The Case for Damage Control.
View Single Post
Join Date: Dec 2007
03-15-2010, 07:42 PM
Damage control is an awesome idea and should have been here from day one, subsystems targeting is a staple in the star trek cannon. I read about the difference between series and it's a mute point, how many times did the transporters go offline in ALL the series? Thats just one example, Scotty busted his ass around that ship and others to keep them going, as did every other chief engineer. It's a side of tactics and man this game could use some, on top of everything does everyone believe a ship can put itselt back together? Why dont systems get destroyed? How can a engineering crew rebuild large missing sections of hull without a spacedock or YEARS of orbiting a planet trying to forge for the right materials and applying them. As it is we NEVER get forced back to a starbase for anything, our crew must be half tribble or something. Every ship, every piece of equipment and officer should have a chance to be lost, hold your breath, PERMANENTLY. We have countless money, merits and officer points with very little to spend them on. The idea of our 'Sickbay' is a joke, actually most of the game is. Hard to say being a hard core fan of the cannon and games but did any of the devs play a star trek based game before? Maybe a few did but got pushed to a far corner of the meeting room.
In my humble opinion, which no one cares about, all this game needed to be was SFC and Elite forces slapped together with updated graphics. Add a ready room or quaters to display personal effects and special items earned in the game and your done.