test content
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc

Reasons why canon ships should be made more relevant.

13»

Comments

  • elemberq333elemberq333 Member Posts: 430 Arc User
    edited November 2013
    I wish instead of a free ship every 10 levels when leveling to 50, instead you get to pick a canon ship at the beginning of your adventures and every 10 levels your free ship is put into a dry dock where you have various upgrades in weapon slots, console slots, unique consoles, and anything else they can think of.

    This would let us keep our favorite ship through out our entire adventures and then we really would be just like the shows and movies where the ships are upgraded in dry dock and made "new" so to speak.

    I would love something like this and I am sure many players would also like it. Cryptic/PWE would not loose one dime because all those ships are currently given free anyway and it would really help in an RP sense where you get the same ship for your "5 year voyage". :D
  • markhawkmanmarkhawkman Member Posts: 35,236 Arc User
    edited November 2013
    I feel that this discussion really needs a reality check....

    #!: the game started with mostly canon ships.

    #@: more ships were added later that were new shinies.

    ##: for new shinies to be marketable they need to have some reason for people to use them.

    #$: said reason usually involves something new, like a console power.

    #%: if the new shinies have cruddy stats people won't like them.

    #^: thus new shinies must be things that are slightly above par, not much, just a tiny bit.

    Conclusion: unless a canon ship was to somehow become a new shiny then resistance is futile.
    -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
    My character Tsin'xing
    Costume_marhawkman_Tsin%27xing_CC_Comic_Page_Blue_488916968.jpg
  • shaanithegreenshaanithegreen Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited November 2013
    Yes to more canon ships, I guess.

    But what's left? K'vort? New Orleans? Slim pickings.

    Revamping canon ships shouldn't be hard, either. Make better Boff layouts, add a new skin, put it in the C-Store.
  • alopenalopen Member Posts: 1 Arc User
    edited November 2013
    stf65 wrote: »
    No one gives a TRIBBLE about how things work in the modern day aircraft. We have a clear progression in canon: nx, to constitution, to constitution refit, to excelsior, to ambassador, to galaxy, to sovereign. Intermixed in all of that is the intrepid, defiant, promethius, and all the rest. Picard was not flying around in a refit constitution in the 24th century. Even his crappy ship was a constellation class.

    You guys need to get over your fanboy fantasies and start dealing with the concept of this setting: the 25th century. Just as I would not have wanted to see any constitutions flying around in tng I don't want to see any flying around in sto. The game's era has progressed and the technology has progressed with it. It is a new setting with new ships. Stop screaming for all the old TRIBBLE to be as good, if not better, then the new stuff.

    :rolleyes: Seriously, do you not see the problem of the best ships in the game are NOT canon at all. Heck they don't even originate from the feds or kdf. Tholian recluses, cardassian galors, dominion bugs are just as old as the galaxy and whoop its butt. Now we're gettig obilesks and other made up stuff. I didn't have a problem with the Avenger's design. I want to see more canon based ships in game. Enough of PvP being bugs, galors, recluses, and temporal ships vs. bugs, galors, recluses, monbashes all throwing around elachi balls of goo and elachi disruptors. Can we get more competitive faction based ships already.
  • edited November 2013
    This content has been removed.
  • bluegeekbluegeek Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited November 2013
    The Galaxy-class has a reputation for being a ship that was designed for peace time. Do you remember the Enterprise-D? It was a ship that carried civillians and children on a front line exploration expedition while having lots of creature comforts. I've heard more than one reviewer (and even a few of the writers!) criticized the Enterprise-D over having these features. The fact is the Galaxy is meant to protect it's civillian population, not be a warship. It was a ship designed to show off how peaceful the Federation was in an era where the Klingons were our friends, the Romulans leaving us alone and the Cardie border wars having been ended. Not two years into the Ent-D's life cycle and suddenly we meet the Borg, and a year and a half later, Wolf 359 made the Feddies completely change how they designed ships, starting by introducing the Defiant-class. The Galaxy was a ship made for showing ideals not for DPS.

    All true, at least originally. But the fact of the matter is that the Borg did show up and the Enterprise, at least, did get heavily upgraded as a result of that and other conflicts that arose. Not to mention all of the mods Geordi and company did to her over the years to cope with all of the strange situations they got involved in.

    I think that's all that most of the canon ship fans really want. The idea that they can invest in the lifespan and usefulness of their favorite ship by upgrading what they can.

    Could be as simple as giving them a special "mod" slot that will accept any universal console or any special console unique to that ship. Or it could be something different.
    I feel that this discussion really needs a reality check....

    #!: the game started with mostly canon ships.

    #@: more ships were added later that were new shinies.

    ##: for new shinies to be marketable they need to have some reason for people to use them.

    #$: said reason usually involves something new, like a console power.

    #%: if the new shinies have cruddy stats people won't like them.

    #^: thus new shinies must be things that are slightly above par, not much, just a tiny bit.

    Conclusion: unless a canon ship was to somehow become a new shiny then resistance is futile.

    No real argument there. I think that's why Geko mentioned the notion of ship upgrades in one interview. That way you can bolt new shiny onto the old frame and make more people happy. Obviously not something that's going to happen right around the corner, but it's a good goal to have for a future balance pass.

    Do I think the canon ships have to be as good or better than the newest ships? No, I don't. But let's recognize that there is room for improvement, especially with the older C-Store ships that aren't really cost-effective to buy anymore. They can't exactly give them away, for the most part. So they need to create a new reason to buy them and I think we can see that fleet ships have not really filled that niche very well.
    My views may not represent those of Cryptic Studios or Perfect World Entertainment. You can file a "forums and website" support ticket here
    Link: How to PM - Twitter @STOMod_Bluegeek
  • stf65stf65 Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited November 2013
    alopen wrote: »
    :rolleyes: Seriously, do you not see the problem of the best ships in the game are NOT canon at all. Heck they don't even originate from the feds or kdf. Tholian recluses, cardassian galors, dominion bugs are just as old as the galaxy and whoop its butt. Now we're gettig obilesks and other made up stuff. I didn't have a problem with the Avenger's design. I want to see more canon based ships in game. Enough of PvP being bugs, galors, recluses, and temporal ships vs. bugs, galors, recluses, monbashes all throwing around elachi balls of goo and elachi disruptors. Can we get more competitive faction based ships already.
    What I see is fanboyism: my favorite ship is not the best one in the game, wah, wah, wah. It does not matter to fanboys that their favorite ship is anywhere from 4 to 25 decades old in the game. They simply want their ship to be the best of the best no matter what.

    Compounding the issue is that everyone want their favorite ship to be exactly what they want it to be. Some galaxy fans want their ship to be the best tanking cruiser. Others want it to be the best tactical cruiser; and some want it to be a great science cruiser. The same holds true for the defiant fans, intrepid fans, constitution fans, excelsior fans, all the way through the entire list of every ship from every possible faction. Those are hugely unrealistic expectations; both from a want perspective and from a financial perspective of the game.

    I cannot discuss how your pvps go, but I pvp every day and I can tell you that most ships in the matches I am in are faction rather then alien. Yeah, I see the occasional bug, galor, and so on but I also see plenty of defiants, scimitars, birds of prey, sovereigns, and so on. The faction ships far outweigh the alien ships in my experience.
  • bluegeekbluegeek Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited November 2013
    stf65 wrote: »
    What I see is fanboyism: my favorite ship is not the best one in the game, wah, wah, wah. It does not matter to fanboys that their favorite ship is anywhere from 4 to 25 decades old in the game. They simply want their ship to be the best of the best no matter what.

    Compounding the issue is that everyone want their favorite ship to be exactly what they want it to be. Some galaxy fans want their ship to be the best tanking cruiser. Others want it to be the best tactical cruiser; and some want it to be a great science cruiser. The same holds true for the defiant fans, intrepid fans, constitution fans, excelsior fans, all the way through the entire list of every ship from every possible faction. Those are hugely unrealistic expectations; both from a want perspective and from a financial perspective of the game.

    I cannot discuss how your pvps go, but I pvp every day and I can tell you that most ships in the matches I am in are faction rather then alien. Yeah, I see the occasional bug, galor, and so on but I also see plenty of defiants, scimitars, birds of prey, sovereigns, and so on. The faction ships far outweigh the alien ships in my experience.

    You have made your point. Noted. However, I fail to see why your brand of 'fanboyism' is more valid than the people you are criticizing. Please stop harping on this.

    I'm not disagreeing that there are some people out there with unrealistic expectations about what their ships should be able to do. But there's nothing wrong with wanting better performance with a ship they like when the only thing wrong with them is power creep.

    EDIT: By the same token, it's not reasonable to expect Cryptic to revisit every single older ship every time they come out with something new... so I am not advocating that.
    My views may not represent those of Cryptic Studios or Perfect World Entertainment. You can file a "forums and website" support ticket here
    Link: How to PM - Twitter @STOMod_Bluegeek
  • galanis2814galanis2814 Member Posts: 159 Arc User
    edited November 2013
    yawn... Yeah the Galaxy sucks, but the Vor'cha is awesome in fleet version, so is the Excelsior, Sovereign is perfectly competent, Intrepid makes a good torp boat with the armor, Defiant is the Defiant, B'rel is great, Negh'var is good.

    It really is just the Galaxy and GalX that need love, the others are fine.
  • earlnyghthawkearlnyghthawk Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited November 2013
    stf65 wrote: »
    The time line needs to be just as relevant as the ship. In this time line the canon ships are old. The galaxy class is nearly 50 years old and the intrepid and defiant nearly 40. Even the sovereign is 35 years old. They are not top tier ships any more as new technology has replaced them. No one would have watched tng and thought it made any sense if the movie constitution were still being used 70 years later by picard and his crew yet that is what everyone demands in this game.

    The problem with star trek is that its stagnated by some fans who cannot let go of what was popular 25 years ago. The universe is never going to move forward if you guys cannot let go of galaxy and defiants and tos constitutions and accept that things need to progress just like our real world progresses. You guys would not want to give up your iphone 5 for a 30 year old motorola dynatac 8000x so let go of this constant need to pretend you are still living in 1986, or 1966.

    Why would you want a crappy iPhone? Lol
    But anyway, you could certainly have a new phone, look like an old phone. Not that hard to do at all.
    And in direct reply to your last statement, just because it's new, doesn't mean it isn't TRIBBLE.
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    butcher suspect, "What'd you hit me with?"
    Temperance Brennan, "A building"
  • stf65stf65 Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited November 2013
    bluegeek wrote: »
    You have made your point. Noted. However, I fail to see why your brand of 'fanboyism' is more valid than the people you are criticizing. Please stop harping on this.
    Perhaps you are not reading what I am saying. I have no particular fanboyism other then to say if the setting has no meaning to the process why have a setting at all?

    Cryptic chose a setting for their game. They did not choose the tos era or even the tng era. They specifically gave us an era past both of them so that they could continue to create new ideas and expressions without being hampered by the past. Just as Gene choose to advance the timeline when creating tng cryptic has chosen to do so as well. I do not remember anyone demanding that Gene have Picard using a constitution simply because it was iconic to the franchise. Gene understood that for star trek to remain relevant it needed to keep advancing. The tos fans needed to let go of tos items to accept tng's. It is no different in this game. STO is not tng. It is the next gen of tng. Just as with tng the fans need to stop living in the past and accept that the universe has advanced. We cannot keep constantly going backwards due to fanboyism.
  • shpoksshpoks Member Posts: 6,967 Arc User
    edited November 2013
    stf65 wrote: »
    Cryptic chose a setting for their game. They did not choose the tos era or even the tng era. They specifically gave us an era past both of them so that they could continue to create new ideas and expressions without being hampered by the past. Just as Gene choose to advance the timeline when creating tng cryptic has chosen to do so as well. I do not remember anyone demanding that Gene have Picard using a constitution simply because it was iconic to the franchise. Gene understood that for star trek to remain relevant it needed to keep advancing. The tos fans needed to let go of tos items to accept tng's. It is no different in this game. STO is not tng. It is the next gen of tng. Just as with tng the fans need to stop living in the past and accept that the universe has advanced. We cannot keep constantly going backwards due to fanboyism.

    You know, what you say would have actually made sense if Cryptic didn't release end-game T5 versions of older ships, some even 130+ years old. Cryptic doesn't want to advance the timeline, they just want to sell stuff. We're stuck in 2409 for almost 4 years now for Star Trek sakes. If they were truly interested in advancing the timeline as you say we'd have no chance in hell to buy T5 Excelsiors or Ambassadors. The only reason they set STO in this timeframe is to have the liberty of adding story content without having to adhere and be limited to canon events that happened in the shows. Obviously this doesn't apply to ships.

    So it's not really the players' fault they want their iconic T5 ships relevant at what Cryptic designed them to be. Want to point a finger at someone for this demands happening? Try Cryptic.
    HQroeLu.jpg
  • talonxvtalonxv Member Posts: 4,257 Arc User
    edited November 2013
    shpoks wrote: »
    You know, what you say would have actually made sense if Cryptic didn't release end-game T5 versions of older ships, some even 130+ years old. Cryptic doesn't want to advance the timeline, they just want to sell stuff. We're stuck in 2409 for almost 4 years now for Star Trek sakes. If they were truly interested in advancing the timeline as you say we'd have no chance in hell to buy T5 Excelsiors or Ambassadors. The only reason they set STO in this timeframe is to have the liberty of adding story content without having to adhere and be limited to canon events that happened in the shows. Obviously this doesn't apply to ships.

    So it's not really the players' fault they want their iconic T5 ships relevant at what Cryptic designed them to be. Want to point a finger at someone for this demands happening? Try Cryptic.

    Hit it on the head. Plus with the two other lines, you can basically fly any fleet ship from any tier. But for some reason can get a fleet tier 2 cruiser.

    Does that seem right to you?
    afMSv4g.jpg
    Star Trek Battles member. Want to roll with a good group of people regardless of fleets and not have to worry about DPS while doing STFs? Come join the channel and join in the fun!

    http://forum.arcgames.com/startrekonline/discussion/1145998/star-trek-battles-channel-got-canon/p1
  • stf65stf65 Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited November 2013
    shpoks wrote: »
    You know, what you say would have actually made sense if Cryptic didn't release end-game T5 versions of older ships, some even 130+ years old. Cryptic doesn't want to advance the timeline, they just want to sell stuff. We're stuck in 2409 for almost 4 years now for Star Trek sakes. If they were truly interested in advancing the timeline as you say we'd have no chance in hell to buy T5 Excelsiors or Ambassadors. The only reason they set STO in this timeframe is to have the liberty of adding story content without having to adhere and be limited to canon events that happened in the shows. Obviously this doesn't apply to ships.

    So it's not really the players' fault they want their iconic T5 ships relevant at what Cryptic designed them to be. Want to point a finger at someone for this demands happening? Try Cryptic.
    What I was primarily addressing is the idea that every ship everyone wants MUST be the best and that nothing can advance past them. The idea that the galaxy must be the best simply because it is iconic makes no sense. If the galaxy is the best why did starfleet transition to the sovereign; and why did the game transition to the odyssey due to the game's timeframe? The same is true for the defiant and the prometheus or the intrepid and vesta. Canon has a logical progression: constitution to excelsior to ambassador to galaxy to sovereign.

    A galaxy should not be as good as a sovereign no matter how badly a fan wants it to be. And intrepid should not be as good as a vesta no matter how badly a fan wants it to be, and so on. The time line has advanced. It is not rational to assume that older ships would be as good a new ships. It is pure self-centered fanboyism to say I want what I want and I do not care if it makes sense in canon.

    The canon has to matter more then the fanboyism.
  • rustiswordzrustiswordz Member Posts: 824 Arc User
    edited November 2013
    Thats just it. Star Trek Online is not canon. So your argument is completely irrelevant.

    The second a new series will be announced, which I believe it will at some point in the future, do you think they will follow the STO timeline. No they will follow their own.

    No this game isn't canon. Not in the least. Your argument to me, is as irrelevant as my argument is to you.
    Monkey see, Monkey do. Monkey flings Feathered Monkey poo... :D
  • shpoksshpoks Member Posts: 6,967 Arc User
    edited November 2013
    stf65 wrote: »
    What I was primarily addressing is the idea that every ship everyone wants MUST be the best and that nothing can advance past them. The idea that the galaxy must be the best simply because it is iconic makes no sense. If the galaxy is the best why did starfleet transition to the sovereign; and why did the game transition to the odyssey due to the game's timeframe? The same is true for the defiant and the prometheus or the intrepid and vesta. Canon has a logical progression: constitution to excelsior to ambassador to galaxy to sovereign.

    A galaxy should not be as good as a sovereign no matter how badly a fan wants it to be. And intrepid should not be as good as a vesta no matter how badly a fan wants it to be, and so on. The time line has advanced. It is not rational to assume that older ships would be as good a new ships. It is pure self-centered fanboyism to say I want what I want and I do not care if it makes sense in canon.

    The canon has to matter more then the fanboyism.

    I feel like you didn't quite understand me. I'm not talking about canon here at all. I'm talking from a pure gamer's perspective.

    Let's forget about Star Trek. Let's say we play WoT and we both have Tier III tanks, you have a German one, I have a Soviet one. Now they're quite different, yours is faster, less armored and fires a salvo of 5 without reloading. Mine is slower, heavy armored and takes more time to reload the 1 projectile, but it hits like a b***h. Yet they're Tier III, balanced against eachother and it depends on the strategy of each of us who will win the duel.
    They play differently, but each has equal amount of assets on their Tier, so you can't come behind me, fire 15 salvos and have me survive enough to turn around and blow you up.

    The same goes for STO. The developer, Cryptic, put ships on Tier 5. They all should play differently, so each can fill a niche that is relevant in the gameplay of STO. I don't care if the ship is an NX class from 300 years ago, or a Wells from 400 years in the future. If they're designated at Tier 5 by the developer, they should all be balanced against eachother.
    HQroeLu.jpg
  • bluegeekbluegeek Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited November 2013
    One could, if one were so inclined, dress in TOS uniforms and fly a ship that looks very much like a TOS ship and mostly play Foundry missions that are set in the TOS era and otherwise pretend that they are in that era. But that does not necessarily mean that they have to settle for a sub-standard ship while they're doing it.

    Me, I'm 2409 all the way. I personally think the idea of an NX Replica is weird and have no idea why Starfleet would commission one. My Science officer flies a Vesta. But I don't see why someone who wants to fly a Galaxy refit can't do that and get decent performance out of it. Should they be as or more powerful than a Sovereign? Not necessarily. They just have to be different. Otherwise, Cryptic could just let people throw a Galaxy skin on a Sov and forget the whole thing.

    The reason to have different ships is to make them actually different. For gameplay purposes, the Galaxy should bring things to the field that an Odyssey or an Avenger doesn't and it should be fun to fly as designed. I flew the T4 version for awhile and hated it. So I can understand where those other kinds of fanboys are coming from.

    And, yes, anybody who insists that old ships shouldn't be as good as new ships and ought to be mothballed because it breaks their own personal preferences is a fanboy. No need to be ashamed of the term. We wouldn't be playing this game if we weren't.

    But we don't have to constantly argue over this ridiculous stuff. We all have to ignore a few things from time to time to preserve our own personal suspension of disbelief. We shouldn't be insisting that the game doesn't accommodate other players with different viewpoints, though.
    My views may not represent those of Cryptic Studios or Perfect World Entertainment. You can file a "forums and website" support ticket here
    Link: How to PM - Twitter @STOMod_Bluegeek
  • mirrorshatnermirrorshatner Member Posts: 149 Arc User
    edited November 2013
    There's no validity in mocking "fanboyism" when a game has specifically chosen to pay for and build around an IP licence - i.e. Star Trek, Star Wars, Lord of the Rings, etc.

    It's a conscious and deliberate decision to attract the fanbase. It's just as invalid as the people who claim to have no interest in Star Trek, but are playing this game then complain about the Star Trek elements in it, including deliberate design decisions which are built around IP Canon features.
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • age03age03 Member Posts: 1,664 Arc User
    edited November 2013
    I agree with the OP as it is why most of if any of us as played other Star Trek games.I like the 23rd century ships mostly that of the TOS/TMP Const.

    I would tend to think the ship is a part of you not separate as you set the points in U panel.The ship is you in space and the char is you on the ground.The ships should level up with you.There should be no tiers of ships and the Const. has way more mass than the Defiant and is much more like that of the Intrepid class.

    The HP nof these ships need to be raised or balanced out more.The Sapre is just light wieght escort no where near has heavy as a Miranda sae goes for the Steamrunner.

    I would really like to see ships get rebalanced especially those who bought C/Zen ships.
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]Age StarTrek-Gamers Administrator
    USS WARRIOR NCC 1720 Commanding Officer
    Star Trek Gamers
Sign In or Register to comment.