Personally, I don't even think multiplayer ships should be balanced against singleplayer ones. They should be the same ships with the same stats. If I want a multiplayer crew on my newbie Miranda light cruiser then I should be able to get a bunch of fellow newbies together to have fun. The missions would be identical to those played by a single singleplayer ship.
The difficulties of coordinating a crew would offset the modest situational awareness advantages of a multiplayer ship (if any as the interface would be different and it might be more fun for a multiplayer ship crew to be 'blind' and more reliant on player-manned sensors from a bridge view perspective - something impractical for a single player ship).
A multiplayer ship shouldn't be a tool for uberness. It should be an option for fun. It should be almost exclusively a mode one choses in PvE missions to just add to the experience for everyone. An end in itself not a means to an end. PvP in STO is looking like a minor side-dish. A break from the 'real' game much like PvE is to Eve Online. This is a very wise decision on a number of levels.
People would be flying more PoBs than they do (and when I say I saw five or six PoBs sitting around that doesn't mean there were only that many in space, only that many out there hanging out around the watercooler of space stations) if there was content out there regardless of how much more or less effective PoBs are than an equal number of single-seaters.
We know STO will have the PvE content in space, in three seperate modes (Episodic, procedurally generated Duty Missions, Competitive PvE (or Indirect PvP as they're calling as of yesterday)) and on the ground.
Sure, folks will want to do content on their own. They'll likely be more effective at blazing through missions on their own. It will be something to do when the regular crew isn't around even for multiplayer ship crews. But when the crew is on, based on all the polls I've seen, they'll beline for whichever ship they're taking out that night.
In SWG nobody's always the captain. We often have alts on each other's crews. Over time certain configurations get more popular though and you'll end up with a "flagship" where most RP and adventure happens.
Originally posted by themilton 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.
Okay, let me be a little more specific: I'm against 100% mandatory grouping with PC characters. The occasional group to complete a particularly difficult mission is fine. A bunch of people who want to group up and play together because they enjoy each other's company is fine. Playing in a group because I don't feel like soloing at the moment is fine. I just don't want to be forced into a group if I'm in a crabby mood and don't feel like putting up with crap from other people. Or forced into trying to work another commitment into my already packed schedule.
I apologize for the use of loose terminology, but the principle still stands. Yes, with a skilled crew, a multi-person crewed ship will likely outmatch a single-person ship. But in a PvP match of several single-person ships against a single multi-person ship, I'd still bet on the several single-person ships. That's more phasers/torpedos to potentially hit and damage the multi-person ship. More targets for the tactical officer to aim for. Sure, they may not all survive, but their individual chances of survival are greater. Or if you're on a mission to explore/map a region of space, it's faster to divide the territory and everyone cover a smaller section then combine data than to have 1 ship do the whole thing by itself. Even if you have several people/ships in a group, that doesn't mean you're going to be able to "see" any farther.
------------- The less you expect, the more you'll be surprised. Hopefully, pleasantly so.
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.
Bub, all it was was addressing the issues. That you don't like that there's someone around to address the REAL underlying issues is something I can't help. Especially since I don't care.
I"m not here to debate fallacies. If you want someone to humour you go to your mother.
I'm here injecting some reality into some otherwise fantastical discussion. Fantastical discussion that in the end is corrosive and negative because the only reason it's being discussed is it's yet another way some are trying to portray a false sense of importance to the issue, and it's also part of the "campaign" to try and "scare" Cryptic into catering to a tiny niche that has a very false sense of entitlement.
Putting several players on a single ship, which I strongly support, would have to be balanced ... but as has been pointed out several times, it wouldn't be that difficult to do. Statistically, the only difference between two players in a single ship and two in two ships would be the single ship has a 50/50 chance to survive or lose everyone. The two ships have a 50/50 chance to die alone.
The only reason I can think of that people are against it being an option is that it minimizes their ability to gank ... They can't pick on engineers or science officers or n00bs or roleplayers, because they'll be banded together under the flag of a single captain. They can't swoop in and shoot out the shuttles from a group of lower players because they'll exist as a whole inside a much tougher ship.
Multiplayer crews would do something no other MMO has ever been able to do ... bring new players to the PvP battlefields quickly and with more worth than just fodder for the 733t d00ds (EVE anyone?).
Multiplayers crews might also do what WoW did ... bring in people who weren't previously MMO players. Namely, fans of the series. Right now, the single player ship game is built ONLY for current MMO players. The conversation between Trek fans would go something like:
'Have you tried Star Trek Online?'
'No ... Can I be a Doctor?'
'No'
'Can I be an engineer?'
'No'
'A security officer?'
'No'
'First Mate?'
'No ... but you can be a Captain and get your own ship ... you just have to be careful for the first eight months because if you go to the wrong place, other players will blow you up.'
'Well ... I guess that sounds like fun for the people blowing me up.'
OR, with multiplayer crews:
'Have you tried Star Trek Online?'
'No ... Can I be a Doctor?'
'Yep'
'Can I be an Engineer? A security officer? A first mate?'
'Yep, yep ... and yep'
'Can I be my own captain and not have to deal with any of those people if I don' t want to?'
'Yep'
'Could I go on your ship and have you take me around until I figure the game out? Would I then mature into a better player, perhaps willing to do the same thing to others and thus increase the general population of the game? By doing so, would I create a better community that leads directly to longer subscriptions and more revenue for the game developers ... creating an essentially utopian universe of never ending content expansions, bug fixes and ... joy ....?'
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.
Bub, all it was was addressing the issues. That you don't like that there's someone around to address the REAL underlying issues is something I can't help. Especially since I don't care.
I"m not here to debate fallacies. If you want someone to humour you go to your mother.
I'm here injecting some reality into some otherwise fantastical discussion. Fantastical discussion that in the end is corrosive and negative because the only reason it's being discussed is it's yet another way some are trying to portray a false sense of importance to the issue, and it's also part of the "campaign" to try and "scare" Cryptic into catering to a tiny niche that has a very false sense of entitlement.
Oh, so you can't talk about game mechanics, because my "agenda" is the "real" issue, and any talk about gameplay and balance and mechanics in a game forum is just 'humoring' me? I'm on this board campaigning instead of the STO forums? I'm trying to scare Cryptic while openly acknowledging that this cannot be done in STO? This is you injecting reality? Really?
Give me a break. I respect that you stick to your guns, I really really do. But you're shooting blanks. There is no substance at all to your post, if you can substantiate any of your claims, fine, surprise me, otherwise... there's nothing to see here.
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.
Hagonbok,
Most of the people here who DISAGREE with you have played "all the games over the years" and have drawn a different conclusion from them then you. Most of the people here who AGREE with you have also played "all the games over the years".... and have drawn similar conclusions to yours.
That should tell you something.... people are DIFFERENT and can draw different conclusions based upon their OWN LIMITED SUBJECTIVE experiences.
That's perfectly valid for expressing an OPINION about something (which I and pretty much everyone else here on both sides of the arguement are doing). However when you start throwing around terms like "FACT"... I am going to start to call you on it. Declaring something as "fact" requires the presentation of objective data as proof.
OPINION - "Chocolate is the best flavor in this resteraunt, they shouldn't serve Vanilla almost no one likes it"
FACT - "Chocolate is more popular then any other flavor in this resturaunt.
Supporting evidence, compiled from cash register records over the course of the past year.... of all orders of ice cream paid for..
- Chocolate 42.3 %
- Vanilla 30.5%
- Strawberry 20.2 %
- All others 7% "
The statement you have essentialy stated is something like
"It's a FACT no one in the U.S. likes Asian food and no one ever will. Any resturant who tries to serve Asian food will go out of business. Anyone who opens a resturaunt and puts Asian food on the menu is an idiot and their business will fail, because only a few hundred people have any interest in eating Asian food."
As evidence you then turn around and say "Well look at McDonalds, they are the most popular resturant in the U.S. and they dont serve any Asian Food..... and look at that place over there (points to a crappy Asian resturant in the middle of nowhere with multiple health department citations)... they serve Asian food and no one eats there.... So no one likes Asian food and no one ever will, it's a FACT".
Not only is what you are presenting as "fact" completely unsubstantiated, entirely subjective conjecture... but you are very likely INCAPABLE of presenting anything remotely resembeling "fact"...because you have no access to any of the actual data that could be used to substantiate that. No one outside of a games own staff has access to that.... only then if they've conducted pretty expansive in game survey's.... and even then it only tells them about the PERCEPTION/USE of a particular feature for THIER SPECIFIC GAME... and in the way they specificly implimented it..... and even then it's pretty open as to WHY that specific feature is unpopular or not working and whether changes to it could make it popular.
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.
Bub, all it was was addressing the issues. That you don't like that there's someone around to address the REAL underlying issues is something I can't help. Especially since I don't care.
I"m not here to debate fallacies. If you want someone to humour you go to your mother.
I'm here injecting some reality into some otherwise fantastical discussion. Fantastical discussion that in the end is corrosive and negative because the only reason it's being discussed is it's yet another way some are trying to portray a false sense of importance to the issue, and it's also part of the "campaign" to try and "scare" Cryptic into catering to a tiny niche that has a very false sense of entitlement.
Oh, so you can't talk about game mechanics, because my "agenda" is the "real" issue, and any talk about gameplay and balance and mechanics in a game forum is just 'humoring' me? I'm on this board campaigning instead of the STO forums? I'm trying to scare Cryptic while openly acknowledging that this cannot be done in STO? This is you injecting reality? Really?
Give me a break. I respect that you stick to your guns, I really really do. But you're shooting blanks. There is no substance at all to your post, if you can substantiate any of your claims, fine, surprise me, otherwise... there's nothing to see here.
The realities of all the mmos out there (you do know that there have been others besides SWG right?) are substance enough that I feel confident that most anyone that hasn't been existing in some RP insulated bubble for the last few years will instinctively know what I speak of is true.
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.
Don't worry Hagonbok, I believe you'll always be at least on an equal footing with an ego maniacal 12 year old.... even when your serving on a single player ship.
Originally posted by Hagonbok The realities of all the mmos out there (you do know that there have been others besides SWG right?) are substance enough that I feel confident that most anyone that hasn't been existing in some RP insulated bubble for the last few years will instinctively know what I speak of is true.
That doesn't actually make any sense, but at least I know why it makes sense to you. "Instinct." Thanks for sharing. You can go back to gaming reality now, you have done more than you share of defending Cryptic's honor.
"How should we choose what to put in and what not to? Did we have to make all of those roles available?
Now, you could design an MMO that tries to be everything. A game that tries to provide the ability to captain an spaceship, to be a first officer, to run a bar on DS9, to do deep space tribble trading or even to cut hair on a starship. We definitely didn’t want to make mini-games for all these things. We wanted to provide players a deep roleplaying experience in the Star Trek Universe, not Raving Rabbids - Star Trek Online Version. "
A wise decision that is probably based off the failures of other games that tried that "be everything" approach and failed.
I'm still hoping they make the huge dreadnought ships that are only player crewed in a future expansion.
Captain - Just sitting in the big chair saying do this - do that.
In a one on one battle yes that's probably all he'll be doing, but if you're in any kind of fleet action he should be the busiest guy on the crew as he'll be the only one with the 'big' picture, coordinating via chat/vent with the other ships, watching the damage lists and deciding what gets fixed first, how, why, where type stuff. I'm thinking the one legged man in a butt kicking contest type spot.
Gunners - no turrets in ST
Not per se, but in a Klingon book I read they had a number of gunners on the bridge handling the aiming and firing of a limited number of gun batteries (forward/port, forward stbd, aft etc....), while we have only seen 1 person do it on Fed ships that's not to say it couldn't be on some of the larger ones.
The best suggestions I've seen seem to come down to keeping the player positions to just the bridge. Stock set up is to have NPC's fill those spaces and if you get another player then they boot the NPC out and take that spot.
NPC vs Players: NPC's would do stock actions, you could tell your tactics guy to target the enemies weapons and he'd keep at it until you told him different, you as the Captain would pretty much be flying the ship and you'd have to tell the engineer to fix damaged X componet.
With players it would be looser, helm would go in the general direction you wanted him to. The gunner(s) would be either shooting at what you told him to or just spraying the sky and the engineer would be the one watching and fixing items as needed.
The Captain would be doing the coordinating role.
To balance out the are NPC's or players better I'd go with NPC's giving slow but steady performance. Your gunner would hit his target 90% of the time and the engineer would get stuff fixed. With players the target hit # would depend strickly on the shooters skill. Engineers would be able to stop fixing one thing if they saw something else was a bigger priority or even give them a mini-game to re-wire power to make things happen that an NPC wouldn't/couldn't. For Sensors both players & npc's would let you know if someone else entered or left the fight, but the player could alert you to the fact that ship X needed killing or protecting.
I wouldn't make 1 set up more powerful than the other but give them both their plus and minus's.
Originally posted by Hype 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.
I'm glad that there was a thread about this so people could really think about some of the logistics of forced PC crew group play. It just isn't feasable for a successful MMO envirionment. I do like Hypes take. Even in his version though, it is clear that the current direction STO is taking must be fully developed first, ie, solo play mechanics are necessary for group play. So it also makes sense for Cryptic to develope this first and put more concentration on it.
I'm the type of person who likes to multitask, and have a lot of different things to do. Thus, controling my whole star ship is much more appealing to me. I don't see it as much as me being the captain, I'm the whole crew. It just make's sense to say I'm captain because they control everything. This is the way I'd like to see the game evolve though:
Cryptic chould continually develop mini games that I can step in and perform if my 'NPC crew' member isn't doing as good a job as I would like (as we have seen in the shows from time to time). Eventually there will be enough content to where a PC can fully take over for an NPC crew member. When you group with someone, you have choices of maintaining your current ships, or captains can consolodate onto other ships and take over one of the positions on the other PCs ship. This way there are many options for many different gameplay styles. It'll be interesting to see how they balance this for PvP type things, perhaps saying that a 5v5 PvP match means 5 players vs 5 players, no matter how many ships are involved. I'm not really sure about this aspect, the content issue and different options are clearly a bigger issue though.
Now, it is easy to see that it would take some time to develope enough content for all the officers (as Craig has stated). But, it does seem to be on Cryptic's radar of game play directions.
Sad in a way, but a good find, nonetheless. It sounds like they decided to do one thing well instead of many things poorly. It's sad that they didn't seem to consider doing a few things, but only considered one or many. That's an interesting decision, and in some cases wise. That said, I expect the one thing to be exceptional if they are saying they voluntarily gave up on all the rest to concentrate on it.
Player crewed ships worked for 2 decades now in Mu* based games.
Yes, and we all know how popular they were. /sarcasmoff
Fact is, every game that has tried to introduce too much "sandbox" has been a major fail. Even UO started to change from being too "sanboxish" eventually. SWG was a major fail of epic proportions, and the list goes on. The games today that are sandbox, like A Tale in the Desert for instance, sit with miniscule populations even though they're very well crafted games.
You're actually daring Cryptic to make a game that will fail within a year.
Actually alot of people play SWG ONLY for the space expansion JTL.
Yes, and by an extremely overwhelming large margin those that do prefer solo ships. Funny that eh?
Where are your stats? lets see some......thats right, you can not confirm that.
Now, there is a option for single pilot craft, two pilot craft and multi crews. You dont NEED a multiple crew to pilot a multi crew ship. You can fly it solo if you want.
Again.......
Go ahaead and spin it
Anyone that's ever logged into SWG since JTL can see it for themselves plain as the nose on their face. You know it too. If you actually have played the game that is.
I loved how they did ships in JTL. I used to play with a group all the time doing stuff in JTL it was a lot of fun. One of the best things about the game IMO... But as to playing single player vs multi player ships having both I think is the best balance. I played in single player when I was online but there were many times I also played on multiplayer ships. I wouldn't trade one for the other. I think SWG needs to support both styles. Perhaps you have missions or something that are solo (single player ships) or group (multiplayer ships), or maybe even raid (capital multiplayer ships).
I'm very much with Severius on this one: I'd rather not have player crews. I do realize the potential of this option.
My approach would be pretty simple:
1) Everyone is a captain of his/her own ship.
2) Each player can learn a specialty (navigation, medicine, tactics, etc.)
3) Every player can invite other players on their ships.
And (here comes the good part)
4) All crew is NPC driven and takes commands from the player, however.....
4b) If the player invites a buddy on his ship to replace one of the NPCs, he can do so.
In this fashion, one is not forced to use other players, but for the sake of fun to play with your buddies, you can.
So, you want to be a loner in MMO land? No problem, here is your NPC crew sir! Go kill them all.
You want to group with all your buddies and fly one ship together? No problem, toss the NPCs out of the window and have players take their place based upon the specialties they've trained in.
I know, quick, dirty and simple, but I guess this could work.
That's the approach that's always been advocated by those who wanted player crews, kivech. No one, that I've seen, has ever advocated forced grouping. It was always a strawman argument created by those who couldn't stand the idea, for whatever magical reason.
The problem was that Cryptic felt that had to make 5-6 brand new unique games in order to make different departmental play, and it, apparently, did not occur to them to divide the subgames that were going to be in anyway amongst their departments. They decided to concentrate on "one game" so to speak, and so here we are.
The problem with multicrew ship is how to make everything fun during all phases of combat. Here is my little idea.
STO Starship Combat Mechanic /W 3 man crew
Introductions:
The three man crew of any starship is composed of the Captain, Tactical Officer and Science Officer. Each position is responsible for specific actions during combat. These actions could be activation of equipments or altering the setting of those equipments. These roles together handle the ship operations as determined by the architrave.
Ship architecture is composed of the navigation system (restricted to thrusters and impulse during combat), Shields which are the primary form of defense (HP), weapons to deal damage, sensors (determines which enemy ship can be locked and which enemy can lock onto you), subsystem/equipment performance (slowly reduced as the shields take damage), repair teams to recover the performance of subsystems, and Energy Generation/Energy Consumption.
Every ship has a specific amount of Energy to be used and a rate to which Energy is replenished. All equipment operates on a cycle and requires Energy to activate at the beginning of each cycle. The total amount of Energy is allocated for use by the three Officers. Each Officer has a pool of Energy (a portion of the ship’s total Energy capacity) which replenishes as a percentage of the total amount of energy replenished by the ship. The Captain Position set the amount of Capacitor for each position as well as the portion of replenished Energy from the ship’s Energy recharge.
Example:
USS Kelvan
Total Energy Capacity: 10,000
Total Energy Recharge Time: 5minutes (300seconds)
Total Energy Recharge Rate: 33.3/Second
Captain
Captain’s Energy: 2,000 (20% of the ship’s Total Energy Capacitor)
Recharge rate: 5/Second (~15% of the Total Energy Recharge Rate)
Recharge Time: 400Seconds (Only indirectly related to the Total)
Tactical
Tactical station’s Energy: 5,000 (50% of the ship’s Total Energy Capacitor)
Recharge rate: 20/Second (~60% of the Total Energy Recharge Rate)
Recharge Time: 250Seconds
Science
Science station’s energy: 3,000 (30%)
Recharge rate: 8.3/Second (~25%)
Recharge Time: 361.5Seconds
PART I: The Captain
Role: The Captain assumes the roles traditionally handled by the Pilot and Engineer. During combat, the captain flies the ship, takes Energy from one station and transfers it to another if the need arises and assigns damage control deals to repair damaged subsystems.
Navigation: Ships gain benefits from moving. As the shields are damaged, areas of the shield are weakened to allow increased damage to those areas. By moving the ship, a Captain could take advantage of an enemy’s weakened side or prevent an enemy from hitting his ship’s weakened side. After turning the weakened side away from enemy fire, the captain could then assign damage control teams repair the weakened shields.
PART II: The Tactical Officer
Role: The Tactical officer operates the offensive and defensive systems of the ship.
Weapons: All weapons operate on a frequency basis and deal more or less damage depending on frequencies the enemy’s shields are hardened against. The tactical officer could shift the frequency of the weapons to take advantage of frequencies the enemy is not hardened against. There is no way to determine what the enemy is hardened against other than trial and error.
Shields: Shields operate on frequency hardening. A tactical officer could harden the shields against several available frequencies but not all the available frequencies.
Example:
A Klingon disruptor can fire on the following frequencies:
101.1 GHz
101.2 GHz <<< The Klingon’s tactical officer decides to shoot at 101.2 GHz.
101.3 GHz
The USS Kalvan’s tactical officer can harden against 2 of 3 frequencies:
101.1 GHz <<< Hardened
101.2 GHz <<< Hardened
101.3 GHz
The frequencies 101.1 and 101.2 are Hardened and takes less damage if hit on those frequencies. The Klingons weapons operate at 101.2 GHz and thus the USS Kalvan takes less damage.
During combat, the Tactical officer could shift the hardening to any of the available frequencies. In addition, using certain equipment could weaken the shields against a specific frequency for a time. The Tactical officer could re-Harden against those frequencies but the process would not mitigate as much damage.
PART III: The Science Officer
Role: Scans the target for useful information, ECM and ECCM.
Scanning: A Science Officer could scan an enemy’s ship to determine what frequency their weapons are operating on and what frequency they’re trying to shift their weapons. However, the Science Officer can’t determine the shield frequency. In addition, the use of certain equipment requires a build-up time which leaves a noticeable clue as radiation or strange energy reads. The Science Officer could identify which equipment is being prepared and what frequency it is being fired on, giving your ship a heads up.
When enemy shields are weakened from weapons fire, the Science Officer could scan the enemy to determine which side is weakened as well as the progress of the enemy’s damage control teams.
ECM: All sensor locks operate on a specific set of frequencies. If more than one ship attempts to lock on your ship using the same frequencies it would take each ship additional time to lock on to you. A Science Officer could jam lock frequencies but not all the available frequencies could be jammed. This means that at any given time, your ship is only lockable by sensors of a specific frequency. On a Meta Gaming level, this means that at any given time your ship could only be attacked by a fixed number of enemies. It’s important to note, however, that additional enemies could shift their lock frequency to something you’re not jammed against if they’re willing to pay the lock time penalty.
The Science Officer could shift jamming frequencies if more people are trying to lock on using a new frequency rather than one that’s already jammed.
Other equipment provide various effect such as Transponder Spoofing (A Federation Spoofing the transponder of a Klingon ship to appear as a Klingon) and Decoy. Just to name a few.
ECCM: Electronic Counter-Counter Measure. On the simplest level, the Science officer shifts the lock frequency to something that’s not being jammed by the target. The Science officer would also need to counter Transponder Spoofing, Cloaking, Decoy plus various other tricks.
Comments
Personally, I don't even think multiplayer ships should be balanced against singleplayer ones. They should be the same ships with the same stats. If I want a multiplayer crew on my newbie Miranda light cruiser then I should be able to get a bunch of fellow newbies together to have fun. The missions would be identical to those played by a single singleplayer ship.
The difficulties of coordinating a crew would offset the modest situational awareness advantages of a multiplayer ship (if any as the interface would be different and it might be more fun for a multiplayer ship crew to be 'blind' and more reliant on player-manned sensors from a bridge view perspective - something impractical for a single player ship).
A multiplayer ship shouldn't be a tool for uberness. It should be an option for fun. It should be almost exclusively a mode one choses in PvE missions to just add to the experience for everyone. An end in itself not a means to an end. PvP in STO is looking like a minor side-dish. A break from the 'real' game much like PvE is to Eve Online. This is a very wise decision on a number of levels.
People would be flying more PoBs than they do (and when I say I saw five or six PoBs sitting around that doesn't mean there were only that many in space, only that many out there hanging out around the watercooler of space stations) if there was content out there regardless of how much more or less effective PoBs are than an equal number of single-seaters.
We know STO will have the PvE content in space, in three seperate modes (Episodic, procedurally generated Duty Missions, Competitive PvE (or Indirect PvP as they're calling as of yesterday)) and on the ground.
Sure, folks will want to do content on their own. They'll likely be more effective at blazing through missions on their own. It will be something to do when the regular crew isn't around even for multiplayer ship crews. But when the crew is on, based on all the polls I've seen, they'll beline for whichever ship they're taking out that night.
In SWG nobody's always the captain. We often have alts on each other's crews. Over time certain configurations get more popular though and you'll end up with a "flagship" where most RP and adventure happens.
Always notice what you notice.
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.
Okay, let me be a little more specific: I'm against 100% mandatory grouping with PC characters. The occasional group to complete a particularly difficult mission is fine. A bunch of people who want to group up and play together because they enjoy each other's company is fine. Playing in a group because I don't feel like soloing at the moment is fine. I just don't want to be forced into a group if I'm in a crabby mood and don't feel like putting up with crap from other people. Or forced into trying to work another commitment into my already packed schedule.
I apologize for the use of loose terminology, but the principle still stands. Yes, with a skilled crew, a multi-person crewed ship will likely outmatch a single-person ship. But in a PvP match of several single-person ships against a single multi-person ship, I'd still bet on the several single-person ships. That's more phasers/torpedos to potentially hit and damage the multi-person ship. More targets for the tactical officer to aim for. Sure, they may not all survive, but their individual chances of survival are greater. Or if you're on a mission to explore/map a region of space, it's faster to divide the territory and everyone cover a smaller section then combine data than to have 1 ship do the whole thing by itself. Even if you have several people/ships in a group, that doesn't mean you're going to be able to "see" any farther.
-------------
The less you expect, the more you'll be surprised. Hopefully, pleasantly so.
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.
Bub, all it was was addressing the issues. That you don't like that there's someone around to address the REAL underlying issues is something I can't help. Especially since I don't care.
I"m not here to debate fallacies. If you want someone to humour you go to your mother.
I'm here injecting some reality into some otherwise fantastical discussion. Fantastical discussion that in the end is corrosive and negative because the only reason it's being discussed is it's yet another way some are trying to portray a false sense of importance to the issue, and it's also part of the "campaign" to try and "scare" Cryptic into catering to a tiny niche that has a very false sense of entitlement.
Putting several players on a single ship, which I strongly support, would have to be balanced ... but as has been pointed out several times, it wouldn't be that difficult to do. Statistically, the only difference between two players in a single ship and two in two ships would be the single ship has a 50/50 chance to survive or lose everyone. The two ships have a 50/50 chance to die alone.
The only reason I can think of that people are against it being an option is that it minimizes their ability to gank ... They can't pick on engineers or science officers or n00bs or roleplayers, because they'll be banded together under the flag of a single captain. They can't swoop in and shoot out the shuttles from a group of lower players because they'll exist as a whole inside a much tougher ship.
Multiplayer crews would do something no other MMO has ever been able to do ... bring new players to the PvP battlefields quickly and with more worth than just fodder for the 733t d00ds (EVE anyone?).
Multiplayers crews might also do what WoW did ... bring in people who weren't previously MMO players. Namely, fans of the series. Right now, the single player ship game is built ONLY for current MMO players. The conversation between Trek fans would go something like:
'Have you tried Star Trek Online?'
'No ... Can I be a Doctor?'
'No'
'Can I be an engineer?'
'No'
'A security officer?'
'No'
'First Mate?'
'No ... but you can be a Captain and get your own ship ... you just have to be careful for the first eight months because if you go to the wrong place, other players will blow you up.'
'Well ... I guess that sounds like fun for the people blowing me up.'
OR, with multiplayer crews:
'Have you tried Star Trek Online?'
'No ... Can I be a Doctor?'
'Yep'
'Can I be an Engineer? A security officer? A first mate?'
'Yep, yep ... and yep'
'Can I be my own captain and not have to deal with any of those people if I don' t want to?'
'Yep'
'Could I go on your ship and have you take me around until I figure the game out? Would I then mature into a better player, perhaps willing to do the same thing to others and thus increase the general population of the game? By doing so, would I create a better community that leads directly to longer subscriptions and more revenue for the game developers ... creating an essentially utopian universe of never ending content expansions, bug fixes and ... joy ....?'
'Yep, yep ... and yep'
Bub, all it was was addressing the issues. That you don't like that there's someone around to address the REAL underlying issues is something I can't help. Especially since I don't care.
I"m not here to debate fallacies. If you want someone to humour you go to your mother.
I'm here injecting some reality into some otherwise fantastical discussion. Fantastical discussion that in the end is corrosive and negative because the only reason it's being discussed is it's yet another way some are trying to portray a false sense of importance to the issue, and it's also part of the "campaign" to try and "scare" Cryptic into catering to a tiny niche that has a very false sense of entitlement.
Oh, so you can't talk about game mechanics, because my "agenda" is the "real" issue, and any talk about gameplay and balance and mechanics in a game forum is just 'humoring' me? I'm on this board campaigning instead of the STO forums? I'm trying to scare Cryptic while openly acknowledging that this cannot be done in STO? This is you injecting reality? Really?
Give me a break. I respect that you stick to your guns, I really really do. But you're shooting blanks. There is no substance at all to your post, if you can substantiate any of your claims, fine, surprise me, otherwise... there's nothing to see here.
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"........
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.
Hagonbok,
Most of the people here who DISAGREE with you have played "all the games over the years" and have drawn a different conclusion from them then you. Most of the people here who AGREE with you have also played "all the games over the years".... and have drawn similar conclusions to yours.
That should tell you something.... people are DIFFERENT and can draw different conclusions based upon their OWN LIMITED SUBJECTIVE experiences.
That's perfectly valid for expressing an OPINION about something (which I and pretty much everyone else here on both sides of the arguement are doing). However when you start throwing around terms like "FACT"... I am going to start to call you on it. Declaring something as "fact" requires the presentation of objective data as proof.
OPINION - "Chocolate is the best flavor in this resteraunt, they shouldn't serve Vanilla almost no one likes it"
FACT - "Chocolate is more popular then any other flavor in this resturaunt.
Supporting evidence, compiled from cash register records over the course of the past year.... of all orders of ice cream paid for..
- Chocolate 42.3 %
- Vanilla 30.5%
- Strawberry 20.2 %
- All others 7% "
The statement you have essentialy stated is something like
"It's a FACT no one in the U.S. likes Asian food and no one ever will. Any resturant who tries to serve Asian food will go out of business. Anyone who opens a resturaunt and puts Asian food on the menu is an idiot and their business will fail, because only a few hundred people have any interest in eating Asian food."
As evidence you then turn around and say "Well look at McDonalds, they are the most popular resturant in the U.S. and they dont serve any Asian Food..... and look at that place over there (points to a crappy Asian resturant in the middle of nowhere with multiple health department citations)... they serve Asian food and no one eats there.... So no one likes Asian food and no one ever will, it's a FACT".
Not only is what you are presenting as "fact" completely unsubstantiated, entirely subjective conjecture... but you are very likely INCAPABLE of presenting anything remotely resembeling "fact"...because you have no access to any of the actual data that could be used to substantiate that. No one outside of a games own staff has access to that.... only then if they've conducted pretty expansive in game survey's.... and even then it only tells them about the PERCEPTION/USE of a particular feature for THIER SPECIFIC GAME... and in the way they specificly implimented it..... and even then it's pretty open as to WHY that specific feature is unpopular or not working and whether changes to it could make it popular.
Bub, all it was was addressing the issues. That you don't like that there's someone around to address the REAL underlying issues is something I can't help. Especially since I don't care.
I"m not here to debate fallacies. If you want someone to humour you go to your mother.
I'm here injecting some reality into some otherwise fantastical discussion. Fantastical discussion that in the end is corrosive and negative because the only reason it's being discussed is it's yet another way some are trying to portray a false sense of importance to the issue, and it's also part of the "campaign" to try and "scare" Cryptic into catering to a tiny niche that has a very false sense of entitlement.
Oh, so you can't talk about game mechanics, because my "agenda" is the "real" issue, and any talk about gameplay and balance and mechanics in a game forum is just 'humoring' me? I'm on this board campaigning instead of the STO forums? I'm trying to scare Cryptic while openly acknowledging that this cannot be done in STO? This is you injecting reality? Really?
Give me a break. I respect that you stick to your guns, I really really do. But you're shooting blanks. There is no substance at all to your post, if you can substantiate any of your claims, fine, surprise me, otherwise... there's nothing to see here.
The realities of all the mmos out there (you do know that there have been others besides SWG right?) are substance enough that I feel confident that most anyone that hasn't been existing in some RP insulated bubble for the last few years will instinctively know what I speak of is true.
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.
Don't worry Hagonbok, I believe you'll always be at least on an equal footing with an ego maniacal 12 year old.... even when your serving on a single player ship.
That doesn't actually make any sense, but at least I know why it makes sense to you. "Instinct." Thanks for sharing. You can go back to gaming reality now, you have done more than you share of defending Cryptic's honor.
The Illusion of Choice
Interesting devblog here: http://www.mmorpg.com/blogs/Awenyddion/032009/3505_Focusing-the-Experience-Craig-Zinkievich about the choice to go capatians-only. Not very in-depth, but still interesting.
-------------
The less you expect, the more you'll be surprised. Hopefully, pleasantly so.
I especially liked this part.....
"How should we choose what to put in and what not to? Did we have to make all of those roles available?
Now, you could design an MMO that tries to be everything. A game that tries to provide the ability to captain an spaceship, to be a first officer, to run a bar on DS9, to do deep space tribble trading or even to cut hair on a starship. We definitely didn’t want to make mini-games for all these things. We wanted to provide players a deep roleplaying experience in the Star Trek Universe, not Raving Rabbids - Star Trek Online Version. "
A wise decision that is probably based off the failures of other games that tried that "be everything" approach and failed.
I'm still hoping they make the huge dreadnought ships that are only player crewed in a future expansion.
Currently Playing: World of Warcraft
Couple of position points first:
Captain - Just sitting in the big chair saying do this - do that.
In a one on one battle yes that's probably all he'll be doing, but if you're in any kind of fleet action he should be the busiest guy on the crew as he'll be the only one with the 'big' picture, coordinating via chat/vent with the other ships, watching the damage lists and deciding what gets fixed first, how, why, where type stuff. I'm thinking the one legged man in a butt kicking contest type spot.
Gunners - no turrets in ST
Not per se, but in a Klingon book I read they had a number of gunners on the bridge handling the aiming and firing of a limited number of gun batteries (forward/port, forward stbd, aft etc....), while we have only seen 1 person do it on Fed ships that's not to say it couldn't be on some of the larger ones.
The best suggestions I've seen seem to come down to keeping the player positions to just the bridge. Stock set up is to have NPC's fill those spaces and if you get another player then they boot the NPC out and take that spot.
NPC vs Players: NPC's would do stock actions, you could tell your tactics guy to target the enemies weapons and he'd keep at it until you told him different, you as the Captain would pretty much be flying the ship and you'd have to tell the engineer to fix damaged X componet.
With players it would be looser, helm would go in the general direction you wanted him to. The gunner(s) would be either shooting at what you told him to or just spraying the sky and the engineer would be the one watching and fixing items as needed.
The Captain would be doing the coordinating role.
To balance out the are NPC's or players better I'd go with NPC's giving slow but steady performance. Your gunner would hit his target 90% of the time and the engineer would get stuff fixed. With players the target hit # would depend strickly on the shooters skill. Engineers would be able to stop fixing one thing if they saw something else was a bigger priority or even give them a mini-game to re-wire power to make things happen that an NPC wouldn't/couldn't. For Sensors both players & npc's would let you know if someone else entered or left the fight, but the player could alert you to the fact that ship X needed killing or protecting.
I wouldn't make 1 set up more powerful than the other but give them both their plus and minus's.
SWG (pre-cu) - AoC (pre-f2p) - PotBS (pre-boarder) - DDO - LotRO (pre-f2p) - STO (pre-f2p) - GnH (beta tester) - SWTOR - Neverwinter
I'm glad that there was a thread about this so people could really think about some of the logistics of forced PC crew group play. It just isn't feasable for a successful MMO envirionment. I do like Hypes take. Even in his version though, it is clear that the current direction STO is taking must be fully developed first, ie, solo play mechanics are necessary for group play. So it also makes sense for Cryptic to develope this first and put more concentration on it.
I'm the type of person who likes to multitask, and have a lot of different things to do. Thus, controling my whole star ship is much more appealing to me. I don't see it as much as me being the captain, I'm the whole crew. It just make's sense to say I'm captain because they control everything. This is the way I'd like to see the game evolve though:
Cryptic chould continually develop mini games that I can step in and perform if my 'NPC crew' member isn't doing as good a job as I would like (as we have seen in the shows from time to time). Eventually there will be enough content to where a PC can fully take over for an NPC crew member. When you group with someone, you have choices of maintaining your current ships, or captains can consolodate onto other ships and take over one of the positions on the other PCs ship. This way there are many options for many different gameplay styles. It'll be interesting to see how they balance this for PvP type things, perhaps saying that a 5v5 PvP match means 5 players vs 5 players, no matter how many ships are involved. I'm not really sure about this aspect, the content issue and different options are clearly a bigger issue though.
Now, it is easy to see that it would take some time to develope enough content for all the officers (as Craig has stated). But, it does seem to be on Cryptic's radar of game play directions.
Good find.
Sad in a way, but a good find, nonetheless. It sounds like they decided to do one thing well instead of many things poorly. It's sad that they didn't seem to consider doing a few things, but only considered one or many. That's an interesting decision, and in some cases wise. That said, I expect the one thing to be exceptional if they are saying they voluntarily gave up on all the rest to concentrate on it.
The Illusion of Choice
Yes, and we all know how popular they were. /sarcasmoff
Fact is, every game that has tried to introduce too much "sandbox" has been a major fail. Even UO started to change from being too "sanboxish" eventually. SWG was a major fail of epic proportions, and the list goes on. The games today that are sandbox, like A Tale in the Desert for instance, sit with miniscule populations even though they're very well crafted games.
You're actually daring Cryptic to make a game that will fail within a year.
Actually alot of people play SWG ONLY for the space expansion JTL.
Yes, and by an extremely overwhelming large margin those that do prefer solo ships. Funny that eh?
Where are your stats? lets see some......thats right, you can not confirm that.
Now, there is a option for single pilot craft, two pilot craft and multi crews. You dont NEED a multiple crew to pilot a multi crew ship. You can fly it solo if you want.
Again.......
Go ahaead and spin it
Anyone that's ever logged into SWG since JTL can see it for themselves plain as the nose on their face. You know it too. If you actually have played the game that is.
I loved how they did ships in JTL. I used to play with a group all the time doing stuff in JTL it was a lot of fun. One of the best things about the game IMO... But as to playing single player vs multi player ships having both I think is the best balance. I played in single player when I was online but there were many times I also played on multiplayer ships. I wouldn't trade one for the other. I think SWG needs to support both styles. Perhaps you have missions or something that are solo (single player ships) or group (multiplayer ships), or maybe even raid (capital multiplayer ships).
---
Ethion
I'm very much with Severius on this one: I'd rather not have player crews. I do realize the potential of this option.
My approach would be pretty simple:
1) Everyone is a captain of his/her own ship.
2) Each player can learn a specialty (navigation, medicine, tactics, etc.)
3) Every player can invite other players on their ships.
And (here comes the good part)
4) All crew is NPC driven and takes commands from the player, however.....
4b) If the player invites a buddy on his ship to replace one of the NPCs, he can do so.
In this fashion, one is not forced to use other players, but for the sake of fun to play with your buddies, you can.
So, you want to be a loner in MMO land? No problem, here is your NPC crew sir! Go kill them all.
You want to group with all your buddies and fly one ship together? No problem, toss the NPCs out of the window and have players take their place based upon the specialties they've trained in.
I know, quick, dirty and simple, but I guess this could work.
That's the approach that's always been advocated by those who wanted player crews, kivech. No one, that I've seen, has ever advocated forced grouping. It was always a strawman argument created by those who couldn't stand the idea, for whatever magical reason.
The problem was that Cryptic felt that had to make 5-6 brand new unique games in order to make different departmental play, and it, apparently, did not occur to them to divide the subgames that were going to be in anyway amongst their departments. They decided to concentrate on "one game" so to speak, and so here we are.
The Illusion of Choice
Its realy simple. If they wanted to do it could be done.
Players start out able to either captain their own small ships or crew aboard larger ships.
As players gain experience they're rated to captain larger and larger ships.
Small ships can be solo'd. Ships above a certain size require crews.
Crews can be either npc's or players.
If a ship needing a crew loses a player, the spot is auto filled with an npc.
The problem with multicrew ship is how to make everything fun during all phases of combat. Here is my little idea.
STO Starship Combat Mechanic /W 3 man crew
Introductions:
The three man crew of any starship is composed of the Captain, Tactical Officer and Science Officer. Each position is responsible for specific actions during combat. These actions could be activation of equipments or altering the setting of those equipments. These roles together handle the ship operations as determined by the architrave.
Ship architecture is composed of the navigation system (restricted to thrusters and impulse during combat), Shields which are the primary form of defense (HP), weapons to deal damage, sensors (determines which enemy ship can be locked and which enemy can lock onto you), subsystem/equipment performance (slowly reduced as the shields take damage), repair teams to recover the performance of subsystems, and Energy Generation/Energy Consumption.
Every ship has a specific amount of Energy to be used and a rate to which Energy is replenished. All equipment operates on a cycle and requires Energy to activate at the beginning of each cycle. The total amount of Energy is allocated for use by the three Officers. Each Officer has a pool of Energy (a portion of the ship’s total Energy capacity) which replenishes as a percentage of the total amount of energy replenished by the ship. The Captain Position set the amount of Capacitor for each position as well as the portion of replenished Energy from the ship’s Energy recharge.
Example:
USS Kelvan
Total Energy Capacity: 10,000
Total Energy Recharge Time: 5minutes (300seconds)
Total Energy Recharge Rate: 33.3/Second
Captain
Captain’s Energy: 2,000 (20% of the ship’s Total Energy Capacitor)
Recharge rate: 5/Second (~15% of the Total Energy Recharge Rate)
Recharge Time: 400Seconds (Only indirectly related to the Total)
Tactical
Tactical station’s Energy: 5,000 (50% of the ship’s Total Energy Capacitor)
Recharge rate: 20/Second (~60% of the Total Energy Recharge Rate)
Recharge Time: 250Seconds
Science
Science station’s energy: 3,000 (30%)
Recharge rate: 8.3/Second (~25%)
Recharge Time: 361.5Seconds
PART I: The Captain
Role: The Captain assumes the roles traditionally handled by the Pilot and Engineer. During combat, the captain flies the ship, takes Energy from one station and transfers it to another if the need arises and assigns damage control deals to repair damaged subsystems.
Navigation: Ships gain benefits from moving. As the shields are damaged, areas of the shield are weakened to allow increased damage to those areas. By moving the ship, a Captain could take advantage of an enemy’s weakened side or prevent an enemy from hitting his ship’s weakened side. After turning the weakened side away from enemy fire, the captain could then assign damage control teams repair the weakened shields.
PART II: The Tactical Officer
Role: The Tactical officer operates the offensive and defensive systems of the ship.
Weapons: All weapons operate on a frequency basis and deal more or less damage depending on frequencies the enemy’s shields are hardened against. The tactical officer could shift the frequency of the weapons to take advantage of frequencies the enemy is not hardened against. There is no way to determine what the enemy is hardened against other than trial and error.
Shields: Shields operate on frequency hardening. A tactical officer could harden the shields against several available frequencies but not all the available frequencies.
Example:
A Klingon disruptor can fire on the following frequencies:
101.1 GHz
101.2 GHz <<< The Klingon’s tactical officer decides to shoot at 101.2 GHz.
101.3 GHz
The USS Kalvan’s tactical officer can harden against 2 of 3 frequencies:
101.1 GHz <<< Hardened
101.2 GHz <<< Hardened
101.3 GHz
The frequencies 101.1 and 101.2 are Hardened and takes less damage if hit on those frequencies. The Klingons weapons operate at 101.2 GHz and thus the USS Kalvan takes less damage.
During combat, the Tactical officer could shift the hardening to any of the available frequencies. In addition, using certain equipment could weaken the shields against a specific frequency for a time. The Tactical officer could re-Harden against those frequencies but the process would not mitigate as much damage.
PART III: The Science Officer
Role: Scans the target for useful information, ECM and ECCM.
Scanning: A Science Officer could scan an enemy’s ship to determine what frequency their weapons are operating on and what frequency they’re trying to shift their weapons. However, the Science Officer can’t determine the shield frequency. In addition, the use of certain equipment requires a build-up time which leaves a noticeable clue as radiation or strange energy reads. The Science Officer could identify which equipment is being prepared and what frequency it is being fired on, giving your ship a heads up.
When enemy shields are weakened from weapons fire, the Science Officer could scan the enemy to determine which side is weakened as well as the progress of the enemy’s damage control teams.
ECM: All sensor locks operate on a specific set of frequencies. If more than one ship attempts to lock on your ship using the same frequencies it would take each ship additional time to lock on to you. A Science Officer could jam lock frequencies but not all the available frequencies could be jammed. This means that at any given time, your ship is only lockable by sensors of a specific frequency. On a Meta Gaming level, this means that at any given time your ship could only be attacked by a fixed number of enemies. It’s important to note, however, that additional enemies could shift their lock frequency to something you’re not jammed against if they’re willing to pay the lock time penalty.
The Science Officer could shift jamming frequencies if more people are trying to lock on using a new frequency rather than one that’s already jammed.
Other equipment provide various effect such as Transponder Spoofing (A Federation Spoofing the transponder of a Klingon ship to appear as a Klingon) and Decoy. Just to name a few.
ECCM: Electronic Counter-Counter Measure. On the simplest level, the Science officer shifts the lock frequency to something that’s not being jammed by the target. The Science officer would also need to counter Transponder Spoofing, Cloaking, Decoy plus various other tricks.