test content
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc

Why do we have to side with the Turei?

13

Comments

  • nightkennightken Member Posts: 2,824 Arc User
    patrickngo wrote: »
    but I was actually somewhat serious in
    patrickngo wrote: »
    See, he's mistaken a third-person-shooter-on-rails for a role playing game.
    Role playing games, at least CRPGs, are not defined by being able to make whatever choices you want in the narrative. They are defined by the ability to make your own character, and play through whatever scenario the DM, or in this case the developers, made for you. How many or few choices you get in that scenario is ultimately irrelevant to the definition of a CRPG.

    this is very off topic and I apologize for this but are you sure about this? I deal with a lot of crpg fans and they seem to feel quite differently about this. in fact from what I can tell if I game doesn't give 20 ways of saying yes/no/whatever your supposed to say it's a evil, bad, action game not any kind of rpg at all. even if none of the choice mean anything at all.

    if I stop posting it doesn't make you right it. just means I don't have enough rum to continue interacting with you.
  • baddmoonrizinbaddmoonrizin Member Posts: 10,247 Community Moderator
    Hey, guys! Let's make sure to "attack" the argument and not the person. Ok? Thanks.
    GrWzQke.png
    Star Trek Online Volunteer Community Moderator and Resident She-Wolf
    Community Moderators are Unpaid Volunteers and NOT Employees of Gearbox/Cryptic
    Views and Opinions May Not Reflect the Views and Opinions of Gearbox/Cryptic
    ----> Contact Customer Support <----
    Moderation Problems/Issues? Please contact the Community Manager
    Terms of Service / Community Rules and Policies / FCT
    Want the latest information on Star Trek Online?
    Facebook / Twitter / Twitch
  • ltminnsltminns Member Posts: 12,569 Arc User
    Talk about Butterfly Effect. All Daniels has to do is to prevent Lt. (j.g.) Joe Tormolen's nose from itching and we wouldn't be in this mess to begin with.
    'But to be logical is not to be right', and 'nothing' on God's earth could ever 'make it' right!'
    Judge Dan Haywood
    'As l speak now, the words are forming in my head.
    l don't know.
    l really don't know what l'm about to say, except l have a feeling about it.
    That l must repeat the words that come without my knowledge.'
    Lt. Philip J. Minns
  • jrdobbsjr#3264 jrdobbsjr Member Posts: 431 Arc User
    > @trennan said:
    > Sisko also poisoned the atmosphere of Solosus III, i.e. used a biogenic weapon, so attempted genocide is in his repertoire as well.

    They fact that Sisko got away with that scot-free is another example of how “free” the Federation actually is. Apparently, Starfleet sterilizing a human colony world wasn’t newsworthy.
  • spiritbornspiritborn Member Posts: 4,248 Arc User
    Honestly MMORPGs are just about the last subset of RPGs where the player can have major impact in the overall story, a pen and paper RPG can have essentially infinite amount of choices because the DM has only about a dozen or so players at most to be aware of and those players are aware and influenced by each other not mention the DM can make new content on the fly if it's needed. MMOs on the other hand have thousands of players who are largely independent of each other when choices are conserned and content is pre-made.

    Because of this even if at each situation you have only 2 options to choose from the number of seperate choices quickly becomes impractically large both to manage and to make (remember the content is pre-made not made of the fly) and that's assume 100% isolation between all choices, if the choices interact with each or heaven forbid choices from different players interact with each other, it becomes even more impractically complex.

    Even SWTOR which is probably the most story focused MMO that's even semi-successful doesn't have player make a major impact in the overall story thru their choices.
  • peterconnorfirstpeterconnorfirst Member Posts: 6,225 Arc User
    edited February 2019
    Wow!

    This thread captures this embarrassing feeling I have about my Star Trek hobby in front of my non Trek fan friends at times rather well.

    Please keep it going. :#
    animated.gif
    Looking for a fun PvE fleet? Join us at Omega Combat Division today.
    felisean wrote: »
    teamwork to reach a goal is awesome and highly appreciated
  • jrdobbsjr#3264 jrdobbsjr Member Posts: 431 Arc User
    > As for the uber-alliance, I blame the Federation and time travel for that. Always jumping in and bumping the timeline to have the outcome they want. For that all one has to do is look at how things go. If the Federation wanted to use time travel to benefit all, instead of just themselves. They'd go back and prevent the Praxis explosion, or the Hobus Supernova. But, they won't, the two incidents weaken the Klingons and Romulans, which benefits the Federation. Preventing these from happening, doesn't benefit the Federation, as it strengthens the Klingons and Romulans. But let Earth come under threat of being destroyed and watch how fast the time travel begins to prevent it.
    >

    The Alliance tried to undo Hobus, it resulted directly in the Temporal Cold War, among other things. And how could Fed time travelers stop Praxis? That was the result of the desperate Klingon effort to maintain economic and military parity with the Federation.....which is kind of quaint now that TNG and ST;D have changed canon to where the Federation exists only at the sufferance of the Empire because humans are too peaceful to contend with them without a McGuffin to save them.
  • warpangelwarpangel Member Posts: 9,427 Arc User
    patrickngo wrote: »
    There's a REASON this has to be a third-person rails-shooter, it's just that "Because it's a better story" isn't one of them.
    Yes, it is.

    Because having a single consistent story is infinitely better than an exponentially growing morass of player choices that ultimately can't have any effect on the plot anyway, simply because there are too many combinations to write.

    Fact is, basically no RPG has much real meaningful player choice, not even the ones that go to great lenghts to pretend to. Take Mass Effect for example. In the end of the first game you can actually decide the fate of the galactic government. And come the sequel what difference does that decision actually make? A different wording in the way they dismiss you as a fraud.
  • trennantrennan Member Posts: 2,839 Arc User
    edited February 2019
    warpangel wrote: »
    patrickngo wrote: »
    There's a REASON this has to be a third-person rails-shooter, it's just that "Because it's a better story" isn't one of them.
    Yes, it is.

    Because having a single consistent story is infinitely better than an exponentially growing morass of player choices that ultimately can't have any effect on the plot anyway, simply because there are too many combinations to write.

    Fact is, basically no RPG has much real meaningful player choice, not even the ones that go to great lenghts to pretend to. Take Mass Effect for example. In the end of the first game you can actually decide the fate of the galactic government. And come the sequel what difference does that decision actually make? A different wording in the way they dismiss you as a fraud.


    This is why i like the SW:KotR way of doing it. Storywise, my character doesn't change it any. However, the choices that you do make, directly affect their Dark/Light side alignment, which in turns weakens/strengthens their powers. But again, can't be done with Star Trek. Because you're the "good guy" and can only make "good guy" choices.

    For example, if I were given a choice, all my characters would have let the Iconians and Lukari suffer the fate that was upon them. I wouldn't have saved them. I would've destroyed the Annorax, thus prevent Nog from TRIBBLE up the timeline. I can't even choose responses that elude to such decisions. I'm just a poor mindless drone, following orders, a red shirt fit for sacrifice, as it were.
    Mm5NeXy.gif
  • starswordcstarswordc Member Posts: 10,963 Arc User
    fury#0751 wrote: »
    Every time we get to the point in the storyline where the Vaarduwar are introduced, well, I feel the missions just aren't presenting the options my Captain would actually make. I'd far rather ally with the Vaarduwar that the Turei or (via association with the Turei) the Voth.

    This is interesting: usually when I see the "why can't we side with the Vaads" question, it's in relation to the Kobali. Compared to the Kobali, the Tureis' greatest offense in the present day is... being officious and kinda bland.

    We side with them because the law of the sea (law of space?) requires that we respond to distress signals from any party we aren't at war with, and because Gaul is a raving lunatic and his senior officers are enslaved to his will. This ain't rocket surgery.
    warpangel wrote: »
    patrickngo wrote: »
    There's a REASON this has to be a third-person rails-shooter, it's just that "Because it's a better story" isn't one of them.
    Yes, it is.

    Because having a single consistent story is infinitely better than an exponentially growing morass of player choices that ultimately can't have any effect on the plot anyway, simply because there are too many combinations to write.

    Fact is, basically no RPG has much real meaningful player choice, not even the ones that go to great lenghts to pretend to. Take Mass Effect for example. In the end of the first game you can actually decide the fate of the galactic government. And come the sequel what difference does that decision actually make? A different wording in the way they dismiss you as a fraud.

    Here's a counterexample. Back in high school I played a lot of this browser game called AdventureQuest (I think it's still around although I haven't played in over a decade). It was Flash-based and pretty low budget. And yet one time (that I'm aware of), they held this cool event in the game, a war between the local paladin order and a group of necromancers, where player characters were invited to fight mobs allied to either side. The side that won the most victories dictated the direction the devs would take the story going forward (it was the necromancers as it turned out).

    See that? That's a way to do player agency in an MMO. And on a budget and team size that makes Cryptic look big, at that.

    And since you bring up Mass Effect: the first game is weaksauce when it comes to player agency, but the second game presents a great deal of it. Choices you make throughout the game can affect how many casualties you take to both crew and squad members in the suicide mission (up to and including a secret ending where Shepard dies, although you practically have to seek that ending out on purpose), as well as affecting what options are available in 3 (the "golden ending" of the quarian/geth storyline is only available if you made specific choices in 1 and 2 and then make a counterintuitive moral decision during the Battle of Rannoch).

    Now, maybe it's prohibitive to do a significantly branching story in STO, but at least presenting the illusion of choice and letting the player character have an opinion other than "the boss is always right, Federation über Alles" does help. The Temporal Accords mission is a great example: I was pleasantly surprised that they actually gave us the option to sympathize with the Na'Kuhls' position before all hell breaks loose.

    Other examples:
    • In the Kobali situation, the Federation may have to follow the Prime Directive (although I find it very questionable to apply it there, given that A| all participants in that goat-rope are warp-capable and B| we were invited in by one of them), but neither of its allies do. Take the conversation with Captain Pompous Benzite out of the cutscene and allow A| Starfleet toons to point out that they significantly outrank Captain Pompous Benzite, and B| Romulan and Klingon toons to point out that they not only outrank them, they don't even answer to the same government as her.
    • There needs to be an option to approve of Rai Sahen's gambit in the DQ patrol "Operation Cooperation Conspiracy. Justifications:
      • A Starfleet toon may be more of a Sisko than a Picard, willing to take pragmatic action and play head-games rather than deal completely above-board.
      • Klingons value victory in war, not merely battle. This is a pretty big deal in their storyline in DS9.
      • The Romulan Republic is far from a political monolith: they're a coalition of any number of dissidents against the ancien regime, not just Unificationists (for Pete's sake, the leading Republic Intelligence officer in the theater is openly ex-Tal Shiar, and the supreme commander of its military is a defector from the Imperial Fleet). You should have the option to play a Romulan of classical outlook (even potentially very classical: there's an argument to be made that the false flag gambit plays perfectly into mnhei'sahe).
    "Great War! / And I cannot take more! / Great tour! / I keep on marching on / I play the great score / There will be no encore / Great War! / The War to End All Wars"
    — Sabaton, "Great War"
    VZ9ASdg.png

    Check out https://unitedfederationofpla.net/s/
  • jrdobbsjr#3264 jrdobbsjr Member Posts: 431 Arc User
    edited February 2019
    A Romulan with a classical outlook would probably be on Rator IV playing Game of Thrones to see who replaces Sela. As for the Republic, one thing everyone seems to agree with is that D’Tan has the Mandate of Heaven, and his prestige is only going up. His position became pretty much unassailable when the Remans threw their lot in with him. After Hakeev gets his just deserts even his remaining followers try to make a deal.
  • markhawkmanmarkhawkman Member Posts: 35,231 Arc User
    > @trennan said:
    > Sisko also poisoned the atmosphere of Solosus III, i.e. used a biogenic weapon, so attempted genocide is in his repertoire as well.

    They fact that Sisko got away with that scot-free is another example of how “free” the Federation actually is. Apparently, Starfleet sterilizing a human colony world wasn’t newsworthy.
    Actually, the people on Solosus didn't die, and ended up moving to the Cardassian planets Eddington had poisoned. In a way Eddington had won because the Maquis swapping worlds gave them a better planet.
    -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
    My character Tsin'xing
    Costume_marhawkman_Tsin%27xing_CC_Comic_Page_Blue_488916968.jpg
  • tyler002tyler002 Member Posts: 1,586 Arc User
    Eddington won when he called Sisko out on his obsession with hunting him down for "betraying the uniform" by betraying it himself and the only response Sisko could give was to angrily cut communications and fire the weapon.
    tumblr_p7auh1JPC61qfr6udo4_500.gif
  • markhawkmanmarkhawkman Member Posts: 35,231 Arc User
    tyler002 wrote: »
    Eddington won when he called Sisko out on his obsession with hunting him down for "betraying the uniform" by betraying it himself and the only response Sisko could give was to angrily cut communications and fire the weapon.
    That's just it... Eddington acted like it was nothing but Sisko's hurt feelings that caused him to hunt down Eddington. But... betraying his uniform was merely the START of Eddington's crimes. If it had ended there, Sisko wouldn't have bothered hunting him down.

    As Sisko pointed out, Sisko's actions actually SAVED the Maquis on Solosus from being obliterated via orbital bombardment by the Cardassians. The actual reason Sisko was involved was to limit the loss of life in the conflict. If he'd let the Cardassians handle it, the Cardassians would have shot to kill at ANY Maquis they encountered whether they were directly aided Eddington or not.
    -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
    My character Tsin'xing
    Costume_marhawkman_Tsin%27xing_CC_Comic_Page_Blue_488916968.jpg
  • jrdobbsjr#3264 jrdobbsjr Member Posts: 431 Arc User
    starswordc wrote: »
    This is interesting: usually when I see the "why can't we side with the Vaads" question, it's in relation to the Kobali. Compared to the Kobali, the Tureis' greatest offense in the present day is... being officious and kinda bland.

    We side with them because the law of the sea (law of space?) requires that we respond to distress signals from any party we aren't at war with, and because Gaul is a raving lunatic and his senior officers are enslaved to his will. This ain't rocket surgery.

    The player's mission is to advance the interests of the Alliance in the Delta quadrant...the Turei are low hanging fruit when it comes to accomplishing the mission. since you are in Sector to fight the Vaaduwar anyway, may as well be over the Turei homeworld as anywhere else. Letting the Vaaduwar glass potential allies is silly, especially when the only thing they've done to you is acting like jerks.

    Other examples:
    • In the Kobali situation, the Federation may have to follow the Prime Directive (although I find it very questionable to apply it there, given that A| all participants in that goat-rope are warp-capable and B| we were invited in by one of them), but neither of its allies do. Take the conversation with Captain Pompous Benzite out of the cutscene and allow A| Starfleet toons to point out that they significantly outrank Captain Pompous Benzite, and B| Romulan and Klingon toons to point out that they not only outrank them, they don't even answer to the same government as her.

    I would have loved the option for my Fed toons to say to that Benzite....."Your objection is noted, Captain. That will be all." My Roms would offer to put her through to Kerenek if she had a problem. Somehow I doubt he'd care a whole lot about her nonsense.



  • jrdobbsjr#3264 jrdobbsjr Member Posts: 431 Arc User
    patrickngo wrote: »
    You said that "DANIELS IS DOING IT FOR EVERYBODY" in an earlier post, but what you don't seem to grasp, is "How in TRIBBLE would a Klingon who's just finished being at war with the Federation ever believe him?" Because his justifications don't line up unless you're already drinking deep of the pro-federation-uber-alles koolaid.

    This is, in turn, similar to the OP's problem with supporting the Turei or the Kobali. none of the justifications make sense if you're not already on-board with expanding the Federation to Galactic levels, helping keep the Na'Khul sun dying, and meddling in events 200,000 years ago.

    Wasn't there a Dev Blog post where a Na'Kuhl ship fleeing Procyon 5 returned to it's own time only to find to thier astonishment their sun was fixed? And lets be honest here......if the toon only let Tiaru Jarok bathe in Sela's blood like she wanted to, there never would have been a Iconian War to begin with, not to mention Romulus would still be around because T'Ket wouldn't be mad at the Romulans.
This discussion has been closed.