There's so many things wrong with this post it boggles my mind. I have not clue how to respond to this level of myopia. I'll just list the top three things you're wrong on.
1) People in general, don't know what the heck they're talking about, much less how MMO's 'work.' If they're right, its because of social programming, not by some mass insight.
2) Most proponents of PC Crews I've spoken with have a well detailed plan on how it could have been done, one that involves no finger crossing.
3) Who is talking about adding things in now?
The one thing you are right about, is that teamed instances are the best that they can do in regards to this at this point. It's one of the reasons that I can't get excited about the game, regardless of how good it may or may not be. This is just Star Trek Galaxies to me. Great game, a lot of people love it, but the central part of the mythos, in this case, the teamwork between a group of intelligent self-motivated crew members, is lost. It's just like having a Star Wars game without Jedi to me. Fun, maybe... a great game, why not? But its hard to enjoy your beloved IP without your favorite part of it.
Which is why I loved the idea of this thread. A chance to show how I would have done it, and have it examined by intelligent folk for ways to be improved. Somehow, though, this thread is still filled with single minded lobbyists who have already determined what the opposing argument is, so even when someone explains a plan and addresses concerns, you've already decided that all of the 'opposition' "doesn't know how these games work" and is just "crossing fingers" and continue with the same statements over and over as though your concerns are eternal.
You're blind, and it's really annoying for you to come on and say things without taking into account what's going on around you.
Why not just cop to the fact that what's annoying to you is that the typical tactic used by "RPers" and "sandboxers" of browbeating the opposing viewpoint until it goes away isn't working in this case. Just admit that what's bothering you is that the very few can't merrily go about their business of clouding the issues, stating utter fallacies as facts, and pretending their position isn't one that is held by only the tiniest fraction of this , or any other, MMO's potential market.
The "solutions" posted here, as have been posted at the STO forums in the past, are all either totally unrealistic or non-viable, or are solutions that would mean spending inordinate amounts of time and money to cater to a few hundred people (maybe), and of those most would only enjoy the feature for a couple of weeks before becoming extremely bored with it.
Not to mention that every single nuance of grouping and teamwork will be available in STO, both on the ground and in space, as it is being described by the devs right now, but this gets "conveniently" overlooked or ignored.
All the tongue wagging in the world won't change the facts.
This feature wouldn't be very popular at all as shown in SWG . - Fact
Thus this feature isn't desired by a substantial amount of it's potential market. - Fact
Thus this feature would be a total waste of development time and money. - Fact
Thus it's an unproductive discussion - Fact
The speculation is that these types of discussions are continuing simply because some have decided that either Cryptic will bow to them, or be subject to this very very small minority attempting to undermine the game simply because Cryptic didn't specifically cater to them. Which would just be plain pathetic and petty childishness.
Why should players who want to play solo, while playing an MMO, be as effective as a group of players playing an MMO as a group? That just makes no sense at all (to me in all honesty playing an MMO solo is pointless too, there are just sooo many better single player games if thats your thing).
Of course there should always be choice but any game not offering players who perfer group play the opportunity to do so is going to fail, especially with ST. If they try to compete with what WoW has done in this respect (a single player MMO) they are going to lose like so many of the other new releases.
Whats wrong with just having single player ships, dual ships, trios, all the way up to say a six man crew. They should be different ships, simple really and easier to balance. Giving the opportunity to single man say a constitution class ship (from the pov of a ST fan) is fkin blasphemous, not to mention unessasary.
Imo they are looking at this from the wrong standpoint, it seems like some leap of gameplay when in reality is isn't. Nearly every game out there has a cptn, medic, engineer, security etc they just call them diferent names and display them differently but gameplay wise (which is all that matters) they are the same. Tbh it really wounl't be that difficult to to actually make that gameplay for those classes a hell of a lot more enjoyable as there is currently little standard to hinder creativity.
Honestly it is ST I will buy no matter what but without proper balancing from single to multi-crewed ship it is highly unlikely it will keep any decent pop, especially seeing as they have put a lot of fans off from what they have said they are already not putting in.
----- The person who is certain, and who claims divine warrant for his certainty, belongs now to the infancy of our species.
Why should players who want to play solo, while playing an MMO, be as effective as a group of players playing an MMO as a group? That just makes no sense at all (to me in all honesty playing an MMO solo is pointless too, there are just sooo many better single player games if thats your thing). Of course there should always be choice but any game not offering players who perfer group play the opportunity to do so is going to fail, especially with ST. If they try to compete with what WoW has done in this respect (a single player MMO) they are going to lose like so many of the other new releases. Whats wrong with just having single player ships, dual ships, trios, all the way up to say a six man crew. They should be different ships, simple really and easier to balance. Giving the opportunity to single man say a constitution class ship (from the pov of a ST fan) is fkin blasphemous, not to mention unessasary. Imo they are looking at this from the wrong standpoint, it seems like some leap of gameplay when in reality is isn't. Nearly every game out there has a cptn, medic, engineer, security etc they just call them diferent names and display them differently but gameplay wise (which is all that matters) they are the same. Tbh it really wounl't be that difficult to to actually make that gameplay for those classes a hell of a lot more enjoyable as there is currently little standard to hinder creativity. Honestly it is ST I will buy no matter what but without proper balancing from single to multi-crewed ship it is highly unlikely it will keep any decent pop, especially seeing as they have put a lot of fans off from what they have said they are already not putting in.
The issue isn't solo vs group game play at all. Well except for some trying to twist it into being that. The game is going to have more than ample opportunities to group.
The issue is people trying to force one way of grouping on everyone else, and an extremely boring and game ruining way at that, while trying to pass it off as "an option" that could be offered in open world game play.
Originally posted by Hagonbok The issue isn't solo vs group game play at all. Well except for some trying to twist it into being that. The game is going to have more than ample opportunities to group.
The issue is people trying to force one way of grouping on everyone else, and an extremely boring and game ruining way at that, while trying to pass it off as "an option" that could be offered in open world game play.
The issue here is actually player crews!
You can try to make those who want them sound as dishonest as you, by claiming they are trying to "force" one way of grouping on others or say they are "trying to pass it off as "an option"" the fact is this thread is for people to talk about how they'd do player crews if it was up to them and just because almost everyone who wants it, is saying make it optional doesn't mean they are trying to force anything. Stop twisting peoples words because you disagree, also you've stated your opinion on this over 10 times so move on already.
Almost laughable that you try to say it doesn't mean they are trying to force anything, when you're one of the ones that wants to force it.
From your first post in this thread....
"First point that was important, is to make it optional but beneficial to have PC crews"
Ok, except everyone knows that if it's "beneficial" most players eventually feel it's required, thus they eventually feel FORCED into playing that way. You know that already though don't you?
By the way, haven't you posted more than once in this thread?
Almost laughable that you try to say it doesn't mean they are trying to force anything, when you're one of the ones that wants to force it. From your first post in this thread.... "First point that was important, is to make it optional but beneficial to have PC crews" Ok, except everyone knows that if it's "beneficial" most players eventually feel it's required, thus they eventually feel FORCED into playing that way. You know that already though don't you?
By the way, haven't you posted more than once in this thread?
Whats laughable is how weak all of your posts are. Your either very silly and/or deceptive. In case your silly, look up the definition of "forced", there is a big difference between encouraging and forcing!
If your deceptive I suppose saying people are encouraging others to group together in a hypothetical player crew situation isn't misleading enough of you is it.
Lastly yes I have posted more than once, what is your point? I suppose its because I told you to move on but the difference is I'm still not stating my same opinion like you did by calling it boring yet again which is why I asked you to move on.
Why not just cop to the fact that what's annoying to you is that the typical tactic used by "RPers" and "sandboxers" of browbeating the opposing viewpoint until it goes away isn't working in this case. Just admit that what's bothering you is that the very few can't merrily go about their business of clouding the issues, stating utter fallacies as facts, and pretending their position isn't one that is held by only the tiniest fraction of this , or any other, MMO's potential market.
The "solutions" posted here, as have been posted at the STO forums in the past, are all either totally unrealistic or non-viable, or are solutions that would mean spending inordinate amounts of time and money to cater to a few hundred people (maybe), and of those most would only enjoy the feature for a couple of weeks before becoming extremely bored with it.
Not to mention that every single nuance of grouping and teamwork will be available in STO, both on the ground and in space, as it is being described by the devs right now, but this gets "conveniently" overlooked or ignored.
All the tongue wagging in the world won't change the facts.
This feature wouldn't be very popular at all as shown in SWG . - Fact
Thus this feature isn't desired by a substantial amount of it's potential market. - Fact
Thus this feature would be a total waste of development time and money. - Fact
Thus it's an unproductive discussion - Fact
The speculation is that these types of discussions are continuing simply because some have decided that either Cryptic will bow to them, or be subject to this very very small minority attempting to undermine the game simply because Cryptic didn't specifically cater to them. Which would just be plain pathetic and petty childishness.
Here again, your "argument" has nothing to do with the issue, but simply contains Ad Hominem (at the person) the most famous of fallacies. You give no reason why the solutions are non-viable, no examples of brow beating. Your best statement is that it spends time and money.
"Every single nuance of grouping" precludes the fact that new nuances of grouping can be created, and would be created in a PC Crew situation. Nothing overlooked or ignored, simply stated, PC Crew folk aren't asking for grouping dynamics we've seen before. Including ones that we've seen before is irrelevent. Just because your statement is irrelevant doesn't mean it was overlooked or ignored.
So, as I address your unsubstantiated statements that are somehow not tongue wagging, but when I point out your ridiculousness in detail, then I'm tongue wagging, lets address the few words in your post that are supposedly facts as opposed to fallacious accusations in lieu of discussing issues.
Feature Popularity
The Fact is that SWG's ship crew system was not very popular. The assumptions involved are that PC Crews in a Star Trek game would be just as imbalanced and unfun. These are not things you can prove, but you believe them to be true, and so you think that you have a fact, even though you do not.
Desirability by Target Audience
The fact is that this feature isn't desired by a substantial amount of board posters. You're assuming, even though you can't prove this, that these observational ratios carry on over to the target market at large. Again, a fact plus an assumption is not a fact, it's an assumption.
Total Waste of Development Money
I assume this "fact" is based on the "facts" above. If so, its obviously not a fact at all.
An Unproductive Discussion
Did you learn the difference between "facts" and "opinions" in high school or not? The value of a discussion is completely subjective.
If you have actual references for your facts. If you can point out what issues I'm 'clouding' and why your take on the issues is more relevant than mine, if you can point out my fallacies and name them, if you have some reference about how tiny the fraction of the target audience is that would enjoy a new form of grouping dynamic, then fine. As is, there's not even enough actual argument in your post for me to make counterpoints. All you have is accusations about those who like PC Crews and what they don't understand or how they are brow beating you, and then some assumptions that you believe in strongly enough to call facts. You feel so strongly that its an unproductive discussion, yet you join it, hypocritically proving that you are obviously getting something out of these "pointless" discussions. Your post is ridiculous.
The only thing that you've stated so far that's worth anything is that STO cannot have a game-wide PC Crew system, because it's already been worked up as a traditional MMO as far as grouping and guilds are concerned. We agree on that. The fact that a PC Crew game can be done if designed that way is... well... I've given a plan of action for one, if you see something wrong with it, point it out. If not, maybe you need to check your "facts."
Almost laughable that you try to say it doesn't mean they are trying to force anything, when you're one of the ones that wants to force it. From your first post in this thread.... "First point that was important, is to make it optional but beneficial to have PC crews" Ok, except everyone knows that if it's "beneficial" most players eventually feel it's required, thus they eventually feel FORCED into playing that way. You know that already though don't you?
By the way, haven't you posted more than once in this thread?
PC Crews is just a new form of grouping. It should be balanced like grouping in any other MMO. A multi-person group should be more effective, but is automatically more risky, than soloing the game. Just like with ANY. Other. MMO.
If you consider that force, fine, but I know plenty people who solo in games where it is beneficial to group, because while beneficial, grouping comes with the risks of working with people.
In addition, I don't know anyone who is against ship grouping in a PC Crew scenario. What exactly are you saying is forced, again?
Here again, your "argument" has nothing to do with the issue, but simply contains Ad Hominem (at the person) the most famous of fallacies. You give no reason why the solutions are non-viable, no examples of brow beating. Your best statement is that it spends time and money.
Without getting into a silly dissection of your fallacies, your post simply oozes the typical rhetoric we always seem to see from your ilk. It comes from a position of "Let's cross our fingers and give it a whirl even though every single piece of evidence points toward it not being viable".
It also stems from the same old "I want it, and since I'm so smart and wonderful, enough others must as well." mind set.
It's been done, and it wasn't popular. At all. In fact it was considered unpopular, with only a very very few using the feature. Not to mention that for the last few years the most definable and concrete trend in this genre has been that players of MMOs want to choose when and how they group with others instead of it being shoved down their throats.
There is also no way to implement these multiplayer ships without them having an intrinsic advantage over the single player ships. Meaning most fleets will strive to be stacked with these ships, and since fleets will be the primary movers in the game, as guilds are in any game, most players will be forced onto them. Players that are even slightly competitive anyway.
I know the pie in the sky thinkers believe that because this is a Star Trek mmo that things will be different, but they won't be, and this is more and more being shown in how the make up of the fans following the game is changing as more and more people become aware of it. As it has almost always been in every MMO that's been announced in the last 7 to 8 years, the initial fan population is heavily slanted toward the RP / immersionist/ cannon side of things, but as the game draws closer to release the population steadily shifts, and the game ends up primarily populated by mmo enthusiasts that don't give that much of a hoot about those things. That this is a Star Trek related game isn't going to change that, and these people will be playing with all the same motivations, and desires for stimulating and exciting game play, as they do in any other MMO. They will be competitive, and a large portion will be very interested in PvP. Especially when so much of the game is revolving around a faction vs faction conflict that involves both "competitive PvE" and PvP.
The game will also have the same proportion of RP enthusiasts as other mmos, which is a small proportion. Considering that that demographic is the one this feature would mostly cater to, it's yet further evidence of it being an extremely "niche oriented " feature.
The other aspect of the whole issue is the apparent belief held by some that Cryptic has been making these calls using the "throw the dart at the list while wearing a blindfold" method of decision making.
I guess it's your, and other's, right to be that naive and think they haven't done their market research and homework, but frankly I'm not naive enough to think that when there's tens of millions of dollars on the line that they haven't assured themselves that they aren't alienating too big a chunk of their market.
If they rely on "noise" on random forums like this one to influence their decision making, then this game is in more trouble than even you Negative Neds can imagine.
Ensign Ricky Logs in. Ensign Ricky dosnt have a player crew because everyone is a captain and has some magical crew. Ensign Ricky can not walk around his ship. Ensign Ricky can not decorate his ship to his personal touch because there are no interiors. Ensign Ricky realizes he is paying 14.95 a month for a space shooter. Ensign Ricky hits /cancel
Here's what the game is like when folks like you get your way...
Ensign Ricky Logs in
Ensign Ricky can't play because the captain and first officer is over at Quark's gambling
Ensign Ricky is tired of listening to the Lt. at OPS talking about his personal life. He'd REALLY prefer exploring the Galaxy.
Ensign Ricky can't do anything but sit on the bridge, listen to a LT's social life and admire the scenery
Ensign Ricky realizes he is paying 14.95 for a space sim
Ensign Ricky hits/cancel
Here's what the game looks like when people give up myopic thinking and propaganda:
Ensign Ricky Logs in
Ensign Ricky flies around in his runabout with his 2 NPC Cadets to his hearts content, taking missions, exploring the galaxy and levelling up.
Ensign Ricky meets Cpt. Bill at Deep Space 8.
Ensign Ricky and Cpt. Bill form a crew and Ricky leaves his Runabout at DS8. Ensign Ricky is a Tactical Class so he takes the tactical station.
Ensign Ricky and Cpt. Bill go blow some stuff up that Ricky has never seen before.
Cpt. Bill goes linkdead. Ensign Ricky is on a ship that he can't do anything on.
Ensign Ricky realizes that he's paying $15 for an MMO that's both fun and not EQ in space.
Ensign Ricky can't shut his mouth about how awesome and different the game is and recruits five people.
It's really very simple. PC Crews = teaming, not a replacement for solo play.
My hope is that later on they allow guilds to build starbases and ships which are manned by players. Completely optional. Those that like dealing with other people can do so and those like me who doesn't have the time for egos can enjoy the game. Problem solved.
I believe this was missed in the middle of the petty bickering. What if the really huge ships are only mannable by player crews of 5 or 6? That way guys like me can enjoy the game in his smaller but better maneuvering ships and fans of grouping can flock to the less maneuvarable by insanely powerful ships? Makes sense to me. A Sovereign Class ship is top of the line and that would be one of the few player crewed ships. Smaller ships don't need as heavy a crew compliment.
I personally like the optional PC crew: Have as much of a PC crew as possible, fill with NPCs as needed. I'm another casual player. I may have only a limited time to play or can only play at an odd hour. If grouping was mandatory, I wouldn't even bother picking up the game.
I also think the 5 people in 1 ship vs 1 person in 5 ships is a bogus comparison. 5 ships = 5 times the firepower. You'd have to have a really awesome PC gunner and really craptastic NPC gunners for that to be an even match.
Originally posted by Hype
What confuses me is the idea that having PC Crews goes against soloing the game. We're talking about a teaming mechanic, not a mandatory way to play the game. I think you should be able team up, if you choose at level 1, and that you should have the option to be on someone's ship as you do it. It has nothing to do with requiring players to be on a teamship, and I think, even for raids, that its a bad idea, a really bad gate for content. If soloers can't play teamship content and teamships can't play soloer content it makes both, especially teamships, less attractive. A less intrusive mechanic would be to allow players to team by joining another player's ship, as opposed to having only the option to fly their ships in a squadron. Again, there's this perception that having PC Crews means having a group will be required and that solo will not be an option, but not only is it a bad assumption, I really don't understand where it comes from.
I've been out of the country for a while, and can't recall - has there been any mention of leveling or skill points from the devs?
I really think skill points would need to be involved with PC crews. You could earn more science skill points by serving as a science officer, more helm points by serving as helmsman, etc. Maybe some sort of dual system with a general experience track and bonus points that are skillset-specific.
Perhaps even have a choice when rolling a new character to start out solo or serve on a crew. Going solo would give you your own ship right away and a certain set of skills (maybe more trade/helm/tactical focus) and serving as part of a crew would delay you getting your own ship, but you earn command/science/engineering points faster and when you do get your own ship, you start off with a larger/better ship than you would have if you automatically went solo. note: I put command as a crew skill because you would theoretically be observing and learning from your captain; if you went solo, you wouldn't have a mentor or a crew to manage.
If you were soloing, you could still group, either by joining a fleet or by "parking" your ship in the shuttlebay or at a starbase. If you were crewing, you could "resign" or take a leave of absence and get a ship that matched your current experience and skill level.
------------- The less you expect, the more you'll be surprised. Hopefully, pleasantly so.
I personally like the optional PC crew: Have as much of a PC crew as possible, fill with NPCs as needed. I'm another casual player. I may have only a limited time to play or can only play at an odd hour. If grouping was mandatory, I wouldn't even bother picking up the game. I also think the 5 people in 1 ship vs 1 person in 5 ships is a bogus comparison. 5 ships = 5 times the firepower. You'd have to have a really awesome PC gunner and really craptastic NPC gunners for that to be an even match.
You're against mandatory grouping but advocating a feature that would not only mandate grouping, but only one way of grouping in the end?
The issue isn't with "gunners". This isn't SWG 2, even though with every new sci fi mmo that gets announced we all have to live through the original SWG whiners raising their apparently drug addled heads and wanting that.
The issue is the weapons/tactical officer (you know, since this is Star Trek) being able to concentrate only on that one system competing (both in PvE and PvP) against players that would be trying to manage all the systems for their ships.
Try this on for size. Imagine you had four brains instead of one running your body. One handled the legs, one handled the arms, one for the hands and another to coordinate all those other functions.
Now you get in a fight with a normal guy who coordinates everything with one central brain.
There's no advantage in a multiplayer ship in combat of any kind unless the ship is designed to be much tougher than singleplayer ships. I'm definitely not advocating that either. I'm just advocating multiplayer ships as an option.
Now a crew that's had some practice together can be competant but it's never going to be as competant as the vessel with one player in charge. Why in most sci-fi are pilots with neural links seen as inherently superior to crewed ships? Because control, the ship as extention of one person's will, is always more effective when it's possible.
The singleplayer interface will have to be user friendly and integrate all gameplay elements in one spot. The multiplayer interface, by its nature, has to divide up different aspects so each player has something slightly different to do.
Here again, your "argument" has nothing to do with the issue, but simply contains Ad Hominem (at the person) the most famous of fallacies. You give no reason why the solutions are non-viable, no examples of brow beating. Your best statement is that it spends time and money.
Without getting into a silly dissection of your fallacies, your post simply oozes the typical rhetoric we always seem to see from your ilk. It comes from a position of "Let's cross our fingers and give it a whirl even though every single piece of evidence points toward it not being viable"........
The term "evidence" typicaly implies the use of actual data. I believe the term you may be looking for is "hyperbole" or perhaps "unsubstantiated conjecture". Thanks!
Try this on for size. Imagine you had four brains instead of one running your body. One handled the legs, one handled the arms, one for the hands and another to coordinate all those other functions. Now you get in a fight with a normal guy who coordinates everything with one central brain. Who really has the advantage here? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Legs: I'm running up to him! I'm gonna do it! Main Brain: Stay where you are! Can't you listen to directions? Arms: Should I get ready to block his punch or try and grab his arms? I've never done this...ouch! Main Brain: Shake it off and get ready to swing back! Fists, hey fists....where'd Hands go? Legs: I'm running away! I'm gonna do it! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- There's no advantage in a multiplayer ship in combat of any kind unless the ship is designed to be much tougher than singleplayer ships. I'm definitely not advocating that either. I'm just advocating multiplayer ships as an option. Now a crew that's had some practice together can be competant but it's never going to be as competant as the vessel with one player in charge. Why in most sci-fi are pilots with neural links seen as inherently superior to crewed ships? Because control, the ship as extention of one person's will, is always more effective when it's possible. The singleplayer interface will have to be user friendly and integrate all gameplay elements in one spot. The multiplayer interface, by its nature, has to divide up different aspects so each player has something slightly different to do.
It's always interesting how people can twist reality to suit an argument.
The truth is, in the multi player crewed ships scenario the systems (players) and how they interface and interconnect would have to be designed in such a way as to make those things efficient. Otherwise it would be pointless for them to do it in the first place.
It would simply be a given that multiple players each only having to concentrate on one system would be very very much more effecient and effective than a single player having to concentrate on multiple systems. That people are trying to deny that is almost unbelievable. I say almost, since these people have shown an incredible aptitude to deny the realities and continue to deal in fallacies.
Here again, your "argument" has nothing to do with the issue, but simply contains Ad Hominem (at the person) the most famous of fallacies. You give no reason why the solutions are non-viable, no examples of brow beating. Your best statement is that it spends time and money.
Without getting into a silly dissection of your fallacies, your post simply oozes the typical rhetoric we always seem to see from your ilk. It comes from a position of "Let's cross our fingers and give it a whirl even though every single piece of evidence points toward it not being viable"........
The term "evidence" typicaly implies the use of actual data. I believe the term you may be looking for is "hyperbole" or perhaps "unsubstantiated conjecture". Thanks!
Except for all the games over the years that are there for anyone to play or examine to see the "evidence". I'm sure you really wish everyone reading lived in a bubble and this is the first MMO they'll play, but that simply isn't the way it is. Sorry.
Have you ever crewed in or captained a multiplayer ship? Because I'm here to tell you I have (again). It's not easy. It takes folks who will show up and learn their positions and there's only disadvantage to it in any competitive comparison with a like number of players in single player ships.
And that's fine.
The only reason to want to fly multiplayer ships, even if you're nerfing yourself, is because it's fun. That's how it's been in HSPACE and in Star Wars Galaxies.
I seriously doubt they're going to make singleplayer controls for starships soooooooo complex a player can't handle it. This mode of play is Cryptic's default setting. Ergo, you get no advantage at all from having more people around. In fact, you have to introduce arbitrary complexities to give them each a sense of doing something specific and meaningful.
Here again, your "argument" has nothing to do with the issue, but simply contains Ad Hominem (at the person) the most famous of fallacies. You give no reason why the solutions are non-viable, no examples of brow beating. Your best statement is that it spends time and money.
Without getting into a silly dissection of your fallacies, your post simply oozes the typical rhetoric we always seem to see from your ilk. It comes from a position of "Let's cross our fingers and give it a whirl even though every single piece of evidence points toward it not being viable"........
The term "evidence" typicaly implies the use of actual data. I believe the term you may be looking for is "hyperbole" or perhaps "unsubstantiated conjecture". Thanks!
Except for all the games over the years that are there for anyone to play or examine to see the "evidence". I'm sure you really wish everyone reading lived in a bubble and this is the first MMO they'll play, but that simply isn't the way it is. Sorry.
Why dont you just come out and say it: What you really want is WoW in space.
Do we really need another MMO that plays just like every other MMO from the past 4 years. People are trying to help this game, make it something different. If it comes out the way you are desctibing, it will be dead in a year.
Once again, we end up in the same place Hagon. Have you ever crewed in or captained a multiplayer ship? Because I'm here to tell you I have (again). It's not easy. It takes folks who will show up and learn their positions and there's only disadvantage to it in any competitive comparison with a like number of players in single player ships. And that's fine. The only reason to want to fly multiplayer ships, even if you're nerfing yourself, is because it's fun. That's how it's been in HSPACE and in Star Wars Galaxies. I seriously doubt they're going to make singleplayer controls for starships soooooooo complex a player can't handle it. This mode of play is Cryptic's default setting. Ergo, you get no advantage at all from having more people around. In fact, you have to introduce arbitrary complexities to give them each a sense of doing something specific and meaningful.
Yes we end up back at the same place. That place being where most players in fact don't find it fun. Most certainly most (by a overwhelming margin) never did in SWG. In fact by far, most players avoided them like the plague. As for using text based simulations in the conversation as an example of some kind of popularity, that you would even think it's in any way relevant is just so laughable I feel sorry for you and won't comment.
No one said anything about them making single player controls overly complex. They don't need to be. The fact will remain it will be much much easier to concentrate on one station as opposed to five or six.
Here again, your "argument" has nothing to do with the issue, but simply contains Ad Hominem (at the person) the most famous of fallacies. You give no reason why the solutions are non-viable, no examples of brow beating. Your best statement is that it spends time and money.
Without getting into a silly dissection of your fallacies, your post simply oozes the typical rhetoric we always seem to see from your ilk. It comes from a position of "Let's cross our fingers and give it a whirl even though every single piece of evidence points toward it not being viable"........
The term "evidence" typicaly implies the use of actual data. I believe the term you may be looking for is "hyperbole" or perhaps "unsubstantiated conjecture". Thanks!
Except for all the games over the years that are there for anyone to play or examine to see the "evidence". I'm sure you really wish everyone reading lived in a bubble and this is the first MMO they'll play, but that simply isn't the way it is. Sorry.
Why dont you just come out and say it: What you really want is WoW in space.
Do we really need another MMO that plays just like every other MMO from the past 4 years. People are trying to help this game, make it something different. If it comes out the way you are desctibing, it will be dead in a year.
Not wanting to be forced into being subservient to some ego maniacal 12 year old that just happens to have played the game longer means I want to have WoW in space?
Anyone with any sense knows that if they catered to this group of people that want to limit the game into being the most boring mmo on the market the game probable would be pulled in a month. I can't imagine more of a snorefest than what some people that have been posting here want.
You people aren't trying to "help" the game. Most are calling for it to be shaped to cater to one specific play style, and a very small niche one at that. That isn't helping the game. It's selfishly trying to hamper it.
I passed five or six PoBs floating around stations last night, here or there, on Starsider. Gunships mostly but some smaller freighters as well. Walking through Mos Eisley I heard captains calling out for new crews.
Your last amazing claim was that SOE never did anything with PoBs because they were so unpopular. Just a year and a half ago they introduced three new models of PoBs.
Dude, seriously, know when to quit. Or, alternatively, stop listening to what your buddies that aren't playing have to say and get in the game and see for yourself.
PoBs aren't wildly popular because space itself isn't wildly popular (as there's nothing to do out there but for PvP or goofing around - and PoBs aren't great at PvP for reasons we've already discussed) and, for that matter, SWG itself isn't wildly popular. But among people who do love them, PvE or PvP, they're adored. Decorated, cherished, crewed, bragged about, shown off, and some even become a little famous as well.
Not wanting to be forced into being subservient to some ego maniacal 12 year old that just happens to have played the game longer means I want to have WoW in space?
Anyone with any sense knows that if they catered to this group of people that want to limit the game into being the most boring mmo on the market the game probable would be pulled in a month. I can't imagine more of a snorefest than what some people that have been posting here want.
You people aren't trying to "help" the game. Most are calling for it to be shaped to cater to one specific play style, and a very small niche one at that. That isn't helping the game. It's selfishly trying to hamper it.
Woah, there cowpoke! Now I see what the problem is. The Mighty Hagonbok is too good to server under some 12-year-old egomaniac! That would be one egomaniac too many on a ship.
Guess what, pardner, me too.
Nobody is saying multiplayer ships should be the only ships out there. My position is that singleplayer does come first. NPC crews come first. And multiplayer ships are an option but an important one for people who are looking for a real Star Trek experience.
As I've been saying all along, even multiplayer ship crews will be spending most of their time in singleplayer vessels doing stuff while the "regular cast" is away.
I passed five or six PoBs floating around stations last night, here or there, on Starsider. Gunships mostly but some smaller freighters as well. Walking through Mos Eisley I heard captains calling out for new crews. Your last amazing claim was that SOE never did anything with PoBs because they were so unpopular. Just a year and a half ago they introduced three new models of PoBs. Dude, seriously, know when to quit. Or, alternatively, stop listening to what your buddies that aren't playing have to say and get in the game and see for yourself. PoBs aren't wildly popular because space itself isn't wildly popular (as there's nothing to do out there but for PvP or goofing around - and PoBs aren't great at PvP for reasons we've already discussed) and, for that matter, SWG itself isn't wildly popular. But among people who do love them, PvE or PvP, they're adored. Decorated, cherished, crewed, bragged about, shown off, and some even become a little famous as well. Welcome to reality. Enjoy your stay.
You can live in that "reality" where a hundred or so people using a feature is evidence that it's "wildly popular" (ROTFLMAO) if you like. I have a "realirty" where pigs fly and Orks dance the boogaloo that would evidently be right up your alley.
That's not the "reality" for normal people though. Sorry.
Thanks for trying to play, but you just aren't cutting it.
Here again, your "argument" has nothing to do with the issue, but simply contains Ad Hominem (at the person) the most famous of fallacies. You give no reason why the solutions are non-viable, no examples of brow beating. Your best statement is that it spends time and money.
Without getting into a silly dissection of your fallacies, your post simply oozes the typical rhetoric we always seem to see from your ilk. It comes from a position of "Let's cross our fingers and give it a whirl even though every single piece of evidence points toward it not being viable".
It also stems from the same old "I want it, and since I'm so smart and wonderful, enough others must as well." mind set.
It's been done, and it wasn't popular. At all. In fact it was considered unpopular, with only a very very few using the feature. Not to mention that for the last few years the most definable and concrete trend in this genre has been that players of MMOs want to choose when and how they group with others instead of it being shoved down their throats.
There is also no way to implement these multiplayer ships without them having an intrinsic advantage over the single player ships. Meaning most fleets will strive to be stacked with these ships, and since fleets will be the primary movers in the game, as guilds are in any game, most players will be forced onto them. Players that are even slightly competitive anyway.
I know the pie in the sky thinkers believe that because this is a Star Trek mmo that things will be different, but they won't be, and this is more and more being shown in how the make up of the fans following the game is changing as more and more people become aware of it. As it has almost always been in every MMO that's been announced in the last 7 to 8 years, the initial fan population is heavily slanted toward the RP / immersionist/ cannon side of things, but as the game draws closer to release the population steadily shifts, and the game ends up primarily populated by mmo enthusiasts that don't give that much of a hoot about those things. That this is a Star Trek related game isn't going to change that, and these people will be playing with all the same motivations, and desires for stimulating and exciting game play, as they do in any other MMO. They will be competitive, and a large portion will be very interested in PvP. Especially when so much of the game is revolving around a faction vs faction conflict that involves both "competitive PvE" and PvP.
The game will also have the same proportion of RP enthusiasts as other mmos, which is a small proportion. Considering that that demographic is the one this feature would mostly cater to, it's yet further evidence of it being an extremely "niche oriented " feature.
The other aspect of the whole issue is the apparent belief held by some that Cryptic has been making these calls using the "throw the dart at the list while wearing a blindfold" method of decision making.
I guess it's your, and other's, right to be that naive and think they haven't done their market research and homework, but frankly I'm not naive enough to think that when there's tens of millions of dollars on the line that they haven't assured themselves that they aren't alienating too big a chunk of their market.
If they rely on "noise" on random forums like this one to influence their decision making, then this game is in more trouble than even you Negative Neds can imagine.
Wow. Again, no actual addressing of issues. Your argument relies on you "knowing" what other people want and think and are "really saying." I'm actually amazed at this point. You call me fallacious and then go back into a litany of Ad Hominiem attacks.
...typical rhetoric we always seem to see from your ilk.
It comes from a position of "Let's cross our fingers..."
"I want it, and since I'm so smart and wonderful, enough others must as well." mind set.
pie in the sky thinkers believe...
The other aspect of the whole issue is the apparent belief held by some
I guess it's your, and other's, right to be that naive
you Negative Neds...
Hagonbok - That. Is. Not. An. Argument. It's just fallacy.
You are so caught up in this misguided assumption of what it is that I want or believe or don't understand, that you end up addressing a bunch of issues that I already understand. Yes, we all know there are more Achievers/Explorers than Socializers/RPers. Yes, we all know that Cryptic made a smart business move by ostracising the latter rather than the former, yes we know that everything has to be balanced, just like in other games. Yes we know that it was not popular in SWG.
Do you know why it wasn't popular? Was it because the idea of sharing a ship with someone is just so repulsive? That's silly abstract thinking. It wasn't popular because it wasn't fun, and wasn't balanced. Why not? Because sharing a ship with another avatar is automatically a fun and balance killer? More likely because not enough time was spent refining it both on the drawing board and implimentation. That's the nature of game design... design is what kills, not concept. That's one thing that I wonder if some anti-PC Crewers understand. Notice how I'm not silly enough to assume I know what you think.
Here's the core of your 'argument' to use the word liberally:
"There is also no way to implement these multiplayer ships without them having an intrinsic advantage over the single player ships."
When in fact, there are two ways:
1) Balance multiplayer ships against groups of single player ships by tweaking the value of ship equipment and NPC crew in the equation. The groups of single player ships will have more bonus from their NPC crew, as well as more phasers to shoot, and more targets.
2) Cap engagements for large groups by number of players, instead of by number of ships. This way, guilds will not have any intrinsic reason to choose a single 5 player ship over 5 single player ships outside of their effectiveness, which is balanced in option 1.
Intrnsic. Advantage. Gone.
Overall what I'm talking about is catering to both types of players, as opposed to ostracising one because it's cheaper. I think that overall, the game goes further with dedicated immersionists cementing the community which is driven by motivated acheiver/explorers. Going for the quick money is okay. Taking the best of both worlds is inherently superior.
Comments
There's so many things wrong with this post it boggles my mind. I have not clue how to respond to this level of myopia. I'll just list the top three things you're wrong on.
1) People in general, don't know what the heck they're talking about, much less how MMO's 'work.' If they're right, its because of social programming, not by some mass insight.
2) Most proponents of PC Crews I've spoken with have a well detailed plan on how it could have been done, one that involves no finger crossing.
3) Who is talking about adding things in now?
The one thing you are right about, is that teamed instances are the best that they can do in regards to this at this point. It's one of the reasons that I can't get excited about the game, regardless of how good it may or may not be. This is just Star Trek Galaxies to me. Great game, a lot of people love it, but the central part of the mythos, in this case, the teamwork between a group of intelligent self-motivated crew members, is lost. It's just like having a Star Wars game without Jedi to me. Fun, maybe... a great game, why not? But its hard to enjoy your beloved IP without your favorite part of it.
Which is why I loved the idea of this thread. A chance to show how I would have done it, and have it examined by intelligent folk for ways to be improved. Somehow, though, this thread is still filled with single minded lobbyists who have already determined what the opposing argument is, so even when someone explains a plan and addresses concerns, you've already decided that all of the 'opposition' "doesn't know how these games work" and is just "crossing fingers" and continue with the same statements over and over as though your concerns are eternal.
You're blind, and it's really annoying for you to come on and say things without taking into account what's going on around you.
Why not just cop to the fact that what's annoying to you is that the typical tactic used by "RPers" and "sandboxers" of browbeating the opposing viewpoint until it goes away isn't working in this case. Just admit that what's bothering you is that the very few can't merrily go about their business of clouding the issues, stating utter fallacies as facts, and pretending their position isn't one that is held by only the tiniest fraction of this , or any other, MMO's potential market.
The "solutions" posted here, as have been posted at the STO forums in the past, are all either totally unrealistic or non-viable, or are solutions that would mean spending inordinate amounts of time and money to cater to a few hundred people (maybe), and of those most would only enjoy the feature for a couple of weeks before becoming extremely bored with it.
Not to mention that every single nuance of grouping and teamwork will be available in STO, both on the ground and in space, as it is being described by the devs right now, but this gets "conveniently" overlooked or ignored.
All the tongue wagging in the world won't change the facts.
This feature wouldn't be very popular at all as shown in SWG . - Fact
Thus this feature isn't desired by a substantial amount of it's potential market. - Fact
Thus this feature would be a total waste of development time and money. - Fact
Thus it's an unproductive discussion - Fact
The speculation is that these types of discussions are continuing simply because some have decided that either Cryptic will bow to them, or be subject to this very very small minority attempting to undermine the game simply because Cryptic didn't specifically cater to them. Which would just be plain pathetic and petty childishness.
Why should players who want to play solo, while playing an MMO, be as effective as a group of players playing an MMO as a group? That just makes no sense at all (to me in all honesty playing an MMO solo is pointless too, there are just sooo many better single player games if thats your thing).
Of course there should always be choice but any game not offering players who perfer group play the opportunity to do so is going to fail, especially with ST. If they try to compete with what WoW has done in this respect (a single player MMO) they are going to lose like so many of the other new releases.
Whats wrong with just having single player ships, dual ships, trios, all the way up to say a six man crew. They should be different ships, simple really and easier to balance. Giving the opportunity to single man say a constitution class ship (from the pov of a ST fan) is fkin blasphemous, not to mention unessasary.
Imo they are looking at this from the wrong standpoint, it seems like some leap of gameplay when in reality is isn't. Nearly every game out there has a cptn, medic, engineer, security etc they just call them diferent names and display them differently but gameplay wise (which is all that matters) they are the same. Tbh it really wounl't be that difficult to to actually make that gameplay for those classes a hell of a lot more enjoyable as there is currently little standard to hinder creativity.
Honestly it is ST I will buy no matter what but without proper balancing from single to multi-crewed ship it is highly unlikely it will keep any decent pop, especially seeing as they have put a lot of fans off from what they have said they are already not putting in.
-----
The person who is certain, and who claims divine warrant for his certainty, belongs now to the infancy of our species.
The issue isn't solo vs group game play at all. Well except for some trying to twist it into being that. The game is going to have more than ample opportunities to group.
The issue is people trying to force one way of grouping on everyone else, and an extremely boring and game ruining way at that, while trying to pass it off as "an option" that could be offered in open world game play.
The issue here is actually player crews!
You can try to make those who want them sound as dishonest as you, by claiming they are trying to "force" one way of grouping on others or say they are "trying to pass it off as "an option"" the fact is this thread is for people to talk about how they'd do player crews if it was up to them and just because almost everyone who wants it, is saying make it optional doesn't mean they are trying to force anything. Stop twisting peoples words because you disagree, also you've stated your opinion on this over 10 times so move on already.
Almost laughable that you try to say it doesn't mean they are trying to force anything, when you're one of the ones that wants to force it.
From your first post in this thread....
"First point that was important, is to make it optional but beneficial to have PC crews"
Ok, except everyone knows that if it's "beneficial" most players eventually feel it's required, thus they eventually feel FORCED into playing that way. You know that already though don't you?
By the way, haven't you posted more than once in this thread?
Whats laughable is how weak all of your posts are. Your either very silly and/or deceptive. In case your silly, look up the definition of "forced", there is a big difference between encouraging and forcing!
If your deceptive I suppose saying people are encouraging others to group together in a hypothetical player crew situation isn't misleading enough of you is it.
Lastly yes I have posted more than once, what is your point? I suppose its because I told you to move on but the difference is I'm still not stating my same opinion like you did by calling it boring yet again which is why I asked you to move on.
Why not just cop to the fact that what's annoying to you is that the typical tactic used by "RPers" and "sandboxers" of browbeating the opposing viewpoint until it goes away isn't working in this case. Just admit that what's bothering you is that the very few can't merrily go about their business of clouding the issues, stating utter fallacies as facts, and pretending their position isn't one that is held by only the tiniest fraction of this , or any other, MMO's potential market.
The "solutions" posted here, as have been posted at the STO forums in the past, are all either totally unrealistic or non-viable, or are solutions that would mean spending inordinate amounts of time and money to cater to a few hundred people (maybe), and of those most would only enjoy the feature for a couple of weeks before becoming extremely bored with it.
Not to mention that every single nuance of grouping and teamwork will be available in STO, both on the ground and in space, as it is being described by the devs right now, but this gets "conveniently" overlooked or ignored.
All the tongue wagging in the world won't change the facts.
This feature wouldn't be very popular at all as shown in SWG . - Fact
Thus this feature isn't desired by a substantial amount of it's potential market. - Fact
Thus this feature would be a total waste of development time and money. - Fact
Thus it's an unproductive discussion - Fact
The speculation is that these types of discussions are continuing simply because some have decided that either Cryptic will bow to them, or be subject to this very very small minority attempting to undermine the game simply because Cryptic didn't specifically cater to them. Which would just be plain pathetic and petty childishness.
Here again, your "argument" has nothing to do with the issue, but simply contains Ad Hominem (at the person) the most famous of fallacies. You give no reason why the solutions are non-viable, no examples of brow beating. Your best statement is that it spends time and money.
"Every single nuance of grouping" precludes the fact that new nuances of grouping can be created, and would be created in a PC Crew situation. Nothing overlooked or ignored, simply stated, PC Crew folk aren't asking for grouping dynamics we've seen before. Including ones that we've seen before is irrelevent. Just because your statement is irrelevant doesn't mean it was overlooked or ignored.
So, as I address your unsubstantiated statements that are somehow not tongue wagging, but when I point out your ridiculousness in detail, then I'm tongue wagging, lets address the few words in your post that are supposedly facts as opposed to fallacious accusations in lieu of discussing issues.
Feature Popularity
The Fact is that SWG's ship crew system was not very popular. The assumptions involved are that PC Crews in a Star Trek game would be just as imbalanced and unfun. These are not things you can prove, but you believe them to be true, and so you think that you have a fact, even though you do not.
Desirability by Target Audience
The fact is that this feature isn't desired by a substantial amount of board posters. You're assuming, even though you can't prove this, that these observational ratios carry on over to the target market at large. Again, a fact plus an assumption is not a fact, it's an assumption.
Total Waste of Development Money
I assume this "fact" is based on the "facts" above. If so, its obviously not a fact at all.
An Unproductive Discussion
Did you learn the difference between "facts" and "opinions" in high school or not? The value of a discussion is completely subjective.
If you have actual references for your facts. If you can point out what issues I'm 'clouding' and why your take on the issues is more relevant than mine, if you can point out my fallacies and name them, if you have some reference about how tiny the fraction of the target audience is that would enjoy a new form of grouping dynamic, then fine. As is, there's not even enough actual argument in your post for me to make counterpoints. All you have is accusations about those who like PC Crews and what they don't understand or how they are brow beating you, and then some assumptions that you believe in strongly enough to call facts. You feel so strongly that its an unproductive discussion, yet you join it, hypocritically proving that you are obviously getting something out of these "pointless" discussions. Your post is ridiculous.
The only thing that you've stated so far that's worth anything is that STO cannot have a game-wide PC Crew system, because it's already been worked up as a traditional MMO as far as grouping and guilds are concerned. We agree on that. The fact that a PC Crew game can be done if designed that way is... well... I've given a plan of action for one, if you see something wrong with it, point it out. If not, maybe you need to check your "facts."
The Illusion of Choice
PC Crews is just a new form of grouping. It should be balanced like grouping in any other MMO. A multi-person group should be more effective, but is automatically more risky, than soloing the game. Just like with ANY. Other. MMO.
If you consider that force, fine, but I know plenty people who solo in games where it is beneficial to group, because while beneficial, grouping comes with the risks of working with people.
In addition, I don't know anyone who is against ship grouping in a PC Crew scenario. What exactly are you saying is forced, again?
The Illusion of Choice
Without getting into a silly dissection of your fallacies, your post simply oozes the typical rhetoric we always seem to see from your ilk. It comes from a position of "Let's cross our fingers and give it a whirl even though every single piece of evidence points toward it not being viable".
It also stems from the same old "I want it, and since I'm so smart and wonderful, enough others must as well." mind set.
It's been done, and it wasn't popular. At all. In fact it was considered unpopular, with only a very very few using the feature. Not to mention that for the last few years the most definable and concrete trend in this genre has been that players of MMOs want to choose when and how they group with others instead of it being shoved down their throats.
There is also no way to implement these multiplayer ships without them having an intrinsic advantage over the single player ships. Meaning most fleets will strive to be stacked with these ships, and since fleets will be the primary movers in the game, as guilds are in any game, most players will be forced onto them. Players that are even slightly competitive anyway.
I know the pie in the sky thinkers believe that because this is a Star Trek mmo that things will be different, but they won't be, and this is more and more being shown in how the make up of the fans following the game is changing as more and more people become aware of it. As it has almost always been in every MMO that's been announced in the last 7 to 8 years, the initial fan population is heavily slanted toward the RP / immersionist/ cannon side of things, but as the game draws closer to release the population steadily shifts, and the game ends up primarily populated by mmo enthusiasts that don't give that much of a hoot about those things. That this is a Star Trek related game isn't going to change that, and these people will be playing with all the same motivations, and desires for stimulating and exciting game play, as they do in any other MMO. They will be competitive, and a large portion will be very interested in PvP. Especially when so much of the game is revolving around a faction vs faction conflict that involves both "competitive PvE" and PvP.
The game will also have the same proportion of RP enthusiasts as other mmos, which is a small proportion. Considering that that demographic is the one this feature would mostly cater to, it's yet further evidence of it being an extremely "niche oriented " feature.
The other aspect of the whole issue is the apparent belief held by some that Cryptic has been making these calls using the "throw the dart at the list while wearing a blindfold" method of decision making.
I guess it's your, and other's, right to be that naive and think they haven't done their market research and homework, but frankly I'm not naive enough to think that when there's tens of millions of dollars on the line that they haven't assured themselves that they aren't alienating too big a chunk of their market.
If they rely on "noise" on random forums like this one to influence their decision making, then this game is in more trouble than even you Negative Neds can imagine.
Here's what the game is like when folks like you get your way...
Ensign Ricky Logs in
Ensign Ricky can't play because the captain and first officer is over at Quark's gambling
Ensign Ricky is tired of listening to the Lt. at OPS talking about his personal life. He'd REALLY prefer exploring the Galaxy.
Ensign Ricky can't do anything but sit on the bridge, listen to a LT's social life and admire the scenery
Ensign Ricky realizes he is paying 14.95 for a space sim
Ensign Ricky hits/cancel
Here's what the game looks like when people give up myopic thinking and propaganda:
Ensign Ricky Logs in
Ensign Ricky flies around in his runabout with his 2 NPC Cadets to his hearts content, taking missions, exploring the galaxy and levelling up.
Ensign Ricky meets Cpt. Bill at Deep Space 8.
Ensign Ricky and Cpt. Bill form a crew and Ricky leaves his Runabout at DS8. Ensign Ricky is a Tactical Class so he takes the tactical station.
Ensign Ricky and Cpt. Bill go blow some stuff up that Ricky has never seen before.
Cpt. Bill goes linkdead. Ensign Ricky is on a ship that he can't do anything on.
Ensign Ricky's runabout arrives 45 seconds later. Ensign Ricky
Ensign Ricky realizes that he's paying $15 for an MMO that's both fun and not EQ in space.
Ensign Ricky can't shut his mouth about how awesome and different the game is and recruits five people.
It's really very simple. PC Crews = teaming, not a replacement for solo play.
My hope is that later on they allow guilds to build starbases and ships which are manned by players. Completely optional. Those that like dealing with other people can do so and those like me who doesn't have the time for egos can enjoy the game. Problem solved.
I believe this was missed in the middle of the petty bickering. What if the really huge ships are only mannable by player crews of 5 or 6? That way guys like me can enjoy the game in his smaller but better maneuvering ships and fans of grouping can flock to the less maneuvarable by insanely powerful ships? Makes sense to me. A Sovereign Class ship is top of the line and that would be one of the few player crewed ships. Smaller ships don't need as heavy a crew compliment.
Currently Playing: World of Warcraft
I personally like the optional PC crew: Have as much of a PC crew as possible, fill with NPCs as needed. I'm another casual player. I may have only a limited time to play or can only play at an odd hour. If grouping was mandatory, I wouldn't even bother picking up the game.
I also think the 5 people in 1 ship vs 1 person in 5 ships is a bogus comparison. 5 ships = 5 times the firepower. You'd have to have a really awesome PC gunner and really craptastic NPC gunners for that to be an even match.
I've been out of the country for a while, and can't recall - has there been any mention of leveling or skill points from the devs?
I really think skill points would need to be involved with PC crews. You could earn more science skill points by serving as a science officer, more helm points by serving as helmsman, etc. Maybe some sort of dual system with a general experience track and bonus points that are skillset-specific.
Perhaps even have a choice when rolling a new character to start out solo or serve on a crew. Going solo would give you your own ship right away and a certain set of skills (maybe more trade/helm/tactical focus) and serving as part of a crew would delay you getting your own ship, but you earn command/science/engineering points faster and when you do get your own ship, you start off with a larger/better ship than you would have if you automatically went solo. note: I put command as a crew skill because you would theoretically be observing and learning from your captain; if you went solo, you wouldn't have a mentor or a crew to manage.
If you were soloing, you could still group, either by joining a fleet or by "parking" your ship in the shuttlebay or at a starbase. If you were crewing, you could "resign" or take a leave of absence and get a ship that matched your current experience and skill level.
-------------
The less you expect, the more you'll be surprised. Hopefully, pleasantly so.
You're against mandatory grouping but advocating a feature that would not only mandate grouping, but only one way of grouping in the end?
The issue isn't with "gunners". This isn't SWG 2, even though with every new sci fi mmo that gets announced we all have to live through the original SWG whiners raising their apparently drug addled heads and wanting that.
The issue is the weapons/tactical officer (you know, since this is Star Trek) being able to concentrate only on that one system competing (both in PvE and PvP) against players that would be trying to manage all the systems for their ships.
Try this on for size. Imagine you had four brains instead of one running your body. One handled the legs, one handled the arms, one for the hands and another to coordinate all those other functions.
Now you get in a fight with a normal guy who coordinates everything with one central brain.
Who really has the advantage here?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Legs: I'm running up to him! I'm gonna do it!
Main Brain: Stay where you are! Can't you listen to directions?
Arms: Should I get ready to block his punch or try and grab his arms? I've never done this...ouch!
Main Brain: Shake it off and get ready to swing back! Fists, hey fists....where'd Hands go?
Legs: I'm running away! I'm gonna do it!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There's no advantage in a multiplayer ship in combat of any kind unless the ship is designed to be much tougher than singleplayer ships. I'm definitely not advocating that either. I'm just advocating multiplayer ships as an option.
Now a crew that's had some practice together can be competant but it's never going to be as competant as the vessel with one player in charge. Why in most sci-fi are pilots with neural links seen as inherently superior to crewed ships? Because control, the ship as extention of one person's will, is always more effective when it's possible.
The singleplayer interface will have to be user friendly and integrate all gameplay elements in one spot. The multiplayer interface, by its nature, has to divide up different aspects so each player has something slightly different to do.
Always notice what you notice.
Without getting into a silly dissection of your fallacies, your post simply oozes the typical rhetoric we always seem to see from your ilk. It comes from a position of "Let's cross our fingers and give it a whirl even though every single piece of evidence points toward it not being viable"........
The term "evidence" typicaly implies the use of actual data. I believe the term you may be looking for is "hyperbole" or perhaps "unsubstantiated conjecture". Thanks!
It's always interesting how people can twist reality to suit an argument.
The truth is, in the multi player crewed ships scenario the systems (players) and how they interface and interconnect would have to be designed in such a way as to make those things efficient. Otherwise it would be pointless for them to do it in the first place.
It would simply be a given that multiple players each only having to concentrate on one system would be very very much more effecient and effective than a single player having to concentrate on multiple systems. That people are trying to deny that is almost unbelievable. I say almost, since these people have shown an incredible aptitude to deny the realities and continue to deal in fallacies.
Without getting into a silly dissection of your fallacies, your post simply oozes the typical rhetoric we always seem to see from your ilk. It comes from a position of "Let's cross our fingers and give it a whirl even though every single piece of evidence points toward it not being viable"........
The term "evidence" typicaly implies the use of actual data. I believe the term you may be looking for is "hyperbole" or perhaps "unsubstantiated conjecture". Thanks!
Except for all the games over the years that are there for anyone to play or examine to see the "evidence". I'm sure you really wish everyone reading lived in a bubble and this is the first MMO they'll play, but that simply isn't the way it is. Sorry.
Once again, we end up in the same place Hagon.
Have you ever crewed in or captained a multiplayer ship? Because I'm here to tell you I have (again). It's not easy. It takes folks who will show up and learn their positions and there's only disadvantage to it in any competitive comparison with a like number of players in single player ships.
And that's fine.
The only reason to want to fly multiplayer ships, even if you're nerfing yourself, is because it's fun. That's how it's been in HSPACE and in Star Wars Galaxies.
I seriously doubt they're going to make singleplayer controls for starships soooooooo complex a player can't handle it. This mode of play is Cryptic's default setting. Ergo, you get no advantage at all from having more people around. In fact, you have to introduce arbitrary complexities to give them each a sense of doing something specific and meaningful.
Always notice what you notice.
Without getting into a silly dissection of your fallacies, your post simply oozes the typical rhetoric we always seem to see from your ilk. It comes from a position of "Let's cross our fingers and give it a whirl even though every single piece of evidence points toward it not being viable"........
The term "evidence" typicaly implies the use of actual data. I believe the term you may be looking for is "hyperbole" or perhaps "unsubstantiated conjecture". Thanks!
Except for all the games over the years that are there for anyone to play or examine to see the "evidence". I'm sure you really wish everyone reading lived in a bubble and this is the first MMO they'll play, but that simply isn't the way it is. Sorry.
Why dont you just come out and say it: What you really want is WoW in space.
Do we really need another MMO that plays just like every other MMO from the past 4 years. People are trying to help this game, make it something different. If it comes out the way you are desctibing, it will be dead in a year.
Yes we end up back at the same place. That place being where most players in fact don't find it fun. Most certainly most (by a overwhelming margin) never did in SWG. In fact by far, most players avoided them like the plague. As for using text based simulations in the conversation as an example of some kind of popularity, that you would even think it's in any way relevant is just so laughable I feel sorry for you and won't comment.
No one said anything about them making single player controls overly complex. They don't need to be. The fact will remain it will be much much easier to concentrate on one station as opposed to five or six.
Without getting into a silly dissection of your fallacies, your post simply oozes the typical rhetoric we always seem to see from your ilk. It comes from a position of "Let's cross our fingers and give it a whirl even though every single piece of evidence points toward it not being viable"........
The term "evidence" typicaly implies the use of actual data. I believe the term you may be looking for is "hyperbole" or perhaps "unsubstantiated conjecture". Thanks!
Except for all the games over the years that are there for anyone to play or examine to see the "evidence". I'm sure you really wish everyone reading lived in a bubble and this is the first MMO they'll play, but that simply isn't the way it is. Sorry.
Why dont you just come out and say it: What you really want is WoW in space.
Do we really need another MMO that plays just like every other MMO from the past 4 years. People are trying to help this game, make it something different. If it comes out the way you are desctibing, it will be dead in a year.
Not wanting to be forced into being subservient to some ego maniacal 12 year old that just happens to have played the game longer means I want to have WoW in space?
Anyone with any sense knows that if they catered to this group of people that want to limit the game into being the most boring mmo on the market the game probable would be pulled in a month. I can't imagine more of a snorefest than what some people that have been posting here want.
You people aren't trying to "help" the game. Most are calling for it to be shaped to cater to one specific play style, and a very small niche one at that. That isn't helping the game. It's selfishly trying to hamper it.
I passed five or six PoBs floating around stations last night, here or there, on Starsider. Gunships mostly but some smaller freighters as well. Walking through Mos Eisley I heard captains calling out for new crews.
Your last amazing claim was that SOE never did anything with PoBs because they were so unpopular. Just a year and a half ago they introduced three new models of PoBs.
Dude, seriously, know when to quit. Or, alternatively, stop listening to what your buddies that aren't playing have to say and get in the game and see for yourself.
PoBs aren't wildly popular because space itself isn't wildly popular (as there's nothing to do out there but for PvP or goofing around - and PoBs aren't great at PvP for reasons we've already discussed) and, for that matter, SWG itself isn't wildly popular. But among people who do love them, PvE or PvP, they're adored. Decorated, cherished, crewed, bragged about, shown off, and some even become a little famous as well.
Welcome to reality. Enjoy your stay.
Always notice what you notice.
Not wanting to be forced into being subservient to some ego maniacal 12 year old that just happens to have played the game longer means I want to have WoW in space?
Anyone with any sense knows that if they catered to this group of people that want to limit the game into being the most boring mmo on the market the game probable would be pulled in a month. I can't imagine more of a snorefest than what some people that have been posting here want.
You people aren't trying to "help" the game. Most are calling for it to be shaped to cater to one specific play style, and a very small niche one at that. That isn't helping the game. It's selfishly trying to hamper it.
Woah, there cowpoke! Now I see what the problem is. The Mighty Hagonbok is too good to server under some 12-year-old egomaniac! That would be one egomaniac too many on a ship.
Guess what, pardner, me too.
Nobody is saying multiplayer ships should be the only ships out there. My position is that singleplayer does come first. NPC crews come first. And multiplayer ships are an option but an important one for people who are looking for a real Star Trek experience.
As I've been saying all along, even multiplayer ship crews will be spending most of their time in singleplayer vessels doing stuff while the "regular cast" is away.
Always notice what you notice.
You can live in that "reality" where a hundred or so people using a feature is evidence that it's "wildly popular" (ROTFLMAO) if you like. I have a "realirty" where pigs fly and Orks dance the boogaloo that would evidently be right up your alley.
That's not the "reality" for normal people though. Sorry.
Thanks for trying to play, but you just aren't cutting it.
Next.
Welcome to Hagon's world where "not wildly popular" means "wildly popular."
Always notice what you notice.
Without getting into a silly dissection of your fallacies, your post simply oozes the typical rhetoric we always seem to see from your ilk. It comes from a position of "Let's cross our fingers and give it a whirl even though every single piece of evidence points toward it not being viable".
It also stems from the same old "I want it, and since I'm so smart and wonderful, enough others must as well." mind set.
It's been done, and it wasn't popular. At all. In fact it was considered unpopular, with only a very very few using the feature. Not to mention that for the last few years the most definable and concrete trend in this genre has been that players of MMOs want to choose when and how they group with others instead of it being shoved down their throats.
There is also no way to implement these multiplayer ships without them having an intrinsic advantage over the single player ships. Meaning most fleets will strive to be stacked with these ships, and since fleets will be the primary movers in the game, as guilds are in any game, most players will be forced onto them. Players that are even slightly competitive anyway.
I know the pie in the sky thinkers believe that because this is a Star Trek mmo that things will be different, but they won't be, and this is more and more being shown in how the make up of the fans following the game is changing as more and more people become aware of it. As it has almost always been in every MMO that's been announced in the last 7 to 8 years, the initial fan population is heavily slanted toward the RP / immersionist/ cannon side of things, but as the game draws closer to release the population steadily shifts, and the game ends up primarily populated by mmo enthusiasts that don't give that much of a hoot about those things. That this is a Star Trek related game isn't going to change that, and these people will be playing with all the same motivations, and desires for stimulating and exciting game play, as they do in any other MMO. They will be competitive, and a large portion will be very interested in PvP. Especially when so much of the game is revolving around a faction vs faction conflict that involves both "competitive PvE" and PvP.
The game will also have the same proportion of RP enthusiasts as other mmos, which is a small proportion. Considering that that demographic is the one this feature would mostly cater to, it's yet further evidence of it being an extremely "niche oriented " feature.
The other aspect of the whole issue is the apparent belief held by some that Cryptic has been making these calls using the "throw the dart at the list while wearing a blindfold" method of decision making.
I guess it's your, and other's, right to be that naive and think they haven't done their market research and homework, but frankly I'm not naive enough to think that when there's tens of millions of dollars on the line that they haven't assured themselves that they aren't alienating too big a chunk of their market.
If they rely on "noise" on random forums like this one to influence their decision making, then this game is in more trouble than even you Negative Neds can imagine.
Wow. Again, no actual addressing of issues. Your argument relies on you "knowing" what other people want and think and are "really saying." I'm actually amazed at this point. You call me fallacious and then go back into a litany of Ad Hominiem attacks.
...typical rhetoric we always seem to see from your ilk.
It comes from a position of "Let's cross our fingers..."
"I want it, and since I'm so smart and wonderful, enough others must as well." mind set.
pie in the sky thinkers believe...
The other aspect of the whole issue is the apparent belief held by some
I guess it's your, and other's, right to be that naive
you Negative Neds...
Hagonbok - That. Is. Not. An. Argument. It's just fallacy.
You are so caught up in this misguided assumption of what it is that I want or believe or don't understand, that you end up addressing a bunch of issues that I already understand. Yes, we all know there are more Achievers/Explorers than Socializers/RPers. Yes, we all know that Cryptic made a smart business move by ostracising the latter rather than the former, yes we know that everything has to be balanced, just like in other games. Yes we know that it was not popular in SWG.
Do you know why it wasn't popular? Was it because the idea of sharing a ship with someone is just so repulsive? That's silly abstract thinking. It wasn't popular because it wasn't fun, and wasn't balanced. Why not? Because sharing a ship with another avatar is automatically a fun and balance killer? More likely because not enough time was spent refining it both on the drawing board and implimentation. That's the nature of game design... design is what kills, not concept. That's one thing that I wonder if some anti-PC Crewers understand. Notice how I'm not silly enough to assume I know what you think.
Here's the core of your 'argument' to use the word liberally:
"There is also no way to implement these multiplayer ships without them having an intrinsic advantage over the single player ships."
When in fact, there are two ways:
1) Balance multiplayer ships against groups of single player ships by tweaking the value of ship equipment and NPC crew in the equation. The groups of single player ships will have more bonus from their NPC crew, as well as more phasers to shoot, and more targets.
2) Cap engagements for large groups by number of players, instead of by number of ships. This way, guilds will not have any intrinsic reason to choose a single 5 player ship over 5 single player ships outside of their effectiveness, which is balanced in option 1.
Intrnsic. Advantage. Gone.
Overall what I'm talking about is catering to both types of players, as opposed to ostracising one because it's cheaper. I think that overall, the game goes further with dedicated immersionists cementing the community which is driven by motivated acheiver/explorers. Going for the quick money is okay. Taking the best of both worlds is inherently superior.
The Illusion of Choice