test content
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc

Officers - More Flexibility

SystemSystem Member, NoReporting Posts: 178,019 Arc User
Hello,

What would everyone think if all Officer Positions were to be Universal on All ships?

I think the current system is still a bit inflexible when it comes to mixing and matching different Careers with Different ships (example tactical officer using a cruiser) etc.

The Ships themselves already have constraints, in terms of capabilities bonuses and consoles appropriate to their primary role.

Why do we absolutely have to have an Engineer Commander and not being able to choose a Science or tactical Commander for our ships.

According to cannon it falls upon the captain to choose whom they prefer to have part of their bridge senior staff. I think it could be beneficial from both a Consistency with Cannons perspective but more importantly a gameplay perspective giving more purpose to seeking, training and exchanging officer right now.

Also more purpose to reassigning officers for different mission profiles, I have had the same officers since launch I really do not see the need to change them around much with the current system, on top of it as a tactical officer Commanding Cruisers, I can't even teach Lt.Commander and Commander skills to any of my officers since I have none that could use what I can teach anyways.

I had made a similar Thread near launch and there was talk about First officers, but that never seems to have materialized since then.

I think it would permit for more in-game customization as well to all of us trying different configurations of officers/abilities with different ships. And most importantly emphasize our role as captains too, able to choose our own Bridge officers instead of having these imposed by a standard template associated to the ship itself making it feel less organic, like if Bridge officers were themselves some type of Ship equipment rather than live beings.

What does everyone think about this?
Post edited by Unknown User on
«1

Comments

  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited October 2010
    Let the extreme min/maxing commence!

    Hell YEAH!
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited October 2010
    So, you think it is a bad Idea then?

    I mean, yes there maybe people that may elect (like we have observed with Klingons), to put in a bunch of Science officers instead, this is true.

    However, that also shows I think the vulnerability of the system itself, if that is the case.

    Maybe, just maybe in trying to accomplish something like this the questions that will be raised, will actually help find solutions that can help all of the system as it is now, and solidify the Ships their damage model and reduce the reliance to Powers in combat towards a more tactical model.

    Other than that, I think that Engineering Powers are still necessary for the most efficient use of Cruisers, and overdoing it towards one side will weaken another one. At least in theory it should be like that.

    Yet, the player gets to make this choice like that, and choosing a good mix of officers becomes part of being a Starship Captain.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited October 2010
    Last they said they were looking into giving them there own special buff but no details. I think they were going to split them into a ground and space format.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited October 2010
    It would be a bad idea.

    Why would anyone play a Science Vessel if you can outfit a Cruiser with all science skills? You have better hulland weapons, and you can use the same skills, and you can even optimzie your engineering skill selection to cover your survivability. (and 30 % shield resistance from Emergency Power to Shields beats +25 % shield capacity.)

    There is no reason to fly the BoP if you can equip a Raptor with the same (even a better loadout) and have more shields and hull. The Defiant might suddenly be the best escort in the game - better maneuverability, cloak and freely customziable BO layout?

    You might see Cruisers less useful, since Escorts can get the same survivability from powers and the difference in hull & shields is not that big, but you get better maneuverability and weapon choices. (The BoP sacrifices a lot more hull and shields then Escorts).

    I suspect Escorts might be the winneron the Fed side, and Carriers and Raptors on the KDF side (unless the Vor'Chas maneuverability is seen "good enough" to use dual cannons by everyone). Carriers will simply load up Cruiser loadouts (which they probably work a lot better with then with Science skills.) and be as indestructable as Cruisers, but with a screen of fighters for extra firepower.

    Alpha-Strike builds with Attack Pattern Beta, Cannon Rapid Fire and Beam Overload combined with Photonic Shockwave and Charged Particle Bursts to blast away any enemies defenses _and_ his ability to counter it.

    No, let's not go there.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited October 2010
    Hey, I live to min/max now.

    This would probably be very bad for game balance and design, but since the game is designed so remotely from Star Trek (seriously, this game feels like something else, with a Star Trek skin) I find myself utterly unconcerned about doing damage to its design or balance any more. I'm now much more concerned with my own min/maxing and seeing how many ways I can break the system in order to be overpowered.

    So, lets do it.

    :D
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited October 2010
    Mustrum,

    You bring up good points and raise good questions, which actually flesh out what can be considered issues with the implementation.

    I feel like Thomas, in that more often than not the game feels like something other than Star Trek, specially in the area of StarShips, in other areas cryptic did a great Job, Custumes Missions, Relevance to Lore, Accolades, Economic System, Dresses, Uniforms I feel all these are in line with ST..but when it comes to StarShips..(the main attraction for many)...it is where things get inconsistent.

    So, maybe this is the issue here, with the implementation, there aren't enough Differences between Ships Themselves, and maybe between Career Powers too.

    You ask why would anyone want to fly a Science Ship? The "normal" answer should be because a Science ships is equipped for conducting Scientific missions, contains Extensive Laboratories, and equipped with more precise and sophisticated Sensor Arrays. And requires appropriate crew with the knowledge to operate that equipment and fulfill the Scientific needs of a given mission.

    I understand that Cryptic wanted to sum all that up and flesh it out through the BO's, but at the same time we run in to some issues like the one I mention in the OP.

    In Start Trek, all ships can perform attack pattern Alpha, Beta Gamma, Omega, the Picard maneuver etc, and that is because all Helmsen learn these maneuvers in StarFleet Academy, but also because teh Ship themselves are capable of these maneuvers.

    All ships would be able to launch a Torpedo Volley or Fire at Will, again that is because all tactical officers learn these Standard operations in StarFleet Academy, but also because these are functionality of the Equipment on the ships themselves.

    And in Star Trek, all Captains have the choice of the Configuration of their bridge Crew, it does not come as part of the Configuration of the Ship. So in a way, STO's approach is the Reverse. BO's are like peices of equipment on ships.

    Kirk's Enterprise, a Cruiser Class ship in this game, had a Science Officer as its Commander, and two "Tactical officers" (Chekov and Sulu, even if Sulu was actually the helmsman), and only one Chief Engineer, in this game you can't do that...this is what is just one inconsistency.

    Picard's Enterprise, again a Cruiser in this game, also had a Tactical officer as Commander, plus a Tactical officer.

    On the Defiant, an Escort Ship in this game, Sisko was able to bring in Worf, a tactical officer or Dax, a Science officer, depending on the mission at hand which would both act as Commanders.

    On the Voyager, a Science Ship in this game, Janeway was able to choose Chakotay as her Commander, and he was a Tactical Officer, not a Scientist or an Engineer.

    So, the game's approach to all of this is quite inconsistent, to what its target audience was and is expecting to experience.

    And I understand as well as agree with the comments made here, about game balance, but at the same time, I do not make this suggestion just because I want to min/max or get more powers...I also make it because I think it is a core and central point of failure in the implementation.

    And I think if Cryptic is truly seeking to improve STO and probably reinvite back all those that found this game inconsistent and "Un-Trekky", this is a very good place to start improvement of the system.

    Make the ships carry their role and the capabilities, and not only be shells with different appearance...and let the Players be Captains.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited October 2010
    Much like the other threads on the subject I still think its silly to want universal BOff slots because one KDF vessel (BoP/light scout) has them and having U-slots on every vessel in STO would further ruin any shred of uniqueness of the existing vessel ingame making STO into a more vanilla flavor than it already may be.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited October 2010
    Roach wrote: »
    Much like the other threads on the subject I still think its silly to want universal BOff slots because one KDF vessel (BoP/light scout) has them and having U-slots on every vessel in STO would further ruin any shred of uniqueness of the existing vessel ingame making STO into a more vanilla flavor than it already may be.

    Well, it is not as if the request is unreasonable, far-fetched or non consistent with Trek Lore...so it is normal if some of the points I brought up you have seen in other threads, it is because this is how many Trek fans feel when they have to do comparisons with this game. And just because these arguments have been posted before, that does not mean that these are invalid.

    Now, having said that, as I said in my previous reply, in terms of game mechanics, just putting in U-Officers everywhere, will cause more issues than it may solve. i understand that myself.

    Yet, it is assumed by making this suggestion that the systems connecting to this feature will also be adjusted in order to avoid said issues.

    So if you have any ideas as to how, you would see, ships still remaining unique in the case where all officers were universal, it would be far more valuable than just saying, "there will be issues if we do that".

    And since, If BO's are the only thing that makes some vessels unique right now, then what does that say about the value of the ships themselves in this game?

    There is a larger picture here that must be looked at.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited October 2010
    I would love to see something of this implemented. It may require a rethinking of what makes each class unique, which at the moment also seems to be a problem. Have a pure Universal slot lay out would be cool, and to some extents would allow for more diverse builds. But there will, as there is now, min maxing.

    Even a system that has some universal slots would benefit ships and captains better.

    Of course, we come back to the same problem. the ships. People are right in saying that some ships would be obsolete or useless with out having fixed slots, but if the system was really balanced, then each class of ship would offer it's own advantages and universal slots wouldn't hurt them as badly as they would in their current incarnation. But That just emphasizes how weak some vessels are. Science ships on the fed side need to rethought, and ships in general should have more distinct feature of what makes them unique.

    in the end, universal slots aren't nearly as big a problem as people would like to think, it's just that having fixed slots helps hide some of the short comings of different vessels.

    Of course, I would be one for just removing ensign level Bo slots from the higher tier vessels all together.
    Maybe that is what's needed. Who knows.

    Balance would be achieved, but it might change quite a few things if it was implemented, for better, or for worse.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited October 2010
    Suraknar wrote: »
    So if you have any ideas as to how, you would see, ships still remaining unique in the case where all officers were universal, it would be far more valuable than just saying, "there will be issues if we do that".
    I see no such scenerio being possible without some sort of limiting measure on the number of a specific class of BO's you could in your vessels u-slots. Thats the only balance to keeping someone from running vessel to far outside of its designed function and making "Flying Cannons" simple all tac gunships with healing coming from an outside source, "Angels" secondary all heal boats that do nothing but support , etc, etc. BO slot number and thier rankings could remain the same I imagine.
    What I believe we would end up with after all was said and done and implemented into the game is just another example of the same system we are using now instead my science ship can be all tactical if I wish and no vessel has any unique reason to be captained, unless it has a special ability, making them just skins with different BO slot configurations and rankings.
    If a First officer (XO) system is wanted in STO ( I would like it) then I say choosing a first officer should allow for the ability to have a change in how the ship BO slots are seperated (class/rank) based on your XO's class and make it the new configuration primary. Further I think that STO would benefit better from the Champions Online mechanic that allowed you to have different build base configurations (Attack/Defend/etc) on a single character and switch between them. Said builds had different configuration of allowed powers and would allow for more customized BO set-ups.Such builds could be based off of;
    A) Vessel Classification: Based on the actual design class of said vessel ( cruiser,escort,science)
    [/INDENT]BO slots are allotted to support the primary design over secondary capabilities.
    B) Captains (player characters) archetype/class: Based on the class choice of the player
    character. BO slots are allotted to support the PC class choice over secondary
    capabilities.
    C) First Officer (XO): Based on the class of chosen XO chosen, BO slots are allotted accordingly
    to support said class over secondary capabilities.

    THis would give three different builds per vessel per character without turning the whole choice of BO slots into a huge vanilla U-slot nightmare making STO into just another skins shooting skins in space combat game with a storyline.

    And since, If BO's are the only thing that makes some vessels unique right now, then what does that say about the value of the ships themselves in this game?
    That they designed them from a graphical standpoint (looks/movies/Tv) and not from a genre described perspective capturing the unique design concepts in the builders minds as well as the brass that wants said ship built that gives each vessel in Star Trek lore its individual appeal.
    Several ships in the KDF for instance do not appear to be design as they have been described in the genre. The same could be said for the federation as well.
    For instance the B'rel ( a BoP looking vessel) is considered a cruiser class vessel and is somewhat slower and ponderous for it, though heavily armed, over the much smaller D-11/D-12 light scout bird of prey they resemble- yet STO has it as a BoP in form and function I believe.
    The Neg'vhar is so over built for war that its armored hull acted as second set of shielding in the genre gaming materials I've read on the Klingons and their culture in Star Trek. Yet said "special ability" is not present in the current STO design.
    As for the federation, the Defiant Original was considered both a "floating gun" platform and a highly durable vessel in its ability to resist heavy amounts of damage before eventual destruction. Something that particular escorts does not exhibit to some players, though others have had wonderful succes in survivibility.
    The vessels of STO appear to be designed to fill, in a unconvential capacity, the same Holy Trinity set-up as all MMO's and that is a mistake in my opinion.
    Design should conform to the purpose for which it was concieved.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited October 2010
    You have just received a minimum of the flaming you will get if you try to interfere with any of the Klingon IWIN buttons.

    I feel your pain, but until Cryptic decides to use in game polls the only voices heard will be the loudly QQing Klingons here.

    A Defiant TER with even one Ensign Universal Slot would allow me to mount Polarize Hull and prevent BoP tractors from holding me firmly after/ during the SNB, BT:W,E,S and Feedback Pulse spam encountered in EVERY PvP.

    Your suggestion will destabilize PvP entirely and make it microscopically harder for Klingons to overwhelm their prey even when they attack at the normal 6/ 1 ratio!
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited October 2010
    Dakota2063 wrote: »
    I would love to see something of this implemented. It may require a rethinking of what makes each class unique, which at the moment also seems to be a problem. Have a pure Universal slot lay out would be cool, and to some extents would allow for more diverse builds. But there will, as there is now, min maxing.

    [...]

    Balance would be achieved, but it might change quite a few things if it was implemented, for better, or for worse.

    Exactly! That is it! :)

    Roach wrote: »
    That they designed them from a graphical standpoint (looks/movies/Tv) and not from a genre described perspective capturing the unique design concepts in the builders minds as well as the brass that wants said ship built that gives each vessel in Star Trek lore its individual appeal.
    Several ships in the KDF for instance do not appear to be design as they have been described in the genre. The same could be said for the federation as well.

    [...]

    Design should conform to the purpose for which it was concieved.

    Now these are some very good ideas here, a more pure system based on design and role profile. Which would permit more Flexibility overall, such as even, combined battles with ships of all Classes and Captains of any rank each within the role and own capacity.

    A game that does accomplish this is POTBS, and while it is themed around SailingShip of Pirate era, it has one of the best Combat systems there is, and ST combat is not that dissimilar, instead of being at Sea it is in Space yet Roddenberry did base his vision of StarShip combat on WWII Naval Combat.

    Which if you think about it, the trinity is still there, battleships versus Destroyer and Frigate and specialty Ships (Carriers, PT Boats, Subs), Armor vs Damage vs Support.

    Thlaylie wrote: »
    You have just received a minimum of the flaming you will get if you try to interfere with any of the Klingon IWIN buttons.

    [...]

    Your suggestion will destabilize PvP entirely and make it microscopically harder for Klingons to overwhelm their prey even when they attack at the normal 6/ 1 ratio!

    As has been expressed a couple of replies above we are agreeing that we are discussing this within a context of also improving connected systems. We all are in agreement that if we were to just open up the BO slots under the current system it would cause issues, yet, not if there were to be improvement in other systems connected to it.

    *****

    The point is that BO's are the central point where it all starts, if Combat itself in STO is to become more like what Star Trek Combat has been in the last 40 years of its existence, something we all have grown up with and love, and not something completely inconsistent with it as it is now in STO. Dakota explained this better than me in a conceptual manner.

    And Roach added some good Ideas here that can be used as a basis for the actual mechanics. Which would be different than what is there right now.

    We ould end up fighting with Ships and their weapons, offensive and defensive capabilities and their crews instead of with a BO's in a Costume Shell, as it is now.

    I joined the queues yesterday and while I see overall an improvement of the current system compared to before, in the end it was not a battle between ships but rather of abilities, every engagement ended with a bunch of stacked Special abilities Rifts, gravity Wells, Subnuc Beams Viral matrixes...our weapons were really secondary in to all of this, our maneuvers and course plotting tertiary....and on top of it the way of fighting consists of a simplistic approach more appropriate with the fighting of a game such as WoW...consisting of Crowd Controlling the opponent/Disabling, then DPSing the Opponent to Achievee the kill...rinse and repeat.

    Perfectly appropriate in a Character based game of a Fantasy (medieval styled) game such as WoW but not for Ship to Ship Combat.

    What needs to be the point of inspiration for ST battles is really the way it was conceived by its own creator, WWI and WWII Naval battles, take that propel it in the future change the Technology but keep the same tactics and flow involved, that is what made Star Trek.

    Now, maybe the same can be used to make Star Trek Online, because the answer is there before our eyes.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited October 2010
    The problem with this game is following the core of other mmo where one needs, healer, tank, and dps which I do believe it called the trinity. I would have loved it even more if Bridge officer actually do affect the performers of a ship like the way it was in Starfleet command. The reason for say this is because it all comes down to what officers you have if they are experience enough to unlock the ability that the ship give and what they have learn too. Some of the skills we get for our bridge officer is stupid because they are meant to be ship skills not the other way round. For example why should a tractor beam be a bridge officer skill? If I recall all ships do have tractor beams.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited October 2010
    Yes Bellsarius, the point you bring up is another great one!

    I agree absolutelly, some of the Powers that BO's currently have are supposed to be part of normal ship operations that all ships have as standard equipment.

    Which shows how inconsistent the system really is, a great example.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited October 2010
    Suraknar wrote: »
    Hello,

    What would everyone think if all Officer Positions were to be Universal on All ships?

    I think the current system is still a bit inflexible when it comes to mixing and matching different Careers with Different ships (example tactical officer using a cruiser) etc.

    What does everyone think about this?

    I understand where you are going in all this, however that extra slot makes the ship unique and perhaps they need to simply add other varieties in that which you are talking about. Ill tell you what, i love that Universal Slot on my Nebula, i was talking to others about this and i said the very thing you mentioned then they pointed out it would take that uniqueness away from that line of ships that are granted such a universal slot. However, instead of giving all the ships the same thing, perhaps cryptic can come up with something else unique, though iam split on the whole issue.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited November 2010
    Acidrain wrote: »
    I understand where you are going in all this, however that extra slot makes the ship unique and perhaps they need to simply add other varieties in that which you are talking about. Ill tell you what, i love that Universal Slot on my Nebula, i was talking to others about this and i said the very thing you mentioned then they pointed out it would take that uniqueness away from that line of ships that are granted such a universal slot. However, instead of giving all the ships the same thing, perhaps cryptic can come up with something else unique, though iam split on the whole issue.

    Yes it is assumed that this leads to suggestions which Cryptic can use to come up with something new all together, which maybe more consistent with Trek and Ship to Ship Combat and less like Character Combat dressed as Spaceships.

    I also saw the Nebula's Universal Slot and I think part of what you are experiencing is in line with some of what has been said here, now Immagine if the system were to become even more flexible like this, and combat overall more Ship and tactical centric rather than CC\DPS\Kill centric as is conductive with current layout of abilities.

    Everyone should consider this I think because right now, we are not fighting with ships vs Ships we are fighting rather with BO Powers Package vs BO power Package all encased in a Ship Costume.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited November 2010
    I've never been able to come up with good reason that your Boffs get all 4 ground abillities, but are oft limited to 1 or 2 space abilities. I think they all need to be bumped up one rank.

    And also, we should be able to trade & train Boffs between our alts via email.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited November 2010
    Suraknar wrote: »
    Yes it is assumed that this leads to suggestions which Cryptic can use to come up with something new all together, which maybe more consistent with Trek and Ship to Ship Combat and less like Character Combat dressed as Spaceships.

    I also saw the Nebula's Universal Slot and I think part of what you are experiencing is in line with some of what has been said here, now Immagine if the system were to become even more flexible like this, and combat overall more Ship and tactical centric rather than CC\DPS\Kill centric as is conductive with current layout of abilities.

    Everyone should consider this I think because right now, we are not fighting with ships vs Ships we are fighting rather with BO Powers Package vs BO power Package all encased in a Ship Costume.

    Suraknar,

    I think it is important to see that Cryptic come up with more inventive ways to bring that little more trek to the player, with that and through variety in customizing and even have an edge in part to ones setup in any role or that of a opponent which I complete favor.

    I even favor more micromanagement when it comes to the power distribution of the ships in regards to what isn’t on that of the UI, while we do have some kind of micromanagement in regards to powers of one’s ship, it just isn’t enough still and I would welcome more of that and along those lines.

    I completely agree that anything to make it far more flexible within that of the system, again I welcome it and I really enjoy what I have experienced in the changes to what the Nebula has in its own uniqueness which IMO had been lacking, just as some ships to a certain degree should be limited to what powers one should be able to adapt or apply, even to the point of having to train your officer properly in a certain area which would allow one to adapt or use on ones ship.

    I completely agree again, that at the moment we are fighting ships vs. ships rather than fighting with BO powers packages vs. BO’s, though at the same time ships should have unique stats, while also and along those areas in that of the BO’s, it would bring an rather unique dynamic in the game.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited November 2010
    Suraknar wrote: »

    Everyone should consider this I think because right now, we are not fighting with ships vs Ships we are fighting rather with BO Powers Package vs BO power Package all encased in a Ship Costume.

    Just changing all BO slots to universal, like you requested in the OP, wouldn't change that.


    As for suggestions that have come up about ship uniqueness and such, it's unlikely to happen because it would require a new engine and retooling of ships to play differently from each other due to parameters that currently don't exist...basically the current system and game engine is too simple for that kind of change.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited November 2010
    Just changing all BO slots to universal, like you requested in the OP, wouldn't change that.

    True it would not, it would require some retooling to connected systems as has been mentioned in the thread, so you are right here, it isassumed that this would happen should Cryptic decide to undertake, what would be interesting to discuss however is ideas of how you would see it going should assuming that some retooling is accepted.

    In other words what would you like to see retooled in terms of ships and some of the mechanics in order to be able to offer more flexibility with BO's to Captains?

    As for suggestions that have come up about ship uniqueness and such, it's unlikely to happen because it would require a new engine and retooling of ships to play differently from each other due to parameters that currently don't exist...basically the current system and game engine is too simple for that kind of change.

    I cannot answer this with certainty, I do not think anyone of us players is in a position to know what the current engine is capable to do or not. I am assuming it is possible from a programmatic view, then of course it is a question, of available possibilities, desire, time and money and justification.

    As a player I think it is justified, because I see the system, both not consistent with trek tech lore, but also it does not play like trek either, which is the more important factor, given the fact that all this is for the purpose of a game.

    I understand that not everything can be represented the same way in a game, and there are some sacrifices to realism in favor of game play too in every game, otherwise these would be simulators not game. It must be fun.

    Yet that fun in the context of this game goes hand in hand with its Sci-Fi lore too, this is the biggest challenge I think.

    There is much material to draw inspiration from, actually there are other games about ST Starship Combat too that have implemented systems more in line with its Tech Lore compared to STO's implementation as well, but I try to avoid speaking of it because I get the feeling that Artists (I see game Development as an Art mainly), usually like to create something different form one another and not copy each-other, albeit, drawing inspiration from one another is actually very common.

    So my comments come as a player, Fan of Star Trek, that is drawn to this game because it is about the Theme that I am Fan of, and have that small expectation to be able to experience it as per the pre-established Lore of that Theme.

    I signed up to experience Star Trek, not WoW or City of heroes or Champions Online (all fine games within their own context) dressed up as Star Ships. It is a simple expectation for us players, I understand it maybe a huge challenge for the Developers, yet maybe by discussing it, we can provide not only feedback of how we see and feel about the game in its current implementation but also some ideas that the Devs, provided there is desire and possibility to do, could use and improve the game to be more consistent with those expectations.

    it can only be positive down the line as I see it, for all.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited November 2010
    Bescuase some of the BO abilities in the current system are overpowered, and certain ships have more slots alotted to certain BO classes, this would bring some level of balance to the game.

    however it wouldnt bring much, and it would be a "false" solution.

    the number one problem with making all BO slots universal on all ships is that science ships would be made completely useless, and cruisers would be made even MORE powerful then they are already.

    the only thing that makes a science vessel worth playing is that it can pack a lot of science BO skills, where most other ships cannot.

    if you take that uniqueness away from the science vessels, then they ALL become light cruisers with 1/4 less hull and 2 less weapons..... period
    they would become antiquated and obsolete class and all science captains would then opt for the cruisers.

    along the same lines, the only difference between ships would then become hull and armament.
    the cruiser would have a tremendous advantage because it would have 5 universal officer slots, maximum hull, maximum shields and 8 weapons! WOW

    on paper, a shrewed and ambitious cruiser captain (probably the OP's chosen ship type) would argue that fed escorts have speed and the ability to use cannons.
    however speed doesnt really account for much in this game, cruisers can already outheal damage done by escort cannons...
    and additionally, people forget about the KLINGON factor.

    if all ships had universal BO slots then klingon vessels would have an EXTREME advantage, especially the klingon battle cruisers.
    now battle cruisers would have universal BO slots, 8 weapons, cannons, superior hull, cloak and superior shields.
    ITS MADNESS!!!
    but if you REALLY want my tactical to drop BOP and climb in a cannon toting heavy cruiser, with rapid fire 3, alpha 3, high yeild 3, delta, omega, fire on my mark, go down fighting and beta!
    AND a good amount of defense to keep my battlecruiser healthy.... I AM ON BOARD!!!! count me in!
    it will be like a slower BoP with double the hull, double the shields, and extra weapons and bridge officers!!! OK!!!!

    this would cause so many more problems than solutions....

    i have often thought about this idea, especially sicne i not only fly BoP's but also fed escorts.
    fed escorts on paper would benefit from loading up on defense powers like the BoP already does.
    then i quickly remember the other side of the fence...
    and imagine what it would be like for an engy cruiser to use engy captain skills for invincible defense, while smacking me with HY3, delta 3, omega 3, beam overload 3 and all sorts of tactical meyhem from a vessel that already has the most hull, most shields, and most weapons. NOT GOOD

    you can further argue that the excelcior might be what a universal cruiser would operate like... but you are forgetting the min/maxing factor.

    THEN...
    we have to factor in that you would be essentially taking away somthing unique to the klingons.
    the klingon are already a faction that is starving for content and identity.
    to take EVEN MORe away from them would probably send more klingons to the "cancel subscription" line.
    of course... most feds will say "who cares about the klingons". but that is probably why the game is in the state that it is in.
    shortsighted and selfish wish lists from spoiled fed customers.

    MAYBE...
    a decent compromise would be to make the commander officer on every vessel a mandatory slot, based on vessel type.
    then make the ensign slot on "specialty ships" (such as fleet escort or star cruiser) also mandatory slots based on vessel class/type.
    then make the other BO positions universal.
    in that way you can keep the primary purpose of a ship in check, while still adding flexibility.
    the BoP can sill retain battle cloak, and also retain COMPLETE BO universal stations, and still lack the rear weapon and the ensign slot. the vessel would take a serious hit, but maybe it can be given somthing in return?

    but i order to impliment this system, the devs would have to iron out the space PvP inbalances that are currently making the Engineering class overpowered and the tactical classes obsolete.

    or this will be the same as adding a missile rack to a battle tank and then giving the infantry man a wooden shield in return.

    um... i'll take the battle tank! keep your wooden shield!
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited November 2010
    Long winded... me too :)
    D-Rek wrote: »
    Bescuase some of the BO abilities in the current system are overpowered, and certain ships have more slots alotted to certain BO classes, this would bring some level of balance to the game.

    however it wouldnt bring much, and it would be a "false" solution.

    the number one problem with making all BO slots universal on all ships is that science ships would be made completely useless, and cruisers would be made even MORE powerful then they are already.

    the only thing that makes a science vessel worth playing is that it can pack a lot of science BO skills, where most other ships cannot.

    if you take that uniqueness away from the science vessels, then they ALL become light cruisers with 1/4 less hull and 2 less weapons..... period
    they would become antiquated and obsolete class and all science captains would then opt for the cruisers.

    Agreed, I know that you probably did not read all of the replies in the discussion, it is well known that most people will maybe read a couple of pages before replying.

    So let me repeat again what has been said in short.

    First it is true and I agree as well that if all ships were to have all of their BO's made universal at this time then the differences between them will favor certain designs vs others. It is also true that it my create more issues than not.

    All this has been acknowledged, the idea of this thread was to start with thei simple questions of "what if BO's were to become Universal" in order to identify areas of the game that can be improved.

    In this "what if" scenario it is also assumed that with this change of BO's to universal other changes to compensate would be provoked, in an attempt to flesh out what can make combat all together more consistent to Trek rather than a Fantasy Game's Trinity of roles.

    So I am skipping a few parts of your reply since you seem to understand the mechanics quite well, however, the issues you mention have been acknowledged so no need for further Ado.
    on paper, a shrewed and ambitious cruiser captain (probably the OP's chosen ship type) would argue that fed escorts have speed and the ability to use cannons.
    however speed doesnt really account for much in this game, cruisers can already outheal damage done by escort cannons...
    and additionally, people forget about the KLINGON factor.

    This here has nothing to do with the Topic in reality but I reply to it because it puzzles me a bit.

    Yes, as I have posted in this thread and numerous others, I command a Cruiser, with a tactical officer.

    Yet you make it sound like if it is a sin to play a cruiser, I immagine however that you are a shrewed and ambitious BOP captain. ;)

    Nevertheless, no I will not argue about Speed and Turning, albeit it plays a very big importance in this game, it is not within the scope at this time.

    The only relation of this thread to the Ships I play is that I play a Hybrid Combination and I am more susceptible to identify caveats in the system because I am limited in some aspects of the game in comparison to someone who plays an Engineer in a Cruiser, or a tac Officer in an Escort. That is it.

    I do feel limited by the game, within my choice of Combining Tac and Cruiser.
    if all ships had universal BO slots then klingon vessels would have an EXTREME advantage, especially the klingon battle cruisers.
    now battle cruisers would have universal BO slots, 8 weapons, cannons, superior hull, cloak and superior shields.
    ITS MADNESS!!!
    but if you REALLY want my tactical to drop BOP and climb in a cannon toting heavy cruiser, with rapid fire 3, alpha 3, high yeild 3, delta, omega, fire on my mark, go down fighting and beta!
    AND a good amount of defense to keep my battlecruiser healthy.... I AM ON BOARD!!!! count me in!
    it will be like a slower BoP with double the hull, double the shields, and extra weapons and bridge officers!!! OK!!!!

    I do not agree here, and I think you over dramatize a bit. The point is that, BO skills account presently for most of the defensive capabilities of Cruisers.

    Even as a tac officer playing one I spend 50% of my time throwing heals to other players, once the enmy realises they all focus on me and then I switch on RSP and continue the healing...

    The point is that if I had access to universal officers, and I did what you suggest above then I would have no Engineering Officer at all, and thus I would not be able to heal nor myself nor anyone else.

    But at least I could find a combination which best matches my style of play and that is the whole point here, to offer players more flexibility instead of boxing them within some predetermined mold.

    Additionally you are not taking under consideration that this Klingn Ship would not be the only one with that capability everyone could have it, so it balances out. Plus you forget that not all players play the same way there would be those that try to cookie cut yet in actual practice they will realise that they maybe strong in some maximized area, like you mention but then find themselves really weak in another area. Finally, it could all possibly balance out because each person is unique, and it is the uniqueness of the player that will make for unique Ships provided we let the player make the choice for themselves and not impose a pre-fabricated choice. The world is Diverse, people are Diverse.
    i have often thought about this idea, especially sicne i not only fly BoP's but also fed escorts.
    fed escorts on paper would benefit from loading up on defense powers like the BoP already does.
    then i quickly remember the other side of the fence...
    and imagine what it would be like for an engy cruiser to use engy captain skills for invincible defense, while smacking me with HY3, delta 3, omega 3, beam overload 3 and all sorts of tactical meyhem from a vessel that already has the most hull, most shields, and most weapons. NOT GOOD

    Yes agreed, as mentioned before, under the current system, it would create more problems than solve any. And only would work if other changes are made even to the effects of powers themselves to avoid the scenarios you mention.

    MAYBE...
    a decent compromise would be to make the commander officer on every vessel a mandatory slot, based on vessel type.
    then make the ensign slot on "specialty ships" (such as fleet escort or star cruiser) also mandatory slots based on vessel class/type.
    then make the other BO positions universal.
    in that way you can keep the primary purpose of a ship in check, while still adding flexibility.
    the BoP can sill retain battle cloak, and also retain COMPLETE BO universal stations, and still lack the rear weapon and the ensign slot. the vessel would take a serious hit, but maybe it can be given somthing in return?

    but i order to impliment this system, the devs would have to iron out the space PvP inbalances that are currently making the Engineering class overpowered and the tactical classes obsolete.

    or this will be the same as adding a missile rack to a battle tank and then giving the infantry man a wooden shield in return.

    um... i'll take the battle tank! keep your wooden shield!

    Yes I agree, under the current implementation the most of Universal slots in order to offer more flexibility would be 1 maximum two.

    I would however prefer that this one be the commander slot or the Lt.Commander, not the Lieutenants. While I understand you logic,I think we would be back to where we are now if only the Lieutenants wereuniversal due to the way Powers are setup in this game.

    There aren't many choices of powers at the Lieutenant level to offer flexibility, and all your lieutenant will end up having the same powers. It serves me nothing to have two HY 2 and 2 Spreads 1 or any combination thereof...when I use one the other will go in cooldown anyways, the idea here is to be able to use some of the higher tactical abilities, even the ones that I can train to my officers which now as a Tac on a Cruiser are not usable by me and that aspect of the game is locked out for me within this combo choice.

    I never had to train any officers because I can never use any of these abilities anyways, so it is like this mechanism of the game doe snot exist for me,

    I agree however that even before this is considered as a change, other aspects need to be addressed first with constitute issue now. While it would give me fun to be able to use some of the more higher tactical Powers in a cruiser, it could potentially overpower Engineers on Cruisers paradoxically, because they have the Class skills which are defensive as well and we will be giving them more Tactical options.

    So provided some mechanics are addressed, then I would be for having 1 Universal officer on every ship, ideally the Commander, which at the same time represents the first officer and would bring this aspect of the game closer to Trek as well as offer more flexibility give the way Power are setup right now in an In versed Pyramid scheme, and require higher rank officers to avoid repetition and provide diverse possibilities to the player, which is very very limiting at this time.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited November 2010
    Honestly get rid of tank, dps, and healer stuff. To make this work they need to think outside of the core mmo world like eve-online did, where cruisers are cruiser like in real world navel and battleship are battleship. No matter how powerful the ships are with an experience the crew even cruiser will be able to take out a battleship. They have to have a system which let bridge officer learn and gain experience to unlock skills in their field without such a system we are stuck with wow clone or I should say champions clone the only different here is we are in a ship costume. The game doesn’t even have a helmsman. The ship need to be give specific role like in the show did.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited November 2010
    Suraknar wrote: »
    As a player I think it is justified, because I see the system, both not consistent with trek tech lore, but also it does not play like trek either, which is the more important factor, given the fact that all this is for the purpose of a game.

    You mean not consistent with your vision of Star Trek. You're not the judge of all things trekkiness.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited November 2010
    Bellsarius wrote:
    Honestly get rid of tank, dps, and healer stuff. To make this work they need to think outside of the core mmo world like eve-online did, where cruisers are cruiser like in real world navel and battleship are battleship. No matter how powerful the ships are with an experience the crew even cruiser will be able to take out a battleship. They have to have a system which let bridge officer learn and gain experience to unlock skills in their field without such a system we are stuck with wow clone or I should say champions clone the only different here is we are in a ship costume. The game doesn’t even have a helmsman. The ship need to be give specific role like in the show did.

    The difference in EvE is that getting the bigger ships costs money - money you risk losing. You field better ships for a better chance of winning, but with that you risk more. There is no risk in STO, so there's no disadvantage bringing a bigger, better ship over a smaller, cheaper one.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited November 2010
    Suraknar wrote: »

    I would however prefer that this one be the commander slot or the Lt.Commander, not the Lieutenants. While I understand you logic,I think we would be back to where we are now if only the Lieutenants wereuniversal due to the way Powers are setup in this game.

    .

    I still feel that to make the top two command slots on any vessel universal will take said vessel away from the area of use for which it was designed, thus making any vessel a science, tactical or engineering vessel. This would make STO very vannilla in flavor and destroy the differences between ship design concept.
    After all as much as a science captain can pilot a Defiant in STO, I don't see the Defiant being all that useful to him due to its tactical layout designed for war over science or a tactical captain making a "fish bowl" science vessel into a highly effective tactical ship because it is not designed for it and said captain will not get the best use of his abilities piloting one.
    Unviersal Commander/Lt. Comander slots on each vessel will erase these distinctions between vessels.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited November 2010
    Roach wrote: »
    I still feel that to make the top two command slots on any vessel universal while take said vessel away from the area of use for which it was designed, thus making any vessel a science, tactical or engineering vessel. This would make STO very vannilla in flavor and destroy the differences between ship design concept.
    After all as much as a science captain can pilot a Defiant in STO, I don't see the Defiant being all that useful to him due to its tactical layout designed for war over science or a tactical captain making a "fish bowl" science vessel into a highly effective tactical ship because it is not designed for it and said captain will not get the best use of his abilities piloting one.
    Unviersal Commander/Lt. Comander slots on each vessel will erase these distinctions between vessels.

    Well, that is why I said, 1 max 2, but with current system 1 would suffice and preferable it should be either the commander or the lt.commander...

    Because what you just used to argue against the suggestion, is actually the caveat of the system as it is. Ships without BO's lose their role in this game.

    While in Star Trek Lore, a given ship is built with a specific Role in mind. The defiant is a tactical Ship even if ALL of its crew were to be Science officers.

    While in the game, if you make all of the Defiants Slots Universal, and you Put all of the BO's being Science..it would seize to be a Tactical ship and would become a Science Ship.

    And voila..that is why the current system is inconsistent with Trek Lore.

    You just summed up the Idea of this thread :)
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited November 2010
    Suraknar wrote: »
    Well, that is why I said, 1 max 2, but with current system 1 would suffice and preferable it should be either the commander or the lt.commander...
    And as I said before, if you make the top command BO slot universal you will take away the "designed build" of the vessel in question and move the game towards a generic format for the ships in it.
    It would be better to have a series of Layouts like Champions so one can have a Captain build with a different BO layout based on the player class, a first officer build based on the BOff class and a ship build based on the design concept of the ship.
    While in Star Trek Lore, a given ship is built with a specific Role in mind. The defiant is a tactical Ship even if ALL of its crew were to be Science officers.
    True the ship is still considered a tactical vessel even if it has no tactical BO's on it due to it being all science and a pistol can be called a hammer and I can build a house with one, but it wont do a very good job of being a hammer and will not last long in that role. Just because I call it a hammer doesn't make it so.
    While in the game, if you make all of the Defiants Slots Universal, and you Put all of the BO's being Science..it would seize to be a Tactical ship and would become a Science Ship.
    Exactly thus becoming something it is not designed for and if all vessels had U-slots there would be no need for different vessel classes and we would just be flying the same ship with different skins, in which case everybody will flock to the best layout hull/shield wise/turnrate wise and every other vessel would be useless.

    I do not to see how my arguement against commander/ltcommander universal slots can be called proof towards you saying we should have them on every vessel.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited November 2010
    Roach, splitting up a reply and then replying out of context to each phrase does not constitute valid argumentation of the Topic at hand.

    You are basically arguing against the words, not the meaning.

    I am not going to play that game. I demonstrated clearly and simply why I consider the current system to be inconsistent, if you are going o argue just for the sake of arguing, in my view you are saying nothing and you basically agree but just do not want to admit it.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited November 2010
    Hello all, :cool:

    I thank everyone that has read and replied with your own thoughts in this Thread. I would like now to bring the discussion a step further, so permit me to post some ideas on a tentative system that I think would give more flexibility to the players and permit for all ships to have Universal BO's, plus bring it closer to Trek.

    So without further ado.



    Universal BO's & Flexibility

    The basic Idea is inspired actually from exciting mechanics of the game right now, it will become clear as you read further. As explained during the initial discussion the suggestion assumed that some systems connected presently to the functionality and implementation of BO's would also alter in some ways in order to make this possible, and in what follows I shall try to give examples in order to represent these ideas.

    The biggest reason why just making all BO universal would not work has been actually several aspects but related to one another.

    1st - It would affect game Balance
    2nd - (related to 1) It would alter the role of Ships
    3rd - (related to 2 ) Ships would lose their uniqueness.

    So first things first,

    Ships & ship equipment functionality

    The core of the idea consist of making a list of Powers that are normally associated to Ship and Ship equipment functionality from the current BO powers.

    For example, Tractor Beam, High yield Torpedo, Rapid Fire, Attack Pattern Omega, Engineering team, Emergency Power to Shields etc.

    And then associating these powers properly as part of the Ship standard Functionality and Ship Equipment that the player can change such as Torpedo launchers, Arrays, Turrets Cannons Shields, Impulse Engines Deflector Dishes and Consoles.

    Also, associate levels of Powers to Character Rank as well as Ship Design.
    For example:

    - All ships will by default have a Tractor Beam and the player will have a power in their Power Tray to activate it on all ships.
    - All ships equipped with a torpedo launcher will have access to torpedo related powers, such as HY and Spread.
    - All ships will have all types of Engineering Teams
    - All ships will be able to call upon Emergency Power to various Systems
    - etc.

    However this will depend on Rank and the Ship as well, so at Ensign We do not have access to these Functionality, and then at Lieutenant we get Spread 1, at Lt.Commander Spread 2, at Captain spread 3, while we could get HY1 at Lt.Commander etc.

    Up to what level certain powers go will depend on ships and their role and will constitute ship Uniqueness.

    In short, what powers are available to a ship depends on the type of equipment we outfit that ship with in priority then depending on Ship Design and Role and Rank. This is the basic principle which by now you may see that it is inspired from how ground Combat Kits and Weapons work. Each Kit has its own abilities and each weapon gives you abilities depending on its type and role. So the same approach for Space as well.

    This also means that slight changes may need to be done to the UI in order to have access to this functionality is a easily accessible way on a per Division focus, Engineering, Tactical and Science.

    Finally Consoles, in addition to their standard Effects could also provide some specific functionality, this permits for a greater diversity and rewards.

    BO Powers

    So by now you maybe thinking, "ok but wouldn't that destroy BO's, and not have a reason to have them?"

    Quite the contrary, this will make BO's equally important, the only difference is that your options for action as a StarShip Captain is no longer limited to a few select Powers and Functionality. But BO's are equally important.

    The approach does not require any changes to the current skill system, we still put points for our captains the same way as we Rank up, and at certain levels we will still be able to train BO's.

    "But train them on what? You just removed all their powers!", you may say.

    We train them Specializations.

    For instance we can Train a Tactical BO, Tactical Team Specialization, what this will do is give a bonus to the effects of the Power, which is available by default on all ships.

    So by default Tactical Teams have an effect as is now for Tactical team 1 for instance, but if you have a Tactical BO with Tactical Team Specialization Grade A, then the power receives a +1 to all effects a reduction in cool-down etc etc.

    or another example and since all ships have a Tractor beam not all ships may have a BO who is specialized in the use of Tractor beams so if you opt to specialize of of your BO's to use Tractor beams your Tractor beam will perfom better than another player's ship in which no BO has been specialized for it.

    How many Specializations a BO can have depends on their Rank. So an Ensign BO can have one specialization, a Lieutenant 2, Lt. Commander 3 and a Commander 4.

    This means you could enhance selectively a certain functionality of your ship but at the expense of others. yet it does not limit you on what options and abilities you have in every ship as a Captain, what limits these depends on the Ship Design and Role.

    Thus, you are now free to open up Ship BO positions to become Universal.

    Special powers

    Special Abilities such as SNB, RSP, Tyken's Rift, Gravity Well etc. Are not abilities associated with normal operation of ships, and are not specializations either. These are in this case Randomly available periodically.

    On every engagement a roll is made periodically and from a poll of Special abilities one per BO becomes available randomly depending on what type of BO's you have, so the chance of what abilities pop up depends on the type of BO's you have as part of your bridge crew.

    Example:

    Lets say you had a tactical Commander, and a Lt Engineer, 2 Lt Science and a Ensign Science, during combat they may suggest Attack Pattern Omega for the tactical officer, RSP for the Engineer, Viral matrix from a Scientist, Gravity well from another and finally Photonic Shockwave for another.

    Depending on the situation as Captain you opt to choose using Photonic Shock Wave, at that point all other choices are discarded, and the roll process begins again randomly offering choices following a period of time.

    Not unlike when Captain Picard asks the Bridge crew for options or alternatives in a given situation and Data or Riker or Laforge come up with various suggestions and then Picard chooses the one he feels would be more appropriate for the situation.

    This at the same time eliminates cookie cut tactics in game, and makes the game play more consistent with the Trek Experience.

    It can even go a step further and be combined with a BO progression system where BO's evolve as well and with time get better at doing certain things or their suggestions become more powerful.

    A step even further

    There can actually be Functionality associated with the differentsections of ships, if you choose this Saucer section it can have some variation from the same Class of ship Saucer variation two. The Akira and the Oslo could be both escorts of the same rank but with different Ship Specs, for instance one could be more beam Based while the other more Torpedo based...and thus more consistent with Trek.


    Conclusion

    In conclusion, Ships retain their primary role, and can be designed to be closer in capability to Trek.

    Example the Miranda can actually have a Torpedo Pod, with 2 launchers able to shoot two torpedoes either fore or aft or one for and one aft, at close intervals.

    Each ship design can have different characteristics, and each ship design can have proper Bridge Crews from the get go. Like even the Miranda could have 5 BO's all at ensign, and this would not provide it with more Powers than it could have as per its design specs, and thus be more consistent with Trek as well, and all positions can be Universal, at the choice of the captain.

    This way possibilities open themselves for the game. For instance there can be a greater customization of Equipment, Consoles etc. Specially combined with a Crafting system, there is like that many different things to craft and customize.

    All in all, with such an approach, BO's can be Universal and each player as Captain can choose their BO configuration as well as customize the functionality of their ships according to their style of play. Plus it is all more consistent with Trek.

    That is about it.
Sign In or Register to comment.