I'm disputing that this is the only relevant thing that would influence faction choice of players in the context of a video game, particularly since players (even of the F2P variety) are all freely able to create and play multiple characters of different race and faction. I don't believe for a second that we'd be seeing similar populations as we are now had the roles been reversed, or had KDF been given the Fed treatment alongside Feds, as equals.
"Same as equals" I would think there would be a slightly higher KDF population, but I doubt by much. Plus probably at the cost of Feds, so no gain for Cryptic. As I said though, I wouldn't know.
A role reversal I am pretty sure would just mean a way smaller player base. Because most players, as we agree, start as Fed. And if Fed doesn't work for what I want, I'm probably not trying to play KDF in the hope of getting a better experience, but I would quit the game altogether.
I am certainly unhappy with the Sci side of Rom and KDF, but they are not what's drawing people to play the game. They can only make players play the game more when they are already in it, IMO. There's people rooting for the Klinks, there's people liking the sneaky way of the green guys, but in this game, which also caters a lot to a casual "This is Trek, yay" audience (and otherwise I wouldn't be here. STKOR could be better by a mile, but I wouldn't play it because I do not care about SW as much) the Fed side is what interests the vast majority.
Only of anecdotal interest: my Fed fleet has a KDF counterpart for all our KDF alts. But it is empty (and I opted for another fleet instead), not because of gameplay, but because of people trying the other side out but in the end wanting to be Kircard.
My mother was an epohh and my father smelled of tulaberries
Klingon + Science . . . no not really. BUT with their subject races (Gorn, Orion, etc.), you could easily see them taking one of their ships that is Sci heavy w/o making a true Klingon built Sci ship.
Sometimes I think I play STO just to have something to complain about on the forums.
It' simple. Game is focused on dps, Cryptic focuses on dps powercreep and hence science ships have lowest sales, which is probably even more noticeable in minor factions.
So science ships are on the very bottom of the schedule, especially for KDF.
"Cryptic Studio’s Jack Emmert (2010): Microtransactions are the biggest bunch of nonsense. I like paying one fee and not worrying about it – like my cellphone. The world’s biggest MMO isn’t item based, even though the black market item GDP is bigger than Russia … microtransactions make me want to die.”
It' simple. Game is focused on dps, Cryptic focuses on dps powercreep and hence science ships have lowest sales, which is probably even more noticeable in minor factions.
So science ships are on the very bottom of the schedule, especially for KDF.
I think that is not all of it. And maybe not even the source.
In general, it always seemed to be that people wanted to play their Enterprises, which meant Cruisers. Even when Cruisers where not the non-plus-ultra of DPS and in fact lagged behind. There was always a strong lobby on the forums where people demanded improvements to Cruisers.
There were mountains of threads on people demanding a buff to the Galaxy Class because it didn't have enough tactical slots. And now, the Tier 6 version is out and it has a Lt.Cmr. Tactical Slot, where by the name "Exploration Cruiser" Cryptic has given it a Lt.Cmdr Science slot would have been much more logical.
I've never seen such enthusiastic threads for any escorts, science vessels or carriers.
And we also see that Cryptic is releasing more Cruisers than anythnig else - and they most likely do this because Cruisers sell better.
Carriers - I do remember many threads demanding Fed Carriers, but Cryptic only ever released one, and put all the other Carriers in lockboxes, promos or special events. I think that might be because there is always a speical appeal for rare ships and lockbox ships make a lot more money per "sale" then C-Store ships.
And the Annorex seems to be a deliberately overpowered compared to other Science Vessels...
Post edited by mustrumridcully0 on
Star Trek Online Advancement: You start with lowbie gear, you end with Lobi gear.
Well, maybe because a T6 cruiser ship with lt.tac would hardly compete against anything else. So when they put considerable amount of work to the new skin, they wanted revenue back, hence the lt.cmd tac.
Now try to sell a new "true" sci ship with lt.tac and 2 tac consoles, for example on KDFside
"Cryptic Studio’s Jack Emmert (2010): Microtransactions are the biggest bunch of nonsense. I like paying one fee and not worrying about it – like my cellphone. The world’s biggest MMO isn’t item based, even though the black market item GDP is bigger than Russia … microtransactions make me want to die.”
Science is involved in everything we do...it's no different for the kdf...science and technology is used to develop new weapons...ships...armor. You cannot build an empire on the blood of your enemies alone...even reverse engineering alien technology requires science.
Well, reverse engineering is more labs than the over-powered deflectors that qualify KDF fleet support ships in their category. Even the Galaxy's got plenty of actual lab space.
That said, a T6 KDF science-oriented ship would be nice.
Fate - protects fools, small children, and ships named Enterprise Will Riker
Member Access Denied Armada!
My forum single-issue of rage: Make the Proton Experimental Weapon go for subsystem targetting!
I pointed out that The KDF is a militant empire. Picking over rocks, studying nebula, finding anomalies in a star is not going to interest them beyond, Can we use this tho build better weapons or armor, Can we use this nebula to launch an attack on an enemy, or be attacked from, Is someone tampering with this star trying to destroy it. As a result most of their ships are and should by default Lean Strongly to the tactical and engineering, High Offense High defense. More towards offense than defense. Klingons explore to conquer.
This goes back to my "blind men and the elephant" thing. We -- especially as fans -- rely far too much on the idea that what we have seen of Klingons on the shows is representative of Klingon culture and this composite notion of "what it means to be Klingon" that is largely the result of about a dozen characters (who when you analyze it, didn't agree with one another).
If I had the ear of a Trek TV show producer (and I have known people who pitched shows) or in the magical situation I stumbled into a role like that in a future career track, I would move to dispense with the "planet of hats" thinking we have seen applied to Star Trek cultures and begin with what I see as the necessary assumption that fan interpretations and the novels' takes on Klingons, Romulans, and the like are, well... Informative and interesting but also need to be challenged.
Ignore the novels and video games and reference materials. Name one Klingon who disliked both the Federation and Romulans. You can't do it. Now, name one piece of evidence that the majority of Klingons serve in the military or that the military caste represents the average Klingon on Qo'noS? Again, not only can you NOT do it but we have evidence from the shows and movies that this isn't the case.
So I think you have to start off by saying, is the impression of Klingons that Klingon fan clubs at conventions have accurate? Is it necessary? And could we gain something by completely invalidating some of those assumptions?
Because if the culture tells you everything you ever need to know about individual Klingons, we don't need to have Klingons show up anymore except as a world building, simulationist exercise. The point of stories is in part to reveal character and to reveal character here, we need it established that what we have seen so far is an incomplete and sometimes a wildly inaccurate notion of what it means to be Klingon. We need for every character's statements to be unreliable, which is how most fiction is and, unfortunately, something many sci-fi fans have problems with. There is a rule many sci-fi fans cling to that if a character makes a statement about culture or technology, it has to be TRUE.
And that's just not reality. People are not objective sources about their culture. You'd think very different things about America both good and bad if all you saw soldiers. And you'd have different impressions if the people you saw were tourists. And neither would be accurate. And I try to remind myself that, for example, most of my exposure to Australians, Indians, and Brits, for example, have been expats. In general, those folks are wealthier, more educated, and have different political attitudes than the folks back home.
Heck, Picard's brother is an example of that in Star Trek. You'd think humans were obsessed with being out roaming the stars but Robert and a few others do provide a counterpoint.
The Klingon politicians we have seen were politicians, likely with party affiliations or propaganda needs. The soldiers we met had gone through soldier training which may push certain perspectives. And Worf's knowledge is probably not that good. He grew up in Russia and starships reading about Klingons from age six or so on. It's not first hand and it's probably not even as good as some humans' understanding, something the shows tried to remind us of -- except when they'd spontaneously decide to present Worf as an expert because it suited their needs. (And for what it's worth, I think the best of the books remembered this.)
I pointed out that The KDF is a militant empire. Picking over rocks, studying nebula, finding anomalies in a star is not going to interest them beyond, Can we use this tho build better weapons or armor, Can we use this nebula to launch an attack on an enemy, or be attacked from, Is someone tampering with this star trying to destroy it. As a result most of their ships are and should by default Lean Strongly to the tactical and engineering, High Offense High defense. More towards offense than defense. Klingons explore to conquer.
This goes back to my "blind men and the elephant" thing. We -- especially as fans -- rely far too much on the idea that what we have seen of Klingons on the shows is representative of Klingon culture and this composite notion of "what it means to be Klingon" that is largely the result of about a dozen characters (who when you analyze it, didn't agree with one another).
If I had the ear of a Trek TV show producer (and I have known people who pitched shows) or in the magical situation I stumbled into a role like that in a future career track, I would move to dispense with the "planet of hats" thinking we have seen applied to Star Trek cultures and begin with what I see as the necessary assumption that fan interpretations and the novels' takes on Klingons, Romulans, and the like are, well... Informative and interesting but also need to be challenged.
Ignore the novels and video games and reference materials. Name one Klingon who disliked both the Federation and Romulans. You can't do it. Now, name one piece of evidence that the majority of Klingons serve in the military or that the military caste represents the average Klingon on Qo'noS? Again, not only can you NOT do it but we have evidence from the shows and movies that this isn't the case.
So I think you have to start off by saying, is the impression of Klingons that Klingon fan clubs at conventions have accurate? Is it necessary? And could we gain something by completely invalidating some of those assumptions?
Because if the culture tells you everything you ever need to know about individual Klingons, we don't need to have Klingons show up anymore except as a world building, simulationist exercise. The point of stories is in part to reveal character and to reveal character here, we need it established that what we have seen so far is an incomplete and sometimes a wildly inaccurate notion of what it means to be Klingon. We need for every character's statements to be unreliable, which is how most fiction is and, unfortunately, something many sci-fi fans have problems with. There is a rule many sci-fi fans cling to that if a character makes a statement about culture or technology, it has to be TRUE.
And that's just not reality. People are not objective sources about their culture. You'd think very different things about America both good and bad if all you saw soldiers. And you'd have different impressions if the people you saw were tourists. And neither would be accurate. And I try to remind myself that, for example, most of my exposure to Australians, Indians, and Brits, for example, have been expats. In general, those folks are wealthier, more educated, and have different political attitudes than the folks back home.
Heck, Picard's brother is an example of that in Star Trek. You'd think humans were obsessed with being out roaming the stars but Robert and a few others do provide a counterpoint.
The Klingon politicians we have seen were politicians, likely with party affiliations or propaganda needs. The soldiers we met had gone through soldier training which may push certain perspectives. And Worf's knowledge is probably not that good. He grew up in Russia and starships reading about Klingons from age six or so on. It's not first hand and it's probably not even as good as some humans' understanding, something the shows tried to remind us of -- except when they'd spontaneously decide to present Worf as an expert because it suited their needs. (And for what it's worth, I think the best of the books remembered this.)
Klingon fleet don't have exploration ship running around? Sure they have engineers and scientists, but they don't stick them on puny KDF science ships.
Hast thou not gone against sincerity
Hast thou not felt ashamed of thy words and deeds
Hast thou not lacked vigor
Hast thou exerted all possible efforts
Hast thou not become slothful
You know...you can use the excuse about Klingons not having many Scientists...that they're looked down upon in their Warrior culture...but that excuse doesn't fly for Romulans.
Simple fact of the matter is Cryptic doesn't give a damn and doesn't want to make Science ships...they just don't make as much money as Escorts and Cruisers.
They have proven they can make good or even powerful Science ships...but they flat out don't give a damn.
They make Science ships suck and they wonder why people don't fly them? Well lots of people bought and flew the Vesta...which was a good Sci ship...the Temporal Sci ship and Voth Sci ship were good ships...but they're lock box based...the Annorax is a great ship...but also luck based.
Anyone seeing a pattern here? Almost every single great Science ship ever made were premium luck based ships...once again the Bortasqu' effect at work...they just intentionally don't make good Science ships unless it's for premium gamble based loot...and they don't make them often so every time they actually release one it is desired.
There are plenty of decent Sci ships that aren't boxed. The Intrepids, Vestas, Nebulas, Sci Oddy et all. They are great ships.....no, under-estimated ships (by your description). But the matter of the fact is, it's the player behind the ship that makes or breaks a ship, not the amount of Tac +DMG consoles you can jam on it!
"You don't want to patrol!? You don't want to escort!? You don't want to defend the Federation's Starbases!? Then why are you flying my Starships!? If you were a Klingon you'd be killed on the spot, but lucky for you.....you WERE in Starfleet. Let's see how New Zealand Penal Colony suits you." Adm A. Necheyev.
#1 Drink more Coca Cola.
#2 what wrong with taking a D7 hull and using that as the basis for a more sci focused cruiser.
#3 whers my f*ckin pure rommie D7 cruiser anyway ?????
Science ships in this game aren't science ships, they're a bizarre attempt at a "space magic" class to fill out misguided trinity mechanics that are inappropriate to Star Trek. The only true science vessel ever seen on screen was the USS Grissom, which was unarmed and one-shotted by a B'rel. Stop trying to make this nonsense happen, we need less shoehorned trinity TRIBBLE in the game and not more.
I agree that the Grissom is what a real Science Vessel would probably look like, not the space wizards we have in STO.
But - why deny a Klingon or Romulan player the fun of playing a space wizard? This isn't about enforcing the so called holy trinity, it's about having different gameplay options.
Star Trek Online Advancement: You start with lowbie gear, you end with Lobi gear.
Now, do understand that I haven't played in a while. Attended last year's winter event and of course had computer issues after words. Now, I play Fed, Rom, and KDF. I don't take allegiance to either side. That said, for most the time of my KDF times, the Vo'Qov Carrier was the best sci aligned ship you can get. However, it being a carrier, it moved sluggish and even a cruiser could out maneuver it. Hence it's nickname... "The Brick" It took a decent amount of damage for its time. The downfall was, as a sci character. You were very limited, now I can understand a defensive or offensive sci style cruiser. But this lies the issue, the KDF don't even have that. Last I remember at least. Also as playing all three factions, I have even seen people admit. "If KDF had better ships I would play them over Fed/Rom for such and such reason." The analogical view that KDF don't sell is because they don't try. It has nothing to do with player base ideas, but rather than the mechanics.
We say this and that isn't canon, well. To get technical, this game may have canon elements, however, it itself is NOT canon. We also may remember KDF have been known to 'steal' other factions ships, it be allies or enemies if it was in need at the time. Not all sci's are medics, however, Klink scis were more geared tot he offensive aspect of fighting strategically. Now we say that Klingons are warrior races, part o war is stretegic movement, advancment, and espionoge Brute force may win a battle, however, to win a war, you must have a vivid understanding. WHich bring sme back tot he "Offencive" and "Defencive" sci layouts. Yes, Klingons do not like sciences of mny arts, however.... they love having the edge. They love having the ability to prove they are better warrriors, not just physicly but mentaly , however the mentaly superior don't always work out for them due to their inheirent aspects of anger and rage. Klingons have beens een as poets, poloticians, along side warriors. Remind you of a specific history lesson? THe Goth Tribes. THey were master craftsmen, poets, artists of many venues. When it came to war, they were technologicly superior for the longest time, so much so that Rome had to trick them to defeat them. And Romeans themselves were not that far off the beaten path of technology. Witht aht history lesson stated, we as 'humans' see only one side of things, if the Klingon's did not like technology, they would not use warp drives, they would not use teleporters, they would not use "Super weapons that can destroy whole planets." It's more the lines of their view on technology is shrewd and more like the goth tribes, meant for only war. Witht hat said. I think they do need more sci ships. However, unlike Fed ships. THey are more geared twoards an offencive or defencive aspect of science.
FOr instance, let's look at the Vo'Quav. ANd the Vo'QUav Mirror. As sci ships, they are iffy, now lets strip them. Refurbish their pro's and cons. The vo'qov was sci and tactical based, leaving little room for engineering. However, they were primarily tactical. The Mirror version took away from the sci side, and went more engi. Sad that I used them so much I remmber their layout. Now, lets clean them up and modify their properties. Boost Sci, and boost either Tac or Engi. A defencive sci ship would hold a heavier hull cap, and Engi and sci would hold the two largest ranked slots. ALmost in equal perportion, ANd vice versa for the tac style. THis is how a Klingon sci ship would theoreticly be set up. Giving an equal role as a defender or offender. THe defender would be slower, stronger, but able to take a beating and keep plowing through to keep things like the BoP's alive. THe Offencive, would be quicker, not as quick as an escort, however given enough maneuverability to dogfight when needed or flip to a quick broadside. THey would deal offencive debuffs and provide offencive support. Thus stregegicly giving the Klingons an equal playing feild. Now, should they cloak. Nah, That would be overkill. THese two ships being completly different ships. Both of course science alighned, both their own pro's and cons.
Which brings me to what's called "Game theory ballancing" Anyone who hs played MMO's for longer than a couple years know a basis of this. It is the theory of ballancing out the opposing faction/class. Klingons are more known to be better on land, or at least was till the romulans came to play in STO. THe romulans great stealthy sneaky space, and now the running man for ground pounding grinding and PvP. Feds once had superiority over space till the ROmulans came witht heir cloaking and shockwaving tech.Much of this may have been revised since I played of course. However, THe Klingons have suffered massivly in space. Leaving them with nothing to bring to the table since there is a lack o sci ships to defend and repair or focus attacks. Feds have the best cruizers and sci vessles, And at one time, Klingons had the best attackers or excort types. ROmulans are so well rounded that a propper fleet can build a team up that would just cooperativly wipe the floor in all ways. Now, witht hi said, the two factions that benifit are Romulans and feds. Leaving Klingons well less played then desired by many players. THus an imballance in the game, and there are rumors that it has diliberatly been done that way due to Bias within the devs. Is it true? I don't know, what I do know is this. 90% of Klink sci ships are lockboxes, the other 10% are seasonal or event. Correction, 9%. However, that 1% of actual Klink ships that are sci are not even sci. ANd those that are actualy sci ships were poorly based with the ideal of klink warfare in mind(if you wish to think lore base) And even worse with any sci in mind. Okay a sci won't do as much DPS as an escort, and won't take as much dammage as an cruiser. WHat they bring to the table is buffs and debuffs that amplify said ships. Saddly Klinks do not have a single faction ship that plays on that. Leaving them to be forced to lockboxes or event ships.Now witht hat said, did Klingons have sci ships? They were very rare yes, however, 90% of them were in fact stolen or 'barrowed' from other factions. THen rearmored withdefence or reweaponized with offence in mind. Which brings us back to the whole stealing tech ideal. THey didn't just steal it, they modified it to their ways. Which is something many forget, thus this does prove they had science and research both on a weaponized and industrial level.
Which leaves the conclusion of the said debate. Should they be allowed to have more lore wise? Yes, however not as many as BoP's or cruisers. In terms of game balancing, yes, because they really need something to level the playing field. Should they be "Klingon"? They don't have to be, however they should be able to purchase them outside of Zen or event settings, and should be propperly set up for a klingon styled sci in mind.
Gameplay options. What a concept. Only, we really don't have any, do we? We are faced with a choice: use the latest power creep formula for success, or play a second-rate character.
If there were real IDIC in STO we'd see so many successful builds that the Z store would be smoking from all the traffic to get all the various consoles, ships, and equipment. Instead, we have lemmings rushing off the cliff over the 'ultimate build' which, when superseded by the next month's offering, becomes obsolete and ignored. (Remember those awesome drain builds? Remember that annoying carrier spam? Remember the prevalence of bugships?)
STO has replaced imaginative innovation and diversity with power creep. Instead of building twenty ways to skin a cat, they have created one way to do it fastest, and introduce a faster way with the next release, and a faster way with the next, forcing conformity to a single idea of what it takes to succeed in STO.
The developers treat STO as if it were a novel: the player is along for the ride, not an active agent in the telling of the story. Players who want a sandbox will be disappointed when the next 'update' is yet another edition of Powercreep.
Beside, the science part in game is only reduced to control (gravity well) and damage (gravity well), with the ocassionally power drain (tyken). Stuff like VM / Sensor stuff is obsolete and the devs really do not care, because well science ships sell bad anyway...guess why.
- What's the point of Jam sensors now, when it drops after 1-2 sec, because you will break it easily with the damage inflation.
- What's the point of scramble sensors when every NPC is resistant to it and in the FAW spam of doom dies pretty quick anyway.
- What's the point of VM nowadays?
- Why should anyone stack the few subspace decompilers items for enhanced stuns duration, when few points in resistance skills removes all the effort ? Like 5s VM on NPCs and such...LOL. Decompiler skill is not even on fleet consoles, but good we have stealth on it.
- Even the once popular shockwave is not used, why ? because people want NPCs clustered for better dps, god forbid you actually pushed them away.
-Tachyon beams against NPC shields ? maybe if we commanded 20 ships with it.
-Photonic officer ? Why ? you got A2B and other cooldown reducing stuff..
-etc. etc.
Maybe I'm a little too pesimistic, but for me it seems that "Science" is actually reduced to few things that are in comfort with the dps racing and self-healing.
"Cryptic Studio’s Jack Emmert (2010): Microtransactions are the biggest bunch of nonsense. I like paying one fee and not worrying about it – like my cellphone. The world’s biggest MMO isn’t item based, even though the black market item GDP is bigger than Russia … microtransactions make me want to die.”
Oh I missed the overpowered charged particle burst....
"Cryptic Studio’s Jack Emmert (2010): Microtransactions are the biggest bunch of nonsense. I like paying one fee and not worrying about it – like my cellphone. The world’s biggest MMO isn’t item based, even though the black market item GDP is bigger than Russia … microtransactions make me want to die.”
Oh I missed the overpowered charged particle burst....
The most annoying insult to Science Captains in Science Vessels:
The only enemy you fight in a serious PvE scenario that is cloaked cannot be snooped. No matter how good your Sensor Scan, no matter how good your Aux Power, no matter how high your sensors skill no matter how many Charged Particle Burst (and attack Pattern Betas) you use, that damn Assimilated Scimitard remains undetectable.
The only other enemy group in queued events where sensor scan matters a bit are the Voth - but the only ships that use cloak are those Palisade Frigates that explode when you look angry at them. And the Voth have the unsubnukable Barrier Shields... (Mind you, maybe that they can't be subnuked is a good thing, because otherwise the Voth would be a boring enemy to fight. But still, it would be nice if all those toys meant something in PvE.)
We need more enemies with Cloak, Feedback Pulse, Reverse Shield Polarity, Metaphasic Shields and Emergency Power to Shields.
Star Trek Online Advancement: You start with lowbie gear, you end with Lobi gear.
Remember we were told by Stahl that KDF ships "don't sell well"?
Yes, because they made ONE Science ship, an inferior copy of a free Fed Sci ship. It, naturally, sold badly, because it was TRIBBLE: A statistically inferior snowclone of a freebie Fed ship.
Actually, if they released an awesome one it would likely still sell poorly. Put aside what you may want for a moment and consider the actual math...
The KDF makes up 16% of the player base. Now consider, fed-side where the best science ships are, how rare it is to see someone flying a science vessel instead of a cruiser or even an escort. Those people have options, and they still decide not to fly science vessels.
Now, unless you're willing to suggest that there is a substantially larger percentage of KDF players looking to fly science vessels (like, pretty much 100% of them) than there are a percentage of UFP players looking to fly science vessels then it's not like there's any logical way a KDF science vessel could sell well since the audience they'd be aiming at would be a small fraction of a small fraction.
Just think about it, Fed-side you see, what, maybe 10% of ships being science vessels? (Honestly that estimate is probably high.) If the KDF is 16% of the player base, and 10% of players are looking to fly science vessels... you're looking at about 1.6% of total players itching for a KDF science ship... that's not a massive piece of the market.
That said, the argument can be made that there would be more KDF players if Cryptic handled the faction better. And there would definitely be more people flying science vessels if (as dalnar points out) science didn't pretty plainly suck butt in almost every situation you run into in-game and only really have one or two viable tricks, and that is definitely all in Cryptic's lap. So... rabidly mishandling things then using that as a reason for lack of support is maybe a little... dubious. So whether or not you think it should matter is debatable, but the suggestion though that a KDF science vessel probably wouldn't sell well is almost definitely accurate given the situation.
Because after 'The Undiscovered Country' the Klingons approach to science is to headbutt something until it works.
Pretty much. Major screwup by the DS9 and TNG writers, unfortunately. Chang is the last real innovator in strategy, tactics, and technology on the Klingon side. And Gorkon (possibly Azetbur) was the last real cultural and philosophical innovator. Reversing this requires placing a similar cultural revolutionary in the Chancellorship. I do not blame Cryptic for following the canon precedent, which is that whatever the Klingons might have been in the past, they are now as Ezri Dax pointed out, a decaying society that will eventually face a choice between reform and collapse. (And if ENT offers any hints, it appears they reach a point where being self-sustaining is no longer an option and they end up turning to the Federation by the 26th century.)
As far as the Romulans though, they are portrayed as technologically superior to the Feds in certain areas. Not having science options for them is inexcusable.
Christian Gaming Community Fleets--Faith, Fun, and Fellowship! See the website and PM for more. :-) Proudly F2P.Signature image by gulberat. Avatar image by balsavor.deviantart.com.
Which would seem to suggest that Klingon social decay continues well into the 25th century.
Quite possibly. Of course Daniels doesn't give a join date for the Klingons, so it's not inconceivable that the collapse of the Empire could occur at some point in the 25th century, beyond the timeframe of STO.
Christian Gaming Community Fleets--Faith, Fun, and Fellowship! See the website and PM for more. :-) Proudly F2P.Signature image by gulberat. Avatar image by balsavor.deviantart.com.
It took over 1000 years for the Roman empire to decay, and vestiges of it can still be seen in Europe, the Middle East, and North Africa. Klingon culture could be in decline already, but militarily they could continue to expand the empire for generations to come, unaware of the fatal flaw inherent in their society. Rome controlled less than 4% of the land on one planet, while the Klingons control hundreds of planets. Their resources are far less limited, and native uprisings and external military and commercial pressures on the Empire are far easier to control than they were for Rome. they might rule for thousands of years to come, all the while declining as a society. On the other hand, collapse, when it occurs, could be rapid due to the speed of travel and communications in the Trek universes.
However, this has nothing to do with the percentages of players who play various factions in STO. Again, I think the Development Team made choices which lead to the lack of player interest in factions other than the Federation. If you were to attend a Trek convention you would find, among the costumes, a much higher percentage of Klingons than you see in STO. Trek fans love Klingons. It is not lack of interest in the faction which dictates the level of play of Klingons or Romulans: it is specific design decisions by the Development Team over a long period of time, (since the game was created, in fact.)
The question is: were the developers correct to choose to marginalize the Klingon faction, and to later begin to erase factional lines altogether? I don't have access to their data but it may be that with so many man-hours available for content development there wasn't enough to develop both factions simultaneously. Whatever your opinion on the subject, (and I have stated mine elsewhere enough times already,) the data is simply not available to allow us to properly judge the issue.
Yes, I want more Klingon development, I want more factionalization, and I want more potential build options which compete with the DPS builds for effectiveness in game. I do not think the current development team has an interest in doing so. I could attribute such a choice to malice by the development team, but they may know something I don't. Worse: I may believe something that is not true because I lack the facts.
Comments
Remember we were told by Stahl that KDF ships "don't sell well"?
"Same as equals" I would think there would be a slightly higher KDF population, but I doubt by much. Plus probably at the cost of Feds, so no gain for Cryptic. As I said though, I wouldn't know.
A role reversal I am pretty sure would just mean a way smaller player base. Because most players, as we agree, start as Fed. And if Fed doesn't work for what I want, I'm probably not trying to play KDF in the hope of getting a better experience, but I would quit the game altogether.
I am certainly unhappy with the Sci side of Rom and KDF, but they are not what's drawing people to play the game. They can only make players play the game more when they are already in it, IMO. There's people rooting for the Klinks, there's people liking the sneaky way of the green guys, but in this game, which also caters a lot to a casual "This is Trek, yay" audience (and otherwise I wouldn't be here. STKOR could be better by a mile, but I wouldn't play it because I do not care about SW as much) the Fed side is what interests the vast majority.
Only of anecdotal interest: my Fed fleet has a KDF counterpart for all our KDF alts. But it is empty (and I opted for another fleet instead), not because of gameplay, but because of people trying the other side out but in the end wanting to be Kircard.
So science ships are on the very bottom of the schedule, especially for KDF.
In general, it always seemed to be that people wanted to play their Enterprises, which meant Cruisers. Even when Cruisers where not the non-plus-ultra of DPS and in fact lagged behind. There was always a strong lobby on the forums where people demanded improvements to Cruisers.
There were mountains of threads on people demanding a buff to the Galaxy Class because it didn't have enough tactical slots. And now, the Tier 6 version is out and it has a Lt.Cmr. Tactical Slot, where by the name "Exploration Cruiser" Cryptic has given it a Lt.Cmdr Science slot would have been much more logical.
I've never seen such enthusiastic threads for any escorts, science vessels or carriers.
And we also see that Cryptic is releasing more Cruisers than anythnig else - and they most likely do this because Cruisers sell better.
Carriers - I do remember many threads demanding Fed Carriers, but Cryptic only ever released one, and put all the other Carriers in lockboxes, promos or special events. I think that might be because there is always a speical appeal for rare ships and lockbox ships make a lot more money per "sale" then C-Store ships.
And the Annorex seems to be a deliberately overpowered compared to other Science Vessels...
Now try to sell a new "true" sci ship with lt.tac and 2 tac consoles, for example on KDFside
That said, a T6 KDF science-oriented ship would be nice.
Member Access Denied Armada!
My forum single-issue of rage: Make the Proton Experimental Weapon go for subsystem targetting!
This goes back to my "blind men and the elephant" thing. We -- especially as fans -- rely far too much on the idea that what we have seen of Klingons on the shows is representative of Klingon culture and this composite notion of "what it means to be Klingon" that is largely the result of about a dozen characters (who when you analyze it, didn't agree with one another).
If I had the ear of a Trek TV show producer (and I have known people who pitched shows) or in the magical situation I stumbled into a role like that in a future career track, I would move to dispense with the "planet of hats" thinking we have seen applied to Star Trek cultures and begin with what I see as the necessary assumption that fan interpretations and the novels' takes on Klingons, Romulans, and the like are, well... Informative and interesting but also need to be challenged.
Ignore the novels and video games and reference materials. Name one Klingon who disliked both the Federation and Romulans. You can't do it. Now, name one piece of evidence that the majority of Klingons serve in the military or that the military caste represents the average Klingon on Qo'noS? Again, not only can you NOT do it but we have evidence from the shows and movies that this isn't the case.
So I think you have to start off by saying, is the impression of Klingons that Klingon fan clubs at conventions have accurate? Is it necessary? And could we gain something by completely invalidating some of those assumptions?
Because if the culture tells you everything you ever need to know about individual Klingons, we don't need to have Klingons show up anymore except as a world building, simulationist exercise. The point of stories is in part to reveal character and to reveal character here, we need it established that what we have seen so far is an incomplete and sometimes a wildly inaccurate notion of what it means to be Klingon. We need for every character's statements to be unreliable, which is how most fiction is and, unfortunately, something many sci-fi fans have problems with. There is a rule many sci-fi fans cling to that if a character makes a statement about culture or technology, it has to be TRUE.
And that's just not reality. People are not objective sources about their culture. You'd think very different things about America both good and bad if all you saw soldiers. And you'd have different impressions if the people you saw were tourists. And neither would be accurate. And I try to remind myself that, for example, most of my exposure to Australians, Indians, and Brits, for example, have been expats. In general, those folks are wealthier, more educated, and have different political attitudes than the folks back home.
Heck, Picard's brother is an example of that in Star Trek. You'd think humans were obsessed with being out roaming the stars but Robert and a few others do provide a counterpoint.
The Klingon politicians we have seen were politicians, likely with party affiliations or propaganda needs. The soldiers we met had gone through soldier training which may push certain perspectives. And Worf's knowledge is probably not that good. He grew up in Russia and starships reading about Klingons from age six or so on. It's not first hand and it's probably not even as good as some humans' understanding, something the shows tried to remind us of -- except when they'd spontaneously decide to present Worf as an expert because it suited their needs. (And for what it's worth, I think the best of the books remembered this.)
I couldn't agree more.
Hast thou not felt ashamed of thy words and deeds
Hast thou not lacked vigor
Hast thou exerted all possible efforts
Hast thou not become slothful
There are plenty of decent Sci ships that aren't boxed. The Intrepids, Vestas, Nebulas, Sci Oddy et all. They are great ships.....no, under-estimated ships (by your description). But the matter of the fact is, it's the player behind the ship that makes or breaks a ship, not the amount of Tac +DMG consoles you can jam on it!
#2 what wrong with taking a D7 hull and using that as the basis for a more sci focused cruiser.
#3 whers my f*ckin pure rommie D7 cruiser anyway ?????
But - why deny a Klingon or Romulan player the fun of playing a space wizard? This isn't about enforcing the so called holy trinity, it's about having different gameplay options.
We say this and that isn't canon, well. To get technical, this game may have canon elements, however, it itself is NOT canon. We also may remember KDF have been known to 'steal' other factions ships, it be allies or enemies if it was in need at the time. Not all sci's are medics, however, Klink scis were more geared tot he offensive aspect of fighting strategically. Now we say that Klingons are warrior races, part o war is stretegic movement, advancment, and espionoge Brute force may win a battle, however, to win a war, you must have a vivid understanding. WHich bring sme back tot he "Offencive" and "Defencive" sci layouts. Yes, Klingons do not like sciences of mny arts, however.... they love having the edge. They love having the ability to prove they are better warrriors, not just physicly but mentaly , however the mentaly superior don't always work out for them due to their inheirent aspects of anger and rage. Klingons have beens een as poets, poloticians, along side warriors. Remind you of a specific history lesson? THe Goth Tribes. THey were master craftsmen, poets, artists of many venues. When it came to war, they were technologicly superior for the longest time, so much so that Rome had to trick them to defeat them. And Romeans themselves were not that far off the beaten path of technology. Witht aht history lesson stated, we as 'humans' see only one side of things, if the Klingon's did not like technology, they would not use warp drives, they would not use teleporters, they would not use "Super weapons that can destroy whole planets." It's more the lines of their view on technology is shrewd and more like the goth tribes, meant for only war. Witht hat said. I think they do need more sci ships. However, unlike Fed ships. THey are more geared twoards an offencive or defencive aspect of science.
FOr instance, let's look at the Vo'Quav. ANd the Vo'QUav Mirror. As sci ships, they are iffy, now lets strip them. Refurbish their pro's and cons. The vo'qov was sci and tactical based, leaving little room for engineering. However, they were primarily tactical. The Mirror version took away from the sci side, and went more engi. Sad that I used them so much I remmber their layout. Now, lets clean them up and modify their properties. Boost Sci, and boost either Tac or Engi. A defencive sci ship would hold a heavier hull cap, and Engi and sci would hold the two largest ranked slots. ALmost in equal perportion, ANd vice versa for the tac style. THis is how a Klingon sci ship would theoreticly be set up. Giving an equal role as a defender or offender. THe defender would be slower, stronger, but able to take a beating and keep plowing through to keep things like the BoP's alive. THe Offencive, would be quicker, not as quick as an escort, however given enough maneuverability to dogfight when needed or flip to a quick broadside. THey would deal offencive debuffs and provide offencive support. Thus stregegicly giving the Klingons an equal playing feild. Now, should they cloak. Nah, That would be overkill. THese two ships being completly different ships. Both of course science alighned, both their own pro's and cons.
Which brings me to what's called "Game theory ballancing" Anyone who hs played MMO's for longer than a couple years know a basis of this. It is the theory of ballancing out the opposing faction/class. Klingons are more known to be better on land, or at least was till the romulans came to play in STO. THe romulans great stealthy sneaky space, and now the running man for ground pounding grinding and PvP. Feds once had superiority over space till the ROmulans came witht heir cloaking and shockwaving tech.Much of this may have been revised since I played of course. However, THe Klingons have suffered massivly in space. Leaving them with nothing to bring to the table since there is a lack o sci ships to defend and repair or focus attacks. Feds have the best cruizers and sci vessles, And at one time, Klingons had the best attackers or excort types. ROmulans are so well rounded that a propper fleet can build a team up that would just cooperativly wipe the floor in all ways. Now, witht hi said, the two factions that benifit are Romulans and feds. Leaving Klingons well less played then desired by many players. THus an imballance in the game, and there are rumors that it has diliberatly been done that way due to Bias within the devs. Is it true? I don't know, what I do know is this. 90% of Klink sci ships are lockboxes, the other 10% are seasonal or event. Correction, 9%. However, that 1% of actual Klink ships that are sci are not even sci. ANd those that are actualy sci ships were poorly based with the ideal of klink warfare in mind(if you wish to think lore base) And even worse with any sci in mind. Okay a sci won't do as much DPS as an escort, and won't take as much dammage as an cruiser. WHat they bring to the table is buffs and debuffs that amplify said ships. Saddly Klinks do not have a single faction ship that plays on that. Leaving them to be forced to lockboxes or event ships.Now witht hat said, did Klingons have sci ships? They were very rare yes, however, 90% of them were in fact stolen or 'barrowed' from other factions. THen rearmored withdefence or reweaponized with offence in mind. Which brings us back to the whole stealing tech ideal. THey didn't just steal it, they modified it to their ways. Which is something many forget, thus this does prove they had science and research both on a weaponized and industrial level.
Which leaves the conclusion of the said debate. Should they be allowed to have more lore wise? Yes, however not as many as BoP's or cruisers. In terms of game balancing, yes, because they really need something to level the playing field. Should they be "Klingon"? They don't have to be, however they should be able to purchase them outside of Zen or event settings, and should be propperly set up for a klingon styled sci in mind.
If there were real IDIC in STO we'd see so many successful builds that the Z store would be smoking from all the traffic to get all the various consoles, ships, and equipment. Instead, we have lemmings rushing off the cliff over the 'ultimate build' which, when superseded by the next month's offering, becomes obsolete and ignored. (Remember those awesome drain builds? Remember that annoying carrier spam? Remember the prevalence of bugships?)
STO has replaced imaginative innovation and diversity with power creep. Instead of building twenty ways to skin a cat, they have created one way to do it fastest, and introduce a faster way with the next release, and a faster way with the next, forcing conformity to a single idea of what it takes to succeed in STO.
The developers treat STO as if it were a novel: the player is along for the ride, not an active agent in the telling of the story. Players who want a sandbox will be disappointed when the next 'update' is yet another edition of Powercreep.
- What's the point of Jam sensors now, when it drops after 1-2 sec, because you will break it easily with the damage inflation.
- What's the point of scramble sensors when every NPC is resistant to it and in the FAW spam of doom dies pretty quick anyway.
- What's the point of VM nowadays?
- Why should anyone stack the few subspace decompilers items for enhanced stuns duration, when few points in resistance skills removes all the effort ? Like 5s VM on NPCs and such...LOL. Decompiler skill is not even on fleet consoles, but good we have stealth on it.
- Even the once popular shockwave is not used, why ? because people want NPCs clustered for better dps, god forbid you actually pushed them away.
-Tachyon beams against NPC shields ? maybe if we commanded 20 ships with it.
-Photonic officer ? Why ? you got A2B and other cooldown reducing stuff..
-etc. etc.
Maybe I'm a little too pesimistic, but for me it seems that "Science" is actually reduced to few things that are in comfort with the dps racing and self-healing.
The most annoying insult to Science Captains in Science Vessels:
The only enemy you fight in a serious PvE scenario that is cloaked cannot be snooped. No matter how good your Sensor Scan, no matter how good your Aux Power, no matter how high your sensors skill no matter how many Charged Particle Burst (and attack Pattern Betas) you use, that damn Assimilated Scimitard remains undetectable.
The only other enemy group in queued events where sensor scan matters a bit are the Voth - but the only ships that use cloak are those Palisade Frigates that explode when you look angry at them. And the Voth have the unsubnukable Barrier Shields... (Mind you, maybe that they can't be subnuked is a good thing, because otherwise the Voth would be a boring enemy to fight. But still, it would be nice if all those toys meant something in PvE.)
We need more enemies with Cloak, Feedback Pulse, Reverse Shield Polarity, Metaphasic Shields and Emergency Power to Shields.
Actually, if they released an awesome one it would likely still sell poorly. Put aside what you may want for a moment and consider the actual math...
The KDF makes up 16% of the player base. Now consider, fed-side where the best science ships are, how rare it is to see someone flying a science vessel instead of a cruiser or even an escort. Those people have options, and they still decide not to fly science vessels.
Now, unless you're willing to suggest that there is a substantially larger percentage of KDF players looking to fly science vessels (like, pretty much 100% of them) than there are a percentage of UFP players looking to fly science vessels then it's not like there's any logical way a KDF science vessel could sell well since the audience they'd be aiming at would be a small fraction of a small fraction.
Just think about it, Fed-side you see, what, maybe 10% of ships being science vessels? (Honestly that estimate is probably high.) If the KDF is 16% of the player base, and 10% of players are looking to fly science vessels... you're looking at about 1.6% of total players itching for a KDF science ship... that's not a massive piece of the market.
That said, the argument can be made that there would be more KDF players if Cryptic handled the faction better. And there would definitely be more people flying science vessels if (as dalnar points out) science didn't pretty plainly suck butt in almost every situation you run into in-game and only really have one or two viable tricks, and that is definitely all in Cryptic's lap. So... rabidly mishandling things then using that as a reason for lack of support is maybe a little... dubious. So whether or not you think it should matter is debatable, but the suggestion though that a KDF science vessel probably wouldn't sell well is almost definitely accurate given the situation.
Pretty much. Major screwup by the DS9 and TNG writers, unfortunately. Chang is the last real innovator in strategy, tactics, and technology on the Klingon side. And Gorkon (possibly Azetbur) was the last real cultural and philosophical innovator. Reversing this requires placing a similar cultural revolutionary in the Chancellorship. I do not blame Cryptic for following the canon precedent, which is that whatever the Klingons might have been in the past, they are now as Ezri Dax pointed out, a decaying society that will eventually face a choice between reform and collapse. (And if ENT offers any hints, it appears they reach a point where being self-sustaining is no longer an option and they end up turning to the Federation by the 26th century.)
As far as the Romulans though, they are portrayed as technologically superior to the Feds in certain areas. Not having science options for them is inexcusable.
Christian Gaming Community Fleets--Faith, Fun, and Fellowship! See the website and PM for more. :-)
Proudly F2P. Signature image by gulberat. Avatar image by balsavor.deviantart.com.
My character Tsin'xing
Quite possibly. Of course Daniels doesn't give a join date for the Klingons, so it's not inconceivable that the collapse of the Empire could occur at some point in the 25th century, beyond the timeframe of STO.
Christian Gaming Community Fleets--Faith, Fun, and Fellowship! See the website and PM for more. :-)
Proudly F2P. Signature image by gulberat. Avatar image by balsavor.deviantart.com.
However, this has nothing to do with the percentages of players who play various factions in STO. Again, I think the Development Team made choices which lead to the lack of player interest in factions other than the Federation. If you were to attend a Trek convention you would find, among the costumes, a much higher percentage of Klingons than you see in STO. Trek fans love Klingons. It is not lack of interest in the faction which dictates the level of play of Klingons or Romulans: it is specific design decisions by the Development Team over a long period of time, (since the game was created, in fact.)
The question is: were the developers correct to choose to marginalize the Klingon faction, and to later begin to erase factional lines altogether? I don't have access to their data but it may be that with so many man-hours available for content development there wasn't enough to develop both factions simultaneously. Whatever your opinion on the subject, (and I have stated mine elsewhere enough times already,) the data is simply not available to allow us to properly judge the issue.
Yes, I want more Klingon development, I want more factionalization, and I want more potential build options which compete with the DPS builds for effectiveness in game. I do not think the current development team has an interest in doing so. I could attribute such a choice to malice by the development team, but they may know something I don't. Worse: I may believe something that is not true because I lack the facts.
My character Tsin'xing