I have noticed that if the req on the admiralty mission is around 100+ on any of the three areas, then you're almost certian to fail that mission, even if your 100% and over 50% crit. Having to redo Tier missions 4-5 times when there is no way in hell you could fail it, is really getting to me.
Hehe heh hehehehehehHahahahaHAHAHAHA! *DROOL SLOBBER THUMP HEAD ON DESK AND TWITCH*
I never fail on Missions that are over 100+ even on all three areas. I can usually pull off 100% on those but sometimes in the nineties. The again, I have a lot of ships with high values.
Post edited by ltminns on
'But to be logical is not to be right', and 'nothing' on God's earth could ever 'make it' right!'
Judge Dan Haywood
'As l speak now, the words are forming in my head.
l don't know.
l really don't know what l'm about to say, except l have a feeling about it.
That l must repeat the words that come without my knowledge.'
I don't fail missions where I have a 100+ criteria on any or all of them. I've succeeded even when one of the values is up to five points below what's needed.
And I don't have a whole big arsenal of ships. Though I'd like to lol. I have just enough to fill out my slots with some extra ships to use once some of the shorter missions complete.
Now a LTS and loving it.
Just because you spend money on this game, it does not entitle you to be a jerk if things don't go your way.
I have come to the conclusion that I have a memory like Etch-A-Sketch. I shake my head and forget everything.
30 minute mission...
4 hour Maintence on the ships?!
What the heck?!
Hey OP, the Admiralty System is the TOP tool to make alting in this game doable again and that at reasonable levels after the DR catastrophe.
I’m glad cryptic introduced it and for how it works. The way you use your ships in there is like a continuous reward for the dedication you have put towards the game. Let it be as paying customer who purchases ships from zen store or as F2Per who is regularly around for events.
At the moment it is your best friend against the grind in STO. I hope this buddy is here to stay.
Looking for a fun PvE fleet? Join us at Omega Combat Division today.
I have noticed that if the req on the admiralty mission is around 100+ on any of the three areas, then you're almost certian to fail that mission, even if your 100% and over 50% crit. Having to redo Tier missions 4-5 times when there is no way in hell you could fail it, is really getting to me.
Hehe heh hehehehehehHahahahaHAHAHAHA! *DROOL SLOBBER THUMP HEAD ON DESK AND TWITCH*
Assuming you are serious. You need to report that. Because 100% chance of success is supposed to mean 100% and I know I never fail an admiralty at 100%. I may not crit. But I don't fail them.
Originally Posted by pwlaughingtrendy
Network engineers are not ship designers.
Nor should they be. Their ships would look weird.
I think on all my Characters I had less than a dozen failures, and most of them were sending Shuttles on a Mission alone that had hundreds of required points to, in effect, 'pass'. Can only think of about two in the 80s that ever failed.
'But to be logical is not to be right', and 'nothing' on God's earth could ever 'make it' right!'
Judge Dan Haywood
'As l speak now, the words are forming in my head.
l don't know.
l really don't know what l'm about to say, except l have a feeling about it.
That l must repeat the words that come without my knowledge.'
I think people are overly concerned with getting 100% on everything. The system should encourage more risk-taking.
You get a very finite number of slots you can even use and some of the run counters are long enough to set them and go to work. Why would you bother not going for 100% when this starts at endgame when you will have the most ships?
Originally Posted by pwlaughingtrendy
Network engineers are not ship designers.
Nor should they be. Their ships would look weird.
I think people are overly concerned with getting 100% on everything. The system should encourage more risk-taking.
You get a very finite number of slots you can even use and some of the run counters are long enough to set them and go to work. Why would you bother not going for 100% when this starts at endgame when you will have the most ships?
That's the point. There is no reason to do that now, but there should be.
I find it depressing that players would use shuttles on suicide runs as a poor man's pass token. There's something wrong with a system if intentional failure is seen as preferable over an honest try.
I think people are overly concerned with getting 100% on everything. The system should encourage more risk-taking.
You get a very finite number of slots you can even use and some of the run counters are long enough to set them and go to work. Why would you bother not going for 100% when this starts at endgame when you will have the most ships?
That's the point. There is no reason to do that now, but there should be.
I find it depressing that players would use shuttles on suicide runs as a poor man's pass token. There's something wrong with a system if intentional failure is seen as preferable over an honest try.
Don't know why you even need poor pass tokens but not the issue. As I use shuttles to bolster ships that already meet the reqs and up the crits.
You are right in that aiming for sub-optimal isn't encouraged Maybe if they doubled the number of slots available people would risk more?
Originally Posted by pwlaughingtrendy
Network engineers are not ship designers.
Nor should they be. Their ships would look weird.
I did that a long time ago and have not done it in months. It may have been a time I was looking to get to a certain Mission and I already had most if not all of the Science ships in Maintenance. I have run days where I was up to 55 or so ships laid up. I use my Shuttles properly. And by the way I always shoot for 100%, especially on Tours of Duty and high reward Missions, but I have the number of ships where I can do that.
If you are playing over an extended period during a day it can be a bit of a chore to keep all slots filled all the time. I've seen many times where three of four Admiralty Missions are done to be turned in and no Doff Missions have yet completed.
'But to be logical is not to be right', and 'nothing' on God's earth could ever 'make it' right!'
Judge Dan Haywood
'As l speak now, the words are forming in my head.
l don't know.
l really don't know what l'm about to say, except l have a feeling about it.
That l must repeat the words that come without my knowledge.'
I think people are overly concerned with getting 100% on everything. The system should encourage more risk-taking.
You get a very finite number of slots you can even use and some of the run counters are long enough to set them and go to work. Why would you bother not going for 100% when this starts at endgame when you will have the most ships?
That's the point. There is no reason to do that now, but there should be.
I find it depressing that players would use shuttles on suicide runs as a poor man's pass token. There's something wrong with a system if intentional failure is seen as preferable over an honest try.
Why? When I see the rewards aren't worth it, and I have no pass tokens, then why wouldn't I skip it using a simple shuttle if I have one? I'm not going to send a ship that has a +4 hour maintenance wait time. I'd rather save it for when I need it on a possible upcoming assignment that has better rewards.
That's actually a good idea if you don't have pass tokens and don't particularly care for the mission. Just send in a shuttle and get it out of the way.
I'll have to think about that next time I'm out of tokens.
Now a LTS and loving it.
Just because you spend money on this game, it does not entitle you to be a jerk if things don't go your way.
I have come to the conclusion that I have a memory like Etch-A-Sketch. I shake my head and forget everything.
Assuming you are serious. You need to report that. Because 100% chance of success is supposed to mean 100% and I know I never fail an admiralty at 100%. I may not crit. But I don't fail them.
Yes. I was being serious. Failed 3 in a row with 100% success ratings. They all had one stat over 100. And they were all Tier Missions. Bug maybe, yes. But reporting it won't fix it since I can't 'Show it to them'.
I don't have a lot of time, but I make time for the A.S.S. I try to get in and get out of the A.S.S. It's easy to spend several hours on the A.S.S., especially if you have a lot of toons. Just don't go A.S.S. crazy and you're fine.
Sometimes if you did not meet all three areas thresholds but have a good overage in one or two of them you could end up with it displaying 100%, where it was really 99.5%. This used to happen with Doff Missions in the past. But for you to get three like that in a row with a .5% chance or less of failure is anomalous at best.
'But to be logical is not to be right', and 'nothing' on God's earth could ever 'make it' right!'
Judge Dan Haywood
'As l speak now, the words are forming in my head.
l don't know.
l really don't know what l'm about to say, except l have a feeling about it.
That l must repeat the words that come without my knowledge.'
Is there a hidden meaning in that post about the Admiralty Ship System?
'But to be logical is not to be right', and 'nothing' on God's earth could ever 'make it' right!'
Judge Dan Haywood
'As l speak now, the words are forming in my head.
l don't know.
l really don't know what l'm about to say, except l have a feeling about it.
That l must repeat the words that come without my knowledge.'
I don't have a lot of time, but I make time for the A.S.S. I try to get in and get out of the A.S.S. It's easy to spend several hours on the A.S.S., especially if you have a lot of toons. Just don't go A.S.S. crazy and you're fine.
ISWYDT
It's not you- it's me. I just need my space.
Being critical doesn't take skill. Being constructively critical- which is providing alternative solutions or suggestions to a demonstrated problem, however, does.
I don't have a lot of time, but I make time for the A.S.S. I try to get in and get out of the A.S.S. It's easy to spend several hours on the A.S.S., especially if you have a lot of toons. Just don't go A.S.S. crazy and you're fine.
I never liked making time for doffing. I'm more of an A.S.S. man myself.
I think people are overly concerned with getting 100% on everything. The system should encourage more risk-taking.
You get a very finite number of slots you can even use and some of the run counters are long enough to set them and go to work. Why would you bother not going for 100% when this starts at endgame when you will have the most ships?
That's the point. There is no reason to do that now, but there should be.
I find it depressing that players would use shuttles on suicide runs as a poor man's pass token. There's something wrong with a system if intentional failure is seen as preferable over an honest try.
Why? When I see the rewards aren't worth it, and I have no pass tokens, then why wouldn't I skip it using a simple shuttle if I have one? I'm not going to send a ship that has a +4 hour maintenance wait time. I'd rather save it for when I need it on a possible upcoming assignment that has better rewards.
Why would your superiors allow you to intentionally F up a mission just because you don't like it? There should be a reason not to do it.
Personally, I'd probably solve it by putting failed assignments right back on the list. You're given a mission you try it until you succeed or use a real pass token. None of this fail on purpose and mommy will do it for you business.
Im just annoyed I have a decent Armada of ships Ive bought over the years, yet if a mission asks for over 70 Tactical, Im screwed even after putting 3 ships on it. I appreciate the occasional free disposable reward ship that's usually tactical, but they are rare. Im not buying glass escorts to get tactical if I have no intention of playing a toon behind that ship purchase. Tactical variants of 3 packs should pack a lot more tactical punch points than they do, like my Tac Vesta and T6 Tac Odyssey.
Except in the case of completing a level (which you should save those one-time ships for if there's a problem with completion), you are not required to complete any given assignment. You simply need enough experience to progress. You can easily get that even with a small roster of ships by focusing on common and uncommon assignments. When possible pass on rare and very rare (unless the specific pay-out is of interest to you). Alternatively, purposefully fail those unwanted assignments. A shuttle craft is all you need and you risk absolutely nothing doing it.
Admiralty is the most innocuous assignment type in the game (rep requires more input, R+D requires more patience, and doffing requires more of a base). You just have to be a little more considerate about how you approach it (ex. don't buy ships for admiralty, you will almost certainly never earn your investment back. Just use what you have in the most efficient way possible.)
Bipedal mammal and senior Foundry author.
Notable missions: Apex [AEI], Gemini [SSF], Trident [AEI], Evolution's Smile [SSF], Transcendence
Looking for something new to play? I've started building Foundry missions again in visual novel form!
I think people are overly concerned with getting 100% on everything. The system should encourage more risk-taking.
You get a very finite number of slots you can even use and some of the run counters are long enough to set them and go to work. Why would you bother not going for 100% when this starts at endgame when you will have the most ships?
That's the point. There is no reason to do that now, but there should be.
I find it depressing that players would use shuttles on suicide runs as a poor man's pass token. There's something wrong with a system if intentional failure is seen as preferable over an honest try.
Why? When I see the rewards aren't worth it, and I have no pass tokens, then why wouldn't I skip it using a simple shuttle if I have one? I'm not going to send a ship that has a +4 hour maintenance wait time. I'd rather save it for when I need it on a possible upcoming assignment that has better rewards.
Why would your superiors allow you to intentionally F up a mission just because you don't like it? There should be a reason not to do it.
Personally, I'd probably solve it by putting failed assignments right back on the list. You're given a mission you try it until you succeed or use a real pass token. None of this fail on purpose and mommy will do it for you business.
By that logic the reverse should also apply. Why would your superiors be okay with you hailing Captain Walker just to tow in or repair a disabled ship when the USS Pastak can instead help with much more dire assignments? It doesn't make sense, no, but the right to do so still exists because you have access to the admiralty card that can be used on whatever assignment you want. That's just the way it works mechanically.
I'm asking why from a gameplay mechanic point of view, not an rp one. You might as well complain about how we're sending "so many brave men and women to die in combat" whenever we fly carriers and launch hangar pets that aren't drones.
"Why can't shuttles/fighters in Star Trek be piloted by a computer? Why does shuttle gameplay even exist at all?"
"Why can I send my chef and bartender on so many different doff assignments that make no sense for their profession?"
Assuming you are serious. You need to report that. Because 100% chance of success is supposed to mean 100% and I know I never fail an admiralty at 100%. I may not crit. But I don't fail them.
Yes. I was being serious. Failed 3 in a row with 100% success ratings. They all had one stat over 100. And they were all Tier Missions. Bug maybe, yes. But reporting it won't fix it since I can't 'Show it to them'.
oh well.
Definetly glitched on you. I have never failed a mission when I met the 100% sucess bar. Perhaps you are confusing the Critical bar with the success bar. That is Critical is easily failed even if you meet the 100% success bar and don't have 100% on the crit bar.
I think people are overly concerned with getting 100% on everything. The system should encourage more risk-taking.
You get a very finite number of slots you can even use and some of the run counters are long enough to set them and go to work. Why would you bother not going for 100% when this starts at endgame when you will have the most ships?
That's the point. There is no reason to do that now, but there should be.
I find it depressing that players would use shuttles on suicide runs as a poor man's pass token. There's something wrong with a system if intentional failure is seen as preferable over an honest try.
Why? When I see the rewards aren't worth it, and I have no pass tokens, then why wouldn't I skip it using a simple shuttle if I have one? I'm not going to send a ship that has a +4 hour maintenance wait time. I'd rather save it for when I need it on a possible upcoming assignment that has better rewards.
Why would your superiors allow you to intentionally F up a mission just because you don't like it? There should be a reason not to do it.
Personally, I'd probably solve it by putting failed assignments right back on the list. You're given a mission you try it until you succeed or use a real pass token. None of this fail on purpose and mommy will do it for you business.
By that logic the reverse should also apply. Why would your superiors be okay with you hailing Captain Walker just to tow in or repair a disabled ship when the USS Pastak can instead help with much more dire assignments? It doesn't make sense, no, but the right to do so still exists because you have access to the admiralty card that can be used on whatever assignment you want. That's just the way it works mechanically.
The Enterprise was often called out to do less-than-epic jobs. Never saw any Admiral command them to send a hapless redshirt in a shuttle to fail a job on purpose, because he didn't like the rewards.
I'm asking why from a gameplay mechanic point of view, not an rp one.
And I'm answering from a gameplay point of view, that they should put failed assignments back on the list instead of letting you off the hook for doing a bad job.
You might as well complain about how we're sending "so many brave men and women to die in combat" whenever we fly carriers and launch hangar pets that aren't drones.
"Why can't shuttles/fighters in Star Trek be piloted by a computer? Why does shuttle gameplay even exist at all?"
I'd sooner complain about how we're sending men and women who apparently got their space pilot's licence from a cereal box. And in case you didn't get it, that was directed at the stupidity of hangar pets.
But yes, whole starships in Star Trek can indeed be piloted by computer. Even before considering holographic pilots. So maybe I should instead complain about how we're apparently using space pilot software found in a cereal box? Then again hangar pets are apparently self-replicating so maybe they're just considered that disposable.
Whether or not the name of the hangar item contains the word "drone" is completely meaningless.
Shuttle gameplay exists, because the plot says we have to fly a shuttle.
"Why can I send my chef and bartender on so many different doff assignments that make no sense for their profession?"
Because they can actually do those jobs. Unlike Admiralty, the doff system does have requirements for the number and skill of officers you have to send. You can't just send your chef and bartender to (blow themselves and the ship up trying to) perform Experimental Warp Core Upgrade or something.
If you can get your Admiralty ship cards to the number 50, you will have no problem running Admiralty missions. Don't knock it because some of these missions award around 13k - 17k in xp.
Never saw any Admiral command them to send a hapless redshirt in a shuttle to fail a job on purpose, because he didn't like the rewards.
Again, I couldn't care less about the details and whether something makes sense or not when it comes to these in-game systems.
And I'm answering from a gameplay point of view, that they should put failed assignments back on the list instead of letting you off the hook for doing a bad job.
This is the part that I was asking about. Why does it upset you so much that I use my shuttles like this? The actual goal I'm after is the Tours. When an assignment is 15 to 45 minutes long, asks for maybe over 50 on all stats, and only gives like 700 xp and a two packs of common R&D materials, then eh. At most I'll put any t1 to t3 ships if any are available. If I don't have pass tokens and my low tier ships aren't available, it's the perfect time to send in a shuttle. I know I'm definitely not going to bother putting ships with long maintenance times. If the devs suddenly decide to say that shuttles now have a 30 minute maintenance time or that all assignments now require at least 40% success rate to start, I wouldn't really care. I'm still going to put the least amount of effort possible into trying to get a success when it comes to these assignments. Why? Since every ship has a maintenance time, I'm going to put all efforts into succeeding tours (You never want to fail a tour. Those things take a while to get to.) or the assignments that give decent rewards. I don't want to run into a situation where it would be useful if I had my Chel Grett/Fleet Jupiter/D'kora or what have you, but oops, it still has 8 hours of maintenance left. I've bumped into those situations before back when I would slot whatever to get to 100% success rate, but not anymore.
I wouldn't put failed assignments back on the list. Not everyone has 50 or 200 ships to choose from. I wouldn't be surprised if some players out there don't even have more than 15 consisting of low, mid, and high tiers. Some may not have uber cards like the Pheonix replica or the assimilated assault cruiser. Some may not have the event ships. You have to take those people into consideration. If an assignment suddenly pops up and asks them for 210 engi, 125 on tac, and 125 on sci, and can only get somewhere near 30% success rate, then it'll probably a hassle for them to get passed it.
Shuttle gameplay exists, because the plot says we have to fly a shuttle.
It also exists because... well, why not? It's a nice refresher to jump in something different. I'm not someone who hates doing the Vault. Not everyone is going to agree with this, but it's ok. I agree with you about the questionable AI of hangar pets. Still wondering when it'll get fixed.
Because they can actually do those jobs. Unlike Admiralty, the doff system does have requirements for the number and skill of officers you have to send. You can't just send your chef and bartender to (blow themselves and the ship up trying to) perform Experimental Warp Core Upgrade or something.
You're right about most of it with doffing, but I was mostly referring to the assignments where you could do questionable decisions, like sending a photonic studies scientist to haggle for jevonite as opposed to a trader.
If you're implying that you would prefer people to put in more effort into succeeding assignments by having admiralty follow what the doff system does, I don't agree. If admiralty did something like ask one or even two slots to HAVE to be dedicated to... let's say a sci vessel, then you'd just cause massive grief towards KDF and Rom players considering how they don't have that many sci ships to begin with. High sci requirements on assignments are already a huge pain to deal with on those factions.
Anymore questions?
No, I just wanted to give my two cents. I think the admiralty system is fine the way it is. It's a fantastic way to get players to buy and collect more ships. It was also a great way to convince players to buy lower tier ships that they probably would have never thought about getting. It definitely made ships that always felt obsolete (like Mirror ships) now feel much more shinier and worthwhile. Nothing should be changed imo. If something has to be changed, it should be the amount of dil you receive from the 10th tour on the KDF campaign. I think Cryptic overdid it with 32k dil. Idk though, it kinda does take a while to get to that 10th tour. *shrugs*
Actually the number of Really Superior Universal Upgrades given out for the Romulan Tour of Duty 10 of 10 is too low at four. To be the equivalent of the amount of Dilithium for the Klingons it should be nearer to 24. But that will never happen. Perhaps six.
'But to be logical is not to be right', and 'nothing' on God's earth could ever 'make it' right!'
Judge Dan Haywood
'As l speak now, the words are forming in my head.
l don't know.
l really don't know what l'm about to say, except l have a feeling about it.
That l must repeat the words that come without my knowledge.'
And I'm answering from a gameplay point of view, that they should put failed assignments back on the list instead of letting you off the hook for doing a bad job.
This is the part that I was asking about. Why does it upset you so much that I use my shuttles like this?
I wouldn't put failed assignments back on the list. Not everyone has 50 or 200 ships to choose from. I wouldn't be surprised if some players out there don't even have more than 15 consisting of low, mid, and high tiers. Some may not have uber cards like the Pheonix replica or the assimilated assault cruiser. Some may not have the event ships. You have to take those people into consideration. If an assignment suddenly pops up and asks them for 210 engi, 125 on tac, and 125 on sci, and can only get somewhere near 30% success rate, then it'll probably a hassle for them to get passed it.
And that's what pass tokens and the 3 assignments to choose between are for.
On that note, I think there should be assignments you can't get more than 30% on even if you have every ship card in the game. Something should ask for 400/400/400, plus event. And it should be worth trying. It should be so much worth trying that people would WANT it to be put back in the list if they fail.
That would make the system more interesting, less bookkeeping-y. We're supposed to be running military operations, not managing office drones in their cubicles. Some amount of risky high-stakes missions should be inevitable.
Because they can actually do those jobs. Unlike Admiralty, the doff system does have requirements for the number and skill of officers you have to send. You can't just send your chef and bartender to (blow themselves and the ship up trying to) perform Experimental Warp Core Upgrade or something.
You're right about most of it with doffing, but I was mostly referring to the assignments where you could do questionable decisions, like sending a photonic studies scientist to haggle for jevonite as opposed to a trader.
A photonic studies scientist is capable of haggling. Less experienced perhaps than a trader, which is represented by lower chance of success, but nonetheless capable.
If you're implying that you would prefer people to put in more effort into succeeding assignments by having admiralty follow what the doff system does, I don't agree. If admiralty did something like ask one or even two slots to HAVE to be dedicated to... let's say a sci vessel, then you'd just cause massive grief towards KDF and Rom players considering how they don't have that many sci ships to begin with. High sci requirements on assignments are already a huge pain to deal with on those factions.
True. Ships are in shorter supply than people, as they should. And all ships are capable (if occasionally suboptimal) of all tasks when flown by us so only logical they would work the same in Admiralty. The requirements are fine in design, although I'd wish they'd go higher in value.
But there is some need for a reality check. Those assignments are supposed to represent jobs that need to be done. If a pass token represents calling in a favor someone owes you to get the job off your hands, thats OK. But intentionally failing at your job shouldn't be rewarded. It isn't practical in a game for players to be subject to the kind of consequences a real life military officer would be for incompetence, but at the very least the game should try to avoid rewarding it.
Simply putting the failed assignment back seems to accomplish that, and be consistent with the die-respawn-retry nature of normal gameplay in STO.
After all, you wouldn't seriously suggest that if you're fighting an enemy ship yourself and get blown up, that the enemy should be removed so you can move on to the next one, would you? That you should be allowed to progress in a mission by flying a shuttle into battle and dying on purpose?
No, I just wanted to give my two cents. I think the admiralty system is fine the way it is. It's a fantastic way to get players to buy and collect more ships. It was also a great way to convince players to buy lower tier ships that they probably would have never thought about getting. It definitely made ships that always felt obsolete (like Mirror ships) now feel much more shinier and worthwhile. Nothing should be changed imo. If something has to be changed, it should be the amount of dil you receive from the 10th tour on the KDF campaign. I think Cryptic overdid it with 32k dil. Idk though, it kinda does take a while to get to that 10th tour. *shrugs*
It is great for ship collecting, yes. My favorite collector's feature. But it's supposed to also represent our role as Admirals. It should reward us for doing a good job.
And I'm answering from a gameplay point of view, that they should put failed assignments back on the list instead of letting you off the hook for doing a bad job.
This is the part that I was asking about. Why does it upset you so much that I use my shuttles like this?
Because the game is rewarding you for failure.
Not really. You still (likely) fail that mission, and it still occupies an Admirality Assigment Slot and the Shuttle.
The cost of the failure is just something you can manage.
Mustrum "Today I am in war with Quote Tags" Ridcully
Star Trek Online Advancement: You start with lowbie gear, you end with Lobi gear.
Comments
Hehe heh hehehehehehHahahahaHAHAHAHA! *DROOL SLOBBER THUMP HEAD ON DESK AND TWITCH*
l don't know.
l really don't know what l'm about to say, except l have a feeling about it.
That l must repeat the words that come without my knowledge.'
And I don't have a whole big arsenal of ships. Though I'd like to lol. I have just enough to fill out my slots with some extra ships to use once some of the shorter missions complete.
Hey OP, the Admiralty System is the TOP tool to make alting in this game doable again and that at reasonable levels after the DR catastrophe.
I’m glad cryptic introduced it and for how it works. The way you use your ships in there is like a continuous reward for the dedication you have put towards the game. Let it be as paying customer who purchases ships from zen store or as F2Per who is regularly around for events.
At the moment it is your best friend against the grind in STO. I hope this buddy is here to stay.
Looking for a fun PvE fleet? Join us at Omega Combat Division today.
Assuming you are serious. You need to report that. Because 100% chance of success is supposed to mean 100% and I know I never fail an admiralty at 100%. I may not crit. But I don't fail them.
Originally Posted by pwlaughingtrendy
Network engineers are not ship designers.
Nor should they be. Their ships would look weird.
l don't know.
l really don't know what l'm about to say, except l have a feeling about it.
That l must repeat the words that come without my knowledge.'
You get a very finite number of slots you can even use and some of the run counters are long enough to set them and go to work. Why would you bother not going for 100% when this starts at endgame when you will have the most ships?
Originally Posted by pwlaughingtrendy
Network engineers are not ship designers.
Nor should they be. Their ships would look weird.
That's the point. There is no reason to do that now, but there should be.
I find it depressing that players would use shuttles on suicide runs as a poor man's pass token. There's something wrong with a system if intentional failure is seen as preferable over an honest try.
Don't know why you even need poor pass tokens but not the issue. As I use shuttles to bolster ships that already meet the reqs and up the crits.
You are right in that aiming for sub-optimal isn't encouraged Maybe if they doubled the number of slots available people would risk more?
Originally Posted by pwlaughingtrendy
Network engineers are not ship designers.
Nor should they be. Their ships would look weird.
If you are playing over an extended period during a day it can be a bit of a chore to keep all slots filled all the time. I've seen many times where three of four Admiralty Missions are done to be turned in and no Doff Missions have yet completed.
l don't know.
l really don't know what l'm about to say, except l have a feeling about it.
That l must repeat the words that come without my knowledge.'
Why? When I see the rewards aren't worth it, and I have no pass tokens, then why wouldn't I skip it using a simple shuttle if I have one? I'm not going to send a ship that has a +4 hour maintenance wait time. I'd rather save it for when I need it on a possible upcoming assignment that has better rewards.
I'll have to think about that next time I'm out of tokens.
Yes. I was being serious. Failed 3 in a row with 100% success ratings. They all had one stat over 100. And they were all Tier Missions. Bug maybe, yes. But reporting it won't fix it since I can't 'Show it to them'.
oh well.
l don't know.
l really don't know what l'm about to say, except l have a feeling about it.
That l must repeat the words that come without my knowledge.'
l don't know.
l really don't know what l'm about to say, except l have a feeling about it.
That l must repeat the words that come without my knowledge.'
ISWYDT
Being critical doesn't take skill. Being constructively critical- which is providing alternative solutions or suggestions to a demonstrated problem, however, does.
I never liked making time for doffing. I'm more of an A.S.S. man myself.
Personally, I'd probably solve it by putting failed assignments right back on the list. You're given a mission you try it until you succeed or use a real pass token. None of this fail on purpose and mommy will do it for you business.
Except in the case of completing a level (which you should save those one-time ships for if there's a problem with completion), you are not required to complete any given assignment. You simply need enough experience to progress. You can easily get that even with a small roster of ships by focusing on common and uncommon assignments. When possible pass on rare and very rare (unless the specific pay-out is of interest to you). Alternatively, purposefully fail those unwanted assignments. A shuttle craft is all you need and you risk absolutely nothing doing it.
Admiralty is the most innocuous assignment type in the game (rep requires more input, R+D requires more patience, and doffing requires more of a base). You just have to be a little more considerate about how you approach it (ex. don't buy ships for admiralty, you will almost certainly never earn your investment back. Just use what you have in the most efficient way possible.)
Notable missions: Apex [AEI], Gemini [SSF], Trident [AEI], Evolution's Smile [SSF], Transcendence
Looking for something new to play? I've started building Foundry missions again in visual novel form!
By that logic the reverse should also apply. Why would your superiors be okay with you hailing Captain Walker just to tow in or repair a disabled ship when the USS Pastak can instead help with much more dire assignments? It doesn't make sense, no, but the right to do so still exists because you have access to the admiralty card that can be used on whatever assignment you want. That's just the way it works mechanically.
I'm asking why from a gameplay mechanic point of view, not an rp one. You might as well complain about how we're sending "so many brave men and women to die in combat" whenever we fly carriers and launch hangar pets that aren't drones.
"Why can't shuttles/fighters in Star Trek be piloted by a computer? Why does shuttle gameplay even exist at all?"
"Why can I send my chef and bartender on so many different doff assignments that make no sense for their profession?"
:P
And I'm answering from a gameplay point of view, that they should put failed assignments back on the list instead of letting you off the hook for doing a bad job.
I'd sooner complain about how we're sending men and women who apparently got their space pilot's licence from a cereal box. And in case you didn't get it, that was directed at the stupidity of hangar pets.
But yes, whole starships in Star Trek can indeed be piloted by computer. Even before considering holographic pilots. So maybe I should instead complain about how we're apparently using space pilot software found in a cereal box? Then again hangar pets are apparently self-replicating so maybe they're just considered that disposable.
Whether or not the name of the hangar item contains the word "drone" is completely meaningless.
Shuttle gameplay exists, because the plot says we have to fly a shuttle.
Because they can actually do those jobs. Unlike Admiralty, the doff system does have requirements for the number and skill of officers you have to send. You can't just send your chef and bartender to (blow themselves and the ship up trying to) perform Experimental Warp Core Upgrade or something.
Anymore questions?
This is the part that I was asking about. Why does it upset you so much that I use my shuttles like this? The actual goal I'm after is the Tours. When an assignment is 15 to 45 minutes long, asks for maybe over 50 on all stats, and only gives like 700 xp and a two packs of common R&D materials, then eh. At most I'll put any t1 to t3 ships if any are available. If I don't have pass tokens and my low tier ships aren't available, it's the perfect time to send in a shuttle. I know I'm definitely not going to bother putting ships with long maintenance times. If the devs suddenly decide to say that shuttles now have a 30 minute maintenance time or that all assignments now require at least 40% success rate to start, I wouldn't really care. I'm still going to put the least amount of effort possible into trying to get a success when it comes to these assignments. Why? Since every ship has a maintenance time, I'm going to put all efforts into succeeding tours (You never want to fail a tour. Those things take a while to get to.) or the assignments that give decent rewards. I don't want to run into a situation where it would be useful if I had my Chel Grett/Fleet Jupiter/D'kora or what have you, but oops, it still has 8 hours of maintenance left. I've bumped into those situations before back when I would slot whatever to get to 100% success rate, but not anymore.
I wouldn't put failed assignments back on the list. Not everyone has 50 or 200 ships to choose from. I wouldn't be surprised if some players out there don't even have more than 15 consisting of low, mid, and high tiers. Some may not have uber cards like the Pheonix replica or the assimilated assault cruiser. Some may not have the event ships. You have to take those people into consideration. If an assignment suddenly pops up and asks them for 210 engi, 125 on tac, and 125 on sci, and can only get somewhere near 30% success rate, then it'll probably a hassle for them to get passed it.
It also exists because... well, why not? It's a nice refresher to jump in something different. I'm not someone who hates doing the Vault. Not everyone is going to agree with this, but it's ok. I agree with you about the questionable AI of hangar pets. Still wondering when it'll get fixed.
You're right about most of it with doffing, but I was mostly referring to the assignments where you could do questionable decisions, like sending a photonic studies scientist to haggle for jevonite as opposed to a trader.
If you're implying that you would prefer people to put in more effort into succeeding assignments by having admiralty follow what the doff system does, I don't agree. If admiralty did something like ask one or even two slots to HAVE to be dedicated to... let's say a sci vessel, then you'd just cause massive grief towards KDF and Rom players considering how they don't have that many sci ships to begin with. High sci requirements on assignments are already a huge pain to deal with on those factions.
No, I just wanted to give my two cents. I think the admiralty system is fine the way it is. It's a fantastic way to get players to buy and collect more ships. It was also a great way to convince players to buy lower tier ships that they probably would have never thought about getting. It definitely made ships that always felt obsolete (like Mirror ships) now feel much more shinier and worthwhile. Nothing should be changed imo. If something has to be changed, it should be the amount of dil you receive from the 10th tour on the KDF campaign. I think Cryptic overdid it with 32k dil. Idk though, it kinda does take a while to get to that 10th tour. *shrugs*
l don't know.
l really don't know what l'm about to say, except l have a feeling about it.
That l must repeat the words that come without my knowledge.'
And that's what pass tokens and the 3 assignments to choose between are for.
On that note, I think there should be assignments you can't get more than 30% on even if you have every ship card in the game. Something should ask for 400/400/400, plus event. And it should be worth trying. It should be so much worth trying that people would WANT it to be put back in the list if they fail.
That would make the system more interesting, less bookkeeping-y. We're supposed to be running military operations, not managing office drones in their cubicles. Some amount of risky high-stakes missions should be inevitable. A photonic studies scientist is capable of haggling. Less experienced perhaps than a trader, which is represented by lower chance of success, but nonetheless capable.
True. Ships are in shorter supply than people, as they should. And all ships are capable (if occasionally suboptimal) of all tasks when flown by us so only logical they would work the same in Admiralty. The requirements are fine in design, although I'd wish they'd go higher in value.
But there is some need for a reality check. Those assignments are supposed to represent jobs that need to be done. If a pass token represents calling in a favor someone owes you to get the job off your hands, thats OK. But intentionally failing at your job shouldn't be rewarded. It isn't practical in a game for players to be subject to the kind of consequences a real life military officer would be for incompetence, but at the very least the game should try to avoid rewarding it.
Simply putting the failed assignment back seems to accomplish that, and be consistent with the die-respawn-retry nature of normal gameplay in STO.
After all, you wouldn't seriously suggest that if you're fighting an enemy ship yourself and get blown up, that the enemy should be removed so you can move on to the next one, would you? That you should be allowed to progress in a mission by flying a shuttle into battle and dying on purpose?
It is great for ship collecting, yes. My favorite collector's feature. But it's supposed to also represent our role as Admirals. It should reward us for doing a good job.
Sending a Shuttle means there was at least an observer of the situation, even if the crew couldn't do anything.
Not really. You still (likely) fail that mission, and it still occupies an Admirality Assigment Slot and the Shuttle.
The cost of the failure is just something you can manage.
Mustrum "Today I am in war with Quote Tags" Ridcully