Go Back   Star Trek Online > Information and Discussion > The Academy
Login

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 21
02-16-2010, 01:25 PM
Ok, in reading most of this thread I have come to 1 conclusion, For the most part , Most of you are greedy, lazy and inconsiderate. There are far more important game issues that need addressed than the fact its a bother for you to have to go to a station to get to a bank. In reality, space is limited, at best your lucky they give us the space they do, in every game I've played to date inventory is controlled by a container of some sort, would you prefer they did that and you had to pay energy/cash(c-store) for a few slots more?? I'd worry more about bugged missions and server lag issues than just how much junk you can carry. But hey that's just my thoughts.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 22
02-16-2010, 02:01 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by GFLKrazykat View Post
Ok, in reading most of this thread I have come to 1 conclusion, For the most part , Most of you are greedy, lazy and inconsiderate. There are far more important game issues that need addressed than the fact its a bother for you to have to go to a station to get to a bank. In reality, space is limited, at best your lucky they give us the space they do, in every game I've played to date inventory is controlled by a container of some sort, would you prefer they did that and you had to pay energy/cash(c-store) for a few slots more?? I'd worry more about bugged missions and server lag issues than just how much junk you can carry. But hey that's just my thoughts.
Yeah, I am going to go with the fact you get a larger crew is perk enough.... the rest is filler....
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 23
02-16-2010, 03:53 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by GFLKrazykat View Post
Ok, in reading most of this thread I have come to 1 conclusion, For the most part , Most of you are greedy, lazy and inconsiderate. There are far more important game issues that need addressed than the fact its a bother for you to have to go to a station to get to a bank. In reality, space is limited, at best your lucky they give us the space they do, in every game I've played to date inventory is controlled by a container of some sort, would you prefer they did that and you had to pay energy/cash(c-store) for a few slots more?? I'd worry more about bugged missions and server lag issues than just how much junk you can carry. But hey that's just my thoughts.
jerk







----------
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 24
02-16-2010, 05:30 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alecto View Post


How about we keep the Personal Bank at Stations, Keep the Inventory and we keep the Ships Overflow Cargo Bay which all ready exists, it's part of your inventory. It's allready been explained that equipment is simply beamed back and forth from the Cargo Bay (Inventory) while on the Ground. It makes perfect rational sence and the current amount of storage space we have, I believe is perfectly fine, also everytime you get promoted, you gain extra Storage Space which doesn't quite make sence, as you should only gain that extra space when you change to a ship with a larger Cargo Bay, but it works.


In actuality, having things "beam" in and out during ground missions breaks canon, as it's well established in all of the series that transporter locks are:

1) EXTREMELY easy to break;
2) Not able to function when the ship's shields are up - and there's quite a number of times during ground missions where you are in essence cut off from your ship, by having enemy ships in orbit,
3) Unable to function if the area you yourself are in is shielded or sheated in a large enough mass of metal.

Given that, the idea of a transport lock being constantly on your party, AND that items can be transported directly in and out of your hands (in the case of ground weapon swaps) it a bit farfetched.

Quote:
Everyone, be hapy with what you have, appreciate it for what it is and for what it is not, why would you even want so much more Storage Space? That would make things unrealistic, remove a vital element of the game and also make the game easier, is this what you want?
So, let's see - having a actual ship cargo hold is so much more "unrealistic" than the babble you did above? Say WHAT? Are you daft, man? Having a separate ship's cargo hold and a personal inventory would be MORE believable than this "beaming everything around on a whim" claptrap. Hell, the whole transporter idea ORIGINATED in wanting to not re-use stock footage of ships landing on planets all the time - now it's just getting crazy.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 25
02-16-2010, 10:19 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Callasan View Post
In actuality, having things "beam" in and out during ground missions breaks canon, as it's well established in all of the series that transporter locks are:

1) EXTREMELY easy to break;
2) Not able to function when the ship's shields are up - and there's quite a number of times during ground missions where you are in essence cut off from your ship, by having enemy ships in orbit,
3) Unable to function if the area you yourself are in is shielded or sheated in a large enough mass of metal.

Given that, the idea of a transport lock being constantly on your party, AND that items can be transported directly in and out of your hands (in the case of ground weapon swaps) it a bit farfetched.

....

Don't get started like that, unless you want me to point things out like, say, "respawns" of entire starships seconds after they've been destroyed; blasting an unshielded enemy about 10 times with an energy weapon that is (most probably) set to kill before said enemy MIGHT fall during away missions; a mission that begins by stating that your ship's warp drive is inoperable and can not be used until you complete the missions objective to repair, yet you are able to warp out at any given time if you want to abort the mission; and so on and so forth.

So don't come in here with how-this-and-that isn't "right" within Star Trek. I offered an explanation how you can perceive your inventory, one that would fit well into Trek and the expected technological advances since the storyline of the last movies.
Of course this wouldn't always be bullet-proof, but most of the time at least acceptable.

As for your "problem" with the constant transporter lock.... well, even within missions that supposedly either block transporters with a force field or suggest that your ship has it's shields up because it's under attack while you are running around chasing consoles.... well, tell me, what happens when you abort any of these missions?
Unless I'm totally off, aborting a ground mission at any given time and under any given circumstance is accomplished by seeing your team hitting their combadges and beaming out.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 26
02-16-2010, 11:33 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by tewnam View Post
Cruisers do still essentially have more "cargo storage" in that they can equip more devices. So the original implementation may have been removed, but there is still an existing rationalization for that description.
No, not really. It actually says "..Large cargo space [inventory]..". All the ships types, as written by the developers, are listed as having four "special features" each. With the removal of the increased inventory space the cruiser is left with only three while the science and escort vessels have four.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 27
02-17-2010, 02:01 AM
Why not just a simple cargo bay bay , open it and drop anything in , not that hard to understand is it?
Cruisers 10 slots
Science 4 slots
Escorts 0 slots

Something like that.
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:47 AM.