test content
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc

Captains bound to ship class? NO!

13468914

Comments

  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2011
    I agree. DO NOT restrict us to one ship class until later. The freedom is what makes it fun.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2011
    Roach wrote: »
    Ctoon skills with ones own class choice should cost less? Corresponding BOffs abilites that fall within the Captains career choice should cost less as well?

    Absolutely. Great point. :)
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2011
    LotD wrote:
    The problem with the skill system as far as captains go is that the skills are vague, passive, and often confusing. There should never be a question of what, precisely, a skill does. So all these skills that are just buffs to BO skills you may or may not ever have need to go away in favor of something else. Your class should be a generic buff to all skills of that class type, probably also in learning speed.

    So for example, if I'm a Science captain, I expect my Science BOs will benefit from my advanced knowledge and learn their skills faster and better than someone with a Tactical captain. That would make the "Science Captain" etc. skills vanish immediately. They don't make sense anyway. A Science captain doesn't train to be a Tactical captain without effectively switching class. You should be able to pick up Tactical captain skills (as I mention below), but you shouldn't have a generic buff skill like that.

    On the ground, your skills should be what your kit is now. If the BOs have active skills, the Captain should too.

    For the BO skills, they should be more of a talent that you can rank up. It always bugs me that my BO can know say, Beam Overload III but never learned Beam Overload I, and even moreso that I can't use 4 high level skills because it doesn't work that way. If each BO can only have 4 skills, that's fine, but make them 4 trees each of which can go to the highest level.

    The Captain, similarly, should have the same option. After all, we're all Starfleet. As a Captain, I should have 4 of those too, in addition to having some passive buffs like to the ship, the type of weapon, etc.

    The passive Captain buffs should be more directly laid out as well. None of this "+5 to Deflector" nonsense. It should be more like "Tractor Beam Specialist: +10% to strength of all tractor beams." Or "Crack Shot: "+10% chance to disable a sub system." Or "Navigator: +10% to starship maneuverability."

    For display purposes, these skills should be sorted by the class they fall under. Your specific 4 captain skills in one tab. The available generic captain skills in one, and then the specific sci/tac/eng in a tab each. That will make it easier to view and less confusing as to what affects what.

    More reasonable suggestions. This thread is going to get harder and harder to follow as more ideas are put forth. Best of luck to the Cryptic folks taking notes.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2011
    I've said it before, and I'll say it again. All three classes of ship at each tier (regardless of ship profession) should be available for use, and should be differentiated from each other in other ways than just aesthetically. I've never understood why Starfleet would design 3 separate ships that look different, but behave exactly the same way.

    Cryptic could use all existing in game elements. Just give one "class" a certain bonus or ability, which could be anything. For example, one class could have a bonus to shields, another a bonus to weapons, and another a bonus to turn rate. Or, have one designed for an Engineer to use, another a Science officer, and another a Tactical officer. Imagine a cruiser specially designed for a Tactical player, or an escort specially designed for an Engineer. The options are practically limitless.

    And make it so that you can purchase all ships available at each tier. As long as you have the EC's on hand, you should be able to buy them.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2011
    I agree. DO NOT restrict us to one ship class until later. The freedom is what makes it fun.

    I agree. It's the flexibility of ship/player setup choices that makes the game great!
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2011
    I agree mostly with the OP. Fixing captain types to ships would make this game very boring for me. Through mixing and matching I have found that with my playstyle, I am most balanced playing my Engineer in an Advanced Escort (a sciencey dps boat). My tactical captain will probably be adding his damage boosting skills and maneuvers to a Cruiser (although currently I'm having fun with him in a science ship). I found when I did "class match" with those two I found it extremely boring. My Engineer in a cruiser was nigh invincible, but it took a five-year mission to kill a single (pack) of enemies. My tactical captain could duck and weave in an Escort, but should anything hit him he's toast. The way we are able to add our captain's abilities to these different types of ships is what makes the game interesting, instead of having it be directed to us from the beginning.
    K-Tar wrote:
    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.

    Now, with point 1), I wholeheartedly agree. Mostly. I think. I find it ridiculous to spend the amount of points needed for "admiral-level" skills on any sort of weapon specialization. I've actually avoided any type of weapon-type specialization (beyond the general beams/cannon/mine/torps skills) because for the points required, they would be better used elsewhere. I can possibly see making phasers and disruptors easier to acquire for fed/kdf to kind of influence people to stick to "canon" cannons more (:P), but it gets ridiculous at the higher levels. So overall, I think that energy and projectile damage type skills should cost the same.

    With point 2), most people forget that KDF have two more classes of ships than the FEDs have. BoPs are not Escorts, they are Raiders. There are 5 classes of ships in this game (6 if you count shuttles). I do think they need to be consolidated more at the upper tiers though.
    1. Cruisers
    2. Escorts
    3. Science - the KDF didn't really have these until the Gorn Varanus ship.
    4. Raiders - KDF only atm, but perhaps a fed ship similar to what the Maquis used would be appropriate here
    5. Carriers - also KDF only atm.
    6. Small Craft (Shuttles/fighters/runabouts) - I'm not sure if this should get its own skill branch, but it might be interesting

    So if these do get reorganized, they should stick to just these 5 (or 6) types of ship skills and keep these branches as a single line all the way up the progression.

    (Although I will take the opportunity to jab in here once again that all of this would probably be simpler if we'd stop tying rank to skill/xp level)
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2011
    Dan? You know I usually am a great lover of the Cryptic dev team, but...

    Please, I would ask you to locate whoever came up with this bonehead idea and escort him from the building. Clearly, this person is trying to sabotage you.

    We require *more* freedom in this game, not less. More choices, not fewer. The backlash from that decision might just be *worse* than the NGE was for Star Wars Galaxies. I assure you, you don't want that.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2011
    Signalsgt wrote: »
    This would work if they also rolled back the changes that were made in Season 1.2. Ships running 8 beams fundamentally altered the game.

    That's an entirely different issue.

    A Mk VI phaser cannon does the same DPS as a Mk VI plasma cannon and the general consensus is that the phaser's proc is more useful even though the procs are supposed to be roughly equivalent. Yet as it stands, the plasma cannon requires more SP to spec into. There are Admiral skills that affect Ensign abilities costed the same as Admiral skills that affect Commander abilities, despite widely differing degrees of utility. The power system Efficiency skills are all the same cost but the Performance skills are not. This state of affairs is more than a little nonsensical.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2011
    (Although I will take the opportunity to jab in here once again that all of this would probably be simpler if we'd stop tying rank to skill/xp level)

    Only quoted this part for emphasis. I completely agree with this statement.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2011
    LotD wrote:
    Absolutely. Great point. :)

    TY
    Twice in one day with me making a good point.
    Surely the world will end soon now.:p
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2011
    innocuous9 wrote:
    We require *more* freedom in this game, not less. More choices, not fewer. The backlash from that decision might just be *worse* than the NGE was for Star Wars Galaxies. I assure you, you don't want that.

    I've had trouble deciding if it would or not. On one hand, it's not the sweeping demolish-and-replace that the NGE was. On the other, STO's axes of choice are limited such that it would kill 2/3 of current captain/ship combinations while leveling, and from what I've seen trying those different combinations contributes extensively to the enjoyment of alting. Less alt-friendly = people playing a shorter time relative to uptake = smaller playerbase.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2011
    At least, limit it until you truly reach "Captain", not RA - that's simply TRIBBLE.

    I would also proffer that the Miranda be allowed no variants, and the "Miranda Variants" we see become t4/5 versions of it. They seem more fitting that way.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2011
    If I understand this concept properly this would basically make Engineers -> Cruisers, Tactical -> Escorts, and Science-Utility ships. While this would go along with some concepts that multiple Star Trek series supported I would beg to differ due to other concepts that are also used. Yes most captains of a star ship class tend to have training/experience in those areas (Janeway was a Science Geek, Sisko was a Tactical minded officer, Archer an Engineer due to his Warp 5 engine knowledge), but I see the ships as a blank slate that is made to fit the captain/mission. Most every Star Trek source will mention that a Star Ship hull and frame are a honeycomb of mission modules, storage space, and hardware that supports the crew and mission. There can, for example, be a Tactical Galaxy class for defense/battles, a Research Galaxy class that travels around experimenting/discovering new things, and the Galaxy class most knew from TV that did a little of everything. All that made each different were the modules, and equipment installed in the ship at the time. Now I will admit that certain hulls work best for certain missions, and that certian captains can make certain ships perform better then others. In theory any ship can complete any mission if given enough time, resources, and the will to find a way. Star Trek shows had to solve problems in 45 minutes, but in a game we have more 'what if' time to explore potential options.

    I would suggest that all ship classes be useable to all captains, but do put in limitations that would steer the captain toward certain main stream ship classes. Maybe ship equipment/consoles should have limits on what captain type, and/or skills can operate them. An example.....

    An Engineering Captain selects an Advanced Escort (Prometheus class) as his ship. This ship is heavy on Tactical BOFFS, moderate on Science BOFFS, and light on Engineering BOFF. Due to this his equipment would be great weapons, good shields/sensors, and moderate engines/warp capable. Now due to his engineering background he might be able to enhance the engine/warp function via great engineering skills and access to great engineering consoles. So this would balance out the lack of highly trained engineer BOFF, and the ship design of tactical over science/engineering. We can also try a numerical example.

    Advanced Escort (Prometheus class) - Base ship stats : Tactical (T)=3 / Science (S)=2 / Engineer (E)=1
    Engineer Capt. commanding - T = 3, S = 2, E= 1 (ship base)+1 (captain background)
    Science Capt. commanding - T = 3, S = 2 (ship base) +1 (captain background), E = 1
    Tactical Capt. commanding - T = 3 (ship base)+1 (captain background), S= 2 , E = 1

    So from the numbers you see that the captains training/experience improves the ships functions in the area that he is most familiar with. Star ship captains do have a focus they excel at, but all captains must have a working knowledge of all ship systems/functions. If they did not the ship would be doomed to failure before leaving space dock. Now I would say a fair system for access to equipment and consoles would need to allow for a captains to have a major and minor focus. This would be simple to comtrol via the current Captain Skill system. You can usually max out one of the sections, and part of a second. I, for example, have an engineer captain who is full engineer/part science. I tried tactical, but my play style benefits form high power levels, and sensor skills that blind/confuse enemies. In a tactical ship I flounder due to no healing if I want to maintain weapon/shield power. Now a Science ship does okay, and Crusiers I excel most times. Now if I could access better consoles that allowed me to open up an extra engineer skill, or exchange a tactical slot for engineer I could function decently well in an escort, though a Tactical captain would still out perform me easily.

    I think this form of limitation/customization would allow for more options, but would still allow for certain ship classes to be kept captain specific.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2011
    To me, it is not Star Trek if I am not flying a Cruiser. On the other hand, I enjoy all three class options.

    I mean, if we required Tactical to fly Escorts and Engineers to fly Cruisers, then Scotty would have been Captain of the Enterprise!
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2011
    I say that the reaching of fleet admiral can be interesting depending on how it is implemented. but that is a conversation for another thread. Now, I've seem many interesting cross class specs that look quite amazing, it would be a true shame to limit this to Tier 5 players.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2011
    Most of my Tacs are in Cruisers and half my engineers are in escort-type ships (I'm including BoP in that.) I am NOT IN FAVOR of any sort of restrictions on the type of ships they fly.

    :rolleyes:
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2011
    dstahl wrote: »
    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.

    Please leave the freedom to choose. In my opinion, players hate restrictions like these. :) I certainly don't want my ship type dictated (except maybe shuttle only missions).
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2011
    Ok, taking stuff away is bad m'kay.

    Especially when I foresee "Use out-of-class ship token" 400cp under services in the future.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2011
    This is a horrible idea as i have numerous alts that i levelled in multiple combinations.

    Alt 1 - Tactical in Escort
    Alt 2 - Tactical in Cruiser
    Alt 3 - Tactical in Science
    Alt 4 - Engineer in Escort
    Alt 5 - Engineer in Cruiser
    Alt 6 - Engineer in Science
    Alt 7 - Science in Escort
    Alt 8 - Science in Cruiser
    Alt 9 - Science in Science
    Alt 10 - Tactical in BOP

    All these are VA now but how boring would this of been if i was forced to level all these guys restricted to class specific ships.

    note i am also levelling a vulcan science for the dkyr and an andoran tactical for the andorian ship.

    Please do not go ahead with this idea.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2011
    dstahl wrote: »
    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 would also say: Please DON'T do it - to be restricted to a certain type of ship goes ASGAINST everything else in the game that allows for customization of the experience. Maybe just rebalace space skills so that you don't really get major proficiency in a particular ship class until the Admiril levels or something.

    (And FYI - I currentlyhave an Eng that has flown nothing put Cruisers, but I COULD see a Tac of mine wanting a Cruiser as opposed to an Escort as he makes the run up to Admiral. IMO ANYTHING that reduces the options we have now, simply because some folks don't like to respect occassionally isn't a good reason to remove a character game experience/customization option.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2011
    I don't like the idea of class ship restrictions I like to be able to fly any ship I want no matter what class I am.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2011
    K-Tar wrote:
    From the latest Ask Cryptic:

    "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"
    Dear Mr. DStahl,
    this is one of the worst ideas your team could come up with. (I'm sorry to say that.)
    It would be a good reason for me to quit.

    Thank you for reading.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2011
    Ships bound to captain track?

    HECK NO and I apologize for the caps, they are unusual for me, but this is a passionate point.

    Do you *really* intend to tell people that an iconic and/or favored ship design and their preferred skill trck are mutually exclusive?

    Bad bad *BAD* idea.

    Have you seen the way people get passionate about their favorite ship designs?
    Now imagine telling every tac officer with a Galaxy Sov or Excelsior that they can't have it anymore.

    Thalaron.
    Holocaust.
    Of Doom.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2011
    If you want more specialization via career paths, then add more career-based abilities - or have more unlocks via Duty Officers.

    However:
    Don't restrict ship classes. We're commanding a crew, not a single person in regards to ships.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2011
    I have to concur, the locking people into tactical officers flying escorts, or engineers flying cruisers is one of the worst ideas ive heard of. i know its just an idea at this stage but no, no, no.

    customization and the freedom we have to customize is one of the cool things about any game. locking us in is a bad idea.

    im not even sure i like the idea of breaking up the points into ground and space.

    if you want to do that then you can already - by distributing your points evenly. separating the two means you get less control as you are then forced to spread them out.

    i agree with this, i too dont want to be rangled into 1 type of ship. its the freedom of choising in this game that makes the ships great. the idea of choising what type of ship or class imho is the best part.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2011
    I wouldn't mind seeing bonus abilities or stats for classes with their ship type. Which would make them better, like a science officer would be better in a science ships. Engineers better in cruisers and tactical better in escorts. Maybe tactical better in assault cruisers and engineers better fleet escorts.

    I think instead of having separate hull and maneuverability increases for each ship type. It should be just called ship operations and it would apply to all ships. So you could just switch ships and would get the hull bonuses and maneuvering increases for whatever ship you fly.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2011
    dstahl:
    Please don't.
    That's all I have to say.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2011
    Slightly off-topic, but following up from my earlier suggestion off how to re-define classes (posted up-thread HERE, I've come up with an extension of that concept, dealing with how to re-work bridge officer stations to include positions like the 'helm', 'ops', the 'weapons console' and so forth, posted in another thread.

    You can read it HERE. Basically, inspired by threads like this, I've been trying to come up with a way of re-organising the current classes, powers and skills, so as to achieve two things:

    1. Better reflect the divisions and officer assignments from the shows, so the game plays and feels even more like 'Star Trek'.

    2. Free players up from the traditional mould of 'Tank/DPS/Healer' classes and allow more choice when it comes to individual play style and XP allocation - hopefully in a way that again feels/plays more like 'Star Trek' (see point 1! ;) )


    Hopefully it's something that people like the sound of, and that the devs consider a workable possibility, since I'm convinced that such a 'tweak' of the system would help to really improve the quality of STO even further, making it more playable, more customiseable, more intuitive, and more 'Trek-y', too!
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2011
    This thread is as I predicted in my response to this month's Ask Cryptic.

    Don't go down this route. You're taking away choices that players have currently... we like those choices.

    Even Egypt will be in awe of our protest if you adopt this bad idea.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2011
    I vote no on restricting lower ranks to the same ship class as their Captain, and an emphatic yes to seperating ground and space skillpoints.
Sign In or Register to comment.