IF your worried about immersion it doesn't mean you have to switch ships in space YOU can still goto the spacedock to change YOUR ships YOU don't have use the feature. But I am one who is looking forward to this feature. It boils down to if YOU don't like it you don't have to use it. Play YOUR game how you like and let others play how they want.
There's a lot of stuff canon glosses over unless it's part of the plot for a specific episode.
Couldn't agree more. Narrative wins.
Voy is a bad example but only because they were stranded so far away that Starfleet had no way of reaching them.
Yes, it is the most extreme example. However, worth referring to for two reasons. Firstly, we are apparently to have a Voyager themed season. Secondly, given its main theme was about being too far away for resupply, and this is essentially a resupply question, it is a fair reference.
However multi year deep space exploration missions in the Alpha Quadrant may not have regular transfers of personnel off of the ship in question but supply ships will get sent out to them carrying crew to replace personnel that may have been injured beyond the ships ability to treat, disabled, or killed.
And flag officers frequently switch ships depending on mission objectives and battle damage.
Yes, we saw a number of personnel transfers to the ship. We even saw flag officers transferring ships.
However, we never saw an instance where a ship was on station, it is relieved by another ship and the entire crew changes over to stay on station in a new ship.
Ship swapping is the latter.
IF your worried about immersion it doesn't mean you have to switch ships in space YOU can still goto the spacedock to change YOUR ships YOU don't have use the feature. But I am one who is looking forward to this feature. It boils down to if YOU don't like it you don't have to use it. Play YOUR game how you like and let others play how they want.
It's not about immersion and it's not about telling people how to play the game. It's about protecting the game and preventing it from being damaged by dumbed-down mechanics that will lead to further dumbed-down mechanics.
People who are accusing others of telling them how to play the game are either not grasping the message we're trying to deliver or they're just outright refusing to.
What I like is consistency in games. if you are going to be accurate, and realistic, then stick to it. if you are going to be have fun and comfort over realism then stick to that.
for better or worse, this game pretty much has fun and comfort over reality. it makes no sense to switch ships in sector space, but to be honest i dont care at this stage because there are so many example of the game doing things that would just not happen in trek or real life that one more thing does not matter now.
im quite happy to get easy of use over reality and i think its a great thing that we can switch our ships easily to accommodate play style or mood. people can of course go to a starbase themselves if they want. nothing stops them doing it the long way if they want.
This says it all.
Gold Sub since March 2010
Lifetime Sub since June 2010
Personally if it makes my life easier it could remove the word trek from the title of the game for all I care. It is strange that people who desire immersion have a threshold on how much immersion they desire. I didn't see anyone jumping for joy at the idea of it taking 6 weeks real time to change ships. Interesting.
It's not about immersion and it's not about telling people how to play the game. It's about protecting the game and preventing it from being damaged by dumbed-down mechanics that will lead to further dumbed-down mechanics.
People who are accusing others of telling them how to play the game are either not grasping the message we're trying to deliver or they're just outright refusing to.
Its a game and what or who made you the protector of immersion in a video game? If you don't like it simply don't use it and as far as dumbing down mechanics how is switching ships anywhere near this. It just saves time games are meant to be fun not a chore when you want do something as simple as switching ships.
Worry about how you play the game. Not how others want to play.
In general I see this change as an opportunity to simplify the game, not so much for changing the actual ship, I will likely never do that.. Yet the gear/BOff/DOff ad especially tray lay outs.. PVE and PVP completed builds are very little alike in any way once your higher geared, and after playing this game for nearly 4 years (day 2 of launch) I look forward to being able to use all 10 of my characters for either PVP or PVE at the ready AND being able to specialize further for my PVE focused alts to be specific for an enemy type (borg-general to say tholian tactics) So this quality of life change is a welcome one.. Dont like being ABLE to change ships willy nilly? then DONT... Want to be able to switch command structures (tray/BOffs etc) in a logical manner similar to what a 24th century super computer could do easily? then welcome to a MORE believable trek.
Don't say your goodbyes too soon. You will still need to visit them to set up your builds -- more info in the Dev Blog next week.
Cheers,
Brandon =/\=
And while you're here, can you please tell us whether tray layout will be part of the total loadout save/load thingy? Without it, namely, the whole endeavour is kinda pointless.
So it seems that season 8.5 will give us the opportunity to change our starships in sector space. Good or bad? I say bad.
Wow, this is an option available to use and in no way mandatory.
Let players play the way they choose to. If you don?t like something then don?t use it. If you want to ?Keep It Real? then don?t use any of the conveniences that the game has to offer.
Thou Im sure you yourself pick and choose what to ?Keep Real? and what not. A good example is the use of the Captains backpack (inventory) Im sure if you?re keeping it real you should have nothing in your backpack that would go beyond the believable like having several kits, weapons, shields, etc.
Before you start shouting, hey no, look to yourself and see how ?Real? your play style is and how much of that Realism is inconvenient and choose to use the ?Unreal? quick and easy method.
Friendly reminder to make sure to look out for the Dev Blog next week on this system for more info and answers to your questions, as well as checking it out once it hits Tribble and leaving feedback about it once you've tried it in the Tribble subforums.
It's not about immersion and it's not about telling people how to play the game. It's about protecting the game and preventing it from being damaged by dumbed-down mechanics that will lead to further dumbed-down mechanics.
People who are accusing others of telling them how to play the game are either not grasping the message we're trying to deliver or they're just outright refusing to.
Its a game and what or who made you the protector of immersion in a video game? If you don't like it simply don't use it and as far as dumbing down mechanics how is switching ships anywhere near this. It just saves time games are meant to be fun not a chore when you want do something as simple as switching ships.
Worry about how you play the game. Not how others want to play.
Are you actually reading the posts? Look at the bits I've highlighted. Can you any error in your logic? Just in case you can't, let me make it clear.
Before you start shouting, hey no, look to yourself and see how ?Real? your play style is and how much of that Realism is inconvenient and choose to use the ?Unreal? quick and easy method.
sigh.
Realism in art is always an illusion. Video games are clearly art.
It's also not a digital concept but an analogue one.
we've already had the old canard about if you want realism why doesnt it take 5 years to do a mission stuff.
It's not about realism.....it's about IP.
We have to draw a line between realism in the IPs sense and QoL gameplay.
However, if gameplay wins too much you end up with a generic game, not one based in a fantastically rich IP.
As far as I know, no-one has argued against the ability to save ship set ups. Nobody is against the idea that a given ship can have a few profiles and switching between them is easy.
As a gaming mechanism its sensible.
As for swapping ships, the problem comes when we have a huge part of the IP, Voyager, which is about how that isnt possible.
The compromise thats been offered doesn't remove the new mechanism, merely bends it back somewhat towards the IP.
I only started playing this past July. Shortly after playing, I realized that even though it is a Star Trek game, it is not focused on always being canon. For example, everyone but the NPCs are Vice Admirals. However, the NPCs are not nearly as high of rank, and yet they order around us admirals.
There are situations when playing as Klingons that the Federation ships want to attack without reason, or asking questions.
There are many other reasons it is not canon. Yet, I still play it by looking at it as Cryptic's version of Star Trek. Just like the J. J. versions of the movies are his version of Star Trek. There are other franchises that are like this. Fans sometimes write their own fan fiction, and I see STO as someone else version of the Star Trek universe.
If I could do STO my way, it would be different. However, I will try out the different changes, and see how I like it. If not, then I just will not use it, unless required.
For any role playing, I will just pretend that since i am an admiral, and that I requested a captain under my command brought their ship out to meet me, and let me switch ships. If I am in the Dyson Sphere, then they brought out some needed supplies, and I transferred to their ship to assume command.
There are many different ways to make this feature work for your own version of playing STO. Or just simply not use it if you don't like it.
Tim.
Leader of Elite Guardian Academy.Would you like to learn how to run a fleet? Would you like to know how to do ship builds (true budget as well as high end)?The join the Academy today!
Friendly reminder to make sure to look out for the Dev Blog next week on this system for more info and answers to your questions, as well as checking it out once it hits Tribble and leaving feedback about it once you've tried it in the Tribble subforums.
Cheers,
Brandon =/\=
To be honest Bran, i dont think many people have many questions about this mechanic.
It's been explained pretty clearly.
The only question has been about its wisdom, in the form thats been presented to us.
I'm sure the tribble subforum will be invaluable for feedback on its technical implementation, but will the feedback from this thread and others regarding the shape of this new mechanism be considered at all?
Or is it just happening and we can either like or shut up?
Ooh yes we must "protect" our precious game. News flash: It's Cryptic's game and the feature you loathe so much already exists in the game. Head-canon it away all you want or just leave and mail me your unbound stuff thx.
Nitpicking is a time-honored tradition of science fiction. Asking your readers not to worry about the "little things" is like asking a dog not to sniff at people's crotches. If there's something that appears to violate natural laws, then you can expect someone's going to point it out. That's just the way things are.
That?s why I put the word Real in quotes thou it replaced it with a (?) but that?s what I meant.
When have you seen any episode any of the away team carry any backpacks or extra weapons or armor of any kind. The minute they introduced Armor, shield, Kits, for the player to use, then that?s when it went beyond the IP.
The lower levels of ESD are unused and dormant. Wasted, really. Why not use that space as an area that initiates missions that involve us to travel and actually do things instead of sitting in a social zone, waiting for a queue to fill.
I think this is a great idea. Im glad to see someone has good viewpoints on which to improve Earth Spacedock especially in relation to the lower levels.
I always prefered the old Earth Spacedock map having re-visited it recentley via the foundry.
Granted there were some well thought through improvements, for example the transporter room which replaced a "Beam In" point.
With some of the maps Cryptic makes for ground use they usualy are not big enough to convey a more accurate representation of possible scale of the interior space of a model.
I mean when walking around the interior of ESD you don't feel you are in the largest and strategically most important Starbase in the Federation space. If the map was doubled or even tripled in size that would be a massive improvement to whats there scaling where appropriate and adding additional levels to ESD but taking design concepts from original maps and more recent additions. :cool: I feel that with certain attempts to remaster content it can be overdone and subsequently lose its charm.
Deep Space Nine should also be given an update mostly doubling it in size and adding a few more cannon zones like cargo bays, science labs, infirmary garaks shop e.t.c
"Omega Class will prevail she cannot be defeated!"
And while you're here, can you please tell us whether tray layout will be part of the total loadout save/load thingy? Without it, namely, the whole endeavour is kinda pointless.
Your numbers may be wrong, but the groups you identify clearly exist.
As stated before, it is a difficult task to find the correct balancing point between the two.
However, I do think you underestimate the group you characterise as 'canon purists'.
While they may be a minority in terms of number of players, if you were to look at just LTSs I think you'd see a wholly different picture.
Indeed, I'd suggest the probability of someone being a canon purist correlates strongly with how much money they spend on the game.
Thus, while there do have to be compromises of the canon to make the game work, there also have to be parts of the game that do not compromise, lest those canon purists with their wallets leave.
It's not an easy line to draw, its worth repeating that.
The compromise I've suggested earlier would satisfy me though.[/QUOTE
I would strongly disagree with thjis stance....i'm an LTS and still spend a couple hundred dollars on STO per month..my thought is i love the idea to swap ships....just makes the most since....and yes i'm 54 yrs old...watched TOS when i was a kid.....canon has no place in a game....get over it
"If everyone used Macs, we'd be working on how to get to Alpha Centauri rather than how to get to Mars."
Ooh yes we must "protect" our precious game. News flash: It's Cryptic's game and the feature you loathe so much already exists in the game. Head-canon it away all you want or just leave and mail me your unbound stuff thx.
Newsflash: Cryptic didn't make this game so the devs. can play STO in their basement, they made the game for the customers. This is customers giving feedback, discussing and sharing opinions, kinda' the point of having a forum in the first place.
I don't see the canon issue here anyway really, there are plenty of instances of a ship changing captain while in space like when Captain Jellico took command of the Ent D.
I would strongly disagree with thjis stance....i'm an LTS and still spend a couple hundred dollars on STO per month..my thought is i love the idea to swap ships....just makes the most since....and yes i'm 54 yrs old...watched TOS when i was a kid.....canon has no place in a game....get over it
Oddly enough, demographically, we're almost the same.
LTS who spends cash on top, over 50, watched TOS as a kid. Yup, all check.
Seems my opinion is as legitimate as yours, and yet it differs.
As far as I'm concerned it doesn't make either of us wrong, this is just the expression of our tastes. Nothing to get over it, surely.
However, I simply can't agree with the idea that canon has nothing to do with the game, as you explicitally state.
This is STO, not O.
Without that Star Trek bit, there wouldn't be an O.
Or, if it were to exist, O would be simply generic pew pew online. And I wouldnt be an LTS.
But it is Star Trek Online. A game, as many have stated, but also necessarily Star Trek.
As I've stated repeatedly there is a tension between those who want all game and those who want all trek. This is ok and healthy, but neither side trumps the other.
This upcoming change, as currently officially formulated, is all game and no trek.
To give it just a little bit of trek, by turning the feature off when you're not in a sector with a friendly starbase barely dilutes it at all.
Oddly enough, demographically, we're almost the same.
LTS who spends cash on top, over 50, watched TOS as a kid. Yup, all check.
Seems my opinion is as legitimate as yours, and yet it differs.
As far as I'm concerned it doesn't make either of us wrong, this is just the expression of our tastes. Nothing to get over it, surely.
However, I simply can't agree with the idea that canon has nothing to do with the game, as you explicitally state.
This is STO, not O.
Without that Star Trek bit, there wouldn't be an O.
Or, if it were to exist, O would be simply generic pew pew online. And I wouldnt be an LTS.
But it is Star Trek Online. A game, as many have stated, but also necessarily Star Trek.
As I've stated repeatedly there is a tension between those who want all game and those who want all trek. This is ok and healthy, but neither side trumps the other.
This upcoming change, as currently officially formulated, is all game and no trek.
To give it just a little bit of trek, by turning the feature off when you're not in a sector with a friendly starbase barely dilutes it at all.
Taking what you said one step further, turning it off when you're not in a sector with a friendly starbase in a great compromise. What more could you ask for than a mature compromise?
For heavens sake. They are obviously putting game mechanics over that of maintaining their own setting, which represent the actual basis for most of the revenue. They can do that sort of thing in that "other" fantasy game, because they don't have a gorndarn television series, and/or movies of decreasing quality to stick to. Without the setting, this game is floating in the water.
Yeah sure. Systematic and instant change of ships just represent an abstract way of avoiding going somewhere, and do something resembling movement. We just can't have people trekking anywhere out of their way, that would start to look like they are travelling. We must not stand in the way of anyone that don't want to move. That would be such a speedbump for them.
I don't see the canon issue here anyway really, there are plenty of instances of a ship changing captain while in space like when Captain Jellico took command of the Ent D.
That's true. However, Jellico didn't bring his BO's with him. A minor quibble.
For me the issue may be moot. I'm not as concerned with ship-swapping in sector space, as I am concerned about the manner in which the swap is executed. If, it is just bringing up the same ship selector window we get from the NPC's in spacedock and our existing ship is instantly replaced with a new ship, then I take issue.
Yeah, it's a game, but part of the appeal of the game is the aesthetics. If aesthetics didn't matter we might all be playing an online "Pen & Paper" version of the game.
Comments
Couldn't agree more. Narrative wins.
Yes, it is the most extreme example. However, worth referring to for two reasons. Firstly, we are apparently to have a Voyager themed season. Secondly, given its main theme was about being too far away for resupply, and this is essentially a resupply question, it is a fair reference.
Yes, we saw a number of personnel transfers to the ship. We even saw flag officers transferring ships.
However, we never saw an instance where a ship was on station, it is relieved by another ship and the entire crew changes over to stay on station in a new ship.
Ship swapping is the latter.
Well, unless you're in the Delta quadrant.
Or a Fed parked next to the Klingon homeworld.
Doubt those Klingons will be happy about that.
It's not about immersion and it's not about telling people how to play the game. It's about protecting the game and preventing it from being damaged by dumbed-down mechanics that will lead to further dumbed-down mechanics.
People who are accusing others of telling them how to play the game are either not grasping the message we're trying to deliver or they're just outright refusing to.
This says it all.
Lifetime Sub since June 2010
Its a game and what or who made you the protector of immersion in a video game? If you don't like it simply don't use it and as far as dumbing down mechanics how is switching ships anywhere near this. It just saves time games are meant to be fun not a chore when you want do something as simple as switching ships.
Worry about how you play the game. Not how others want to play.
And while you're here, can you please tell us whether tray layout will be part of the total loadout save/load thingy? Without it, namely, the whole endeavour is kinda pointless.
Wow, this is an option available to use and in no way mandatory.
Let players play the way they choose to. If you don?t like something then don?t use it. If you want to ?Keep It Real? then don?t use any of the conveniences that the game has to offer.
Thou Im sure you yourself pick and choose what to ?Keep Real? and what not. A good example is the use of the Captains backpack (inventory) Im sure if you?re keeping it real you should have nothing in your backpack that would go beyond the believable like having several kits, weapons, shields, etc.
Before you start shouting, hey no, look to yourself and see how ?Real? your play style is and how much of that Realism is inconvenient and choose to use the ?Unreal? quick and easy method.
Why can't they follow me into system space?
Cheers,
Brandon =/\=
Are you actually reading the posts? Look at the bits I've highlighted. Can you any error in your logic? Just in case you can't, let me make it clear.
This is not about immersion.
sigh.
Realism in art is always an illusion. Video games are clearly art.
It's also not a digital concept but an analogue one.
we've already had the old canard about if you want realism why doesnt it take 5 years to do a mission stuff.
It's not about realism.....it's about IP.
We have to draw a line between realism in the IPs sense and QoL gameplay.
However, if gameplay wins too much you end up with a generic game, not one based in a fantastically rich IP.
As far as I know, no-one has argued against the ability to save ship set ups. Nobody is against the idea that a given ship can have a few profiles and switching between them is easy.
As a gaming mechanism its sensible.
As for swapping ships, the problem comes when we have a huge part of the IP, Voyager, which is about how that isnt possible.
The compromise thats been offered doesn't remove the new mechanism, merely bends it back somewhat towards the IP.
There are situations when playing as Klingons that the Federation ships want to attack without reason, or asking questions.
There are many other reasons it is not canon. Yet, I still play it by looking at it as Cryptic's version of Star Trek. Just like the J. J. versions of the movies are his version of Star Trek. There are other franchises that are like this. Fans sometimes write their own fan fiction, and I see STO as someone else version of the Star Trek universe.
If I could do STO my way, it would be different. However, I will try out the different changes, and see how I like it. If not, then I just will not use it, unless required.
For any role playing, I will just pretend that since i am an admiral, and that I requested a captain under my command brought their ship out to meet me, and let me switch ships. If I am in the Dyson Sphere, then they brought out some needed supplies, and I transferred to their ship to assume command.
There are many different ways to make this feature work for your own version of playing STO. Or just simply not use it if you don't like it.
Tim.
I read the posts and in your first post you talk about believability of the game in the first point you make...that is what you would call immersion.
To be honest Bran, i dont think many people have many questions about this mechanic.
It's been explained pretty clearly.
The only question has been about its wisdom, in the form thats been presented to us.
I'm sure the tribble subforum will be invaluable for feedback on its technical implementation, but will the feedback from this thread and others regarding the shape of this new mechanism be considered at all?
Or is it just happening and we can either like or shut up?
Joined January 2009
That?s why I put the word Real in quotes thou it replaced it with a (?) but that?s what I meant.
When have you seen any episode any of the away team carry any backpacks or extra weapons or armor of any kind. The minute they introduced Armor, shield, Kits, for the player to use, then that?s when it went beyond the IP.
I think this is a great idea. Im glad to see someone has good viewpoints on which to improve Earth Spacedock especially in relation to the lower levels.
I always prefered the old Earth Spacedock map having re-visited it recentley via the foundry.
Granted there were some well thought through improvements, for example the transporter room which replaced a "Beam In" point.
With some of the maps Cryptic makes for ground use they usualy are not big enough to convey a more accurate representation of possible scale of the interior space of a model.
I mean when walking around the interior of ESD you don't feel you are in the largest and strategically most important Starbase in the Federation space. If the map was doubled or even tripled in size that would be a massive improvement to whats there scaling where appropriate and adding additional levels to ESD but taking design concepts from original maps and more recent additions. :cool: I feel that with certain attempts to remaster content it can be overdone and subsequently lose its charm.
Deep Space Nine should also be given an update mostly doubling it in size and adding a few more cannon zones like cargo bays, science labs, infirmary garaks shop e.t.c
Already replied
Cheers,
Brandon =/\=
Newsflash: Cryptic didn't make this game so the devs. can play STO in their basement, they made the game for the customers. This is customers giving feedback, discussing and sharing opinions, kinda' the point of having a forum in the first place.
---
Oddly enough, demographically, we're almost the same.
LTS who spends cash on top, over 50, watched TOS as a kid. Yup, all check.
Seems my opinion is as legitimate as yours, and yet it differs.
As far as I'm concerned it doesn't make either of us wrong, this is just the expression of our tastes. Nothing to get over it, surely.
However, I simply can't agree with the idea that canon has nothing to do with the game, as you explicitally state.
This is STO, not O.
Without that Star Trek bit, there wouldn't be an O.
Or, if it were to exist, O would be simply generic pew pew online. And I wouldnt be an LTS.
But it is Star Trek Online. A game, as many have stated, but also necessarily Star Trek.
As I've stated repeatedly there is a tension between those who want all game and those who want all trek. This is ok and healthy, but neither side trumps the other.
This upcoming change, as currently officially formulated, is all game and no trek.
To give it just a little bit of trek, by turning the feature off when you're not in a sector with a friendly starbase barely dilutes it at all.
Taking what you said one step further, turning it off when you're not in a sector with a friendly starbase in a great compromise. What more could you ask for than a mature compromise?
Yeah sure. Systematic and instant change of ships just represent an abstract way of avoiding going somewhere, and do something resembling movement. We just can't have people trekking anywhere out of their way, that would start to look like they are travelling. We must not stand in the way of anyone that don't want to move. That would be such a speedbump for them.
---
That's true. However, Jellico didn't bring his BO's with him. A minor quibble.
For me the issue may be moot. I'm not as concerned with ship-swapping in sector space, as I am concerned about the manner in which the swap is executed. If, it is just bringing up the same ship selector window we get from the NPC's in spacedock and our existing ship is instantly replaced with a new ship, then I take issue.
Yeah, it's a game, but part of the appeal of the game is the aesthetics. If aesthetics didn't matter we might all be playing an online "Pen & Paper" version of the game.