Starfleet wantonly destroys ships

balarick

I just feel like I have to voice my particular concern about this game. I've been playing this game for a few months, maybe even half a year now, and while I must admit this didn't really bother me for some time, it has been doing so as of late: throughout most of Star Trek history, Starfleet ships have gone out of their way to avoid destroying ships, unless the opposing ship gives them no choice. Yes, sometimes it's unavoidable; yes, sometimes there are unforeseen variables (ex: a leaky plasma injector) that turn those attempts to disable into the Fourth of July. And then later, with more advanced targeting systems (as found in TNG and later shows), this became easier to avoid most of the time, because you could just take out engines, weapons, etc., etc. Again, you might have unforeseen variables, but still! Yet, in this game -- which I just started playing again with a Federation Delta Recruit -- the only time you ever just disable a ship is when the story calls for it (you have to transport on board, you have to transport someone onto your ship, etc.).

What really got me going about this -- and shall we say, inspired me? -- to voice my opinion here is that I just started the Kuvah'Magh mission, and before you can get onto the planet, T'Vrell -- a freaking VULCAN, no less -- says, "I recommend destroying the Orion ships in orbit here. That should open up communication to the planet." Really? A Vulcan is recommending the wanton destruction of Orion ships? No attempt to disable? No attempt at communication with them? Just, "Let's kill 'em, sir, and let Logic sort 'em out!" Of course, as I learned from getting Nelen Exil, the Boff talking to you has no effect on the dialogue (otherwise, Nelen has some serious ties to Klingon heritage that seem almost comical!), and so the fact that T'Vrell is a Vulcan is irrelevant here, because no matter who is talking on this mission, they're gonna make the same recommendation: EXTERMINATE! EXTERMINATE! Oh, wait, wrong show. Anyway, even if you could argue that this particular instance was special and that the destruction of these Orions was unavoidable, that doesn't account for countless other missions wherein you simply fly in and blow up ships, killing thousands of people who needn't be killed.

Yes, it's just a game. I know this. No one is actually dying. At least, that's what my therapist keeps telling me. However, this is supposed to be the continuation of the Star Trek prime timeline, and in the 25th century, it appears that the moral certitude with which Gene Roddenberry infused his creation is all but gone. I don't mean to be too hard on the developers, because I know they work hard, but couldn't there be another way of awarding items that wouldn't require the ships to blow up? I honestly don't think Roddenberry would approve -- and given all of this memorializing of Star Trek cast and creators who have passed on (with Mark Lenard being distinctly absent from any of those memorial placards -- stay tuned for another post!), it concerns me that Starfleet has lost its moral compass. I mean, seriously, Feds act with little more concern for the preservation of life than the Terran Empire does!

And while I'm at it, how 'bout using the stun setting a little more often when planetside? As in the case of disabling ships, we only ever seem to stun people that we need to talk to later.

In case you're wondering, I'm not a prude (nor do I have a therapist -- but there's no shame in having one, if you do!), and I have no problem, at least in principle, with seeing destruction or killing in movies, video games, etc. I just want consistency, and I don't remember Spock or Tuvok every saying to Kirk or Janeway, before anything else has even been tried, "We should destroy [FILL IN THE BLANK]. That should make [FILL IN THE BLANK] easier for us."

warpangel

balarick wrote: »

I just want consistency, and I don't remember Spock or Tuvok every saying to Kirk or Janeway, before anything else has even been tried, "We should destroy [FILL IN THE BLANK]. That should make [FILL IN THE BLANK] easier for us."

Probably not. But they sure destroyed a whole lot of ships in DS9 when there was, you know, a war going on.

khan5000

I seem to recall Spock in the pilot recommending that they kill Gary Mitchell.
I've always felt that the way Picard runs his ship is different than how other captains do. My captains fall more in line with Kirk than Picard. If Kirk entered a system and saw enemies attacking a Starfleet ship or member planet...he'd shoot to kill.

starswordc

It's a war. People die. Get used to it.

mirrorchaos

tuvok once stated that violence has a logical means, to protect the ship and protect the crew when it is called for.

it may come off as this and that, but command orders this and that and you have to follow it like a nice little drone, thats what being a soldier is about, taking the orders you are given even if you dont like them otherwise you will risk the firing squad for trying to break with tradition. if you dont want to kill this and that then you should look elsewhere for another game, but i doubt there is a military group out there who hasnt ordered the deaths of their enemies who believe in the same thing you do as a drone, an ordered structure towards a common goal.

but you know what they say in war, truth is always the first thing to become a liability.

nesomumi2

balarick wrote: »

I just feel like I have to voice my particular concern about this game. I've been playing this game for a few months, maybe even half a year now, and while I must admit this didn't really bother me for some time, it has been doing so as of late: throughout most of Star Trek history, Starfleet ships have gone out of their way to avoid destroying ships, unless the opposing ship gives them no choice. Yes, sometimes it's unavoidable; yes, sometimes there are unforeseen variables (ex: a leaky plasma injector) that turn those attempts to disable into the Fourth of July. And then later, with more advanced targeting systems (as found in TNG and later shows), this became easier to avoid most of the time, because you could just take out engines, weapons, etc., etc. Again, you might have unforeseen variables, but still! Yet, in this game -- which I just started playing again with a Federation Delta Recruit -- the only time you ever just disable a ship is when the story calls for it (you have to transport on board, you have to transport someone onto your ship, etc.).

What really got me going about this -- and shall we say, inspired me? -- to voice my opinion here is that I just started the Kuvah'Magh mission, and before you can get onto the planet, T'Vrell -- a freaking VULCAN, no less -- says, "I recommend destroying the Orion ships in orbit here. That should open up communication to the planet." Really? A Vulcan is recommending the wanton destruction of Orion ships? No attempt to disable? No attempt at communication with them? Just, "Let's kill 'em, sir, and let Logic sort 'em out!" Of course, as I learned from getting Nelen Exil, the Boff talking to you has no effect on the dialogue (otherwise, Nelen has some serious ties to Klingon heritage that seem almost comical!), and so the fact that T'Vrell is a Vulcan is irrelevant here, because no matter who is talking on this mission, they're gonna make the same recommendation: EXTERMINATE! EXTERMINATE! Oh, wait, wrong show. Anyway, even if you could argue that this particular instance was special and that the destruction of these Orions was unavoidable, that doesn't account for countless other missions wherein you simply fly in and blow up ships, killing thousands of people who needn't be killed.

Yes, it's just a game. I know this. No one is actually dying. At least, that's what my therapist keeps telling me. However, this is supposed to be the continuation of the Star Trek prime timeline, and in the 25th century, it appears that the moral certitude with which Gene Roddenberry infused his creation is all but gone. I don't mean to be too hard on the developers, because I know they work hard, but couldn't there be another way of awarding items that wouldn't require the ships to blow up? I honestly don't think Roddenberry would approve -- and given all of this memorializing of Star Trek cast and creators who have passed on (with Mark Lenard being distinctly absent from any of those memorial placards -- stay tuned for another post!), it concerns me that Starfleet has lost its moral compass. I mean, seriously, Feds act with little more concern for the preservation of life than the Terran Empire does!

And while I'm at it, how 'bout using the stun setting a little more often when planetside? As in the case of disabling ships, we only ever seem to stun people that we need to talk to later.

In case you're wondering, I'm not a prude (nor do I have a therapist -- but there's no shame in having one, if you do!), and I have no problem, at least in principle, with seeing destruction or killing in movies, video games, etc. I just want consistency, and I don't remember Spock or Tuvok every saying to Kirk or Janeway, before anything else has even been tried, "We should destroy [FILL IN THE BLANK]. That should make [FILL IN THE BLANK] easier for us."

Lol. about your Starfleet, Kirk said "Let them die." I think that is enough about that. Check the movies, see how many ships were disabled in any of them. And there were no war in most of them.

questerius

"When diplomacy fails, there's only one alternative: violence. Force must be applied, without apology. It's the Starfleet way."

/10 characters.

nesomumi2

what starfleet have is:

1. prime directive
2. it is peaceful federation (of planets)
3. if you don't wont to join, leave them alone, and they will leave you alone (to the point. look at cardasia, romulus and klingons. see how far that point goes of leaving the rest alone).

After that it is anyone game, and federation never had problem to bloody it's nose.

baelogventure

In the words of Lt. Cmdr. Montgomery Scott.

"Of course, I could treat them to a few dozen photon torpedos"

and

"The best diplomat I know is a fully activated phaser bank"

gulberat

At least on ground, the way my headcanon works is that in some situations, some of the apparent "kills" are in fact heavy stuns. Other times starswordc is absolutely right: Starfleet has to kill because it has realized since the Dominion War that it cannot pretend not to be a military. In space it's harder to make headcanon adjustments and that was one reason I thought some of the Delta Rising patrols were horrible for a Fed.

admrenlarreck

Well it is 2410 and this is not your fathers Starfleet.

hyperionx09

It's 2410 and Iconians won't leave you all in peace.

Of course, being that this is also a game, did you really expect anything less than kills otherwise?

At least on the ground you can keep it mostly ambiguous (unless you killed someone with your secondary fire or grenade; which guarantees a vape animation).

But in space? They die, unless scripted otherwise. Of course, they could add that option for hardcore purists as some silly UI setting (Combat: Disable instead of Destroy), but they wouldn't get XP at all, since XP is only awarded upon destruction of opposition. Though if you have allied NPCs or teammates, watch in helplessness as they blow up the target. Or better yet, the NPCs will begin to repair and resume combat until you destroy them.

foolishowl

I agree with the OP.

All the series had lots of action, and occasionally combat, but we knew the protagonists were "good guys" who always tried to find alternatives to violence.

On the other hand, there's a long tradition of game adaptations of Star Trek that focus on combat, especially ship combat. And, really, we all enjoy some pew-pew-pew.

So what's really bothering me here is:

1) As in the OP's example, there are a lot of cases when the writers didn't even acknowledge that one might want to find an alternative to violence, even if none were possible;

2) Why aren't there more missions in which the player solves a problem through means other than violence?

3) And here's my biggest problem with STO's design, in general: why is it almost never the case that there's more than one way to solve a problem, and why is there always only one possible successful outcome to a mission?

In the OP's example, why was it strictly required to destroy the Orion ships? Why couldn't there have been options to elude them, or engage in diplomacy? Even if somehow the game engine is so brain-dead that it doesn't allow for multiple branches, the condition for beaming down could have been reaching an area of the map while not in combat mode -- which you could achieve either by destroying the Orion ships, or by engaging a cloak and never being detected by them.

STO would benefit if it rewarded players for being clever or skillful once in a while.

westx211

Violence isn't the answer! Its more of a question and the answer is always yes.

virusdancer

For me, it's not the the destruction but the quantity of destruction. Where based on the shows we might expect 1-3 ships or small groups taking on 3-5 ships...we're fraggin' ships by the dozens like we're killing rats on the outskirts of town.

baudl

WRONG! If you do exclusively Duty Officer Missions the whole day, STO is actually a pretty accurate Feet Admiral Simulation

I'm also fairly positive that you can level from 11-60 without even fireing a single shot.

lomax6996

khan5000 wrote: »

I seem to recall Spock in the pilot recommending that they kill Gary Mitchell.
I've always felt that the way Picard runs his ship is different than how other captains do. My captains fall more in line with Kirk than Picard. If Kirk entered a system and saw enemies attacking a Starfleet ship or member planet...he'd shoot to kill.

Actually Kirk usually tried to do so without killing. Though he loathed the duties of diplomacy he recognized it's importance. It was Kirk who observed that we can accept the fact that we are killers... but we can decide that we will NOT kill... today. Like an alcoholic taking it one day, once incident, at a time. :P

lomax6996

virusdancer wrote: »

For me, it's not the the destruction but the quantity of destruction. Where based on the shows we might expect 1-3 ships or small groups taking on 3-5 ships...we're fraggin' ships by the dozens like we're killing rats on the outskirts of town.

Exactly! On top of the moral issues and the sheer waste of resources it bothers me because... where the hell are they getting the time, resources and money to build all these damn ships we keep blowing up?? I don't think any planet or even any Solar System could be THAT mineral rich! :rolleyes:

lomax6996

foolishowl wrote: »

I agree with the OP.

All the series had lots of action, and occasionally combat, but we knew the protagonists were "good guys" who always tried to find alternatives to violence.

On the other hand, there's a long tradition of game adaptations of Star Trek that focus on combat, especially ship combat. And, really, we all enjoy some pew-pew-pew.

So what's really bothering me here is:

1) As in the OP's example, there are a lot of cases when the writers didn't even acknowledge that one might want to find an alternative to violence, even if none were possible;

2) Why aren't there more missions in which the player solves a problem through means other than violence?

3) And here's my biggest problem with STO's design, in general: why is it almost never the case that there's more than one way to solve a problem, and why is there always only one possible successful outcome to a mission?

In the OP's example, why was it strictly required to destroy the Orion ships? Why couldn't there have been options to elude them, or engage in diplomacy? Even if somehow the game engine is so brain-dead that it doesn't allow for multiple branches, the condition for beaming down could have been reaching an area of the map while not in combat mode -- which you could achieve either by destroying the Orion ships, or by engaging a cloak and never being detected by them.

STO would benefit if it rewarded players for being clever or skillful once in a while.

YES!! Just this! The best Trek episodes are always those where the antagonist is an idea or a principle... not a person or a people. Some of the best stories involved little or no conflict. Problem solving was a major part of the attraction (and I don't mean stupid little mini-games like when you scan for anomalies). This game could be so much more if you don't focus all your attention on catering to the most Plebeian tastes. And you can still have plenty of pew-pew for those that want it...

hyperionx09

foolishowl wrote: »

2) Why aren't there more missions in which the player solves a problem through means other than violence?

Because that's extra work on top of the already limited time and staff resources. Same reason why KDF can't talk down the Vulcan who reports in while you're chasing Franklin Drake and just focus on pursuit.

foolishowl wrote: »

3) And here's my biggest problem with STO's design, in general: why is it almost never the case that there's more than one way to solve a problem, and why is there always only one possible successful outcome to a mission?

Same as above. Hence the mostly forgotten Class-specific optionals. They don't even bother with much larger and more time consuming Faction-specific optionals in the later Faction-agnostic missions. Much less dialogue.

I mean, you don't even have your KDF character having the option to insult the Kobali whenever you talk to them (such as insulting Jhetlya for being incompetent enough to not have secured Keten down upon awakening him), much less Keten (such as straight up being blunt with him rather than trying to coax him out like the Feds). Or both praising the warrior Vaadwaur for being worthy foes and insulting them for allowing Brain Bugs to easily manipulate them. The only side dialogue you get is outright challenging the Hirogen that show up in Dust to Dust.

For that matter, there's no Class options that allow you to even cut the mission short on replay; such as your Tac captain ordering a teleport inhibitor over the temple to prevent anyone going in or out, or your Sci captain feeding false data on the Samsar as Keten's accessing them, or your Eng captain constructing their own impromptu teleport jammer using a box of temple scraps, all resulting in Keten being captured as soon as you take down that last force-field.

foolishowl wrote: »

In the OP's example, why was it strictly required to destroy the Orion ships? Why couldn't there have been options to elude them, or engage in diplomacy? Even if somehow the game engine is so brain-dead that it doesn't allow for multiple branches, the condition for beaming down could have been reaching an area of the map while not in combat mode -- which you could achieve either by destroying the Orion ships, or by engaging a cloak and never being detected by them.

The game engine is capable of handling some branching dialogue, but probably not able to handle entire alternate scripted cutscenes or zones based on choices. At least, without risking a complete bugging of the missions given how long it takes for some to load scenes and zones (and that's just for the default mission path; imagine if the system constantly had to check responses then choose the appropriate cutscene or alternate zone).

foolishowl wrote: »

STO would benefit if it rewarded players for being clever or skillful once in a while.

While it's not likely that Cryptic would bother with major branching paths, they should at least consider working in mission shortcuts upon replay, which would actually benefit players more than starting with a bunch of choices the first go-round.

tilarium1979

Because if you shot to disable all the enemy has to do is make their ship look disabled. Then when you're relaxed and lower your shields, power everything back up and blow you up instead.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

doomfrost

It would be pretty cool actually if you could disable ships while playing as Starfleet. Like once a ship hits 0% it's permanently disabled and out of the fight for good. This would be the default for all PvE engagements unless the mission specifies the ships be destroyed. The disabled ship would then warp out of the map after a brief period of time.

Maybe they could work it in as something you can check mark in the options, something called like "Non-violent mode." So if players who do want that level of destruction can leave it unchecked. The option could also eliminate vaporize animations on ground missions and stunned enemies would be beamed out once their health reaches 0% as well.

hyperionx09

doomfrost wrote: »

It would be pretty cool actually if you could disable ships while playing as Starfleet. Like once a ship hits 0% it's permanently disabled and out of the fight for good. This would be the default for all PvE engagements unless the mission specifies the ships be destroyed. The disabled ship would then warp out of the map after a brief period of time.

Maybe they could work it in as something you can check mark in the options, something called like "Non-violent mode." So if players who do want that level of destruction can leave it unchecked. The option could also eliminate vaporize animations on ground missions and stunned enemies would be beamed out once their health reaches 0% as well.

Which would hilariously ruin the rest of the mission that assumes they're dead for good.

Not to mention, the lag on the player as the UI redraws everything for them wanting to play with Mercy Mode active.

While I wouldn't mind it for others in solo play missions, I would mind it if it affected actual team play. So if teaming, it should get disabled (queues, group mission runs, battlezones, etc).

Unknown

This content has been removed.

scififan78

I do understand where everyone is coming from but I do have one issue. When I was in the service, we were trained to "shoot to destroy." The most effective means of stopping a war is to deprive your enemy of the means to wage war. I know it is harsh but, it is also reality. Leave the diplomacy to the diplomats.

kjwashington

Come over to the red (Klingon) side. We have actual reasons to kill our enemies. And capes. Chicks love capes.

hyperionx09

darthmeow504 wrote: »

If you want to commit indiscriminate slaughter, I suggest you don't play Fed.

That goes against allowing players to RP out their own stories within the limitations of the system. Those that are human mercs, emotionless Liberated Borg, Logical Vulcans, or Terran agents, or S31 assassins, or renegades/exiles, etc of Federation origin.

Such a mode will need to be kept strictly optional, available to turn on or keep off as desired after completing or skipping the Tutorials (since it would need to be kept off anyway to keep in line with the tutorial missions).

And not just limited to Feds, but available for Romulans and KDF as well. KDF pretending to disable and board a ship, or a game of seeing who has the superior targeting officers, and Romulans pretending along either the Fed side or the KDF side. While it won't be as big a thing for them, there are a few exceptions.

However, it should not be a primary and mandatory option at all. If one wants to play the illusion of canon, they can, but if not, then they don't have to. Same applies to the theoretical "canon" UI overlay idea that has been tossed around, where when active, redraws all non-Faction ships into Faction ships of the nearest equivalent, NPC or not (such as a Rom Sheshar showing up as a Scimitar or a Fed Astika showing up as an Avenger or Eclipse).

It's one thing to add for optional extra immersion, it's quite another to force it on everyone.

quistra

Starfleet policy is to speak softly but carry a big stick. The stick is there. It is very big. They prefer not to use it. But when bad guys step, Starfleet will use the stick.

starswordc

sopwithsnipe wrote: »

Tell that to the Dominion. Starfleet/the Federation was point blank told by the Dominion to get the hell out of their territory and stay on the other side of the wormhole, but Nooooooooo Starfleet just had to keep provoking them by violating their territory and ignoring their demands to be left alone.

Go watch DS9 again. :rolleyes: The Dominion were planning to invade the Alpha Quadrant a century down the line when they worked their way over there by conventional means. Clearly stated in "The Search, Part II" by the Founders themselves.

There was never not going to be a Dominion War, and the Feds f*cked up the timetable and forced the Founders to go live during beta, if you will.

stofsk

Even if the Dominion claimed the entire surrounding volume of space in the GQ wormhole terminus as theirs, they had a funny way of policing that territory for the ~2 years ships from the AQ were using it to explore. Not to mention the episode that had the refugees from the Dominion fleeing through the wormhole and trying to settle on Bajor. That suggests to me that the Dominion territory DIDN'T encompass the area around the wormhole, at least not initially. Refugees flee away from the people persecuting them.

Also. Generally speaking you want to make it known to people that you own a piece of land, thereby preventing misunderstandings from occurring. The Dominion didn't do that, they ruthlessly attacked ships and New Bajor with no provocation. The whole 'you guys have violated our territory' thing was just a pretence.