test content
Logo
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc
Doing things to death
wdwormack5114
Member Posts: 7 Arc User
Is it just me, or does it seem like there are a lot of missions that put users in situations where they are outgunned, outmanned, & outmanuevered. I've taken missions where I've been pitted against four, five or as many as ten ships. What is it with the totally OVER-USED cliche of winning against 'insurmountable ods' scenario anyway?
Post edited by wdwormack5114 on
0
Comments
It also doesn't help that half the time lately, we're doing this in ships not our own. Forgive me for the divergence, but this is a personal and semi-related pet peeve. It's bad enough dealing with wave upon wave in our own ships, optimised for our play-styles, it becomes something else when we're dropped in, oh, I don't know, say a Carrier when we play Raiders or Warbirds, or perhaps Science Destroyer instead of the Battlecruiser we've gotten just the way we want... That's another thing that's rapidly becoming over-done, if you ask me...
^Words that every player should keep in mind, especially whenever there's a problem with the game...
> <
> <
>
When the combat has it's context set up in a meaningful way by the narrative, I actually enjoy destroying waves of enemies, or most of the objectives, as my actions seem to have more importance than the task itself. Defending the ESD during Surface Tension is a good example of this. Being sent on a patrol (again and again) to kill 5/5 waves of enemies with the dead horse of a plot device, defend X or get ambushed by X, does the opposite of this and totally breaks immersion.
I'd love to see some scenarios allowing the narrative to get more personal. Think of Wrath of Khan. A gripping movie even now, because it was never about the number of ships, or making things "epic"- it was about telling a story of 2 men whose lives became intertwined at some point in the past, and have been on a collision course ever since. The movie was based on someone wanting revenge for killing their wife- and it was one of the best they've made.
I can't imagine this kind of story working here at all because it seems gameplay is designed first, with the story filling in the gaps and providing the breadcrumbs to keep the "story", "flowing". Throwing a Voyager actor in to tell us a ship is being attacked doesn't make for good story just because a guy from Voyager said it.
Imagine having a mission similar to when the Reliant first attacked the Enterprise. Imagine feeling as though you were dead in the water and had to try to manage your resources/crew to try to somehow find a way to get the upper hand. Knowing STO game mechanics, this would be watered down to a bridge officer telling you where to click (can't have us thinking about how to approach things), but with some effort, maybe it wouldn't have to.
Then again, maybe the game just can't play like that due to engine limitations.
Anyway, this turned into a bit of a rant, but my point is that the gameplay doesn't have to have 50 ships in a huge battle, or just 1 ship in a tense battle of wits, but without context and adding meaningful variety to proceedings, each can be as boring as the other. Make me care about what happens in your story (and subsequently missions/gameplay) for more reasons than "the cast of Voyager are back!".
What is their origin, their evolution? How did they get on top. at the end of the food chain?
It can be done - had it happen to me in a PVP match.
For some reason my Armitage's tray went utterly screwy on me - and left me in no fit state to fight. It was a question of running, trying to rebuild my powers tray with an angry Klingon bearing down on me. The priceless part? I finished just as he caught up and started firing, then got absurdly lucky and vaped him on the return. Easily the most Trek moment of my near-4 yrs of STO.
Point is, you can introduce mechanisms - have the player trying to complete a puzzle while their ship us under fire.
SPOILERS:
Last night, I played the mission "Enemies In All The Usual Places"; the final part where you rescue the Kobali COULD have been a perfect example of a mission - each ship told you its situation and you were given a series of options that you could try - cargo transporters, transferring power to the Kobali's Structual Integrity field, modified probes, etc....
At first, that was easily the most 'Trek' I've felt a mission being in a long time, with it making me think 'Okay, here are the options, whose plan do we try?' It was a little like in TNG: "Cause and Effect" where they had to figure out whose plan to avoid the events that caught them in the loop to use based only on feelings of deja vu and what little message they could send between loops...
Then it got ruined by every ship spawning a new group of Vaadwaur enemies after helping it. Especially after the waves of Hierarchy, Hirogen and such in the earlier parts of the mission.
^Words that every player should keep in mind, especially whenever there's a problem with the game...
Also a peeve. Particularly as we are unlocking ship specific traits and specializations.
YAY! I maxed out my Pilot: Space, now I can see what this really does!
Oh...I get to be in a Vaudwaar POS? M'kay.
Well, do you want the law of inverse ninja strength working FOR you or AGAINST you?
(The more ninjas you have the weaker each one is)
But in a more serious look at game design, if the threat takes you and four others to beat one enemy (most queue bosses) it makes you look like a total gimp, because you're unable to get the job done without help. But when you solo five enemies, YOU'RE the boss.