i just tractored a klingon heavy cruiser into a planet

[Everitt_Cage]

after fighting for about 10 mins i could see that he was slowly wearing me down. shields were failing and i wasnt making much headway. incidentaly there was a planet nearby, so i set course. as the klingon followed me, i charged up my tractor for a level 3 hold which i knew he wouldnt be able to easily repel. as soon as the klingon was close enough i grapped hold and rotated his ship in front of mine. i increased speed, headed straight for the planet, and slammed the heavy cruiser into the planet, destroying it instantly.

all of this took place in a little game called starfleet command orion pirates, but i cant help but wonder will STO allow for incredibly random strategies liket his, or will it simply consist of ships taking turns firing at one another?

[r2data]

Federation Starships should never be able to consider such actions as a valid tactic. The destruction of another ship on the atmosphere of a planet would cause major ecological disaster for the inhabitants of the planet, not to mention killing all of the Klingon crew. This violates all the principles Starfleet stands for.

[Everitt_Cage]

Federation Starships should never be able to consider such actions as a valid tactic. The destruction of another ship on the atmosphere of a planet would cause major ecological disaster for the inhabitants of the planet, not to mention killing all of the Klingon crew. This violates all the principles Starfleet stands for.

who said anything about the federation? and if you dont want to do something like that they dont, go ahead and let your ship be destroyed and your crew killed. the question is still valid: will STO allow for these kind of tactics or will it be simple shot counter shot.

[AllahMode]

obviously, in that game, tractor beams are majorly overpowered ;)

[r2data]

who said anything about the federation? and if you dont want to do something like that they dont, go ahead and let your ship be destroyed and your crew killed. the question is still valid: will STO allow for these kind of tactics or will it be simple shot counter shot.

Uh... there are only two factions in STO currently: Federation and Klingon. If you're smashing Klingon ships into atmospheres I'd hardly think you were another Klingon ship (although it may be possible).

Thing is... this kind of tactic should not be condoned because of the effect of such an action. If the game is not just about combat but exploration, diplomacy and all other such peaceful stuff, there should be severe repercussions for this kind of action. Logically speaking it would not make sense to be able to do such a thing, cause genocide, and walk away whistling.

You may say this is a game. Yes this is a game, but I would hope that it's a game that considers logical actions and consequences, not just another free-for-all, bash-em, and shoot-em-up where just about any tactic is condoned, no matter what, as long as you kill your enemy.

[ianobs]

i agree with r2data, proly not that specific strat. but i would think that we could come up with our own maneuvers within the limits of the game o'course.

[Everitt_Cage]

Uh... there are only two factions in STO currently: Federation and Klingon. If you're smashing Klingon ships into atmospheres I'd hardly think you were another Klingon ship (although it may be possible).

Thing is... this kind of tactic should not be condoned because of the effect of such an action. If the game is not just about combat but exploration, diplomacy and all other such peaceful stuff, there should be severe repercussions for this kind of action. Logically speaking it would not make sense to be able to do such a thing, cause genocide, and walk away whistling.

You may say this is a game. Yes this is a game, but I would hope that it's a game that considers logical actions and consequences, not just another free-for-all, bash-em, and shoot-em-up where just about any tactic is condoned, no matter what, as long as you kill your enemy.

lol! i wasnt playing STO(obviously), so ssuming that i MUST be federation since i was fighting a klingon is your own mistake. and even if the federation wouldnt use that kind of tactic, what would stop a klingon from doing it to the federation(or another species)? btw, the answer is "nothing". so regardless of what morals the federation might have, that shouldnt prevent a battle mechanic from being in game that other races would have no problem using.

[r2data]

lol! i wasnt playing STO(obviously), so ssuming that i MUST be federation since i was fighting a klingon is your own mistake. and even if the federation wouldnt use that kind of tactic, what would stop a klingon from doing it to the federation(or another species)? btw, the answer is "nothing". so regardless of what morals the federation might have, that shouldnt prevent a battle mechanic from being in game that other races would have no problem using.

Because Klingons would find wholesale slaughter of innocents dishonourable? You'll be hard pressed to find an entire civilisation in-game that is willing to commit wide-scale genocide. Some disreputable individuals maybe, but not a whole faction. No point in making a mechanic just for one or two people to use. If it is implemented, it should be highly penalised by their specific governments, demotion or something would be an appropriate punishment I believe. So if you think defeating one ship is worth losing a rank, and possibly a class of ship, then why not?

Yeah. You weren't playing STO but advocating for STO means that it'll have to be carried out by one of the factions. What's the point of saying that the moral-less Tholians or whatever else race would do it if you can't play it in the game and so not have it as a factor?

[Jaxston]

Federation Starships should never be able to consider such actions as a valid tactic. The destruction of another ship on the atmosphere of a planet would cause major ecological disaster for the inhabitants of the planet, not to mention killing all of the Klingon crew. This violates all the principles Starfleet stands for.

Is this guy serious???? I mean common...R U serious?

lollololololololol

:D

[Valenthalas]

Is this guy serious???? I mean common...R U serious?

lollololololololol

:D

I don't understand what you find so humorous..

[r2data]

Is this guy serious???? I mean common...R U serious?

lollololololololol

:D

Definitely serious. I'd like to think that there is now more social responsibility in the world and that games will evolve to reflect that, move past wanton shooting and looting without consequences and think more about how their actions reflect on the environment at large (in this case, the in-game universe), that everything is interconnected logically and that there are repercussions good or bad to any action.

[Kinjiru]

Federation Starships should never be able to consider such actions as a valid tactic. The destruction of another ship on the atmosphere of a planet would cause major ecological disaster for the inhabitants of the planet, not to mention killing all of the Klingon crew. This violates all the principles Starfleet stands for.

Who said that it was an "M" Class planet?

This doesn't violate any principles of Starfleet, it's an innovative and wholly necessary last-ditch effort at survival.

[Varrangian]

Who said that it was an "M" Class planet?

This doesn't violate any principles of Starfleet, it's an innovative and wholly necessary last-ditch effort at survival.

I'm glad I'm not the only one that missed the whole M class planet issue, or that there was ever any mention of life being on the planet in question.

[phazah]

well, going by the old saying "alls fair in love and war", the OP was going to die if he didnt get creative...

i think crashing the klingon's vessel into the atmo was a good choice.. he saved his crew, and no saying that the planet the OP bounced the klingon ship into had life or not...

the OPs action wasn't "fair" but at least his ship got home.....

[Jaxston]

Who said that it was an "M" Class planet?

This doesn't violate any principles of Starfleet, it's an innovative and wholly necessary last-ditch effort at survival.

I concur...I love the OP's strategy. This is a game there WILL BE FIGHTING. I would love it if they would allow such off the cuff tactics.

Kudos to you OP.

:D

[Kinjiru]

Definitely serious. I'd like to think that there is now more social responsibility in the world and that games will evolve to reflect that, move past wanton shooting and looting without consequences and think more about how their actions reflect on the environment at large (in this case, the in-game universe), that everything is interconnected logically and that there are repercussions good or bad to any action.

Okay, I can understand the idea behind your point, I also don't think that it's a realistic view of either our world, or a fictional world based in Star Trek.

You're attempting to move into philosophical grounds that really don't have enough of a potential playerbase to generate interest. Look at real world examples: Nations have waged battles and were responsible for deaths in combat situations throughout history. These were real people that were killed for reasons both nefarious or noble.

We are going to play a game. A game in which conflict is one of three core principles.

[Trekkie]

Although this particular scenario may not be possible in the game, I do think that there will be a variety of tactical options to keep things fresh and exciting.

[r2data]

Okay, I can understand the idea behind your point, I also don't think that it's a realistic view of either our world, or a fictional world based in Star Trek.

You're attempting to move into philosophical grounds that really don't have enough of a potential playerbase to generate interest. Look at real world examples: Nations have waged battles and were responsible for deaths in combat situations throughout history. These were real people that were killed for reasons both nefarious or noble.

We are going to play a game. A game in which conflict is one of three core principles.

I do get your point and I accept and actually enjoy conflict as part of the game. What I'm saying is that conflict should be reasonable. There should be logical reasons as to why you engage in a firefight, not just for the heck of it. Not everyone is a crazed rampaging murderer who kills because he feels like it. I think there should be plausible reasons for battles and proper consequences if something doesn't go right.

This is part of what is Star Trek. In fact I would go as far to say that this is the crux of Star Trek. The moral conundrums that the ships crews face during the course of the series. Captains like Picard and Janeway faced numerous issues that they had to balance and overcome for the good of all, not necessarily their own crews. Janeway even denied her crew an easy way home because she chose to protect an unknown civilisation from being predated upon. The Prime Directive itself is based on preserving the status quo and not for individual protection.

I understand that this is a game, but do you see the opportunity here? The opportunity for the game to actually influence people and force them to think about the consequences of their actions rather than acting on some primeval feral instinct to hunt and kill. Numerous studies have shown how games and television affect the mindset of the individuals playing, generally for the worst as society becomes more bloodthirsty and violent, a lot of it blamed on the increasing violence in games today. There is an opportunity now to use games as a medium to change the collective mindset into one that's more socially responsible. Even more so since this is Star Trek, the genre that champions the cause for social change.

EDIT: There was some mention of a gamer base that would not support such an idea. I beg to differ seeing as there's a multitude of gamers out there who are hungry for better storylines and more interactive gameplay. This would add more depth and a sense of realism to the game, where your actions have effects that are not necessarily positive to your gameplay. If everything is handed to you on a silver platter, if no matter what you do you will advance in the game, then what is the point of playing it properly in the first place, a minimal amount of effort will get you everything anyhow. My point is that players should have to think about what they are going to do.

[Varrangian]

Numerous studies have shown how games and television affect the mindset of the individuals playing, generally for the worst as society becomes more bloodthirsty and violent, a lot of it blamed on the increasing violence in games today. There is an opportunity now to use games as a medium to change the collective mindset into one that's more socially responsible. Even more so since this is Star Trek, the genre that champions the cause for social change.

There is no hard evidence that violence in games or on television is anything but correlated to violent acts and everyone should know one thing about correlation - correlation is not causation. Is there a relationship yes, but there is no evidence that, that relationship is the cause of violent acts.

This stinks of the movement against personal responsibility. If a person cannot tell the difference between violence in a game or television and violence in real life than that person is mentally ill. Those who try to blame TV and games for their acts are pathetic individuals who are in full possession of the faulty, but not in possession of a sense of personal responsibility.

I am against and will always be against the force feeding of "morals" through entertainment. While Star Trek (the Federation) has never been about wholesale violence it has never been about forcing one moral system on anyone.

You've skewed this whole discussion. The OP simply stated that in another Star Trek game they used a tractor beam to for a ship into a planets gravity in a kill or be killed situation. There was no discussion of it being an inhabited planet or have an life at all. You find this morally reprehensible. I find it morally ambiguous. We really know nothing about the situation and again it is just a game.

Yes Trek has some wonderful moral dilemmas, but it is never preachy. The Klingons and Romulans are a perfect example of the moral "relativity" that Trek allows for. We comes to see the Klingons and Romulans not as purely evil, but as creatures wrapped in their own cultural nuances. If the situation the OP described involved an inhabited planet yes it would reflect some of the problems faced by Janeway and Picard, but we cannot assume that it did involve lifeforms other than those on the two ships in combat.

One of the best episodes of Voyager in my opinion was Equinox. While the captain of that ship may have done some horrible things, you couldn't hate him completely because he was faced with a desperate situation. It is cathartic to put yourself in those situations to see the choices some might make, even when their morals don't agree with yours. These are all great questions, but for the scope of a video game that at its core must be fun, they are inappropriate.

They are inappropriate not because they are bad questions, but because you are placing complex moral issues within the context of "play". Some moral issues can be dealt within "play"; sports are a great example of how children can be taught ethical integrity, but the level of complexity of the lessons are very low and in the best instances augmented by parental involvement.

While I understand your hopes for ST:O I believe you are placing those hopes unfairly on the genre. The primary function of a game is to entertain more so than any other form of entertainment. Fable and Allegory are good methods of dialectics, but video games have a hard time translating that well. Learning is better done when the individual has the opportunity to evaluate the situation not when morals are applied with the heavy handed nature that games require.

[Vicelance]

Use to use a similiar tactic in another Star Trek game by tractoring ships intio stars. though on the game I played in order to keep the ship from breaking my tracotr beam I had to almost completely destroy it.

[Silverspar]

Honestly, the tractor beam on a starship should be capable of being used as a defensive or offensive weapon, not just towing. After all, the Enterprise used it for repulsion as well as dragging things around.

[Vicelance]

Honestly, the tractor beam on a starship should be capable of being used as a defensive or offensive weapon, not just towing. After all, the Enterprise used it for repulsion as well as dragging things around.

True Wesley rigged it to repel in one episode.

Now could it be used to bring another ship out of warp. That would really make combat interesting if you could stop someone warping away.

[ReynoldsXD]

dirty tactics yes, but with limits.

so no to beaming over explosives, viral agents or taking ships apart via transporter in general.

[Silverspar]

True Wesley rigged it to repel in one episode.

Now could it be used to bring another ship out of warp. That would really make combat interesting if you could stop someone warping away.

If it was powerful enough it could theoretically collapse the warp field on a starship. After all, the big sphere ship in the TOS was able to keep the Enterprise in place and I know Kirk ordered the ship up to I believe warp 7 and they couldn't break free.

[r2data]

There is no hard evidence that violence in games or on television is anything but correlated to violent acts and everyone should know one thing about correlation - correlation is not causation. Is there a relationship yes, but there is no evidence that, that relationship is the cause of violent acts.

Admittedly, no there is no direct link to it, but even you admit that there is some association. There does not need to be a direct causation. Indirect environmental stimulus can have a big effect as it speaks to your subconscious.

This stinks of the movement against personal responsibility. If a person cannot tell the difference between violence in a game or television and violence in real life than that person is mentally ill. Those who try to blame TV and games for their acts are pathetic individuals who are in full possession of the faulty, but not in possession of a sense of personal responsibility.

Of course a person bears full responsibility for his actions. It is not about personal responsibility but the perception of the individual. If the individual is continuously exposed to stimuli that reinforces a type of behaviour, that person will believe that behaviour is acceptable, especially if not corrected early enough. A lot of criminals actually believe they have done nothing wrong or at least nothing too bad and they feel it is a great injustice when they are punished. For reference, see Dale Carnegie's How to Win Friends and Influence People.

I am against and will always be against the force feeding of "morals" through entertainment. While Star Trek (the Federation) has never been about wholesale violence it has never been about forcing one moral system on anyone.

No. It has never been about forcing morals on anyone, but it has set an example to follow. An example of an utopian society, which has challenges of its own, but they manage to persevere by making the correct choices. The show also demonstrates that choices that have negative impacts on other people has negative consequences. This is the point I'm trying to home in on.

You've skewed this whole discussion. The OP simply stated that in another Star Trek game they used a tractor beam to for a ship into a planets gravity in a kill or be killed situation. There was no discussion of it being an inhabited planet or have an life at all. You find this morally reprehensible. I find it morally ambiguous. We really know nothing about the situation and again it is just a game.

Admittedly, I have skewed the discussion, but there is a relevance to the original post. No discussion of inhabitance does not preclude it being inhabited. The post did not consider the ramifications of such an action. Yes, his ship survived, although he may have doomed others on the planet. Even if it had not been inhabited, it is possible that there were other non-sentient lifeforms there that could have developed or that there is potential for life to develop at a later point. The question asked was if the game would have strategies like this and I undertook to explain why such a strategy would be inadvisable.

Yes Trek has some wonderful moral dilemmas, but it is never preachy. The Klingons and Romulans are a perfect example of the moral "relativity" that Trek allows for. We comes to see the Klingons and Romulans not as purely evil, but as creatures wrapped in their own cultural nuances. If the situation the OP described involved an inhabited planet yes it would reflect some of the problems faced by Janeway and Picard, but we cannot assume that it did involve lifeforms other than those on the two ships in combat.

No it is never preachy, but I believe I have explained that above.

One of the best episodes of Voyager in my opinion was Equinox. While the captain of that ship may have done some horrible things, you couldn't hate him completely because he was faced with a desperate situation. It is cathartic to put yourself in those situations to see the choices some might make, even when their morals don't agree with yours. These are all great questions, but for the scope of a video game that at its core must be fun, they are inappropriate.

That's the thing. You see, he made an inappropriate choice, to use the energy of the lifeforms to get home and there were consequences. The creatures started attacking the Equinox and he lost a lot of his crew and in the end, his ship and his life. This is the point I'm trying to get across here. That our actions have a consequence and that the game should reflect that as it would result in a more in-depth, dynamic storyline. I fail to see how a richer storyline can have a negative impact on the fun factor of a video game.

They are inappropriate not because they are bad questions, but because you are placing complex moral issues within the context of "play". Some moral issues can be dealt within "play"; sports are a great example of how children can be taught ethical integrity, but the level of complexity of the lessons are very low and in the best instances augmented by parental involvement.

The point here is reinforcement. Sure, parents play their roles and no one is saying otherwise but there are other factors that come into play. Outside influences and, yes, even games. If the point is reinforced everywhere, then the child will have no recourse but to accept it. To have parent tell a child that a thing is bad, but then the child gets to play a game that encourages such behaviour, he hears from his friends how such behaviour is good, well.... you see what will happen.

While I understand your hopes for ST:O I believe you are placing those hopes unfairly on the genre. The primary function of a game is to entertain more so than any other form of entertainment. Fable and Allegory are good methods of dialectics, but video games have a hard time translating that well.

I know this is a game. I also see that it is possible to integrate values into a game, especially this one, with a complex moral system already demonstrated in the basis for the game, the shows. It may not be appropriate for some of the other games, those that focus mainly on violence, but this one has the opportunity to make a difference.

Learning is better done when the individual has the opportunity to evaluate the situation not when morals are applied with the heavy handed nature that games require.

And that's the thing, I submit that the opportunity to evaluate different courses of action and their consequences within the game will provide positive reinforcement of the point that for every action there is a reaction, good or bad.

[Jaxston]

WOOT Varrangian wins that debate!!!!!! Seriously Var.....good job. I think Mr. R2data is missing the issue here, this is in and of itself a game to entertain.....simple.

Developers will not spend a dime on a game if it can not be enjoyed by the masses because they make these games to make money. This fact may not be very comforting considering the lofty ideals many have with the associated IP, however they (Cryptic) are trying to make money.

:cool:

[r2data]

WOOT Varrangian wins that debate!!!!!! Seriously Var.....good job. I think Mr. R2data is missing the issue here, this is in and of itself a game to entertain.....simple.

Developers will not spend a dime on a game if it can not be enjoyed by the masses because they make these games to make money. This fact may not be very comforting considering the lofty ideals many have with the associated IP, however they (Cryptic) are trying to make money.

:cool:
That's not to say you can't have a fun game without some moral values in it. Increasing player choices and the consequences of their choices can only serve to enhance gameplay, not dampen it, unless everyone is really that lethargic and prefer not to think through a game, but just mash buttons and hope you reach the end.

I tire of this. I've made my points pretty clear and any further argument on this subject is just going to be a reiteration. I leave it up to individual interpretation.

[Deadzone]

Dude , you need to get a damn LIFE!!! LIsten to yourself!!!

Step away from the keyboard, go out and do something social with other people in a REAL LIFE setting.

....I can't believe he is posting this much crap over a game tactic.......A ****** GAME!!!!

[vp21ct]

When i was fighting some Tholian ships near a black hole. I was in the Command cruiser for the Klingons (the name escapes me) and had 1 light frigate, 2 b'rels, and 1 light cruiser as escort. About 10 minutes into the battle, my fleet lay burning in space and there were 2 Tholian light cruisers left. I was in bad shape and no match for them. So i pulled a desparate stunt and headed straight for the event horrizon, the enemy ship followed in hot pursuit. I'm think i was 200 Keliqams from the EH when I kicked all power to engines, pulled an emergency 180, and kicked the warp drive. My engines were practically ripped off my ship from the structural strain, but i shot past the Tholian vessels and they flew straight into the EH, whilst i was happilly adrift out side of the gravitational influence of the black hole.

[Azurian]

For one thing, we have to remember this is all based as a Tactic in Star Fleet Command. Which honestly I have done a few times to quicken a battle. And my favorite is throwing them into the Gravity Well of a Black Hole. :D

But in STO, I honestly don't think you could easily do such a thing.

Planetary Atmospheres: Of you drag a starship into the gravity well of a planet, you are going to be in it as well. So you have to disable your opponent long enough and tractor him into the atmosphere fast enough that he won't have time to get his systems online. Because we all well seen that Star Fleet ships can fly in atmospheres.

Stars and Black Holes: By the time you were in it, you be in the thick of things as well. If you properly disabled your opponent, you will last longer than he/she will.

Asteroids and Other Ships: With the range of tractor beams, you probably end up damaging your own ship from the debris from the collision.

So all in all, if you are to pull it off, you have to seriously diable your opponent and hope he doesn't get his engines on line in time.

[Saladin_Class]

Honestly, the tractor beam on a starship should be capable of being used as a defensive or offensive weapon, .

I see you have never read the Federation paper on tractor auctions, or heard of the manuver "The Gorn Anchor"

The Gorn, like the Romulans had to adapt tactics for the plasma torpedo. The Gorn anchor basicly is when you tactor onto a ship, to stop it from out running your torpedoes.

Not to mention you can rotate a ship with a shield down so your weapons fire thru that open shield.

If STO makes full use of tractors, you are going to be in for a big surprise.

[ReynoldsXD]

I see you have never read the Federation paper on tractor auctions, or heard of the manuver "The Gorn Anchor"

The Gorn, like the Romulans had to adapt tactics for the plasma torpedo. The Gorn anchor basicly is when you tactor onto a ship, to stop it from out running your torpedoes.

Not to mention you can rotate a ship with a shield down so your weapons fire thru that open shield.

If STO makes full use of tractors, you are going to be in for a big surprise.



Personaly, i thin kthe tractor ws overpowered in sfc and co.

Spending some energy to negate almost all the power the target put into engines... nah. bad tractor balance.
It should cost you at lteast as much to hold him as it costs him to move.
Of course the energy need go up or down depending on what your target is doing.
And rotating him, oh boy thats quite some power needed...


I know this is a game. I also see that it is possible to integrate values into a game, especially this one, with a complex moral system already demonstrated in the basis for the game, the shows. It may not be appropriate for some of the other games, those that focus mainly on violence, but this one has the opportunity to make a difference.


An mmog is always limited by the fact that it has to cater to thousands of players, that also means there has to be a certain lack of a dynamic gameworld. You can't for example give players the option to depopulate planets simply because there are others who might need to go there.

If you realy wanted to create a game that simluates the infinitly complex consequences of your actions, it would have to be single player. And would be run on quantum supercomputers.
Anything less than full simulation of the gameworld, including for example all the other simulated individuals, their personalitys, their actions, YOU actions, the natural Events of the gameworld and so on and on and on.

There basicly has been no game that actualy did the whole consequences thing good. It's always a bland mechanic in the end, usualy resembling a bar of some sort or a lot of numbers.
The results are usualy sligty different storyline developemnt. but still very much limited on kill/maim/rescue via kill type of story. And of course my personal nemesis: party members! They will too join or leave or turn on you based on how far that sliders is towards good/evil/order/chaos etc. Very much boring and always the reason why i hate such mechanics.

Oh and yes:
Ususaly, being evil transforms your charachter into some sort of montrosity with spikes poking out all over the body while the good guy is somehow enveloped in blinding light that vomits WAY to much bloom into your face.


Good an evil is always a matter of point of view.

If i go out to the streets, with a baseball bat, and start to damage other people cars i would, from their perspective, be evil.
However, the guy who will repair it and get paid for it will not find it evil (not realy anyway) but probably invite me to a beer. And the barkeeper will be happy because he has two more customers. Or he will be angry because one of the cars was his. But does he know that i did it? What would he do if he knew?
Or does he vent his frustration on his family?


Now try to simulate the consequences for a captain of a 24th century starship that could easily wipe out civilisation by accident alone.....



I think teaching kids "morals" is way out of the focus of this game especialy if you try to educate it on action and reaction not to speak long term consequences.
Besides: no kid would understand it at a complex level like this and adults don't need a game to teach them.



So, please no darkside/light side bar or related stuff.



When i was fighting some Tholian ships near a black hole. I was in the Command cruiser for the Klingons (the name escapes me) and had 1 light frigate, 2 b'rels, and 1 light cruiser as escort. About 10 minutes into the battle, my fleet lay burning in space and there were 2 Tholian light cruisers left. I was in bad shape and no match for them. So i pulled a desparate stunt and headed straight for the event horrizon, the enemy ship followed in hot pursuit. I'm think i was 200 Keliqams from the EH when I kicked all power to engines, pulled an emergency 180, and kicked the warp drive. My engines were practically ripped off my ship from the structural strain, but i shot past the Tholian vessels and they flew straight into the EH, whilst i was happilly adrift out side of the gravitational influence of the black hole.


More fun: Being tholian and webbing the mwhile they are in the acretion disc ^^

OFF they go with insane speed circling toward the event horizon....


Just killign their engines works too. then you can watch em slowly circling into certain doom.

[fritos1]

All the starship captains have found themselves in tough fights and have used unigue tactics of combating there enemy's from time to time.Never involveing another planet intentionally if i recall but yes tactics should be in but not sure if a tractor beam should be that powerfull.Don't if they where originally designed with that kind of power or not if they where great.

[Vicelance]

So all in all, if you are to pull it off, you have to seriously diable your opponent and hope he doesn't get his engines on line in time.

I suppose it all depends on how powerful Cryptic makes the tractor beams in the game. In the game I played even in the biggest ships I still needed to destroy the engines of a shuttle to tractor it, Though by this time I could have won the battle by one more shot with phasers or disruptors.

[Sinclair]

Mr. R2Data seems to have assumed that the planet was habitable and inhabited. This is a big assumption. Most planets are not Class L or Class M habitable planets. For all we know, that planet that you tractored the ship into was a gas giant like Saturn or Jupiter. It might also have been a ball of rock with no significant atmosphere, something like pluto. It seems a far more remote chance that some sentient life form would exist on those kinds of planet. So tractoring the klingon into the planet seems like a good strategy to me, given it was the only alternative for saving your ship and crew while in the heat of battle.

[Reinkaos]

Although this particular scenario may not be possible in the game, I do think that there will be a variety of tactical options to keep things fresh and exciting.

It would be great if such improvised maneuvers like this could be named and immortalised :cool:

[No1UKnow]

Is this guy serious???? I mean common...R U serious?

lollololololololol

:D

I for one am glad he is serious. We need people like him to keep focus in the right direction. If the majority doesn't take him serious then this game is attracting the wrong people for what, in my mind, the game should be.

[Reinkaos]

I see you have never read the Federation paper on tractor auctions, or heard of the manuver "The Gorn Anchor"

The Gorn, like the Romulans had to adapt tactics for the plasma torpedo. The Gorn anchor basicly is when you tactor onto a ship, to stop it from out running your torpedoes.

Not to mention you can rotate a ship with a shield down so your weapons fire thru that open shield.

If STO makes full use of tractors, you are going to be in for a big surprise.

Battles where you're just tractored onto the enemy ship would be boring as hell.

[Jayven]

Not that it makes a lot of difference as this thread has swayed to a certain side but I back R2Data's concept since rather than what normal MMOs do, the ethic/morale side of things would mean that the game has more purpose than standard missions. It adds in a new layer to the system and hence more life.

Yes it brings something into play something we all don't like but honestly.. I liked the way Knights of the Old Republic 2 made me think, as well as Baldur's Gate with choosing what option to take the first time you run the game through.

[sylvermane64]

Tractoring in ST can only be used if the ship being tractored is of equal size or less. This also assumes that the ship being tractored is fairly damaged and they don't have any power to break away. Otherwise, it would be an incredible strain on the power stores of the ship that is doing the tractoring, if the other ship is attempting to get away in the opposite direction or trying to warp away.

The only ship capable of actually 'holding' a ship that is fully functional, is a Borg Cube. If a ship is dead in space, and not fighting the tractor, then yes, I could see this situation happening. Otherwise, it shouldn't be possible with equal sized ships.

As far as slamming a ship into a world, lets take in effect the fact that once the ship hits the atmosphere, it will immediately start to break up with reentry, and a majority of the ship would burn up. The impact on the surface would be minimal, unless for the sake of arguement it is habitable and has a population, the odds of it actually hitting a city depends on 'how' populated the planet is. Let's be real here, starships in ST are NOT large on a planetary scale, they are relatively the size of naval warships in the real world. Some can even land on the surface of a planet, and a majority of the construction of starships are performed on the surface.

Environmental impacts will also be minimal as most of the equipment aboard will also be burned up in the atmosphere. Though there are 'very rare' stories of ships that crashed on a planet and equipment aboard survived, but that was due to a 'controled crash landing' where there was some power avalable to manuevuer. But if the ship is a a 'true' free fall, there really wouldn't be much left to impact the surface.

Just my two cents....

[Falin]

for the federation, tractoring a ship into any planetary body would be very very unfavorable, for they have no idea if any life is on it at all. and that would go against Federation principles if they wiped out a new lifeform that has yet to flourish.

but as others have stated, even attempting such a manuever would have far radical and disatoruous effects on your ship as well, since tractoring range is so limited. if you are so desperate and hurt already to try this last ditch effort, the resulting warp explosion from the other ship would most certainly destroy you as well.

As for fightig Tholians near a Black holes Event horizon, they'd just slap a web up behind you and keep you near it till you fell in Tholians aren't stupid enough to chase you when they can just web you or web around you to detain you ;)

[Everitt_Cage]

for the federation, tractoring a ship into any planetary body would be very very unfavorable, for they have no idea if any life is on it at all.

riiight, because they dont have sensors :rolleyes:

[Falin]

riiight, because they dont have sensors :rolleyes:

<face palms>

howmany times have their sensors failed them in detecting new life? How many times have the crew of the enterprise beemed down to a so-called "desolate" unihabitable planet and after hours there suddendly discovered a new and unique lifeform their sensors could not detect. because of this, the federation would not condone any contamination or destruction of a planatary body.

[Everitt_Cage]

<face palms>

howmany times have their sensors failed them in detecting new life? How many times have the crew of the enterprise beemed down to a so-called "desolate" unihabitable planet and after hours there suddendly discovered a new and unique lifeform their sensors could not detect. because of this, the federation would not condone any contamination or destruction of a planatary body.

i never said they were infallible, but your comment that "they have no idea" is just as absurd an extreme as if i had.

[vp21ct]

Guys, the point of this thread (IMO) is not wheather we should be able to tractor a klingon BC into a planet, its about will we be able to perform highly improvised, spur of the moment actions, using all of our recorces.
I'll give you the example of a drawn out battle, you sheilds are down, their sheilds are down. Your tactical officer tells you that your weapons don't have the power to destroy your enemy, so what do you do. You beam a photon torpedoe aboard their ship, doesnt even have to reintegrate porperly, any flaw would just let the A-mat out and they you get a nice big BOOM.

I wan't to be able to do things like this to some extent, that would give the game a wonderful trek feel (how many times did they improvise a solution)

[Starstrider]

Some of you guys are missing the OP's main point here. He just wants to know if we will be able to use unique tactics or are we going to be limited to just point and shoot?

[Everitt_Cage]

Guys, the point of this thread (IMO) is not wheather we should be able to tractor a klingon BC into a planet, its about will we be able to perform highly improvised, spur of the moment actions, using all of our recorces.
I'll give you the example of a drawn out battle, you sheilds are down, their sheilds are down. Your tactical officer tells you that your weapons don't have the power to destroy your enemy, so what do you do. You beam a photon torpedoe aboard their ship, doesnt even have to reintegrate porperly, any flaw would just let the A-mat out and they you get a nice big BOOM.

I wan't to be able to do things like this to some extent, that would give the game a wonderful trek feel (how many times did they improvise a solution)

exactly right. in retrospect i wish it had been an astroid so the people who cant think outside the box wouldnt have gotten their panties all bunched up :p

[Vicelance]

Some of you guys are missing the OP's main point here. He just wants to know if we will be able to use unique tactics or are we going to be limited to just point and shoot?

I;m sure there will be unique tactics that's what makes it star trek. theres already enough point and shoot space games out there.

[Reinkaos]

riiight, because they dont have sensors :rolleyes:

Don't you remember the TNG episode where they were terraforming a planet that had life on it that they hadn't previously detected? Sensors don't detect everything :rolleyes:

[Everitt_Cage]

Don't you remember the TNG episode where they were terraforming a planet that had life on it that they hadn't previously detected? Sensors don't detect everything :rolleyes:

see post 44:

http://forums.startrekonline.com/showpost.php?p=181951&postcount=44

[Saladin_Class]

Spending some energy to negate almost all the power the target put into engines... nah. bad tractor balance.
It should cost you at lteast as much to hold him as it costs him to move.
Of course the energy need go up or down depending on what your target is doing.
And rotating him, oh boy thats quite some power needed...
.

Thats why they call it a tractor auction. The other ship isnt oging to sit there and let you rain on thier parade.

Ship size, damge, and other factors all are key to even attempting this. As a destroyer captain, Id never let any ship that close to me in the first place.

Battles where you're just tractored onto the enemy ship would be boring as hell.

I see you have never been in the middle of a tractor auction, its a nail biter

Tractoring in ST can only be used if the ship being tractored is of equal size or less. This also assumes that the ship being tractored is fairly damaged and they don't have any power to break away. Otherwise, it would be an incredible strain on the power stores of the ship that is doing the tractoring, if the other ship is attempting to get away in the opposite direction or trying to warp away.



these are all valid factors when tractoring.

[vp21ct]

im sorry OP, maybe you should make a new thread about original improvised tactics

(to avoid confusion i would use all of the examples that have been listed, Your tractor beam [say you sent them into the sun this time], my black whole [cause that was awesome], and my transporter. it might get more results and less fire)

[Esp]

It's a damn good concept, very Trek to finish your enemies off in one last, desperate but damn awesome burst of genius.

For example in TNG - Redemption (Part II), Gowron flies his ship (pursued by two opposing klingon ships) dangerously close to a nearby star, engaging warp at the last second in turn causing a small solar flare which obliterates the two ships in pursuit. Maneuvers like that could be a trainable skill, with higher levels being able to perform more complex and awe-inspiring battle moves (Picard Maneuver anyone?)

I'd love to see that in the final cut.

[Deltab]

Because Klingons would find wholesale slaughter of innocents dishonourable? You'll be hard pressed to find an entire civilisation in-game that is willing to commit wide-scale genocide. Some disreputable individuals maybe, but not a whole faction. No point in making a mechanic just for one or two people to use. If it is implemented, it should be highly penalised by their specific governments, demotion or something would be an appropriate punishment I believe. So if you think defeating one ship is worth losing a rank, and possibly a class of ship, then why not?

Yeah. You weren't playing STO but advocating for STO means that it'll have to be carried out by one of the factions. What's the point of saying that the moral-less Tholians or whatever else race would do it if you can't play it in the game and so not have it as a factor?

who is to say there is life on this planet? and what about asteroids?

[Deltab]

what might be fun and or stink, is if the feds could beam off the crew(or at least bridge crew) of a ship that was decloaking(while its shields are down). That would just be awesome.. and or lame depending on your point of view lol

[Deltab]

Tractoring in ST can only be used if the ship being tractored is of equal size or less. This also assumes that the ship being tractored is fairly damaged and they don't have any power to break away. Otherwise, it would be an incredible strain on the power stores of the ship that is doing the tractoring, if the other ship is attempting to get away in the opposite direction or trying to warp away.

The only ship capable of actually 'holding' a ship that is fully functional, is a Borg Cube. If a ship is dead in space, and not fighting the tractor, then yes, I could see this situation happening. Otherwise, it shouldn't be possible with equal sized ships.


What if a Defiant class took out a Galaxy classes engines? the Galaxy would be drifting in space with no force acting upon it. The Defiant should be able to slowly accelerate the Galaxy class in what ever direction. Its basic physics.

But this should only be useful if the enemy ship lost their engines.

[Rattletrap]

-Assuming the planet was not a life-bearing mass i don't see any difference whatsoever in using a tractor beam versus phasers. Where do you think all that debris goes, anyway? Close enough to a planet, and we have impact.

If we wanted to apply a spot of gamesmanship on STO then why get rid of the tactic entirely? you could always use the tactic for small moons, asteroids, gas giants, etc. While the motivations behind the OP's ideas i may nto agree with, the battle tactic is sound and if we can do this in STO that will be a good thing, as it presents options to the player.

Rattletrap

[Kinjiru]

Tractoring in ST can only be used if the ship being tractored is of equal size or less. This also assumes that the ship being tractored is fairly damaged and they don't have any power to break away. Otherwise, it would be an incredible strain on the power stores of the ship that is doing the tractoring, if the other ship is attempting to get away in the opposite direction or trying to warp away.

The only ship capable of actually 'holding' a ship that is fully functional, is a Borg Cube. If a ship is dead in space, and not fighting the tractor, then yes, I could see this situation happening. Otherwise, it shouldn't be possible with equal sized ships.

I read this earlier and it's been sitting in the back of my mind for a while. I keep coming back to your opening statement that:
Tractoring in ST can only be used if the ship being tractored is of equal size or less. This also assumes that the ship being tractored is fairly damaged and they don't have any power to break away.

I think a number of factors here would affect the tractor's hold, including the amount of power used, the mass of the object being moved, the mass of the originating ship.

In the case of a straight mass to tractor power ratio, I would agree with your statement, but with the addition of excess power directly from the Warp engines, a smaller ship should be capable of moving a much larger one. Think tugboats moving a large Battleship or Carrier. If the smaller ship is able to exceed the larger with regards to sheer power output applied to the tractor beam itself, then it should certainly be able to at least influence the course of the larger ship. All of this is conditional to the amount of damage that each ship has taken as well.

In the case listed in the OP's scenario, it's not necessary to force the opposing vessel directly into the planet, but it would theoretically be enough to just "nudge" her far enough into the Planet's gravity well, so that the gravity well does most of the work and overpowers the potential power output of her engines. At the least, even if she could fight her way free, it would be a serious distraction, allowing the smaller vessel to gain time, run, call for help, continue the attack, et cetera.

[stabnore]

The universe hold treasure wonderful enough to satisfy desires both grand and gross, but it's not for the timid.

If you can't deal with the danger you should just go back home and crawl under your bed.

This game should attempt to approximate the Star Trek universe as closely as possible and even allow tactics like beaming the bridge crew of an opposing ship into the vast vacuum of space, site to site transport of personnel on the surface of a planet and tractoring meteors into your opponent.

It should be a game that requires the use of your imagination and all technology should be available any time that it is not being interfered with by ionization or an enemy energy field.

Now quit dreading the possibilities of your opponents and start imagining the possibilities you will have presented to you.

[sylvermane64]

I read this earlier and it's been sitting in the back of my mind for a while. I keep coming back to your opening statement that:


I think a number of factors here would affect the tractor's hold, including the amount of power used, the mass of the object being moved, the mass of the originating ship.

In the case of a straight mass to tractor power ratio, I would agree with your statement, but with the addition of excess power directly from the Warp engines, a smaller ship should be capable of moving a much larger one. Think tugboats moving a large Battleship or Carrier. If the smaller ship is able to exceed the larger with regards to sheer power output applied to the tractor beam itself, then it should certainly be able to at least influence the course of the larger ship. All of this is conditional to the amount of damage that each ship has taken as well.

In the case listed in the OP's scenario, it's not necessary to force the opposing vessel directly into the planet, but it would theoretically be enough to just "nudge" her far enough into the Planet's gravity well, so that the gravity well does most of the work and overpowers the potential power output of her engines. At the least, even if she could fight her way free, it would be a serious distraction, allowing the smaller vessel to gain time, run, call for help, continue the attack, et cetera.

When a tugboat is pulling a larger vessel the larger vessel is NOT fighting against the tugboats engines. Now imagine what would happen if the Carrier applied their engines in full reverse versus the tugboats engines. It wouldn't be able to withstand the Carrier's more powerful engines.

But if the Carrier's engines are shut down, then yes, the Tug wouldn't have a problem moving the larger vessel.