Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 131
09-30-2009, 10:22 PM
I assume we are able to name our ships, but when we move to other ships will they keep the same name, or can we pick a new name or add a letter to the original ship name?

For example, if my original ship name is Adamant, and I move to a different ship, can I name this ship something else? Or will it still be Adamant, or Adamant-A possibly?
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 132
09-30-2009, 10:47 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by loyaltrekie View Post
I don't think you have been paying attention to what they have been saying, they already said that you will not be at a huge disadvantage flying a lower tiered ship, compared to a high tiered one.[Which I disagree with, on principal]
You right, altough I read most things, I missed this one.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 133
09-30-2009, 11:02 PM
I was wondering if I could max out by only doing Research missions and avoiding combat completely? Or are we obligated to fight in this violent universe?
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 134
09-30-2009, 11:22 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Replica View Post
It's called game balance and it makes games not suck. it would allow Lts. and Commanders participate meaningfully in PvP instead of it being dominated solely by Admirals. It would make combat interesting, not just a matter of brute ship level. It would make people have to think while they play. Ships that are better in every way will make the game only about the grind to the best ship. The grind to endgame is why most MMOs suck.
I don't agree with you. We will have 3 Top tiers with 2 or more ships per tier, so there are 6+ ships to make it diverse. If they try to make every ship with advantages and disadvantages this will be a balancing horror. And they would need to introduce a lot of artificial rules if they want that a tier1 can compete with a top tier. A galaxy is better then a miranda. They have more bo slots, more phaser slots. And in StarTrek lore the better ships have normaly better engines and shilds too.

It is calles player progression. An important part of an mmo is that you can progress. If a Miranda-Lieutenant is comparable to a Galaxy-Admiral the whole point of progression is obsolete. I think pvpers who don't like that should play games like Battlefield, Halo or CoD where the things are not too item and level dependend instead of an mmo.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 135
09-30-2009, 11:37 PM
I'm worried about the Prime Directive. Since I haven't read much about the whole game mechanic surrounding it, (providing me a link would make you AWESOME in my book, and that's a good thing) I've been wondering if it will be a mechanic that will prevent us Starfleet buggers from going "rogue"?

Meaning, lets say I come upon a highly hostile race out in the middle of no-where, and they are aggressive at first. I'd like the option to simply start blasting away at them if the Prime Directive passiveness breaks down. (I'm thinking along the ways of Capt. Janeway here, only more aggressive a captain on my part.)
I want to be friendly and explore, but I won't have any second thoughts about blasting a ship or two that gets too close, or isn't welcoming on first contact.
Of course this does present it's hazards, that being that their tech is higher/better than mine and I take it in the butt and the ship is destroyed.

So how is the Prime Directive a game mechanic/factor? I don't want it stopping me as part of the functionality of the game if I go to fire on someone I just met.
Fire Phasers... I get a window popping up that says to me "You can not fire on this person/ship/race/etc.. because of the Prime Directive...yada yada yada..."

thanks!

-ML
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 136
09-30-2009, 11:58 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by strtrk8971 View Post
will this be similar to ********* at all? if not, what will it be similar to?
No offense or anything but the trailer for this game is better than all of *********. :p
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 137
10-01-2009, 12:04 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainKrud
Several questions I've had on this for some time so time to get them down:

(1) In our history here on planet Earth, Admirals are never in personal command of a ship, only Task Forces and Fleets. This is backed up in pretty much every episode and film where an Admiral may be ranking officer on a ship but it's never actually his/hers permanently. Unless it's an emergency, I do not expect to see an Admiral running around personally in command of any vessel. It may be his flagship for a particular operation but it should not be for them to command.

As an alternative, and if you think you've got the bandwidth to develop it, I'd propose a completely new tier to the game. Sector command ability for Admirals. They get an entirely different interface from the tactical ship one, but are tied to the Captains operating in a particular sector by being able to give them missions, share in their success by completing them, and allocate available resources from their sector(s) and the Federation overall towards building infrastructure, colonies, new ships, etc. As the saying goes, Generals and Admirals are concerned with logistics, not tactics. I know, maybe not interesting to most people, but there is precedent for a choice ---simply refuse promotion from Captain. Picard did it; Kirk made the wrong choice and got "demoted" back to Captain where he remained for the rest of his career too.

There could also be, as in real life, several ranks of Admirals although that is not clearly distinguised in Star Fleet. A Rear Admiral would command a task force or sector. A Vice Admiral a larger task force or a Fleet, or perhaps a division of Starfleet itself (Engineering, Medical, etc.). A full Admiral would command the resources of a Quadrant of the Federation. Finally, there is Admiral of the Fleet, the top rank and policy setting position.

Comments?

(2) While it is true that any officer can command a vessel and be called "Captain" while in command, he can be overridden by a superior officer in his chain of command. One problem I'm seeing is that everyone can simply run around the galaxy doing whatever they feel like doing with absolutely no consequences. In this time of uncertainty, you would hope there is some direction and orders coming from the top of the chain of command. Failure to carryout that policy and required missions should be grounds for a court martial and demotion. I know a lot of people would prefer doing their own thing, but Starfleet is a military organization with a firm chain of command. There's no such thing as organized anarchy.

(3) For Klingon characters, a preferred method of rank advancement in the past has been assassination of an immediate superior, thereby replacing him and causing others to move up as well. Considering the opportunities for direct or implied challenges to what passes for honor in the Klingon Empire (sometimes a rather unique definition...), the risk and rewards would be far higher than in Starfleet Command, where such activities are generally frowned upon. Hopefully that will be reflected in their system?

(4) I'm also not clear on the rank advancement or crew options in later stages of the game. Clearly small ships have rather limited staffing requirements so large crews won't be possible, along with all the variations that brings. However, with larger ships, it's possible to have several crew/bridge shifts with widely varying skill sets available. This opens up a number of options for non-bridge officers to participate on away missions as well where their particular skill set may be in demand. How many "personalized" officers can we have on the ship at once for each rank?

Captain Krud

One problem I'm seeing is that everyone can simply run around the galaxy doing whatever they feel like doing with absolutely no consequences. In this time of uncertainty, you would hope there is some direction and orders coming from the top of the chain of command. Failure to carryout that policy and required missions should be grounds for a court martial and demotion.

I think you are taking this too seriously, its a game LOL. It's not fun if you're not allowed to do what you want, this is a game where you make the decisions, not taking orders all the time.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 138
10-01-2009, 12:04 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Azurit View Post
I don't agree with you. We will have 3 Top tiers with 2 or more ships per tier, so there are 6+ ships to make it diverse. If they try to make every ship with advantages and disadvantages this will be a balancing horror. And they would need to introduce a lot of artificial rules if they want that a tier1 can compete with a top tier. A galaxy is better then a miranda. They have more bo slots, more phaser slots. And in StarTrek lore the better ships have normaly better engines and shilds too.

It is calles player progression. An important part of an mmo is that you can progress. If a Miranda-Lieutenant is comparable to a Galaxy-Admiral the whole point of progression is obsolete. I think pvpers who don't like that should play games like Battlefield, Halo or CoD where the things are not too item and level dependend instead of an mmo.
Hmmm, I have to agree with the both of you, here's why.
I've worked no games where in the pre-beta phase, there was no balance. We were just testing unit functions vs. the other units in the game. As UN-fun as it was, we learned a LOT about the specific roles of each unit and how they could become effective either en masse, or singularly.

When we got to balance, and this was happy happy joy joy time for me, I had a field day going back and forth with the fella's and the Dev who set the numbers of the units. That was fun.
We ended up going Unit by Unit and saying, ok, what do the numbers look like on this one... Power, defense, speed turn rate etc... and the next one and so on. Sometimes it wasn't to the QA guys' liking, but all in all, it worked out. We got the balance right, or mostly right.
Then, in comparison, Beta tested Pirates of the Burning Sea. Which when it was Released, had only 2 ships at each tier level for most careers. So it became about the grind. When those devs got word that everyone was just grinding to 50, they intorduced a few new ships, and changed a lot of stats.
Speed was the main killer in that game, basically because no matter how much fire power you had, no matter how much armor you had, and no matter the same with your opponent, if you had speed you could dictate the battle. If you didn't like how it was going, you could just sail off before you were sunk. If you were kicking his but, you could sail circles around him and he couldn't get away.
Because of this, many players rigged for Speed, making it VERY boring and UN-fun when they attacked you. it was either WIN or FAIL, not much balance in that. So once again those devs went back and mangled the stats... yet again.
guess what. it killed that game. It also lacked serious depth. Once you got to 50, if you weren't into PvP, you were obviously in the wrong Boat... no pun intended... ok, yeah, I was make'n a Pun..
Anyway, the thing about blance and having a structure similar to other games is there's going to be those fast little ships with more speed and agility, but not as much Firepower. This will allow the lower ranks to be able to compete at some level with higher ranks.
At this point, I don't think that's really a good idea. Unless done correctly. In Pirates they didn't do it correctly, because the smaller ships could get a HUGE increase in speed, making them impossible to hit. So 3 smalls would be able to kill a Huge ship. Not cool when your effectively loosing 1,000 times the cost of those 3 smalls... that just makes people mad. Where in reality, you know a fight like that would never happen. Another problem was the range on the smaller ships, players were able to buy mods that allowed those smaller to have the range of a Huge ship. Which is totally BS. That's what broke it.
That's where the MMORPG rules come into play. Here is where Cryptic has to do their homework. If they do this right, we'll not have to worry about fights like I mentioned above. Size matters. they should make it that way.
As would be Captains/Admirals, we should all want to strive for that larger, better ship, given it's role.
Still, in PvP, you'd obviously take the right ship for the job. If that be only 1 or2 ships at that tier level, then that's what we have to work with.

I'm guessing that the ships will be balanced between Speed, Sheilds, Firepower, agility, and a few other factors comon to good MMORPGs. Should they have an RTS type of RPS system? No. Should all the Tier1 ships be the same or have the same stats as the other tier1 ships? Absolutely not!
IMO, there should be MORE than 2 tier 1 ships... in fact there should be 5-6 ships at each tier that are role specific, but closely matched in PvP.
Balance is not only up to Cryptic, but up to the players who pilot those ships and fit them out accordingly.
If we're restricted to "You get what comes on it" then this game will get boring fast and everyone will run for the best ship for, PvP or PvE respectively.
If we have the ability to modify our ships then this will be an exciting game.

I have faith in Cryptic that they've done their Homework, and they have enough experience in developement that this game will be fine. given a few tweaks here and there for balance adjustment.
If it's not the way it should be post release, you'll know soon enough by the amount of people logging into the servers each day. If the game becomes boring quickly, those numbers will drop sharply and never come back up. If the game is awesomely balanced, the server pop will drop slowly over a longer period of time. People naturally get bored with things, but a severe imbalance in PvP will kill it even faster.
I'm sure they know this.
I'm sure we'll be fine.
i'm sure this is really long and I'll be impressed if you've read it all.

Good day, carry on...

Edit: oh, btw, I have played Battlefield, 2142, and Halo, and CoD. I've also cut my teeth on RTS games like Homeworld and Company of Heroes, Warcraft3, so on, and I've had plenty of action in Diablo2.. but when I found MMORPGs, it was OVER! My first MMORPG? City of Heroes... I still love it. I hate WoW though. Unless I'm PAID to play WoW, I won't. Good game though.
Just wanted to make that clear so that you know I understand your point, and a good point it is.
=)
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 139
10-01-2009, 12:38 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobandben View Post
One problem I'm seeing is that everyone can simply run around the galaxy doing whatever they feel like doing with absolutely no consequences. In this time of uncertainty, you would hope there is some direction and orders coming from the top of the chain of command. Failure to carryout that policy and required missions should be grounds for a court martial and demotion.

I think you are taking this too seriously, its a game LOL. It's not fun if you're not allowed to do what you want, this is a game where you make the decisions, not taking orders all the time.
Agreeable, but Orders give you purpose. Everyone needs a purpose in a game like this. I think we need orders, but also the freedom to decide which orders to follow and when. That's what makes you a Captain, not just your rank.

Lets say you get to a planet where they want you to go nuke their enemies in return for a favor. Does this suit your purpose in exploration of the Galaxy? No, not really. But what if they hand over some new tech that NO ONE has ever seen before? Would it be worth it then? Possibly.
I think the game would be wisely in depth if Starfleet Captains were occasionally given this kind of quest or challenge.
Would you do it? I'm not saying wipe out their enemy, but, give them a pretty good beat down. What if that races' enemy, the one you were about to nuke from orbit wanted to trade you some new tech no one has ever seen before and it gives you more speed, or whoop-ass, or shields or better warp efficiency, or makes your Deflector Dish put on a Rave? Would you still nuke them?
In my case, I'm pretty fond of the Rave scene, so I'd have to go that route... lol,
buuuuuuuuut, that's just me....
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 140 Repercations
10-01-2009, 02:55 AM
Will there be some sort of penalisation for dyeing to stop the gun-ho group just going in to a battle even if they can not win.
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 07:04 PM.