Go Back   Star Trek Online > Feedback > Klingon Gameplay
Login

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 21
06-04-2011, 04:11 AM
I think the carrier dabte should be held, if another in addition to the literally dozens we already had, elsewhere.

So it boils down to the question of what "unique" really means.

Is it just cosmetic?
It is cosmetic along with really subtle differences like power bonuses for ships and racial stats for chars?
Unique kit/captain special abilites in space and on the ground?

Or is it a combination of both and possibly more?

To put it in terms I hope every generation of gamers represented here can understand:
Do you want somthing like "Command and Conquer: Tiberian Dawn" where only the most basic units are the same (Harvesters, Minigunners, Engineers) while most bigger units are somewhat different or not comparable at all (Mammoth and Stealth Tanks for example)?
Or rather something like "******** 2" where the units are differentiated from each other by their look and special powers?
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 22
06-04-2011, 06:05 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by mister_dee
I think the carrier dabte should be held, if another in addition to the literally dozens we already had, elsewhere.

So it boils down to the question of what "unique" really means.

Is it just cosmetic?
It is cosmetic along with really subtle differences like power bonuses for ships and racial stats for chars?
Unique kit/captain special abilites in space and on the ground?

Or is it a combination of both and possibly more?

To put it in terms I hope every generation of gamers represented here can understand:
Do you want somthing like "Command and Conquer: Tiberian Dawn" where only the most basic units are the same (Harvesters, Minigunners, Engineers) while most bigger units are somewhat different or not comparable at all (Mammoth and Stealth Tanks for example)?
Or rather something like "******** 2" where the units are differentiated from each other by their look and special powers?
Good to see you back.

For me I suppose it comes down to believing that the results of too much uniqueness are bad MMO design. For instance, if a player can't play a science officer competitively in PVP on the Klingon side because the one class of ships designed for wide scale, sustained fleet support or debuffing is unique to the Federation side, that's a design flaw because it puts a pretty severe limit on player options. It also becomes a significant balancing factor between the two factions. And while I won't get into a rant about how horrible of a choice it is to have to balance an entire faction around the existence of a certain type of ship, I will say that it can be quite an obstacle and cause any changes to require quite a bit more testing.

For these same reasons I can't really say it's fair to limit Carrier or Bird of Prey play exclusively to one faction either.

You've suggested a sort of hybrid solution to the lack of Klingon science vessels. Your idea, summarized briefly and so stripped of all nuance, would be to give them the same bonuses as far as the utilization of science abilities, even the same innate subsystem targeting and stacking analysis buff, but to make them uniquely Klingon by reducing their shield strength, and thus survivability, in exchange for an increase in weapon damage. It's a good idea, I personally think it doesn't go far enough and that players on both sides of the game should be able to choose whether they want a 'strongly survivable' science vessel or a sleeked down 'science killing machine' but I recognize I play this game as a gamer first and a Star Trek fan second so am possibly not bothered by things that would hinder the enjoyment of others.

So, why not go the "******** 2" approach? It wasn't great for an RTS but the formula works for MMOs because your character isn't an entire faction so the unique feel of the faction only somewhat works to effect your personal play. What it gives back, though, is a wealth of time saved in balancing and testing ships and the personal freedom to play your type of Star Trek Online Captain and Ship on whichever faction you enjoy the best.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 23
06-04-2011, 06:33 AM
Jermbot,

I have been reading the responses...and a couple of thoughts have occurred to me...

Several times you mention World of ******** as an example, or model, of homogenization.

I understand your overall strategy -- you are throwing up a very successful MMO and what they did, and basically saying that if it works for them...then it would work for STO. I don't think that is the case.

The whole Star Trek culture is a different sort of beast -- as is SCI-FI gaming in general. Instead of looking at World of ******** as some sort of model..how about we look at another very successfull space-based game: EVE.

Although I am mostly going off of memory that is a few years old, I seem to recall that the factions, and the faction ships that are unique to that faction, in EVE are very different, with different abilities, layouts, weapons and hull characteristics, you name it.

EVE is arguably one of the most successful space-based MMOs today.

Now, think back to the show...in Star Trek, the differences are what made the show interesting. Homogenization of the two factions may or may not be in the interest of game mechanics...but it would kill the game, take my word for it. Right now the ONLY thing that is considered worth rolling a Klingon for are ships that can do unique things -- like battle cloak, or the Garumba variable mod ships, or the Klingon Carrier. If you take those and make Federation analogs...then there will be absolutely no reason to ever roll a Klingon at all -- because everything you can do as a Klingon...you will be able to do as a Fed, and you will be able to obtain the level to get those toys much, much faster than any Klingon can, because the XP rewards for PvE content is there.

Right now the Feds do not have Carriers...and they don't have battle cloak...although there are some very vocal factions on the Fed side that are pushing for both. On the other hand, the Klingons have nothing like the MVAM, the Nebula, any lower-tier sci ship, or the Excelsior attack cruiser. The Excelsior alone is something that is a major gap in the Klingon ship line up -- NONE of our cruisers have a LTC Tac slot. Do you have any idea what a refit Vorcha could DO with that????!!!!!! When the Vorcha Refit came out, I was hoping that it would at least mirror that officer slot...but it didn't. I guess that the Klingons just don't see the sense in having a LTC Tac slot on a Cruiser...which, when you approach the issue logically, does not make sense at all, considering the Klingon culture...

But that is neither here nor there. If I want to fly an Excelsior...I will roll a Fed toon. If I want to fly Sci ships from day one, I will roll a Fed toon. If i want things like saucer seperation, the ability to instantly wormhole my way into several different locations (not just the homeworld/space dock), then I will roll a Fed, focus on Diplomacy, and drive an Excelsior, or an MVAM, or one of those cruisers that has saucer seperation.

But...although I loved the TV shows, I tend to incline towards the Klingon side of the equation. There are those of us who march to a different drummer -- who seek uniqueness in a world of commonality. If you homogenize both factions, then we lose the ability to be....different. Everything, for all intents and purposes, becomes the same.

That is no fun.

Making the factions very different from each other is more work for the devs...because of the balance issues, the design issues, and the game mechanics involved...but it is work that pays off, and is rewarding in the long run. It is work that keeps the game active and alive, and the players screaming for more, and eagerly waiting to see what comes out of the Dev shops next. If you make everything the same...that all goes away, and the game world will be a poorer place as a result.

Just my .02 cents.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 24
06-04-2011, 10:27 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZTempest
Jermbot,

The whole Star Trek culture is a different sort of beast -- as is SCI-FI gaming in general. Instead of looking at World of ******** as some sort of model..how about we look at another very successfull space-based game: EVE.
And okay lets get started deconstructing this. I would point out that STO structure is actually more likely to be in line with the WoW model than the Eve model for the following reasons. 1, There are still only 1.5 factions in STO, this is far closer to the number of factions available in WoW than in Eve. 2. The factions in STO are irrevocable, making them a significant character choice that limits your characters fleet choices, race choices, social interactions, and sets your pool of end game players. Your "faction" in EVE is mutable and nonexclusive. Your character can have various degrees of standing with a number of factions all at the same time. I'm not familiar enough with EVE to know if faction allegiance is a requirement for membership in one of their guilds, or Corporations, but given the various degrees of faction loyalty had by a wide range of different players, I would doubt it.

You are right though, EVE is a space-based MMO.

Quote:
Although I am mostly going off of memory that is a few years old, I seem to recall that the factions, and the faction ships that are unique to that faction, in EVE are very different, with different abilities, layouts, weapons and hull characteristics, you name it.

EVE is arguably one of the most successful space-based MMOs today.
But since membership in these factions can be changed and a single given player can jump from one faction to another, taking what he wants as he goes, they avoid the perils of an exclusive faction game like STO, or WoW. It's not really a very good comparison.

Quote:
Now, think back to the show...in Star Trek, the differences are what made the show interesting. Homogenization of the two factions may or may not be in the interest of game mechanics...but it would kill the game, take my word for it. Right now the ONLY thing that is considered worth rolling a Klingon for are ships that can do unique things -- like battle cloak, or the Garumba variable mod ships, or the Klingon Carrier. If you take those and make Federation analogs...then there will be absolutely no reason to ever roll a Klingon at all -- because everything you can do as a Klingon...you will be able to do as a Fed, and you will be able to obtain the level to get those toys much, much faster than any Klingon can, because the XP rewards for PvE content is there.
I don't take your word for it, not without reason and logic to support it. You say the only thing considered worth rolling a Klingon for are non-Klingon ships and special benefits that receive constant nerfing, and I say it is now you who does not understand the Star Trek culture. People are still rolling Klingons and it's not because it's the only way they can use a glitchy Battle Cloak or dimwitted fighters with little to no AI control. They are rolling Klingons because they are fans of Klingons.

Yes, I agree completely there is a lack of PVE content on the Klingon side, I agree that fixing that would be the absolute best thing that could happen for the small dedicated Klingon population. I also understand that the amount of time investment that Cryptic can or will make to correct this is dependent solely on the population of the Klingon side of the game going up. Kinda a vicious Catch-22 where we can't get the thing that will help most with our population until our population has been helped.

Quote:
Right now the Feds do not have Carriers...and they don't have battle cloak...although there are some very vocal factions on the Fed side that are pushing for both. On the other hand, the Klingons have nothing like the MVAM, the Nebula, any lower-tier sci ship, or the Excelsior attack cruiser. The Excelsior alone is something that is a major gap in the Klingon ship line up -- NONE of our cruisers have a LTC Tac slot. Do you have any idea what a refit Vorcha could DO with that????!!!!!! When the Vorcha Refit came out, I was hoping that it would at least mirror that officer slot...but it didn't. I guess that the Klingons just don't see the sense in having a LTC Tac slot on a Cruiser...which, when you approach the issue logically, does not make sense at all, considering the Klingon culture...

But that is neither here nor there. If I want to fly an Excelsior...I will roll a Fed toon. If I want to fly Sci ships from day one, I will roll a Fed toon. If i want things like saucer seperation, the ability to instantly wormhole my way into several different locations (not just the homeworld/space dock), then I will roll a Fed, focus on Diplomacy, and drive an Excelsior, or an MVAM, or one of those cruisers that has saucer seperation.
And you don't see the problem with the calculation that you've just made? You've decided that science vessels, and hybrid officer arrangements are toys that should only be had by the Federation. You've decided that it's in the best interests of the game to force a player like you to pick between the Faction he prefers, and the ship he wants. It's not. It's not good game design, it's not what EVE does, it's not what WoW does.

Quote:
But...although I loved the TV shows, I tend to incline towards the Klingon side of the equation. There are those of us who march to a different drummer -- who seek uniqueness in a world of commonality. If you homogenize both factions, then we lose the ability to be....different. Everything, for all intents and purposes, becomes the same.
No, you personally have just as much, or little, opportunity to be different with homogenized factions. You mentioned a Vorcha-R. So lets assume, for the sake of argument, that you fly one. How different are you from Assault Cruiser captains? Your ships are very similar different only in that the Vorcha-R receives a +10 to weapons and +10 to engines in exchange for the Assault Cruisers +5 to all systems, you turn faster, you can skid across space, you have a standard cloak, a larger crew which means faster hull repair while the Assault Cruiser has a hull tougher by about 8% These ships are close, they can fill the same roll and can be flown in very similar ways, they can slot the same officers, consoles and devices while being just different enough to feel like different ships. These two ships are good examples of the kind of homogenization that will not 'kill the game.'

Now, how different are you from Vorcha-R captains? Seriously, I don't know. Your choices may make you very different from other Vorcha-R captains, it's possible. Or, it's possible that you've studied the forums, performed the tests that other players performed before you and have come up with an optimized build designed to play to your ships strengths and counter it's weaknesses, in short, it's possible your ship is like very other Vorcha-R out there.

Quote:
That is no fun.
Now see, this argument I just do not understand, at all. Why is the game less fun when all of the options you have chosen or would like to choose are also available to those playing on the other side? If you play primarily PVE through FTC's or just grinding, it does not effect you in any way. Assuming you play some combination of PVE and PVP though and their choices do effect you, how does it make it less fun? Do you believe they'll make the exact same choices as you and so you'll end up in a Capture and Hold map where players on both sides are flying around modified Vorcha-R's, with the Lieutenant Commander Tactical officer, and the Federation are flying Excelsiors with their inertia rating cranked to the max, causing both sides to skid across the map while rotating to keep their cannons in arc to strafe their opponents? Sounds like that would be hilarious to watch, at least once, and also ridiculously unlikely.

No, more realistically, if they had equivalent ships to everything on the KDF's side and the KDF had equivalent ships to everything on the Federation's side your experience would likely change in that you would go into KvF PVP and discover a science vessel on your side and a Bird of Prey and Carrier against you. How is that no fun? Maybe I'm weird, but having a BoP decloak behind me while I'm already trying to fight off a raptor up front is awesome fun. I wince because I just used a Tac Team and so my back shields are paper thin, I hope that there's some back up for me because I'm in Siege Mode, and I scramble to coordinate a Beam Overload with my back array and my rear mounted tri-cobalt torpedo launcher without losing the Raptor from my forward 90 degrees. That is fun for me, sure, I'm about to die, but I'm having fun while I'm doing it. That doesn't become less fun when the Raptor is replaced with an Intrepid-R and the BoP is replaced with a Defiant-R and it wouldn't become less fun if the BoP was replaced with a "Defiant-X."

Quote:
it is work that pays off, and is rewarding in the long run. It is work that keeps the game active and alive, and the players screaming for more, and eagerly waiting to see what comes out of the Dev shops next. If you make everything the same...that all goes away, and the game world will be a poorer place as a result.

Just my .02 cents.
Does it pay off? Let us look at how the games development has paid off so far. They've introduced an MVAE with a science LC officer slot. I've had people describe this as equivalent to the Bird of Prey and I've heard people describe it as equivalent to the Carrier. Of course both are oversimplifications but the truth is, it can do things that before only the bird of prey could do, and it can do things that before only the Carrier could do. They've introduced refit's of the most iconic ships in trek that have had identical bridge officer layouts to Klingon ships and slightly different stats and unique abilities to make them special. In the case of the Defiant-R the special ability and stats make it virtually identical to the Qin Raptor. They've introduced an exciting line of new KDF ships with identical bridge officer layouts to Federation ships that have been in the game since day one, differentiated only by slightly worse stats and special abilities that range from situational use to broken.

These are all examples of homogenization that have left people screaming for more, eagerly waiting to see what comes out of the shop next and, well, perhaps the game is a poorer place as a result, time will tell. But the section I have quoted doesn't even begin to make an argument against homogenization.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 25
06-04-2011, 07:38 PM
Wow. What a response.

I must have touched a nerve there!

Look -- you invalidated your argument. Federation players may play Klingons out of curiousity...but they will only try them out if there is something different about Klingons. In STO, differences are primarily in mechanics -- specifically technology and ships. Homogenizing the factions removes those differences.

Klingons have things that Feds do not...and I think it should stay that way. The Federation has things that Klingons do not have...and guess what....I think it should stay that way, too.

I am not going to argue the case anymore...many others than I have said it as well or better -- but the key is simply this -- if both factions are the same...then there are no factions. PvP turns into just another form of FvF wargames. Fed carriers, and battle cloaking defiants will rule the skies of Earth Spacedock.

But I stand my ground. If a federation player wants to experience Klingons...and the ships we fly, then let them roll a Klingon, and learn what it is like to find their manhood for once.

Qap'La!
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 26
06-05-2011, 04:59 AM
Part 1/2

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jermbot View Post
Good to see you back.
Thanks, I'd say we're an example for disagreeing drastically and clashing together more often than not without ending up totally resenting each other over it.

I'd like to add that I never got around to responding to you in the carrier thread because a proper respons would have required a whole lot of time that I didn't have for some serious RL reasons.
But I'd like to say that I was somewhat surprised back then that you interpreted my post in the way that you thought I was insulted that you had not read up on my propsal while my actual point was that I felt you had not done your research properly before commenting on my idea.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jermbot View Post
For me I suppose it comes down to believing that the results of too much uniqueness are bad MMO design. For instance, if a player can't play a science officer competitively in PVP on the Klingon side because the one class of ships designed for wide scale, sustained fleet support or debuffing is unique to the Federation side, that's a design flaw because it puts a pretty severe limit on player options. It also becomes a significant balancing factor between the two factions. And while I won't get into a rant about how horrible of a choice it is to have to balance an entire faction around the existence of a certain type of ship, I will say that it can be quite an obstacle and cause any changes to require quite a bit more testing.
As someone who plays games whose shortened type designation begins with "MMO" but does not continue with "RPG", like "Navy Field" where it would continue with "TSG" (Tactical Simulation Game) of where it's somewherr in the middle like in World of Tanks which is called "team-based massively multiplayer online game" the term MMO always sounds incomplete.
I always scratch my head and wonder "MMO...what?" but I guess for the most part you folks around here mean MMO like WoW or Everquest.

Anyway I never really liked MMORPGs that much.
I tried several of them but found them to be lacking in...well I never managed to put my finger on it exactly.
So I cone to this game from a totally different angle.
As someone who played verious Trek games from different genres and MMO games that have an approach to things like (naval) ships and ground vehicles that is also pretty much as different as it can get compared to MMORPGs.
And I guess that shows sometimes and it affects the way I think.

For example take Navy Field:
The U.S. is pretty much the middle ground in terms of their aspects
The British RN has low range but great firepower combined with strong defense
The Imperial Japanes Navy has great range, lots of firepower but a very limited repair ability and speed
The Kriegsmarine has great range low firepower with a high rate of fire and pretty fast ships

(the additional factions that are curretly in the game are a work in progress so I will not comment on them right now)

In terms such as these balance, to me, means that ships that are, in terms of level, equivalents have a sum of strengths and weaknesses that should make them equal to each other without making them identical.
On the contrary when you try to play a German ship as a rusher like the RN would storm into the enemy formation the ship will sink instantly.

But nontheless you are not entirely stuck with only one way of playing since there are usually at least two
ships at hight levels with different stats and strengths even though they are within the confines of the faction.
For example the U.S. have as their "Tier 3 Battleships" the South Dakota and North Carolina.
They look very similar and in RL they had the same armament but in the game they are a perfect example how difference can be achieved nontheless.
The Sodak is faster and has a higher rate of fire with her guns while the Norca is slower and has higher range, resulting in a very different experience.

To me that is a perfect example how factions should be differentiated, at least in space.
If they are the same the different factions and their totally different philosophies will suffer IMO.
Especially since they are so pretty well established from their shows to me there is a need to transfer more from the small and big screen over to the monitor than their look.
There needs to be flavour as well.
Ships should have similar basic functionality on both sides (I still think the New Orleans as a modular ship with universals might be a good idea) but certain special capabilites should be only avaliable to one side just like they were on the shows.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jermbot View Post
For these same reasons I can't really say it's fair to limit Carrier or Bird of Prey play exclusively to one faction either.
Aside from the fact that I don't really like the carrier in any case, I was in favor of the idea of dumping it when MustrumRidcully propsed that in a thread, (at least as a player ship) I question how well it would fit the Faderation on a fundamental level.
Being inn favor of dunping it was probably not something that made me popular among the KDF players.

Form a gameplay standpoint he issue for me is that there are ships, like the Science ships on the Federation side for example, that bring something very useful and possibly essential to the table.
Then there are ships that bring neither something useful nor harmful to the table.
Most of the cruisers are interchangeable for this reason.
And then there are ships whoese weaknesses outweight their usefulness and they can even be a liability.

At least in certain combinations of captains and skills they are.
For example there is a thread in the carrier section where someone remarked that the combination of Engineer and Ker'fi was far more survivable than Science with that particular ship.
So certain combinations don't seem to be really that useful in the game.
To me the BoP is such a ship that can be powerful and also useful and a asset, but not in combination with science.
That is why I proposed the scouts: to bring something into the game that in more useful in combination with science because to me the BoP is at its weakest when combined with science.
Althoug there are probably those who will disagree with me vehemently.
But the ships I proposed are deriberately (as far as the current possible and reasonable permutations in terms of consoles, hull and other values allow) different from the real Science ships Starfleet has to keep them within the way of thinking of the KDF, their approach to ship construction and within the confines of the faction.


But do the carrier and BoP fit the Federation?
Roddenberry said he did not want the characters on the shows to be people who sneak around, so no cloaks but light grey ships with position lights.
He also wanted Starfleet to be on a mission of more than warfare (that's what the Klingons and Romulans were created for).
The Defiant was unique among the Federation as far as it cloak was concerned and even its designation as escort was a PR smokescreen.
So a carrier (please keep in mind that the term "carrier" for the ship the Klingons have is misleading) would be a PR nightmare.
And if you read the STO novel "The Needs of the Many" the Federation specifically refused to change its way of life because of the Undine War.
So I doubt they would build a one and a half kilometer long mobile outpost and planetary invasion platform.

Would they actually add something to Federation gameplay?
The carrier does not seem to bring something to the table Federation ships can't already do, like tank.
In combination with Science the carrier can only use AoE, anything directed is problemtaic so a ship that can turn better is more useful in that regard.

The BoP has the Battlecloak which is quite a hazard to its user and something that would fit the Romulans far better if it needs to be proliferated beyond the BoP.
The universals could go to a ship like the New Orleans but there is always the question how useful they will be when every possbile permutation of BO layouts will eventually become available to the Federation.
It would fit that ship pretty well but IMO only that particular one.

The 3/3/3 console layout while good in theory might be good for certain Captains, but certainly not all.
For Science it might become a problem in the future if what I predict is correct:
The Bio Function Monitor Console might become more valable in the future assuming the Duty Officers are affected by it and noone will want to lose them in combat.
So essentially a ship with 3/3/3/ will be limited to 2 consoles beside the Bio Console.
Not that big of a problem on the Nebual which can use its special ability to boost sensors but on the BoP.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 27
06-05-2011, 05:00 AM
Part 2/2

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jermbot View Post
You've suggested a sort of hybrid solution to the lack of Klingon science vessels. Your idea, summarized briefly and so stripped of all nuance, would be to give them the same bonuses as far as the utilization of science abilities, even the same innate subsystem targeting and stacking analysis buff, but to make them uniquely Klingon by reducing their shield strength, and thus survivability, in exchange for an increase in weapon damage. It's a good idea, I personally think it doesn't go far enough and that players on both sides of the game should be able to choose whether they want a 'strongly survivable' science vessel or a sleeked down 'science killing machine' but I recognize I play this game as a gamer first and a Star Trek fan second so am possibly not bothered by things that would hinder the enjoyment of others.
Almost, but not quite.
My idea involved a reduction in firepower compared to the Raptor and BoP to a level similar to what Science ships are capable (with SA) of while the Klingon ships would end up without it and possibly more but then only with cannons in which case they would not be able to use Subsystem Targetting.
Their advantage would have been speed and maneuverability at a cost in durability compared to the proper Science ships.
But they would not be offensive killers, more like fast sensor platforms.

But I kept them within the faction (I hope) because Klingons have an approach to space warfare that puts speed above defense (something the carrier is contrary to IMO).

If I remember correctly the difference between the federation and the Klingons is called "designed for the long game, designed for the short game" and anything too similar to the federation Science ships would be build too much for the long game.

And the way people discuss in the forums it seems (I could be terribly wrong again) that a great deal of players play the Klingons because of that feel.
So I assumed that my idea did not hinder the players because they would not be particularly interested in playing ships that are similar to the Federation approach to "blue slots" anyway.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jermbot View Post
So, why not go the "******** 2" approach? It wasn't great for an RTS but the formula works for MMOs because your character isn't an entire faction so the unique feel of the faction only somewhat works to effect your personal play. What it gives back, though, is a wealth of time saved in balancing and testing ships and the personal freedom to play your type of Star Trek Online Captain and Ship on whichever faction you enjoy the best.
For me ******** 2 was not that game it could have been because the factions were so very much the same.
I'm probably too much of a "CnC kiddy".

Anyway for me there is a difference between character and characteristics.
And the different sides have shown certain characteristics and ways of doing things in a specific way.
I recently tried to put it into words, as well as I can put feelings into words, here:

http://forums.startrekonline.com/sho...8&postcount=18

It does not mean they can or cannot do certain things at all but they do them in a different way.
While in ******** 2 the two factions did what they did the same way which always made them bland to me.
And making this game bland, especially since most MO players I know would not touch this game if they were not ST fans and liked a specific taste of a specific side, could damage it very much.

Okay, I hope this entire post makes sense but at the high temperature outside I'm not entirely sure.
My brain os overhaeting a bit.
So if there are some strange formulations that lead nowhere, please ask and I hope I can understand what I wrote above well enough myself to answer any questions.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 28
06-05-2011, 03:00 PM
part of the reason for 1/8 of the player base is because in my opion cyrtpic has only put in 1/8 of the effort to klingon side.

TO me they just slap a few things together in a day or two. And every so often they throw the klingons a bone.

When they do something new they often forget there two factions.

Example Fed engineer or get excomp. Klingons. Get NOTHING.

Example Fed get a ton a shuttle 8 , Delta flyer, Shutle F, runabout, vulcan aux craft. Klingons get grand total of 3.

Example 500 Day vet reward. Federation gets a belt, two jackets. pluse 5 more outfits in c-store. Klingons get cape and fur on there shoulders.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 29
06-06-2011, 06:38 AM
First off I'm not going to do a point by point response quoting each section that I think is worth replying to. This is purely for practical reasons as there's enough here worth a response that it would probably hit the character limit of three different posts, and while that's just good fun for me, it seems likely to be considered spamming. So I'd like to preface this by saying that I fully read both of your post and quite enjoyed them and they all made perfect sense, high temperature not withstanding.

I suppose an apology of sorts is in order. Apparently I did miss something significant about your science vessel proposal, and while the distinction doesn't make much of a difference for the argument I'm putting forward, it was sloppy to not fully comprehend it. I think what you're suggesting, a Klingon version of the science vessel that sacrifices shield survivability for manueverability is a good idea, and well within the precedent set by the Vorcha-R which has armament comparable to the Galaxy-X but an increase in manueverability at the expense of hull strength. I think it would play as an entirely different experience than the Varanus or standard Federation model science vessels. I also don't think it appeals exclusively to Klingon players. In fact, there's a proposal in the Federation Gameplay forum suggesting a "Nova-R" concept ship that would seem very much in-line with what you're suggesting, excepting the poster wants an LC Tactical BOFF slot and a highly situational 'shield reset' power to make it like one of them newfangled hybrids everyone is raving about. Also, he wants it for Starfleet.

I also don't think we disagree that much because your idea is a perfect example of the kind of homogenization that I'm looking for. Now, I'd go a step further, possibly off the deep end, and suggest that ship customization be such that the Galaxy-X could sacrifice hull strength to get manueverability comparable to the Vorcha-R. But I live in a dream world where this kind of customization can be perfectly balanced and not lead to a set of highly min-maxed cookie cutter builds that actually do kill game diversity. So for the moment your idea perfectly represents a third of what I'd like to see in terms of game homogenization. The other third would be Birds of Prey and Carriers, modified to Federation sensibilities, if you must. The final third would be the ability to faction switch and take your ship with you, but we'll file that, for the moment, with high levels of customization as 'possibly game breaking' and so best left alone.

So, going with yours and the Vorcha-R's model of similar but not the same here's a proposal for a Federation "BOP" that is very different. It could be a long range exploration craft introduced into Starfleet in response to the need for intelligence from increasingly dangerous quadrants of space. Remembering well the painful lesson of the USS Oddysey, a Galaxy class exploration cruiser that never made it out of the Gamma Quadrant, Starfleet can take their short term solution of a cloaking warship and adjust it into something that flies less in the face of Starfleet's noble tradition. Thus the "Reconaissance Vessel" is born. Lighter armed than the 'escort' class of ships but similar in size and manueverability, with a battle cloak to assure that it need not engage in combat. Because it needs to be able to respond to as many possible threats as the Cruiser and Science Vessel classes on far more limited resources, versatility would be put at a premium with multi-purpose controls and officer slots facilitated by a system that permits rapid redirection of onboard power. It's a ship born to not for exploration into uncharted space, but reconaissance of known dangers. Its purpose will be to assess threats without escalating them through the presence of a large heavily armed 'exploration vessels' and, to put it coldly, it will ask fewer men and women risk their lives while giving the greatest chance of mission success.

From a game mechanic point of view, it would play different from the Bird of Prey by sacrificing manueverability in exchange for crew size and hull strength. Maybe cannon's would be feasible, or perhaps it can be restricted to a beam loadout more similar to a science vessel with the innate subsystem targetting but without the shield bonuses or aux-power advantages. Focusing less on the hit-and-run strategies of the Bird of Prey it would have something more akin to a disable-and-retreat philosophy that, in the hands of the right Captain, makes for awesome ambush control attacks.

Now, lets assume, just for the sake of argument, that this ship, the reasoning behind it and the history that lead to it, satisfy the need for a canon explanation for a battle cloaking Federation ship with universal bridge officer slots. It increases multiplies by nine the potential for exposure to these game elements and the likelihood that they'll be fairly balanced and a priority for correction when broken. If you think the explanation is thin or insufficient that's fine, say so and we can even discuss it aswell, but what I'm really interested in discussing is the potential positive effects this could have for Klingon gameplay balanced against the potential loss of population, loss of game immersion for more orthodox Trekk fans, and any other drawback I'm not seeing.

And on the topic of carriers, I'm of the opinion they never should have been introduced but since they're here now they might as well work. Give the players who fly them some ability to direct the actions of their fighters and adjustable powers that the captain can order be activated based on the type of fighter and carriers would add something to gameplay. As things are I'm not sure why they're in.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 30
06-06-2011, 06:52 AM
TL/DR

Here's the short and sweet:

1/8 of the game population plays Klingon because Cryptic put 1/8 of the effort into the Klingon Faction.

Homogenization? If A = B then B = A. What's the point of having a separate faction then? None.

Fix the Klingon problem and the rest will fix itself.
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 09:28 AM.