test content
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc

Legendary Vor'cha, massive disappointment

1235»

Comments

  • jennycolvinjennycolvin Member Posts: 1,099 Arc User
    husanakx wrote: »
    I strongly hope that everybody around here will never stop to state that poo poo stinks and does not taste like delicious chocolate pudding! Do so because it helps!

    The only thing that will ultimately effect change is if dissatisfied players don't buy the pack. Despite my differences in philosophy with another person on this forum, that's one thing we do agree on. Players should vote with their wallets, everything else is just noise.

    I don't ultimately wish financial failure upon those that run Star Trek Online as I enjoy playing this game. Players however, should consider that future sales are influenced heavily by what's sold previously. If you agree that this pack doesn't represent a good value, don't buy it. If you do, then simply put.. you have no right to complain.

    The frustrating thing is.... when it doesn't sell it will be because "Klingon stuff doesn't sell".

    We have seen this happen time and time over a decade now. Give the Klingon some inferior bit of kit.... it doesn't sell... blame that on low Klingon uptake.

    Bingo! They purposefully create the problem - as you noted, they've done so from the very beginning - and then blame the players for it.
    kv1Ohsx.png
    Not agreeing with someone doesn't give you the right to be an TRIBBLE.

    Ci sono tre tipi di giocatori:
    - quelli a cui non va mai bene niente... e vanno sul forum a trollare;
    - quelli che sono talmente imbesuiti da credere a qualunque cosa i dev dicano, perfino che la luna è fatta di formaggio... e vanno sul forum a trollare;
    - quelli che credono a quello a cui è giusto credere, sono d'accordo con quello con cui è giusto essere d'accordo e sono critici con quello che non va;

    Ai giocatori dei primi due tipi, gratis in omaggio un bello specchio lucente su cui arrampicarsi. E una mazzata in testa per la loro poca intelligenza e compassione verso gli altri giocatori che non la pensano come loro.
    Agli appartenenti al terzo tipo, invece, dico grazie. Anche se non sempre si riesce a mantenere la calma, siete quelli per cui vale la pena incazzarsi.
  • thegrandnagus1thegrandnagus1 Member Posts: 5,108 Arc User
    Players should vote with their wallets, everything else is just noise....

    If you agree that this pack doesn't represent a good value, don't buy it. If you do, then simply put.. you have no right to complain.

    2 questions:

    1: have you ever complained about anything you have bought?

    2: have you ever felt like you needed to give feedback on a product you were not happy with, not simply say nothing and "vote with your wallet"?

    FYI, I already know the answer to both of those question is "yes". Why? Because literally EVERYONE has done both of those things.

    The point: because you have done both of those things (and will do so again in the future, I guarantee you), then you cannot tell other people to follow advice that you do not even follow yourself.

    The-Grand-Nagus
    Join Date: Sep 2008

    og9Zoh0.jpg
  • darknovasc01darknovasc01 Member Posts: 145 Arc User
    husanakx wrote: »
    PvP is still dead last I checked, there is no incoming wave of kerrat tears because the 11 year old toon now has a proper ambush bonus. NO more then normal anyway cause anyone that really wants to play such a role already has Romulan KDF toons.

    I dispute this, PvP is not dead - they just changed the name to 'Player versus Player FOR limited Nimbus Endeavour Spawns'.

    Its brutal down there these days...

    But otherwise agree with the majority view here on everything else.

    No matter how low I seem to set my expectations regarding Cryptic now, they consistently strive to fail them.
  • thegrandnagus1thegrandnagus1 Member Posts: 5,108 Arc User
    husanakx wrote: »
    PvP is still dead last I checked, there is no incoming wave of kerrat tears because the 11 year old toon now has a proper ambush bonus. NO more then normal anyway cause anyone that really wants to play such a role already has Romulan KDF toons.

    I dispute this, PvP is not dead - they just changed the name to 'Player versus Player FOR limited Nimbus Endeavour Spawns'.

    That's called PvEvP :p

    The-Grand-Nagus
    Join Date: Sep 2008

    og9Zoh0.jpg
  • paradox#7391 paradox Member Posts: 1,302 Arc User
    I heard that they recently added 500 Lobi to the bundle, I might just buy it for the Lobi alone, I don't really care about ships or consoles, just like uniforms and ground gear more, space combat isn't really for me unlike the superior ground combat.
  • cbrjwrrcbrjwrr Member Posts: 2,782 Arc User
    husanakx wrote: »

    The frustrating thing is.... when it doesn't sell it will be because "Klingon stuff doesn't sell".

    We have seen this happen time and time over a decade now. Give the Klingon some inferior bit of kit.... it doesn't sell... blame that on low Klingon uptake.

    Bingo! They purposefully create the problem - as you noted, they've done so from the very beginning - and then blame the players for it.

    And the worst part is that when they want to, they can do Klingon stuff so well.
  • jennycolvinjennycolvin Member Posts: 1,099 Arc User
    cbrjwrr wrote: »
    husanakx wrote: »

    The frustrating thing is.... when it doesn't sell it will be because "Klingon stuff doesn't sell".

    We have seen this happen time and time over a decade now. Give the Klingon some inferior bit of kit.... it doesn't sell... blame that on low Klingon uptake.

    Bingo! They purposefully create the problem - as you noted, they've done so from the very beginning - and then blame the players for it.

    And the worst part is that when they want to, they can do Klingon stuff so well.

    For real! When they really want to, they can do ALL kinds of stuff extremely well. But they don't want to, because that cost even more time and effort, so we get minimal everything in new "season" each smaller and more bug-ridden than the last.
    kv1Ohsx.png
    Not agreeing with someone doesn't give you the right to be an TRIBBLE.

    Ci sono tre tipi di giocatori:
    - quelli a cui non va mai bene niente... e vanno sul forum a trollare;
    - quelli che sono talmente imbesuiti da credere a qualunque cosa i dev dicano, perfino che la luna è fatta di formaggio... e vanno sul forum a trollare;
    - quelli che credono a quello a cui è giusto credere, sono d'accordo con quello con cui è giusto essere d'accordo e sono critici con quello che non va;

    Ai giocatori dei primi due tipi, gratis in omaggio un bello specchio lucente su cui arrampicarsi. E una mazzata in testa per la loro poca intelligenza e compassione verso gli altri giocatori che non la pensano come loro.
    Agli appartenenti al terzo tipo, invece, dico grazie. Anche se non sempre si riesce a mantenere la calma, siete quelli per cui vale la pena incazzarsi.
  • foppotee#4552 foppotee Member Posts: 1,704 Arc User
    They are getting desperate now, adding 500 lobi to the bundle.

    Seems they realise how universaly hated this bundle is but don't wan't to actualy fix it.



    I don't know about desperation. I think Cryptic knows there's a certain percentage that will buy this no matter the price just like there's a certain number that won't buy it. This 500 Lobi marketing is to persuade those in between.

    I look at this in a similar fashion as this "legendary" Vor'cha, either that turn-rate was an accident at 6.5 or it wasn't & the change to 9.5 was intended to placate the masses that found it lacking. Adding 500 Lobi might placate more thinking this was a bad value bundle & entice them to buy it.

    500 Lobi won't even get you a complete space set, I think, for a shiny new "legendary" ship in this bundle: 500 + 44 guaranteed from the Keys + 110 guaranteed from the Promo Packs still leaves one 46 Lobi short but if this bundle is mostly targeted at "whales" then they're probably going to buy it anyways & have the Lobi. Let them eat their cake.

    Then again since Lobi items are bound to character I've never placed as much value in Lobi gear as others especially since their cost is significant.

    I still think the biggest stinker so far of the 3 is the "legendary" B'rel.

    I'm still not buying it, just don't think it is up to parity.
  • foppotee#4552 foppotee Member Posts: 1,704 Arc User
    husanakx wrote: »
    PvP is still dead last I checked, there is no incoming wave of kerrat tears because the 11 year old toon now has a proper ambush bonus. NO more then normal anyway cause anyone that really wants to play such a role already has Romulan KDF toons.

    I dispute this, PvP is not dead - they just changed the name to 'Player versus Player FOR limited Nimbus Endeavour Spawns'.

    That's called PvEvP :p

    It does feel like an almost PvP situation sometimes when trying to kill Gorn or those anthropods lol
  • iamjmphiamjmph Member Posts: 210 Arc User
    The only thing that will ultimately effect change is if dissatisfied players don't buy the pack. Despite my differences in philosophy with another person on this forum, that's one thing we do agree on. Players should vote with their wallets, everything else is just noise.

    I don't ultimately wish financial failure upon those that run Star Trek Online as I enjoy playing this game. Players however, should consider that future sales are influenced heavily by what's sold previously. If you agree that this pack doesn't represent a good value, don't buy it. If you do, then simply put.. you have no right to complain.

    While I do agree with the sentiment, the problem in this case is not supporting this pack wont be taken as we want content equal to the price. It will be another in a long line of, "Klingon content doesn't sell...Have more of the federation ships that WE like".

    I'm not going to buy this pack, just like I didn't buy anything but the first legendary bundle(the third time it was offered, while it was on sale) but it will just be another nail in the coffin for "modern" KDF ships.



  • peterconnorfirstpeterconnorfirst Member Posts: 6,223 Arc User
    animated.gif
    Looking for a fun PvE fleet? Join us at Omega Combat Division today.
    felisean wrote: »
    teamwork to reach a goal is awesome and highly appreciated
    Bring it on
    coldnapalm wrote: »
    wishful thinking is not really a reliable source
  • darkbladejkdarkbladejk Member Posts: 3,345 Community Moderator
    Here is the problem.. you're attacking a point no one is making.

    No one is saying that these ships aren't viable, no one is saying they can't be used well. The issue with these ships.. again.. is the price point value they offer and in this case, that value is low. Yes, they might appeal to a certain play style but these ships offer nothing new or special which means that other ships also appeal to that play style at a much lower price point. These ships come with a premium price tag, and nothing else.

    What I am tired of hearing is the thought that anyone who expresses an opinion other then 'greatest thing ever' is just being negative. People should be allowed view points other then 'this is great' and anytime anyone has a view contrary to that, they are attacked and labeled. Your entire post is a long winded way of saying that if you don't think these ships are great you're wrong.
    But they are actually. Several posts on the first the first page ripped the ship as bad because of the supposed low turn rate and because it dares to have Command primary instead of Intel or Miracle Worker primary. Saying they don't like it because of it being Command instead of Miracle Worker or Intel is one thing. Hinting or saying the ship is objectively bad because it's Command primary is something else. The first is a fair opinion based argument, the second is someone talking out their aft shuttlebay based on their arbitrary subjective standard of what a ship should be.

    Folks expressing their opinion is cool. When folks try to then turn around and assert their subjective opinion as objective fact, THAT is what I take issue with. Folks are entitled to their opinions, but them having that opinion doesn't make them automatically correct. Folks don't like the price of the ship, cool. Folks don't like the layout because they can't get as much of their toolkit as they want onto the build, cool. Folks wish it was a different primary spec instead of Command, cool. Pushing the notion it's objectively bad because it doesn't meet one's subjective standards for an ideal layout, not cool. Having an opinion isn't wrong. Trying to assert that opinion as objective fact when in fact it's not, is however wrong.
    Had someone said that ""I don't like the Vorcha because it's boff setup isn't ideal for what I want to do, and I would have preferred it be Miracle Worker primary instead of Command" you would just insert your opinion that they wanted Miracle Worker because it's 'the best' and they're being petty. There are several comments on here that fit your very definition of of 'objective' that you attack anyway because you turn that objectivity into the ranting you choose to hear.

    And for the record 'good or bad' is only opinion to a point. The game has an established baseline for abilities, there are some that perform well and some that perform poorly. These facts can be mathematically documented and have been on many occasions. If a ship release is only capable of using the abilities that have already been considered by the majority to be 'bad' then yes.. that ship is 'bad.' The idea that there can never be such thing as a 'bad' ship or a 'bad' console, trait, etc is simply not true. This however, is not the case here because no one thinks these ships are incapable of completing game content, that's never been an issue. The issue is that they meet that standard but do nothing to surpass it despite their premium price tag.

    Again, there is no wrong doing in expecting to get more when you pay more. People are not wrong for wanting value for their money. As individual 3k Zen ships, these releases are just fine.
    No actually that's not how I roll, but you're welcome to your opinion. I may debate the person on build theories around the ship, as that's what players do from time to time. However neither of us are objectively right or objectively wrong in our opinions. It's simply 2 people having a banter on build theory and why they think the layout is good/bad for what they want to do. What is however objectively wrong is trying to assert one's subjective opinion as objective fact, and is something I will not hesitate in calling attention to.

    Your example in your second paragraph fails for a number of reasons, with the biggest one being that you're blaming the ship for the performance of an ability that exists outside of the ship itself. It's like getting mad at a gaming convention for canceling thanks to a natural disaster. Also in that example, you either missed or ignored some key factors. Each ship in game is given a pre-defined pool of abilities they can pick from, and you determine which ones make it to the ship. If a ship is only running all "bad" abilities, that's a choice you made. It's dishonest to blame the ship in that instance as the problem is the ability itself and not the ship. It's like a politician blaming the other side for a problem they themselves created. When someone says that the ship is bad because it's a 5/3 layout with a 6.5 turn rate, as we initially thought it was, and tries to portray it as an objectively bad ship because of that, they are indeed saying the ship can't clear content. Criticizing price point is a fair argument, but blaming a ship for abilities you chose to put there is just foolish.

    As for wanting more value, just how much more value are you wanting? Believe it or not I actually agree they could do more with the pack within reason. I would have wanted to see the Negh'var in there along with the flagship at the very least. 4 kdf ships and the 2 fed ships could have been alot better with this pack.

    By the time I posted this they actually updated the stats because some folks took the time to give constructive feedback on the ships, and were going to vote with their wallets. Constructive feedback is saying "I would buy the ship if the stats were X instead of Y." Constructive feedback is saying "I feel like this ship would be better with stat X as it feels weak compared to ship Y." Being unreasonable is asserting a ship is objectively bad because of the ship not meeting your desired stat goals.
    "Someone once told me that time was a predator that stalked us all our lives. I rather believe that time is a companion who goes with us on the journey and reminds us to cherish every moment, because it will never come again." - Jean Luc Picard in Star Trek Generations

    Star Trek Online volunteer Community Moderator
  • darkbladejkdarkbladejk Member Posts: 3,345 Community Moderator
    edited February 2021
    Did you reply to anybody particular in this thread? I don’t think so because the ship is bad at everything you mention your post.

    Have fun getting and playing it. I will have fun not getting and playing it. What I also will have fun at is to continue to point out every bad ship release that can best be described as a bad joke noob trap in these forums in the future. It’s not remotely worth the price cryptic is asking.
    For how you personally play the may be the case, or may no longer be the case after the updates, I honestly don't know. However with that said, you are not the arbiter of what is a bad ship and what isn't. It's a ship existing, and you having an opinion, nothing more nothing less.
    Post edited by darkbladejk on
    "Someone once told me that time was a predator that stalked us all our lives. I rather believe that time is a companion who goes with us on the journey and reminds us to cherish every moment, because it will never come again." - Jean Luc Picard in Star Trek Generations

    Star Trek Online volunteer Community Moderator
  • foppotee#4552 foppotee Member Posts: 1,704 Arc User
    I heard that they recently added 500 Lobi to the bundle, I might just buy it for the Lobi alone, I don't really care about ships or consoles, just like uniforms and ground gear more, space combat isn't really for me unlike the superior ground combat.

    You do realize, I'm pretty sure, if your intent is the Lobi it'd be cheaper to just buy R&D Promo Packs when they're on sale, even not on sale, for that amount of Lobi?
  • jennycolvinjennycolvin Member Posts: 1,099 Arc User
    Did you reply to anybody particular in this thread? I don’t think so because the ship is bad at everything you mention your post.

    Have fun getting and playing it. I will have fun not getting and playing it. What I also will have fun at is to continue to point out every bad ship release that can best be described as a bad joke noob trap in these forums in the future. It’s not remotely worth the price cryptic is asking.
    For how you personally play the may be the case, or may no longer be the case after the updates, I honestly don't know. However with that said, you are not the arbiter of what is a bad ship and what isn't. It's a ship existing, and you having an opinion, nothing more nothing less.

    And you are not the arbiter of that, either. You're just giving your opinion, same as everybody else, so why yours should be more important or more "correct" than that of anyone else is anybody's guess.

    Pete is right: it's not even remotely worth the price cryptic is asking for it. The whole bundle is not worth that kind of money, not even with the "new" changes they just announced. And yes, this is *my* opinion that happen to align with that of many, many others that have expressed it here, on Reddit, on Twitter, on Facebook and wherever else they're discussing anything STO related.

    You like the ships? Cool.
    You want to buy the bundle? That's cool, too, and it's your prerogative. That's *everyone's* prerogative.
    Just as it's Pete's or mine's prerogative to *not* like the ships and *not* want to buy the bundle. This is also *everyone's* prerogative.
    kv1Ohsx.png
    Not agreeing with someone doesn't give you the right to be an TRIBBLE.

    Ci sono tre tipi di giocatori:
    - quelli a cui non va mai bene niente... e vanno sul forum a trollare;
    - quelli che sono talmente imbesuiti da credere a qualunque cosa i dev dicano, perfino che la luna è fatta di formaggio... e vanno sul forum a trollare;
    - quelli che credono a quello a cui è giusto credere, sono d'accordo con quello con cui è giusto essere d'accordo e sono critici con quello che non va;

    Ai giocatori dei primi due tipi, gratis in omaggio un bello specchio lucente su cui arrampicarsi. E una mazzata in testa per la loro poca intelligenza e compassione verso gli altri giocatori che non la pensano come loro.
    Agli appartenenti al terzo tipo, invece, dico grazie. Anche se non sempre si riesce a mantenere la calma, siete quelli per cui vale la pena incazzarsi.
  • seaofsorrowsseaofsorrows Member Posts: 10,913 Arc User
    Did you reply to anybody particular in this thread? I don’t think so because the ship is bad at everything you mention your post.

    Have fun getting and playing it. I will have fun not getting and playing it. What I also will have fun at is to continue to point out every bad ship release that can best be described as a bad joke noob trap in these forums in the future. It’s not remotely worth the price cryptic is asking.
    For how you personally play the may be the case, or may no longer be the case after the updates, I honestly don't know. However with that said, you are not the arbiter of what is a bad ship and what isn't. It's a ship existing, and you having an opinion, nothing more nothing less.

    And you are not the arbiter of that, either. You're just giving your opinion, same as everybody else, so why yours should be more important or more "correct" than that of anyone else is anybody's guess.

    Pete is right: it's not even remotely worth the price cryptic is asking for it. The whole bundle is not worth that kind of money, not even with the "new" changes they just announced. And yes, this is *my* opinion that happen to align with that of many, many others that have expressed it here, on Reddit, on Twitter, on Facebook and wherever else they're discussing anything STO related.

    You like the ships? Cool.
    You want to buy the bundle? That's cool, too, and it's your prerogative. That's *everyone's* prerogative.
    Just as it's Pete's or mine's prerogative to *not* like the ships and *not* want to buy the bundle. This is also *everyone's* prerogative.

    I am just going to use this as my reply.

    It’s clear we’re not going to agree here, and that’s fine. As she said, if you feel the bundle is a good value for your money then by all means have at it. I do sincerely hope you enjoy it, but it’s clearly not for me. Everything I said was my personal opinion, I thought I was clear on that.. I do not now, nor have I ever claimed to be the global judge of what is and what isn’t ‘good’ or ‘bad.’ There are however, ways to quantify those judgments based on the performance observed in game and the general trend of the player base toward embracing or avoiding a ship, item, or trait. No one person has the final say either way, and if they did, that person certainly wouldn’t be me.

    To those that buy the bundle, I hope you enjoy it. I really mean that.. I don’t like it, but I don’t want to see anyone get ripped off. I won’t be getting it, I thought the Mirror Dreadnought Bundle was a good example of a value (on sale) so I did buy that one.. this one is not for me.

    Ultimately, it’s success or failure will be decided by the player base as a whole. I think we have all made our points clearly and a few of us are just too far apart to agree. I have my ideas of how it will play out, but only time will tell. Overall, I wish for the continued financial success of Star Trek Online but I won’t hide the fact that I am hoping that bloated bundles like this prove to be poor sellers so that they make adjustments to them in the future.
    animated.gif
    Discovery is good, it's you that sucks.
  • foxrockssocksfoxrockssocks Member Posts: 2,482 Arc User
    edited February 2021
    Here is the problem.. you're attacking a point no one is making.

    No one is saying that these ships aren't viable, no one is saying they can't be used well. The issue with these ships.. again.. is the price point value they offer and in this case, that value is low. Yes, they might appeal to a certain play style but these ships offer nothing new or special which means that other ships also appeal to that play style at a much lower price point. These ships come with a premium price tag, and nothing else.

    What I am tired of hearing is the thought that anyone who expresses an opinion other then 'greatest thing ever' is just being negative. People should be allowed view points other then 'this is great' and anytime anyone has a view contrary to that, they are attacked and labeled. Your entire post is a long winded way of saying that if you don't think these ships are great you're wrong.
    But they are actually. Several posts on the first the first page ripped the ship as bad because of the supposed low turn rate and because it dares to have Command primary instead of Intel or Miracle Worker primary. Saying they don't like it because of it being Command instead of Miracle Worker or Intel is one thing. Hinting or saying the ship is objectively bad because it's Command primary is something else. The first is a fair opinion based argument, the second is someone talking out their aft shuttlebay based on their arbitrary subjective standard of what a ship should be.

    Folks expressing their opinion is cool. When folks try to then turn around and assert their subjective opinion as objective fact, THAT is what I take issue with. Folks are entitled to their opinions, but them having that opinion doesn't make them automatically correct. Folks don't like the price of the ship, cool. Folks don't like the layout because they can't get as much of their toolkit as they want onto the build, cool. Folks wish it was a different primary spec instead of Command, cool. Pushing the notion it's objectively bad because it doesn't meet one's subjective standards for an ideal layout, not cool. Having an opinion isn't wrong. Trying to assert that opinion as objective fact when in fact it's not, is however wrong.

    Anything anyone says is an opinion by default, whether they say, "This is the worst ship ever, That's a fact!!11!" or "Pudding is great." Its always an opinion. There are mathematical comparisons we can do like comparing the stats of the Fleet Nimitz to the L Vor'cha and we can see that the L Vor'cha is inferior for a similar layout (at 6.5 turn), and that's an actual fact. Of course you can argue it makes the whole thing inferior, or that the Nimitz still lacks in other areas to make up for it, and then argue further on the price point of each ship, and that is once again opinion.

    I think everyone needs to have some maturity to understand that people saying things is usually an opinion. That's just something you learn as an adult, everyone has their opinions no matter how firm they are, they are still just opinions, and they can show you the facts and data behind them, but they are still adding them together to form an educated opinion. So I think harping on people stating things forcefully is absurd, because the fact is they are just stating an opinion.
    Now that folks know the Vorcha turn rate was a typo and is actually 9.5 instead of 6.5, I dare say this pretty much nullifies this argument on turn rate. Had it legitimately been 6.5 instead of the 9.5, this argument still would have failed to hold any weight. Having a slower turn rate doesn't preclude a 5/3 layout from working great on a ship. The fact that folks can run cannons successfully on the Vaadwaur Juggernaut nullifies all arguments stating the 5/3 layout wouldn't have worked on the Vorcha. Folks stating they didn't like the turn rate would have been a valid criticism since it would have been a large departure from previous. Folks saying they don't think it would have been a good idea to mount cannons also would have been a fair criticism. But to say the ship as a whole would have been rendered useless would have been a baseless argument by the logic folks were using. Since this argument has been rendered moot by it being revealed to be a typo, I see no further reason to comment on this particular argument further.

    Did you seriously use the Vaadwaur Juggernaut as an example to suggest that any 5/3 ship, such as the Europa, is just fine? There's no bread, okay, but why not eat cake instead?

    Fact is, I've flown the Europa, using Competitive engines. It is why 1) I don't find a low turn rate 5/3 ship to be a serious forward weapons ship, and 2) I hate the competitive engines.

    The Juggernaut, though, is an entirely different animal and using it's success to compare to any other ship is silly.
  • mattingly1mattingly1 Member Posts: 179 Arc User
    edited February 2021
    iamjmph wrote: »
    While I do agree with the sentiment, the problem in this case is not supporting this pack wont be taken as we want content equal to the price. It will be another in a long line of, "Klingon content doesn't sell...Have more of the federation ships that WE like".

    Life's rough like that. They can interpret stuff however they like. Tomorrow, the staff at Cryptic may walk outside and determine that the reason it isn't currently raining is because they didn't sacrifice enough ducks prior to the fall harvest, thereby angering Quackmidas, Bane of a Thousand Webbed Feet. I cannot control what they do, or why they do it - all I can control is my own actions, and the voice with which I provide feedback. And I - and most of us - are saying this clearly: "we do not want this pack because it is overpriced." And I won't be goaded or nudged into purchasing it because of what Cryptic might decide as a result.

  • cbrjwrrcbrjwrr Member Posts: 2,782 Arc User
    edited February 2021
    I heard that they recently added 500 Lobi to the bundle, I might just buy it for the Lobi alone, I don't really care about ships or consoles, just like uniforms and ground gear more, space combat isn't really for me unlike the superior ground combat.

    You do realize, I'm pretty sure, if your intent is the Lobi it'd be cheaper to just buy R&D Promo Packs when they're on sale, even not on sale, for that amount of Lobi?

    18750 Zen buys 166 keys, which gets 664 Lobi minimum. So, viewed in that comparision, 500 Lobi plus 11 keys (min 4) plus 11 R&D promo packs (min 10) gives 654 Lobi minimum. Ok, 10 Lobi less, but for the sake of 10 Lobi you may as well have the bundle.

    Promo packs are better - 740 Lobi vs 654 Lobi. But, those aren't on sale as often.

    Whole different story at full price though.
  • foppotee#4552 foppotee Member Posts: 1,704 Arc User
    cbrjwrr wrote: »
    I heard that they recently added 500 Lobi to the bundle, I might just buy it for the Lobi alone, I don't really care about ships or consoles, just like uniforms and ground gear more, space combat isn't really for me unlike the superior ground combat.

    You do realize, I'm pretty sure, if your intent is the Lobi it'd be cheaper to just buy R&D Promo Packs when they're on sale, even not on sale, for that amount of Lobi?

    18750 Zen buys 166 keys, which gets 664 Lobi minimum. So, viewed in that comparision, 500 Lobi plus 11 keys (min 4) plus 11 R&D promo packs (min 10) gives 654 Lobi minimum. Ok, 10 Lobi less, but for the sake of 10 Lobi you may as well have the bundle.

    Promo packs are better - 740 Lobi vs 654 Lobi. But, those aren't on sale as often.

    Whole different story at full price though.

    True & this puts it in perspective for me as well: I watched a YouTube video earlier today & 1 of the comments put it in perspective for me: Cryptic charged 19500 zen ($195) opening sale price of -35% discount from 30000 zen ($300) for the 10th Anniversary Legendary Bundle of (10 Legend) ships, & now Cryptic is charging 18750 zen ($187.50) opening sale of only -25% discount from 25000 zen ($250) for this 2021 "Legendary" Bundle of (4 "Legend" & 2 regular) ships. This is just the plain & simple math. It doesn't include the fluff pieces which do add various amounts of value.
  • darknovasc01darknovasc01 Member Posts: 145 Arc User
    edited February 2021
    Never mind last year's Legendary bundle, it does not even come close to the Gamma pack in value.

    7 T6 ships (1 of which is often suggested as the best carrier in the game, another that is one of the best FDC ships behind the Lgendary/Promo versions, and the rest generally considered good to excellent for anyone who cannot afford promo/lockbox ships), 3 T5 ships, 3 Boffs considered the next best thing to Romulan SROs, an EV suit with great damage boosting stats, Spiral Wave disruptors unlocked AND a few bits of fluff as well.

    All for less than the asking price of this latest offering.

    Edit: And I still forgot about the unlocks for playable Cardassians and JH Vanguard...
    Post edited by darknovasc01 on
  • darkbladejkdarkbladejk Member Posts: 3,345 Community Moderator
    And you are not the arbiter of that, either. You're just giving your opinion, same as everybody else, so why yours should be more important or more "correct" than that of anyone else is anybody's guess.

    Pete is right: it's not even remotely worth the price cryptic is asking for it. The whole bundle is not worth that kind of money, not even with the "new" changes they just announced. And yes, this is *my* opinion that happen to align with that of many, many others that have expressed it here, on Reddit, on Twitter, on Facebook and wherever else they're discussing anything STO related.

    You like the ships? Cool.
    You want to buy the bundle? That's cool, too, and it's your prerogative. That's *everyone's* prerogative.
    Just as it's Pete's or mine's prerogative to *not* like the ships and *not* want to buy the bundle. This is also *everyone's* prerogative.

    This will most likely be my last comment on this in this thread, so take this for whatever you will. If I have missed something in someone's post and have spoken out of turn, that's on me.

    With that said, I've already pointed out how there is a huge difference between giving one's subjective opinion, and asserting that subjective opinion as objective fact that applies to everyone else. If you want to think the pack isn't worth the price, you're entitled to that opinion. If one wants to dislike a ship because of stats and it not being exactly what they want, they're entitled to that opinion. One wants to think folks are wasting their money on what you view as bad ship(s), one is entitled to that opinion.
    Did you reply to anybody particular in this thread? I don’t think so because the ship is bad at everything you mention your post.

    Have fun getting and playing it. I will have fun not getting and playing it. What I also will have fun at is to continue to point out every bad ship release that can best be described as a bad joke noob trap in these forums in the future. It’s not remotely worth the price cryptic is asking.

    What folks don't get to do however is come on here and assert a ship is objectively bad, and folks are wrong for supporting objectively bad ships. The relevant line in bold of the quote is trying to assert I am objectively wrong for not thinking a ship is bad. That is trying to assert a subjective opinion as objective fact and assert oneself as an arbiter of what is a good and bad ship.

    He doesn't want to buy the ships, that's his choice with his wallet. He thinks they're bad ships, he's entitled to that opinion. He wants to assert I am objectively wrong and the ship is bad because it doesn't meet his arbitrary standards of what a ship should be, no that's not going to fly. That's a ship existing, and him having an opinion, then trying to tell others they are wrong because of his opinion.
    Anything anyone says is an opinion by default, whether they say, "This is the worst ship ever, That's a fact!!11!" or "Pudding is great." Its always an opinion. There are mathematical comparisons we can do like comparing the stats of the Fleet Nimitz to the L Vor'cha and we can see that the L Vor'cha is inferior for a similar layout (at 6.5 turn), and that's an actual fact. Of course you can argue it makes the whole thing inferior, or that the Nimitz still lacks in other areas to make up for it, and then argue further on the price point of each ship, and that is once again opinion.

    I think everyone needs to have some maturity to understand that people saying things is usually an opinion. That's just something you learn as an adult, everyone has their opinions no matter how firm they are, they are still just opinions, and they can show you the facts and data behind them, but they are still adding them together to form an educated opinion. So I think harping on people stating things forcefully is absurd, because the fact is they are just stating an opinion.

    You're correct that by default most of what people say is opinion based by default. You are correct that we can compare stats of different ships and see which ship mathematically has the higher innate stat. In this instance if the Vorcha was legitimately at 6.5 for turn rate, then mathematically it would be inferior in terms of turn rate to ships with a higher turn rate. If the goal is to see which ship is a higher turn then in that hypothetical it's definitely not the Vorcha (assuming 6.5 turn rate.) That much is not in debate. Every ship has varying base properties and not every ship is meant to do everything. Not every ship is going to work well with every type of build. Without context the numbers and stats of the ship mean nothing. If someone wants to say "the Vorcha is bad," okay in what context is it bad? Is this someone saying it's bad overall as their opinion, or are they saying it's bad because it can't work with build type (insert build type here.) If someone wants to say "I think it's bad because it can't work with a science build," okay that's a fair criticism. If someone wants to assert it's objectively bad overall because it can't be used for a science build, that's absolutely wrong. I outlined what I was getting at above. We can debate what we think the stats of a ship should be, how effective we think the ship is and down the line. Difference of opinion is one thing, but asserting someone is objectively wrong because their thoughts aren't your own, nah.

    Data also means nothing without context. Taking the Vorcha as the example, I will be turning mine into a tank because that's what I like to do. For me it's got a flexible enough layout to make for some interesting designs. For someone going for science it may not. In the context of the tank builds, it's good to go. In the context of someone wanting to make a science build, it may not be.
    [
    Did you seriously use the Vaadwaur Juggernaut as an example to suggest that any 5/3 ship, such as the Europa, is just fine? There's no bread, okay, but why not eat cake instead?

    Fact is, I've flown the Europa, using Competitive engines. It is why 1) I don't find a low turn rate 5/3 ship to be a serious forward weapons ship, and 2) I hate the competitive engines.

    The Juggernaut, though, is an entirely different animal and using it's success to compare to any other ship is silly.

    The original assertion was that at 6.5 turn rate, it would render the Vorcha's 5/3 layout largely useless and it couldn't run cannons effectively because of that 6.5 turn rate. The Vaadwaur Juggernaut also has a 5/3 layout and has a 6 for its base turn rate and can run cannons effectively. If the Jugg can run cannons at 6, there's no reason the Vorcha couldn't if it had been 6.5. I've flown the Europa, the Juggernaut, and most ships in the game at this point. For awhile the Juggernaut was my main tank ship. I say that not to be airheaded but to say I've flown the ships in question and gotten a feel for them. If the concern was turn rate, a ship with lower turn rate being able to run cannons means the ship with higher turn rate should absolutely be able to do it.
    "Someone once told me that time was a predator that stalked us all our lives. I rather believe that time is a companion who goes with us on the journey and reminds us to cherish every moment, because it will never come again." - Jean Luc Picard in Star Trek Generations

    Star Trek Online volunteer Community Moderator
  • peterconnorfirstpeterconnorfirst Member Posts: 6,223 Arc User
    edited February 2021
    With that said, I've already pointed out how there is a huge difference between giving one's subjective opinion, and asserting that subjective opinion as objective fact that applies to everyone else. If you want to think the pack isn't worth the price, you're entitled to that opinion. If one wants to dislike a ship because of stats and it not being exactly what they want, they're entitled to that opinion. One wants to think folks are wasting their money on what you view as bad ship(s), one is entitled to that opinion.

    What has me wonder continuedly about you is that I don’t get it when you act as moderator or fellow player.

    I don’t recall any forum rules that require me to what exact detail level I have go down to in order explain my input or criticism!

    As fellow player I can only encourage you to look at the pack, check the price and see how its marketed. Peeps are just stating the obvious, man, and certainly don’t have to resort to wall of texts to explain that either. ;)
    animated.gif
    Looking for a fun PvE fleet? Join us at Omega Combat Division today.
    felisean wrote: »
    teamwork to reach a goal is awesome and highly appreciated
    Bring it on
    coldnapalm wrote: »
    wishful thinking is not really a reliable source
  • ltminnsltminns Member Posts: 12,481 Arc User
    Don't forget the basic 10th Anniversary Bundle also contained 10 Ship Slots.
    '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.'
    Lt. Philip J. Minns
  • foxrockssocksfoxrockssocks Member Posts: 2,482 Arc User
    [
    Did you seriously use the Vaadwaur Juggernaut as an example to suggest that any 5/3 ship, such as the Europa, is just fine? There's no bread, okay, but why not eat cake instead?

    Fact is, I've flown the Europa, using Competitive engines. It is why 1) I don't find a low turn rate 5/3 ship to be a serious forward weapons ship, and 2) I hate the competitive engines.

    The Juggernaut, though, is an entirely different animal and using it's success to compare to any other ship is silly.

    The original assertion was that at 6.5 turn rate, it would render the Vorcha's 5/3 layout largely useless and it couldn't run cannons effectively because of that 6.5 turn rate. The Vaadwaur Juggernaut also has a 5/3 layout and has a 6 for its base turn rate and can run cannons effectively. If the Jugg can run cannons at 6, there's no reason the Vorcha couldn't if it had been 6.5. I've flown the Europa, the Juggernaut, and most ships in the game at this point. For awhile the Juggernaut was my main tank ship. I say that not to be airheaded but to say I've flown the ships in question and gotten a feel for them. If the concern was turn rate, a ship with lower turn rate being able to run cannons means the ship with higher turn rate should absolutely be able to do it.

    The Jugg often kills everything in one fell swoop. It does not need turn rate like other ships do. There's quite a bit of difference between a ship that needs to chase its targets and one that doesn't.
  • foppotee#4552 foppotee Member Posts: 1,704 Arc User
    The original assertion was that at 6.5 turn rate, it would render the Vorcha's 5/3 layout largely useless and it couldn't run cannons effectively because of that 6.5 turn rate. The Vaadwaur Juggernaut also has a 5/3 layout and has a 6 for its base turn rate and can run cannons effectively. If the Jugg can run cannons at 6, there's no reason the Vorcha couldn't if it had been 6.5. I've flown the Europa, the Juggernaut, and most ships in the game at this point. For awhile the Juggernaut was my main tank ship. I say that not to be airheaded but to say I've flown the ships in question and gotten a feel for them. If the concern was turn rate, a ship with lower turn rate being able to run cannons means the ship with higher turn rate should absolutely be able to do it.



    During your rhetoric here & other places, but perhaps you previously addressed it, you're selecting to skip what some of us were wondering all along which was why this particular Vor'cha began with such a hindered lower turn-rate making it out of alignment with all the other Vor'cha's turn-rates.

    I agree with your point that the Vaad-Jug can be suited to be a good ship just like the Vor'cha could've been with that out-of-character 6.5 turn-rate. But that wasn't at least my point, it was an unusual turn-rate without anything that stood-out as a counter-balance. I think that rattler2 had stated a sentiment about any ship can be equiped to overcome any negative spot which is true.

    Of course the lesser turn-rate now is a moot point given it's trajectory of the "typo" of 6.5 that was "intended" to be 9.5 & is currently 10..

Sign In or Register to comment.