Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 721
03-26-2011, 10:05 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Palmera
how about you play the game like intended and rank up? lets face it your not a captain anymore...

most stupidest of complaints agaist this game ever is people insisting on remaining a captain... like honestly if you dont want to play the game as intented than fudge off.
You're absolutely right - that's the way that this game is intended to be played.

...and it's completely at odds with the way things work in Star Trek - like so many, many areas of this game.


So it's a choice between "play the game as intended", or "play it like Star Trek".


Except, considering that this is a 'Star Trek' game, called STAR TREK Online, then it's pretty 'fudging' MORONIC that the two things are mutually incompatible.


That's why I'm most likely going to 'fudge off', and stop wasting money by throwing it at a game in the hopes that it might get better...
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 722
03-26-2011, 10:10 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by KiraYamato
You, sir, are obviously not a hardcore Trekker.

In any Star Trek Series, how often has the commander of a single ship ever been an Admiral?

The answer: NEVER. Admirals command Fleets, not individual ships.

That's why we're complaining: the game is not adhering to the mechanics of Star Trek. We can pretend we're still Captains, but the fact that every NPC and his neighbor refers to us by our actual, full title strains that to its limits.
haha, as a recall kirk had been a Admiral, what 3 times?

first time he was a admiral he was demoted some odd a few weeks later for disobaying orders.
2nd time he was a admiral was when he had returned back to his time after being ordered to bring back 2 hump back whales whales to match the signal of a alien craft that had shut down a federation station, in one of the movies. apon returning back he was awarded his promotion to admiral, and from what i understood, got to take command of the 1701 A.
3rd time he was noted as a admiral was on the bridge of the 1701 B during generations.

on another note. during the movie Insurrection cpt picard was informed that the admiral's ship had been destoryed. picard had resumed command of the fleet to finish the borg cube, and we all know the rest of the sad story after that. picard himself was never ever noted to be made a admiral.

so as you can see admirals did board ships, as well as captain them. go watch insurrection, as i think kirk being a admiral and losing it so many times is why the admiralty board let him keep his ship even when he was a admiral.

furthermore. even today admirals are noted to be on ships. they are also noted to never command the ship but to command the task force to which is asigned to said admiral. this ship is than considered the flagship of the task forced. as you can see in insurrection, that may be the case, but nethertheless. it was a admiral!

sorry mate i guess i'm sadly a trekker cause i appear to pay attention to the movie series where as you appeared to never have done so. but i thank you for your offense, and good days
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 723
03-26-2011, 10:11 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Commander_Shepherd
You're absolutely right - that's the way that this game is intended to be played.

...and it's completely at odds with the way things work in Star Trek - like so many, many areas of this game.


So it's a choice between "play the game as intended", or "play it like Star Trek".


Except, considering that this is a 'Star Trek' game, called STAR TREK Online, then it's pretty 'fudging' MORONIC that the two things are mutually incompatible.


That's why I'm most likely going to 'fudge off', and stop wasting money by throwing it at a game in the hopes that it might get better...
it will get better, mmo's always do.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 724
03-26-2011, 10:45 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Commander_Shepherd
You're absolutely right - that's the way that this game is intended to be played.

...and it's completely at odds with the way things work in Star Trek - like so many, many areas of this game.


So it's a choice between "play the game as intended", or "play it like Star Trek".


Except, considering that this is a 'Star Trek' game, called STAR TREK Online, then it's pretty 'fudging' MORONIC that the two things are mutually incompatible.


That's why I'm most likely going to 'fudge off', and stop wasting money by throwing it at a game in the hopes that it might get better...

And THIS is the problem. Star Trek fans are here looking for a Star Trek experience. When it ceases to BE a Star Trek experience, the fans will become disenfranchised, and depart. This game cannot survive that.

I've said it over and over, and no one seems to listen. There are two kinds of players - Gamers and Fans. They're not mutually exclusive but people tend to lean one way or the other. Gamers like to try the flavour of the month. They're here for the game mechanics and action, and tend to be less concerned with the integrity of the setting. Fans are here for the setting.

Gamers will move on when the next game comes along, looking for some more action. Fans will tend to stay with the game for the setting.

In this case, Star Trek is the setting, and Star Trek fans are among the most loyal fans of any IP. If the Fans leave, that will only leave the gamers, and they aren't likely to stay long at the best of times.

If they expect the game to survive, they need to pay more attention to the needs and wants of the FANS, even if it's occasionally at the expense of the Gamers.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 725
03-26-2011, 11:21 AM
Just submitted a length ticket via the Atari support system about the egregious mis-use of Trek in the game, and how it's such a massive deal-breaker, yet something that could easily be fixed, with minimal impact on gameplay.

I figure it's the only way of getting the Devs or SOMEONE to take notice and hopefully respond, since it's clear that such issues just get swept under the rug at the forums...


- Ship models are really inaccurate? Tough luck - there's only one artist working on them, and he only gets decent reference material WHEN FANS SEND IT TO HIM ON THE FORUMS (why does that have to be OUR job, not that of Cryptic or CBS?)


- Same with interiors, costumes, alien races, etc. - particularly C-Store stuff. Since it never gets tested on Tribble, the only way to know if it's accurate or not is to buy it...

...which is essentially a vote in favour of it - 'voting with your wallet'. Once Atari/Cryptic's got your money, that's all that matters - your opinion afterwards is of no concern.


- Game mechanics result in the game playing in a way that's NOTHING like Star Trek? Again, tough - since it's easier to just use the Champions engine and re-skin it, the best we'll get is a vaguely Trek-themed grind-fest, where it's all about 'Kill 5 groups of enemy palette-swaps du jour'. MMO fans will enjoy it - because apparently there's some law that decrees that ALL MMOs must be transparent ******** clones. To hell with innovation and variety, let alone fidelity to source material!



I could go on, but you get my point. I've given up, and cancelled my subscription, AGAIN. The anniversary stuff and featured episodes piqued my interest, but when all the novelty wore off, the really weak foundation of the game became glaringly apparent.

Not to turn this thread into an 'I Quit!' thread (because you just know that'd be the perfect excuse for the Devs to kill this thread and dismiss this issue and others once and for all... ), but there's no way to even leave this sort of thing as feedback if you leave, so it's even less likely that anything will be done about it.


So yeah - I'm going back to my opinion that until this game does something to deserve being called 'Star Trek', it's false advertising to call it 'Star Trek Online'. 'Generic Space MMO' seems like a more accurate name, frankly - and that's not worth my time or money.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 726
03-26-2011, 01:10 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Palmera
haha, as a recall kirk had been a Admiral, what 3 times?

first time he was a admiral he was demoted some odd a few weeks later for disobaying orders.
2nd time he was a admiral was when he had returned back to his time after being ordered to bring back 2 hump back whales whales to match the signal of a alien craft that had shut down a federation station, in one of the movies. apon returning back he was awarded his promotion to admiral, and from what i understood, got to take command of the 1701 A.
3rd time he was noted as a admiral was on the bridge of the 1701 B during generations.

on another note. during the movie Insurrection cpt picard was informed that the admiral's ship had been destoryed. picard had resumed command of the fleet to finish the borg cube, and we all know the rest of the sad story after that. picard himself was never ever noted to be made a admiral.

so as you can see admirals did board ships, as well as captain them. go watch insurrection, as i think kirk being a admiral and losing it so many times is why the admiralty board let him keep his ship even when he was a admiral.

furthermore. even today admirals are noted to be on ships. they are also noted to never command the ship but to command the task force to which is asigned to said admiral. this ship is than considered the flagship of the task forced. as you can see in insurrection, that may be the case, but nethertheless. it was a admiral!

sorry mate i guess i'm sadly a trekker cause i appear to pay attention to the movie series where as you appeared to never have done so. but i thank you for your offense, and good days
That's the point--an Admiral's Flagship ALWAYS OPERATES AT THE HEAD OF A FLEET!!!!!!! About the ONLY Admiral I know of whose ship operated alone was Kirk in the first three movies--and I'm assuming that was an exception to the rule.

And yet, in STO, WE'RE JUST LIKE THAT ONCE WE REACH ADMIRAL!!!!! We still operate alone on missions, even though we should be at the head of a Battle Group, or something like that.

Captains are the ones who typically operate on their own--and, for all the TV Shows and a majority of the movies, that's exactly what happens. Yes, Captains can take charge of Fleets or Battle Groups, but only in specific circumstances--that's the Admiral's job.

And for the record, the movie you quoted with the Borg where Picard took charge of the Fleet after the Admiral's Flagship was destroyed was First Contact--not Insurrection. If you were a true Hardcore Trekker, you wouldn't get your movie names mixed up like that.

Anyway, that's our problem with this issue--we're not Kirk, and yet we keep operating independently after reaching Admiral just like he did.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 727
03-26-2011, 02:06 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Commander_Shepherd
Just submitted a length ticket via the Atari support system about the egregious mis-use of Trek in the game, and how it's such a massive deal-breaker, yet something that could easily be fixed, with minimal impact on gameplay.

I figure it's the only way of getting the Devs or SOMEONE to take notice and hopefully respond, since it's clear that such issues just get swept under the rug at the forums...


- Ship models are really inaccurate? Tough luck - there's only one artist working on them, and he only gets decent reference material WHEN FANS SEND IT TO HIM ON THE FORUMS (why does that have to be OUR job, not that of Cryptic or CBS?)


- Same with interiors, costumes, alien races, etc. - particularly C-Store stuff. Since it never gets tested on Tribble, the only way to know if it's accurate or not is to buy it...

...which is essentially a vote in favour of it - 'voting with your wallet'. Once Atari/Cryptic's got your money, that's all that matters - your opinion afterwards is of no concern.


- Game mechanics result in the game playing in a way that's NOTHING like Star Trek? Again, tough - since it's easier to just use the Champions engine and re-skin it, the best we'll get is a vaguely Trek-themed grind-fest, where it's all about 'Kill 5 groups of enemy palette-swaps du jour'. MMO fans will enjoy it - because apparently there's some law that decrees that ALL MMOs must be transparent ******** clones. To hell with innovation and variety, let alone fidelity to source material!



I could go on, but you get my point. I've given up, and cancelled my subscription, AGAIN. The anniversary stuff and featured episodes piqued my interest, but when all the novelty wore off, the really weak foundation of the game became glaringly apparent.

Not to turn this thread into an 'I Quit!' thread (because you just know that'd be the perfect excuse for the Devs to kill this thread and dismiss this issue and others once and for all... ), but there's no way to even leave this sort of thing as feedback if you leave, so it's even less likely that anything will be done about it.


So yeah - I'm going back to my opinion that until this game does something to deserve being called 'Star Trek', it's false advertising to call it 'Star Trek Online'. 'Generic Space MMO' seems like a more accurate name, frankly - and that's not worth my time or money.
I feel your pain, really I do. I've seen fan-made models for Starfleet Command and Bridge Commander that put what this game has to SHAME. And these are games that are nearly a decade old. I've said it before, if I was a designer on this game, I'd be asolutely ashamed of many aspects of it. Having designed games in the past (P&P, I'm not a programmer), I'd love to have had some input in this one, but as you say, there seems to be some rule that prevents innovation (probably the companies in control of the purse-strings demanding PROVEN successes). Who knows, one day we may get what we want.

Until then, I'm staying. I can create much of what I need in my own head with the limited tools provided. I've seen definite improvements recently, and I am hopeful the devs are making an effort. I am prepared to give them some time. I can't say how much, but some.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 728
03-26-2011, 10:53 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by GMDestra
Hey All,

In preparation of the upcoming skill cap increases over the course of future developments, here is a brief write-up of the currently planned character ranks!

Q: What are "grades"?

Grades are the levels in between the Ranks. For example, you are a Lieutenant at level 1, 2, 3, 4, etc, all the way up to 10, meaning there are 10 separate "grades" for the Lieutenant Rank.


Format: Federation Name/Klingon Name

----------

Lieutenant//Lieutenant
Levels: 1-10
Tier: 1
Grades: 10

Lt. Commander//Lt. Commander
Levels: 11-20
Tier: 2
Grades: 10

Commander//Commander
Levels: 21-30
Tier: 3
Grades: 10

Captain//Captain
Levels: 31-40
Tier: 4
Grades: 10

Rear Admiral, Lower Half//Brigadier General
Levels: 41-45
Tier: 5
Grades: 5

Rear Admiral, Upper Half//Major General
Levels: 46-50
Tier: 5
Grades: 5

---Planned Level Cap for Update 2: Level 51---

Vice Admiral//Lt. General
Levels: 51-55
Tier: 5
Grades: 5

Admiral//General
Levels: 56-60
Tier: 5
Grades: 5

Fleet Admiral//Dahar Master
Levels: 61-TBD
Tier: TBD
Grades: TBD
What is TBD?
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 729
03-26-2011, 11:12 PM
To Be Determned, meaning they havent decided if its just 5 levels, or ten.
As for the guys that keep telling us all how little they care for the game, and how they are going to quit playing, just quit tellng us and do it, so those of us that are enjoying all the effort the Dev's put in, and for the updates on stuff that we get to do, don't have to listen to you whine.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 730
03-27-2011, 03:47 PM
I think Vice Admiral should be 50-60, Admiral should be 60-70, Fleet Admiral should be 70-80
Closed Thread

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 04:33 PM.