suggesttion: cosmetic weapon slot

hholandez

As the title says, can we get a cosmetic weapon slot that changes all weapon visuals to the visuals of the one we put in the slot?

sentry51

I love this idea. I want my Starfleet weapons to look Starfleet . I hate all the glowy stuff you get on them at higher levels.

seaofsorrows

I have always wanted something like this.

jabofneurospine

This is a really frequently requested feature. I'd like to see it as well. Unfortunately the devs mentioned on stream that CBS had asked them not to add such a feature. So there's almost no chance of this happening.

Personally I'd settle for some of the unique weapons with distinct visuals being given generic versions so you can have a full set of weapons with that visual. Of course that still wouldn't help with those set weapons not looking like the rest of your loadout.

echatty

I'm not real fussed with my weapon looks. But I can understand those who are.

I like my rainbows.

potasssium

I've been told there was a weapon color command in the early or Beta testing days. Two of my Fed Captains uses Pulse & Fleet Phasers respectively, While my Andorian uses the Blue Phased Bio-matter Phasers until I get my hands on an Andorian Ship.

baddmoonrizin

jabofneurospine wrote: »

This is a really frequently requested feature. I'd like to see it as well. Unfortunately the devs mentioned on stream that CBS had asked them not to add such a feature. So there's almost no chance of this happening.

I'm pretty sure this is why the color change command was removed.

avoozuul

I don't understand what CBS problem is.

duncanidaho11

avoozuul wrote: »

I don't understand what CBS problem is.

Simple: phasers should look like phasers (and so on down the line.) Each weapon effect, be it from canon or Cryptic, represents the identity of that weapon. Change that, change the identity. CBS was to keep that core aesthetic relationship (which Trek has always kept. Whenever weapon visuals change that means something in the IP.)

So, if you want to change your weapon visuals you'll have to change your weapons. That's the rule.

tyler002

Just another example of the executives sticking their nose where it doesn't belong.

I find it hard to believe consistency with canon's the real reason, the people behind modern Trek don't seem to have much interest in keeping things consistent.

avoozuul

duncanidaho11 wrote: »

avoozuul wrote: »

I don't understand what CBS problem is.

Simple: phasers should look like phasers (and so on down the line.) Each weapon effect, be it from canon or Cryptic, represents the identity of that weapon. Change that, change the identity. CBS was to keep that core aesthetic relationship (which Trek has always kept. Whenever weapon visuals change that means something in the IP.)

So, if you want to change your weapon visuals you'll have to change your weapons. That's the rule.

It's a GAME, it's not a series or movie, games shouldn't have to be 100% accurate to the canon otherwise they would be poor selling on-rails movie based games.

avoozuul

duncanidaho11 wrote: »

avoozuul wrote: »

I don't understand what CBS problem is.

Simple: phasers should look like phasers (and so on down the line.) Each weapon effect, be it from canon or Cryptic, represents the identity of that weapon. Change that, change the identity. CBS was to keep that core aesthetic relationship (which Trek has always kept. Whenever weapon visuals change that means something in the IP.)

So, if you want to change your weapon visuals you'll have to change your weapons. That's the rule.

It's a GAME, CBS don't seem to understand how game should work, games don't need to be 100% accurate to the source. In MMO's customization is a factor and pretty much takes away from what's canon anyway, if CBS have a problem with the differing phaser colours then they should also have a problem with players mixing and matching outfits and including non-canon colours.

avoozuul

Some players want to use canon stuff while others don't, people should be allowed to have that choice but at default everything will be canon.

duncanidaho11

tyler002 wrote: »

Just another example of the executives sticking their nose where it doesn't belong.

I find it hard to believe consistency with canon's the real reason, the people behind modern Trek don't seem to have much interest in keeping things consistent.

You might want to start with your own priorities there. You're at once complaining that the folks in charge of the franchise (has to be someone BTW, I hope you're not about to suggest community ownership...) are mucking about with modern trek because they're changing things (in ways, BTW, which are consistent with franchise inconsistency, though can we please not get into that dead horse tangent) to support the idea that STO should be violating a canon precept which no part of the IP has deviated from (Discovery included, 23c phasers are still blue.)

Either this stuff is important to maintain or it isn't, you can't take the worst balance of both ways and expect that to stand as a coherent argument (without making the reductive point that you just want to do what you want to do and to hell with any idea of representational art in Sci-fi world building. In which case: the devs have said no and you don't have power of veto. So, move on.)

avoozuul wrote: »

Some players want to use canon stuff while others don't, people should be allowed to have that choice but at default everything will be canon.

In canon every weapon effect corresponds to what type of weapon it is. If you use an Andorian phaser it should be blue. If you use a 24c FED phaser, it should be orange. If you choose to equip both, then you should still see both. This continues through all conceivable permutations.

What STO does is literally canon. It would be a violation of canon to allow players to change their weapon visuals on a whim because then any changed weapon would no longer be behaving as it should in the Star Trek universe. If you want, for example, an Andorian ship to fire all Andorian phasers, equip all Andorian phasers in the first place. You have the ability to control weapon effects in STO. You simply have to work through the rules set in the IP.

If you're not interested in maintaining an iconic look, on the other hand, then you can equip whatever you want for whatever look you want. We already have a compromise that fits within the rules of the ST universe. Anything else would be suspect or more openly objectionable (ex. slavishly restricting phasers, disruptors, ect. to certain factions.)

avoozuul

The point I was failing to get was I don't understand what CBS's problem is with wanting to enforce everyone to only use canon stuff even when they don't want to, how does other peoples fun affect them? There's plenty of other MMO's which don't force you to stick with what's canon.

duncanidaho11

avoozuul wrote: »

The point I was failing to get was I don't understand what CBS's problem is with wanting to enforce everyone to only use canon stuff even when they don't want to, how does other peoples fun affect them? There's plenty of other MMO's which don't force you to stick with what's canon.

CBS wants STO to abide by a simple and universal rule of the series. What people chose to do from there is up to them. They are not regulating individual behavior (very poor way to frame this) but maintaining a point of sci-fi world building.

That's what we should ideally be asking for. If you want your Klingon raider to fire FED phasers then hey, go for it. What you can't have is the ability to tune weapon visuals to your taste. That simply isn't Star Trek (and there's very few things you can rationally say that for.)

PS. So what that other MMO's don't obey canon? It's arguably a mistake if they're trying to maintain coherent world building with their IP. Let's not jump off a cliff just because it's trending, and let's be clear that the point isn't well enough established even to take this situation that far. Ex. Lightsaber color in SWTOR. That's variable, as it should be in that canon.

avoozuul

Who's going to know that you are using disruptors with the colour of phasers and not actual phasers? It's not like other players are going to analyze your build because there's no way to do so.

duncanidaho11

avoozuul wrote: »

Who's going to know that you are using disruptors with the colour of phasers and not actual phasers? It's not like other players are going to analyze your build because there's no way to do so.

Did I say anything about visual recognition of weapon effects in gameplay? No, it's simply not how weapon effects work in the Star Trek universe. This is a Star Trek game. Do the math (this really is that simple.)

~51 years of franchise doesn't allow for changing weapon visuals to match an aesthetic preference (without that meaning something to the underlying fiction. Ie. weapon type.) Ergo, it's not in the game and there's very, very few points in Star Trek that can be stated so simply.

However strongly you might feel about wanting to give the players "choice" (they already have, incidentally; just swap weapons) it simply would not be appropriate for STO to give it. This is a creative choice in an artistic medium. Player feedback can only be taken so far.

avoozuul

duncanidaho11 wrote: »

Do take note of that, you are arguing against one of the few absolute rules in the series.

I am talking about a game here, not an actual TV series or movie, I know those are supposed to retain canon. But I wasn't saying that a game shouldn't be canon by default just the players choice. CBS didn't have to take the stance that they did but they did because they wanted to.

rattler2

Most players can identify exactly what they're getting shot by based on the look of the weapon. They don't need to analyse because for the most part they've already identified weapon types through experience.

If CBS said no to us being able to customize the look of our weapons, then the High Lords of Trek have spoken. As my Tartegrade friend has said, if you want a different look, get a different weapon. There is no transmog feature in STO. Even if there was, it would probably be more like Neverwinter's, where it would have to be the same TYPE, ie can't transmog a sword to look like a spear. So even if we had something like that, we would probably be limited by damage type and beam or cannon. But we don't. What we do have, is various, different looking weapons.

avoozuul

rattler2 wrote: »

If CBS said no to us being able to customize the look of our weapons, then the High Lords of Trek have spoken.

You didn't at all need to tell me this as I already said above "CBS didn't have to take the stance that they did but they did because they wanted to."

You didn't need to repeat anything he said to me to me, I was already going to respond to him when I was ready to to acknowledge what he was saying.

duncanidaho11

avoozuul wrote: »

But I wasn't saying that a game shouldn't be canon by default just the players choice.

So what, honestly, is stopping you from equipping whatever weapons you see fit? Let's get to the heart of the problem here, what in the game is preventing you from dictating how the energy globs and space magic projectiles look? Because you have that choice. Every player has that choice. They can choose to equip whatever weapons they want. As a direct result, they can choose to make their weapon fire look however they want.

They have to obey a rule in a game, but when you get down to it a game is inherently defined by its rule set. See. Rugby versus Monopoly (and what tackles would do to change the face of the latter if allowed.) Following such dictates should neither be alien or a problem by itself (we all do it in all games in all mediums.) Furthermore, the mechanical problem of aesthetic choices simply doesn't exist (see above.) Players have complete control over their weapons and, in turn (it is 1:1) their ship's weapon visuals. Furthermore, there isn't a disagreement here with canon precepts even if someone chooses to equip their Jem'Hadar warship with Romulan plasma torpedos, Xindi phasers, and a borg cutting beam for funsies. So long as each individual weapons shows true, it's fine no matter how much that look might clash with another player's iconic sensibilities.

There is zero issue here, except that a QOL feature to ensure an aesthetic choice doesn't come with measurable performance trade offs is lacking. That argument isn't strong enough to justify changing weapon visuals simply on the point of dev efforts (and we're told this would not be a simple system to implement.) It's barely registerable as an objective complaint. It's just a question of personal priorities (looks or numbers) and being so close on the fence where you can hold a sustained an opinion about one without accepting trade offs in the other (in which case, it's up to you to reconcile the difference. It would be nice if you didn't have to but that's a definite luxury.) Add to that: changing weapon visuals is not permitted under the creative choices that dictate the visual presentation of this game.

Note that: this game. I didn't say "Star Trek" or "an IP." Prohibiting this is valid no matter what the visual medium. Even a graphic novel would have every right to refuse changing canon weapon visuals based on reader input and if STO existed in complete isolation Cryptic would have complete creative justification to say no themselves if they felt (as CBS does) that weapon type and weapon visuals should have a direct relationship with each other (many games do this, BTW. Ex. Brute Plasma Rifles in Halo, red means something not only to gameplay but underlying lore and that visual isn't changed without that carrying significance in those other areas. See. the Elite's plasma rifle)

So, take that as another point to hammer home: this is fine.

seaofsorrows

avoozuul wrote: »

I don't understand what CBS problem is.

They don't have a problem with most of the things they're blamed for.

Every time someone says CBS doesn't allow something I just roll my eyes and laugh. You'll never see any documented proof of any of it, because it's all B.S.

I don't believe for one second that CBS is regulating phaser color in Star Trek Online. The notion is ridiculous.

duncanidaho11

seaofsorrows wrote: »

I don't believe for one second that CBS is regulating phaser color in Star Trek Online. The notion is ridiculous.

Everyone's entitled to their own fantasy, I guess. "CBS said no" is paraphrasing Kael on on Ten Forward Weekly. You're welcome to repeat the question on the next Ten Forward Weekly to be absolutely sure I and several other community members didn't hallucinate the statement though he's probably not going to entertain any request for written documentation (that'd be pushing it.)

burstorion

simple answer could be:

For all 'canon' weapon damage types, the color is set
For the 'non canon' types (polarised disruptors, ect) there is a color option to set it to a 'canon' type

simple and clean, keeping most parties happy

hholandez

Wow, that spiraled out of control quick. The fact that we can change engine, shield and deflectors to fit our aesthetic choices for our ships is the same as changing all weapons to look like a specific one.
My only point was that I like to use the weapons you get from mission rewards and most of them in sets are pretty good, but they all look different being the same damage type. I would settle for a "revert weapon visual to default damage type" button. You collect all the different polaron beams you have and push the button and they all look pink, or every disruptor installed turns green.

seaofsorrows

If it's so important to CBS that Phasers be Orange then explain the Undine Phasers (Green)

Why would they not have a problem with Disruptors or Tetryon Weapons on a Federation ship?

I won't get into who said what.. it's possible someone from Cryptic said that.. I am not calling anyone on the forum a liar. If they did say that however, I don't believe it for a second. 'CBS won't allow it' is just something people say to explain stuff away, it's happened for years.

CBS couldn't care less about this issue. It's silly to think they would.

meimeitoo

baddmoonrizin wrote: »

jabofneurospine wrote: »

This is a really frequently requested feature. I'd like to see it as well. Unfortunately the devs mentioned on stream that CBS had asked them not to add such a feature. So there's almost no chance of this happening.

I'm pretty sure this is why the color change command was removed.

I also think it had something to do with PvP, in that PvP-ers couldn't immediately tell what kind if weapons you were using (much more relevant in EvE Online, btw, but I digress).

Also, technically, I think it would be hard. Different weapons pulse a different way, have different special effects, etc. It may be tricky to get those synced with your real weps.

tyler002

duncanidaho11 wrote: »

tyler002 wrote: »

Just another example of the executives sticking their nose where it doesn't belong.

I find it hard to believe consistency with canon's the real reason, the people behind modern Trek don't seem to have much interest in keeping things consistent.

You might want to start with your own priorities there. You're at once complaining that the folks in charge of the franchise (has to be someone BTW, I hope you're not about to suggest community ownership...) are mucking about with modern trek because they're changing things (in ways, BTW, which are consistent with franchise inconsistency, though can we please not get into that dead horse tangent) to support the idea that STO should be violating a canon precept which no part of the IP has deviated from (Discovery included, 23c phasers are still blue.)

Either this stuff is important to maintain or it isn't, you can't take the worst balance of both ways and expect that to stand as a coherent argument (without making the reductive point that you just want to do what you want to do and to hell with any idea of representational art in Sci-fi world building. In which case: the devs have said no and you don't have power of veto. So, move on.)

My entire post was "Executives are meddling in other peoples jobs" and "They don't seem to have much concern for consistency". Nothing more, nothing less. No idea where you got the rest from...

starswordc

I wouldn't want to make a disruptor look like a phaser, but making a biomolecular phaser look like a regular phaser? Would totally go for that.

darkbladejk

CBS saying no to the color change has been said multiple times now by the devs. It may not seem like that big of a deal to change the color of a weapon and while in my book it doesn't bother me I can see why some might not like it. For years CBS said no to an end game Constitution class and now here we are with 2 of them, the JJ Verse Enterprise and the TOS series version. Of course those could also be explained as 50th anniversary being the incentive. They have changed their minds before and could very well do so again if they see there is enough financial incentive to do so. However until that day comes I wouldn't exactly hold my breath on expecting this feature.

seaofsorrows wrote: »

If it's so important to CBS that Phasers be Orange then explain the Undine Phasers (Green)

Why would they not have a problem with Disruptors or Tetryon Weapons on a Federation ship?

I won't get into who said what.. it's possible someone from Cryptic said that.. I am not calling anyone on the forum a liar. If they did say that however, I don't believe it for a second. 'CBS won't allow it' is just something people say to explain stuff away, it's happened for years.

CBS couldn't care less about this issue. It's silly to think they would.

The simple answer is that the Undine Phasers are not canon weapons and as such there is some leeway there in terms of coloring, sound when firing, animation etc.

For all we know it does bother them but they tolerate it due to the story of the game itself and because that Federation ship is still using a canon weapon type even if not phasers. It's touched on that in the future timeline STO takes place in its more about the captain of the ship itself and what said captain chooses to load on the ship. By the time of STO it's explained that ships are basically shells that can be reconfigured to meet the challenge they're facing currently.

As I pointed out above CBS saying no has been stated multiple times by multiple devs and this is a well documented thing. The devs have no reason to lie about CBS saying no to such a minor feature as there would be nothing for them to gain from it. It may suck that CBS has said no to the option, but they're well within their rights to do so.

The best you can hope for is that they see enough folks want it and change their minds like they did with the end game Constitution.