test content
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc

No to "away teams" in space.

124»

Comments

  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited December 2010
    Like I say, with away teams being flexible sizes (we've seen one and two BO away teams), I'd think the ideal use of the tech would be to create a new mission type and/or look at using BOs and ship pets to fill out slots in Fleet Actions.

    That doesn't mean regular missions have to change. It can just be an extra type/option.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited December 2010
    Thats not true in the slightest. Shakkar's post is exactly my feeling on it... almost, lol. One ship has been good enough for everything so far, why would we need more?

    Probably for the reason the dev quote in your original post said. New Gameplay Styles.

    I would like this so that I have something new and different to do once I get to a higher level. I don't want to do the same stuff with the same mechanics forever. I would like them to try adding in lots of different ways to play the game - not keep everything static just because you want to have a solo character.

    I have a totally different opinion about my own boffs - they are not pets or separate from my character - they are also my characters and are an extension of me. My away team is created by me - I picked their looks, their uniforms, their skills, their biographies, their equipment, which ones I take with me and what they do on the ground.

    When I'm in ship mode, it's more even more obvious. Their little faces are along the power tray bar and they essentially ARE the ship's abilities all working as a single entity.

    I can't wait for them to add Fleet Admiral gameplay, even if it's just away teams in space. But, I'd like them to go more in the direction Darren_Kitlor mentioned and have admiral style command play options too, like sending a ship off on a mission while I wait for results - not unlike what happens in some previous Star Trek games, and not unlike what happens in the shows.

    I wouldn't mind seeing more of a stragegy/management/RTS style game being added to different levels in the game. I also wouldn't mind seeing the additions they make to accommodate training up your bridge officers into NPC captains in your fleet and giving them their own ships and sets of boffs to command.

    As it's the level cap of the game, I'm sure everything you don't like would be optional. Just like I don't have to do any PvP at all. That's a whole game mechanic that is avoidable and if they do it right, fleet stuff would be an option too.

    And if I feel like doing just captain stuff, I can switch to one of my lower level alts. Maybe you can suggest something else rather than telling them to cancel a feature everyone else wants? Like adding in a skill progression toggle to freeze you at Captain level and not earn any skill points that rank you up, but still allows you to play all missions for item rewards?
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited December 2010
    Galactrix wrote: »
    And if I feel like doing just captain stuff, I can switch to one of my lower level alts. Maybe you can suggest something else rather than telling them to cancel a feature everyone else wants? Like adding in a skill progression toggle to freeze you at Captain level and not earn any skill points that rank you up, but still allows you to play all missions for item rewards?

    I did suggest something, and where did i say i want the idea scrapped.

    Seriously, reading comprehension people.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited December 2010
    This is probably the point at which the OP and I differed. I think simply using the mechanic of scaling difficulty based on the number of ships (whether away teams or other players) can let us all have our cake and eat it too. Go by yourself, you complete the mission with the number of enemy fights as we have now. Bring up to 5 ships manned by boffs, let the enemies scale up to match.

    I look forward to seeing how this all works out in the coming year. First crew and boff assignments, then boff captains, then fleets manned by said boff captains, possibly new game modes...I expect to be more eager to play then than I am now.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited December 2010
    I did suggest something, and where did i say i want the idea scrapped.

    Seriously, reading comprehension people.

    I read it. I comprehended that "NO to away teams in space" meant that you don't want it, which implies that it must be scrapped because the only other alternative is that you want it to be optional, but the rest of the stuff you said implies that you don't care if it is optional or not, you just don't want it period, because the bit about "I don't like the idea of pets" at all suggests that you don't want even that as an option, even for other people who aren't you.

    But all that is irrelevant, because you don't need to know what I "think" you're implying or what my opinion is. You already have your opinion and any attempt at changing your opinion is probably moot.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited December 2010
    im sorry you feel that way, and i disagree with every word you just said.

    i see a pretty strong direction,

    i know that 99% of the ideas on this forum never see the light of day, and the ones that are being used are getting massive approval (weekly eps, sector space revamp, klingon improvements, UGC)

    and we both know that the customers being driven away in droves is nothing more than a complete guess based on no facts.

    The only ideas that never see the light of day are the ones for improving Klingon gameplay.

    UGC, Galaxy-X, NX-class, mission replay, abandoning of STF's, extra uniform options, every new ship made playable at T5, the previous exchange nerf, the upcoming exchange nerf, death penalty, the prevention of any really meaningful PvP improvements; these are ALL ideas currently implemented or planned to be implemented due to nothing more than forum demands. Every time someone says ANYTHING about how to change the game, it's usually responded to by a dev with something like "we'll see that in Season 4 hopefully."

    And I'm basing it on a lot of facts, like the decline in subscriber numbers every time they announce something people don't want. And what don't people want? See all of the above.

    Cryptic has no direction for this game, which is why, a year after open beta, we STILL have no endgame to speak of, especially since they're going to totally nerf what we already had, and just plan on fixing what's there/finishing what they started.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited December 2010
    I don't want to say no to away teams in space, but I have always HATED the fact that every single person in this game is a Admiral. I hate it. HATE IT. Totally breaks the immersion. If everyone were maxed at Captains, that would make actual SENSE.

    In that sense I do say NO to "away teams in space" if you're supposed to be some Admiral with an NPC Fleet... what, so you get to have 5 Admirals with 5 away teams at the same time? No, don't think Cryptic would go THAT far, but seriously.

    It's dumb.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited December 2010

    UGC, Galaxy-X, NX-class, mission replay, abandoning of STF's, extra uniform options, every new ship made playable at T5, the previous exchange nerf, the upcoming exchange nerf, death penalty, the prevention of any really meaningful PvP improvements; these are ALL ideas currently implemented or planned to be implemented due to nothing more than forum demands. Every time someone says ANYTHING about how to change the game, it's usually responded to by a dev with something like "we'll see that in Season 4 hopefully."

    And I'm basing it on a lot of facts, like the decline in subscriber numbers every time they announce something people don't want. And what don't people want? See all of the above.

    What? People didn't want extra uniform options? Mission replay? *confused*

    Oh and I like death penalties... and btw its optional.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited December 2010
    What? People didn't want extra uniform options? Mission replay? *confused*

    Oh and I like death penalties... and btw its optional.

    People have been complaining from day one that there are too many on the Fed side and too few on the Klingon side.

    What does Cryptic do? Give the Fed more uniforms, and Klingons nothing.

    Mission replay wouldn't be necessary if there was more general content, particularly at endgame.

    As far as the DP, that was added because a small minority complained the game was too easy - which it was - and Cryptic decided to take the lazy route and just give us a lame attempt at a gold sink, which fails as a DP and a gold sink.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited December 2010
    This thread is now getting responses i didn't expect when writing the OP....

    Then again, I don't think some people have read my subsequent posts and seem to think I'm outraged at the idea and want the dev's to immediately denounce the idea as stupid.

    Thats not true in the slightest. Shakkar's post is exactly my feeling on it... almost, lol. One ship has been good enough for everything so far, why would we need more?

    I love how Dan said he wants the game to be more trek, and then says he likes the idea of having players command multiple ships at the same time, even though the shows were 1 ship shows. Well, DS9 was a station + runabouts + Defiant, but you know what I mean.

    That's not strictly the case. There were a couple of shows in TNG, where Picard was put in command of Task Forces, like the one where Data came up with the Tachyon Detection Grid. I also think there was a DS9 episode, where Picard commanded a Task Force.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited December 2010
    What some of us want is - if we're going to be an admiral - let us be an admiral by commanding more than one ship. We have ships just sitting around anyway. You can have limits on tiers, say one ship in each tier working together. You have the ships already collecting dust because they are ineffective at high levels. May as well make them useful.

    This ties into the fact that some of us want all ships to be accessible at tier 5. We don't like the fact that we use a ship for 10 levels and then cast it off. If starfleet sends us out in such disadvantaged ships, then it's simply not right. But this is a creative solution that will allow us to use all of our ships, but keep the tier system.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited December 2010
    And I'm basing it on a lot of facts, like the decline in subscriber numbers every time they announce something people don't want.

    I'd love to see a chart showing this decline at every new release announcement ever. Preferably with each major release noted on the timeline, so we can see where each major drop happens.

    No rush, though.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited December 2010
    Mission replay wouldn't be necessary if there was more general content, particularly at endgame.

    Yes, it would. For accolade collection.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited December 2010
    I would like to bring up something I saw in the "Ask Cryptic"

    Q: Direphoenix: Is there any chance we can separate Rank from Skill Level and add in a(n optional) larger-scope "Admiral/General Game" for those that want to be Admirals or Generals?

    A: We have discussed and have plans to make Fleet Admiral (level 61) add a special type of gameplay where you can begin to build away teams in space (i.e. other ships that you command). No firm details yet, but we do want to make Fleet Admiral offer new types of gameplay.



    I don't like the idea of pets on space at all. I can live with it on the ground portion of the game, but in space is too much.

    Half of the missions on the ground can be completed w/o a single BO, and yet they're required.

    A fairly good chunk of the space missions require no other ship.

    To be blunt, some of us hate pets. I can understand a class where it's strength may be pets (carriers anyone?) , but making all of us have pets when we reach a higher rank is ridiculous.

    So, if you, like me, hate pets, and just suffer w/ the BO's because it makes sense for the most part, then please sign this to let the dev's know that this mechanic shouldn't be forced on all of us.

    you can always go play a different game if you dont like this one, they can do what they will with it, your opinion wont change their mind if the majority of others dont agree with you.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited December 2010
    People have been complaining from day one that there are too many on the Fed side and too few on the Klingon side.

    What does Cryptic do? Give the Fed more uniforms, and Klingons nothing.

    Mission replay wouldn't be necessary if there was more general content, particularly at endgame.

    As far as the DP, that was added because a small minority complained the game was too easy - which it was - and Cryptic decided to take the lazy route and just give us a lame attempt at a gold sink, which fails as a DP and a gold sink.

    I disagree regarding mission replay, but the systems for level-scaling missions and repeating missions for reduced credit existed from launch, and sidekicking arrived when mission replay was supposed to, so it shouldn't have been anywhere near as big a deal to implement or worthy of as much hoopla as it's apparently been.

    As far as everything else, definitely.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited December 2010
    What? People didn't want extra uniform options? Mission replay? *confused*

    Oh and I like death penalties... and btw its optional.

    The death penalty being optional makes this game sub par by definition. It's so customizable we don't even all play by the same rules.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited December 2010
    KhansWrath wrote:
    you can always go play a different game if you dont like this one, they can do what they will with it, your opinion wont change their mind if the majority of others dont agree with you.

    lol, I actually have gone to another game temporarily. I have a LTS, so It doesn't really matter whether i play or not. Other than to keep up appearences to not get booted from my fleet.

    I went to PotBS, where the rules apply to everyone, and theres meaning behind the story. Where the economy churns too a frothy boil because of a relatively free market set-up thats player crafting driven. It's also a place where all those ships that sit around have a purpose. And it doesn't rely on making a pet mechanic.

    This game lacks coherency. It's (atm) a mish mash of "cool". There isn't very much thats "neat" or "interesting".
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited December 2010
    The death penalty being optional makes this game sub par by definition. It's so customizable we don't even all play by the same rules.

    I fail to see how consistency and quality are absolutely linked, by definition or otherwise.

    And if it came down to consistency, we'd have NO death penalty.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited December 2010
    I fail to see how consistency and quality are absolutely linked, by definition or otherwise.

    And if it came down to consistency, we'd have NO death penalty.

    How does that work? Why would we not have a death penalty?
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited December 2010
    How does that work? Why would we not have a death penalty?

    That would be consistency.

    The majority of players was so reluctant about one that I think you'd either have a game with no death penalty or you'd have no game left after the anti-DP crowd left.

    Be glad you got the option for one.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited December 2010
    I would like to bring up something I saw in the "Ask Cryptic"

    Q: Direphoenix: Is there any chance we can separate Rank from Skill Level and add in a(n optional) larger-scope "Admiral/General Game" for those that want to be Admirals or Generals?

    A: We have discussed and have plans to make Fleet Admiral (level 61) add a special type of gameplay where you can begin to build away teams in space (i.e. other ships that you command). No firm details yet, but we do want to make Fleet Admiral offer new types of gameplay.



    I don't like the idea of pets on space at all. I can live with it on the ground portion of the game, but in space is too much.

    Half of the missions on the ground can be completed w/o a single BO, and yet they're required.

    A fairly good chunk of the space missions require no other ship.

    To be blunt, some of us hate pets. I can understand a class where it's strength may be pets (carriers anyone?) , but making all of us have pets when we reach a higher rank is ridiculous.

    So, if you, like me, hate pets, and just suffer w/ the BO's because it makes sense for the most part, then please sign this to let the dev's know that this mechanic shouldn't be forced on all of us.

    While I stand behind you in this I see no problem with fleet pets. Personally I wish I could have been given the option to not rank up once i made Captain, but still level up.

    Admirals are desk jockies not ship commanders, and they do not run point with an awayteam. Almost feel like the game should branch into two totally different styles of play at level 41. First the game we already know, second a top down like Mech Commander. That's because Generals and Admirals do not do. They suggest what should be done with a command and it is up to the units commanded to find the best way(s) to accomplish the goal.

    in the very least it should be an option for the player to decide and i think Cryptic will make it that way. Just hope that there is appropriate compensation for those players who chose to focus on just there ship the way a captain would.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited December 2010
    This game lacks coherency.
    I fail to see how consistency and quality are absolutely linked, by definition or otherwise.

    And if it came down to consistency, we'd have NO death penalty.

    There's a point where some degree of intentional, designed inconsistency within a coherent theme is necessary. Quests available to everyone that should logically only ever be done once by any task force ever are the primary example.

    However, a complete lack of coherent vision to the point of continually squirreling off in another direction like a kid with ADD, leaving what they'll actually bother to work on next a complete surprise, and leaving everything a piecemeal shambles which doesn't have consistency at any level.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited December 2010
    Dude, your not worth arguing with.

    A thread title can voice an opinion. That's mine. take it or leave it.
    Stopped reading at this point. I'll leave it.

    I look forward to the possibility of promoting my loyal Bridge Officers to their own commands, in the ships which I have ready for them, to become part of my Fleet.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited December 2010
    You just have a drop down fleet selection menu from 0-4. Choose 0 and you solo the encounter. That would add difficulty and satisfy pet haters.

    I would enjoy having a Star Cruiser set to heal and a couple of Escorts "escorting" me. I would like to promote my hard working BO's to command their own ships. I would also like some fleet commands that would set up formations and targeting priorities. I see it as being workable and cool.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited December 2010
    I could see this easily work from a game play perspective within the current game mechanics. (

    Just ask before entering X space map weather you want to bring your task force of X ships with you once you reach the appropriate rank to use these ships. Enemies numbers would scale based on how many ships you brought with you in the same way that enemies scale based on how many people are on your team. Those who want to solo can without any changes and those who want their own Task Forces can do so with an additional challenge.

    Edit:

    This would actually solve the problem of PVP imbalance since you couldn't take your Task Force ships into PvP maps... (and now im having visions of being in a Vo'Que with escorting Vorchcas and raptors lol)
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2011
    It could be a way of allowing people to do a task force without other players. It could also make for an interesting 1 on 1 PvP option.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2011
    Not really. Desk jobs are few and far between. Admirals still see duty commanding fleets. I can see where you warp into a sector and are given the option to pick up to 8-tier points of ships (assuming you own them).

    What I mean is we have this:
    T1 = 1 point
    T2 = 2 points
    T3 = 3 points
    T4 = 4 points
    T5 = NOT ELIGIBLE

    So if you are given 8 tier points to choose from, you can take 2 T4s; or you can take a T4, a T3, and a T1; or you can take 8 T1s, etc. Again assuming you own those ships to begin with.

    If this is the direction they are headed, then I'm all for it. It would give me a reason to buy the NX if I'm going to see it as a pet in every engagement.

    I like this Idea a lot.
Sign In or Register to comment.