Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 131
07-29-2011, 08:08 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tenkari
if we were in the JJ vers's future... Vulcan would be gone.... in the ST2009 movie, the prime universe only existed in that movie up until the narada and jellyfish go back in time.... once the narada popped out and killed the kelvin it was a whole new ballgame. just cause spock does VO's for the sector block doesnt mean we are in the JJverse. we are still in the "Kirk was born in iowa and his dad didnt get killed by a romulan.borg hybrid mining vessel"
as I understand the way Quantum mechanics works is for every possible action or decision you would make there's a an alternate time line for it, that dose not mean that the original or starting time line would vanish they would both be happening at the same time. we just got to see that alt time line in the from of
JJ's movie

and as for Carries being Cannon, if Cryptic went by that logic then we would NOT have the Luna Class in this game as it came from a series of Books witch are consider soft Cannon. So the road has already been paved for soft cannon items in this game.

I am NOT for or AGAINST Carries on the Fed side, I am for what make seance from a game point of view the KDF point make seance they should have a ship that is Unique to them but from the over all story line that Kind of dose not work, in the shows and movies the KDF have got most of there Tech from conquest "spoils of war" and adapted to there use. they the Klinks see this as there right it's part of there Honer taking spoils of battles or turning a stand of into victory if they come away with some bit of intel of Tech they didn't have normal access to.

in no show or movie do we ever see a star-base being built, but its logical to guess that there had to be support type ships and drones involved in the construction process those working on building the stations had to sleep and eat some where. as well as replicate the materials needed. and as far as i know those type of ships are NOT Cannon ether but that dose not change the need for them same can be said of the Carrie.
I could be wrong but if i remember in one of the Trek books StarBase's are defended by Fighters so if that's the case it would make seance that the FED's would have a Carrie
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 132
07-29-2011, 10:32 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jermbot View Post
Homogenization is a wonderful thing.
You know, I've never seen you explain exactly why you think this, you just keep posting suggestion after suggestion, thread after thread putting forth homogenization, without ever detailing how it will help draw subscribers to the game, make the game more enjoyable, or make the Game more solvent over the long term.

And as you know, I disagree, in fact, I couldn't disagree more. If it had been up to me, the KDF and the Feds would have entirely different skill sets, different careers, different Boff abilities, all necessitating different tactics and playstyles, which would foment two very different groups of players, which would result in PvP and PvE being a wholly different experience for each side. Which would attract not only the PvE grindy players STO caters to now, but also the min/max precision players that are turned off by copypasta rote Factions and abilities.

Right now, you can level up a either a Fed or a KDF putting points into the same skills, using similar Boff layouts, and end up at the cap being copypasta of each other. I've done it myself, my Fed Tac and my KDF Tac are nearly mirrors of each other. Right down to my Away Team set-up and gear, the only difference is that Fed-side they all use Phaser Full Auto Rifles, and KDF-side they all use Disruptor Full Auto Rifles.

That kind of homogenized experience gives a strictly-Fed or strictly-KDF player very little incentive to go try out the other Faction.

But, if the Factions were distinctly different in the ways in which they function, if we went with the Rock-Paper-Scissor balance model instead of Rock-Rock balance model, if abilities gained by level and by training were different on each side of the War, that would mean that to experience and experiment with each career and each build, a person would have to play both Factions, and it would mean that people in PvP would have to actually think about their tactics instead of doing rote fire-off-buffs-and-fire.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jermbot View Post
You've made a bit of a logical leap in your premise, so lets get that straightened out and we'll see what kind of real impact we can expect here.
I'm going to stop right there because it's where you stopped addressing my post, I was never talking about popularity of Carriers in the KDF, nor possible popularity of Carriers on the Fed-side.

I'm talking about actions which will attract or drive away possible STO players. I was talking about how STOs playerbase is made up mostly of people who are Trek fans first, and MMO players second. I was talking about how moving away from Trek Battleship and Submarine inspired combat and closer to Star Wars/Battlestar Galactica Capitol ship and Fighter Combat will not attract Trek fans, which make up the prime market for STO.

You went off on a tangent about Carrier popularity using guesstimated numbers blatantly chosen for the way you could frame them to support your argument. So let me be frank, it's not how likely one is to encounter Carriers that concerns me at all. It's how the perception and Trek-ness of this game would change, and how that would affect potential and current players. If you address the actual argument I made, we can continue this discussion.

EDIT: Thought you might be interested in seeing this (QFT means Quoted for Truth, by the way)> http://forums.startrekonline.com/sho...03&postcount=7
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 133
07-29-2011, 11:08 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katic View Post
You know, I've never seen you explain exactly why you think this, you just keep posting suggestion after suggestion, thread after thread putting forth homogenization, without ever detailing how it will help draw subscribers to the game, make the game more enjoyable, or make the Game more solvent over the long term.
So, we're not going to keep this to the point or professional? Good to know. I have in fact outlined exactly how it is good for the game, good for the long term solvency, and a good draw to subscribers. These arguments have been made, that you disagree with them does not make them disappear. Unless in your mind it does, I don't know what's going on in there.

Quote:
And as you know, I disagree, in fact, I couldn't disagree more. If it had been up to me, the KDF and the Feds would have entirely different skill sets, different careers, different Boff abilities, all necessitating different tactics and playstyles, which would foment two very different groups of players, which would result in PvP and PvE being a wholly different experience for each side. Which would attract not only the PvE grindy players STO caters to now, but also the min/max precision players that are turned off by copypasta rote Factions and abilities.

Right now, you can level up a either a Fed or a KDF putting points into the same skills, using similar Boff layouts, and end up at the cap being copypasta of each other. I've done it myself, my Fed Tac and my KDF Tac are nearly mirrors of each other. Right down to my Away Team set-up and gear, the only difference is that Fed-side they all use Phaser Full Auto Rifles, and KDF-side they all use Disruptor Full Auto Rifles.

That kind of homogenized experience gives a strictly-Fed or strictly-KDF player very little incentive to go try out the other Faction.

But, if the Factions were distinctly different in the ways in which they function, if we went with the Rock-Paper-Scissor balance model instead of Rock-Rock balance model, if abilities gained by level and by training were different on each side of the War, that would mean that to experience and experiment with each career and each build, a person would have to play both Factions, and it would mean that people in PvP would have to actually think about their tactics instead of doing rote fire-off-buffs-and-fire.
I couldn't care less, you're off topic. If I did care though I'd point out that your plan, to make the game twice as hard to produce would only assure updates happened at an even slower rate, content got added at an even slower rate, and would only hurt the overall viability of the MMO. I'd also point out that while you think the existence of a Klingon faction that plays entirely different than a Federation faction would be a draw, that is an unsupported assertion that is wrong. People who want to play an entirely different game than STO, they log out and play an entirely different game. Cross faction MMO appeal comes from people wanting to play a game they already like but with a different flavor. That's why you never see a faction based MMO where each of the factions is an entirely different game.

Quote:
I'm going to stop right there because it's where you stopped addressing my post, I was never talking about popularity of Carriers in the KDF, nor possible popularity of Carriers on the Fed-side.

I'm talking about actions which will attract or drive away possible STO players. I was talking about how STOs playerbase is made up mostly of people who are Trek fans first, and MMO players second. I was talking about how moving away from Trek Battleship and Submarine inspired combat and closer to Star Wars/Battlestar Galactica Capitol ship and Fighter Combat will not attract Trek fans, which make up the prime market for STO.
No, that's not what you were doing. What you did was make a bald assertion that the introduction of this ship would turn this game into Battlestar Wars Galactica Online, clearly implying such damage to the landscape of the game that it would lose all trek appeal entirely. What I did was show the likely most dramatic effect of the introduction of Fed Carriers.

Now, if you wish your argument to be something more reasonable, something along the lines of, "Carriers will not draw fans of Star Trek." I'd be willing to shrug my shoulders and tell you why you're wrong about that too.

Quote:
You went off on a tangent about Carrier popularity using guesstimated numbers blatantly chosen for the way you could frame them to support your argument. So let me be frank, it's not how likely one is to encounter Carriers that concerns me at all. It's how the perception and Trek-ness of this game would change, and how that would affect potential and current players. If you address the actual argument I made, we can continue this discussion.
If you check Mrs. Manners you'll see that Tangents are considered acceptable responses to childish hyperbole. As far as my numbers go, I resent your implication that my numbers were blatantly chosen for support my argument. My numbers were blatantly chosen to support YOUR argument and even then it didn't work. So, since you're already Frank, let me be Curt, if you don't care how much Carriers will effect the landscape of this game, and if you don't see how direct experience by players will shape the perception of Trek-ness that people have of this game, then you aren't capable of making an argument worth coninuing.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 134
07-29-2011, 11:48 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jermbot View Post
I have in fact outlined exactly how it is good for the game, good for the long term solvency, and a good draw to subscribers.
As I said, I haven't seen them, I'm asking you to back your assertion, either by reposting your explanation in this thread, or linking to the post where you did before. Oh, and by the way, if any part of your argument has to do with a lesser learning curve, I consider that plain lazy, and it won't work in your favor.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jermbot View Post
I couldn't care less, you're off topic. If I did care though I'd point out that your plan, to make the game twice as hard to produce would only assure updates happened at an even slower rate, content got added at an even slower rate, and would only hurt the overall viability of the MMO. I'd also point out that while you think the existence of a Klingon faction that plays entirely different than a Federation faction would be a draw, that is an unsupported assertion that is wrong. People who want to play an entirely different game than STO, they log out and play an entirely different game. Cross faction MMO appeal comes from people wanting to play a game they already like but with a different flavor. That's why you never see a faction based MMO where each of the factions is an entirely different game.
In case you didn't notice, I did say "If it had been up to me.." Past Tense, as in, should have taken that path from the beginning. I was not saying the Devs should revamp the game to that balance model now, that would be a nightmare.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jermbot View Post
What you did was make a bald assertion that the introduction of this ship would turn this game into Battlestar Wars Galactica Online, clearly implying such damage to the landscape of the game that it would lose all trek appeal entirely.
Actually, I was saying that it would make the game an amalgam of Star Wars, Battlestar Galactica, and Star Trek, kind of like adding together Chocolate Milk, Tea, and Coca-Cola, each may be well and good by itself, but a mixture? Not appetizing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jermbot View Post
Now, if you wish your argument to be something more reasonable, something along the lines of, "Carriers will not draw fans of Star Trek." I'd be willing to shrug my shoulders and tell you why you're wrong about that too.
That was exactly the point i was trying to make, give it your best shot. Also, you can feel free to disagree, but claiming I'm flat out wrong is against the forum rules.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jermbot View Post
So, since you're already Frank, let me be Curt, if you don't care how much Carriers will effect the landscape of this game, and if you don't see how direct experience by players will shape the perception of Trek-ness that people have of this game, then you aren't capable of making an argument worth coninuing.
Again, I'm talking about potential players perception of how Trek the game is, players who aren't already playing STO, players who don't have "direct experience" but only see these forums, the materials handed out by Cryptic, and secondhand testimony by players on gaming sites. How will they weigh joining up if they're hearing about non-canon, completely unnecessary for game balance Starfleet Battlestars put in just because some players can't stand to roll and level a KDF toon to fly a Carrier, and instead just complained and forum-apammed until they got it handed to them Fed-side?

This game is only (barely) surviving because it's Trek, a non-Trek Sci-Fi MMO with the exact mechanics and balance model this game has would not survive. The goal should be to move this game closer to Trek Fan expectations, not further from them.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 135 Noooooooooooooo
07-29-2011, 12:10 PM
no fed carreir thats that. reason there is none on screen or in show made. so if you want more detail then listen to dan latest radio show. go find link somewhere.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 136
07-29-2011, 12:34 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by UFP-Magnis View Post
no fed carreir thats that. reason there is none on screen or in show made. so if you want more detail then listen to dan latest radio show. go find link somewhere.
It can be found here: http://www.trekradio.net/on-demand
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 137
07-29-2011, 12:58 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by UFP-Magnis View Post
no fed carreir thats that. reason there is none on screen or in show made. so if you want more detail then listen to dan latest radio show. go find link somewhere.
Actually what he said was that they (Cryptic) would have to negotiate with the artiest if it was Not in a Show or Movie
that to me dose not sound like we can't have it. and as i said before we already have the Luna Class in game which was never seen on any show or movie it's a soft cannon ship

http://memory-alpha.org/wiki/USS_Titan
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 138
07-29-2011, 02:04 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katic View Post
That was exactly the point i was trying to make, give it your best shot. Also, you can feel free to disagree, but claiming I'm flat out wrong is against the forum rules.
Then feel free to report me. You're wrong for all of the reasons I provided later in the post. Your personal whims and preference are not a good bell weather for the average Trek Fan nor are they a good bell weather for the average MMO player, nor are your personal beliefs a good bell weather for forum policies as being told you are wrong does not constitute harassment, insults, spam or trolling. It just means that you're wrong.

And now, with this statement and your admission that you're unable to be told that you are wrong, you are now no longer worth engaging in discussion. Good day to you.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 139
07-29-2011, 02:59 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jermbot View Post
I shall consider whether this off topic digression of yours is worth looking for my previous homogenization post. I will not disrespect the topic being discussed by turning this into a lengthy theoretical discussion of homogenization just because you feel it's a topic you can win, when the topic at hand is one you have consistently provided reasons for that are either spurious opinions with no grounding in fact, or spurious opinions who's ground in fact is wrong.
You're the one who tried to "correct" by Rod Sterling post, which wasn't directed at you, and directly addressed one of the Arguments for Fed Carriers, that since the KDF have a Carrier, that a Fed Carrier is a way to balance that. Never mind that the Devs themselves have said the KDF Carrier is balanced by other abilities and tactics available to Feds already. Which, coincidentally, shows that the Devs don't have the "homogenization = balance" ideology so many people here seem to.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jermbot View Post
And I'm saying it would have been twice as hard to make two side by side games from the beginning. So while i notice you said "If it had been up to me.." and responded as if you had said "If it had been up to me.." I also notice you haven't addressed the point. But again, since this is another off topic digression of yours and I'm not that interested, lets let it drop with your interpretation of my words being simply wrong.
That argument is entirely dependent on the rather small resources and manpower available to the Dev Team, STO has a shockingly small development team for an MMO of this scope. If it had been up to me (past tense) that would not have been how the game was made. I would have had three teams, each at least 3/4 the size of the Dev Team at launch, one dedicated to Fed content, one dedicated to KDF content, and one dedicated to the technical and balance issues in integrating them together. Those teams would have stayed in place after launch (which would have been at least a year later than it was), working out bugs, putting in new ships, new costumes, missions, etc..

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jermbot View Post
And I provided numbers and analysis to indicate impact would be minimal. Unless you believe more than 1 in 10 players fly Klingon Carriers now, or you believe more than 1 in 15 Federation players would fly carriers if they were added the addition will be minute to the average player experience. By the way, a little bit of chocolate milk in coca-cola is freaking delicious. I've never tried it with tea but I certainly will at some point because your views on what are appetizing, many people in this world will surely find wrong.
First off, numbers you make up and then you analyze have no authority, I might as well pull a number out of thin air that says I have a thousand other subs ready to cancel if Fed Carriers get in. It's ridiculous hyperbole.

And again, I'm not interesting in the popularity of Carriers, not at all, I don't care if one player flies a Carrier, or a full third of the playerbase does, it's immaterial to my argument. My argument is simple, Fed Carriers aren't Trek, and introducing them would make this game less Trek. Less Trek is bad, our core player base doesn't like it, reviewers don't like it, CBS sure as heck doesn't like it, and it's not the direction the Devs have said they want to move.

While we've been debating back and forth on this, I've been listening to the latest Dev interviews, Dstahl on Trek Radio, and CapnLogan on Priority One, in both of those interviews, they've stressed how each of them is dedicated to including more Trek content, and staying true to the IP.

Fed Carriers are a move in the opposite direction from that, and again: I present the following: http://forums.startrekonline.com/sho...03&postcount=7

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jermbot View Post
Then feel free to report me. You're wrong for all of the reasons I provided later in the post. Your personal whims and preference are not a good bell weather for the average Trek Fan nor are they a good bell weather for the average MMO player, nor are your personal beliefs a good bell weather for forum policies as being told you are wrong does not constitute harassment, insults, spam or trolling. It just means that you're wrong.
You misunderstand, the words "you're wrong" are a violation, they're not allowed, you're allowed to disagree, indeed, disagree vehemently, explain why, pound me down with facts (not a one of your statements is backed by cited fact either, btw, just your opinion), but saying I'm wrong is a violation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jermbot View Post
The average Trek Fan will be as indifferent to Fed Carriers in just the same way that the average Trek Fan is indifferent to Klingon Carriers. But, and here's the fun part. The average Science Fiction fan, that would be a guy who likes Star Trek, who likes Star Wars and maybe who likes Galactica, that would be a guy who likes a little bit of chocolate milk in his coca-cola, sometimes, he may pick up the game because he has good taste, and your taste, might just be wrong.
See, here you're arguing that this should basically be an every-sci-fi-fans MMO, I disagree, this is Star Trek Online, not run-of-the-mill-Sci-Fi online. If you want a non-trek Sci-Fi MMO, go play EVE, or get in on the TOR Beta, don't try to wedge Capitol-ship-and-fighters combat into my Battleship-Submarine Combat.

And I think you should check those numbers again, remember how the majority of posters in Fed Carrier Threads oppose Fed Carriers? You went and counted, just like I have (though we may have gone into different specific threads). Those are the "average Trek Fans" who you then (incorrectly) say will be indifferent. Posting in opposition to Fed Carriers.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jermbot View Post
Then you should know potential players learn about this game via word of mouth. And as I've already pointed out, your opinion on what potential players may want in this game could very well be wrong. So, maybe you're right and maybe potential players will declare a pox upon STO because it has an option that they don't like. More likely though, potential players will do what you've done. They'll shrug their shoulders at carriers and they'll check to see if the ship they really want is in game. I think your assumption that potential players are somehow less reasonable than you and less forgiving of the restrictions of the needs of an MMO might be... short sighted.
Actually, you've completely mislabeled me here, I for one wish they would remove Carriers entirely, take away the Vo'Quv and the Kar'Fi, remove the Scorpion Fighters device from players (leave them as a power of a Scimitar-Class Rommie ship, that's canon, after all), go the pure-canon route and eliminate Carriers entirely. Please!

But I recognize how much more incredibly difficult it is to remove something bad from an MMO than it is to get something bad in. That's part of the reason I'm so stringently against Fed Carriers, once they're in, they'll be almost impossible to get out.

I think Carriers of any kind in STO are a bad idea, and I know firsthand Carriers are overrated and not nearly the powerhouses or gleeful fun pro-Fed Carrier posters seem to think they will be, since I have a max-level KDF Sci, and I've flown Carriers, they're crap, really, they are. When I PvP on the Fed-side, I make it a point to spec to hunt Carriers, I hate them, I hate them all.

It's a waste of Dev resources, it's moving away from Canon, and I for one will not purchase them, fly them, or associate in-game with anyone who does. Yeah, you read that right, if I'm fleeted or friends with you, and Fed Carriers get in, and you fly one, I'll unfriend you, or leave the fleet, and either way, I will block you, seriously, I am that against Fed Carriers.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jermbot View Post
That's nice. But since we're discussing whether a Carrier in the game would help or hurt the MMO, for me to be swayed by your assertion that your plan would help, I would have to agree with you. But I don't agree with you, in fact, I think you're wrong.
Plan? What plan? I haven't presented any plan except keep Fed Carriers out. If you think opposition to that idea constitutes a plan, you have a very low threshold for such things. To take from a common real world comparison to ideas and rejection thereof, if you think opposition to Fed Carriers is a plan, then you must think not collecting stamps counts as a hobby.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 140
07-29-2011, 03:17 PM
I'm.. Pretty much in agreement with Katic here.

I just came to this game last month, but I didn't come here for generic space MMO, I came here for Star Trek, as did the person who recruited me.

I've only got a couple characters at Lt. Commander, but If I go from Captain in a Star Trek Game to Admiral in a generic Space game, I'm cancelling.
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 08:42 PM.