test content
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc

Ship consoles vs Ship devices - the line must be drawn here and no further!

projectfrontierprojectfrontier Member Posts: 0 Arc User
All devices provide activation-use abilities (some being consumable, some not).
Most consoles are the opposite, providing passive-enhancement to ship functionality.
Then there are those problem-consoles, found on zen bought ships (or cross-faction packs), which provide active abilities like devices but go in console slots (save for a few instances where they end up in weapon slots instead).

These "odd men out" consoles blur the lines between devices and consoles, undermining the foundation of the segregation in the first place.

Please Cryptic, clearly segregate consoles and devices by either (a) changing "active ability consoles" into device items (and give all categories of ship starting at RA +1 device slot) or (b) converting these "special ability consoles" into "restricted to appropriate ship/faction use account-wide captain available skills" making "cross faction consoles" single-character unlocks thereby enforcing the concept of devices = activation-use items and consoles = passive enhacements only.
Post edited by projectfrontier on
«1

Comments

  • lordvalecortezlordvalecortez Member Posts: 479 Arc User
    edited February 2014
    While I support this I wish to kindly remind you that you are addressing the same company that "cleaned up" all those currencies we had.
    Cheers from Antonio Valerio Cortez III, Half-Celestial Archduke of the Free Marches Confederacy.
  • no09dysonsphereno09dysonsphere Member Posts: 409 Arc User
    edited February 2014
    I don't get why the Cloaking Device is a console...

    And I don't see the need to entirely separate passive = console / active = device but having more reusable ship devices would be nice...
  • projectfrontierprojectfrontier Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited February 2014
    While I support this I wish to kindly remind you that you are addressing the same company that "cleaned up" all those currencies we had.

    YoU dArE bRiNg Up CuRrEnCiEs?!?!?!?!
    I don't get why the Cloaking Device is a console...

    And I don't see the need to entirely separate passive = console / active = device but having more reusable ship devices would be nice...

    The cloak wasn't always a console Fed-side.

    Would you like "tactical", "engineering", "science" and "general utility" device slots to replace the current console/device system?

    It would allow us to turn "consoles" into "slots used to dictate boff station layouts", does that work for you?
  • druhindruhin Member Posts: 7 Arc User
    edited February 2014
    It would allow us to turn "consoles" into "slots used to dictate boff station layouts", does that work for you?

    Very much so. Still waiting for them to add a "Computer Core" slot, to replace the horribly broken, and inflexible system of "BOff layout".
  • deathsremnantdeathsremnant Member Posts: 265
    edited February 2014
    They already balance themselves out, every active console requires a console slot which is actually very important. It's almost never worth it to waste a console slot just for a active. The few exceptions would be the Valdore shield leech console and the Plasomic leech console. I also find saucer separation consoles worth it since the turn rate boost is HUGE from those...other then that your console slots are too important for base/rep consoles to just "stack" actives for it to be a problem.
  • projectfrontierprojectfrontier Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited February 2014
    druhin wrote: »
    Very much so. Still waiting for them to add a "Computer Core" slot, to replace the horribly broken, and inflexible system of "BOff layout".

    you didn't see my other thread on changing ship types so that we could have a more flexible system, did you?

    They already balance themselves out, every active console requires a console slot which is actually very important. It's almost never worth it to waste a console slot just for a active. The few exceptions would be the Valdore shield leech console and the Plasomic leech console. I also find saucer separation consoles worth it since the turn rate boost is HUGE from those...other then that your console slots are too important for base/rep consoles to just "stack" actives for it to be a problem.

    TRIBBLE whether or not you understood what I originally posted, do you have any idea what you just wrote?
  • druhindruhin Member Posts: 7 Arc User
    edited February 2014
    Did not see your thread specifically. But I have seen the "Computer Core" idea floating about for a couple of years now.
  • mewmaster101mewmaster101 Member Posts: 1,239 Arc User
    edited February 2014
    While i agree with the Premise, it has a couple problems. If they was made in abilities, all that would do is make those ships with the really good abilities the only ones being used, and it would make the lower tier c-store ships completely useless and no one would buy them. You level too fast to make paying actual money for them worth it, and the only they are really ever bought is for the console.

    Another problem is by asking them activatable devices, you are not really helping the "only some active consoles are worth it" problem.

    A Third problem is with the bundle ships, whose consoles each have a passive ability, an active ability, and the set bonus, of which ALSO give passive and activatable abilities. HAve these as devices, and they are even LESS useful then many already are and what are you going to do with the passives. Make them inherent to the ships and you make the divide between ships that have these abilities and are already really good (like the Vesta and scimitar) without needing their consoles and just gave them an even BIGGER buff.

    Also, no matter what, Cryptic/PWE could care less about ideas from the public (and to some extent with good reason sometimes IMO)
  • szerontzurszerontzur Member Posts: 2,622 Arc User
    edited February 2014
    I think some consoles would make more sense as devices(like the cloaking DEVICE, Impulse Capacitance Cell, Subspace Jumper, etc. - utility), but I also think some other consoles would make more sense if they used a weapon slot(like the Aceton Assimilator, Isometric Charge, Point Defense Systems, etc. - weapons) and other consoles remain as consoles(Assimilated Console, Tachyokinetic Converter, etc. - passive benefits).
  • nobletnoblet Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited February 2014
    szerontzur wrote: »
    I think some consoles would make more sense as devices(like the cloaking DEVICE, Impulse Capacitance Cell, Subspace Jumper, etc. - utility), but I also think some other consoles would make more sense if they used a weapon slot(like the Aceton Assimilator, Isometric Charge, Point Defense Systems, etc. - weapons) and other consoles remain as consoles(Assimilated Console, Tachyokinetic Converter, etc. - passive benefits).

    If stuff like isometric charge takes a weapon slot, they would suck even more than they already do.

    In short, things that suck too much to take a console slot should be moved to battery slot.
  • szerontzurszerontzur Member Posts: 2,622 Arc User
    edited February 2014
    Isometric Charge would be just fine on Science Ships with Particle Gens and would actually compliment low weapon power builds. I'd also put Aceton Assimilator or a Point Defense System in the aft weapon slot of an Escort/DHC ship in a heartbeat; turrets be damned.

    The trickier/harder to justify ones are things like the Disruptor Auto-Cannon and Quantum Field Focus Phaser.
  • mightybobcncmightybobcnc Member Posts: 3,354 Arc User
    edited February 2014
    I don't get why the Cloaking Device is a console...

    And I don't see the need to entirely separate passive = console / active = device but having more reusable ship devices would be nice...

    :Cough: In before cloak becomes a new slot with different types of cloaks (see: warp cores, secondary deflectors)

    Joined January 2009
    Finger wrote:
    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.
  • projectfrontierprojectfrontier Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited February 2014
    While i agree with the Premise, it has a couple problems. If they was made in abilities, all that would do is make those ships with the really good abilities the only ones being used, and it would make the lower tier c-store ships completely useless and no one would buy them. You level too fast to make paying actual money for them worth it, and the only they are really ever bought is for the console.

    Another problem is by asking them activatable devices, you are not really helping the "only some active consoles are worth it" problem.

    A Third problem is with the bundle ships, whose consoles each have a passive ability, an active ability, and the set bonus, of which ALSO give passive and activatable abilities. HAve these as devices, and they are even LESS useful then many already are and what are you going to do with the passives. Make them inherent to the ships and you make the divide between ships that have these abilities and are already really good (like the Vesta and scimitar) without needing their consoles and just gave them an even BIGGER buff.

    Also, no matter what, Cryptic/PWE could care less about ideas from the public (and to some extent with good reason sometimes IMO)

    Given your apparent arguments you don't seem to understand the premise, so it's not clear how you can agree with it.
  • projectfrontierprojectfrontier Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited February 2014
    szerontzur wrote: »
    I think some consoles would make more sense as devices(like the cloaking DEVICE, Impulse Capacitance Cell, Subspace Jumper, etc. - utility), but I also think some other consoles would make more sense if they used a weapon slot(like the Aceton Assimilator, Isometric Charge, Point Defense Systems, etc. - weapons) and other consoles remain as consoles(Assimilated Console, Tachyokinetic Converter, etc. - passive benefits).

    If they changed the "weaponized" consoles from toggled cooldown into "hey thing has a cooldown like any other weapon that functions in a similar manner" weapons that wouldn't necessarily be out of place though we already have 60 second cooldowns on some weapon items and that's far less than most (if not all) of the consoles you suggested as "weaponizable".
  • projectfrontierprojectfrontier Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited February 2014
    noblet wrote: »
    If stuff like isometric charge takes a weapon slot, they would suck even more than they already do.

    In short, things that suck too much to take a console slot should be moved to battery slot.

    That's one way of putting it, yes.
    :Cough: In before cloak becomes a new slot with different types of cloaks (see: warp cores, secondary deflectors)

    That's not a horrible idea though if Cryptic goes that route they would have to bring their itemization game to a new level.
    szerontzur wrote: »
    Isometric Charge would be just fine on Science Ships with Particle Gens and would actually compliment low weapon power builds. I'd also put Aceton Assimilator or a Point Defense System in the aft weapon slot of an Escort/DHC ship in a heartbeat; turrets be damned.

    The trickier/harder to justify ones are things like the Disruptor Auto-Cannon and Quantum Field Focus Phaser.

    The disruptor auto-cannon and Quantum Field Focus phaser are restricted to certain types of ships and those restrictions would stay in place.
  • shpoksshpoks Member Posts: 6,967 Arc User
    edited February 2014
    You guys realize that there's a better chance of a Tier 5 Constitution Class to happen or J.J. Enterprise than this, right?
    Turning all ship consoles that have active "click" power into devices would be a massive headache for Cryptic and they'll need to rework the enitre ship roster as well as do balance adjustments all across the board. Can't see them bothering to rework a model already set in stone.

    Therefore, this whole discussion that keeps happening over and over again is becomming boring and is quite irrelevant.
    HQroeLu.jpg
  • tenkaritenkari Member Posts: 2,906 Arc User
    edited February 2014
    any universal thats part of a set, should most deffinately not be put in a device slot, wether active or passive, some should be devices yes, but if they put set consoles in device slots, it frees up more slots for even more set consoles that you might not usually equip, just to get the bonuses.
  • projectfrontierprojectfrontier Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited February 2014
    shpoks wrote: »
    You guys realize that there's a better chance of a Tier 5 Constitution Class to happen or J.J. Enterprise than this, right?
    Turning all ship consoles that have active "click" power into devices would be a massive headache for Cryptic and they'll need to rework the enitre ship roster as well as do balance adjustments all across the board. Can't see them bothering to rework a model already set in stone.

    Therefore, this whole discussion that keeps happening over and over again is becomming boring and is quite irrelevant.

    Serious face:
    Ship weapons/devices/consoles/equipment are certainly easier to manage (e.g. implement and modify) within the game's logical content than whatever you call a cell-phone is to use. Just consider the gone, but not forgotten, Advanced Transwarp Drive Coil and Transwarp Drive Coil where the former is now integrated (if not re-integrated as I vaguely recall it being taken out of the ship and put into a console) into the Advanced Heavy Cruiser Retrofit and the latter being replaced with a less valuable item. Look a little further over and you'll see the Federation Dreadnought Cruiser, which started life as an 8 console 7 weapon ship with a built-in cloaking device which was met by a mixed bag of player's reviews and responses.

    Even more complicated logical structures within the game's content were no issue to Cryptic's culling mechanics irrespective of value.

    So on a scale of 1 to 10, with 1 being the lowest and 10 being the highest, would rating you as a 0 in the domain of "programming expertise" be "not fair", "barely fair", "fair", "really fair", or "giving you wayyyyyy to much credit"?

    We're leaning towards the latter, and there's nothing wrong with you being there save for the fact you kept running when wrong said "welcome to my home, can I get you something to drink while you wait?"
    tenkari wrote: »
    any universal thats part of a set, should most deffinately not be put in a device slot, wether active or passive, some should be devices yes, but if they put set consoles in device slots, it frees up more slots for even more set consoles that you might not usually equip, just to get the bonuses.

    You wrote: "...if they put set consoles in device slots, it frees up more slots for even more set consoles that you might not usually equip, just to get the bonuses..." (emphasis mine)

    Since I am not sure if you even read the original post, and if you did I cannot be sure if you understood it clearly, allow me to re-iterate (and expound upon where relevant) it this one time:

    Idea 1.1: Turn ACTIVE POWER CONSOLES into DEVICE ITEMS.
    +
    Idea 1.2: Leave PASSIVE POWER CONSOLES as CONSOLES.

    OR

    Idea 2.1: Turn ALL CONSOLES FROM SHIPS into ACCOUNT-BOUND CAPTAIN POWERS that only function on APPROPRIATE SHIPS (no Vesta console powers on an Escort).
    +
    Idea 2.2: Make LOCKBOX SHIP CONSOLE items as they are now CHARACTER-CENTRIC UNLOCKS
    +
    Idea 2.3a: Make CROSS FACTION SHIP CONSOLE ITEM POWERS "CHARACTER BOUND" (like lockbox ships, special outfits,
    OR
    Idea 2.3b: Make CROSS FACTION SHIP CONSOLE ITEM POWERS "Universal Faction Powers" that every captain, in every faction, can use as long as it meets three restrictions: (a) the player has purchased the ship in the zen store, (b) the captain is in the same or a higher tier than the power's base ship, and (c) the captain can only use "set piece powers" in ships those powers are tied to (e.g. Vesta for the Vesta-set, T'Varo for the T'Varo-set, etc).

    With either idea being more than reasonable and easy for Cryptic to attend to.

    And with both ideas being completely disparate from your apparent comprehension of them as per the quotation of you above.
  • wrathofachilleswrathofachilles Member Posts: 907 Arc User
    edited March 2014
    I think it might be nice to turn universal "consoles" into devices, particularly for ships where their special consoles can't be equipped on other ships... If it can't be equipped to another ship, why is it a removable console? It should be built in, but barring that:

    Give all ships 4 device slots so that we don't get a bunch of Q.Q over cruisers getting a buff, and then let everyone choose which formally universal consoles they will slip in there. While this frees up some ships to use more passive bonuses, it also limits every ship to a max of 4 of what used to be universal consoles.

    So, for example, on a scimitar, yes, they get to use their special consoles without sacrifice to passive tactical/engineering/sci bonuses, but they would also be limited to a max of 4 devices, so for every scimitar specific console they use, that's one less other-op console they can use.

    I think this would both give some extra freedom while also limiting the OP ridiculous stacking opportunities.
  • norobladnoroblad Member Posts: 2,624 Arc User
    edited March 2014
    This game has devices?

    There are 4, maybe 5 total ship devices excluding toys and consumables -- pirate call, scorp fighter, pattern enhancement, red matter. And red matter is only for pre-order folks. There might be one or 2 more that I have forgotten?

    I am all for some of the consoles becoming devices. Things like the point defense system *should* be a device. The problem is that many of these are very powerful --- large ships with many device slots would suddenly become much more powerful if these were converted over without any tweaks. This would probably upset people that paid 25 bucks for a 2 device ship that suddenly outgunned. They would have to retrofit all ships to have (for example) 3 device slots, maybe 4. Or add a *single* "large device" type to each ship, allowing ONE clicky device and however many small devices (batteries, etc) in the regular slots, something like that....
  • shpoksshpoks Member Posts: 6,967 Arc User
    edited March 2014
    Apart for your complete lack of understanding of.....well...pretty much everything, including the point I was trying to make, there is only one response I can give you to this:
    So on a scale of 1 to 10, with 1 being the lowest and 10 being the highest, would rating you as a 0 in the domain of "programming expertise" be "not fair", "barely fair", "fair", "really fair", or "giving you wayyyyyy to much credit"?

    We're leaning towards the latter, and there's nothing wrong with you being there save for the fact you kept running when wrong said "welcome to my home, can I get you something to drink while you wait?"

    And that would be >THIS< ;)
    HQroeLu.jpg
  • bluegeekbluegeek Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited March 2014
    Captains,

    If some of you cannot keep the condescending tone out of your posts while replying to people you disagree with, perhaps you should stop posting? Otherwise, you're dangerously close to trolling.

    Let's keep this a cordial discussion, please.
    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
  • centersolacecentersolace Member Posts: 11,178 Arc User
    edited March 2014
    szerontzur wrote: »
    I think some consoles would make more sense as devices(like the cloaking DEVICE, Impulse Capacitance Cell, Subspace Jumper, etc. - utility), but I also think some other consoles would make more sense if they used a weapon slot(like the Aceton Assimilator, Isometric Charge, Point Defense Systems, etc. - weapons) and other consoles remain as consoles(Assimilated Console, Tachyokinetic Converter, etc. - passive benefits).

    If it doesn't have stats it should not take up a console slot. Simple as that.
  • rinksterrinkster Member Posts: 3,549 Arc User
    edited March 2014
    From a purely logical standpoint, its clear that things have gotten meesy vis a vis console/device definitions.

    Speaking personally, I favour the idea that a console with an activatable effect becomes a device, while consoles that are just stats stay as consoles.

    However, it would be something that messes up a lot of builds.
  • mightybobcncmightybobcnc Member Posts: 3,354 Arc User
    edited March 2014
    noroblad wrote: »
    pattern enhancement

    Wait, what?

    Joined January 2009
    Finger wrote:
    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.
  • razar2380razar2380 Member Posts: 1,181 Arc User
    edited March 2014
    I would like for them to change the cloak, and saucer separation features from being tied to a console, to a ship feature, like on the Romulan and KDF ships. If you buy the C-Store Defiant with the cloak, for example, then it will unlock the cloaking ability on all of the Defiants.

    The same goes for the saucer separations, and the MVAM ships. All you need to do is buy the ship that has the cloaking ability, and it unlocks that feature on all of the ships able to use it. This will eliminate the pointless consoles.

    You don't need to transfer a cloak from one Rommie, or KDF ship to another, because they are a feature of their ships. If you want to se them, you can. If not, then you just don't.

    I feel this will make more sinse.
    SSO = Starfleet (not so) Special Operations Group
  • revandarklighterrevandarklighter Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited March 2014
    They already balance themselves out, every active console requires a console slot which is actually very important. It's almost never worth it to waste a console slot just for a active. The few exceptions would be the Valdore shield leech console and the Plasomic leech console. I also find saucer separation consoles worth it since the turn rate boost is HUGE from those...other then that your console slots are too important for base/rep consoles to just "stack" actives for it to be a problem.

    What you describe is the opposite of balancing out...

    On the topic.... IIIII... Don't know.
    Like many people I'd like to take more of those click consoles then I do. For some of them I paid money and they are fun but not worth a console slot...
    ... On the other hand... Wich ones should be devices? Certainly not all them. So what is really balanced?
    Also a good old issue would come up again: why exactly do cruises have more device slots? If devices become usefull all the sudden people will complain about that, since it doesn't make sense mechanically.

    But I still think it would be nice to have the one or the other of that consoles in the build without having the bad conscience of changing usefull things for fluff (and ultimately weakening the team).

    It would also increase the sale on some if those not that great console ships...
  • bluegeekbluegeek Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited March 2014
    razar2380 wrote: »
    I would like for them to change the cloak, and saucer separation features from being tied to a console, to a ship feature, like on the Romulan and KDF ships. If you buy the C-Store Defiant with the cloak, for example, then it will unlock the cloaking ability on all of the Defiants.

    The same goes for the saucer separations, and the MVAM ships. All you need to do is buy the ship that has the cloaking ability, and it unlocks that feature on all of the ships able to use it. This will eliminate the pointless consoles.

    You don't need to transfer a cloak from one Rommie, or KDF ship to another, because they are a feature of their ships. If you want to se them, you can. If not, then you just don't.

    I feel this will make more sinse.

    I can't see them doing it. They want you to buy the Galaxy R and the Galaxy X so you can put Sep and Cloak on your Fleet Dreadnought. They want you to buy a Defiant so you can equip Cloak on an Avenger.

    Cryptic went to considerable trouble to split those innate abilities into consoles in the first place, because they want to sell you consoles. You can do without them, but it's really tempting to want a Fleet Defiant that cloaks. So people are going to buy the C-Store Defiant and then pick up their Fleet Defiant for $5 more and pick up a cloaking device that they can use or not use as they see fit.
    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
  • wrathofachilleswrathofachilles Member Posts: 907 Arc User
    edited March 2014
    What you describe is the opposite of balancing out...

    On the topic.... IIIII... Don't know.
    Like many people I'd like to take more of those click consoles then I do. For some of them I paid money and they are fun but not worth a console slot...
    ... On the other hand... Wich ones should be devices? Certainly not all them. So what is really balanced?
    Also a good old issue would come up again: why exactly do cruises have more device slots? If devices become usefull all the sudden people will complain about that, since it doesn't make sense mechanically.

    But I still think it would be nice to have the one or the other of that consoles in the build without having the bad conscience of changing usefull things for fluff (and ultimately weakening the team).

    It would also increase the sale on some if those not that great console ships...

    I think cruisers having more device slots is a hold over from the ooooooold notion from when the game was first being developed that cruisers would also have larger inventory and what not due to being bigger ships with more internal space. If activateable power consoles were moved to the realm of devices, I imagine all ships would get the same number of consoles so this wouldn't be a buff to any particular class of ship.
  • wrathofachilleswrathofachilles Member Posts: 907 Arc User
    edited March 2014
    bluegeek wrote: »
    I can't see them doing it. They want you to buy the Galaxy R and the Galaxy X so you can put Sep and Cloak on your Fleet Dreadnought. They want you to buy a Defiant so you can equip Cloak on an Avenger.

    Cryptic went to considerable trouble to split those innate abilities into consoles in the first place, because they want to sell you consoles. You can do without them, but it's really tempting to want a Fleet Defiant that cloaks. So people are going to buy the C-Store Defiant and then pick up their Fleet Defiant for $5 more and pick up a cloaking device that they can use or not use as they see fit.

    It really doesn't make sense for powers that can't be equipped to other ships to be a console. As you said, the whole point of a console should be that it can go on another ship. So things like the ody consoles should be built in. If they switch over to the device category, along with other *clicky* console powers, they'd still be competing for what other special things your ship could do, but wouldn't be competing for passive stats on your ship.
Sign In or Register to comment.