test content
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc

3 months of STO – 3 things that will make STO better

SystemSystem Member, NoReporting Posts: 178,019 Arc User
I’d have rather made a separate thread for each of these issues, because a giant wall of text is hard to read. But that would feel like spamming, so I try to compromise with an easily readable layout.

After playing STO for 3 months (since open beta) and counting, it seems to me that most criticism boils down to only a few basic issues:
  • Immersion (This doesn’t feel like Star Trek!)
  • Endgame Content (There is nothing to do!)
  • Balance (Nerf Klingons! Nerf SNB!)

And that’s about it. Most other topics (Klingons have no PvE content, Memory Alpha is useless, generic missions, etc.) fit into one of those categories. I now want to give my “2 cents” to each of these points, and in conclusion suggest three updates that would address all of these problems at once.


Immersion

Now, this is maybe the most difficult point, because it’s so hard to grasp. Everybody has different opinions and thoughts how “their” Star Trek looks like. I believe there are two sides to this problem. One is related to graphics:
Sector Space
The sector space doesn’t look much like anything we are used to from Star Trek. However, the layout and accessibility themselves are sound, and I am quite content with it’s functionality. Nevertheless, you can improve the existing sector maps a great deal without having to change the concept.
  • Double sector maps in size so they seem bigger (possibly double traveling speed as well, so we don’t have to travel longer)
  • Increase transparency of the grid on the “ground” and the trading routes, or give us an option to turn them off (however I understand its purpose, so more transparency would be fine in my book)
  • Current solar system models have to go, sorry. The stars shouldn’t appear black from afar, there shouldn’t be visible orbital rings (where you get stuck all the time). The pillars on which the systems rest should be removed as well.
  • Give us the real warp effect from the shows. I am refering to the star-streaks, or whatever they are (e.g. I heard the hypothesis that they are particle bouncing off the deflector shield). I have seen similar effects in several missions (I think it was inside the Bajoran wormhole?), so I know it is possible. This is a must.
Miscellaneous
Several graphic issues that don’t require a seperate group.
  • Replace the standard NPC uniform with the latest from TNG. I understand you want to show some of your own work, but the current uniform you see on every NPC at Sol and beyond is too militaristic in my opinion. Replacing them with the TNG ones would add a lot to the “Star Trek”-look.
  • Although this is already announced, I just want to confirm that the ship interiors will improve immersion by a thousandfold.
  • Some weapons in ground-combat seem a bit too huge, especially assault weapons.
  • The backgrounds in the NPC-dialog-window should be more diverse, and related to the location the NPC is actually in. When I am hailed by another ship, there should be a bridge (Romulan, Klingon, Fed, etc) in the background. When one of my BOs talks to me, his station and maybe my bridge’s viewing screen should be in the background.
  • Replace Federation/Klingon Traffic Control with a message from one of our BOs (maybe one we can order to be the helmsman). Currently it feels like the Federation is permanently looking over my shoulder, which makes space appear incredibly small.
  • Reduce the nebulae. While they are necessary in some places for orientation, and are beautiful to look at, you usually don’t encounter them everywhere you go. Sol is a good candidate for a “clear sky”, because there are enough landmarks for orientation.
  • Improve Sol/Earth. The Moon is too close to Earth, Earth’s texture should be improved a great deal, a more realistic approach for the Sun would be neat as well.
  • Gorn / Nausicaan / Orion ships for the Klingon faction. But only for the corresponding species and aliens, in my opinion.

One is related to gameplay:
Diverse Missions
Currently, the exploration missions are very repetitive, and thus lack the experience of exploring something, because you have seen everything before. I am confident that your Genesis-thingie can produce countless interesting locations once you made up your mind about new mission designs.
  • Diplomacy, First Contact, etc – I understand you are already working on more non-combat missions, so I am not complaining here. I also think this was the main complaint about “non-Fed” gameplay.
  • Career-specific missions. This is for roleplay and thus should enhance everyone’s immersion. Let engineers fix space stations, let scientists gather anomalous particles by modifying their deflector shield, whatever (possibly minigames). Not sure about tacticals.
  • BO-specific missions. An interesting idea I read in another feedback thread. Depending on your BOs’ race, you can get specific missions revolving around that BO. Your Betazoid ‘feels’ an intelligent species, your Vulcan has to get back to Vulcan for his Pon’Far, your Tellarite gets into an argument with another species’ ambassador, etc etc. Those might also take place aboard your ship once interiors are implemented. IMO the best idea for non-combat missions besides diplomacy/first contact.


Endgame Content

Big thing. I am looking forward to Season 2 for new sectors to explore and new episodes to play. But frankly, in the end, this is just buying you some time. What we need is content that can keep players busy forever, and I am certain than this can only be achieved by meaningful PvP.
Items
Currently, it is incredibly easy to get fully equipped with purple Mk X stuff. While this has also killed the market for green and blue items, there is little to no reason to get better gear. The PvE content doesn’t require any specific equipment, which can be a good or a bad thing. It’s nice that this makes the game friendly for casual players and doesn’t require everyone to grind for the best stuff, but it also removes the incentive to play at all.
  • More diverse equipment. We need more bonuses aside from [Acc], [CrtH] and [CrtD] (taking weapons as an example). More equipment generates more viable builds, more possible tactics in PvP, enhances roleplay and immersion. E.g., there should be special bonuses only available at Memory Alpha.
  • Better equipment for Marks of Valor. By completing the current Borg STFs, all you get for your marks are better weapons against – Borg. So you can complete the STFs against Borg faster. To get more anti-Borg stuff. This is circular, which usually just works in a PvP environment where players are constantly competing with each other for better equipment (see below).
PvE Missions
The STFs are fine, for the purpose of organized raids. However, there are also other demographics who might like some endgame PvE.
  • Persistant PvE Zones / Dungeons. Once there are more interesting items in game and there is an incentive to get them, you should be able to search for those in persistant PvE zones. The current Deep Space Encounter and Fleet Actions are not sufficient for this. These new PvE Zones should be solo-able, or you could bring a team along and play them just like an STF.
  • More exploration missions. I already wrote about that under “immersion” (see above), however, there should also be a broader variety of combat missions while exploring clusters. Freeing hostages, capturing deliquents, etc. Those types of missions have already been done during patrols and episodes, it shouldn’t be too difficult to implement some of them to explorations.
Meaningful PvP
This is probably the biggest issue that will keep people playing. Before I write down some of my ideas, I want to say that we should first all agree that we need this, no matter how this system will look like in the end. We shouldn’t quarrel about details from the beginning, because that might give Cryptic the idea that we are not sure what we want. We first have to show some common ground for the developers to notice this issue. Details can be discussed later. Nevertheless, some ideas:
  • Faction vs Faction, not Fleet vs Fleet. Identifying yourself with your faction enhances roleplay and immersion, identifying yourself with your fleet promotes drama.
  • War Zones in the Neutral Zones. This is an obvious setting.
  • Conquer, Capture and Hold. This is the most reasonable mode to occupy systems (space) or bases (ground). There could also be combinations of both, where one team has to fight in space and one on the ground to achieve a common goal.
  • Fixed times for these games to take place. Once or twice a week, for 1-2 hours maybe. Different instances with different times could be made, minding the different timezones. When the time is up, the system / base belongs to the faction that currently holds it, until the game starts again a few days later.
  • The reward: Daily mission in that system / base. The daily part is important, because it limits the mission and thus gives an incentive to hold the system / base for a longer period. By completing this mission, you have the small chance to acquire a specific item that you can only get in this specific system / base.
  • By combining the items from specific (or even all) systems / bases, you can create superior equipment. Maybe even through another mission that takes place in a special system / base that has to be taken as well.
  • The Federation should have to defend more systems / bases because it has more borders to enemy territories. Although this only becomes important after more factions are implemented, I think we shouldn’t neglect the fact that there are way more Fed players than Klingons, which would give a huge advantage to Feds in this environment. This has to be adressed one way or another.
  • This mode is easily expandable. Either by adding new systems and bases, more missions for each system or by more possible items that can be created.
  • Whoever can name the MMO I stole this setup from gets 1 million EC.
Post edited by Unknown User on

Comments

  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited May 2010
    Balance

    There are already a lot of threads about this, so I don’t feel like going into detail here. However, it should be mentioned that there cannot be meaningful PvP before PvP itself is balanced.
    BO Abilites
    After the FBP / VM nerf, I dare to say that there are no more overpowered BO abilites left (although there is a dispute about the Target Subsystem abilites, which should be looked at). However, there a lot of worthless abilites. For detailed feedback, I’d like you to take a look at this thread.
    Captain Abilites
    The abilites you get depending on your career aren’t very balanced. Although I don’t think SNB is broken, I think the other careers’ abilites should be just as viable.
    • Lower Photonic Fleet cooldown. Why can a Klingon use Photonic Fleet every 5 minutes, and a Fed only every 15 minutes anyway? In PvP, the skill is not even much of a nuisance anyway.
    • Change Nadion Inversion to something useful. It’s just … no, nothing.
    • Orbital Strike – I read somewhere you are looking into this one, so I’m already looking forward to that.
    • Lower Miracle Worker cooldown. Any skill that has a longer cooldown than 5 minutes can be neglected, because you can never depend on it.
    • Give Tactical officers some defensive capabilites, and remove some offensive ones.
    Ship Classes and Weapons
    I won’t talk about the differences in bridge officers stations here, because that is related to the BO abilites and you should check the thread I posted above for that. However, there are some other things about ship classes and weapons I’d like to see changed.
    • Beams are vastly inferior to cannons. While I agree escorts should fill an offensive role, the current difference is way too huge. This is partly due to the crit system, dual heavy cannons’ innate [CrtD] bonus and stacking tactical’s offensive abilities.
    • Science ships’ innate target subsystem skills should have a higher level (not rank!). Currently they are only at level 1, which results in a horrible 90 seconds or so cooldown.
    • Increase science consoles back to the old values. If you think that certain abilities get too much benefits from +30 consoles, then change the ability. I don’t understand why an escort can get add +120 points to their whole weapons’ output, and a science ship can’t get +120 points for 1 or 2 lousy skills that have which have also a considerable cooldown (contrary to weapons).
    • Engineering resist consoles should apply to shields, too. This would make other choices besides EPS flow consoles more attractive, and lower the overall huge damage. If you think this wouldn’t work well, add new consoles that add specific shield resists.
    • Plasma, Tetryon and Polaron weapons are inferior to the other types. The plasma burn from plasma weapons and the shielddamage from tetryon should scale with the weapons power. 80 points of shielddamage are pathetic at higher tiers, and so is the neglectable plasma burn damage. The –25 power drain from polaron weapons sounds immense, but with the current EPS flow values, you hardly notice it. I think polaron should drain a little less power, but disable the EPS flow for a few seconds (-15 drain / 3 second disable, for example).
    • Plasma, Chroniton, and Transphasic torpedoes are inferior to the other types. I have no specific suggestion here, but the effect and kinetic base damage have to be balanced.


    Conclusion

    Phew. What a wall of text. But this is the summary of 3 months playing as a Starfleet officer and a Klingon, engaging in forum discussion and crawling through dozens of rants, feedbacks and trollposts. I don’t think I could have kept it any shorter.

    So, among all my suggestions, I think there are 3 points that are not only vital to the success of STO, but will also increase everyone’s gaming experience by a lot.

    #1 Balance PvP, make all skills, weapons, careers and ships viable, in PvP and PvE. I understand this is a huge task, but it is impossible to do “some” or “a little” balance. Everything has to be considered. However, I am aware that true balance will never be accomplished, or might not even desireable, because different ships and classes should excel in different roles. But keep the gaps as small as possible.

    #2 Sector Space revision. While I think the layout itself is a good approach, I’d like you to consider my proposed changes above. Why sector space? Because it’s a core part of the game, and I expect changes towards more immersion taking the biggest effects here.

    #3 Gives us meaningful PvP. We need this soon. Season 3 should revolve around this, or if you want to introduce a new faction in Season 3, no later than Season 4.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited May 2010
    Great feedback thread Faulgor.

    I'm with you on the warp streaks in Sector Space. That woud greatly help immersion. Heck, I've seen warp streaks in Star Trek flash games and saw how they helped make it feel like the player was at warp.

    I also dislike Starfleet looking over my shoulder. Not to mention that I'm sometimes not even in charge of my ship - bridge officers will take their own initiative such as contacting starfleet on their own. It's not just that; the game is full of aggravating instances when bridge officers go and do something on their own that I could've chosen to order them. I hate that!
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited May 2010
    Thumbs up on most of the proposals. I totally agree about nerfing TACs and buffing ENGs, escpecially the captain skills you mentioned. Having seen both, things just seem ridiculously IMBA.

    Also: I know which MMO you are referring to. :p

    PS:
    Zoberraz wrote: »
    I also dislike Starfleet looking over my shoulder. Not to mention that I'm sometimes not even in charge of my ship - bridge officers will take their own initiative such as contacting starfleet on their own. It's not just that; the game is full of aggravating instances when bridge officers go and do something on their own that I could've chosen to order them. I hate that!

    I suggest you confine them to the brig until further notice. Insubordination like that can cost your ship in battle! ;)
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited May 2010
    i just want to input here that putting interiors in the game is like a small plaster on a huge sore that is sto.

    sto = star trek. it suffers from a fundamental design flaw, where by you cannot go anywhere you want to go in space, and are limited to fully mapped out shoe boxes.

    so no matter what they put in the game, it'll get old very fast. because the overall reason we should be playing, does not exist.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited May 2010
    "sto = star trek. it suffers from a fundamental design flaw, where by you cannot go anywhere you want to go in space, and are limited to fully mapped out shoe boxes.

    so no matter what they put in the game, it'll get old very fast. because the overall reason we should be playing, does not exist
    "

    lol

    i agree. they should do away with everything in sector space

    show the map like a blob galaxy that expands as you fly around and if you see something it gets marked
    except for a like sol or something

    then have no invisible walls- have it like when your at a planet and it says your going nowhere and fake the viewer out

    really just delete stuff

    and if people like the map it comes up like 3d (sector space as is) on your viewscreen like in "generations"
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited May 2010
    Cruis.In wrote: »
    i just want to input here that putting interiors in the game is like a small plaster on a huge sore that is sto.

    sto = star trek. it suffers from a fundamental design flaw, where by you cannot go anywhere you want to go in space, and are limited to fully mapped out shoe boxes.

    so no matter what they put in the game, it'll get old very fast. because the overall reason we should be playing, does not exist.
    attacko wrote:
    lol

    i agree. they should do away with everything in sector space

    show the map like a blob galaxy that expands as you fly around and if you see something it gets marked
    except for a like sol or something

    then have no invisible walls- have it like when your at a planet and it says your going nowhere and fake the viewer out

    really just delete stuff

    and if people like the map it comes up like 3d (sector space as is) on your viewscreen like in "generations"

    I'd really like to comment on what you are saying, but unfortunately, I can't quite grasp your complaint. I take it you don't like the current concept of sector space? Do you care to explain?
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited May 2010
    Wow! Great work, highly detailed! Feel free to take a look at any of the items listed in Saving STO, there's more than 3 items and it would be helpful to Cryptic to have some critical analysis on them. Thanks for doing this though, well done!
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited May 2010
    bkzland wrote: »
    Thumbs up on most of the proposals. I totally agree about nerfing TACs and buffing ENGs, escpecially the captain skills you mentioned. Having seen both, things just seem ridiculously IMBA.

    What OP proposed is lowering Tactical damage while giving them more survivability. I don't see that as a nerf. And it's something I'm 100% for. It might make me switch back to Escort.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited May 2010
    Wow! Great work, highly detailed! Feel free to take a look at any of the items listed in Saving STO, there's more than 3 items and it would be helpful to Cryptic to have some critical analysis on them. Thanks for doing this though, well done!

    Thanks! I like the detailed discussion in your thread, I hope Cryptic takes a look there. I think I adressed most of the topics in the first post of your thread as well, more or less. The same suggestions pop up again and again, so I'm confident the Devs will notice them eventually.

    :)
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited May 2010
    Nerf Klingons? Why? I have been on both sides in PvP. Been on tonnes of SF and KDF teams that have won and lost. In GPvP it is simple: the first team that is broken up will more than likely lose. SPvP, depends on which one you mean: assault is basically the same as GPvP; capture and hold, well that is really bad strategy on SF side of thinking one massive Fed Ball rolling through as KDF split in to teams of one holding the Fed Ball on one zone, and others capturing zones. I have no idea why people think KDF need to be nerfed. I can only assume it is maybe for one of the following: they never played the KDF side enough to understand most KDF content is PvP, and have to endure a lot to get to BG5; most KDF will skill there toon to be GPvP or SPvP and not both; there are few KDF left and most of them are usually hardcore PvPers; they are not that good at PvP.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited May 2010
    Nerf Klingons? Why? I have been on both sides in PvP. Been on tonnes of SF and KDF teams that have won and lost. In GPvP it is simple: the first team that is broken up will more than likely lose. SPvP, depends on which one you mean: assault is basically the same as GPvP; capture and hold, well that is really bad strategy on SF side of thinking one massive Fed Ball rolling through as KDF split in to teams of one holding the Fed Ball on one zone, and others capturing zones. I have no idea why people think KDF need to be nerfed. I can only assume it is maybe for one of the following: they never played the KDF side enough to understand most KDF content is PvP, and have to endure a lot to get to BG5; most KDF will skill there toon to be GPvP or SPvP and not both; there are few KDF left and most of them are usually hardcore PvPers; they are not that good at PvP.

    I am sorry if I gave the impression that I want Klingons nerfed. This is not the case.
    When I said "Balance (Nerf Klingons! Nerf SNB!)", it was intended as a fictional quote to summarize the criticism concerning PvP balance.
    I am playing a Klingon myself, and after the recent change to FBP, I did not notice any severe discrepancy between the two factions.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited May 2010
    Faulgor wrote: »
    Thanks! I like the detailed discussion in your thread, I hope Cryptic takes a look there. I think I adressed most of the topics in the first post of your thread as well, more or less. The same suggestions pop up again and again, so I'm confident the Devs will notice them eventually.

    :)

    They definitely notice!

    Glad you liked it, hope you don't mind, since most folks won't visit the other thread but might be interested in immersion, I've reposted #279 below since you inspired it:
    Faulgor wrote: »
    ...Immersion...[too long to repost]

    I like how the author broke it up into two sections, graphics and game-play. Both are important, although I suspect I'm more forgiving of the over sized bridges than I am of a Federation mission that is contrary to a Federation feel (e.g., murdering bar patrons in a bar fight, attacking first). I certainly can't argue with any of the things they listed, primarily because everyone will have different ideas as to what's most important to them (e.g., I'm sure Worf feels a big gun is a must :D).

    Now, few people I suspect would like to be called Role-Players these days, but really that's what immersion is about - that when you play your character, for a brief time, you live in their world and experience things through their eyes.

    I suspect, because there are so many trekkers out there, people expected STO to take the MMO world by storm because they want to be immersed in the Star Trek IP. Those who were probably most willing to "jump into" a character were the Klingons. Certainly, on that fated black-Monday when they learned there would be no Klingon Adventures at launch, they made themselves loudly heard.

    As far as I know, there are no hard and fast rules for what makes something immersive. In many ways, it's a personal experience, something you bring to the table. But, the conditions have to be right. In other MMOs I usually have quite a few characters, but the ones that get played are the ones that "speak to me". So, it's a combination of me, the MMO universe, the character, and the character's background. Some games, like Dragon Age, force these on you (since there are several types though its easy to find one you like) and it can be effective at first, but that feeling fades once you get further from the start.

    The good news is that those people are still out there, still want that result. So, really understanding what immersion is in the Star Trek world is probably one of the most important topics there is for Cryptic/STO.

    Klingons have it a bit easier for immersion as there's less diversity. Immersion for Klingons means being steeped in a religious warrior culture that has strict social rules. Which you can choose to embrace (e.g., Worf) or subvert to your own ends (e.g., Duras). When you click the Cloak button on your ship and the attack music plays, tell me it doesn't yet stir the Klingon Heart in your soul?

    Similarly, being Vulcan or Andorian is fairly clear. But, Cryptic didn't make a race specific game as so many MMOs. Instead its faction based - so missions are KDF or Federation. None of which can be tailored easily to a specific race's belief system. So, I suspect immersion into your main character is very hard to do unless you have a strong affinity for that character to begin with.

    In addition to your character, there is the universe around you (which consists of things like space, weapons, the ship), your crew, and your missions. We can take a good cue from the TV shows on all of these things. For example, in the shows there was always a social dynamic between the bridge officers. This gave them all personalities. Currently your bridge crew feels like cardboard. They are most alive the first time you dress them up. From there, it's all down hill. But, that doesn't mean Cryptic couldn't play with your bridge officers to help with the immersion. For example, a Ferengi might quote a rule of acquisition in a given situation (Dragon Age constantly has banter between group members and that trick keeps those characters alive in your mind).

    Long I know, but that's my two cents on immersion. What are yours?
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited May 2010
    I mostly like the suggestions but I say no to messing with my uniforms!!!! :)
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited May 2010
    To Faulgor

    We seem to be on similar pages. I created a thread Monday that covers similar (but slightly different) territory.

    Would you like to team up? I've never been one for doing things for the solo-xp. :D

    http://forums.startrekonline.com/showthread.php?t=156742

    Anyways, let me know - if you have any ideas that need mock-ups or if I can contribute mine. I can do a slick presentation, if you'd like. :)
Sign In or Register to comment.