PDA

View Full Version : Giving Command to the Captain (Solution)



Ensign_Obvious
07-01-2017, 03:41 AM
From a pure gameplay standpoint, the Captain's role is little more than obligatory in Star Trek: Bridge crew multi-player. In a group of experienced crew members, there is only one function necessary from the captain's seat: answering hails. Even mission goals are easily recognized -- the captain need not explain.

As more and more of the existing playerbase gains mastery over the current content (not a difficult task), this fatal flaw becomes glaringly apparent. Only the most ardent roleplayers will find it plausible to willfully ignore it.

This is worse than a flaw. This is an affront to the spirit of what the game is trying to be, and it MUST be solved, first and foremost, in order for the game to continue to thrive. I am utterly convinced of this, and have racked my brains for an easily-implementable solution.

I believe I have found one real answer (for the Aegis, at least) -- one that I am convinced should have been a part of the game from the outset. It is a solution that makes the captain role:

1. Absolutely necessary
2. A literal authority
3. As functional and fun as the other roles
4. Accountable, for better or worse

First, remove the ability for helm and tactical to initiate targeting on anything the captain isn't targeting.

Second, give the captain two new buttons below the local map: "Reset Helm" and "Reset Tactical," which would clear all targets for tactical and helm.

Last, give the captain a system intrusion timer display on the system monitoring screen.

Now imagine the dynamics:

Impulse ends, and the crew find themselves near an asteroid field. Ahead rests a wounded Suribachi, surrounded by two Klingon Cruisers and one Bird of Prey. Between the Aegis and her enemies an anomaly can be seen.

The captain decides the first order of business should be the anomaly. He targets the anomaly and asks for a scan. Tactical looks at his screen and sees the captain's target is the anomaly, so he targets it himself and begins to scan.

The captain, seeing that tactical has his target, now targets the Suribachi, instructing helm to "lay a course." Helm targets the Suribachi.

Now tactical, having finished the scan and seeing a new target from the captain, targets the Suribachi as well. This is the last thing the captain wants from tactical, so he targets the Bird of Prey and hits "Reset Tactical," clearing tactical's target.

"Let's deal with the Bird of Prey first, shall we?" suggests the captain.

Tactical, having no target and taking the captain's hint, targets the Bird of Prey, his only real option.

And Onwards we go...

As you can imagine, even changing tactical targets for the sake of weapon disruption, etc, would be no difficult feat, as the captain, with a system intrusion timer to monitor, can easily direct a new target for tactical at any time.

Remember: the Captain does not change tactical's target, but in essence "permits" the new one. This does not give him the power to dictate tactical's methodology in dealing with the target he currently has, however, which is good -- no decent player wants someone else making all of his decisions. It simply limits his targeting options to his own current target, or the captain's current target.

The interactions between captain and helm could be more greatly enhanced as well. For instance, the ability to draw a loose route on the the local map would be nice. Or the ability for the captain to somehow target a bearing that helm could lock on to. But such changes are beyond the scope of what I have meant to tackle here.

I believe this fundamental change in gameplay from the captain's chair is a strong and feasible solution that I imagine could be implemented in fairly short order with little expense from the devs. I hope that those who have read this will show support for the idea, or, if they are opposed, will offer some plausible solution of their own.

One thing I know for certain: the long-term health of this game depends very strongly on the captain role getting some serious love. As things stand now, they won't stand for long.

TheRealExadon
07-01-2017, 05:25 AM
This will definitely be a welcome change for the Captian. Let the captain organize strategy between helm and tactical.

filmgeek47
07-01-2017, 07:54 AM
I agree with the spirit of what you're posting but not the details. I do think even in experienced crews, you need a great captain to achieve victory in a challenging situation (i.e. Kobyashi or mission 5). That said, captain definitely needs to be fleshed out to have more to do, because except in those very challenging situations, captain is the least necessary role, which just feels wrong.

I think the best short term fix is to give the captain information that other players don't have.

Only captain should see missions destinations highlighted. Love the idea of captain seeing system intrusion time. I think they should be the only one to see the cool down. Also think captain should get to see a time to shield regen cool down as well.

Where I disagree is actually taking "control" away from the other players. I think a tac officer should be able to target anything they want, and helm should be able to fly the ship to any destination. Otherwise I think it might start to feel like the captain MUST micromanage everything, which I think could actually hamstring combat in certain situations. That, and playing with an inexperienced captain would become excruciating.

The captain shouldn't be instrumental in basic ship functioning, but rather in strategy and in ensuring success in mission objectives.

The best solution I've seen (long term) to add some weight to the captain role is to implement a mission system where the captain has to communicate with NPC ships. This is both in keeping with cannon, would open up new missions, and would give the captain a unique role that can only be filled from the chair.

Babeline
07-01-2017, 09:32 AM
The command makes you crazy .. You want to do everything ,Ubisoft will never do this.

Ocard_
07-01-2017, 03:10 PM
I have to agree with filmgeek47,
making it obligatory that the Captain micromages and nannies the other crewmen is completely the wrong way. It would be very stressfull for the captain and bring the same problem upon the others the Captain has now.

Remove any mission markers from other stations or even remove them completely from the game is the way to go.
I'm even not sure if I think the captain should get information about intrusion cooldown and shield cooldown. There should definitely be a visible shields cooldown, but maybe at the engineering station. I also think the Captain shouldn't see the momentary detectable at range, but rely on the engineer for that information.

Ensign_Obvious
07-01-2017, 03:52 PM
I think a tac officer should be able to target anything they want, and helm should be able to fly the ship to any destination.

Helm would still be able to fly wherever they want, they just wouldn't have a target to measure distance. The primary interaction created here would be between captain and tactical. If the game had shipped with this in place, it would seem natural and right that the captain has such control.


Where I disagree is actually taking "control" away from the other players.

Clearly this is going to be THE controversial aspect of what I suggest, but consider that between everything tactical already has to manage (scans, intrusions, targeting, and firing), the effect of merely taking away his ability to "target whatever he wants' is pretty minimal.

Imagine if the game had shipped this way. You'd hardly be saying, "Wow, I can't target anything I want, and basically need the captain's "permission?". No, everyone would simply say, "Well it gives the captain a sense of control and purpose." Or, "Yay, I have something to do as captain!". In short, it should have been this way from the start.


The captain shouldn't be instrumental in basic ship functioning, but rather in strategy and in ensuring success in mission objectives.

I'm not sure how directing tactical and helm to target this or that amounts to "being instrumental in basic ship functioning.". Tactical still shoots, scans and intrudes, helm still flies, engineering still manages power and transports, etc. This is simply a way for the captain to "direct," even in combat.


That, and playing with an inexperienced captain would become excruciating.

No more excruciating than it is now to play with a bad engineer, a bad helm, or a bad tactical. In fact, all three of those positions would still have a larger impact than the captain would have. Helm can still fly into asteroids and let enemies get behind the Aegis, tactical can still disrupt a cruiser's weapons and spend 2 minutes trying to kill it instead of taking it out in 5 hits, and engineer can still keep engines at 1000 when that Warbird is directly behind you. What can captain do so catistrophically wrong under my proposal but leave tactical with subpar target choices? Yeah, that's it.

As it is now, playing with a poor captain IS excruciating, because it's often a matter of having to sit and listen to some know-nothing with a boss-complex giving ill-informed advice non-stop for the simple reason that he has nothing better to actually DO. It's a hot mess, and it needs fixing NOW, not in some daydream future where Red Storm invents some mechanism by which a multi-varied conversational mini-game between captain and Klingon (or whatever) can take place.

I have bad news for all the big dreamers out there: Red Storm has not the time, inclination, nor money to turn this game into a grand interactive movie, tailor-made to your specifications. There are Pen and Paper role playing games for that. In fact that's why PnP games still exist. Savage Worlds is one PnP game I would suggest to anyone who has such big dreams for a Star Trek game. You can even play online at Fantasy Grounds. I used to do it, and the community there is great.

Look, as far as removing mission indicators from Helm, that's just a big "duh.". Of course they need to change that. But it's a minor little thing, and hardly a "fix."

I should have stipulated in my OP that if you disagree, come up with something else - something feasible that can be done within the bounds of what we already have. The changes I've suggested are changes that could easily be patched into what we already have. If you have an idea of your own that is in that vein, I'd love to hear it.

Ocard_
07-01-2017, 04:24 PM
Imagine if the game had shipped this way. You'd hardly be saying, "Wow, I can't target anything I want, and basically need the captain's "permission?". No, everyone would simply say, "Well it gives the captain a sense of control and purpose." Or, "Yay, I have something to do as captain!". In short, it should have been this way from the start.

That's just an assumption. It's as likely that we would now be discussing that tactical should be more self-dependent.



Look, as far as removing mission indicators from Helm, that's just a big "duh.". Of course they need to change that. But it's a minor little thing, and hardly a "fix."

It's all fine and well that you see it that way. For me on the other hand it's actually the only thing that really disturbes me as a Captain and as helmsman, while when being tactical or engineering I'm fine with the Captain's Role as it is. (Though I tend to wanting to have all mission markers removed for everyone.)


Look, it's completely acceptable that you see it the way you do and in general I really appreciate your suggestions in this forum. But do not call us daydreamers or the like just because we don't agree here. When we feel that some parts of the game don't need to be changed ("fixed") at all, that's a valid opinion as well.

Ensign_Obvious
07-01-2017, 04:46 PM
I'm not calling anyone a daydreamer for disagreeing with me. I'm calling anyone a daydreamer who thinks a fix to the fact that the captain's role is useless in every way outside of roleplaying is to make this game an interactive movie with negotiation mini-games, etc. And I stick by it.

If you think the captain's role is fine as is, you're not a daydreamer, you're just deluding yourself if you care about the future of this game, because the vast majority of existing and potential players don't see it that way, I'm sure. So, if you really enjoy it as is, please, do enjoy it. In the not-so-distant future, you can make the bridge of the Aegis your own private Idaho.

Babeline
07-01-2017, 05:03 PM
You are selfish. It's not just you and your ideas. There are a lot of players and Ubisoft makes sure to take everyone into account. Your ideas will never be put in place.


Now the dream is allowed.

WeirdWizardDave
07-01-2017, 05:17 PM
Its an interesting idea, certainly I can see the issue. Interestingly I find playing in solo mode more rewarding in many ways than playing as Captain in multiplayer. In Solo you really are in command and everything depends on you, its probably one of the most challenging ways to play the game actually.

As for the specific suggestion and issue that's been raised, The problem is its fixing a problem by forcing a behaviour that the players could just adopt themselves anyway. It would be easy for the players to agree not to select a target other than the captain but to what end? Just to make work for the Captain? Or to ensure the Captains orders are listened to? If the issue is forcing the crew to listen to the Captain then it makes some sense, maybe it could be implemented as a optional toggle the Captain can enable when he wants to enforce his authority but I can see this annoying people.

You're right to say if it had launched like that people would accept it, but it didn't and taking away options in patches never goes down well. Really a solution needs to be found that enhances the game without notably detracting from the existing roles. As you asked for ideas here's a few off the top of my head

Allow the Captain to issue orders to NPC crew through the radial menus or voice commands. We've got a science officer, comms officer and a couple of other red shirts that could be given some functions for the Captain to manage. Comms could have "Send Distress Call", "Warn enemy ship to stand down/retreat", "Tell Friendly ship to follow, stop, fire on my target, etc". Science could have some short term debuffs to hostile ships eg "Find a weakness in their shields" and buffs to your own ship eg "Find a way to reinforce our shields against their weapons", maybe some stuff like extending transporter range or further reducing ship signature (in fact it would be nice if the ship was a bit more detectable as standard).

Give the Captain a self destruct option... I mean really its awesome if somewhat pointless ;)

Give the Captain more detailed info on anomalies and some way of using the information to formulate better tactics. Maybe make positive anomalies as well as negative ones so he can use them to recharge the shields or give the ship a speed boost (maybe in combination with the Science station, I'm thinking almost like having a hand of effects available (like in a card game) based on the anomalies in the area that the science station can enact, most of which wouldn't require you to fly into the area of it, you could extend this further by having the Captain prepare these (taking some amount of time and filling a slot) prior to using them. EG Captain has 2 effect slots, on impulsing into a region he checks the radial menu for the Science officer and sees he can "research" repolorise shields by firing an anti proton beam at gas cloud, Ignite gas cloud with a wide band particle beam (causing AOE damage) or prepare an overcharge of the thrusters for 10 seconds by opening the bussard collectors.. You could have anomaly based effects, system wide and standard ones (Damage control drills, phaser crew drills, rotating shield frequency, etc). Each would have some "research time" and be either a 1 shot (possibly consuming an anomaly) or have a cool down). This might work better as it's own panel on the captains chair showing the available science projects and allowing them to be triggered. The actual in game effect here is pretty simple and easy enough to implement, though of course not trivial.


At the end of the day Captains command others to do stuff, so you either need to bring in non=player characters for the Captain to command or accept that the Captain is somewhat at the mercy of having crew who choose not to act on their own initiative and instead wait for orders from the captain.

Ensign_Obvious
07-01-2017, 05:26 PM
Finally, a voice of reason.

Thank you, Wizard. I love your suggestions so much, it's sick. I honestly didn't expect much of anyone to come in with plausible solutions (or even reasonable feedback on my suggestion), but you honestly have.

Thank you!

Edit: I like your ideas better than my own. And they're doable. A bit more work, I'm sure, but totally doable.

Ensign_Obvious
07-01-2017, 05:41 PM
You are selfish. It's not just you and your ideas. There are a lot of players and Ubisoft makes sure to take everyone into account. Your ideas will never be put in place.


Now the dream is allowed.

Thanks for your valuable input. It's clear you took the Vulcan approach, applying logic and thoughtful nuance at every turn. This thread is all the sweeter with the fruits of your mind adorning it.

Please, do continue to contribute to the discussion. Your input is invaluable.

Ocard_
07-02-2017, 10:23 AM
I'm not calling anyone a daydreamer for disagreeing with me. I'm calling anyone a daydreamer who thinks a fix to the fact that the captain's role is useless in every way outside of roleplaying is to make this game an interactive movie with negotiation mini-games, etc. And I stick by it.

If you think the captain's role is fine as is, you're not a daydreamer, you're just deluding yourself if you care about the future of this game, because the vast majority of existing and potential players don't see it that way, I'm sure. So, if you really enjoy it as is, please, do enjoy it. In the not-so-distant future, you can make the bridge of the Aegis your own private Idaho.

Great, now you're not calling me a daydreamer but instead you're calling me deluding myself because I don't agree with you... That has to be a huge improvement...

Please point me to the market survey you did that makes you so sure of your persoal opinion of how the vast majority of members and yet to be members of the player community of this game thinks.


@WeirdWizardDave
I can see how for you more micromagement of NPCs would make the Captain more interesting. I wanted to start playing the campaign missions in single player mode as well when I was new to the game, because I wanted to enjoy the story and that's normally a problem with other players around, especially the captains who skip video sequences. However, after one mission I recognized that wasn't any fun at all and I solely bought the game for its coop multiplayer.

With that in mind, giving the Captain more and compulsory NPCs to nanny around would introduce that what does make single player a no-fun thing into multiplayer and would clearly take away from the Captain's role for me.

Also, with the high percentage of unexperienced and missinformed Captains and crewmen out there, I'm not sure if giving the Captain more and more complex things to do is the best idea.

Goshdarnit
07-02-2017, 12:47 PM
Yeah, I'm not too keen on the idea of forcing things in just for the sake of giving the Captain something to do. I think less hand-holding would achieve what is needed. Lose the mission markers on all positions (I don't mind either way whether the Captain sees them, but definitely nobody else should). Also, when the button for an incoming hail lights up, if the Captain doesn't press it (I always find myself saying "onscreen" when I do that which I know is sad) then the message should go unanswered. At the moment, you get about a minute to put it onscreen, and if you haven't, it goes onscreen automatically. That irritates me as well. I don't think the problem is a need to introduce pointless "mini-games" or QTEs for the Captain to feel needed. I think the problem is that the game leads the rest of the crew without that. I actually played a game the other night with a Captain who literally said nothing the whole mission. Not a word. I hated it, and found it totally dull (I was Tactical), but we managed to get through the mission and pass. That should not be possible.

Ensign_Obvious
07-04-2017, 12:48 AM
Do tell, please Ocard, what the Captain's role is in multilayer Starv Trek: Bridge Crew. You seem to hint that you have strong ideas about what that role is in your mind, but I don't see that defined.

In any case, I'd love to hear what you think the actual game points to as the Captain's role, you're own imagination aside.

Here, I'll get you started by providing a few definitions of the other roles, and you can feel free to fill any blanks -- not imaginary, self-invented blanks, ether; real things that each role is responsible for within the confines of the actual game itself. Here we go:

Helm: Flies the ship.
Tactical: shoots stuff, performs scans.
Engineering: Manages power and repairs.
Captain: Answers hails.

Keep in mind, tactical cannot manage power, fly the ship, or answer hails, and no other role can shoot things or scan. The same goes for the other roles.

Are you satisfied that the Captain's only role is to answer hails, and that a "captain" playing in any of the other 3 roles can easily jump back into the captain's seat to answer hails (which ALWAYS come when nothing else is going on)?

Or maybe you can inform me of what else the captain does that no other role can do - outside of your own imagination?

Waiting...

Eyeoftheisland
07-04-2017, 03:17 AM
The captain's role is to coordinate the mission and I don't think it needs to be forced. I really doubt that even the best crew can't find some benefit from a good captain saying something at the right moment. The captain has access to ship status and local map, along with control of any AI crewmembers, there's plenty to do.

I agree with Goshdarnit that less handholding would naturally increase reliance on the captain. IMO really it's the content and missions that need focus than changing the captain role.

Ensign_Obvious
07-04-2017, 03:49 AM
You should try playing with just 3 for awhile, and you'll see that most communication needed takes place between engineering and tactical. Helm only needs to speak up about signature issues.

It's way more efficient just cutting the captain out of the picture.

If you think the captain is in any way beneficial, then what you're really saying is that sometimes a "teacher" is needed, in which you can easily end up with a "teacher" who knows less about the game than the rest of the crew, and everyone ends up playing this game of, "let's make the guy playing captain happy."

Yeah, no thanks. I don't personally think ego-stroking makes for a fun gaming experience.

Again: If the captain's role in this game is to "coordinate," then that implies that coordination is a key factor in gameplay, which I agree with. But get real, please: the captain makes coordination in this game inefficient and clunky.

Here's a great test for you. Get a full crew for the Kobiashi challenge witheveryone taking a vow to follow captain's orders, then let the captain "coordinate" everything. Do it a few times. Then remove captain and just play with 3 people simply communicating with EACH. OTHER. And I mean ACTUALLY communicate. If you're tactical, call for reroutes to phasers as you analyze the shield frequency on that cruiser, fire your 4 bursts to kill it, and announce, "kill reroutes." that's all it takes to kill a cruiser, but you toss a verbal captain into the mix and everything gets clunky.

Most of the people here who insist on disagreeing with me simply haven't aspent much time playing this wa, that's all. Play this way for only a couple of hours with the same people, and you'll say, "Oh, I see."

You think you're disagreeing with me because the captain really does serve a purpose within the confines of actual game mechanics, but if you really, really put your own ego aside for one second and give it real thought, you'll realize that your excuses are all in the realm of ROLEPLAY.

By the way, I love roleplay -- in games that really support it, that is. I was a top GM and content creator for Fantasy Grounds, so please don't think for a second I'm insulting the idea of roleplay. If you find this game adequatly supports that, then more power to you.

But I honestly need no poll to tell me that "roleplay" will not keep the population of this game afloat. It won't. It HAS to be a good GAME to survive, andas long as the captain is IN REALITY unneeded is and will continue to be a serious, serious flaw for most gamers. NOT roleplayers, mind you - GAMERS. Pretend it's not a problem all you want. It may be okay for you, but it is one primary problem that WILL sink this game. Mark my words, folks!!

Eyeoftheisland
07-04-2017, 04:16 AM
If you think the captain is in any way beneficial, then what you're really saying is that sometimes a "teacher" is needed, in which you can easily end up with a "teacher" who knows less about the game than the rest of the crew, and everyone ends up playing this game of, "let's make the guy playing captain happy."

If that's the only way you think the captain can be beneficial to a team then what you're really saying is you've never played with a good captain, or been a good captain with a team that didn't need a teacher.

Not all teams need the Captain to micromanage them and those teams (if they're smart), can absolutely still benefit from a 4th player while they are doing other things.

Ensign_Obvious
07-04-2017, 04:56 AM
Can you provide an example? Even a hypothetical one? Because all I've read in nearly all responses so far is a lot of irrational sound and fury signifying nothing. In fact, nearly every response to what I've had to say here in this thread appears to be little more than hurt feelings, seemingly because so many here love their own "idea" of what the captain is in this game.

I understand: the captain in this game is like the captain in the TV show, right? He's the "coordinator."

No, sorry. This is not the tv show. This us a game with content built to be mastered. Pretending it is the TV show and that the captain here should be no different than it is there is folly. Good lord, there really is some serious self-deluding going on in this thread, and the saddest thing is that none of you will even be close to the last to go. I give most of you two more weeks of intermittent play before you shelve it for good. What's left of you probably have less than 20 hours in the thing. Ugh, I'm wasting my time.

I'm done. Enjoy watching this game die in record time.

Eyeoftheisland
07-04-2017, 05:03 AM
In fact, nearly every response to what I've had to say here in this thread appears to be little more than hurt feelings, seemingly because so many here love their own "idea" of what the captain is in this game.


Someone can not stand disagreement. The game is doomed if everyone doesn't agree with you and only your ideas, right? And you talk about ego tripping? If you didn't want discussion then instead of posting a thread you might as well have posted your idea in the suggestion thread and been done with it. Good grief.

Ensign_Obvious
07-04-2017, 05:14 AM
Why don't you read the thread, bud? Someone (one person out of all) took this discussion seriously and gave it real thought, presented their own idea of what should be done about this problem, and I said I liked his ideas better than my own.

You don't think it's a problem? Lol, okay... stay out of this thread then. This thread assumes there IS a problem. I gave the issue a lot of thought, you know? If you read my OP carefully you'll know this wasn't some knee-jerk reaction on my part.

But, with the exception of ONE poster, half-conceived, knee-jerk reactions is all I've received for my time and effort. I didn't just post some stuff off the top of my head "just 'cause." I put together a well-formulated presentation meant to be considered seriously.

Read though this thread -- every reply, and really THINK.

Holy smokes...

Ensign_Obvious
07-04-2017, 05:18 AM
By the way, I'm still waiting for that example of how a 4th player can still be beneficial to a good crew? Even a hypothetical example? Go ahead and do tell, please!

Ensign_Obvious
07-04-2017, 05:22 AM
Actually, nevermind. Just go away -- you have zero to offer here, clearly.

Ocard_
07-04-2017, 05:01 PM
You should try playing with just 3 for awhile, and you'll see that most communication needed takes place between engineering and tactical. Helm only needs to speak up about signature issues.

I'm basically only playing with 4 crewmen, Captain included. I was more often than I'd liked forced to play with 3 incl. Cap because of connection errors. That's 3 weekend's now (Friday afternoon, Saturday afternoon, Sunday afternoon each) with my longest session being 11 hours in a row.
Most communication between helm, tactical and engineering were chit-chat with everyone relying on what the Captain said. Only with very unexperienced Captains and very Experienced Helm/Tactical that changed to one of them explaining things to the Captain and taking over to give orders.
I OFTEN asked tactical to tell me a few seconds in advance when they were going to fire phasers, so I could re-route power. They just didn't do most of the time. It's just too much to ask most of the time.
That's what the Captain does. Order everyone around. Same crew, I switch from engineering to Captain, and tell them what to do, they all do their jobs GREATLY and work together as a team. That's what the Captain does.

In addition: This is a social game. The role of the Captain is to socialize, to tell the crew they're doing good when they are, to keep calm when they aren't, to calm the crew when they might panic. I've seen Captains who tell "that's it, we're dead" at hull 20%, that is fun for me but in general, if it's not a joke, it's not what a Captain should say at any time. I like to tell my crew for example: "Helm, approach the klingon sensor at full speed. Engineering, 4 to engines, 5 to phasers. Tactical, scan as soon as possible. Three and a half minutes to next patrol. That's plenty of time."

That last sentence is the important one, because we're neither Vulcans nor Cylons. That's the mistake you make, you take us all for computers and that's completely against all what this game stands for.


https://youtu.be/-htVPOSBYfs


And now having said that, I could START talking about roleplay (and my years of experience with that), but that would be a wholely other topic.

Ocard_
07-04-2017, 05:16 PM
Someone (one person out of all) took this discussion seriously and gave it real thought

There you are wrong. Many guys are taking this serious and are giving it real thought. However YOU don't like every conclusion they come to. That's completely ok, I always say: I'll fight for your right to have your wrong opinion to my last breath. But that's exactly the point, while we both think we're right and the other one is not, I think that your wrong opinion is as valuable as my right one.
Maybe this example might help you:
Some guys think that everyone who likes Star Trek 11 to 13 are not real Trekkies and that the next generation doesn't deserve to have its own Captain Kirk. Remember? Not everyone who thinks the role of the Captain is good as it is meant to be by the developers is inferior.



You don't think it's a problem? Lol, okay... stay out of this thread then.

Just no. Lol. Okay? This is a public thread. Do you know why it's important to state disagreement? A change of the Captain's role as you suggest could easily decrease the fun of being Captain for us. And as a matter of fact, Captain is already liked not much because it's the most stressful role with the highest burden to carry. That's why players like me take that role with pleasure but still reluctantly. If my fun is decreased, the game might loose me. That I don't want to happen.


By the way, your childish tripple-post up there doesn't help your cause.

Ensign_Obvious
07-04-2017, 05:28 PM
Ocard, I've read your thread on what you've considered "Hilarious, Fun, and Great Moments."

Yeah... umm... Asperger's... cough...

Ocard_
07-04-2017, 06:26 PM
Yeah... umm... Asperger's... cough...

Ever watched "Rain Man"?

Ensign_Obvious
07-04-2017, 07:28 PM
Saw it on opening day with my high school sweetheart. Good movie!

Ocard_
07-04-2017, 07:46 PM
So you were quite young back then?

filmgeek47
07-05-2017, 06:46 AM
There you are wrong. Many guys are taking this serious and are giving it real thought. However YOU don't like every conclusion they come to. That's completely ok, I always say: I'll fight for your right to have your wrong opinion to my last breath. But that's exactly the point, while we both think we're right and the other one is not, I think that your wrong opinion is as valuable as my right one.
Maybe this example might help you:
Some guys think that everyone who likes Star Trek 11 to 13 are not real Trekkies and that the next generation doesn't deserve to have its own Captain Kirk. Remember? Not everyone who thinks the role of the Captain is good as it is meant to be by the developers is inferior.



Just no. Lol. Okay? This is a public thread. Do you know why it's important to state disagreement? A change of the Captain's role as you suggest could easily decrease the fun of being Captain for us. And as a matter of fact, Captain is already liked not much because it's the most stressful role with the highest burden to carry. That's why players like me take that role with pleasure but still reluctantly. If my fun is decreased, the game might loose me. That I don't want to happen.


By the way, your childish tripple-post up there doesn't help your cause.


I was gonna post my own response, but you said what I would have. @Obvious, I admire your passion for the game, and respect your opinion. Please respect mine. I did actually put thought into my response, and I stand by my idea. Bottom line, when you insult people's opinions, you ironically dissuade others from providing theirs.

pujahegdemudhi
07-05-2017, 07:00 AM
I agree with the spirit of what you're posting but not the details. I do think even in experienced crews, you need a great captain to achieve victory in a challenging situation (i.e. Kobyashi or mission 5). That said, captain definitely needs to be fleshed out to have more to do, because except in those very challenging situations, captain is the least necessary role, which just feels wrong.

I think the best short term fix is to give the captain information that other players don't have.

Only captain should see missions destinations highlighted. Love the idea of captain seeing system intrusion time. I think they should be the only one to see the cool down. Also think captain should get to see a time to shield regen cool down as well.

Where I disagree is actually taking "control" away from the other players. I think a tac officer should be able to target anything they want, and helm should be able to fly the ship to any destination. Otherwise I think it might start to feel like the captain MUST micromanage everything, which I think could actually hamstring combat in certain situations. That, and playing with an inexperienced captain would become excruciating.

The captain shouldn't be instrumental in basic ship functioning, but rather in strategy and in ensuring success in mission objectives.

Ensign_Obvious
07-05-2017, 04:37 PM
@filmgeek47

I apologize for being dismissive of your response. It is clear you did give it some real thought, and I appreciate it.

I guess I found it hard to take very seriously, though, when I read this:


I do think even in experienced crews, you need a great captain to achieve victory in a challenging situation (i.e. Kobyashi or mission 5).

It seems to me that your idea that giving the Captain "information that others can't see" being enough of a fix is predicated on this notion that in some other way the captain is "needed."

In fact it's a little ironic that you used the Kobayashi as an example, when there isn't a mission in the game that makes it so immediately clear to a good 3-man crew that a vocal captain is nothing better than impediment to efficient communication on the bridge. The only reason you could disagree with it is that you haven't experienced it.

Feel free to add me as a friend, and sometime I'll invite you to join myself, Ultimeh, and Canopy for an eye-opening excursion.

Fair warning, though: we tend to suck all sense of mystery out of the game, as we've basically playtested pretty much every questionable mechanic.

filmgeek47
07-05-2017, 05:24 PM
@filmgeek47

I apologize for being dismissive of your response. It is clear you did give it some real thought, and I appreciate it.

I guess I found it hard to take very seriously, though, when I read this:



It seems to me that your idea that giving the Captain "information that others can't see" being enough of a fix is predicated on this notion that in some other way the captain is "needed."

In fact it's a little ironic that you used the Kobayashi as an example, when there isn't a mission in the game that makes it so immediately clear to a good 3-man crew that a vocal captain is nothing better than impediment to efficient communication on the bridge. The only reason you could disagree with it is that you haven't experienced it.

Feel free to add me as a friend, and sometime I'll invite you to join myself, Ultimeh, and Canopy for an eye-opening excursion.

Fair warning, though: we tend to suck all sense of mystery out of the game, as we've basically playtested pretty much every questionable mechanic.

No worries. Looking back at that, I definitely overstated a little. I'd say that having a good captain makes it a great deal easier in those missions (more so in mission five, kobyashi is less about strategy than it is simply spinning in a circle and trying to wipe out enemies as fast as possible).

I would imagine that most players play like I do, in that they log on and simply play with whomever they're paired with, and therefore don't have a super tight nit group most of the time.

When I have played with a familiar group of experienced people, the captain is mostly relegated to role playing and coordinating targets, but I do think even in those challenging situations, a captain makes it easier because it gives one player the explicit role of picking targets etc. in these situations, I've found that people treat the captain's commands much like your suggestions would require (i.e. Only fire on the captains targets etc). The difference is, when this does happen, I think it's more satisfying, because it's the result of a trained and experienced crew, rather than what some of us see as a potentially onerous mechanic.

I guess my point is that, like most of the game's issues right now, this is less of a problem for the average player, and more of one for people who have played through every scenario many times, especially if you play with the same group again and again.

IMHO the issue is less of a problem with mechanics than it is a lack of difficult missions that actually involve tactics. If we had harder missions that required more crew coordination, the person in charge of that coordination would be more valuable. That's not to say that I wouldn't appreciate some more substance for the captain's role though.

Ensign_Obvious
07-05-2017, 05:49 PM
All good points. :)

Riley207
07-05-2017, 07:22 PM
First off, I want to thank ensign_obvious for starting a thread on this and submitting ideas and concerns for the captain role. I've been monitoring this thread and decided to drop in.

Second, ensign_Obvious, the way you are handling the feedback is very negative and not inspiring constructive feedback. I want to point out your first post is wanting to offer suggestions to a problem and defining your opinion as fact due to your research. Because you are arriving to facts from research, you are going to receive 2 types of responses, suggestions and feedback.

People are taking the time to respond to your suggestion with feedback. They are expressing a stance on your view. You shouldn't dismiss opposing feedback due to lack of suggestions bundled with feedback. Take it and use it as a gauge. If multiple people think something wouldn't flow right, it can be an indication not just noise. That's my suggestion of course. It's why Ubisoft has a thread that mixes suggestions and feedback, as not everyone has the ability to convert experiences into text but can express feelings easily. I'm confident everyone (excluding trolls) who takes the time to post is interested in improving the game.

Anyway, on to the issue at hand. The problem with the captain.


The captains role is to drive the crew. There are a couple of things assumed in a captain for any craft or crew.
#1. The captain should have an understanding of the different roles and stations of the ship.
#2. The captain should have an understanding of procedures for situations and be able to carry them out.

What we have is a video game that has no consequences for a teams actions and results. The missions are fragmented and isolated from each other, offering no continuity.

When a player starts the game for the first time and becomes captain, it truly is the game designs fault, not the player. If red storm would have restricted the captain chair until certain requirements have been met, the assumed captain requirements would be closer to being achieved.
A solution would be to prevent playing captain until the tutorial has been fully completed or all different roles have been played out 3 times each to unlock captain.

This would solve captain assumption #1

Assumption #2 is a problem in that there is no starfleet academy to train up on this. The ONLY WAY to discover procedure is trial and error during missions.

New captains need to be open for suggestions during the mission, not after. Kirk, Picard, and Janeway at one point or another asks for suggestions on the bridge and take the best idea. Look up cause and effect TNG.

#2 captain assumption is separating experienced players to average players and is the root problem for a captain to be holding the crew back.

There is no solution for the new player on this but experienced players can assist with #2 in a unique way. Instead of experienced players ignoring the captain, try following exactly what they want even if you know it's wrong. I have played this game for 146 hours now and I still love having new captains.

Which game event will you remember? The run that went perfect with no damage, or the run that you barely made it out alive with 6% hull.

I have a problem playing as captain because the missions run too smoothly. There is little fun to be had when nothing surprising happens.

The whole point of gaming is to have fun! And what better way than to have surprises and struggles from a crew that doesn't know the complete inner workings of the game! If you've played all the missions then failing with a new crew shouldn't be devastating but educational. As an experienced player, you should refrain from any suggestions unless asked, this is to keep from taking over the captains role.

If the captain forgets to raise shields, don't raise them as tactical. When the mission ends abruptly and the captain is told the shields were not engaged, I promise you he or she will remember the shields next time, improving on captain assumption #2

The captain is made useless on the maru for sure because it's a perfect example of the crew knowing the captains procedure and the mission never changes, nullifying the need for one. Luckily I give the captain the role of calling out torpedoes inbound for helm and assisting tactical in identifying the target raising shields slowly.

The problem isn't the captain, it's the lack of unknown. As pointed out in my suggestions and feedback post, the situation is predetermined by color coding in the sector when you arrive. Red bad, yellow scan, blue friend. No mystery, no variable on ship procedure. We need an operations officer to fragment the tactical role from doing active scanning and identifying ships instead of this color system. Separating information forces the crew to depend on one source for instruction and information funneling.

The captains role SHOULD NOT be altered as it is now, the bridge crew itself needs to be more fragmented with information to encourage communication to the captain. That and the captain should be able to ignore starfleet orders to create mission variability as the captain is suppose to exercise judgment with starfleet regulations as guidelines. Just like the enterprise in Star Trek 6.

I hope this all makes sense to whoever reads this. At the end of the day, the captains role doesn't need tuning, it's the information handling that needs adjustment with more fragmentation and mission variability to test new ship procedures.

Ocard_
07-06-2017, 03:47 AM
Very well said. You absolutely nailed it.