test content
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc

Podcast UGC Interviews CaptainGeko

pwebranflakespwebranflakes Member Posts: 7,741
edited March 2013 in Galactic News Network [PC]
In this week's episode of Podcast UGC, Lead Designer Al "CaptainGeko" Rivera stops by to chat about STO and answer community submitted questions.


Link to the interview.
Post edited by pwebranflakes on

Comments

  • moronwmachinegunmoronwmachinegun Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited March 2013
    LOL, I heard the first question as "If there was an update with Robin Williams, what would it have?"

    That...Would...Be...Epic...
  • webdeathwebdeath Member Posts: 1,570 Arc User
    edited March 2013
    I have noticed there are some in the PVP Message board area that appear to be upset with some comments that Al has made. I'm wondering if perhaps Mr. Rivera should find some time to address this.

    I Don't personally feel that he believes all PVPers are "14 year olds with too much time on their hands." as I've been witnessing taken out of context from the original interview.

    There are also concerns I have been witnessing about some of the Beam vs. Cannon statements he made that does make it seem like perhaps he's not as familiar with the current meta in Star Trek Online. He states that Beams are fine as they are. And he went so far as to say that "You just need to put more points into Electro Plasma Systems" in reference to making Beams more Viable. When there have been tests and information performed that makes that statement feel as if he is not as informed as he should be in the position that he is in.

    All in all, how ever, the Interview was informative. I just get the feeling he might have caused some harm in the way the players who are involved in the Player vs. Player part of the game, as well as the Min/Maxing areas are concerned with some of what he said, and could improve the situation by at least giving a clarification to help reduce any of the ways that his statements were taken the wrong way.

    Because letting the hate continue to stew could lead to avenues I don't think any of us want to walk down. :(
    You think that your beta test was bad?
    Think about this:
    American Football has been in open beta for 144 years. ~Kotaku
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • mikeflmikefl Member Posts: 861 Arc User
    edited March 2013
    He already addressed his comments on another thread which I think a lot of things were taken out of context from the interview just for an excuse to rage on as usual. He was chuckling half the time as well. Besides we know the buck stops with DStahl anyways... everyone has opinions.
    So if I make them better, can I get a raise?


    There is no plan to Nerf Cannons. NONE!

    The question I was asked was basically "my beams are not as good as cannons, can you make them better".

    My feeling is that beams are fine. They are WAD and don't need to be made better. The outlier are the cannons, and, in a perfect world (see what I did there), I would bring cannon power drain in line with beams instead of making beams more powerful. The analogy I was suggesting is that if everything good, and one thing is OP, its healthier for the game to bring the OP item down in line with all the other items instead of raising all items to the level of the one OP item.

    My comment was suggesting the question should evaluate what the real problem is.

    I meant no subtext to suggest if enough players complained, there would be justification to nerf cannons.

    Again, we have no plans to nerf cannons in any way. I cant make it any more clear than that.
    Gold Sub since March 2010
    Lifetime Sub since June 2010
  • lordmalak1lordmalak1 Member Posts: 4,681 Arc User
    edited March 2013
    <comment retracted>
    KBF Lord MalaK
    Awoken Dead
    giphy.gif

    Now shaddup about the queues, it's a BUG
  • bughunter357bughunter357 Member Posts: 588 Arc User
    edited March 2013
    webdeath wrote: »
    I have noticed there are some in the PVP Message board area that appear to be upset with some comments that Al has made. I'm wondering if perhaps Mr. Rivera should find some time to address this.

    I Don't personally feel that he believes all PVPers are "14 year olds with too much time on their hands." as I've been witnessing taken out of context from the original interview.

    There are also concerns I have been witnessing about some of the Beam vs. Cannon statements he made that does make it seem like perhaps he's not as familiar with the current meta in Star Trek Online. He states that Beams are fine as they are. And he went so far as to say that "You just need to put more points into Electro Plasma Systems" in reference to making Beams more Viable. When there have been tests and information performed that makes that statement feel as if he is not as informed as he should be in the position that he is in.

    All in all, how ever, the Interview was informative. I just get the feeling he might have caused some harm in the way the players who are involved in the Player vs. Player part of the game, as well as the Min/Maxing areas are concerned with some of what he said, and could improve the situation by at least giving a clarification to help reduce any of the ways that his statements were taken the wrong way.

    Because letting the hate continue to stew could lead to avenues I don't think any of us want to walk down. :(

    not so much saying they are 14 years old but acting like there 14 years old, because that's what it seems like some do even in PvE you get someone in a STFs blaming another player for not getting optional when in reality it was the person blaming others that thinks team is spelled with an "I" the same applies in PvP its not only a 1v1 but it deals with team play as well IE capture the flag but you have one go off and do there own thing then blames the rest of the team for the loss.
  • cidstormcidstorm Member Posts: 1,220 Arc User
    edited March 2013
    I'm really disappointed Cryptic practically has no plans with the rest of the canon ships. They could at least use them as a skin for the new projects they have planned.
  • illcadiaillcadia Member Posts: 1,415 Bug Hunter
    edited March 2013
    Al replies to one question that, despite having no real connection to the guy asking it, I feel compelled to reply to- because he gets the intent of the question TOTALLY WRONG in his answer, and while his reasoning is logically sound if you were to have asked a different question- the guy didn't ask a different question.

    In detail, I'm referring to the question about de-coupling ship skins with ship abilities/powers/layouts.

    So the question was like "What if you could make it so that ships of similar size could swap costumes, provided you own all the relevant pieces."

    AL's response quickly jumped the rails to talk about how this would be a really bad idea because players would not be able to self-justify spending 25$ to *only* buy a ship console, with no ship attached, and he and the UGC team then spent fifteen minutes discussing why selling consoles independent of ships would be bad, why bundles actually make money, and why if you could make the ship configuration/costume you like, you'd never buy anything ever again.



    And throughout it all, I'm going WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG, WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG. YOU'RE WRONG. YOU'RE WRONG. YOU'RE WRONG.




    So how about we make this easier to understand.

    I think the question Al believed he was answering was "What if you just sold ship components independent of a cohesive ship- like you could buy the special console, you could buy points to spend on boff slots, console slots, and buy costumes separately?"

    In this sense, if you could just build your ideal ship from base components, and slap whatever costume you want on it- yes I agree, players would build what they want, and this system would cause Cryptic to lose money because after the initial purchase players would have "all the pieces" to be forever content mixing and matching.


    THIS IS, HOWEVER, NOT THE QUESTION THE USER ASKED.

    The question the user asked was what if a ship, as defined by the stats of the ship, was able to 'put on a visual skin' of other ships of that size category, that were owned.


    So for example, Cryptic has already done something like this i n game: The mirror universe RA ships. Each one has a costume from a different ship in the same size category, but the same stats- the mirror universe star cruiser looks like an assault cruiser. So it is a 'star cruiser' stats, wearing an assault cruiser costume.


    The question is thusly- what if this was not a hard ship specific thing with the occasional variant, but instead a player choice. What if players could pick their selection of similar size vessels they have *purchased* and put those skins on the stat/mechanics end of a ship they have *Purchased*?




    Which thus follows the user's proposed 'more sales' as follows:


    A new ship comes out. It is sold as basically a 'bundle' and NOOOOOOOT as individual parts.


    We'll call it the Gecko Class for simplicity.

    Okay, so the Gecko has a relatively unique boff layout, and a unique-ish console layout that scores points with the players for providing options they might not have had before with that boff layout and console layout- and stats- as they interact. Maybe it's a science/cruiser hybrid of some sort with an engineering/science focus, more hull, and a unique console.

    It comes with the 'ship', and unlocks a 'Gecko Class Science Cruiser' costume.

    So in all regard's it's a normal ship.


    However a player who happens to really like the costume but doesn't care for the boff layout or the unique console, might buy it. He can then apply the 'Gecko Class Science Cruiser' costume to his Fleet Heavy Cruiser Retrofit ship.


    This is what would make the more money- de-coupling ship stats from ship costumes, but not SELLING THEM SEPARATELY. Then all the reasons a player might have to purchase a ship currently STILL APPLY- but you also have an added condition- a player who is CURRENTLY HAPPY with his stuff, but really likes the costume might go and buy that entire ship JUST for the costume. Similarly, a player who likes the stat but not the costume and is detail oriented enough that the costume is a deal breaker for him, might go and buy that ship knowing he can stick a different costume on it.





    EDIT: This thing is a sort of 'diversionary answer' that I've seen Cryptic do before- take a question, then pretend that it's actually a different but related question, and then answer the second question while never actually addressing the first.


    For example, back in Season 5 or 6, an Ask Cryptic had a user ask why Encrypted Data Chips couldn't be account bound. The Cryptic answer was "Encrypted Data Chips can't be account bound because if we made them account bound players could abuse the free lobi they get when they make an account to make a million accounts, send the free lobi to their 'main', and buy everything in the lobi store."

    The question in question wasn't even about Lobi, but somewhere in the middle of answering it was lotted in the with Lobi answer- while the Lobi answer would be sensible if the question had been "Make Lobi account bound"- that's not what the user asked.


    Now I do understand that a lot of the answers we get are actually sort of multi-part where you're replying to unlisted questions, or trying to cover an area at once- and that's okay as long as you don't end up giving a really dumb answer to a legitimate question in the process. If a user asks why reward currency A can't be account bound, your answer should be about reward currency A. If you need to provide commentary on reward currency B, by all means do so, but do so separately. But please don't try to tell us that Data Chips can't be account bound because players could use free lobi to buy everything in the lobi store. It does nothing but make people angry.
  • aelfwin1aelfwin1 Member Posts: 2,896 Arc User
    edited March 2013
    illcadia wrote: »
    In detail, I'm referring to the question about de-coupling ship skins with ship abilities/powers/layouts.

    (snip)

    if you could make the ship configuration/costume you like, you'd never buy anything ever again.

    (snip)

    And throughout it all, I'm going WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG, WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG. YOU'RE WRONG. YOU'RE WRONG. YOU'RE WRONG.

    How is he wrong ?
    Sure , if I could the Tactical Oddy's stats on my Galaxy , I'd buy an Oddy in a heart beat ... -- but I would not buy any more Fed cruisers .

    Cryptic's income depends on me (and many others) buying more ships .
    It's what they do . It's what they sell .
    So they make it that I can't mix'n'match because they want to sell me more stuffs down the road , thus I'm left with a hope of some day getting a decent Galaxy .

    Am I happy with it ? In the sense that I've got a gimped Galaxy -- not so much .
    But when I pvp , at least I know that I'm facing a Galaxy or a Defiant and not an Oddy in Galaxy skin , or a Bug in a Defiant skin .

    What I would appreciate would be making account wide access to the unique bridges that we own .
    That breaks no game rules (AFAIK) , and it would help out the RP community a bit as well .
    No one at Cryptic cares if I put the TOS bridge on my Defiant , so they should not care if I put a Marauder bridge on it as well .
  • illcadiaillcadia Member Posts: 1,415 Bug Hunter
    edited March 2013
    But those other concerns... are just that: other concerns. The logic he used to provide his answer holds up to a question other than the question that was asked- which is the point of my comment. Yes, not knowing what you're actually facing is a completely valid point.

    But saying that people would not pay 25$ to buy a standalone console isn't a valid point because that's not what the person asked or implied in the first place.


    And again, Cryptic has already done something like this with the mirror ships, so we know that it's possible to do, and that it actually makes them money- or else they wouldn't be doing it.


    I guess what I'm saying is that you should actually reply to the actual words that were spoken, if you cite a specific question.


    If a user says "could you make it so I could swap the costume on my star cruiser with the costume from the regent?" then replying to that might look something like "We could, but it would make identifying the actual ship you're flying difficult in PVP, and that might cause issues"

    That's a real and on topic answer to what was asked.

    However if you answered instead "Deflectors don't come with [sdc]x3 because it would be too unbalanced", that's an answer that isn't an answer to the question that was asked. It's internally logical- deflectors don't come with sdcx3 because it would be unbalanced- but it has nothing to do with the actual cited question.




    Anywaways, I'd expect that if they ever implemented this sort of thing as proposed, it would be size and hull shape-ish stuff. So you might be able to swap between 'big long' cruisers, like the oddy, the sovereign, or the star cruiser. Or the short big cruisers, like the Galaxy, Ambassador, or fleet heavy cruiser retrofit, to give some examples.


    We're already in a game where there are a number of different boff layout options for ships that are visually identical- most notable in the MVAM/advanced escorts, but also present in other ships. Beyond knowing that you're fighting a cruiser, or an escort, or the like- and if it's a big or small one, that isn't too much to adapt to.

    I mean, of course it's change, and change is always bad right? But I don't think it'd be too hard to look at the buffs running on your opponent and go "Well gee, he can cloak and has a bunch of tac skills, and he's in an aquarius looking ship- he's probably actually a fleet tactical retrofit- I mean if that sort of thing actually matters to you.

    For me, I'd probably go "Well gee, he's running two copies of tac team, torp spread 3 and beam overload 3, that means he's either running a fleet tac retrofit, a mirror patrol escort, an aquarius, a fleet saber retro or any of the other little dinky escorts with the CMDR/LTC tactical boff seating. Ultimately the little details there aren't derived from what his ship looks like- they're derived from being able to see what powers he's using



    EDIT: Also, wrt to 'I'd buy the new ship and then never buy anything else'- uh, exactly what do you mean by that? I mean, how is that any different from what you're doing now? You have a ship you like, but you don't like the costume. The stats are perfect but the costume sucks. How does that give you incentive to buy a new ship with different stats and a costume? Like how does that interact at all?

    I mean I agree that if I could buy a ship that came with a costume I wanted to use for a different ship, I would buy it. I would then use that costume on my existing ship.


    However, I contest that this would predispose me towards not purchasing any more ships- if something new and cool with a cool layout comes out, I would probably buy it. If something with a cool costume or other visual options came out, I would probably buy it.


    But if it didn't have anything to attract me to buy it in the first place... nothing has changed compared to how it works now.

    That's the logical disconnect I keep running into and having difficulty with- if a ship doesn't have anything to entice you to buy it, why would you buy it in the first place?

    I would think you wouldn't- but your argument implies that if you couldn't change the costume on the ship you prefer to fly, you would somehow be compelled to buy new ships, even if you hated everything about them.



    How does that even work?



    EDIT2: to use your own example: What if the Galaxy you want came out next week? By your own logic, you would never buy anything from Cryptic ever again. Ergo, it is in Cryptic's best interest to never release new ships, because players might like them and never buy anything ever again.... wait.
  • jengozjengoz Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited March 2013
    illcadia wrote: »
    snip..

    A new ship comes out. It is sold as basically a 'bundle' ....snip
    .

    I love this idea and it would get me to buy things in the Zen Store. My case in point, I like flying cruisers. I liked the stats on the oddy 3 pack but I do not like the look of the ship - that just how i feel. I much prefer the look of the Galaxy and Ventures. So, I did not buy the Oddy because I did not want to spend all my time playing the game looking at a ship I did not like. But if I could buy the ship and put my Galaxy or venture skin on it, I would buy it in a heartbeat. But right not it is $50 Cryptic will not get.

    I don?t understand, for a company that is always complemented for it?s ability to let players customized their look, we seem to be getting less and less of it. Really like how the original ships has three types and that you can mix and match to make a ship that still had the overall feel of the class but could still be a unique look.


    Beers,

    Jengoz =/
    "Star Trek Online is powered by the most abundant resource in the galaxy . . . Gullibility"
  • toivatoiva Member Posts: 3,276 Arc User
    edited March 2013
    So, first of all, 3h 40 mins... I applaud. And it was pretty much on point throughout.

    Second: Yay, I hope the C-Store Neghvar gets ready soon (real soon, not Cryptic trademarked soon). Assuming I could always get a good old neghvar skin on it (if it gets a new, ugly one), I'd have no reason not to get it right away (unlike the ugly B'Rel, Guramba, Marauder, so ugly i refuse to buy them).

    Third: I have an unpleasant feeling from the interview that anyone that actually thinks about his/her build, what makes sense to use as abilities or equipment is a min-maxer to you. Which would be fine, you're entitled to your "categorisation" of players.
    BUT, it comes across as an opinion that anyone falling in this min-maxer category seems to you as not being able to enjoy the game, only destined to nitpick on everything.

    If I'm right, then I want to point out that even min-maxers enjoy playing, be it the PvP "bosses" (the real min-maxers in my book) or just the normal PvE player that wants to be better, explode less often, disabling enemies more efficiently.

    Don't write off and neglect feedback from those players. They aren't a "handicapped" group of people (more so given his seemingly broad definion of min-maxers) whose only goal is to find flaws in your game. They're just trying to push the boundaries of what's possible, be it across the game or just individually ("Yay! I survived this mission on my own today!"). Actually, being the ones to think, build and test, their feedback is likely to be more accurate than that of, say, a roleplayer (at the very leeast when it comes to system issues).

    Oh, and a last thing: good luck on trying to find time bringing older C-Store ships "up to par".
    TOIVA, Toi Vaxx, Toia Vix, Toveg, T'vritha, To Vrax: Bring in the Allegiance class.
    Toi'Va, Ti'vath, Toivia, Ty'Vris, Tia Vex, Toi'Virth: Add Tier 6 KDF Carrier and Raider.
    Tae'Va, T'Vaya, To'Var, Tevra, T'Vira, To'Vrak: Give us Asylums for Romulans.

    Don't make ARC mandatory! Keep it optional only!
  • illcadiaillcadia Member Posts: 1,415 Bug Hunter
    edited March 2013
    jengoz wrote: »
    I love this idea and it would get me to buy things in the Zen Store. My case in point, I like flying cruisers. I liked the stats on the oddy 3 pack but I do not like the look of the ship - that just how i feel. I much prefer the look of the Galaxy and Ventures. So, I did not buy the Oddy because I did not want to spend all my time playing the game looking at a ship I did not like. But if I could buy the ship and put my Galaxy or venture skin on it, I would buy it in a heartbeat. But right not it is $50 Cryptic will not get.

    I don?t understand, for a company that is always complemented for it?s ability to let players customized their look, we seem to be getting less and less of it. Really like how the original ships has three types and that you can mix and match to make a ship that still had the overall feel of the class but could still be a unique look.


    Beers,

    Jengoz =/

    Yeah. I mean they sold costumes without ships before and it didn't work so now they sell entire ships. I'm not suggesting that they should *not* sell 'entire' ships, but with that change you could buy a ship for its costume, or for its stats- so all the motivations to buy stuff that exist now would apply, and all the reasons to buy or not buy that exist now, would still apply.
  • shield309shield309 Member Posts: 21 Arc User
    edited March 2013
    Maybe there was an answer, but in the interview Al mentions that it isn't a coincidence that new update and new movie are coming in May. So my question is, and again maybe I missed it, does that mean they are just looking too boost advertising/marketing of the game because of the movie launch, or is there a link between what is going to occur in the movie and the game update?
  • zerobangzerobang Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited March 2013
    first that was some epic long interview... :)
    almost exhausting to listen to it in full length, but interesting enough to keep me listening


    - Typhoon/Jupiter Class: agreed ugly, non-canon, no need

    - Stargazer -> has to happen, i want ALL the canon Ships i pay money so you make more, not so you say "ooh this one is ugly, may not sell good enough, lets skip that one" [that is just like YOUR opinion / taste ], i am paying for STAR TREK, not for Cryitic's 2409 wannabe Ships.

    - "25th Century Ships Are the Future!" ... imho we got pletny of 2409 Ships, all those +1 skins, regent, armitage and so on. MORE of that? *shrug* as long as you polish the canon Ships up while you sell more made up stuff i'd pay for that.
    Personally when i bought the Armitage the first thing i did was to click on the Akira skin, when i bought the Regent first thing i did i clicked on the Sovereign Skin. I wanted the better stats but those made up visuals are nothing that i care for.

    - Some older C-Store Ships aren?t exactly up to par. Is it worth it to update them?
    yes totally.
    not only stats but also visuals.
    -> example: when you did the Regent Class i just really wanted a better Sovereign,
    you maybe could have gotten more sales out of it if the original Sovereign Class Art Asset had gotten some visual polish time too (there are still some serious issues... like the deflector turning from blue to yellow when the LoD swap happens...)

    -> or when the Armitage was made, give the Akira some love too... they go hand in hand, half the buyers will just swap skins because they don't like the new one, the other half will kitbash it with various pieces, only a few fly it like it was sold.
    (and honestly the Armitage and Regent are more on the ugly end of things)

    - "Lethean Ships?" i don't really see demand for these. for completions sake and to give the KDF *something*... sure why not. But i rarely see a Lethean PLAYER... how many of those are even out there? IMHO that is like asking for a Tellarite Ship... how many Tellarite players do you see on a daily basis? ....yah exactly. AND there was never a Lethean Ship on TV... so *meh*

    - "Are bridges really worth it?"
    - "C-Store Themed Bundles don?t exactly have the best return. The problem? Ship interiors."
    ...i'm sad to hear that they sell so badly, i really like them, even if they are mostly useless visual fluff.
    Maybe you can start by putting better Pictures of them in the C-Store UI?
    There is only this little mockup picture of the items, no good visual hint that there is a Bridge with the whole TV Set beneath it at all. -> ADVERTISING FAIL

    - "Suliban ships? Meh, maybe not." .... sure, would be fun to shoot at in a mission or two. As Player ship? uuuh... no not really.

    - "Romulan Birds of Prey are 300 years old!" .... Romulan Faction better have some new Ships to offer (i want to see as many Romulan Birds of Prey as there are Klingon Birds of Prey!!!)

    - "Why do ships pop up in the C-Store more than costumes?"
    i want more outfits... if they look good i'm also willing to pay more... they have been on the cheap end for a while.
    i bought them ALL ...the per character stuff in the Lobi Store looks cheaply done and is stupid expensive, so i skip that mostly.
    But i bought all the C-Store stuff. The Fleet Uniforms, got my STF armors on most chars by now... can never have enough clothing options! ....and when do we finally get some more KDF Hair !!!

    - "The Next Update: User Interface"
    i'm a little afraid about this one, i hate the UI as it is now, but i've gotten used to it in 3 years now... if the new one is worse or too different... oh dear. change is scary.

    but mostly new UI without new UI tech behind it seems like a waste of Dev time -> UI eats way too much frame rate and produces bottlenecks for the GPU... fix your tech first, then re-do visuals please, or you will just end up redoing it again later anyway.


    - "Foundry - Should the Foundry be able to make PVP maps?"
    YES totally!
    I'm not a story writer... but i bet you i could come up with some awesome PVP Maps, and cryptic has not added a single map in 3 Years, so why the hell not let us do it!
    Being scared of exploits is an excuse, not a reason.

    - "The Five Star Rating System ? Is it good or bad? What would replace it?"
    imho BAD! the Youtube way: thumbs up / down and displaying just that is way better. either i liked it or i did not. There is no clear outline what a 2 or 4 star rating is even supposed to be for the player so it doesn't mean anything to me if another player votes 2 or 3 or 4 stars.

    - "What?s the greatest improvement to Star Trek Online in the past 2 years?"
    imho: the LARGE Mouse Cursor !!!!!!!! (dead serious about that one)

    Gecko being proud about the Reputation System? dude have you even read some of the feedback on the Forum? That was the most un-fun addition to STO since the DXP exploration cluster grind. How can one be proud of that? I'd be ashamed if i had done that. (it has potential to be really awesome, but it just being a currency sink and timegated grind.... and the same 2 passive skills for all 3 classes?... meh ...just MEH! )
    The best thing of the Reputation System is when you are finally finished with it.
    Fun Level: PAINFUL!
    (the maps, by all means are fun, but i did not need a Rep System to play them, Dilithium and FM would have been enough for me to play the shiznit out of Mine Trap!)

    - "Doff System Crafted Items: should they get additional functionality to make them desirable again?"
    yes totally, having a 4 step chain that already requires uncommon items and then only produces item that nobody wants anymore... whats the use of that?
    ...and i agree initially i could make a lot of EC through DOffing, by now there are very few things left that have any value. Actually i think we just only need some new stuff for DOffing... has been a long time since anything new has been added ( and i would know, i did not really need to update http://bit.ly/DOFFS since Heretic left ! :-( ... DOff system is in maintenance mode if you ask me)

    - "Will we get to see Rademaker?s Merian Class?"
    I bought the Vesta.... BECAUSE i wanted to see MORE Rademarker stuff, to show Cryptic that it would be a GOOD idea to get more of his stuff, or more fan created stuff in general.
    If the Merian Class is good enough for Doug Drexler's Ships of the Line Calendar, then it is good enough for STO!
    (not every ship needs to be a $50 C-Store item... not everyobdy is that rich, where are the Cheap Alternatives? We need some 500 Zen ships again!)

    - "Can we fix the Defiant?s name lighting please?"
    i can give you a laundry list of things to fix on Ships.....
    it is right here: http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/showthread.php?t=163481
    just that nobody seems to care

    - "Beam Boats drain too much power. Can they be fixed?"
    as i wrote in the other thread, how about giving Cruisers MORE energy? (how about capping it at 200, instead of 125?)
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • yreodredyreodred Member Posts: 3,527 Arc User
    edited March 2013
    toiva wrote: »
    ...

    Oh, and a last thing: good luck on trying to find time bringing older C-Store ships "up to par".

    Somehow i strongly doubt he will "find" time to bring the Galaxy -R "up on par". (which IS an "older" C-Store ship IMO.)

    And even if he gets forced to do it at gunpoint, we will just end up with a slightly "enhanced" ship, which has still the most boring BOFF & Console Layout.
    (I would bet, he would give it just ANOTHER ensign engineering BOFF slot, so he can say "enough now, we finally Improved it". :mad:)

    But of course, he will "fix" every other ship before that...
    Even if it's the NX- Class, LOL.
    "...'With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured...the first thought forbidden...the first freedom denied--chains us all irrevocably.' ... The first time any man's freedom is trodden on, we're all damaged. I fear that today--" - (TNG) Picard, quoting Judge Aaron Satie

    A tale of two Picards
    (also applies to Star Trek in general)
  • ravinravin Member Posts: 509 Arc User
    edited March 2013
    I haven't listened to PodcastUGC in...oh...roughly a year now. Decided to give this interview a listen because I like Al, and like to hear what he has to say. Halfway through the show now, and it's been a constant reminder as to why I no longer listen to it.

    Oh, and Al, please, no Jupiter or Typhoon class ships.
    =\/= ================================ =\/=
    Centurion maximus92
    12th Legion, Romulan Republic
    12th Fleet

    =\/= ================================ =\/=
  • toivatoiva Member Posts: 3,276 Arc User
    edited March 2013
    ravin wrote: »
    I haven't listened to PodcastUGC in...oh...roughly a year now. Decided to give this interview a listen because I like Al, and like to hear what he has to say. Halfway through the show now, and it's been a constant reminder as to why I no longer listen to it.

    Oh, and Al, please, no Jupiter or Typhoon class ships.

    Well, he said since he didn't like them, he wouldn't do them. At least not the way they look now as NPCs.

    I'm not really happy to hear this: "I don't like --> I won't do" dogma, but in this particular case, I very much agree.
    TOIVA, Toi Vaxx, Toia Vix, Toveg, T'vritha, To Vrax: Bring in the Allegiance class.
    Toi'Va, Ti'vath, Toivia, Ty'Vris, Tia Vex, Toi'Virth: Add Tier 6 KDF Carrier and Raider.
    Tae'Va, T'Vaya, To'Var, Tevra, T'Vira, To'Vrak: Give us Asylums for Romulans.

    Don't make ARC mandatory! Keep it optional only!
  • yreodredyreodred Member Posts: 3,527 Arc User
    edited March 2013
    toiva wrote: »
    Well, he said since he didn't like them, he wouldn't do them. At least not the way they look now as NPCs.

    I'm not really happy to hear this: "I don't like --> I won't do" dogma, but in this particular case, I very much agree.
    I couldn't say it better.
    I am glad that HE doesn't like the Typhoon or the Jupiter, but what if he would?

    Well as long as he owns Star Trek, or at least STO he can do with it what he wants.
    ...oh wait, i think i'm confusing something right now...

    :D:D:D
    "...'With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured...the first thought forbidden...the first freedom denied--chains us all irrevocably.' ... The first time any man's freedom is trodden on, we're all damaged. I fear that today--" - (TNG) Picard, quoting Judge Aaron Satie

    A tale of two Picards
    (also applies to Star Trek in general)
  • admiralq1732admiralq1732 Member Posts: 1,561 Arc User
    edited March 2013
    Okay you want to do more original ship, the problem there is that most of your designs in game SUCK. Especially the escorts. I like New Orleans and I do like to see Constellation and Soyuz. And still the is the fan base you come up with very good designs. look at Ultimate Universe Mod, or Curtis's stuff. And for Neghvar. two words, REGENCY ONE. For Rommies you left one the Talon class, which IS the successor to the Rommie BOP. Then there's the designs activision had. with no liscence anyone shouldn't CBS have the rights to them. and one again look to the fans.
    For bridge. well bring in the option for boarding NPC ships or them boarding. I remember the trailer of the Klingon fighting in a Galaxy bridge with the Klaxon lights going. I WANT THAT. Heck you can make capture ships worth something. EC exchange worth or maybe dil.
  • admiralq1732admiralq1732 Member Posts: 1,561 Arc User
    edited March 2013
    Also to solve the Jupiter problem. Make her a carrier, she's big enough to be one. What the fed are missing is a Fed did carrier. Jupiter could be it, or maybe the Shelly class.
Sign In or Register to comment.