Lt. Commander
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 112
# 21
01-21-2013, 03:01 PM
I feel a bit the same way, and it is a lot for me because of another thread that is running saying you get to Admiral rank too fast. I think leveling in this game is way too fast. I would have like it to be like 10000 times slower. Instead of playing early battles and use low level ships for like an hour or so, you should make it so you get to play them for about 2 or 3 months.

The problem is the story line content would, i imagine be somewhat awkward to make. Also, right now they can add in content at the Admiral level and basically everyone in game gets to play it. If you have a slower leveling system, it would take more time to work out the content for all those levels.

Plus some people hate slow leveling.
Career Officer
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,514
# 22
01-21-2013, 03:27 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by interestedguy View Post
I feel a bit the same way, and it is a lot for me because of another thread that is running saying you get to Admiral rank too fast. I think leveling in this game is way too fast. I would have like it to be like 10000 times slower. Instead of playing early battles and use low level ships for like an hour or so, you should make it so you get to play them for about 2 or 3 months.

The problem is the story line content would, i imagine be somewhat awkward to make. Also, right now they can add in content at the Admiral level and basically everyone in game gets to play it. If you have a slower leveling system, it would take more time to work out the content for all those levels.

Plus some people hate slow leveling.
Itemization would also present a problem. Right now we fly through the levels and so fly through the tiers of gear. If I had to play a character for 20 or 30 hours per level I would be extremely annoyed if my new tier of gear gave me a marginal upgrade (as is present) or if I already had a lower tier green that beats a higher tier blue (as can be at present).
nynik | Join Date: Dec 2009
<Dev> Oaks@dstahl: *checks for CBS listening devices in the office*
Captain
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 11,107
# 23
01-21-2013, 06:46 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by interestedguy View Post
I feel a bit the same way, and it is a lot for me because of another thread that is running saying you get to Admiral rank too fast. I think leveling in this game is way too fast. I would have like it to be like 10000 times slower. Instead of playing early battles and use low level ships for like an hour or so, you should make it so you get to play them for about 2 or 3 months.

The problem is the story line content would, i imagine be somewhat awkward to make. Also, right now they can add in content at the Admiral level and basically everyone in game gets to play it. If you have a slower leveling system, it would take more time to work out the content for all those levels.

Plus some people hate slow leveling.
I don't think that slowing down the leveling is the answer. It is a problem, but it's not the answer. It doesn't matter how fast you get to the endgame, it's still the twitchy speedfest it is. I want late game to preserve the look and feel of the early game.
http://i1151.photobucket.com/albums/o633/centersolace/189cux9khvl6ojpg_zpsca7ccff0.jpg
Captain
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 659
# 24
01-21-2013, 07:27 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by syberghost View Post
Most of those quests are no more involved in the story than an Exploration mission is involved in STO's story, so if you're going to count them, you need to count the 800+ Exploration missions.
Sorry, but I have played both games extensively. You are flat-out wrong.
Commander
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 289
# 25
01-21-2013, 09:53 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by zerobang View Post
Same with other ships like the Galaxy Class, i've very rarely seen it on TV shoot more than the one main Phaser Beam, in STO you have at least 3 beams shooting out the same front phaser strip all the time.
It doesn't happen often, but it does happen.
Career Officer
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 61
# 26
01-21-2013, 10:21 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by syberghost View Post
Because the alternative is the only advancement you make is "I do more damage, and they have more hit points".
I don't play a lot of video game. Star trek online is my first MMO game. Why do you think that would be the alternative and why is it bad?
-- Vice Admiral's log, stardate 57134.2
... I began to panic and asked my human companion of the meaning of toon. He replied that it was something that was not real. I protested to him that I was walking and running and killing. What did he mean that I was not real? He replied that everyone knew the universe was a computer simulation. Occasionally, he had to accompany another toon too.
Captain
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 11,107
# 27
01-21-2013, 10:51 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by theroyalfamily View Post
It doesn't happen often, but it does happen.
That renforces my point. In that video most ships are only using one or two weapons at a time. They aren't vomiting curtains of colourful weapon fire out the front.
http://i1151.photobucket.com/albums/o633/centersolace/189cux9khvl6ojpg_zpsca7ccff0.jpg
Lieutenant
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 59
# 28
01-21-2013, 11:21 PM
Personally, I enjoy massive battles.
The DS9 episode had a nice taste of that but not much more than a taste.
The STFs are rather, how to say...too banally localized: static map, few forces that respawn every now and then. It's all very simplistic.
It appears a little bit more thought went onto the Fleet actions in that regard.

___________________________
Joined April 2008. Lifetime Subscriber. Original member of the original 2nd Fleet.
Expended $1,961 USD on this game - regretting it all. This game and some of its staff disappointed me, time and again, per every single cent spent!!!
Lieutenant
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 59
# 29
01-21-2013, 11:31 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by centersolace View Post
That renforces my point. In that video most ships are only using one or two weapons at a time. They aren't vomiting curtains of colourful weapon fire out the front.
You may also notice in that video a certain phenomenon: only the highlighted action-centered ships are shooting.
You have entire scenes with many large cruisers simply floating by and doing nothing with only the ships with focus on them doing the shooting.
This is done because had they all been continuously shooting as they would, as is expected during a battle, you WILL see nothing but a cloud of colourful weapon fire all around and that would obscure the action the director wished to center focus upon.
As such, this doesn't reinforce your point.

The real argument here is realism versus gameplay.

___________________________
Joined April 2008. Lifetime Subscriber. Original member of the original 2nd Fleet.
Expended $1,961 USD on this game - regretting it all. This game and some of its staff disappointed me, time and again, per every single cent spent!!!
Lieutenant
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 38
# 30
01-22-2013, 07:32 AM
Only have one response to this entire thread.

Bridge Commander... Bridge Commander is a better Star Trek Game by MILES... Then STO. If we had that style of combat, making the larger ships seem big and powerful, not firing as often and the smaller vessels weaker and flying in and out, it would be a better game.

it CAN be done because Activision did it twice, both Bridge commander AND Starfleet Command III

Cryptic are just too lazy to make this game exceptional, that is all.
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 03:49 AM.