I guess I'm saying I'd like to see more buying options than paying $120 to get more than I really wanted. Too bad the store doesn't have a "Build Your Own Bundle" option
Does that mean I can put you down for a $120 T6 Vesta pack?
Hope the '15 Risa corvette will be full pilot so we can test these abilities out to see how it fares with our play style. That said, I still very much look forward to the T5U corvette.
Romulan Pilot Warbirds drew upon some concept art by John Eaves for the Scimitar. This early concept art was never actually put into production, but when scaled down it made for an awesome light warbird.
Good idea, but too bad the finished product is to my eyes completely unappealing, while the Scimitar itself looks incredible. That dreadnought's appeal I think comes from a mixture of form tied to function (thalaron pulse) leveraging threatening forms found in nature (spider) combined with parts (warp nacelles, impulse engines) and angles that make it interesting and different from so many angles. Trying to capture all of that in a completely different ship is daring, but again, too bad it didn't work. Wherever the inspiration and talent came from to make the Rom Command Cruisers, I hope to see more of that instead.
Some of us gravitated toward having a Bird-of-Prey for the Pilot ship, but this wasnt a great fit as they arent quite analogous to Escorts. Birds-of-Prey really are their own beast.
Agreed. Would definitely like to see a T6 BoP to carry on the B'rel, perhaps with an option to use both the B'rel & Norg/Ning'tao skins considering none of them have special abilities to move to a T6 variant (quad cannons at vr, 1 per ship, drawing off engine power with DMGx4 mod seems quite outdated).
At the same time, BoP are supposed to rely on speed and agility to raider flank hit and run, and wouldn't make sense if they'd be outperformed in both that and in shield/hull strength by pilot escorts, that themselves are I'd imagine very hard to flank to begin with.
At the rate of power creep, BoP would now have to turn faster than a JHSS, and have access to pilot abilities, and enhanced battle cloak to make up for the weak shields and hull, and for the much lower raider flanking value against other players.
[..] Command Battlecruisers. We attribute a portion of their success to how unique each variant is and the opportunities for customization that exists if you own 2 or more of them.
Yes, some of us very much do care about the appearance of the ships, perhaps more so than its stats, while I have no doubt just as many would be willing to fly tin can shaped ships if the stats suited them.
Speaking for myself, I perhaps wouldn't have cared for the Vesta 3-pack had the Aventine or Vesta classes not looked so good and made to look even better with available customization options, and it's a re-creation from a book cover too. The Odyssey 3-pack? Forget it. It's the same skin topped off with useless consoles loaded with passive set bonuses. My Ops Odyssey will do just fine despite Command/Iconic Cruiser out-taking this flagship, and it has one best bridges ever (if only a bridge) that doesn't lock previous buyers out of, cost extra, and be available only during very rare sales only for those that don't own one (Pathfinder).
Devs: Provide the option to Turn OFF full screen flashes from enemy ship explosions
· ♥ · ◦.¸¸. ◦'¯`·. (Ɏ) V A N U _ S O V E R E I G N T Y (Ɏ) .·´¯'◦.¸¸. ◦ · ♡ ·
«» \▼/ T E R R A N ¦ R E P U B L I C \▼/ «»
﴾﴿ ₪ṩ ||| N A N I T E S Y S T E M S : B L A C K | O P S ||| ₪ṩ ﴾﴿
I really miss the point where you tell us the thought process about featherlike wings and such for example,
Read the blog again. It's based of the Scimitar. The "feathers" were obviously supposed to be the Thalaron projectors, just like they are on the actual Scimitar.
So, when you look at actual economics, instead of just wishing other people would give you their labor for free, the price of the ships isn't unreasonable at all.
You can always count on one to be "that guy" in the thread. Congratulations on your internet degree in video game economics. :rolleyes:
Delta Rising is the best expansion ever and the players love it! No, seriously! ...Why are you laughing so hard?
Flying around sector space or joining queues made one thing very obvious, players enjoy the Command Battlecruisers.
I suggest you have derived the wrong conclusion.
Players have somehow come to a different conclusion - role-based ships based on the trifecta of tank, healer, dps have been subsumed into one build only: dps.
Basically you looked at the data, missed the design bias built in especially deeply over the last year, and decided a rational decision by players to abandon support styles somehow means we want to abandon support styles.
I suggest many of us do not want to abandon support styles.
Please build previous bias assumptions into your reports. Thinly sliced assumptions will continue to lock you into looking for the keys under the streetlight instead of where you actually lost them in that dark alley nearby.
I'm not interested in what seems to be fashionable these days, where service providers openly mock customers. But it sure would be nice if you understand the clear limiting bias in your own reports.
Of course if I am wrong... please explain to us what led to your current conclusions. Besides taking a simple slice off the top whilst ignoring influencing factors that is.
No offense, but in return I would suggest that your interpretation of CBC popularity is composed of just as much conjecture as anyone else's--your anecdotal observations carry no more or less weight than Trendy's same.
Ultimately, the only answer that is both honest and factual is: I can guess at why people like them, but the reasons are probably quite varied and I have no authoritative way of actually knowing.
Fleet Admiral L'Yern - Screenshot and doffing addict
Eclipse Class Intel Cruiser U.S.S. Dioscuria NX-91121-A - Interactive Crew Roster
Ultimately, the only answer that is both honest and factual is: I can guess at why people like them, but the reasons are probably quite varied and I have no authoritative way of actually knowing.
Which was exactly my point.
There is no context to what led up to why people made that preference. Completely ignores factors why like alts have since been mostly sidelined, why ship builds post 60 are so similar, why sci captains are a bare fraction of cruiser/escort captains, ad nauseum.
Do we know why? Well yeah actually we do. But not by simply scalping a trend tree from a stats chart.
If I went out the day after a blizzard and noted that people were not immediately shoveling their driveway, I might come to the conclusion that they liked being snowed into their home. And then make a policy decision to just go back home to my own cozy ivory tower.
But I might miss that they know another storm is coming, and that maybe they don't so much like being snowed in as maybe some of them have no choice and yet still are running low on oil and food. A policy decision to ignore factors would have consequences.
Heavy analogy, sure. But you basically handwaved my point as irrelevant then completely agreed with me.
Players have somehow come to a different conclusion - role-based ships based on the trifecta of tank, healer, dps have been subsumed into one build only: dps.
Basically you looked at the data, missed the design bias built in especially deeply over the last year, and decided a rational decision by players to abandon support styles somehow means we want to abandon support styles.
They were making a general observation that they see a lot of command ships, and that from this they infer that players like them.
On its face, a not unreasonable inference. There are two main problems with your response.
The first is that you somehow translated "players enjoy the Command Battlecruisers" into "a rational decision to abandon support styles". As if those two things were somehow equivalent--and as if the latter had even come up at all. It read a lot like you were simply using the comment as a convenient way to soapbox about something that was only tangentially related to what you were responding to.
The second is that you presented your own conjecture about the reasons for CBC popularity--the passage quoted above--as if it were simply the factual counterpart to their "wrong conclusion". It wasn't "here is one alternative interpretation that is just as valid" so much as "here is what is actually going on".
If "I can guess at why people like them, but the reasons are probably quite varied and I have no authoritative way of actually knowing" was exactly your point, then asserting that the other person's opinion is wrong and yours is right is a very curious way of making that point.
Edit: pronoun troubles.
Fleet Admiral L'Yern - Screenshot and doffing addict
Eclipse Class Intel Cruiser U.S.S. Dioscuria NX-91121-A - Interactive Crew Roster
It takes about 2 weeks to make 1 ship model, so these 9 ships represent 18 weeks worth of work. The average salary for a 3D artist in the San Francisco Bay Area is $69k, so just to pay the employees to make these ships costs about $24,000, and that isn't counting the time it took to concept the ships, or any overhead like offices, computers, healthcare, etc.
It would take 200 sales of the 9 ship pack to just start getting close to breaking even, and since Ships are a major way of them funding the continued running of the game, they would need to sell thousands to make any significant impact. The more they lower the price, the more units they would need to sell to maintain the game.
So, when you look at actual economics, instead of just wishing other people would give you their labor for free, the price of the ships isn't unreasonable at all.
Based on your 'calculations' every (3D) videogame should cost 5000$ or more (because, well you need much more than 1 Model to make a game)...yet they don't...
Funny thing is, for those 120$ you pay for these ships, you can buy at least 2 full-price AAA Games...so there IS something off in PWEs calculations...
Gotta say..well done on the pilot ships! Pilot maneuvers really add a new dimesnion to the game, they look and feel cool..the animation s are awesome....this is why us kdf love the gurumba so much...nothing beats the gurumba animation but when I got my pilot ship I had that similar child-like grin again!...
I hope this evolution of ships continues!...
PS ...about that t6 gurumba?
Please, please, PLEASE, make this beautiful monstrosity the new admiral level Romulan SCIENCE Ship. You know romulans need a few in a bad way. and since you have the model lying around:D
If this is what the scimitar could have looked like i would have taken it. Every time i see the wings on that ship i keep wondering why we couldn't get point defense turrets on there or some other weapon slots its just a lot of wasted space.
A NORRMAL VERSION FOR YOUR LOVELY SCIENCE ADMIRALS AND A T6 FOR YOUR ZEN FUND.
Comments
Does that mean I can put you down for a $120 T6 Vesta pack?
Good idea, but too bad the finished product is to my eyes completely unappealing, while the Scimitar itself looks incredible. That dreadnought's appeal I think comes from a mixture of form tied to function (thalaron pulse) leveraging threatening forms found in nature (spider) combined with parts (warp nacelles, impulse engines) and angles that make it interesting and different from so many angles. Trying to capture all of that in a completely different ship is daring, but again, too bad it didn't work. Wherever the inspiration and talent came from to make the Rom Command Cruisers, I hope to see more of that instead.
Agreed. Would definitely like to see a T6 BoP to carry on the B'rel, perhaps with an option to use both the B'rel & Norg/Ning'tao skins considering none of them have special abilities to move to a T6 variant (quad cannons at vr, 1 per ship, drawing off engine power with DMGx4 mod seems quite outdated).
At the same time, BoP are supposed to rely on speed and agility to raider flank hit and run, and wouldn't make sense if they'd be outperformed in both that and in shield/hull strength by pilot escorts, that themselves are I'd imagine very hard to flank to begin with.
At the rate of power creep, BoP would now have to turn faster than a JHSS, and have access to pilot abilities, and enhanced battle cloak to make up for the weak shields and hull, and for the much lower raider flanking value against other players.
Yes, some of us very much do care about the appearance of the ships, perhaps more so than its stats, while I have no doubt just as many would be willing to fly tin can shaped ships if the stats suited them.
Speaking for myself, I perhaps wouldn't have cared for the Vesta 3-pack had the Aventine or Vesta classes not looked so good and made to look even better with available customization options, and it's a re-creation from a book cover too. The Odyssey 3-pack? Forget it. It's the same skin topped off with useless consoles loaded with passive set bonuses. My Ops Odyssey will do just fine despite Command/Iconic Cruiser out-taking this flagship, and it has one best bridges ever (if only a bridge) that doesn't lock previous buyers out of, cost extra, and be available only during very rare sales only for those that don't own one (Pathfinder).
If this is just blind marketing spin in a lame attempt to sell more pilot ships then fine - I get what you are doing...
However, if you actually believe this then you truly have your heads in the sand when it comes to T6 ships...
...#LLAP...
You can always count on one to be "that guy" in the thread. Congratulations on your internet degree in video game economics. :rolleyes:
Players have somehow come to a different conclusion - role-based ships based on the trifecta of tank, healer, dps have been subsumed into one build only: dps.
Basically you looked at the data, missed the design bias built in especially deeply over the last year, and decided a rational decision by players to abandon support styles somehow means we want to abandon support styles.
I suggest many of us do not want to abandon support styles.
Please build previous bias assumptions into your reports. Thinly sliced assumptions will continue to lock you into looking for the keys under the streetlight instead of where you actually lost them in that dark alley nearby.
I'm not interested in what seems to be fashionable these days, where service providers openly mock customers. But it sure would be nice if you understand the clear limiting bias in your own reports.
Of course if I am wrong... please explain to us what led to your current conclusions. Besides taking a simple slice off the top whilst ignoring influencing factors that is. And your credentials are what exactly.
Exactly.
Ultimately, the only answer that is both honest and factual is: I can guess at why people like them, but the reasons are probably quite varied and I have no authoritative way of actually knowing.
Eclipse Class Intel Cruiser U.S.S. Dioscuria NX-91121-A - Interactive Crew Roster
The pilot ships are a blast to fly.
There is no context to what led up to why people made that preference. Completely ignores factors why like alts have since been mostly sidelined, why ship builds post 60 are so similar, why sci captains are a bare fraction of cruiser/escort captains, ad nauseum.
Do we know why? Well yeah actually we do. But not by simply scalping a trend tree from a stats chart.
If I went out the day after a blizzard and noted that people were not immediately shoveling their driveway, I might come to the conclusion that they liked being snowed into their home. And then make a policy decision to just go back home to my own cozy ivory tower.
But I might miss that they know another storm is coming, and that maybe they don't so much like being snowed in as maybe some of them have no choice and yet still are running low on oil and food. A policy decision to ignore factors would have consequences.
Heavy analogy, sure. But you basically handwaved my point as irrelevant then completely agreed with me.
They said this:
You replied: They were making a general observation that they see a lot of command ships, and that from this they infer that players like them.
On its face, a not unreasonable inference. There are two main problems with your response.
The first is that you somehow translated "players enjoy the Command Battlecruisers" into "a rational decision to abandon support styles". As if those two things were somehow equivalent--and as if the latter had even come up at all. It read a lot like you were simply using the comment as a convenient way to soapbox about something that was only tangentially related to what you were responding to.
The second is that you presented your own conjecture about the reasons for CBC popularity--the passage quoted above--as if it were simply the factual counterpart to their "wrong conclusion". It wasn't "here is one alternative interpretation that is just as valid" so much as "here is what is actually going on".
If "I can guess at why people like them, but the reasons are probably quite varied and I have no authoritative way of actually knowing" was exactly your point, then asserting that the other person's opinion is wrong and yours is right is a very curious way of making that point.
Edit: pronoun troubles.
Eclipse Class Intel Cruiser U.S.S. Dioscuria NX-91121-A - Interactive Crew Roster
Based on your 'calculations' every (3D) videogame should cost 5000$ or more (because, well you need much more than 1 Model to make a game)...yet they don't...
Funny thing is, for those 120$ you pay for these ships, you can buy at least 2 full-price AAA Games...so there IS something off in PWEs calculations...
I hope this evolution of ships continues!...
PS ...about that t6 gurumba?
If this is what the scimitar could have looked like i would have taken it. Every time i see the wings on that ship i keep wondering why we couldn't get point defense turrets on there or some other weapon slots its just a lot of wasted space.
A NORRMAL VERSION FOR YOUR LOVELY SCIENCE ADMIRALS AND A T6 FOR YOUR ZEN FUND.
ill take two please.