Go Back   Star Trek Online > Test Servers > Tribble - General Discussion and Feedback
Login

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Captain
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 750
Why am I being railroaded? Why must I be forced to be a tank/healer if I want to use the Galaxy class?

I could go into the uselessness of the engineer ensign compared to the science ensign when it comes to tanking. Hazard emitters 1, polarize hull 1, transfer shield strength 1 ALL beat emergency power to shields 1 and engineering team 1.

I could go into the uselessness of a 5th engineering console, due to diminishing returns on armor and the complete uselessness of most other engineering consoles.

I could go into the fact that DAMAGE IS KING IN ALL SITUATIONS. Tactical consoles are king. Period. End of discussion. There's a reason why most engineering consoles at purple mk XII sell for 10 mill at most on the exchange, where purple tactical consoles at mk XII sell for up to 50 million each. The only exception is the field generator, because it raises hitpoints. The more tactical consoles you have, the better you are in combat. The Excelsior tanks well enough. The Sovereign certainly tanks well enough. Even the D'kora and Galor tank well enough. Why are they the best cruisers? Three tactical consoles. The damage gained from every extra tac console is enormous.

But forget all those arguments above, because they can be argued against. Not argued against very well, but Cryptic will try. Here's a much better argument for Cryptic to answer:

Imagine joining a generic fantasy MMO and you want to roll an elf character that's a melee fighter. Then imagine being told you can't because elves only have magical healers who can hit with a stick and get no combat skills, and only dwarves, humans and orcs get proper melee fighters. This would be an asinine decision on the makers of that game.

My ship IS me, just as much as my player avatar is me. I want to fly a Galaxy class and I want it to be more tactically inclined because I should not have to be railroaded into a healing or tanking role, or railroaded into a Sovereign. The Odyssey class is a perfect example of it being done right. Players can actually take a ship that they might love to fly and they have options for the role they want their ship to be in.

Cryptic, this is how the Fleet Exploration cruiser should be:

4 engineering consoles.
3 Tactical consoles
3 Science consoles

Cmdr. Engingeering
Lt. Cmdr. Engineering
Lt. Tactical
Lt. Science
Ensign. Universal


Now the ship can be as useful as the standard Assault Cruiser or standard Star Cruiser.

The Fleet Star Cruiser should have the Fleet Assault Cruiser treatment with a Lt. Cmdr science boff. Then the Fleet Galaxy doesn't step on any toes at the fleet level, yet it is a versatile jack of all trades and master of none.


So Cryptic, why am I being railroaded just because you have decided on the way certain ships should be?

Why am I forced to change my identity in this game to fit YOUR tastes?

You have already admitted that you can create new ships quickly and easily, so create this for me and everyone like me who pays you and wants this as much as I do.

Give me my Galaxy class with more tactical consoles. I pay you to satisfy me as a customer, now give me the product I want.

Last edited by fulleatherjacket; 07-02-2012 at 07:50 PM.
Commander
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 321
# 2
07-02-2012, 07:07 AM
This may come across as flaming you, that's not the intention, but I can't really rephrase it in a manner that makes it look otherwise, so apologies in advance.

Basically, you want them to sit down and make every possible permutation of a ship layout with every skin available for it?

Cos that's in effect what you're demanding here, if take your post to its logical conclusion. If you want a Fleet Galaxy with more Tac abilities, and Cryptic must make one for you because you are a paying customer, then what if I want a Patrol Escort with 5 Tac Consoles cos I just don't want to have to fly the Defiant to get 5 Tac Consoles? Should they change the Patrol Escort especially for me? And what if someone wants a Sovreign that has an Lt. C Science station? Should they get that just because they're a paying customer too?

The only way they can get out of fixed ship designs that not everyone likes is to fundementally change ship design so ships are fully customisable. Consoles, skins, BOff layouts etc. But there'd still have to be limits for game balance. So you still wouldn't make everyone happy.

A potential 'simple' fix to your issue would be to allow every end-level cruiser skin to be used on any type of end-level cruiser, so you could apply a Galaxy skin to an Assault Cruiser, and have your tactically inclined Galaxy. I personally wouldn't object to that.

But that wouldn't, for example, satsify the guy I saw in zone chat a while back complaining that the Akira, Intrepid, and Prometheus are really cruisers, that he wants to fly them as cruisers, and that Escorts don't exist in Star Trek canon. You'd also have people who want to go further and have any skin on any ship. So you could have a Tac Retrofit that looks like a Miranda, which, if done, would cause other people to rail against the absurdity of it and complain that it's 'breaking their immersion'.

They're not going to satisfy everyone with the ship system as is.

Last edited by skhc; 07-02-2012 at 07:09 AM.
Captain
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 750
# 3
07-02-2012, 07:15 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by skhc View Post
Basically, you want them to sit down and make every possible permutation of a ship layout with every skin available for it?
Actually, Cryptic has said making permuations of ships is an easy task. I'd be satisfied with the Odyssey treatment for the Fleet Galaxy (3 variants based on profession). And why not have the Odyssey treatment for all ships? If there are players who want to use an escort with 5 tac consoles that is not a Defiant, they should get what they want.

I believe what I want is within reason, and not to outlandish. I'm not asking for a cruiser that is completely antithetical to the way all other cruisers are built.

Quote:
Originally Posted by skhc View Post
A potential 'simple' fix to your issue would be to allow every end-level cruiser skin to be used on any type of end-level cruiser, so you could apply a Galaxy skin to an Assault Cruiser, and have your tactically inclined Galaxy. I personally wouldn't object to that.
Nor would I.

Last edited by fulleatherjacket; 07-02-2012 at 07:22 AM.
Commander
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 321
# 4
07-02-2012, 07:29 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fulleatherjacket View Post
Actually, Cryptic has said making permuations of ships is an easy task. I'd be satisfied with the Odyssey treatment for the Fleet Galaxy (3 variants based on profession). And why not have the Odyssey treatment for all ships? If there are players who want to use an escort with 5 tac consoles that is not a Defiant, they should get what they want.

I believe what I want is within reason, and not to outlandish. I'm not asking for a cruiser that is completely antithetical to the way all other cruisers are built.
I know it's not difficult for Cryptic to do. But where do you say 'okay, that's enough versions of that ship'? Supposing someone, somehow is not satisfied with all 3 Fleet Galaxies? Do Cryptic have to accomodate them? Do we do this with every Fleet ship?

That's the point I'm trying to make. Your request in isolation is not unreasonable. But saying that just because you pay for the game you should get the ship you want, is. If everyone does that, and Cryptic satisfy them, we'll end up with a frankly ridiculous amount of variants. And whilst one, two or three variants is not a problem for Cryptic to come out with, two or three variants each for about twelve different ships might take a while.

That's why, unless they completely rethink ship design and add in a non-aesthetic customisation system, which let's face it, the presence of Fleet Ships makes very unlikely in the near future, Cryptic probably won't grant too many of these sort of requests, if they grant any at all. Their attitude will be "we're not going to use any programming time, even a small amount of it, to make a ship that, stats wise, already exists in the game".

Quote:
Originally Posted by fulleatherjacket View Post
Nor would I.
I honestly think it'd be a reasonable solution to quite a few RP vs. game design clashes at the least.

Last edited by skhc; 07-02-2012 at 07:42 AM.
Empire Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 6,955
# 5
07-02-2012, 11:47 AM
its hardly unreasonable to want there to be 1 version of the galaxy in game that doesn't suck ass. the fleet galaxy continues to have the WORST station setup, the WORST console setup made even more worse then before, and the WORST turn rate. want to deal damage in it? every other cruisers can do so better, even the star cruiser. want to be a healer? not with so many global cooldowns derailing your healing ability.

how about its special ability? gives it enhanced maneuverability and speed. how exactly is it supposed to use this to its advantage when it has the least tactical stations and the least tactical consoles? it manly makes it squishier and helps it not at all. how was its KDF counterpart treated? a universal ensign, 5/2/3 consoles, the impressive 9 turn rate and a cloak. looks like the gap between them widened

the fleet versions stats did NOTHING to fix the galaxy R's problems, they just threw extra hitpoints at it, wile they gave other ships like the sovereign a full tactical makeover.

the ship in cannon was extreamly modular and could be configured in widely different ways, it should have universal stations as a result. its console setup should be a more balanced 4/3/3 as well, at least it would be usable then
gateway links-->Norvo Tigan, Telis Latto Ruwon, Sochie Heim, Solana Soleus
Career Officer
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 514
# 6
07-02-2012, 11:57 AM
[SIZE="2"]I would say at this point, bump its maneuverability a point or two, make the consoles 4/3/3, and other then the commander engineering BO set, make it all universal., so the federation has the equivilent of a Cruiser BoP (BoC- Bird of Cruiser or CoP- Cruiser of Prey)[/SIZE]

..and like children playing after sunset, we were surrounded by darkness." -Ruri Hoshino
Career Officer
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 6,416
# 7
07-02-2012, 03:04 PM
At this point, I really am starting to wish that they revise the ship system to allow refitting of ships than having us buy new ones.

So with the OP, when his Galaxy got in line for a final refit, you get to choose which console slot you want. Do you want that 5th Engineering, or do you want that Third Tactical console?

Want to fly that Nova or Sabre since T2? Go to your fleet engineer and have your ship refitted all the way to end-game.


If they are worried about loss of income, they could easily add cheap measures to inact somekind of fee (like they are doing with existing Fleet Ships). Of course, at a reasonable price.
Captain
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 855
# 8
07-02-2012, 03:20 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by blitzy4 View Post
[SIZE="2"]I would say at this point, bump its maneuverability a point or two, make the consoles 4/3/3, and other then the commander engineering BO set, make it all universal., so the federation has the equivilent of a Cruiser BoP (BoC- Bird of Cruiser or CoP- Cruiser of Prey)[/SIZE]
This idea I like.

All ships should be fitted accordingly imho. 1 "career specific" officer, and 3-4 universals. And also, it should be layed out as: 1 Cmdr "specific", 1 Lt Cmdr Universal, 2 Lt Universal, 1 Ens Universal.

People will probably complain that you can shove 5 Engineers in such a Cruiser, or 5 Tacticals in an Escort etc. But the thing is, you end up sacrificing something for having such a crew. 5 Engineers, means poor damage dealing and support. 5 Tacticals, means poor survivability. True, a 5-Tactical Defiant would have massive damage potential. But if you manage to counter that damage, the Defiant would blow up with relative ease.
Lieutenant
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 55
# 9
07-02-2012, 04:24 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by azurianstar View Post
At this point, I really am starting to wish that they revise the ship system to allow refitting of ships than having us buy new ones.

So with the OP, when his Galaxy got in line for a final refit, you get to choose which console slot you want. Do you want that 5th Engineering, or do you want that Third Tactical console?

Want to fly that Nova or Sabre since T2? Go to your fleet engineer and have your ship refitted all the way to end-game.


If they are worried about loss of income, they could easily add cheap measures to inact somekind of fee (like they are doing with existing Fleet Ships). Of course, at a reasonable price.
This is the the way it should have been from the get go.
Captain
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,063
# 10
07-02-2012, 04:36 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by meurik View Post
This idea I like.

All ships should be fitted accordingly imho. 1 "career specific" officer, and 3-4 universals. And also, it should be layed out as: 1 Cmdr "specific", 1 Lt Cmdr Universal, 2 Lt Universal, 1 Ens Universal.

People will probably complain that you can shove 5 Engineers in such a Cruiser, or 5 Tacticals in an Escort etc. But the thing is, you end up sacrificing something for having such a crew. 5 Engineers, means poor damage dealing and support. 5 Tacticals, means poor survivability. True, a 5-Tactical Defiant would have massive damage potential. But if you manage to counter that damage, the Defiant would blow up with relative ease.
IMO this would be by far the superior solution. Have every ship have a number of possible upgrades (at least one for every career, and probably 4-5 total). You can only get some of them, and you can only get one per tier of the starbase. That way nobody has to wait for ALL the pieces of their favorite ship, they have a reason to continue grinding, they can use their goodies WHILE they're grinding while they try to get MORE goodies, and so forth. Also more configurability. This was what I thought the starbase upgrading idea was going to be about originally.
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 05:51 AM.