Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 11
10-31-2010, 12:36 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suraknar View Post
You are right but not exactly as you perceive it. Actually I find it funny that you would say that because right now what makes the Ship is the BO's, so the ships itself is a Skin to begin with, smartly hidden.
The exact same thing can be said of the BOs and our toons. They like a ship's skin, are nothing more that a collection of related math that allow the player to interact with the game. That you have to deal with the limitation of the ship, BOs, and your toon is what gives them all character. What you want is an Ensign Mary Sue for a ship with little to no draw backs. What I want is a graphical approximation of a fantasy. One that has limitations I must work around.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Suraknar View Post
If the BO's are made Unversal, it emphasizes that fact, it makes it Obvious! But it does not change it, which means that it is a fact right now. Right now the Ships are but Skins.
That opens the door for Mary Sue BOs who do it all.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Suraknar View Post
And in the rest of your post you are contradicting your own self. Since, you yourself realized, that a Ship independently of its crew should maintain its capabilities.

Yet, in STO it does not, because if we change the crew to Universal it changes the Capabilities of the Ship.
Yet in STO it does. The ships character is it's Id defined by limitations of ship class types that in turn define things like maximum potential firepower, turn rate, top speed, console types, power configurations and BO layout. The Ego is represented by the BOs themselves, Their type, their skills selected by the superego and stations the Superego set them to. Finally the superego which is the interplay of the player and the captain type they chose. Each archetype Id, Ego and Superego has their strengths and weakness which in turn add up to define the thing you like to call naught more than a skin, the ship.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Suraknar View Post
So my suggestion here, actually is in Line to how you would like things to be, where Ships themselves are the beholders of Capabilities and Roles and not the BO complement which ideally could enhance a given ships areas (Offense Defense or Support), but not alter its primary role nevertheless.
No what you suggest is not what I want. From what I read of your words, you want Ensign Mary Sue, what I want is Othelo.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Suraknar View Post
The Ship itself, its design, its components and Equipment must determine the role, then the crew comes in and operates it and ad flavor and possibilities to it all, and make Captains feel like Captains being able to choose the configuration of their Bridge Own Bridge Crew and decide the distribution of their Officers, some may like to have a Commander Scientist others may like to have an Engineer or a Tactical officer...Independently of the Ship that they are currently Commanding.
Yet those very things you list can easily be made into an analogy of the human psyche as they sit now. What you suggest is to remove a major limiting factor and make superships that have no kryptonite to keep them believable.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Suraknar View Post
A small Example: The Galaxy Class Cruiser is equipped with Torpedoe Launchers that are capable of shooting in various configurations, Salvoes etc...this does not depend on who is manning the tactical Console it depends on the build of the ship itself.
Given the Galaxy's dismal turn rate we can see the juxtaposition of strength and weakness that makes it all believable in relation to the Galaxy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Suraknar View Post
So yes, we basically want the same thing.
No I do not agree that we want the same thing. You want to give all ships universal BO slots, which would make them better yet would sacrifice a significant proportion of the character of those ships. I love the shortcomings of ships like the Fleet Escort. I miss the Warsent and, as good as the refit Defiant is, am thinking about bringing her, (USS Warsent), out of retirement.

Just for clarification I welcome the fact that you do not agree with me and I have no expectation for you to agree with me. As General Patton once observed, and I paraphrase, if we are all thinking alike then no one is thinking. The fact that you are thinking deserves my respect and you have that from me.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 12
10-31-2010, 01:54 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suraknar View Post
Hello,

What if all Officer Positions were to be Universal on All ships?

I think the current system is still a bit inflexible when it comes to mixing and matching different Careers with Different ships (example tactical officer using a cruiser, or engineer using science ships) etc.

The Ships themselves already have constraints, in terms of capabilities bonuses and consoles appropriate to their primary role. why do we absolutely have to have an Engineer Commander and not being able to choose a Science or tactical Commander for our ships as an added constraint?

According to cannon, it falls upon the captain to choose whom they prefer to have part of their bridge senior staff. I think it could be beneficial from both a Consistency with Cannon perspective but more importantly, a gameplay perspective giving more purpose to seeking, training and exchanging officers right now, but also to permit us more flexibility with the game itself.

It could also add more purpose to reassigning officers for different mission profiles, I have had the same officers since launch I really do not see the need to change them around much with the current system, on top of it as a tactical officer Commanding Cruisers, I can't even teach Lt.Commander and Commander skills to any of my officers since I have none that could use what I can teach anyways.

I had made a similar Thread near launch and there was talk about First officers, but that never seems to have materialized since then.

I think it would permit for more in-game customization as well to all of us trying different configurations of officers/abilities with different ships. And most importantly emphasize our role as captains too, able to choose our own Bridge officers instead of having these imposed by a standard template associated to the ship itself making it feel less organic, like if Bridge officers were themselves some type of Ship equipment rather than live beings.

What does everyone think about this?
This may work lets see?? Huh first we all have universal slots and cloak on every ship then how about we all just get the same amount of weapon slots. Wait then after 6 months of balancing they (Cryptic) can start all over again. They will need to start by making everyone’s shields the same and hull as well. Wait wait…….. I got it just give everyone the bop and let us buy them halo emitter things, but the emitter will last full time that would be a easier way huh?? They can make a auto pilot system with auto boffs and auto target and we can fly around and around each other blasting away. Either that or just take all the boff away and give every on the same ship with same equipment and weapons so that way when you die you will know it is because you SUCK.

Rant for the weak I mean week

To Quote a Friend: Harden the Fu*# UP!
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 13
10-31-2010, 02:28 AM
AKfourtyseven is harsh about it but has a point. People who ask for things like battle cloak and universal BO slots are often perceived as not learning how to make their build work for them.

The min/max ethos goes beyond an optimized distribution of skills and into knowing where your build is weak and strong. This way you don't expose your weaknesses any more than you have to while you play to your strengths.

People who ask for things that would over simplify the playing field or make them OP relative to another faction, even if it is only for PvE, as a general rule have not learned how to cover where they are weak and how to play to their strengths. This in turn invites learn to play comments and flames from successful PvPers.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 14 Sorry..for the wall
10-31-2010, 11:03 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by piwright42 View Post
AKfourtyseven is harsh about it but has a point. People who ask for things like battle cloak and universal BO slots are often perceived as not learning how to make their build work for them.

The min/max ethos goes beyond an optimized distribution of skills and into knowing where your build is weak and strong. This way you don't expose your weaknesses any more than you have to while you play to your strengths.

People who ask for things that would over simplify the playing field or make them OP relative to another faction, even if it is only for PvE, as a general rule have not learned how to cover where they are weak and how to play to their strengths. This in turn invites learn to play comments and flames from successful PvPers.
But I have been sitting here hearing this crap for 6 months now and it appears cryptic has started to wise up to this and stopped surrendering to the mobs. It would appear from cryptic action as of lately that they may actually be on a path that is best for the game and not to surrender to a mass of PvE flower pickers that bring the PvE killer builds to PvP and cry when they die. See it is all about time spend in PvP you are not fighting NPCs that do not heal themselves and fly aimlessly. You have to adapt to each and every player you come across and adjust your builds to the next nerf I mean patch. But before you can even get better you have to understand there will always be someone better. Take them as goal to one day beat and strive to be better at piloting, building, and adjusting. PvP is a ever changing field unlike PvE PvP can change on the fly many smart pvpers roll two or three builds that they are able to switch back and forth from in secs. See as a FED I leveled up murdering NPC to max a toon but jumping into PVP was a reality check you see no matter how many hour you spend killing NPCs you will learn nothing helpful in the ways of PVP. My solution maybe unorthodox to some was to PVP a lot. For ex. if I spend 8 hours in game 7 of toughs are PvP that is how you get better not by starting forum after forum crying about why I do not suck and why it is the GAME.

PLAY THE DAM GAME
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 15
10-31-2010, 02:56 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AKfourtyseven
But I have been sitting here hearing this crap for 6 months now and it appears cryptic has started to wise up to this and stopped surrendering to the mobs. It would appear from cryptic action as of lately that they may actually be on a path that is best for the game and not to surrender to a mass of PvE flower pickers that bring the PvE killer builds to PvP and cry when they die. See it is all about time spend in PvP you are not fighting NPCs that do not heal themselves and fly aimlessly. You have to adapt to each and every player you come across and adjust your builds to the next nerf I mean patch. But before you can even get better you have to understand there will always be someone better. Take them as goal to one day beat and strive to be better at piloting, building, and adjusting. PvP is a ever changing field unlike PvE PvP can change on the fly many smart pvpers roll two or three builds that they are able to switch back and forth from in secs. See as a FED I leveled up murdering NPC to max a toon but jumping into PVP was a reality check you see no matter how many hour you spend killing NPCs you will learn nothing helpful in the ways of PVP. My solution maybe unorthodox to some was to PVP a lot. For ex. if I spend 8 hours in game 7 of toughs are PvP that is how you get better not by starting forum after forum crying about why I do not suck and why it is the GAME.

PLAY THE DAM GAME
You'll get no argument from me brother. I only sought to help the OP understand why you come on so strong.

I am no PvP purist, I still PvE, but I do enjoy PvP even when I get my teeth kicked in. You are right, if a player wants to do well in the game they should look to PvP as the best way to hone their skills. The AI in this game is too idiodic to provide a real way to learn. I know I tried that route, even Elite is a poor aproximation for the intuative ingenuity of a humanbeing.

The thing about many PvPers in STO is if you ask they will tell. The best want a real challenge and if that takes teaching a noob a trick or two they will.

Since I have learned a little about PvP in the game the PvE has gotten easier. Now when people who complain that the new weekly that launched on the 30th is too hard I can give them advice. They are usually floored to find that I have beaten it on advanced difficulty multiple times. I don't tell them to brag but to establish credentials. Learn to PvP, learn to work your build, learn to enjoy the limitations of your ship and you will find you sound more like AKfoutyseven or myself when you type on the forums. Look at my post history to see the truth in my words. My evolution as a player is hidden there.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 16
10-31-2010, 04:56 PM
Thank you both for your comments but I am sorry to say for the most part are irrelevant.

You are both making an assumption, you think that I am making the suggestions that i do in this thread because i am having some difficulty with the game. I actually play on Elite Difficulty most of the time now that we have it.

And, I have leveled through PvP mainly too, I still have plenty of lower level Missions Patrols and Story that i have not completed yet and doing them slowly.

So, this is not a thread about "I do not know how to play please change the game so that I can always feel like I am winning"

This is a thread about making some suggestions to render the combat area of the game more tactical in nature and less like a Tank/DSP/Healer Fantasy game.

To make it more consistent with Star Trek Lore, and combat between ships rather than Paladins Rogues and Priests dressed as Starships.

And following quite some experimenting in game, and some thought, I think that if there is actually interest to evaluate tweaking the game or changing its combat approach to make something that more Star trek fans (who may "not get it" at this time), actually relate more to, then, the starting point of such a change would be the BO's.

And one of the ways to start thinking about how to make the combat more Ship/Gear centric rather than Ability Centric, is to actually ask the question, "How can we make BO's universal in all ships"...and then evaluate what other areas of combat would require to be rethought, and in the end maybe come up with a new system that appeals to more people and is more consistent with how Star Trek itself has existed for the past 40 years, with all its Series, Movies, technical manuals, Pen and paper Simulation and RPG games, thousands of Books Cartoons etc etc etc.

So please, come back to the actual topic, and drop the "L2P rhetoric" direction that you both are talking about at this point, this discussion has to do with the Combat System's design, not how people play the game.

In this particular area of the Forums that is about BO and their Powers, please instead try to immagine if BO's were to become universal, and assuming necessary changes were also made to the rest of the systems what kinds of Powers would you rather belong to Ships and what kinds of Powers would you rather belong to Officers.

An example: In Star Trek all ships have a tractor Beam, this functionality is part of the Ship and its availability does not belong to the bridge Officer, all Star Ship Personnel would know how to operate a console to make it work.

This is what this thread is about, if you have something to contribute to it by all means you are more than welcome, if not, spare us your negativity.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 17
10-31-2010, 05:14 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suraknar View Post
This is a thread about making some suggestions to render the combat area of the game more tactical in nature and less like a Tank/DSP/Healer Fantasy game.

To make it more consistent with Star Trek Lore, and combat between ships rather than Paladins Rogues and Priests dressed as Starships.
How is ship "classes" not Star Trek Cannon?

I didn't see the defiant out running sensor scans on the badlands. You never say a Klingon Battle cruiser out running flower picking missions. Federation Sci Vessels where not sent to the front lines alone. I'm sorry but your arguments are based on some idea that Star trek didn't have classes. When STO cannon is clearly full of ship classes and even Captain classes. And as warlord was pointing out... what would you rather have EVERYone in the game running the exact same set of skill. That is silly. Universal stations are not needed on any of the federation ships... Cryptic has provided a Fed ship for almost every layout. IF you don't like the layout on the ship you are playing switch to another.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 18
10-31-2010, 05:19 PM
double posted sorry.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 19
10-31-2010, 05:27 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suraknar View Post
An example: In Star Trek all ships have a tractor Beam, this functionality is part of the Ship and its availability does not belong to the bridge Officer, all Star Ship Personnel would know how to operate a console to make it work.

This is what this thread is about, if you have something to contribute to it by all means you are more than welcome, if not, spare us your negativity.
Sure you have a point... however this is a video game and what you are suggesting is silly. Everyone gets a tractror everyone gets the tractor counter... ohhh how challanging.

Not trying to be negative just giving everyone the same skills is a bad idea for game play. I don't see how that could be any other way.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 20
10-31-2010, 05:31 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suraknar View Post
Thank you both for your comments but I am sorry to say for the most part are irrelevant.

You are both making an assumption, you think that I am making the suggestions that i do in this thread because i am having some difficulty with the game. I actually play on Elite Difficulty most of the time now that we have it.

And, I have leveled through PvP mainly too, I still have plenty of lower level Missions Patrols and Story that i have not completed yet and doing them slowly.

So, this is not a thread about "I do not know how to play please change the game so that I can always feel like I am winning"

This is a thread about making some suggestions to render the combat area of the game more tactical in nature and less like a Tank/DSP/Healer Fantasy game.

To make it more consistent with Star Trek Lore, and combat between ships rather than Paladins Rogues and Priests dressed as Starships.

And following quite some experimenting in game, and some thought, I think that if there is actually interest to evaluate tweaking the game or changing its combat approach to make something that more Star trek fans (who may "not get it" at this time), actually relate more to, then, the starting point of such a change would be the BO's.

And one of the ways to start thinking about how to make the combat more Ship/Gear centric rather than Ability Centric, is to actually ask the question, "How can we make BO's universal in all ships"...and then evaluate what other areas of combat would require to be rethought, and in the end maybe come up with a new system that appeals to more people and is more consistent with how Star Trek itself has existed for the past 40 years, with all its Series, Movies, technical manuals, Pen and paper Simulation and RPG games, thousands of Books Cartoons etc etc etc.

So please, come back to the actual topic, and drop the "L2P rhetoric" direction that you both are talking about at this point, this discussion has to do with the Combat System's design, not how people play the game.

In this particular area of the Forums that is about BO and their Powers, please instead try to immagine if BO's were to become universal, and assuming necessary changes were also made to the rest of the systems what kinds of Powers would you rather belong to Ships and what kinds of Powers would you rather belong to Officers.

An example: In Star Trek all ships have a tractor Beam, this functionality is part of the Ship and its availability does not belong to the bridge Officer, all Star Ship Personnel would know how to operate a console to make it work.

This is what this thread is about, if you have something to contribute to it by all means you are more than welcome, if not, spare us your negativity.
Are you so important that you feel no need to read what another took time to write?

Are you so selfserving that you mistook my attempt to bring another poster closer to accord to be me saying learn to play?

Just a suggestion here but how about you show me the respect I show you and actually read what I wrote instead of skimming it? Great way to alienate a potential ally.

Forgive me if I wax crass but I sense you feel it is fine to patronize me...

So lets see because I don't agree with you and immediately blow lemon scented sunshine up your ass. Because you feel that a low born, knuckle dragger like me cannot possibly understand the high musings of an intellectual superior like yourself that you can just skim the words I write and without weight of thought dismiss them as "learn to play" rhetoric?

Foamy the Squirrel was right about forums.
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 03:55 AM.