View Single Post
Captain
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,260
# 25
01-21-2013, 03:27 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by hippiejon View Post
Sorry.

But with all the many other "errors" and broken stuff in the game that they should be fixing, the tiny artistic problems on these ships are totally minor, and honestly have no impact on a normal player's game play experience.

This is honestly the last thing that Cryptic should be dedicating anyone to fix. I'd rather see their current ship artists working on new and exciting things, than revisiting designs on ships that work.

I honestly never even noticed the things mentioned in the OP.


"This is an "obsessive Star Trek nerd" parody thread, right?"

I thought the same thing.
No one can be this obsessive about the placement of where the spinal lance is on a ship, or the shape of a deflector.
But then I realized.
This is a Star Trek fan.
We're all crazy about some aspect of the franchise.


But seriously, this kind of crap is the last thing a DEV should be worried about when so many other things about their game are not exactly "working as intended".

The things listed in the OP are terribly insignificant to a majority of players.

Not to say that it isn't important to someone (obviously) , just that I'd much rather see DEVs are work on issues that actually affect game play.
I don't know if it's just me, but I found that line quite offensive. No one is any more "Normal" than anyone else.

And I'd rather have a few good quality ships running around this game then an armada of poor quality, inaccurate and flawed ships. Take Star Trek Bridge Commander as an example - in the original game when it was released, they had only a few types of Federation ships, but each one looked great! I'd rather have quality over quantity.

It's the fact that Cryptic screwed up blatantly that is the issue here - and it's not just one mistake, it's a lot of them, spread out over different ships. And as I stated before, Trek is about technical consistency and quality, and that's what anyone should expect when they are involved with anything Star Trek.

I'm glad you agree that the ship models are crap, but they should be somewhere high on the Dev fix-it list. Granted, yes, the shuttle issue, UI problems, etc etc etc should be fixed first, I understand that. I just want these sloppy errors fixed sometime in the foreseeable future, not when I'm fifty.

And they are not "terribly insignificant". Look at the above posts before you comment - people do care.

I should also add the point that we, as players, are not all here to do mainly PVP or combat. Some of us do different things - Dil runs, Roleplaying, you name it. And the ships' appearances are important when you're alone and not fighting, since the one thing you see on the screen when you're flying around is - you guessed it - your ship.


Quote:
Originally Posted by hippiejon
But, no, I cannot agree that they should dedicate Dev time to fixing these things BEFORE they fix actual game play issues.

I get that to you the immersion is everything. That's cool. But what you are all discussing here is appearance. The fact that your right primary buffer panel is offset 2 degrees on the model does not have any effect in the way the game plays. Only how it looks.
You're exaggerating, and the assumption that people like myself are here to technically pull the poor ships apart is wrong. If I really wanted to, I could list EVERY single flaw in every ship model. But I couldn't care less about where this gidgitty-gadgetty thing goes where. However, when there are blatant flaws (not artistic discretion), they should be addressed. Looks are equally as important as the story, the gameplay, essentially, the experience of Star Trek Online.

stardestroyer001, VA Explorers Fury | Email me for a Pro-Galaxy sig!
My Useful List of STO Forum Threads, Ship Builds & More! | My Forum Gripes
Foundry: A new series coming soon! | PvP: PvP Boot Camp, Notebook Project Almost Done!

Last edited by stardestroyer001; 01-21-2013 at 03:33 PM.