kicked.in the neglected area.
The skill systems just needs TWO simple fixes.
1) Let all weapon type skills cost the same. The weapons are mostly the same, and the skills all have the same effect. At the moment most people use the weapons with the cheapest skills.
2) Reduce the number of T5 ship skills. We don't need 3 skills for each type. Make one for escorts/birds of prey, one for cruisers, one for science vessels and one for carriers.
I pretty much agree, there is weapons should all be equal point cost.
All i can say is removing existing options does not a better game make. Just ask SOE....
Glad to see a thread on this topic. There have been some interesting discussions internally about the ship/class restrictions. Intrigued to see more of your input.
As much as some class combinations are very troublesome in PvP, I honestly don't want to restrict people in such a manner. After all you surely are going to have Trek fans who would like to be a Tactical or Science Captains and fly the Consitution or Galaxy, or a Engineer wanting to be in an Intrepid or Prometheus.
If you are thinking of restrictions because of the trouble it's causing in PvP, why not make different attributes being avaiable in each ship class than a general Profession abilities?
For example, instead of SNB and Photonic Fleet for Science Captains, it instead would only be available on a Science Ship (due to the technology). If a Science Captain is in an Cruiser would be able to take in exotic gasses and eject them. A Tactical in a Cruiser would be able to fire at ejected warp plasma and set it alight.
Restricting chpoice is never a good thing. Being able to fly any ship with my favorite character is a big draw. If the game was hard coded to be restricted from the start as Tac = Escort etc, I could accept it but after having the freedom to do what I want, it would be very hard to let it go at this point.
If this all comes from cleaning up the skill choices at VA, then splitting out ground skills and equalising the weapon skills (when the weapons are pretty musch the same apart from a additional effect) would be most of the job done wouldn't it?
I agree with the OP it wouldn't be a good idea to restrict choice. It can leave people guessing when you approach an escort all buffed up only to fidn a sci captain who snb's you and rips you to shreads with his tactical abilities. True you can find out easily but it takes time but really it's good to have that extra unkown factor.
Glad to see a thread on this topic. There have been some interesting discussions internally about the ship/class restrictions. Intrigued to see more of your input.
I will say one thing Dan...it wouldn't hurt to spice up bridge officer layouts on some ships. Many of us Science Ship Pilots that were hoping to see the D'kyr with a LTCMDR Tac slot so it wouldn't step on the toes of the Nebula. Some of us, by choice, don't cross class in our ship choices...but that doesn't mean we want "me too" bridge layouts.
I want everyone to look at my character and be a little bit envyous of the number of ships I own and see why I absolutely Do Not Support that ideal of career = Stuck on one ship type.
Also. You're welcome. That's small proof of all the ship spots i've bought
I will say one thing Dan...it wouldn't hurt to spice up bridge officer layouts on some ships. Many of us Science Ship Pilots that were hoping to see the D'kyr with a LTCMDR Tac slot so it wouldn't step on the toes of the Nebula. Some of us, by choice, don't cross class in our ship choices...but that doesn't mean we want "me too" bridge layouts.
While I'm all for variety, I don't see the D'Kyr as the ship to get more Tactical skills. Vulcans are just not aggressive enough to design ships in that way. As it stands I think I'm quite happy with the layout they got.
While I'm all for variety, I don't see the D'Kyr as the ship to get more Tactical skills. Vulcans are just not aggressive enough to design ships in that way. As it stands I think I'm quite happy with the layout they got.
While I'm all for variety, I don't see the D'Kyr as the ship to get more Tactical skills. Vulcans are just not aggressive enough to design ships in that way. As it stands I think I'm quite happy with the layout they got.
It was originally intended for proactive not reactive approaches...read its description in the C-Store. And the design comes from the time of the Vulcan and Andorian conflicts. I sincerely doubt they answered Andorian agression with passive resistance.
It was originally intended for proactive not reactive approaches...read its description in the C-Store. And the design comes from the time of the Vulcan and Andorian conflicts. I sincerely doubt they answered Andorian agression with passive resistance.
You are misreading me, the Vulcan's are not aggressive, that does not mean they are inherently passive, but their design principles should reflect their culture. They prize logic over the overt use of violence, the design should (and does) consider this.
Normally space and ground are different skills and should have their own skill points allocation page.
We have a limited number of points so it actually doesn't matter. Giving more points to ground skills means losing points in space. If you want a seperate ground skills page we need better sub-classes.
For all classes 2 skill trees. The skills page looks a bit lackluster, a fullscreen page with pictures would be nice.
In SWG famous charcters are the icons for each prefession, why not in STO, something like:
Engineer:
Miles O'Brian
Offensive skill tree: more power to turrets and other offensive toys.
Montgomery Scott
Defensive skill tree: Shields, Shield generators and such get boosted.
Scientist:
Mr. Spock
Offensive skill tree: stronger self-heal, stronger single target debuffs
Dr. (Bones) McCoy
Defensive skill tree: powerful aoe heal, crowd control (group/aoe debuffing)
Tactician:
Worf
Offensive skill tree: single target dps debuffing, dps self boost, boost to melee skills, weapon damage skills
In order to get the maximum out of a certain ship class you have to spend points from tier 1 up to tier 5 which makes it hard if not impossible to become a cruiser and an escort captain with max ship skills (hull/shiels/maneuverability) and exceptable skills in other abilities. Removing those T1-T4 points frees up some points for ground skills. T5 ship specialization is ok. Most people had to respec beacause they wanted to test a new weapon type. There is no reason for antiproton being more expensive than phaser.
We don't want to see alpha weapons in this game, different yes but not superior. They should all cost the
same and go as energy weapons in general. "Efficient energy weapons training" could be a new T5 ability instead.
The fixes required should be solely directed at the skill tree and abilities. Right now I see 3 major flaws in the skill system .
1) Skills: Some skills (like engineering ones) are in reality required by all ships and everyone invests on them. This makes an engineering class in a cruiser having more choice to specialise on other areas without sacrificing much in return for what they do best (tanking). This is an example amongst many discrepancies in some combinations. Additionally some skills who tie to staple abilitties (like hazard emmiters) are highly valued over others but cost the same. We need better balance across the board in both effectiveness and cost.
2) Skill tree: The skill tree needs to rearrange weapon skills to be on the same tier. No need to pay more for transphasic or plasma when they are actually less desired and effective than those a tier or two lower.
3) Weapons: Redesign their damage and procs. Not major changes but at the moment we are mostly pigeon holed to use phaser/disruptor and quatums. I will follow below with a small list or procs and damage indicators. This will IMO help people spread their weapon loadouts and try different combinations.
Energy (all weapons get 1% chance to randonly disable a subsystem)
Phaser proc: 5% chance to lower resistance (all) by 5% for 10 sec
Disruptor: 5% chance to cause 25% more damage (all)
Plasma: 5% chance to inflict 10% more damage as a dot over 10 sec and slow speed slightly
Tetryon: 5% chance to reset shields dropping them for 3 sec
Polaron: 5% chance to bypass shields completely doing 75% of its damage
Anti-proton: passive 10% severity
Projectile (3 tiers of damage and CD ie low-medium-high)
Photon: low damage - very low CD - equally effective against shields and hull (medium) - 5% bleed
Quantum: high damage - medium CD - medium effect on shields more effective against hull - 5% bleed
Plasma: medium damage - medium CD - minimal damage against shields, x3 damage against hull - 1% bleed
Chroniton: low damage - medium CD - 5% chance to stun an opponent for 5 sec (applies stun resist after for 30sec) 5% bleed
Transphasic: medium damage - long CD - 5% chance to bypass shields completely - 5% bleed
Anyways some rough ideas amongst any others to give all weapons more appeal while putting them all on the same tier.:D
You are misreading me, the Vulcan's are not aggressive, that does not mean they are inherently passive, but their design principles should reflect their culture. They prize logic over the overt use of violence, the design should (and does) consider this.
But that doesn't mean that should there be few to no other alternatives...that they'd just lay there either.
But that doesn't mean that should there be few to no other alternatives...that they'd just lay there either.
They are not just laying there. One can beat a phaser without using a traditional weapon. There are offensive abilities in both the Science (more so) and Engineering pools. Just because they put less emphasis on tactical skills does not mean they are less capable.
To get back on topic. I still believe that the answer to this question is more in the BO's skills than it is in our Captain's skills. that is not to say the skill trees do not need an overhaul, but so too do the BO skills. In fact, we simply need a greater variety of skills at all levels for all BO branches.
Glad to see a thread on this topic. There have been some interesting discussions internally about the ship/class restrictions. Intrigued to see more of your input.
I had written up a message about this topic awhile ago but never sent it (work got in the way!) so I'm happy to see it being talked about now!
In my opinion ship restrictions should be minimized as much as possible, not increased! I find these restrictions add little and only end up hindering one's enjoyment of the game.
For me, one of the best features of STO is the ability to switch out ships and try new vessels when they become available, and doing that *should not* mean a respec to get the most out of what I'm about to fly. Going from an 'escort captain' to a 'science ship captain' to a 'cruiser captain' is really annoying and very expensive (but necessary if you plan to play on elite or do any serious pvp).
What I think would work better is something like this:
Captaincy Skill (Rank 1-5) <- This is a general skil that applies to all ships and unlocks as you level up in rank.
*A few* (perhaps rank 1-2) skills for specialty in escorts, science ships, and cruisers, which provides additional bonuses in those class of ships.
This sort of setup would allow players to fly most ships well, while still giving them some option to 'specialize' if they so choose, but without costing them a ton of points or dramatically penalizing players who haven't specialized in a ship they are currently flying.
The other nice to have here (and a bit off topic) is to allow players to respec a part of the skill tree without resetting everything and starting from scratch. Here I see a system where players spend some sort of 'respec coins' for each skill point changed. These coins could either be purchased fron the C-Store ($10 gets you 1000 respec coins) or bought in game with some other in-game currency (merits or what have you).
Maybe it would be something if STO ever goes free to play. Paying customers can make their characters as they like, those who play for free are locked into archetypes. But since that's not even on the horizon.... Forget I wrote anything.:D
Honestly, that was my immediate reaction to reading this. A restriction for "Silver" level STO players, much like Champions Online has done with restricted customization of free archetypes. As such I suppose it would be relatively comparable.
If that isn't the case, then my answer is very simple: the idea is terrible. Cryptic should always be synonymous with customization and choice. I don't mind changes, just let us build captains, ships, and crews that we want, even if the combination is not perfectly optimal for the game mechanics. Thanks.
And his two sudjestion to improove the skill system (weapons all costing the same - not depending of "damage kind" but only by the weapon kind - and reducing the admiral ship skills) would be great to make it a good system without indering the flexibility of the gameplay (Cryptin 1st comandement isn't total customisation after all?).
(sorry, but my english skill today seams to be on vacation...)
You're asking too much of your playerbase to adjust to, Cryptic. The current skill system is fine, you just have to trim the Admiral-level skills down so that things add up later on.
Restricting a captain to a certain ship type is also akin to what SOE did to SWG with their NGE update. It seemed like it made a better game, but it radically changed things to the point people left in droves.
I think there should be no restriction on the type of ship a captain can "own," no matter their career path. That's one of the nice things about Star Trek Online compared to the other (two) MMOs I've played; you're not "stuck" in a particular slot.
Restricting captains from using a class of ship that's not their own would be bad... rewarding them for using the right ship class however... good :-)
If my captain is tactical and he flies a tactical ship... he knows how things work instinctively, which should increase his abilities. If he hops into a science ship however, he can fly it but things wouldn't come as smoothly to him so not only does he lose his tactical initiative but the science abilities the ship would normally have would also be less effective.
What you need is a special skill you get just for flying the same type of ship as your captains class to encourage people to do it without limiting them to it. Maybe add a 10% cooldown to ALL abilities when using a ship which class doesn't match your class to show that your 'not as quick' as you would be if it was a ship type you were used to.
Love the split ground/space skills idea tho.
This, too, is a horrible idea. A Captain not being able to train the ship's most powerful BO should be "punishment" enough for mixing it up.
i want to fly my cruiser as tac my escort as engi and so on
the skillpoint system isnt even hard to learn
dont touch the skillpoint system
IF I WANT TO FOCUS ON SPACE i focus on space
and i can predict you if you make it 50-50 or even bind us on ship class you will loose :mad:
like i said in starting this game hasnt much compared to top rated mmorpg but it didnt have this ****** fix class systems
even starwars galaxys was running good till crybabys called and they served this post apocaliptic revamp now it is death
NEVER TOUCH AN RUNNING SYSTEM
if ya want something to discuss than use the " romulans "
you guys said they would come while we where at beta or open beta
i dont see em yet
or discuss about the klingon contentt
it was bad enough before you nerfed the carriers
NOW klingon pvp is death nothing runs there even in high lvl VICE ADMIRAL you have problems to get some pvp
while klingons have 7 or 8 pvp quests to lvl fast it worked in beta/open beta NO ITS NOTHING MORE THAN AN JOKE
it was nearly death before the nerf maybe you should do something there so they dont have to repeat some stupid missions 200 times cause the pvp xp are missing
if ya want to kill this game do what you disuss
you guys just got some rejoiners cause of the 1 year party who want to check what has changed
dont make the error and feel over confident dont try to make this game monkey easy to put some 6yr old on the package and thing you get even more players
if you thing some arent smart enough to live with the skill system offer guides
or even pre-builds to select at skill trainer
BUT dont even think over taking away the free skilling possibilitys or make them c-store only
oh yeah i know cryptic and that makes me sad i just wanted to start sto but now i better party over the weekend before i waste my time :mad::mad:
Agreed do not take away the freedom of choice even if it is just at lower levels. Also i love the idea of separating the ground and space skill points .
Comments
In regards to the space/ground tree split, I personally would like this change as it would make balancing skill investment easier on the player (though it does limit the choices, I will admit) and means there will be less disparity between those who invest a balance and those who go space all the way (why they do this is due to ground combat's game play, not the skills in my opinion).
However I think, for me, the issue with skills doesn't lie with skills being too open to confuse and providing too many choices. The system is good. It's the presentation I find lacking. Each box needs a complete list of skills it will affect with its current bonus with skills and a separate number with your equipment as well.
In the same way, I feel Admiral level ship skills are too broad. The choices should compact just as lower tiers to(in my opinion) be as follows:
FED/KLG
Space - Tactical, Engineer, Science, Command
One thing about this thread is it seems that limiting ships to class doesn't appear popular :-P
I second this - largely because I have three cruisers, and I'd rather not lose them, thanks!
I pretty much agree, there is weapons should all be equal point cost.
All i can say is removing existing options does not a better game make. Just ask SOE....
As much as some class combinations are very troublesome in PvP, I honestly don't want to restrict people in such a manner. After all you surely are going to have Trek fans who would like to be a Tactical or Science Captains and fly the Consitution or Galaxy, or a Engineer wanting to be in an Intrepid or Prometheus.
If you are thinking of restrictions because of the trouble it's causing in PvP, why not make different attributes being avaiable in each ship class than a general Profession abilities?
For example, instead of SNB and Photonic Fleet for Science Captains, it instead would only be available on a Science Ship (due to the technology). If a Science Captain is in an Cruiser would be able to take in exotic gasses and eject them. A Tactical in a Cruiser would be able to fire at ejected warp plasma and set it alight.
That sort of thing.
If this all comes from cleaning up the skill choices at VA, then splitting out ground skills and equalising the weapon skills (when the weapons are pretty musch the same apart from a additional effect) would be most of the job done wouldn't it?
I will say one thing Dan...it wouldn't hurt to spice up bridge officer layouts on some ships. Many of us Science Ship Pilots that were hoping to see the D'kyr with a LTCMDR Tac slot so it wouldn't step on the toes of the Nebula. Some of us, by choice, don't cross class in our ship choices...but that doesn't mean we want "me too" bridge layouts.
I want everyone to look at my character and be a little bit envyous of the number of ships I own and see why I absolutely Do Not Support that ideal of career = Stuck on one ship type.
Also. You're welcome. That's small proof of all the ship spots i've bought
While I'm all for variety, I don't see the D'Kyr as the ship to get more Tactical skills. Vulcans are just not aggressive enough to design ships in that way. As it stands I think I'm quite happy with the layout they got.
now the andorians....
Actually I'm rather curious about the Andorian ship it should be an Escort, but what will be its secondary role... but that belongs here... not here.
So don't bind me, I might want an Andorian Tac officer running around in Vulcan science ship
It was originally intended for proactive not reactive approaches...read its description in the C-Store. And the design comes from the time of the Vulcan and Andorian conflicts. I sincerely doubt they answered Andorian agression with passive resistance.
Same for me!
You are misreading me, the Vulcan's are not aggressive, that does not mean they are inherently passive, but their design principles should reflect their culture. They prize logic over the overt use of violence, the design should (and does) consider this.
We have a limited number of points so it actually doesn't matter. Giving more points to ground skills means losing points in space. If you want a seperate ground skills page we need better sub-classes.
For all classes 2 skill trees. The skills page looks a bit lackluster, a fullscreen page with pictures would be nice.
In SWG famous charcters are the icons for each prefession, why not in STO, something like:
Engineer:
Miles O'Brian
Offensive skill tree: more power to turrets and other offensive toys.
Montgomery Scott
Defensive skill tree: Shields, Shield generators and such get boosted.
Scientist:
Mr. Spock
Offensive skill tree: stronger self-heal, stronger single target debuffs
Dr. (Bones) McCoy
Defensive skill tree: powerful aoe heal, crowd control (group/aoe debuffing)
Tactician:
Worf
Offensive skill tree: single target dps debuffing, dps self boost, boost to melee skills, weapon damage skills
?
Defensive skill tree: aoe dps debuffing, infiltrator (stealth kit) effectiveness boost, grenades boost, boost rally cry and aoe protection skill
In order to get the maximum out of a certain ship class you have to spend points from tier 1 up to tier 5 which makes it hard if not impossible to become a cruiser and an escort captain with max ship skills (hull/shiels/maneuverability) and exceptable skills in other abilities. Removing those T1-T4 points frees up some points for ground skills. T5 ship specialization is ok. Most people had to respec beacause they wanted to test a new weapon type. There is no reason for antiproton being more expensive than phaser.
We don't want to see alpha weapons in this game, different yes but not superior. They should all cost the
same and go as energy weapons in general. "Efficient energy weapons training" could be a new T5 ability instead.
The fixes required should be solely directed at the skill tree and abilities. Right now I see 3 major flaws in the skill system .
1) Skills: Some skills (like engineering ones) are in reality required by all ships and everyone invests on them. This makes an engineering class in a cruiser having more choice to specialise on other areas without sacrificing much in return for what they do best (tanking). This is an example amongst many discrepancies in some combinations. Additionally some skills who tie to staple abilitties (like hazard emmiters) are highly valued over others but cost the same. We need better balance across the board in both effectiveness and cost.
2) Skill tree: The skill tree needs to rearrange weapon skills to be on the same tier. No need to pay more for transphasic or plasma when they are actually less desired and effective than those a tier or two lower.
3) Weapons: Redesign their damage and procs. Not major changes but at the moment we are mostly pigeon holed to use phaser/disruptor and quatums. I will follow below with a small list or procs and damage indicators. This will IMO help people spread their weapon loadouts and try different combinations.
Energy (all weapons get 1% chance to randonly disable a subsystem)
Phaser proc: 5% chance to lower resistance (all) by 5% for 10 sec
Disruptor: 5% chance to cause 25% more damage (all)
Plasma: 5% chance to inflict 10% more damage as a dot over 10 sec and slow speed slightly
Tetryon: 5% chance to reset shields dropping them for 3 sec
Polaron: 5% chance to bypass shields completely doing 75% of its damage
Anti-proton: passive 10% severity
Projectile (3 tiers of damage and CD ie low-medium-high)
Photon: low damage - very low CD - equally effective against shields and hull (medium) - 5% bleed
Quantum: high damage - medium CD - medium effect on shields more effective against hull - 5% bleed
Plasma: medium damage - medium CD - minimal damage against shields, x3 damage against hull - 1% bleed
Chroniton: low damage - medium CD - 5% chance to stun an opponent for 5 sec (applies stun resist after for 30sec) 5% bleed
Transphasic: medium damage - long CD - 5% chance to bypass shields completely - 5% bleed
Anyways some rough ideas amongst any others to give all weapons more appeal while putting them all on the same tier.:D
But that doesn't mean that should there be few to no other alternatives...that they'd just lay there either.
They are not just laying there. One can beat a phaser without using a traditional weapon. There are offensive abilities in both the Science (more so) and Engineering pools. Just because they put less emphasis on tactical skills does not mean they are less capable.
To get back on topic. I still believe that the answer to this question is more in the BO's skills than it is in our Captain's skills. that is not to say the skill trees do not need an overhaul, but so too do the BO skills. In fact, we simply need a greater variety of skills at all levels for all BO branches.
I had written up a message about this topic awhile ago but never sent it (work got in the way!) so I'm happy to see it being talked about now!
In my opinion ship restrictions should be minimized as much as possible, not increased! I find these restrictions add little and only end up hindering one's enjoyment of the game.
For me, one of the best features of STO is the ability to switch out ships and try new vessels when they become available, and doing that *should not* mean a respec to get the most out of what I'm about to fly. Going from an 'escort captain' to a 'science ship captain' to a 'cruiser captain' is really annoying and very expensive (but necessary if you plan to play on elite or do any serious pvp).
What I think would work better is something like this:
Captaincy Skill (Rank 1-5) <- This is a general skil that applies to all ships and unlocks as you level up in rank.
*A few* (perhaps rank 1-2) skills for specialty in escorts, science ships, and cruisers, which provides additional bonuses in those class of ships.
This sort of setup would allow players to fly most ships well, while still giving them some option to 'specialize' if they so choose, but without costing them a ton of points or dramatically penalizing players who haven't specialized in a ship they are currently flying.
The other nice to have here (and a bit off topic) is to allow players to respec a part of the skill tree without resetting everything and starting from scratch. Here I see a system where players spend some sort of 'respec coins' for each skill point changed. These coins could either be purchased fron the C-Store ($10 gets you 1000 respec coins) or bought in game with some other in-game currency (merits or what have you).
Hope the feedback helps,
Zapgun
Honestly, that was my immediate reaction to reading this. A restriction for "Silver" level STO players, much like Champions Online has done with restricted customization of free archetypes. As such I suppose it would be relatively comparable.
If that isn't the case, then my answer is very simple: the idea is terrible. Cryptic should always be synonymous with customization and choice. I don't mind changes, just let us build captains, ships, and crews that we want, even if the combination is not perfectly optimal for the game mechanics. Thanks.
And his two sudjestion to improove the skill system (weapons all costing the same - not depending of "damage kind" but only by the weapon kind - and reducing the admiral ship skills) would be great to make it a good system without indering the flexibility of the gameplay (Cryptin 1st comandement isn't total customisation after all?).
(sorry, but my english skill today seams to be on vacation...)
You're asking too much of your playerbase to adjust to, Cryptic. The current skill system is fine, you just have to trim the Admiral-level skills down so that things add up later on.
Restricting a captain to a certain ship type is also akin to what SOE did to SWG with their NGE update. It seemed like it made a better game, but it radically changed things to the point people left in droves.
Dont do it.
This, too, is a horrible idea. A Captain not being able to train the ship's most powerful BO should be "punishment" enough for mixing it up.
DONT TAKE AWAY THE FREEDOM TO SKILL WHAT YOU WANT
the skillsystem is fine as it is now
dont touch it
i want to fly my cruiser as tac my escort as engi and so on
the skillpoint system isnt even hard to learn
dont touch the skillpoint system
IF I WANT TO FOCUS ON SPACE i focus on space
and i can predict you if you make it 50-50 or even bind us on ship class you will loose :mad:
like i said in starting this game hasnt much compared to top rated mmorpg but it didnt have this ****** fix class systems
even starwars galaxys was running good till crybabys called and they served this post apocaliptic revamp now it is death
NEVER TOUCH AN RUNNING SYSTEM
if ya want something to discuss than use the " romulans "
you guys said they would come while we where at beta or open beta
i dont see em yet
or discuss about the klingon contentt
it was bad enough before you nerfed the carriers
NOW klingon pvp is death nothing runs there even in high lvl VICE ADMIRAL you have problems to get some pvp
while klingons have 7 or 8 pvp quests to lvl fast it worked in beta/open beta NO ITS NOTHING MORE THAN AN JOKE
it was nearly death before the nerf maybe you should do something there so they dont have to repeat some stupid missions 200 times cause the pvp xp are missing
if ya want to kill this game do what you disuss
you guys just got some rejoiners cause of the 1 year party who want to check what has changed
dont make the error and feel over confident dont try to make this game monkey easy to put some 6yr old on the package and thing you get even more players
if you thing some arent smart enough to live with the skill system offer guides
or even pre-builds to select at skill trainer
BUT dont even think over taking away the free skilling possibilitys or make them c-store only
oh yeah i know cryptic and that makes me sad i just wanted to start sto but now i better party over the weekend before i waste my time :mad::mad: