Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 21
02-23-2011, 12:32 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by gmask1 View Post
I understand that it's our adventure, I guess I'm trying to think about ways and perks to make the larger adventure (level progression) more relevant to my character's story. Make attaining the rank of Captain - a rank given importance in the various series - something more than just a title and another tier of ships (which, if it were my show, I'd have started in because they're the iconic ships. My show doesn't involve me flying the ships that I don't like ).

Some people want to fly anything - that's cool. Our stories have Borgified TOS Connies flying alongside Intrepids. I happen to also think that SF is placing too much faith in their new LTs and COs
Personally I would like to fly a Constitution refit refit. I agree that being a captain isn't much in STO. Neither is being any kind of admiral. I don't like the rank/tier system, but it wouldn't become better if we limit choices even further. I hope one day when we can craft our own refits and they finally implemented the necessary tech so we are addressed with our chosen titles instead of ingame rank everybody can play like he wants to.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wildcard454 View Post
Actually, the Tactical branch in STO, was actually referenced in the shows as the Command Branch. If you wanted to have a Command you had to be in the Command/Tactical branch.. I imagine it is a lot like modern Navies in which Captains have XP in all things concerning the operation of a ship at sea. Not just one specific area. Riker by your reasoning, would have nobusiness on the Titan, which is a Long Range S.ci and exploration wessel. The whole locked into a ship cls in this game is wrong and should be removed
I would say command in STO is the generic skills everybody gets, like Evasive Maneuvers, Brace for Impact etc. The tactical class means which background you come from.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 22
02-23-2011, 01:29 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acceleron
It is war time for the federation/kdf, wouldn't it make most sense to put each specialized captain with the ship they are most proficient at?
I'm a science captain and I'm most proficient at using Cruisers.

EDIT: What I'd really like to see is us getting rid of the idea of escort/cruiser/science ships and Make the skills associated with them more specialized. Instead of having a line of escort skills give us a line of skills which further increase DPS or maneuverability. Instead of Engineering skills give us skills which increase our Power cores and resistances. etc etc.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 23 Let it change
02-23-2011, 01:43 AM
Maybe they will do it when duty rosters coming in the game ?
But I would't agree more make the slot's changeable So I can pick up an defiant or a Galaxy class.
I would like to fly an old excalibur class verry nice ship but when i'm a admiral it's not verry good to fly with because you don't have anough slots.
O yes there are upgrades I believe and you Guest it C Store .
Sometimes I wish they keep stuff for about an let's say 2 to 3 moths in C - Store And than give it to game players. Ok if it sells that is otherwise no one would buy it they would wait for it.

But annyway You CAN fly what you like buy some extra slots in the C - Store and your done....

Ok Greets Jetal
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 24
02-23-2011, 01:48 AM
I like the current system with one exception, and that's that there are WAY too many ship types in the admiral skills tree. All the previous tiers had cruiser, sci, and escort. Then you get to admiral to find 2 types of each, PLUS the refits? That's ridiculous. They should make tier 5 the same as the other tiers: cruiser, science, and escort. That way, if I've played with my tactical officer in an assault cruiser for a long time, I can switch to a star cruiser or the galaxy-R without having to respec every single time to get the SP benefits.

This makes a lot of sense, as even in the modern navy, a destroyer captain cannot command a submarine; he'd have absolutely no clue what he's doing. Likewise, if you've flown cruisers but never flown an escort before, you'll need to respec and get the hang of it before you'll be good at it.

In that episode of TOS where the starbase admiral takes command of the Enterprise and takes it into the Romulan neutral zone, it proves that you need experience with a ship to command one, you can't merely be an officer.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 25 Il see your point
02-23-2011, 02:29 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BluerockBeing04 View Post
I like the current system with one exception, and that's that there are WAY too many ship types in the admiral skills tree. All the previous tiers had cruiser, sci, and escort. Then you get to admiral to find 2 types of each, PLUS the refits? That's ridiculous. They should make tier 5 the same as the other tiers: cruiser, science, and escort. That way, if I've played with my tactical officer in an assault cruiser for a long time, I can switch to a star cruiser or the galaxy-R without having to respec every single time to get the SP benefits.

This makes a lot of sense, as even in the modern navy, a destroyer captain cannot command a submarine; he'd have absolutely no clue what he's doing. Likewise, if you've flown cruisers but never flown an escort before, you'll need to respec and get the hang of it before you'll be good at it.

In that episode of TOS where the starbase admiral takes command of the Enterprise and takes it into the Romulan neutral zone, it proves that you need experience with a ship to command one, you can't merely be an officer.
But the fact is why can't a Tactical officer learn to fly an sience ship or learn to fly an cruiser .
The real question is janeway could fly an sience vessel but she also did take lessons for other ships you can fly it but you can't use all the functions maybe.
You have to learn that skill right.
So when you buy i say buy an Galaxy Class why not choose if you like to fly it for sience it would be outfitted for sience you like it for tactical fly it for that.
It's the same thing everybody likes azura mission at the one hand i like it on the other hand it sucks I can't tread the patients so normaly i would tac them beam them to my medical bay I have an exelent engineer in my crew I on the other hand don't understand how to stop an breach but my engineer does . Let him stop the breach .
I wish for once Cryptic uses there skills to see that .....

Greets Jetal
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 26
02-23-2011, 05:15 AM
The most basic answer to the OP question is really, "Why not?"

A "tactical" captain could be assigned to a Science Vessel for any number of reasons. For example, given the amount of strife in this era, a "fighting captain" may be considered ideal of ensuring the safety of the ship and crew.
For a Cruiser a "tactical" captain such as Kirk, Picard (only a scientist if he'd never taken any risks) or Jellico provides Starfleet with similar ensurance for the ship.

"Engineer" captains? Why would Cruisers be the only ships that need the attention of a captain with engineering expertise? Cruisers have a massive engineering department more than capable of looking after the ship without a captain sticking his nose in. Whereas an Escort or Science Vessel would benefit greatly.

If the overall mission of Starfleet is exploration then a captain with a Science background could command any ship.

In all cases the senior staff fill in for the captain where expertise falls short on tactical or engineering issues, that's their job as part of the command team. To a degree, all a captain really needs to be is good at making decisions as managing people. The bridge crew providing options and advice as the situation requires.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 27
02-23-2011, 05:30 AM
Variety? Allowing the player to to play as they see fit within the genre?
I see no issues with the abilty to cross-class Captains and vessels.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 28
02-23-2011, 05:42 AM
Obviously, you have never watched Star Trek at all. This is a terrible idea.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 29
02-23-2011, 05:44 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Martok42 View Post
While I think this is a bit much, I really really hate Engineers being more effective in Escorts than Tacs. (I have seen this a LOT recently) They become an insane combo of Tanking and Killing. They should at least get some MAJOR downsides to flying a ship not designed for their career type.
Engs are also better in Cruisers than tacs :p

As well as science vessel cpts than tacs. (and arguably better at it than sci too)

It's more to do with Engineers being slightly op.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 30
02-23-2011, 05:53 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mavairo
It's more to do with Engineers being slightly op.
Or possibly Sci and Tac need ing a buff to bring them to the same level?
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 08:07 AM.