test content
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc

Blood on my hands

SystemSystem Member, NoReporting Posts: 178,019 Arc User
I haven't kept a running count... but I'm pretty sure by now I've killed tens of thousands of people and I'm not even Lt. Cmndr yet.

I was sitting here thinking about it and I realized that combat is missing certain dynamic elements, those being enemies that surrender, abandon ship, or run away.

Example: I'm fighting a group of five Orion frigates. I shoot down four without even losing half my shields. Why does that fifth Orion guy think he has a chance? Would it not be wise for him to make a run for it? Or surrender?

Does anyone believe this type of thing might add a touch of variety to STO combat? I understand there are more pressing issues, but there *is* something to be said for product presentation. If there weren't we'd all be shaped like white cubes on black background with the same gameplay dynamics.

I have much more to say on the subject but I want to put this topic out there and see what the feel is.
Post edited by Unknown User on

Comments

  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    Well, to some the very act of bravery is doing the impossible. Maybe that 5th Orion thinks he can take you out and get all the glory/rewards for doing so. :)

    I wouldn't mind eventually seeing some expanded interactions though. Surrender and Flee would be fine to me, but the options would need to be based on the species. I really can't see Klingons or Romulans surrendering - they've said as much in the various source material over the years. I'd have no problem seeing Nausicaans, Orions, and Remans running from me, though. :)
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    That's very much the kind of thing I'm talking about. That's the sort of thing that adds depth to the game!

    Let me say that again: DEPTH

    It is never a bad thing. You set up behavior modifiers for the various species. Examples follow:

    Klingon: More likely to fight to the death
    Romulan: More likely to cloak and run
    Orion: More likely to drop plasma and run for it
    Naussican: Unpredictable
    Ferengi: More likely to surrender. (And possibly try to bribe you.)

    I see it like this: You're fighting. You shoot at a target until it's near breaking point. Maybe it blows up, as in the current sytem.

    OR MAYBE:

    The reticle surrounding the ship changes from orange to pulsing yellow. This means the ship you're firing on is running away (morale check failure, let them go and get bonus skill points, kill them and get loot). Or maybe it turns gray, meaning you've disabled them (at this point you can capture the crew and get merit or blow them up and get loot). Maybe it cloaks and turns up later in the fight, or maybe you never see it again.

    Stuff like that. Who else has ideas?
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    Yay! Morale checks!

    *breaks out 2 six sided dice*

    Okay, roll versus Leadership stat.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    I think these are really great ideas and would certainly make combat more dynamic.

    On the other hand, I think there probably exist some programming limitations that would prevent such dynamism. The only time you are going to see ships flee or become disabled are in the story based missions. And this makes sense.

    My Nova class vessel has a crew compliment of 100 souls. I doubt the ship has the capacity to take prisoners and it certainly doesn't have crew to spare to capture an enemy ship. Also, I don't think Klingons nor their allies are the retreating types. Best just to blow them all out of the sky.

    I think presenting captains with the ethical dilemma, 'to blow up or not to blow up', would add a very Trek-like element to the missions, but at the same time it would take away from the feeling that this is a war of necessity which the Feds or the Klingons must win. Am I making sense?
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    Ravenstein wrote: »
    Yay! Morale checks!

    *breaks out 2 six sided dice*

    Okay, roll versus Leadership stat.

    I want my phasers to give me rending attacks.

    Wait wrong MMO. 40k is about 3 years away.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    I agree with this idea greatly. This is Star Trek... a great many battles in Trek occured with a clear victor... and no destroyed ships. Merely, disabled. i would very much love to see these options in game. Now, i am personally coldhearted enough I would probably just blow them up anyway... but still, the options would be cool :)
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    Disable a hostile ship and have the opportunity to board her to capture the vessel.

    Have space battle followed by the ground boarding attempt. You have one attempt and make it tough, fail and the ship is able to fix warp power and escape.

    Make it rare... like 1 out of 100 attempts or so.

    They have the ship models, they just need to add the character and equipment part and then we can capture Gorn vessels or better yet, steal that Romulan warbird. Add it to you ship selections. Make it cost 1million credits to bring up to Fed/Klingon standards... whatever. Now that would be an option to mix things up.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    innocuous9 wrote:
    I haven't kept a running count... but I'm pretty sure by now I've killed tens of thousands of people and I'm not even Lt. Cmndr yet.

    I was sitting here thinking about it and I realized that combat is missing certain dynamic elements, those being enemies that surrender, abandon ship, or run away.

    Example: I'm fighting a group of five Orion frigates. I shoot down four without even losing half my shields. Why does that fifth Orion guy think he has a chance? Would it not be wise for him to make a run for it? Or surrender?

    Does anyone believe this type of thing might add a touch of variety to STO combat? I understand there are more pressing issues, but there *is* something to be said for product presentation. If there weren't we'd all be shaped like white cubes on black background with the same gameplay dynamics.

    I have much more to say on the subject but I want to put this topic out there and see what the feel is.

    We are discussing this there as well.

    http://forums.startrekonline.com/showthread.php?t=114723
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    I like anything at any time that reduced the body count on my missions. That is probably the single greatest thing that can be done to make the game feel more like Trek. There are a few story missions where an enemy surrenders, escapes, or even joins you, but they are few and far between. When it happens though, it is SO satisfying. Here's hoping they add more of it.

    This could work well with some sort of reputation system. So weather you choose to take prisoners, or kill them all, it can impact missions in the future. How great would it be if you were considered so honorable in combat that a klingon captain would fight with you against a common enemy? Or that you were known for being so merciless that a Cardassian ship turns tail and runs at first sight of you?
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    digital3lf wrote: »
    I like anything at any time that reduced the body count on my missions. That is probably the single greatest thing that can be done to make the game feel more like Trek. There are a few story missions where an enemy surrenders, escapes, or even joins you, but they are few and far between. When it happens though, it is SO satisfying. Here's hoping they add more of it.

    This could work well with some sort of reputation system. So weather you choose to take prisoners, or kill them all, it can impact missions in the future. How great would it be if you were considered so honorable in combat that a klingon captain would fight with you against a common enemy? Or that you were known for being so merciless that a Cardassian ship turns tail and runs at first sight of you?

    As I said up there, nothing that adds to the game's depth could possibly be considered a bad thing.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    innocuous9 wrote:
    As I said up there, nothing that adds to the game's depth could possibly be considered a bad thing.

    Indeed : the purpose here is not to remove the action, it is to add depth. The best is to be able to choose between both.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    /agree with OP
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    I think every officer in Starfleet is now guilty of Genocide or at the very least, mass murder. Last time I checked, both are frowned upon by the Federation, even in times of war. It's like we're all section 31 with license to kill.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    Yes! Great ideas! We need depth to this game if it has ANY chance of lasting beyond a few months. I am SICk of slaughtering thousands of beings with ZERO remorse or conscences. Prime Directive? What's that? I would also like to see a "Bluff" ability added to the Captains abilities and click on that to scare away enemies.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    More conversation choices to either enter combat or diffuse a hostile situation would be nice. That way the blood thirsty killers and we diplomats are all happy.
Sign In or Register to comment.