test content
Logo
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc
Options
This isn't "Star Trek" Not mine, not yours. But it could be...
System
Member, NoReporting Posts: 178,019 Arc User
Of course, you may be thinking "Well, it's just not YOUR idea of Star Trek." After all, how could anyone make a game we'd all agree on. Everyone has a different idea of what is Star Trek.
Well, to this I say, you're absolutely wrong. We may disagree on the details, about how ships look, or how specific game mechanics may work, but the problem runs deeper than that. This is list of things missing from the foundation of the game, and when your foundation is shaky, everything else is unstable.
In closing, I'd like to comment on space combat a little more. Tribble test combat is swinging like a pendulum, from one extreme to another, and you can't seem to settle it down. I'd like if you'd try, in some office test environment, of trying to slow down weapon fire and jury rigging what I described above, increasing hull and and shield HP MUCH higher (like 200% for everyone), and keeping the heals as they are currently on Tribble.
My theory behind these changes is to make it something more Star Trek. Ships will take a beating, Escorts and the like will still dish out damage, and not have to scramble as much. Repairs under fire are difficult, and as damage builds up, it'll lead to an eventual destruction of your ship, as heals will not be able to keep you up under constant fire.
To further this "Trek-like" combat, get rid of big, direct heals entirely. Science teams repair and increase shield regen, engineering teams repair all systems and increase hull regen. Out of combat, these teams will greatly increase regen and repair rates. Extend Shields on tribble works well with this system. Hazards would heal too much under this system, but it's heal over time would fit decently. I'm sure it can be balanced out.
Radical change? Maybe, but I think this game needs something new, and if you're gonna refit the system, try this.
Well, to this I say, you're absolutely wrong. We may disagree on the details, about how ships look, or how specific game mechanics may work, but the problem runs deeper than that. This is list of things missing from the foundation of the game, and when your foundation is shaky, everything else is unstable.
- The game world is very small and offers no exploration
This is one of the biggest complaints against the game. We have two Quadrants to explore, and I can't explore or land on 90% of the worlds or systems. Instead, I get a single quest or two, a very narrow area to work with, and after that, I won't be revisiting it. Because the game won't let me. I can land on a square kilometer of Vulcan, or Risa, but why bother, since I can't do anything there. Oh, and the explorations and TRIBBLE consist of flying thru empty space scanning floating text. It's awful.
I can't even visit Earth. I am not amused.
- I have no clue what traveling through warp looks like
If I had never seen a Star Trek show, I would assume traveling at warp looked like a grid, while I slowly moved past a dozen systems from one side of the galaxy to the other, which, as related to the above comment, is only about 60 lightyears across, as I wave cordially to Klingon players who are nice enough not to pursue me as I violate their space. Boy, I'll be disappointed if I actually watched Star Trek. Which leads to..
- "We are now entering *ominous tone*The Neutral Zone"
In some odd way, even as a PvP player, Cryptic's policy of "No forcing PvP on players" made sense. After all, most people don't like to be ganked, and are strictly PvE. This policy would make sense if you had no opposing factions, enough PvE and PvP content to keep us busy for months, one factions wasn't PVP BASED, and we had more than one server. Unfortunately, the right hand forgot to tell the left hand about this. When the game started, many of the questions (other than "Where's Sulu?") were "Where's the Neutral Zone?" To which I usually replied "You're in it, scary huh?" What is the point of a border if you can waltz across it? Upon destroying my TNG memories, a single tear rolls down my cheek and leads to...
- "Where's the tractor beam?" "It doesn't get installed until next Tuesday"
This one is a serious problem with me. My ship feels.. incomplete. Too many things that come standard on ships are optional BO powers. Apparently, my ship left space dock without a tractor beam. Or a multi-torpedo firing system. Or a decent sensor system to scan space and enemy ships. Or a tac, science and engy team. Or sensor probes to detect anything. Hell, I can't even get sensor probes. Or a viewscreen. I REALLY want a viewscreen. Nice little pop up window would be nice.
Eh, forget about the sensor system. There's nothing to scan or explore anyway.
- This isn't the Star Trek combat you're looking for...or at
Yes, this is opinion, but remember that epic moment in "Yesterday's Enterprise" where the big E faced off against 3 BoPs? Ya, it was an alternate universe with BoPs that were battlecruisers (hey Cryptic, awesome idea eh?), and they were sorely outmatched, but the fight lasted longer than 3 seconds. And I didn't see a continuous stream of cannon fire that looked like a beam. Quite simply, space combat doesn't look like Star Trek space combat.
Simple fix here: All ships have a limited number of VISIBLE weapon slots, e.i. BoPs have their 2 uber forward mounts, a turret, a couple array slots. Galaxies have two forward phaser arrays, a couple dorsal, ventral...etc. Now when a BoP fires, you see his TWO disruptors fire, but all "extra" weapons of the same type channel their power thru them. Same with his aft mounted turrets. And beams. Bigger, but slower, hits.
I offer this alternative in place of a scary looking future of 12 beam broadsides and 8 DHC forward fire.
In closing, I'd like to comment on space combat a little more. Tribble test combat is swinging like a pendulum, from one extreme to another, and you can't seem to settle it down. I'd like if you'd try, in some office test environment, of trying to slow down weapon fire and jury rigging what I described above, increasing hull and and shield HP MUCH higher (like 200% for everyone), and keeping the heals as they are currently on Tribble.
My theory behind these changes is to make it something more Star Trek. Ships will take a beating, Escorts and the like will still dish out damage, and not have to scramble as much. Repairs under fire are difficult, and as damage builds up, it'll lead to an eventual destruction of your ship, as heals will not be able to keep you up under constant fire.
To further this "Trek-like" combat, get rid of big, direct heals entirely. Science teams repair and increase shield regen, engineering teams repair all systems and increase hull regen. Out of combat, these teams will greatly increase regen and repair rates. Extend Shields on tribble works well with this system. Hazards would heal too much under this system, but it's heal over time would fit decently. I'm sure it can be balanced out.
Radical change? Maybe, but I think this game needs something new, and if you're gonna refit the system, try this.
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
I would also like to ad that I simply don't get the sensation that these ships are very fast... at all. I remember one of my favorite things about Star Trek was watching the Enterprise zip across the screen.
I would love watching the Enterprise, Voyager or Defiant swoop in at great velocity and put itself in harm's way to save another ship during battle.
I try that in game, and if my "evasive maneuvers" is on cool down, or I just vanquished an enemy, the best I can do is wish an ally well.
I also can't make a hasty retreat while under fire. How many times did we hear: "Sulu ! Get us out of here!" and watch the Enterprise soar away? Instead we're reduced to crippled Enterprise speed as she limped away from the soon to explode Reliant.
We see all these designs that look like they COULD go fast, but we have to imagine it, or wait till we warp out of a system...
I usually defend this game, but lately Ive been thinking about finding another MMO that will entertain me more, there is nothing to do END GAME.
Raidsisodes are fun the first time you go thu them, thats it.
This is an intended feature. And is explained in the timeline both on the web-site and in the book.
Hmmm...to be honest, I do not believe anybody that says they have run out of game content in STO. Here's my rant:
Do you both PvE/PvP and have both Fed and Klingon toons, 1 of each type sci/tac/eng to include all the different ships? Do you do the 3 different "marks" dailies "2 PvE 1 PvP to get the best gear"? Have you mastered all the PvE RA5 content, have you opened all the memory alpha tiers up, are you a feared PvPer in both ground and space combat, and finally, have you learned all the different loadout combinations you can put on these ships for any circumstance?
If you have done all of the above and whatever else I have left out, then I bow down to you...because, I have been playing since day 1, and everytime I log on, my game plate is full with "all the nothing to do" in STO and/or the "end game". Yup...one more thing...my Klingon toon and his teammates, got their rear ends handed to them just yesterday, by a well oiled Fed team in several ground PvPs. So after the carnage was over, I spent some time refitting said Klingon, to try and avoid future combat embarrasments of that magnitude. There is allways "something to do", to better your toons.
Every big and small patch brings something new to STO, so don't say there is nothing left to do in the "end game", there is allways "something to do", and if not, there will be soon.
So in closing, for me, there is and allways will be, "somthing to do" in the STO universe...Wether it is to change a PvE BO skill set, doing some PvP re-tuning or even reading these forums to better my STO play. My RA5 does not get dusty, he is a productive member of STO, both in PvE and PvP "end game" activities, my tiny toons and Klingon warrior keep me busy with loadouts, BO skill sets, and ground gear changes in PvE and PvP activities. So if you want to go because in your personal opinion, the game is boring and you have nothing left to do...leave your comm badge and phaser at the door...and just go.
BTW...the OPer was right on track with the thread, and most of it hopefully, will be addressed in future patchs. Can't wait.
Don't presume to speak for others, it only comes off as extremely arrogant. you may not enjoy it but i do. It's star trek enough to keep me coming back.
If you wish to label me as less of a trekkie because of that then go ahead, i tend to phase out those that have turned it into their own personal religion.
I don't think people need to complain so much about the game. From what I have heard in other MMO games, it takes time developing and providing new ways in improving the game. There will be an increase skill cap being able to reach Vice Admiral 1. This will allow to improve more of your abilities and be able to work more with your skill points. You can always use Retrain if you ever want to switch around abilities or even go with a totally different ship and then just purchase more bridge officers if necessary. Players are always placing Bridge Officers to sell up if you really want to purchase officers out of the exchange. If you ever mess up, you can always delete a character and start over. I am still learning new things throughout the game and I started out in beta.
This is just my input.
Couldn't have said it better.
You're both right and wrong. Right as in, there's always something more you could do. Level another alt, or get work for that phaser set for your ship, get one of every kit...
But, quite honestly, I hit all your marks you listed. I've got both a top level Klingon and Fed. I've also trained all three officer classes. I've played and beaten all the STFs to death, and the rewards are lackluster. I have PvP and PvE marks coming out my nacelles. I play on Elite all the time, and find it boring and slightly longer than Normal. Both me and my fleet are feared in PvP matches, and I respect and am in return respected by many of the top PvPers in the game (We'll still Kick your butt D.O.B.! =P.)
No bowing needed, I just put in the time for most of it, with a healthy dose of skill aside. But despite the time I've put in, it's nothing compared to nearly every other MMO on the market. A couple weeks into beta, I had the universe charted, mapped, and tied with a bow. When I was 45, I just floated around space and played PvP, cause there was nothing else (still do). Even those MMOs without a terrific amount of content at least had you working for something, and exploring the game world.
"I've reached the end of the universe, and cried for there were no more worlds to conquer..errr explore."
I don't know what you make of this. You call me arrogant, then proceed to act like I attacked you personally, call yourself a trekkie, and then tell me you tune out fanboys (difference?). I bet you'd write a book on the difference between a trekkie and trekker. And all the while claim that it's "Star Trek enough" for you to keep coming back. Where do you get off judging me, Mr. Presumptuous?
I bet you're so wishy washy that when the server gives you the wrong meal, you shut up, eat it and leave a 20% tip.
What i'm pointing out is that you presume to speak for the entire trek community, and go on further to state that if anyone disagree's they are simply wrong.
I never acted like you attacked me, i merely said don't presume to speak for me. You're more than free to speak for yourself, but only i speak for me. You're also free to disagree with me too, but again only i speak for me. Don't presume to tell me, or anyone else for that matter, what trek is. It's different for every person.
I don't disagree with the rest of your post, the issues you bring up are more than valid, this game does have a long way to go in most every aspect. It's the way you're putting it across that i take issue with.
I actually think he's on to something. At least with the Bridge Officer "powers". (Which is another point of contention, they are not super heroes... Spock never had a sensor scan "power".)
All of these things that we (and our BOffs) can do are things that any ship's crew in Star Trek could do at any time, limited only by the amount of power available, or the size of the crew assigned to the job, and sometimes by the technology available.
Every ship had a tractor beam. Every ship's crew had the ability to program attack patterns (and execute them, not just watch some lights flash), every ship contained (or could get) the raw materials to manufacture needed components for upgrades.
I think the emphasis that's been placed on bridge officers' powers, and buffs/debuffs is (and was) a mistake. Too much of the game's core combat mechanics have been placed on "magic", and not enough on creating a system where we can innovate and improvise (one of the very core ideas of Trek).
I can see why they did it, and how it evolved directly from CoH/CO's superhero gameplay, but I can;t help thinking that they can do better. It was plucked from CO because it was a (relatively) simple way to offer some way to create a way to limit what characters and their officers could do. Unfortunately, it's just not a natural fit.
Unfortunately (again), I don't think we'll see them make any changes so drastic. Which is a shame, because I think that this game has a lot of potential.
Are you suggesting the game would be better without bridge officers? Let's just say theoretically we were going to (because somehow we managed to convince everyone to give up their bridge officers for the sake of making the game better), how would we implement it? What exactly would we be innovate and improvising? Oh, and it can't be too complicated either...I'm pretty sure the vast player base doesn't want to feel like they're taking a college level engineering course. But at the same time it has to keep everyone interested, people like you who really want a complex and challenging game who can spend hours and hours upon it and the people who log on for maybe an hour or so max every 2-3 days.
So my next point is:
Then what makes ships really different from each other? Are they really supposed to be just different skins? Or is the only difference the amount of damage they can take and maneuverability?
Just a few things to think about.
ummm ok......this is being offended to just be offended
Spock's probably a bad example. Because of all the Star Trek characters ever filmed, he's one of the ones that did have super powers. And you can choose them at creation if you too make a vulcan in STO.
This is really splitting hairs. Your ship has a tractor beam. It's just depending on your choices for your loadout your slots your consoles and your crew ... determines whether or not your ship can use that tractor beam in combat.
It's not quite semantics, but dangerously close.
In fact much of what you're talking about really is in the realm of philosophical rather than mechanical.
And that's going to end up at an impasse. Certain aspects of gameplay simply are the way they are. Because this is a Cryptic game.
Feel free to make and/or play a different Star Trek game with a different philosophy. But when you bought into this one by buying this one you made a conscious choice to enter this virtual realm. You do need to suspend your disbelief enough to deal with it.
Cryptic's engine is what it is.
But if this really all just boils down to Tractor Beams ... the game's timeline (found on the web site and in the STO Novel) explains why things are that way. It's the entry about modular starship design. It's a writing gimmick. That gives them a reason for having this philosophical thing being the way it is, even if it doesn't fit into the nice, neat star trek thing you might have been expecting.
Reject that notion. Accept that notion. It's your choice. But it is a tool they gave you to help you suspend your disbelief. Which means the recognized the philosophical issue and gave it enough weight to give the players an out if they needed it.
Mechanically ... nuts and bolts are what they are.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St_sfc
lol, no, I'm absolutely not suggesting that we don't have BOffs. In fact, I really like mine, and enjoy managing them. I wish there were *more* involved with it, just the same as I wish there were more involved with managing our ship's crew. As it stands now, they're just a hull repair speed meter.
To the complexity issue, yes, I agree that there's a fine line to balance between complex and *too* complex, which is why I'm in favor of a scaleable system that we can adjust ourselves. The ship works a certain way on a basic level, as you increase the complexity, the more things that you can control.
As to what makes our ships different? Their engines, their armor, their number of weapons, their maneuvering thrusters, the number of science labs, the strength of their shields... (You see where I'm going...) What separates them are the same things that separate the battleship Missouri from a small destroyer, or a top of the line Mercedes from a Chevy Cavalier.
Sure, they all have access to the same basic equipment, bigger/stronger tractor beams, but a battleship will have more, and bigger guns, a Mercedes would have better science labs than the Chevy... and so on.
Usually, I agree with your stuff Chum, but in this case, I couldn't disagree more. The game's systems are only as set in stone as they decide to make them. And as they take steps pushing us (and themselves) away from the CO superhero mold/mindset, we'll get closer.
They're continually making changes, tweaking, balancing, adding new stuff... and that's a good thing. It means that they're invested in a long haul, and making a fun game. It's why I'll be here. Eventually, they'll get there. It might not be exactly what I want, or what you want, but it will be closer.
I'm actually slightly peeved about your suggestion to deal with it or move on, you're usually more constructive than that.
I've been making suggestions here from the day the forum went online, and I'll be here until they shut the game down. And I'll continually offer those suggestions that I think will make this a better Star Trek game. Not everybody will agree with them, (I mean, interiors, on our ships? No way, can't... *won't* be done, Cryptic's gameplay just doesn't support it!) some will be good, some bad, but all with one goal in mind: To help shape this game into what it can be.
There are certain philosophical things about your suggestions that are a complete 180 from what the game's engine can do. That's where it ends up being set in stone in the way I'm reading things.
Let's take a closer look at what you wrote to get a better idea of where my thoughts came from ...
So how I'm reading this comment (and I could be way off base, so let me know) ... is that something like a tractor beam ... it's on the ship. So even if you don't have a science officer with the assigned power, you should still be able to access a tractor beam.
Now in terms of that, it's my suggestion that you can. It's just you haven't built to access it during combat. And that's the trick there. Your systems are specced a certain way for combat. And it falls under the writing gimmick of Modular Design.
But you have a larger issue with the mechanic itself. And while I agree, they are contiually making changes, some things ... some key or core mechanics are not changing at all. Some because of their decision (i.e. the skill cap) ... and some, simply because they can't change them (BOFF powers being powers ... they can tweak what they do and how they work till the cows come home, but they're not going to redesign the system from scratch).
Like I said, they explained this through a writing gimmick. Modular Starship design. So every ship has a tractor beam. Sure. But not every ship is designed or dedicated to its use when they "engage the borg."
This is what I'm really talking about here. You're looking to change something that even you recognize as a core mechanic of the game. And as much as I see them willing to change or tweak things, most of the work I've seen them do has been either to add (ship interiors ... diplomacy missions) or tweak existing mechanics (EPS Consoles and Energy Drain). I haven't seen them abandon core mechanics.
This again is what I'm talking about in terms of core mechanics. At the very heart of this game is the cryptic engine. It's how this game got made. It's why Atari bought Cryptic.
I just don't see them redesigning that. Working within the core mechanics, and redesigning and improving things outward from the core mechanics, I see them doing. And working very hard to continue to do.
But I don't see them abandoning the core mechanics. They Cryptic engine.
Like I tried to say in my first post ... you're really delving into the philosophical decisions here. The intent of the very basic heart of the game.
I agree that they are very willing to continually tweak the game and improve it. And work on it. And aren't afraid to change things.
But they do tend to keep the basic core of the game's engine in place. Since that's something they can't change.
why cant people just accept the fact that this MMO is not like other MMOs and stop comparing one to another?
why cant people just offer suggesstions or ideas without ripping what the devs and hard working people at cryptic have put together in 2 years time?
why do people blaze thru the content and then scream there is no more to do?
why cant STO just be STO and not WOW or other MMOs/Games?
some canon, some not.
things are/were tweaked for game play ability.
there are more varied ages playing this then just your own.
seems rather rude to assume your vision of trek should be the same as everyone elses.....
Oh I believe we will.
Cryptic will probably almost rewrite the game over time. I always felt that the use of the CO engine was just so they could make the Atari 2year deadline rather than build a MMO from scratch.
Now that STO is up and running, hopefully changes will be made until it no longer has any similarities to the original CO engine.
You've get the basic idea. I guess my main problem isn't what we can do, but more specifically; how we do it? I think personally, I'd rather see something like (continuing with the Tractor example) a tractor beam as an actual upgradeable component on a ship. (which can be triggered by you in combat, the better the tractor, the larger/stronger objects that you can pull, or push) Or armor, instead of being a console, it should be an actual component.
Sure, a lot of my points are philosophical. Which is the core of my problem with STO, we need to help them change their philosophy from us being super heroes with powers, to scientists and engineers with skill and knowledge. Philosophical and semantic? Yes, it is, but it's also a pretty big difference in the way the game is being designed, versus the way it should be designed.
I take great pains to see that everything that I suggest is possible using the core game engine. Granted, I'm not saying that it will be easy for them to do, but that it could, or should be done. In the ever-popular tractor beam example, it could be treated like a phaser bank, with a manually triggerable hotkey. Now, that doesn't address the issue of BOff "powers" (again, semantic, but it shows a difference in the thought process behind the game's design), but it could be that the BOff ability is a stronger, or more specified usage of the tractor beam. Anybody can use it, in varying strengths based on the component, the ship, the power available, but the BOff ability trumps them somehow. (It could represent your first officer rerouting power from somewhere, or changing the emitter type... whatever, that can be explained later.)
Except that we can't really use it at all. Reason being we are never in a situation where we could use it that we're not in combat. I can't use it to pull a loot drop to me after a battle, or push away an asteroid about to hit a planet.
You're right, I'm definitely talking about changing some core things in the game, but not the engine itself. I really don't see (mechanics-wise) why anything that I suggest couldn't be done. Everything generally exists already in the game in one form or another.
Ultimately, it is more about philosophy, for me at least. I want to help them make a great Star Trek MMO, not an MMO that happens to be Star trek. Semantic? Not really, or not only semantic. Really it's about the core values and beliefs in developing the game. The game engine just is the tool that they've been given to develop the game. It's not a rock, an unmovable wall to be viewed as an obstacle, it's more like an adjustable wrench, things can be moved around to make it fit better.
If they were to introduce even a fraction of what I suggest, or hope for, I'm happy, because it gets us one step closer to where I want to be. I think that's fair.
I think you commented on the wrong thread. Cause none of your comments have any relevance here.
I never even compared or suggested that STO become like "other MMOs" or complain just cause I don't like something. All my comparisons were based on the shows, and I cited examples and facts where appropriate. One of the biggest problems I have is that this MMO was made like too many OTHER MMOs. I've always encouraged less "magical" abilities (such as jam sensors, instant heals) like your "other MMOs." I also listed many canonical things missing, pointed out flaws that need fixing, and explicitly stated that most people would never agree on the details, and I stated my opinion, which I clearly labeled "THIS IS OPINION" near the end. Many things I pointed out, like the very few spots we can explore/land/visit, no warp space travel, lack of ship options for show abilities, are fact, not opinion.
Seems rather rude not to read a thread before you comment in it.