View Single Post
Captain
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 17,903
# 9
02-17-2013, 05:36 AM
I'm not going to bother with this thread further. It's impossible, imo, to do so - when people use the exact reason that something is Engineering as the reasoning for why it should not be Engineering.

Star Trek had a few things going for it that Star Trek Online does not. Exploration. Outside of a scanning mini-game, there's not much going on there. Dual Specs. Countless members of the crew of the various hero ships were dual specs - Tac/Eng, Eng/Sci, Tac/Sci, even Command/Tac, Command/Eng, Command/Sci, etc, etc, etc.

Cryptic had to compromise certain things to make the game. I feel they could have still made the game without certain of those compromises.

Like I said in OPvP about a ship discussion some folks were having, we're not talking Ford vs. Chevy nor nVidia vs ATI/AMD here. There's no heading out to the mudpit - there's no hooking up two computers on a workbench to run benchmarking software. It's not real. Star Trek was full of plot armor, plot weapons, etc, etc, etc - deus ex machina all over the place in the form of the writers. When the writers couldn't be consistent, it's somewhat unfair to fault the developers for carrying on that tradition - in one sense, in a twisted sense, they should be championed for carrying on this particular form of nonsense from the shows and movies...it's very Star Trek.
Willard the Rat, Klingon, Sci (60), U.S.S. Tong Vey, Geneva Command Battlecruiser (FT6), Inner Circle
Meena, Ferasan, Tac (57), I.K.S. vagh SuD bas, B'rel Retrofit Bird-of-Prey (T5U), Ho'ragh
[WIP] No-Fleet, T5U B'rel Retrofit Build