test content
Logo
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc
Options
Starfleet wantonly destroys ships
balarick
Member Posts: 30 Arc User
I just feel like I have to voice my particular concern about this game. I've been playing this game for a few months, maybe even half a year now, and while I must admit this didn't really bother me for some time, it has been doing so as of late: throughout most of Star Trek history, Starfleet ships have gone out of their way to avoid destroying ships, unless the opposing ship gives them no choice. Yes, sometimes it's unavoidable; yes, sometimes there are unforeseen variables (ex: a leaky plasma injector) that turn those attempts to disable into the Fourth of July. And then later, with more advanced targeting systems (as found in TNG and later shows), this became easier to avoid most of the time, because you could just take out engines, weapons, etc., etc. Again, you might have unforeseen variables, but still! Yet, in this game -- which I just started playing again with a Federation Delta Recruit -- the only time you ever just disable a ship is when the story calls for it (you have to transport on board, you have to transport someone onto your ship, etc.).
What really got me going about this -- and shall we say, inspired me? -- to voice my opinion here is that I just started the Kuvah'Magh mission, and before you can get onto the planet, T'Vrell -- a freaking VULCAN, no less -- says, "I recommend destroying the Orion ships in orbit here. That should open up communication to the planet." Really? A Vulcan is recommending the wanton destruction of Orion ships? No attempt to disable? No attempt at communication with them? Just, "Let's kill 'em, sir, and let Logic sort 'em out!" Of course, as I learned from getting Nelen Exil, the Boff talking to you has no effect on the dialogue (otherwise, Nelen has some serious ties to Klingon heritage that seem almost comical!), and so the fact that T'Vrell is a Vulcan is irrelevant here, because no matter who is talking on this mission, they're gonna make the same recommendation: EXTERMINATE! EXTERMINATE! Oh, wait, wrong show. Anyway, even if you could argue that this particular instance was special and that the destruction of these Orions was unavoidable, that doesn't account for countless other missions wherein you simply fly in and blow up ships, killing thousands of people who needn't be killed.
Yes, it's just a game. I know this. No one is actually dying. At least, that's what my therapist keeps telling me. However, this is supposed to be the continuation of the Star Trek prime timeline, and in the 25th century, it appears that the moral certitude with which Gene Roddenberry infused his creation is all but gone. I don't mean to be too hard on the developers, because I know they work hard, but couldn't there be another way of awarding items that wouldn't require the ships to blow up? I honestly don't think Roddenberry would approve -- and given all of this memorializing of Star Trek cast and creators who have passed on (with Mark Lenard being distinctly absent from any of those memorial placards -- stay tuned for another post!), it concerns me that Starfleet has lost its moral compass. I mean, seriously, Feds act with little more concern for the preservation of life than the Terran Empire does!
And while I'm at it, how 'bout using the stun setting a little more often when planetside? As in the case of disabling ships, we only ever seem to stun people that we need to talk to later.
In case you're wondering, I'm not a prude (nor do I have a therapist -- but there's no shame in having one, if you do!), and I have no problem, at least in principle, with seeing destruction or killing in movies, video games, etc. I just want consistency, and I don't remember Spock or Tuvok every saying to Kirk or Janeway, before anything else has even been tried, "We should destroy [FILL IN THE BLANK]. That should make [FILL IN THE BLANK] easier for us."
What really got me going about this -- and shall we say, inspired me? -- to voice my opinion here is that I just started the Kuvah'Magh mission, and before you can get onto the planet, T'Vrell -- a freaking VULCAN, no less -- says, "I recommend destroying the Orion ships in orbit here. That should open up communication to the planet." Really? A Vulcan is recommending the wanton destruction of Orion ships? No attempt to disable? No attempt at communication with them? Just, "Let's kill 'em, sir, and let Logic sort 'em out!" Of course, as I learned from getting Nelen Exil, the Boff talking to you has no effect on the dialogue (otherwise, Nelen has some serious ties to Klingon heritage that seem almost comical!), and so the fact that T'Vrell is a Vulcan is irrelevant here, because no matter who is talking on this mission, they're gonna make the same recommendation: EXTERMINATE! EXTERMINATE! Oh, wait, wrong show. Anyway, even if you could argue that this particular instance was special and that the destruction of these Orions was unavoidable, that doesn't account for countless other missions wherein you simply fly in and blow up ships, killing thousands of people who needn't be killed.
Yes, it's just a game. I know this. No one is actually dying. At least, that's what my therapist keeps telling me. However, this is supposed to be the continuation of the Star Trek prime timeline, and in the 25th century, it appears that the moral certitude with which Gene Roddenberry infused his creation is all but gone. I don't mean to be too hard on the developers, because I know they work hard, but couldn't there be another way of awarding items that wouldn't require the ships to blow up? I honestly don't think Roddenberry would approve -- and given all of this memorializing of Star Trek cast and creators who have passed on (with Mark Lenard being distinctly absent from any of those memorial placards -- stay tuned for another post!), it concerns me that Starfleet has lost its moral compass. I mean, seriously, Feds act with little more concern for the preservation of life than the Terran Empire does!
And while I'm at it, how 'bout using the stun setting a little more often when planetside? As in the case of disabling ships, we only ever seem to stun people that we need to talk to later.
In case you're wondering, I'm not a prude (nor do I have a therapist -- but there's no shame in having one, if you do!), and I have no problem, at least in principle, with seeing destruction or killing in movies, video games, etc. I just want consistency, and I don't remember Spock or Tuvok every saying to Kirk or Janeway, before anything else has even been tried, "We should destroy [FILL IN THE BLANK]. That should make [FILL IN THE BLANK] easier for us."
Post edited by balarick on
0
Comments
Probably not. But they sure destroyed a whole lot of ships in DS9 when there was, you know, a war going on.
I've always felt that the way Picard runs his ship is different than how other captains do. My captains fall more in line with Kirk than Picard. If Kirk entered a system and saw enemies attacking a Starfleet ship or member planet...he'd shoot to kill.
Let us explore it... together. Each man hides a secret pain. It must be exposed and reckoned with. It must be dragged from the darkness and forced into the light. Share your pain. Share your pain with me... and gain strength from the sharing.
— Sabaton, "Great War"
Check out https://unitedfederationofpla.net/s/
it may come off as this and that, but command orders this and that and you have to follow it like a nice little drone, thats what being a soldier is about, taking the orders you are given even if you dont like them otherwise you will risk the firing squad for trying to break with tradition. if you dont want to kill this and that then you should look elsewhere for another game, but i doubt there is a military group out there who hasnt ordered the deaths of their enemies who believe in the same thing you do as a drone, an ordered structure towards a common goal.
but you know what they say in war, truth is always the first thing to become a liability.
Been around since Dec 2010 on STO and bought LTS in Apr 2013 for STO.
Lol. about your Starfleet, Kirk said "Let them die." I think that is enough about that. Check the movies, see how many ships were disabled in any of them. And there were no war in most of them.
/10 characters.
1. prime directive
2. it is peaceful federation (of planets)
3. if you don't wont to join, leave them alone, and they will leave you alone (to the point. look at cardasia, romulus and klingons. see how far that point goes of leaving the rest alone).
After that it is anyone game, and federation never had problem to bloody it's nose.
"Of course, I could treat them to a few dozen photon torpedos"
and
"The best diplomat I know is a fully activated phaser bank"
Christian Gaming Community Fleets--Faith, Fun, and Fellowship! See the website and PM for more. :-)
Proudly F2P. Signature image by gulberat. Avatar image by balsavor.deviantart.com.
Fleet leader Nova Elite
Fleet Leader House of Nova elite
@ren_larreck
Of course, being that this is also a game, did you really expect anything less than kills otherwise?
At least on the ground you can keep it mostly ambiguous (unless you killed someone with your secondary fire or grenade; which guarantees a vape animation).
But in space? They die, unless scripted otherwise. Of course, they could add that option for hardcore purists as some silly UI setting (Combat: Disable instead of Destroy), but they wouldn't get XP at all, since XP is only awarded upon destruction of opposition. Though if you have allied NPCs or teammates, watch in helplessness as they blow up the target. Or better yet, the NPCs will begin to repair and resume combat until you destroy them.
All the series had lots of action, and occasionally combat, but we knew the protagonists were "good guys" who always tried to find alternatives to violence.
On the other hand, there's a long tradition of game adaptations of Star Trek that focus on combat, especially ship combat. And, really, we all enjoy some pew-pew-pew.
So what's really bothering me here is:
1) As in the OP's example, there are a lot of cases when the writers didn't even acknowledge that one might want to find an alternative to violence, even if none were possible;
2) Why aren't there more missions in which the player solves a problem through means other than violence?
3) And here's my biggest problem with STO's design, in general: why is it almost never the case that there's more than one way to solve a problem, and why is there always only one possible successful outcome to a mission?
In the OP's example, why was it strictly required to destroy the Orion ships? Why couldn't there have been options to elude them, or engage in diplomacy? Even if somehow the game engine is so brain-dead that it doesn't allow for multiple branches, the condition for beaming down could have been reaching an area of the map while not in combat mode -- which you could achieve either by destroying the Orion ships, or by engaging a cloak and never being detected by them.
STO would benefit if it rewarded players for being clever or skillful once in a while.
I'm also fairly positive that you can level from 11-60 without even fireing a single shot.
Actually Kirk usually tried to do so without killing. Though he loathed the duties of diplomacy he recognized it's importance. It was Kirk who observed that we can accept the fact that we are killers... but we can decide that we will NOT kill... today. Like an alcoholic taking it one day, once incident, at a time. :P
Exactly! On top of the moral issues and the sheer waste of resources it bothers me because... where the hell are they getting the time, resources and money to build all these damn ships we keep blowing up?? I don't think any planet or even any Solar System could be THAT mineral rich! :rolleyes:
YES!! Just this! The best Trek episodes are always those where the antagonist is an idea or a principle... not a person or a people. Some of the best stories involved little or no conflict. Problem solving was a major part of the attraction (and I don't mean stupid little mini-games like when you scan for anomalies). This game could be so much more if you don't focus all your attention on catering to the most Plebeian tastes. And you can still have plenty of pew-pew for those that want it...
Same as above. Hence the mostly forgotten Class-specific optionals. They don't even bother with much larger and more time consuming Faction-specific optionals in the later Faction-agnostic missions. Much less dialogue.
I mean, you don't even have your KDF character having the option to insult the Kobali whenever you talk to them (such as insulting Jhetlya for being incompetent enough to not have secured Keten down upon awakening him), much less Keten (such as straight up being blunt with him rather than trying to coax him out like the Feds). Or both praising the warrior Vaadwaur for being worthy foes and insulting them for allowing Brain Bugs to easily manipulate them. The only side dialogue you get is outright challenging the Hirogen that show up in Dust to Dust.
For that matter, there's no Class options that allow you to even cut the mission short on replay; such as your Tac captain ordering a teleport inhibitor over the temple to prevent anyone going in or out, or your Sci captain feeding false data on the Samsar as Keten's accessing them, or your Eng captain constructing their own impromptu teleport jammer using a box of temple scraps, all resulting in Keten being captured as soon as you take down that last force-field.
The game engine is capable of handling some branching dialogue, but probably not able to handle entire alternate scripted cutscenes or zones based on choices. At least, without risking a complete bugging of the missions given how long it takes for some to load scenes and zones (and that's just for the default mission path; imagine if the system constantly had to check responses then choose the appropriate cutscene or alternate zone).
While it's not likely that Cryptic would bother with major branching paths, they should at least consider working in mission shortcuts upon replay, which would actually benefit players more than starting with a bunch of choices the first go-round.
Maybe they could work it in as something you can check mark in the options, something called like "Non-violent mode." So if players who do want that level of destruction can leave it unchecked. The option could also eliminate vaporize animations on ground missions and stunned enemies would be beamed out once their health reaches 0% as well.
Not to mention, the lag on the player as the UI redraws everything for them wanting to play with Mercy Mode active.
While I wouldn't mind it for others in solo play missions, I would mind it if it affected actual team play. So if teaming, it should get disabled (queues, group mission runs, battlezones, etc).
Support 90 degree arc limitation on BFaW! Save our ships from looking like flying disco balls of dumb!
Such a mode will need to be kept strictly optional, available to turn on or keep off as desired after completing or skipping the Tutorials (since it would need to be kept off anyway to keep in line with the tutorial missions).
And not just limited to Feds, but available for Romulans and KDF as well. KDF pretending to disable and board a ship, or a game of seeing who has the superior targeting officers, and Romulans pretending along either the Fed side or the KDF side. While it won't be as big a thing for them, there are a few exceptions.
However, it should not be a primary and mandatory option at all. If one wants to play the illusion of canon, they can, but if not, then they don't have to. Same applies to the theoretical "canon" UI overlay idea that has been tossed around, where when active, redraws all non-Faction ships into Faction ships of the nearest equivalent, NPC or not (such as a Rom Sheshar showing up as a Scimitar or a Fed Astika showing up as an Avenger or Eclipse).
It's one thing to add for optional extra immersion, it's quite another to force it on everyone.
Actual join date: Open beta, 2009ish.
Go watch DS9 again. :rolleyes: The Dominion were planning to invade the Alpha Quadrant a century down the line when they worked their way over there by conventional means. Clearly stated in "The Search, Part II" by the Founders themselves.
There was never not going to be a Dominion War, and the Feds f*cked up the timetable and forced the Founders to go live during beta, if you will.
— Sabaton, "Great War"
Check out https://unitedfederationofpla.net/s/
Also. Generally speaking you want to make it known to people that you own a piece of land, thereby preventing misunderstandings from occurring. The Dominion didn't do that, they ruthlessly attacked ships and New Bajor with no provocation. The whole 'you guys have violated our territory' thing was just a pretence.