Destroyable vs 1 hp ships

[Falin]

what's everyones view on this? PE had stated that they were going tohave your ships get heavily damaged, but never destroyed (ala 1 hp), personally i find this apporach very un trekkish, ships go into battle, they're destroyed, people are ejected in escape pods.

I belive that one of the consequences of deciding to go into battle is the chance that you'll lose it. now that being said, you, the character, will not die, but your nice well trained NPC crew may and you'll have to get another ship and crew and trainthem again.

but this leads to the question, what happens to the player's avatar when the ships destroyed? does it float there in an escape pod waiting for another ship to rescue it or does it magically respawn at the nearest base? i'm torn on this question because i can see both sides of the coin, we could have you float there, then as soon as the space is safe (the enemy forces withdrawl or move on) have a NPC rescue ship arive and give you a shuttle, but i can see how this may turn some players off as well. so really i'm not sure what the exact answer is, but i do know i ant the chance that my ship may not survive a battle.

[ShiXin]

Hmm, I would be inclined to agree, depending on how difficult Cryptic makes it to obtain a ship and the upgrades for it.

Also, I would be afraid of the *shipdestroyedwakeupbackatdrydock* scenario.

[Raven0238]

I half agree, a ship doesn't need to explode to be considered "destroyed" its now the 25th Century, I'd imagine at a certain point, your ship would automatically shut down the warp core and make it do it doesn't go Ka-Boom! - Unless you riddle it with torpedos, which I think you should have to make and it should not be cheap.

[PhantomPhoton]

I have mixed feelings on this. There definitely should be a penalty for loosing your ship in combat, I really don't want to see a nice ship that took a lot of time to build up and crew destroyed in the blink of an eye by some dumb little glitch, lag, or other unpatched exploit. No matter how well the game is programmed, people will find exploits, and they will use such things to grief other players. It is the nature of the beast in MMOs. Completely blowing up a ship is just too much of an opportunity for griefers and gank squads.

However I also don't want the "you have died.. respawn in your ship at the nearest spacedock."
At the moment, though I may come up with better ideas as we get more info about the game, my best suggestion would be having a couple different small penalties not some huge massive one.
Ship is derelict... abandon ship. Spend time sitting around in an escape pod waiting for a rescue ship before you can do anything else. How long you sit there depends upon how far out you are, how many enemy and friendly vessels are in the area, etc. Make this a small "time-out" penalty of at most a few minutes.
Then for the interest of fun, we have an insta-transport of crew and derelict vessel back to spacedock or whatever. Then its up to you and the crew to start repairs. Perhaps spacedock allows far faster repairs that would happen if you're just out alone repairing in the middle of space, but still require the expense of time and other resources/ prestige to repair and get your ship battle ready once again. Make the player(s) have to replace parts on the ship or whatever but don't make players permanently loose things either like that sweet mark IX torpedo mod that the engineer spent a week developing. Our biggest penalty should be the cost of time. Smaller penalties of prestige and a ship that needs to be tuned back up should also be implemented to prevent people from abusing the insta-transport back to spacedock.

Finally perhaps we end up with the option to rescue escape pods of friendly vessels, or for something really hairy capture enemy escape pods. There are tons of possibilities to produce different penalties with different risks involved.

Oh and a big one... make spacedock or whatever and the area around it a non PVP zone, so we don't have any sort of respawn griefing too.

[Djin]

what's everyones view on this? PE had stated that they were going tohave your ships get heavily damaged, but never destroyed (ala 1 hp), personally i find this apporach very un trekkish, ships go into battle, they're destroyed, people are ejected in escape pods.

I belive that one of the consequences of deciding to go into battle is the chance that you'll lose it. now that being said, you, the character, will not die, but your nice well trained NPC crew may and you'll have to get another ship and crew and trainthem again.

but this leads to the question, what happens to the player's avatar when the ships destroyed? does it float there in an escape pod waiting for another ship to rescue it or does it magically respawn at the nearest base? i'm torn on this question because i can see both sides of the coin, we could have you float there, then as soon as the space is safe (the enemy forces withdrawl or move on) have a NPC rescue ship arive and give you a shuttle, but i can see how this may turn some players off as well. so really i'm not sure what the exact answer is, but i do know i ant the chance that my ship may not survive a battle.

Don't take this the wrong way when I say this. I've followed some of your threads, and the way you speak is that you're hardcore into Star Trek (so am I), but you wish to take this game and turn it into a simulator. Very detailed... this will take a lot of "fun" out of the game.

I know that EVE has this, and it's very frustarting to lose a 100 billion Isk ship... but some of the things you seek would just take way too long and would need a very amazingly fast PC to run... you seem to also forget this is going to be on consoles too, which have a limited amount of RAM, HDD, CPU power, etc.

All though having a ship that wouldn't die is pretty lame...

[Kinkade]

I imagine having a really nice ship would take a lot of time and effort to obtain, so it would really suck to lose it because of one botched mission.

I think at a certain point you should be automatically put in an escape pod rather then having the ship destroyer.

The penalty can be the cost and time it takes to salvage the damaged vessel and bring it back to a starbase. While thats happening your stuck wherever until its done, unless you have another ship I suppose. From there you can fix damaged systems, replace destroyed ones, whatever.

Of course you could choose not to salvage it and just buy a new one if you wanted, or if the salvage cost is more then its worth.

[Dustnite]

I would say have completely destroyable ships, but if you met some certain "qualifier" you would be able to get your ship back with a different letter. Just like Enterprise A-D

What the qualifier should be, I'm not sure. I'm still waiting on more info from Cryptic.

[Kinkade]

I know that EVE has this, and it's very frustarting to lose a 100 billion Isk ship...

Yeah that was one of the things I didn't like about EVE. Especially in the beginning when you are still learning how to play. One of the reasons i left the game.

I also like the idea of a fully realistic simulation of what it could really be like to command a ship, but if just wouldn't be a fun game to play.

There is a struggle being had between being true to Trek and playability, and this is one battle that playability should, and hopefully will win.

[NicholasJohn16]

Personally, I think there should be the risk of losing your ship or your command, but realistically, the TNG crew got into countless battles and didn't lose the ship untill the movie. I think just cause you jumped at a spawn point by 15 birds of prey doesn't mean you should have to start over at the academy.

[Djin]

Star Trek MMO is going to be a very difficult task for Cryptic.

There are so many types of fans that want so much, but you can only do so little in 'x' amount of time.

[Dunsel]

In the past, Cryptic has put the lion's share of focus on "fun" when they make a game. Floating in space, waiting doesn't sound like "fun".

[Raven0238]

For some people, going around reparing ship system, dead in space and watching things come back online is fun, even I think so. It really is a matter of taste.

[FaeryFire]

Typically, "death" in MMOG means "respawn".
So I guess the character(s) will escape the dire fate of the ship. The ship itself will be crippled and to be repaired and/or temporarily unavailable. It might magically re-appear at a spacedock.
You might "lose" some things there and there, like "upgrades" or whatever could be applied to the ship, if any.
Something like that.

[STOZone]

If your ship can be destroyed, it should be VERY rare and VERY difficult to do. Most of the time, after battles, ships should be adrift, but salvageable. This gives you a way to have a "rescue ship" warp in, beam up your escape pods, then quickly warp back out, dropping you off at the nearest starbase.

You arrive in front of an Admiral who chastises you for your brashness, and that you shouldn't take on more than you can chew, etc. Then he tells you that while you were recovering in sickbay, your ship has been towed to drydock, and you can go down and see about repairs.

This idea does not stick true to canon, and may seem a little more 'casual' than some like, or more hardcore than others like, but ship destruction is going to have to be an area of compromise between both sides.

[MillerEP]

Well I don't think you should ever loose your ship or your character. I feel that if you die, you do what perpetual said, and are prompted to wait for a medical officer to ressurect you or to beam back to a sickbay (respawn point). If your ship gets a catrastophic kill than you should wake up in a sickbay (respawn point) and your ship should be waiting in the shipyard undergoing repairs. The repair process should either A) Cost a lot of money/prestige points/etc for an insta-fix or B) have a time limit...like "Come back in 3 days, repeairs should be finished. This way if you need to get your ship back up and running and back in battle or questing, than you can pay the repair costs, if not than hop into a public shuttle, or your personal shuttle and go quest for a couple days.

[USS_Parallax]

Just make 'em respawnable. Seriously I'd rather have the ability to blow ships up then just leave them disabled. Respawning is just a fact of most games out there. Suspend your disbelief in this area or cry that you died in Super Mario Bros and came back to life when that makes no sense.

[Cyclone_Jack]

Good stuff in here. I like both of these posts:
I would say have completely destroyable ships, but if you met some certain "qualifier" you would be able to get your ship back with a different letter. Just like Enterprise A-D

What the qualifier should be, I'm not sure. I'm still waiting on more info from Cryptic.
For some people, going around reparing ship system, dead in space and watching things come back online is fun, even I think so. It really is a matter of taste.

Some people would love to bring a ship back from the brink of death by having their crew work like crazy on it. Heck, I think I'd even enjoy that (if done well). As with most options, I think I would leave it up to the crew. You can stay adrift and attempt repair, or you can send out a distress beacon which would spawn a tow frigate and tow you to the nearest Stardock for repairs.

I also like Dustnite's idea of having the ability to add the letter to the ship, and I also agree that it should be in rare circumstances.

[majicebe]

what's everyones view on this? PE had stated that they were going tohave your ships get heavily damaged, but never destroyed (ala 1 hp), personally i find this apporach very un trekkish, ships go into battle, they're destroyed, people are ejected in escape pods.

I belive that one of the consequences of deciding to go into battle is the chance that you'll lose it. now that being said, you, the character, will not die, but your nice well trained NPC crew may and you'll have to get another ship and crew and trainthem again.

but this leads to the question, what happens to the player's avatar when the ships destroyed? does it float there in an escape pod waiting for another ship to rescue it or does it magically respawn at the nearest base? i'm torn on this question because i can see both sides of the coin, we could have you float there, then as soon as the space is safe (the enemy forces withdrawl or move on) have a NPC rescue ship arive and give you a shuttle, but i can see how this may turn some players off as well. so really i'm not sure what the exact answer is, but i do know i ant the chance that my ship may not survive a battle.

Yeah, but I don't think we need an EVE knock-off either. Turning the ship into a 'ghost' as in WoW probably wouldn't work either. Something that might work, would be for the ship to be destroyed, and then when it gets re-made, it gets a later letter in the alphabet when you respawn (example: 1701-D to 1701-E). This is of course assuming that ships wouldn't get blown up 14 times a day, otherwise everyone's gonna have a Hexadecimal registry number in no-time ; )

[Alekks]

If your ship can be destroyed, it should be VERY rare and VERY difficult to do. Most of the time, after battles, ships should be adrift, but salvageable. This gives you a way to have a "rescue ship" warp in, beam up your escape pods, then quickly warp back out, dropping you off at the nearest starbase.

You arrive in front of an Admiral who chastises you for your brashness, and that you shouldn't take on more than you can chew, etc. Then he tells you that while you were recovering in sickbay, your ship has been towed to drydock, and you can go down and see about repairs.

This idea does not stick true to canon, and may seem a little more 'casual' than some like, or more hardcore than others like, but ship destruction is going to have to be an area of compromise between both sides.

Agree with this since it is a game we'll be playing, if we get customized quarters, it would be a pain to have the starship completely destroyed.

Wrecked, but salvageable on the other hand, leaving you to have to spend time in sick bay recovering, then having your actions reviewed by an Admiral, then getting crew replacements can be a pain in the neck in terms of advancing your character up the career ladder. Remember your character most definitely has a service record, getting a number of starships shotup and being on a first-name basis with the Chief operating the ship repair yard is not a career-advancing situation.

Too many wrecked starships may find your character facing a Board of Inquiry, official reprimands, loss of prestige points etc.

I like the idea of wrecked, but salvageable rather than either fully destroyed or "instant respawn somewhere with reduced capability for XX minutes"

[k.mpok]

There is no honor in letting the enemy limp home in a 1hp ship.

I am more in favor of a Destroyable ship that would force the crew to eject via lifepods and respawn back at the nearest Star Base where a new ship is assigned to you. The part I am not sure on yet would be if the ship is a new ship (IE new name/class/everything) or a refitting/renamed ship (same class with different serial . NCC-76251-A to -B). The refitted ships serial could change aver ever so many deaths (IE 100 or so) as that would/could be a form of a kill/death counting board type system to let others know how good or bad you are.

What fun is there in destroying an enemy just to watch him show up again in the same ship with no damage to it.

[Commander_Daedelus]

I would say have completely destroyable ships, but if you met some certain "qualifier" you would be able to get your ship back with a different letter. Just like Enterprise A-D

What the qualifier should be, I'm not sure. I'm still waiting on more info from Cryptic.


I'm also for this method as it also indicates to people that will join your crew how likely they will survive, if i saw the Enterprise 1701-Z i'll be steering clear thankyou.

[IanD967]

Typically, "death" in MMOG means "respawn".
So I guess the character(s) will escape the dire fate of the ship. The ship itself will be crippled and to be repaired and/or temporarily unavailable. It might magically re-appear at a spacedock.
You might "lose" some things there and there, like "upgrades" or whatever could be applied to the ship, if any.
Something like that.

i think this would be the most probable solution to the question really

and although it would be cool to have letters added onto the end of a name (Enterprise A-E) i do not think it should be done because the Enterprise is the only ship to have that. both Intrepid and Defiant ships (the ones in TOS compared to the ones in DS9-Voy era's) have the exact same name but without the letter at the end

[k.mpok]

i think this would be the most probable solution to the question really

and although it would be cool to have letters added onto the end of a name (Enterprise A-E) i do not think it should be done because the Enterprise is the only ship to have that. both Intrepid and Defiant ships (the ones in TOS compared to the ones in DS9-Voy era's) have the exact same name but without the letter at the end

hehe I think that is because the other class ships probley were not destroyed/lost ever other season. Maybe it had to do with the fact that most of the time the Enterprise was the flagship (IE almost prototype versions) and when it wasn't IE. TOS it did not have the -letter designation. hehe would be a nice way to tell if the Captain of the ship was any good tho.



Captain Joebob of the USS Thumper NCC-87352-ZZ. hehe I think I will want for the next passing ship thank you.

[IanD967]

well teh original Defient was lost into another timeline ;) and the Intrepid was shot down and if that ever of them happened to the Enterprise that would get the letter while the other ships wouldent :P

it seems more of a flagship-only thing for me

[J.L.Picard]

ships MUST be destroyed. Its all part of the realism. if you got no shield and i stickk 10 quantum torpedoes into you your gonna blow up its that simple.

[IanD967]

ships MUST be destroyed. Its all part of the realism. if you got no shield and i stickk 10 quantum torpedoes into you your gonna blow up its that simple.

yes but then what would happen afterwards? do you get another highly advanced starship or would Starfleet penalise you for getting it destroyed and give you a lesser advanced ship?

[STOZone]

ships MUST be destroyed. Its all part of the realism. if you got no shield and i stickk 10 quantum torpedoes into you your gonna blow up its that simple.

Yes, perhaps we would have seen that on the TV shows or movies, but remember this is the game version. Permanently destroying ships or characters is horribly frustrating and demoralizing for players, and will encourage people not to play anymore when they lose all of the stuff they've been working on for months.

Having to repair your ship after being defeated should be punishment enough. Imagine if you're at the end of a three-hour mission, and a mistake happens. Suddenly you can't even finish the mission because your ship has been destroyed, nor can you even attempt it again, since you now have a much less powerful ship without all of the upgrades you've built and collected.

"Respawn and try again" is already frustrating. Let's not try to make it any worse.

[J.L.Picard]

guys i understand the problem at hand however In pve there has to be actual ship destruction for story purposes for pvp simply introduce a respawn every whatever seconds aafter you died since pvp is going to be fleet v fleet in what can only be described as magnificiently AWSOME battles basicaly DS9 space battles for pve and co-op simply have you ship evacuate or something but the ship has to die because it would be so stpid someone pummeling a ship for 10 minutes and its a 1 hp all the time. this way someone with a scout will continously harass a cruiser or even a Battleship because they arnt really loosing anything. HOWEVER if they come attack you and you cut their ship in half with one phaser hit they will stop bothering you. The destruction of a shi[ will keep it relatively realistic and the though of loosing your ship will drive you to use tactics e.g. nebulas or running into gas giants to hide etc.etc.

[J.L.Picard]

I'm not saying you should get a scout after loosing your destroyer but how about this. You are given a scout class for say 5 minutes while starfleet builds you a replacement which would obviously cost you something maybe some sort of experience or sumthing

[STOZone]

I completely and totally respect the story-based reasons you mention. I support and encourage the RP community, even if I'm not a big RPer myself.

However, if the only reason to do something in-game is for a story reason, it's usually a bad idea. The goal is to make everything in game as fun as possible, while introducing punishment to the player only when absolutely necessary. Game designers who routinely say "No!" to their players are usually not game designers for very long.

Again, this is one of those areas where those of us who love canon and sticking to Trek-ness have to make concessions. This is the MMORPG version of Star Trek, not Star Trek itself.

[Xaranos]

I think ships should be destroyable but not every time you lost a battle.
Would be cool if they make it like this:
Once you lost a battle youll have a 100% chance to get your ship respawned at a spacedock. Damaged, but still usable.
For every time you lose a battle the chance of getting destroyed will increase.
I think that will also avoid players to do suicide actions like "lets see how long does a battle with my miranda takes against a starbase" or senseless fight to the bitter end, because no starfleet officer will sacrifice the crew for an allready lost battle.
So "retreat" will become an important option to "fight to the death".

And after a specific time of unharmed action in space your chance of not getting destroyed after a lost battle will increase again.

Another idea with that respawn thing would be to say that the damaged ship has to stay a couple of hours until its usable again. So this will force players to play with another ship and maybe they learn to know/like a different ship class?

Perpetual once said that the capital ship classes like Sovereign, Nebula/Galaxy etc. won´t be playable.
I say make them playable for clans or a union of clans (armada) as capital ships.
And therefore they should be completely destroyable (cause of their firepower).

just a few thoughts :P

[FaeryFire]

What fun is there in destroying an enemy just to watch him show up again in the same ship with no damage to it.

Well, that's online PvP... you kill the guy and he shows up again later as if nothing happened.

[FaeryFire]

Perpetual once said that the capital ship classes like Sovereign, Nebula/Galaxy etc. won´t be playable.
I say make them playable for clans or a union of clans (armada) as capital ships.

Instead of restricting them to NPCs only, maybe making them available but only truly "playable" if you get a crew of actual players.
The impossibility to man all the stations alone would be enough. It would incite players to group to fly such a big ship.

[walltar]

There can be diferent approach for PvP anf PvE loss if ship is destoyed in PvE it will be towed to nearest dock but if it is destroyed in PvP it will be gone. But there must be some system which won't allow griefing somethning like Akira class ship destroys little shuttle it will be considered like PvE death.

[Falin]

I respect you all, but can we get past the Current MMO mindsets of "quick, easy and safe"?

I personally am tired of hames making it safe for me to do things, I will not advocate the death of an avatar, as there things that will occur (DC's, server crases, ect), however this is the one area i will not budge on, ships need to be destroyable, if you are stupid enough to take on 3 romulan warbirds in a Freedom class then you desreve to lose the ship!

there needs to be consiquences to your actions, will therebe times your ship will be afloat as a wreck afterwards? shire, you as a captain need to make the determination as to if the ship should be abandoned or skuttled at times. you're in deep space, the ship is heavily damaged and you can repair it, starfleet can't send a yow ship out, but there's an oberth nearby that can pick up your crew.

you lose a ship, I hope the powers be make the penalty serious enough so that next time you know that if you're ships out clasased, you need to ask for help or run away. You destroy a top of the line SOL, i expect you to get a Light cruiser for awhile till you get enough "Honor/Prestige" to afford a SOL again.


This is a ST MMO, it needs to be better than all that other crap ou there and we should expect it to be better.

[Genex]

I think destroyable ships would be fun, Escaping in pods, that sort of thing, but I think there shouls be a 'panic' button ... No not the self-destruct button, but one to send out a distress call to an NPC ship that would pick up your pod and escort you back to say DS-12, where you will be unable to play your ship for say 10 minutes, During which time you can get a new ship that sort of thing

But with the Pod idea I would like for some of the NPC ones to be destroyed, cause lets face it the Cardassians/Romulans/Borg arn't gonna leave after the ships blow up, so maybe you lose like 3-4 pods out of the 10 you lanched (Player Pods become 'Neutral' in PvP combat so the oppsing player can't destroy them) which may contain a few NPC officers

so you can also spend that 10 minutes replacing lost crewmen and maybe looking over a battle report, something like:
USS Liberty - Commander Darnson Commanding:
Phaser Effectivness: 78%
Photon Effectiveness: 49%

That sorta stuff, if ship - ship combat is going to be 3rd person, like BC or Legacy, ofc

[FaeryFire]

you lose a ship, I hope the powers be make the penalty serious enough so that next time you know that if you're ships out clasased, you need to ask for help or run away. You destroy a top of the line SOL, i expect you to get a Light cruiser for awhile till you get enough "Honor/Prestige" to afford a SOL again.

I agree with you but I don't believe the trend of MMOGs is leading to "serious consequences".
Generally, "serious consequences" is quickly paired with "unfun" by players.

[Cianna]

I personally am tired of hames making it safe for me to do things, I will not advocate the death of an avatar, as there things that will occur (DC's, server crases, ect), however this is the one area i will not budge on, ships need to be destroyable, if you are stupid enough to take on 3 romulan warbirds in a Freedom class then you desreve to lose the ship!

there needs to be consiquences to your actions, will therebe times your ship will be afloat as a wreck afterwards? shire, you as a captain need to make the determination as to if the ship should be abandoned or skuttled at times. you're in deep space, the ship is heavily damaged and you can repair it, starfleet can't send a yow ship out, but there's an oberth nearby that can pick up your crew.

you lose a ship, I hope the powers be make the penalty serious enough so that next time you know that if you're ships out clasased, you need to ask for help or run away. You destroy a top of the line SOL, i expect you to get a Light cruiser for awhile till you get enough "Honor/Prestige" to afford a SOL again.


I believe that ships should be destroyable. However, I personally would like to see faction and player actions be taken into account when concerning ship destruction.

Example:
Federation captain A commands a Nebula-class starship. He wants to see how his vessel holds up under combat, so he attacks a Romulan outpost. Unfortunately, 2 warbirds decloak and destroy his vessel.

Federation captain B commands a Nova-class starship. He's mainly exploring when he receives a distress call from an npc freighter convey that's under attack. Captain B puts up a valiant effort, but eventually his vessel is destroyed because he's no match against the attackers.

Using the two examples, Captain A should be relagated to a lesser vessel, as he was the aggressor in the conflict (which goes against the grain of Starfleet).

Captain B should get his ship back (maybe after a very small repair cost), as his actions were totally in-line with the concept of Starfleet (maybe he could even be eligable for an upgrade to a better ship for "heroic" actions).

Of course, Klingons (and any other playable faction) would have their own set of rules, based on their rules and beliefs.

[Falin]

Cianna,

I agree, that the consequences need to be taken into account oif how you fared against preset rules, and your 2 examples are perfect, Player B may be awrded Faction points, even though he lost his ship, and i totally believe ships need to be destroyable.

[bitgolem]

Except for the bad guys, ships by and large don't get destroyed, they get disabled. So, I like the idea of making players have to repair their disabled ships to get them back up and running. There should also be different systems; Life support; sensors; weapons; shields; propulsion... all of which need to be repaired seperately giving the players a chance to prioritize their needs. Do I have time to sit here and repair everything or do I need to get propulsion and life support online pronto and get the umoks out of here?

[Ric_Adbur]

I'd prefer the ships were destroyable, assuming that the upgrades aren't going to be so difficult to obtain that it would be the equivalent of losing a fully rigged T2 fit ship in EVE. That's just plain annoying. :(

[ShiXin]

I respect you all, but can we get past the Current MMO mindsets of "quick, easy and safe"?

I personally am tired of hames making it safe for me to do things, I will not advocate the death of an avatar, as there things that will occur (DC's, server crases, ect), however this is the one area i will not budge on, ships need to be destroyable, if you are stupid enough to take on 3 romulan warbirds in a Freedom class then you desreve to lose the ship!

there needs to be consiquences to your actions, will therebe times your ship will be afloat as a wreck afterwards? shire, you as a captain need to make the determination as to if the ship should be abandoned or skuttled at times. you're in deep space, the ship is heavily damaged and you can repair it, starfleet can't send a yow ship out, but there's an oberth nearby that can pick up your crew.

you lose a ship, I hope the powers be make the penalty serious enough so that next time you know that if you're ships out clasased, you need to ask for help or run away. You destroy a top of the line SOL, i expect you to get a Light cruiser for awhile till you get enough "Honor/Prestige" to afford a SOL again.


This is a ST MMO, it needs to be better than all that other crap ou there and we should expect it to be better.

Okay, but let me paint you a picture of what will occur regularly in PvP:

You vs another ship, evenly matched. They target your warp core and score a lucky shot (or maybe they're exploiting, who knows?). They get through your shield, and do enough damage to knock your core offline. 30 seconds later, you lose your impulse engines. Now, no manueverability, no warp, and no energy for weapons or shields.

Essentially, you get to sit and watch as he dissects your ship like a frog in high-school biology.

So, what? Dem's da breaks? That doesn't sound like much fun to me. In fact, if getting command of your own vessel is as hard as I think it's going to be, then that scenario would really **** me off.

If they do make ships destroyable, I would hope that they at least have the sense to make them hardy enough to withstand a one on one encounter. Two Sovereigns squaring off should have to use every torpedo and phaser energy they could muster to destroy their opponent. And even then, that shouldn't even happen if they make any kind of tactical mistake.

[k.mpok]

Okay, but let me paint you a picture of what will occur regularly in PvP:

You vs another ship, evenly matched. They target your warp core and score a lucky shot (or maybe they're exploiting, who knows?). They get through your shield, and do enough damage to knock your core offline. 30 seconds later, you lose your impulse engines. Now, no manueverability, no warp, and no energy for weapons or shields.

Essentially, you get to sit and watch as he dissects your ship like a frog in high-school biology.

So, what? Dem's da breaks? That doesn't sound like much fun to me. In fact, if getting command of your own vessel is as hard as I think it's going to be, then that scenario would really **** me off.

If they do make ships destroyable, I would hope that they at least have the sense to make them hardy enough to withstand a one on one encounter. Two Sovereigns squaring off should have to use every torpedo and phaser energy they could muster to destroy their opponent. And even then, that shouldn't even happen if they make any kind of tactical mistake.

To be honest I would have no problem with that. That is why I am in favor of a system where everyone isn't a captain and when you die (near death) you escape via lifepod.

[J.L.Picard]

i just dont think the 1HP system works Ill give an example. lets say for the sake of argument its a galaxy vs a warbird(i love fed so ima be biased here:D) now you target the warp core first then you move onto the hull ok what now the ship has been systematically torn apart that means no impulse no warp no sensors no comm nothing all you have is life support and the ships core structure(1hp) now tell me how you are going to get back to a shipyard and keep in mind that only the shipyards can repair that sort of damage. ??? so its not a simple case of getting to the enearest planet/starbase because chances are that planet does not have a shipyard Alpha Centauri has shipyards i believe and so does the Sol System these are the only two i know of but i kno there are a few more but even so its a silly idea to believe that your 1hp ship is going to be towed back to one of these shipyards. Like a said earlier If you enter a PvP area there should be a spawn Shipyard were your ship is respawned or reconstructed with a spawn time of say 30-40 seconds but in a pve area a penalty system should be introduced because it IS PvE and it will be canon. The story for this MMO Will be going into the Star Trek Storyline just like Armada/Armada2 and the SFC games dont forget it was written by Star Trek Writters etc. etc. Like I had previously stated when your ship is destroyed you should have escape pods. Then you spawn at one of the Shipyards that you have decided to save in (Inn's) and are given a scout class vessel while your ship is rebuilt by starfleet This time would allow you to replace any crew member's or even transfer them(here I'm presuming your crew levels up like they did in SFC3) I would think this time spent in you Scout would last for about 1-3 minutes at which point you can CHOOSE when to relaunch your ship back into the vastness that is space....

[B4D_9R4MM3R]

I think that there should be several factors involved in whether a ship is capable of being destroyed.

Just picture this scenario: You've just graduated from the academy or whatever the tutorial levels are and you're ready and willing to head out into open space for the first real time. From the tutorials you've just learnt you're confidant that you have the skills and abilities to make your way to a nearby starbase for your fist mission.

However, as soon as you leave the stardock a group of players surround your little shuttle. You're out-gunner, out-manouvered and out-classed and you know it. It only takes one torpedo for your shuttle to expload. That's it: your ship is gone.

Now, I don't know about you and I can't speak for everyone, but if I've only been playing the game for 5 minutes after I finsh the tutorials and I can lose my ship I'm going to get freaking p***ed.

So, what I'm proposing is some kind of system that dictates whether your ship, or its components, can be destroyed permanently. If your ship is the little shuttle you've just aquired then it should have a 0% chance of being permanently destroyed. Whereas a large battle cruiser should have, say, a 30% chance of being destroyed, unless the warp core is specifically targeted or high level torpedoes are used (this would increase the chance of the ship being detroyed, obviously (but if I don't mention it someone will nitpick)).

If your components are at a high level then they should be able to be permanently destroyed with no chance of repair. If your components are base level then essentials should not be able to be destroyed. The exception may be the warp core: at base level on high level ships it should have a higher chance of exploading and inflicting heavy damage on the ship than a high level warp core which would have a lower chance of exploading but would almost certainly destroy the ship.

All this means that newbies won't be too put off if their ship is destroyed because they can just access it again after repairs. The veterans will have grown used to this system and should be aware of all the consequences of space combat, including losing their ship.

Of course, if the ships can be destroyed then that means there needs to be a feasible way for the players to come back into the game. Judging by the comments I'm going to assume standard spawning as been thrown out of the window. So I've thought up this: It should be up to the player.

If a player's ship is disabled, but repairable, then there should be several different options for players to choose from. These could be: to try and repair the ship in space and limp it to a spacedock; to wait around for a tow ship or other form of assistance, or; attempt to complete the repairs in space.

How long tow ships take to arrive should be based on how far the player is from a stardock equipped with them and the speed of the tow ship. When the tow ship arrives the weight of the ship being towed should also be taken into account as the tow ship travels back to the stardock. Note all of these factors would contribute to the time it takes to get to a stardock, not on how long it takes to repair the ship.

When in a stardock ship repair time wold be dictated on the size of the ship, the complexity of the ship (bio-nural circuitry, multiple torpedo tubes, etc.) and the amount of damage sustained. Times could vary for 10-30 minutes for shuttles, 30-90 minutes for small ships, and all the way up to 3-4 hours for really big ships. Any advanced components destroyed would be refitted with the base level components at no additional cost or time. Repairs in space would take considerably longer due to lower skilled man count and unfavoured environment (envronmental suits slow progress down).

What this means is newbies who get themselves killed have to wait only a little while (shuttles are small, simple and light) while those veterens in the big warships will need to wait a considerable while longer and possibly need to re upgrade, or (worst-case scenario) start from scratch. This stops veterans from bashing againse newbies. If others see them doing this they may even come to the newbies aid, and losing a soveriegn to gain salvage from a shuttle doesn't seem worth it to me. This also means newbies don't have to throw in the towel because they're always waiting for that sodding ship to repair.

So, in conclusion:

Basic/starter level: Ships can't be destroyed.
Components can't be destroyed.
Takes less time being towed.
Takes less time to repair ship.

Higher level: Ships can be destroyed.
Components can be destroyed; warp core destabilisation can damage/destroy ship further.
Takes more time to be towed.
Takes more time to repair ship.

And to all of you klingons out there: There is no honour in pursuit of weakling prey. Choose to fight your enemy for it's strength and cunning. Only the cowardly attack the weak. Do not insult your house by performing such an action. Qa'pla!

[J.L.Picard]

your point is completely pointless Starfleet is on EARTH who do you think is gonna be there to "gank" you??? second the only 2 races playable are Klingons and Feds THEY ARE ALLIES, any pvp will be done through a duel system. at least until Romulans or cardassians are introduced but even so they will probably implement a system similar to WoW in certain areas were you wont be allowed to be attacked.

Lastly you better get used to being "ganked" because once romulans are introduced if the game is relatively realistic then those Warbirds are going to be deadly.

[Signal]

what's everyones view on this?

what happens to the player's avatar when the ships destroyed?

I can roll with either indestructible (but heavily damaged) ships or outright blowing them up completely. However, in the latter case, I'd settle for something simple and easy: The player's avatar will always escape in a shuttle which can then almost instantly start a jump to warp speed towards a safe destination.

But on the note of losing your ship, I wouldn't like to see penalties that are so stiff that you stand the potential to lose like two weeks worth of work and advancement over a simple mistake, lag, or getting disconnected due to the power going out.

[Djin]

your point is completely pointless Starfleet is on EARTH who do you think is gonna be there to "gank" you??? second the only 2 races playable are Klingons and Feds THEY ARE ALLIES, any pvp will be done through a duel system. at least until Romulans or cardassians are introduced but even so they will probably implement a system similar to WoW in certain areas were you wont be allowed to be attacked.

Lastly you better get used to being "ganked" because once romulans are introduced if the game is relatively realistic then those Warbirds are going to be deadly.

Have you noticed the insigina? It's the OLD Star Trek look, and just Federation and Klingons in the original series didn't like each other.

[Jaqknife]

I hope that ships can be destroyed but salvageable. That would give pirates and merchants something to pick through or provide services to the less fortunate.

[Jaqknife]

Have you noticed the insigina? It's the OLD Star Trek look, and just Federation and Klingons in the original series didn't like each other.

I hope it'll be that way again...

[J.L.Picard]

Have you noticed the insigina? It's the OLD Star Trek look, and just Federation and Klingons in the original series didn't like each other.

thats a good point. but Martok is probably still the Klingon leader and even if someone tried to overthrow him dont forget about Worf.
Although i dont like that insignia. I really hope it has nothing to do with TOS i seriously hated it(loved the films though)

[Djin]

thats a good point. but Martok is probably still the Klingon leader and even if someone tried to overthrow him dont forget about Worf.
Although i dont like that insignia. I really hope it has nothing to do with TOS i seriously hated it(loved the films though)

The original was so cheesy, but so loved. I agree, I do hope it's based a little higher up on the series.

If you see the ships on the above header, you'll notice they are more advanced looking then the original Enterprise...

Who knows?

[Warspawn]

I definately want penalties for losing a fight. I don't like the 'poof!! I lost a fight and I'm now in a spacedock', either.

If they're going to use a '1hp' type of system, have the ship take time to be towed to a repair station, and have it be expensive to be fully repaired. Perhaps have players given the option of what priorities they have for repair. 1hp should should be considered 'destroyed' for all intents and purposes, and have limited (if any) movement and zero combat capabilities.

[Djin]

I definately want penalties for losing a fight. I don't like the 'poof!! I lost a fight and I'm now in a spacedock', either.

If they're going to use a '1hp' type of system, have the ship take time to be towed to a repair station, and have it be expensive to be fully repaired. Perhaps have players given the option of what priorities they have for repair. 1hp should should be considered 'destroyed' for all intents and purposes, and have limited (if any) movement and zero combat capabilities.

Running off life support while limping around space, not being able to attack since you're pretty much at 1hp. That would be nice.

Like nothing but communications and impulse engines. :)

[Trekkie]

I have mixed opinions about this; while obviously it would be more realistic for a ship to be destroyed, I can understand why people wouldn't want their ships to be completely gone after they have spent time upgrading it and such. I think the best solution for this problem is to not allow ships to become completely destroyed, but after taking significant amounts of damage they could possibly be out of commission for a period of time that depends on how severe the damage incurred was. If this method was present, ships would never be gone completely but at the same time it would benefit players to think before entering combat.

[Warspawn]

... but at the same time it would benefit players to think before entering combat.


It would also open up HUGE possibilities for gameplay outside of just ship command.

Think of it...if your ship is being repaired, you could hone your skills on the holodeck for boarding actions/planet combat, or train for more skills for your avatar. You could hire out to another captian if you had specialities in engineering/science/medical that would be marketable. Heck, you could take up an instrument and entertain on a space station for tips ( :o heh, my g/f LOVED doing gigs in SWG cantinas with her friends...)

[Falin]

or you could review footage of the incident and see where you screwed up. ;)

[Warspawn]

or you could review footage of the incident and see where you screwed up. ;)

Hey, a good option for a holodeck replay! Have the footage available while your ship was in drydock. Review the encounter, learn to beat it next time...

[Neshy]

lol the word salvage brought me back to armada 2...your ship is derilect, you move a ship to it to tow it and A FERENGI SCAVENGER YELLS "SALVAGE SALVAGE EVERYWHERE!!!!!" AND IT SWOOPS IN AND YOUR SHIP IS GONE!!!!!!!!

[J.L.Picard]

The original was so cheesy, but so loved. I agree, I do hope it's based a little higher up on the series.

If you see the ships on the above header, you'll notice they are more advanced looking then the original Enterprise...

Who knows?

It cant be they said it was 25th centuary and the three ships shown not one had been build during the TNG series and all of them were being made/designed towards the end of TNG Akira/Defiant/Nova all designed to WTF own the borg except nova thats an escort vessel really

[Cpt.William2]

Have you noticed the insigina? It's the OLD Star Trek look, and just Federation and Klingons in the original series didn't like each other.

Just To Point Out, other than the clearly 24th/25th century ships( Nova, Akira, Defiant and D'Deridex Warbird) It says in the About The Game section (on the main page) "Immerse yourself in the future of the Trek universe as it moves into the 25th century: a time of shifting alliances and new discoveries. " It will not be the original series.

[J.L.Picard]

isnt that a Raptor Class vessel coming in from the Right side of the pic

[Warspawn]

Just To Point Out, other than the clearly 24th/25th century ships( Nova, Akira, Defiant and D'Deridex Warbird) It says in the About The Game section (on the main page) "Immerse yourself in the future of the Trek universe as it moves into the 25th century: a time of shifting alliances and new discoveries. " It will not be the original series.


If that's the case, then kiss goodbye any hopes at seeing the game before the next 3 years :D .

At least with the original series there were limited races and ships to be involved. Much easier to code and design. If they go with a later date, to hold true to the Star Trek universe, they will have to involve all the races we see in the later series, as well as homeworlds, ships, ect. I mean, could you see a late-timeline Star Trek game without Ferengi and Cardassians?

Would be much simpler to have Federation/Romulan/Klingon and progress from there in a TOS timeline...

[FaeryFire]

They can still pour NPCs/ships from all the known races while focusing on some for gameplay purposes.
It isn't required to give equal treatment to all.

[Falin]

So we're all in agreement now, all ships should be able to be 100% destroyed? :)

[IanD967]

Would be much simpler to have Federation/Romulan/Klingon and progress from there in a TOS timeline...

no it wouldent because of all the storylines and what happens in the future :)
if you want this game to be like SWG being stuck in the middle of a storlyine and a timeline we already know then go ahead and make a game yoruself while me and everyone else will play in the future setting where there is much much more freedom than setting a game in the past :D

[RogueEnterprise]

If your ship can be destroyed, it should be VERY rare and VERY difficult to do. Most of the time, after battles, ships should be adrift, but salvageable. This gives you a way to have a "rescue ship" warp in, beam up your escape pods, then quickly warp back out, dropping you off at the nearest starbase.

You arrive in front of an Admiral who chastises you for your brashness, and that you shouldn't take on more than you can chew, etc. Then he tells you that while you were recovering in sickbay, your ship has been towed to drydock, and you can go down and see about repairs.

This idea does not stick true to canon, and may seem a little more 'casual' than some like, or more hardcore than others like, but ship destruction is going to have to be an area of compromise between both sides.

QFT. I think this is one of the better solutions to this issue.

[trek4life]

While i can see how many think having the ship be 100% destroyed would make the game more realistic i believe it all depends on the ship and whats in it. If the ship is like the ones in SWG where they are fairly easy to make then it could make sense but what if it takes an enourmous amount of resources and time? Also what if you can put items in it? I doubt any player would risk losing his hard to get ship, one-time cool items and many other items a player would put in his ship. However i also want to stay away form the 'you die and your ship magicaly appears at space dock good as new' scenario. Perhaps having a time penaltly when your ship is 'destroyed' or too heavily damaged where the ship is in dry dock. The more heavily damaged the ship, the longer the repair time. That way you get to keep the ship but have to wait to use it while it's in dry dock.

[Sir_Cedric]

This is how I think it should go:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FxdsaRTQug0

and this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WE-oFe3RSJU&feature=related

and this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGNUF5HxU20&feature=related

[Falin]

This is how I think it should go:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FxdsaRTQug0

and this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WE-oFe3RSJU&feature=related

and this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGNUF5HxU20&feature=related

man no wonder i hated DS9, they made those battles look like the ships had no shields ever and only 1-2 shots to destroy them. those battles should have taken hours, if not days to play out.

sorry a ship suicide ramming a galaxy without first taking it's shields down would have just bounced off not go right through the shields.

[Djin]

This is how I think it should go:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FxdsaRTQug0

and this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WE-oFe3RSJU&feature=related

and this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGNUF5HxU20&feature=related

God I miss DS9...

Deep Space Nine - The Dominion war

Good battle... also makes me laugh to see ships vs a space station...

[ahrubik]

I wouldn't mind my ship being destroyed if insurance policies could be purchased for the ship. Ultimately this is a game and should be fun... not a time sink.

[Kudos17]

Ships have to be destroyed, but characters live on.


"ABANDON SHIP....ABANDON SHIP......EVERYONE TO THE ESCAPE PODS......ABANDON SHIP"

[Djin]

I wouldn't mind my ship being destroyed if insurance policies could be purchased for the ship. Ultimately this is a game and should be fun... not a time sink.

I've been saying this for a while.

This is a game, not a damn Star Trek simulator. I don't want to invest the little amount of time I do get to myself to have some hardcore gamer that plays 15 hours a day to destory months and months of my hard work.

I would just quit and cancle my sub. I understand there are going to be these types of people, but you also have to look at the person who can't invest his/her whole life into a game like some people do.

But I'm also not looking for something so stupidly easy you can get to end game in a month of casual play.

[Raven0238]

I believe that ultimately bringing the ship down to 1hp would be equal to the fact that your character would seemingly never die. (I got hit by a phaser 20 times and I'm still here :D Joy). The consequence however for both people would be the level of damage done to both vessels in combat and the time, resources, and energy it would take to repair it.

This could also act as a deterent for non-sense attacks from other players on players and also from players who think they can go into a situation blindly and come out smiling. There needs to be consequences for reckless behavior and having to make repairs to your ship should be one of them.

Personally, I think it would be fun having to go around your ship, at least as an engineer and fixing systems to get going again. Also, fixing systems and keeping them going during battle would also be fun.

Now, your probably asking, "That might take a lot of time, what if I am a casual player?" - My answer would be to avoid conflicts and don't bite off more than you can chew.

"What if I run out of resources on board my vessel for repairs, what do I do" I feel that shuttles should be available where you can go and collect resources that are necessary to getting your ship operational again.

[lumpking69]

I think that ships will need to be destroyed. They aren't invincible! Unless you are taking part in some PVP event, I don't see the point for a 1hp system.

[Falin]

"What if I run out of resources on board my vessel for repairs, what do I do" I feel that shuttles should be available where you can go and collect resources that are necessary to getting your ship operational again.

you take your shuttle back to base, with your tail between your legs and ask for a tow home, or you couldhop on the comm channel and ask for a tow. eitherway, you should geta big preseige loss, unless you wewre damaged in defense of the faction.

[Raven0238]

you take your shuttle back to base, with your tail between your legs and ask for a tow home, or you couldhop on the comm channel and ask for a tow. eitherway, you should geta big preseige loss, unless you wewre damaged in defense of the faction.

I like....very nice

[ngille]

I'd say have the blow up animations and whatnot, have the character respawn at a base WITH his/her ship and just have to pay a small repair fee (the game will need money sinks anyway) slight debuff for 30 mins or so possibly going away if you get back to your death spot and salvage your own wreckage.

This would give a consequence for death AND allow you to get back to your group relatively quickly depending on how far away you spawn.

[Harddrive]

This debate is so funny. If there is no risk there is no fun or incentive not to lose. If ships are indestructable people wont care if they get destroyed and the thrill of being in battle wont be fun. It will just be a pointless grinding system with no adventure, no danger.

There are many "carebears" on this forum that think that its not fun to lose anything but with no risk comes no reward and no fun. Thats simple. For simple game mechanics our characters cannot be killed but our ships MUST be able to be lost.

Rule #1 Do not fly what you cannot afford to lose or replace. Simple. If you dont want to die, fight harder. If you dont want to lose a ship, dont fly it, get a cheaper one. If you do lose a ship, take a prestige hit then fit another ship on your remaining resources.

Please dont destroy this game by turning it into what the Eve Online community calls "Hello Kitty Online" a game with no risk and no loss. You might as well call this game The "Star Trek Hot Muffin and Tea Society Online Please dont do that.

[ngille]

This debate is so funny. If there is no risk there is no fun or incentive not to lose. If ships are indestructable people wont care if they get destroyed and the thrill of being in battle wont be fun. It will just be a pointless grinding system with no adventure, no danger.

There are many "carebears" on this forum that think that its not fun to lose anything but with no risk comes no reward and no fun. Thats simple. For simple game mechanics our characters cannot be killed but our ships MUST be able to be lost.

I agree there needs to be SOME penalty for death but you know as well as I do that if it is too steap then people will quit playing. Unfortunately some hard core gamers seem to hope that is the case thinking that only the hard core gamers or the strict canon folks deserve to play this game.

Hopefully they'll surprise us all and come up with a death system/penalty that will please most of us. Like I said though, if you make death too much of a time or money sink people will abandon the game because it will be no fun.

Cryptic by nature of being a business wants as many people in this game as possible and to do that you have to appeal to the masses not some noisey minority that thinks the more difficult the game the better it is or that no one should play that doesn't agree with them.

Not saying you in particular are this way, I apologize if it seems that way. I have just seen many posts by others that from my point of view looks like people want this game to be for an elite few.

[Kudos17]

I agree that losing your character would definatly suck, and I would not like that.

But if you lose your ship, it doesnt mean you are not going to gain another back. Perhaps depending on the circumstances of the loss of your ship, you could even get a better ship?

[ngille]

Look at it this way....you are in a group, things are going well. You guys are pretty much wiping the zone. Then all of a sudden you get a lag spike or a mob gets a lucky shot (or whatever disaster befalls you) and your ship is destroyed.
You spawn back at your base with no ship. You have to buy a new one. Meanwhile your group is telling you to hurry up on vent or in game voice chat or whatever. You have to find a ship comparable to the one you lost. Lets say you actually have the currency to be able to purchase it, load weapons, buy outfittings and such (guess you are just lucky) by the time you do all that, what 30 to 45 mins have passed? Your group is getting bent, you are getting bent but finally you make it back out there. Oh crap guess what.....someone in your group wend LD now you are one shy just as you pull the boss (or STO equivilent) and only a couple of you manage to escape but you aren't one of them. You just replaced that damned ship now its gone again and you are out of cash. Might not be a big deal if you are on good terms with a crafter or if you are in a helpful guild but this kind of thing can get old FAST!!

Stuff like that happens, no matter how good you are, no matter how well you plan things out. Either someone becomes an idiot for a minute (we've all done it) or something happens server side causing major issues ( a distinct possibility in beta or shortly after release) regardless you are having a hard time keeping up with the expenses of the game not to mention the time sinc of trying to re-outfit any time you make a mistake.

I'm not looking for an easy button but stuff like this will keep people from challenging themselves because of the time and money involved if something happens. Not to mention the countless numbers that will get fed up with it and just quit.

I'm hoping for a happy medium personally but I love Star Trek enough that I'd give anything they throw at us a shot at least. And for my guild we'd do everything possible (if its possible) to keep spare ships set aside for such things.

[k.mpok]

Without a stiff death penalty you will get players that no longer care if they or even you die. Also you run into the, "Can you kill me? I need to get across the galaxy and don't want to travel all that way" Res-porting.

With having a Destroyable ship players will tend to try harder not to die. It seems the harsher the death penaly the harder players try NOT to die, but it can go to far. IE never leaving Starbase for fear of damaging their ship. The key is to balance it, and I think a Destroyable ship with only a minor inconvenience to replace it might work.

[ngille]

Without a stiff death penalty you will get players that no longer care if they or even you die. Also you run into the, "Can you kill me? I need to get across the galaxy and don't want to travel all that way" Res-porting.

With having a Destroyable ship players will tend to try harder not to die. It seems the harsher the death penaly the harder players try NOT to die, but it can go to far. IE never leaving Starbase for fear of damaging their ship. The key is to balance it, and I think a Destroyable ship with only a minor inconvenience to replace it might work.


I dissagree. The death penalty doesn't have to be stiff to prevent that. Any number of things can prevent that, for one a BALANCED death penalty will help. If they select spawn points based on proximity and NOT where you choose for it to be that'll go a long way. Why die to travel if its just going to spawn you somewhere you can get to in two minutes anyway?

[Anti-Proton]

Without having read the entire thread, I have to go with the notion of your ship gettng defeated (read: Not Destroyed) and you are immobilized and must have a Starfleet rescue ship tow you to the nearest starbase.

[Tal_Shiar_Officer]

It's a complex issue. Having the threat of death can add an edge to a game and spice it up, but too much of a threat will either result in ****ed off or extremely conservative players. There needs to be some room for risk as well. Having read this thread, allow me to put forth an idea which addresses both of these.

Whenever a player ship is in battle and loses (meaning it reaches a certain level of damage), have the enemies stop firing and offer the ship some terms of surrender. In most cases, this would mean forfeiting the current mission. Additionally, whenever a ship gets to that level of damage, randomly destroy a ship component. This gives players incentive to be concerned about getting beaten, but any player who doesn't want to face the ultimate punishment of losing a ship can always surrender and be safe.

But what if you don't want to surrender? Players who are interested in a little more risk can refuse the terms of surrender and then be available for ship destruction. They would be fighting with a badly damaged ship, but it is possible that they could win through skillful maneuvering and field repairs afterwards. If their gamble pays off, they don't have to forfeit the mission. If it doesn't, their ship is gone and replacing it would be a difficult process.

There you go. You have a realistic way of giving people a choice about what to do about their ships.

Now an example so it sinks in. Your ship, the USS Centurion, flies to the Neutral Zone for a secret mission. But you aren't careful; a Warbird decloaks and attacks your vessel. You fight with it, but the Warbird has the upper hand. Both ships are damaged, yours more than the Warbird. They hail, the Romulan captain tells you to withdraw from the Neutral Zone or he will destroy you. You either have the option of leaving and failing your secret mission or refusing, consequently risking ship destruction. You refuse and battle continues. Through luck and skill you are able to destroy the Warbird, but you came close to destruction. You conduct field repairs and then go on your way to complete your mission.

[ngille]

I like the idea to a point. Maybe even working on repairs while you "negotiate" with the enemy. But what of the Klingons, they aren't in the habit of offering surrender terms (or taking them) so that would definately upset the canon folks.

All we can do is cross our fingers on this one, folks. I'm hoping for a death penalty/ship destruction thing that will ensure people take risks and enjoy the game. When they fail, they suffer a penatly but are able to get back into the fight.

People, we all need to consider a lot of people that will play this game are casual gamers. If it takes them 30 mins or more to get back in there, they won't stick with it. They'll find another game and competition in the mmo market is heating up.

[k.mpok]

I like the idea to a point. Maybe even working on repairs while you "negotiate" with the enemy. But what of the Klingons, they aren't in the habit of offering surrender terms (or taking them) so that would definately upset the canon folks.

All we can do is cross our fingers on this one, folks. I'm hoping for a death penalty/ship destruction thing that will ensure people take risks and enjoy the game. When they fail, they suffer a penatly but are able to get back into the fight.

People, we all need to consider a lot of people that will play this game are casual gamers. If it takes them 30 mins or more to get back in there, they won't stick with it. They'll find another game and competition in the mmo market is heating up.

Thats while I am more in favor of a harsh penalty (IE destroyable ship) but yet at the same time not to harsh.

Ship is destroyed as you escape to a lifepod. Quick cut scene of you getting picked up by another ship and being taken to a nearby Space Stations (a few mins out from your previous location) were you have to be refitted with a new ship. Once refitted you head back out.

I just want to see some form of harsh death penalty to avoid some of the problems that AoC has when it comes to death and the lack of concern of it.

[ngille]

Thats while I am more in favor of a harsh penalty (IE destroyable ship) but yet at the same time not to harsh.

Ship is destroyed as you escape to a lifepod. Quick cut scene of you getting picked up by another ship and being taken to a nearby Space Stations (a few mins out from your previous location) were you have to be refitted with a new ship. Once refitted you head back out.

I just want to see some form of harsh death penalty to avoid some of the problems that AoC has when it comes to death and the lack of concern of it.

I too play AoC so I know exactly what you are talking about. I am pretty sure a happy medium will be found. That and I wouldn't be surprised in the slightest if Funcom added repair to armor and weapons because it has become just that big of a problem.

I think we should have to pay to repair the ship, no doubt. I just think it needs to be quick and not too harsh. If I'm in a group and I get blown up, I want to be able to get back to my group as soon as I can. If it takes too long to get back to the group then we are going to lose the casual gamer because frankly, they don't have time for all the time sinks some people have been suggesting here.

[FaeryFire]

There are many "carebears" on this forum that think that its not fun to lose anything but with no risk comes no reward and no fun. Thats simple. For simple game mechanics our characters cannot be killed but our ships MUST be able to be lost.

I'm eager to see how that would translate to PvP and, after a time, where the carebears are.

[Pandemic]

I'm eager to see how that would translate to PvP and, after a time, where the carebears are.

I think some of the people who are professing so much interest in PvP and making comments like the one above should do a little more research into STO. For example, the fact that Majel Roddenberry has already put the bootheel to this being a PvP-oriented game.

Her statement was that if the primary evolution of the game is not centered around exploration, the heart of Star Trek to begin with, then she will veto the entire thing. Given that this statement was a part of the original agreement for licensing of the MMO, and the way the first development company went out, I think it would be safe to say that this problem has already come up.

On the matter of destroyable ships, if course the ships have to be destructible, or there is no realism at all. The simplest solution would be to use the systems from the movies, where getting your warp core damaged was the major crisis because then you cant escape a fight.

A starship should be as hard to kill as it is in the movies, but if it is killed then it should require that the hull be salvaged to regain the same ship. Otherwise you have to make do with what you can get, plain and simple.

Moreover, this system needs to be in play from the start, or Ferengi shipjackers will never have a place in the game at all. And everyone knows someone who is a Ferengi shipjacker at heart! :p

[ngille]

Pandemic, please forgive my ignorance, but where was the statement made by Majel Rodenberry so that I can confirm what you said?
Don't get me wrong I want to believe you as it would save a lot of fretting later on (worrying how much pvp emphasis there is).

[Adonisaleus]

I think some of the people who are professing so much interest in PvP and making comments like the one above should do a little more research into STO. For example, the fact that Majel Roddenberry has already put the bootheel to this being a PvP-oriented game.

Her statement was that if the primary evolution of the game is not centered around exploration, the heart of Star Trek to begin with, then she will veto the entire thing. Given that this statement was a part of the original agreement for licensing of the MMO, and the way the first development company went out, I think it would be safe to say that this problem has already come up.

On the matter of destroyable ships, if course the ships have to be destructible, or there is no realism at all. The simplest solution would be to use the systems from the movies, where getting your warp core damaged was the major crisis because then you cant escape a fight.

A starship should be as hard to kill as it is in the movies, but if it is killed then it should require that the hull be salvaged to regain the same ship. Otherwise you have to make do with what you can get, plain and simple.

Moreover, this system needs to be in play from the start, or Ferengi shipjackers will never have a place in the game at all. And everyone knows someone who is a Ferengi shipjacker at heart! :p

having a damaged warp core is very bad. it usually mean that the ship will blow up - forget about escaping. I'm okay with salvaging the hull - but then it needs to be repair for 5 -10 minutes. Exploration should be a primary focus of the game - and should led to many an interesting encounter. however, to completely cut out PvP is a bad idea. Even in Star Trek there are wars, and there will likely be another in this game. but in order to win the war, a different way into the fed/KE would have to be explored. or a new treaty. or such.

[Falin]

so it looks like the general consensus is 100% destroyable ships, but it best be pretty hard to do, no "BOP killing the Big D in 1 shot deals' and that players should sit in an escape pod for a certain amount of time before respawning baclk to base.