Hmm, regarding player crews, it'd actually be possible to do if you had the player beam over, come onto the bridge and "relieve" your NPC. Since we have captain roles, the visiting captain could have substantial buffs over the NPC bridge officer ones, even possibly giving your ship some of the abilities of their regular one.
It'd be a neat way to "mentor" someone too, as early ships just don't belong in some scenarios, say one where it takes a certain amount of shields to survive background radiation, or you need the sensors of a Science ship to locate something but are ambushed by a heavy military force, etc.
Just my .02 cred.
W
Edit - oh and good article Dana, thanks for the additional info. Good to hear they got a good "feel" going in the game, that's very important to keep people from just playing through to the endgame as fast as they can. I think it'll keep people from lapsing into WoW-in-space mode
Great offer Dana! Way to put the lid on MMO_Doubter. Funny how some folks, when seriously challenged to make their real point can't because all they want to do is whine. Love it. STO is going to rock and I mean ROCK the BLOCKS.. I cannot wait to test and play it...
Where do you see that MMO_Doubter has declined, refused or otherwise indicated a response to Dana's offer?
_____________________________ Currently Playing: LOTRO; DDO Played: AC2, AO, Auto Assault, CoX, DAoC, DDO, Earth&Beyond, EQ1, EQ2, EVE, Fallen Earth, Jumpgate, Roma Victor, Second Life, SWG, V:SoH, WoW, World War II Online.
Games I'm watching: Infinity: The Quest for Earth, Force of Arms.
Great offer Dana! Way to put the lid on MMO_Doubter. Funny how some folks, when seriously challenged to make their real point can't because all they want to do is whine. Love it. STO is going to rock and I mean ROCK the BLOCKS.. I cannot wait to test and play it...
Where do you see that MMO_Doubter has declined, refused or otherwise indicated a response to Dana's offer?
He's going by Internet time, lack of response for a number of hours (not days) results in forfeit.
So, I offer you a deal... You seem to be able to string a few words together, so how about you put your ideas where you mouth is. Email me (dana@mmorpg.com) and I'll hook you up with a slot to do a freelance editorial (we'll pay you for if it makes the cut). You can have an entire article on "The Argument For Player Crews." Tell us why you feel it's important to the IP and how you would include it in the game if you could, or in the future. You're clearly passionate about this topic and feel it needs to be highlighted. If the article needs rebuttal, I'll also circle back with Cryptic and try to get answers to a couple of your related questions to use in the article.
That is a kind and generous offer.
Writing full articles is not my thing. It's a long time since English class and I do not write professionally. I rely on temporary inspiration to fuel my posting. Which is why I alternate from one-liners to walls of text.
I'm not sure if I can do more than re-state what I and others have already posted on this subject, but I will see what I can cobble together over the next few days. Available time permitting.
At least the readers here can enjoy a respite from my usual posting habits.
I'll see what I can do.
"" Voice acting isn't an RPG element....it's just a production value." - grumpymel2
That's great I love that he was offered a chance to write it out rather than being banned into oblivion. That being said and seeing there's some actual thought going on here....
What do you have to say about how Klingons have been handled? If not for the fact that they've been downsized to a monster play type of experience than how about how much of a doofus move it was to not market the 2nd faction as a different experience altogether?
There's another post on this but it's filled with so much angst it's difficult to get a thoughtful response out of anyone who isn't extremely pissed that they can't turn the redlights on, eat live worms and set their phasers to DOMINATE.
Only thing I want to know about this game is, what form of crafting does this game have?
Alot of info has been released about the game, but, very little has ben said about crafting. Are we looking at another game that crafting and player economy is a secondary, maybe even last minute, add on?
Well, SWG didn't have multi-player ships until quite a bit after Jump to Lightspeed, so perhaps they will come in an expension or just released along with a patch. If I remember correctly, the latter is how they entered SWG.
That's actually not true at all. Multi-player ships were available at JtL launch. I beta tested that xpac -- back when beta testing meant something, haha. But you have a point in so far as the JtL xpac was released months after the initial launch, so STO could possibly add Player Crew functionality.
But here's my fear, since I keep hearing from STO developers that if there's enough player demand, they'll add Player Crews: After launch they'll see if they've placated enough people with their current system in order to satisfy the bean counters -- to this end, I think they'll be successful. Thus STO won't feel obliged to introduce Player Crews because, through self-fullfilling rationalization, there won't be any 'demand'. You see how that's a self-fulfilling rationalization? It's like US automakers saying there isn't any demand for hybrid/electric cars, and yet how do they know or measure that demand when they aren't producing any of that product? lol. (Okay, let's not get into car talk here, it was just an example).
The ironic thing regarding SWG:JtL xpac was that there wasn't nearly the hue and cry for multi-player ships as there is here for STO. Yet those old SWG devs thought it would be cool and fun to add -- and they were right. Not only that, they figured out a way, as really good, creative developers can, a way to make multiple roles fun. Crafters repairing the ship as it breaks down, medics running around healing injured crew. They didn't even have NPC crews, something that a STO system would have.
I stand corrected, but I think that point should be emphasized lest we forget; Star Wars Galaxies... wait a sec... that needs more emphasis... *STAR* Wars... launched without a space component AT ALL.
Is that what destroyed the game?
I think not.
Still, one would likely be correct to point out that times have changed. Can you imagine what these boards would look like right now if Bioware had announced that TOR had no space combat? Hehehe... Epic Fail would suddenly become the two most used words in the English language.
Times may have changed indeed. Still, it was the love of the IP, not to mention a decent game, that caused players to temporarily live with that gaping hole.
I submit to the assembled that Star Trek is a similarly loved IP, and will survive minor bumps in the road such as launching without multi-player ships (not to mention perhaps not a fully fleshed out second faction like the Klingons).
Originally posted by Rohn Personally, I like the decision they've made, with the hope that they continue to expand the game. In any event, I'm going to at least try the game myself, which is probably more than you'll do, though you'll certainly continue to "Doubt" it as much and as loudly as possible.
I'll try the game when and if I can do so without paying them for the opportunity. I don't buy a car in order to test drive it. Especially not one with so few features and so many obvious flaws.
As for crew replacements - I will repeat what I and others have said before. It is nothing that guilds in other MMORPGs don't deal with every day, and temporary substitions are in line with the IP. The bridge crew in the various series change with virtually every episode.
You probably also wouldn't test drive a car that you've already determined that you don't like the looks of, or the features that it comes with. One need not be Nostradamus to see which way your "test" of STO will be going. RIP objectivity.
Games that mandate group play most or all of the time, or are based on an overreliance on other players, to do anything of consequence are going to have problems. WAR is a perfect example here - without a critical mass of friendlies to play with, or enemies to fight, the main focus of the game was impossible to enjoy.
A similar thing would likely occur in STO, especially during off-peak times, as you spam the LFC (looking for crew) channel just to operate your ship and play the game at its most rudimentary level. Most other games are more solo-friendly than such an STO design would be. Guilds in other games generally don't need to run minimum manning schedules 24 hours a day.
Again, I believe the design decision was made to give players the best overall experience at all times. I'm hoping they will continue to expand it, and make it so characters can man the same ship, but I understand and agree with the decision they've made so far.
Of course, I haven't played it yet, so don't know how much I'll enjoy it. I'm going to give it a fair shot, however.
How many times, really, does this canard have to be rebutted? No one advocates mandatory grouping to fill ship roles. The ship roles would be filled by NPCs as needed -- the very system that's in place now I expect. But one would have the option of playng as Bridge Crew in lieu of NPCs -- just like grouping in any MMO where people have differing roles AND differing game mechanics to learn for their selected "position".
There have indeed been at least a few advocates for mandatory player crew in the past (a quick review of threads from the "Everyone's a Captain" announcement era on several MMO boards confirms this). The idea of players replacing NPCs is a relatively new one, obviously stemming from that very announcement. Incidentally, there are still quite a few bemoaning this, as they yearn for PE's early vision of their Star Trek MMO.
While I would also like the option to eventually have multiple players crew the same starship, I'm sure there are a number of design problems that make a balanced implementation of this in STO very difficult, given the type of game it is. I can't imagine that Cryptic didn't examine this as a possibility, or is intentionally trying to piss off as many prospective players as possible by rejecting the idea out of hand. But let me ask you about your vision of player crews:
Do you think that player controlled stations would have to offer compelling, effective, powerful gameplay to the player working that station (something more complex than AI can realistically handle)? If so, does this in effect make a ship with player crew more powerful/effective than one controlled by the captain and NPC crew alone?
Or, do you think that NPC AI-controlled bridge crew should be able to equal the capabilities and effectiveness of human players? Is that even possible?
Given the above, how does Cryptic tune the content of the entire game to account for all the variables of crew manning to ensure that it offers the appropriate level of challenge in most circumstances?
How would player characters of different "levels" on the same ship be handled?
Lastly, given the current design, doesn't the idea of the captains of other ships routinely filling bridge positions on another ship also violate the IP? Or is your vision predicated on not all players being captains?
As I said, I'd also like to see player crew implemented, but in response to your "rebuttal" comment, I have yet to see an airtight, balanced, and well-considered solution offered - just the simple "sub a player for the NPC and giv'em a station interface" response.
Hey, at least then the complaining could transition from "game doesn't have player crew stations" to "game has poorly considered and unbalanced gameplay".
I stand corrected, but I think that point should be emphasized lest we forget; Star Wars Galaxies... wait a sec... that needs more emphasis... *STAR* Wars... launched without a space component AT ALL. Is that what destroyed the game? I think not. Well, it sure didn't help the game. It probably drove off a lot of players. I didn't play the game, but the lack of space combat would have kept me from playing if I had otherwise been inclined to try it. Still, one would likely be correct to point out that times have changed. Can you imagine what these boards would look like right now if Bioware had announced that TOR had no space combat? Hehehe... Epic Fail would suddenly become the two most used words in the English language.
As far as I know - there has been no space combat announced for the SWTOR launch. Once again - that's a deal-breaker for me.
"" Voice acting isn't an RPG element....it's just a production value." - grumpymel2
I stand corrected, but I think that point should be emphasized lest we forget; Star Wars Galaxies... wait a sec... that needs more emphasis... *STAR* Wars... launched without a space component AT ALL. Is that what destroyed the game? I think not. Well, it sure didn't help the game. It probably drove off a lot of players. I didn't play the game, but the lack of space combat would have kept me from playing if I had otherwise been inclined to try it. Still, one would likely be correct to point out that times have changed. Can you imagine what these boards would look like right now if Bioware had announced that TOR had no space combat? Hehehe... Epic Fail would suddenly become the two most used words in the English language.
As far as I know - there has been no space combat announced for the SWTOR launch. Once again - that's a deal-breaker for me.
You seem to have a pretty specific set of deal-breakers when it comes to video games you might otherwise enjoy. personally, I prefer to judge games for what they are, rather than what they aren't.
Only thing I want to know about this game is, what form of crafting does this game have?
Alot of info has been released about the game, but, very little has ben said about crafting. Are we looking at another game that crafting and player economy is a secondary, maybe even last minute, add on?
I thought they said crafting was going to be in the game and AH and such. Though, given how the Klingon Empire turned out, I wouldn't hold out hopes of it being much good.
I rarely (next to never) agree with MMO_Doubters' comments, but I would be interested in seeing what he/she actually writes. I'm sure they have editors on-staff that can help with the English, grammar, and general verbiage since he/she isn't proficient in that area. I'm actually interested in what MMOs that poster actually likes since every post seems to be about what he/she dislikes. I may be surprised. Perhaps I missed a few 100 posts from him/her...but it seems, in a gaming genre where you see so many negatives, one has to wonder why you follow MMORPGS at all.
-------------- Played: Age of Conan, DDO, Saga of Ryzom, SWG, DaOC, MxO, EQ2, and so on... Wish List: Jumpgate Evolution, Star Wars: TOR, Star Trek
Originally posted by Rohn Personally, I like the decision they've made, with the hope that they continue to expand the game. In any event, I'm going to at least try the game myself, which is probably more than you'll do, though you'll certainly continue to "Doubt" it as much and as loudly as possible.
I'll try the game when and if I can do so without paying them for the opportunity. I don't buy a car in order to test drive it. Especially not one with so few features and so many obvious flaws.
As for crew replacements - I will repeat what I and others have said before. It is nothing that guilds in other MMORPGs don't deal with every day, and temporary substitions are in line with the IP. The bridge crew in the various series change with virtually every episode.
You probably also wouldn't test drive a car that you've already determined that you don't like the looks of, or the features that it comes with. One need not be Nostradamus to see which way your "test" of STO will be going. RIP objectivity.
Games that mandate group play most or all of the time, or are based on an overreliance on other players, to do anything of consequence are going to have problems. WAR is a perfect example here - without a critical mass of friendlies to play with, or enemies to fight, the main focus of the game was impossible to enjoy.
A similar thing would likely occur in STO, especially during off-peak times, as you spam the LFC (looking for crew) channel just to operate your ship and play the game at its most rudimentary level. Most other games are more solo-friendly than such an STO design would be. Guilds in other games generally don't need to run minimum manning schedules 24 hours a day.
Again, I believe the design decision was made to give players the best overall experience at all times. I'm hoping they will continue to expand it, and make it so characters can man the same ship, but I understand and agree with the decision they've made so far.
Of course, I haven't played it yet, so don't know how much I'll enjoy it. I'm going to give it a fair shot, however.
How many times, really, does this canard have to be rebutted? No one advocates mandatory grouping to fill ship roles. The ship roles would be filled by NPCs as needed -- the very system that's in place now I expect. But one would have the option of playng as Bridge Crew in lieu of NPCs -- just like grouping in any MMO where people have differing roles AND differing game mechanics to learn for their selected "position".
There have indeed been at least a few advocates for mandatory player crew in the past (a quick review of threads from the "Everyone's a Captain" announcement era on several MMO boards confirms this). The idea of players replacing NPCs is a relatively new one, obviously stemming from that very announcement. Incidentally, there are still quite a few bemoaning this, as they yearn for PE's early vision of their Star Trek MMO.
And there are a few advocates everywhere who would like to see mandatory grouping in all MMOs. Thankfully the exception doesn't prove the rule. I see that you're obviously new to the discussion, so I'll be gentle. The idea of players replacing crews has been around a long time, even when Perpetual had the IP. Because guess what? The same tired argument was attempted, and shot down then as it is now.
While I would also like the option to eventually have multiple players crew the same starship, I'm sure there are a number of design problems that make a balanced implementation of this in STO very difficult, given the type of game it is. I can't imagine that Cryptic didn't examine this as a possibility, or is intentionally trying to piss off as many prospective players as possible by rejecting the idea out of hand. But let me ask you about your vision of player crews:
Intentionally trying to piss of people? No. Willfully? Yes. They know they are pissing off people. As I said elsewhere, it is highly possible that Cryptic devs simply aren't talented enough to pull off multi-player ships like the talented system designers of SWG. I guess there shouldn't be any shame in that -- not everyone is a genius. Doesn't mean I can't be disappointed.
Do you think that player controlled stations would have to offer compelling, effective, powerful gameplay to the player working that station (something more complex than AI can realistically handle)? If so, does this in effect make a ship with player crew more powerful/effective than one controlled by the captain and NPC crew alone?
I don't know, you tell me? Is your standard fantasy MMO group of tank/DPS/Healer/crowd control more powerful than a solo player? Or a solo player with a pet? I think you know the answer. Of course groups of players are going to be more poweful -- that is what group content is for.
Or, do you think that NPC AI-controlled bridge crew should be able to equal the capabilities and effectiveness of human players? Is that even possible?
See my answer above. Pets have typical MMO AI -- nothing different. Now I can imagine a design in which NPCs are buffed in some manner to balance human players -- but then again I see a clear separation between group content which would be exploited (not in the bad sense of the word) by Player Crews, and Solo content which could use AI.
Given the above, how does Cryptic tune the content of the entire game to account for all the variables of crew manning to ensure that it offers the appropriate level of challenge in most circumstances?
I don't know, ask any dev that has to balance fantasy MMO roles of tank/DPS/healer/crowd control. You make it sound as though balancing content for groups is some how a new and bizarre concept. Seriously, people, this concept isn't foreign at all.
How would player characters of different "levels" on the same ship be handled?
Uhm, again, how are players of different levels handled while grouping in a fantasy MMO? In many cases, it doesn't happen. But just look at how Cryptic solved this problem with CoH -- they used a mentoring system. Is it that far fetched to think the same company that invented the mentoring system couldn't implement something similar in one of their own games???
Lastly, given the current design, doesn't the idea of the captains of other ships routinely filling bridge positions on another ship also violate the IP? Or is your vision predicated on not all players being captains?
The idea behind Player Crews is that you are that officer, be it Science, Engineering, medical. That would be your choice as a character occupation. Could your character then 'captain' another ship as per Cryptic's own definition? Sure. This has been seen in many situations throughout the various series.
As I said, I'd also like to see player crew implemented, but in response to your "rebuttal" comment, I have yet to see an airtight, balanced, and well-considered solution offered - just the simple "sub a player for the NPC and giv'em a station interface" response.
Then you really aren't following closely.
Hey, at least then the complaining could transition from "game doesn't have player crew stations" to "game has poorly considered and unbalanced gameplay".
Only if you believe Developers in general are unable to balance gameplay across roles within groups -- then yes, and it wouldn't be a problem unique to this vision of STO.
_____________________________ Currently Playing: LOTRO; DDO Played: AC2, AO, Auto Assault, CoX, DAoC, DDO, Earth&Beyond, EQ1, EQ2, EVE, Fallen Earth, Jumpgate, Roma Victor, Second Life, SWG, V:SoH, WoW, World War II Online.
Games I'm watching: Infinity: The Quest for Earth, Force of Arms.
Originally posted by Salvatoris You seem to have a pretty specific set of deal-breakers when it comes to video games you might otherwise enjoy. personally, I prefer to judge games for what they are, rather than what they aren't.
I want games that use a big name IP to draw in customers to match what the IP has to offer. Space combat is a huge part of Star Wars.
"" Voice acting isn't an RPG element....it's just a production value." - grumpymel2
I rarely (next to never) agree with MMO_Doubters' comments, but I would be interested in seeing what he/she actually writes. It's "he". I'm sure they have editors on-staff that can help with the English, grammar, and general verbiage since he/she isn't proficient in that area.
I'm not? I'm actually interested in what MMOs that poster actually likes since every post seems to be about what he/she dislikes. You only follow some of the games about which I post, or you don't notice my positive posts, because they don't prompt a heated exchange of ideas and insults. I may be surprised. Perhaps I missed a few 100 posts from him/her...but it seems, in a gaming genre where you see so many negatives, one has to wonder why you follow MMORPGS at all.
It's because of the potential for entertainment in a really well-made MMO. Some of the best times I have had in gaming have come while playing MMOs. If I had no hope of a quality gaming experience, I would have left the genre long ago.
It's a lot like dating - you put up with a lot of disappointment because you only have to hit the jackpot once for it all to be worthwhile. I guess I'm a romantic, at heart.
"" Voice acting isn't an RPG element....it's just a production value." - grumpymel2
As far as I know - there has been no space combat announced for the SWTOR launch. Once again - that's a deal-breaker for me.
Well, I'll be dipped. You're right.
I guess I just assumed that there would be after watching the "sacking of Coruscant" trailer, which contains spacecraft (they are just not in space is all). There are also an interesting spacescape at the beginning of another trailer called "Diverse worlds".
I do not understand the angst about this game (I am by no way garaunteeing success). Can anyone who is upset about player crews honestly tell me you would be 100% satisfied with the game if player crews were included? Conversely, those who are in favor of the current format... are 100% happy with the game without player crews? I realize no one has played it publicly but I would venture to say that everyone has their issues with the game. In fact, that is true with any game. You can never please anyone. If Cryptic included player crew only format (I realize that empty spot could be populated by NPCs), I'm sure there would just as much of an outcry from the non-player crew side of things.
Instead of focusing on the negative (no dorsal/ventral shields per se, Lack of klingon information/development it would seem, among a few other things) I try to keep in perspective a few things: 1) This is Cryptics offering of Star Trek, 30 years after Nemisis....how different is our lives now than they were 30 years ago? 2) The masses will never be please 100% (Cryptic has limited resources) 3) Don't knock it until you try it.
I have not played the game yet... I intend to try the open BETA. I do not preorder games for promotional stuff like access to BETA, Starship X etc (that is not to say ppl are dumb for doing it).
You can never please anyone. If Cryptic included player crew only format (I realize that empty spot could be populated by NPCs), I'm sure there would just as much of an outcry from the non-player crew side of things.
Given that player crews would be optional, what would soloers have to complain about?
"" Voice acting isn't an RPG element....it's just a production value." - grumpymel2
Hopefully this will be enough for all the people who haven't played the game, but still complain "it doesn't feel like star trek!". One marginally positive preview will hardly do that. At best, I give a raised eyebrow in minor interest, still believing the bulk of game features as described quite disappointedly do not measure up to the potential of the IP. On the subject of player crews, I completely understand where you're coming from. The problem is you would have to rely too much on other people to do anything in the game. Cryptic felt it would be more fun for everyone to be at the helm and in command. I understand some people don't like this, but I also understand there's a lot of people who like this idea better. Having played Puzzle Pirates, I can say that player crews for ships are great when everyone meshes well together, but they can be quite terrible if the team dynamic is off. I think it must have been a difficult design decision, but they've given out a number of reasons why they believe it was the right one. As an avid MMO player, I believe they made the right decision. I greatly disagree here. Player crews can work. It has been proven in other games. A combined player-NPC crew approach would solve any issue with absent players and still allow those who wish to go alone to do so. It was clearly more expediant for Cryptic to go the full NPC route. Perhaps the game will work well enough within this design, but it will always be a weakness the game will bear. I urge anyone who's worried about having to be a captain to wait and try the game before saying it was the wrong decision. I can say positively right now, with all other things equal, choosing NPC-crewed vessels over player-crewed is the wrong decision. If Cryptic wants to own up to other considerations, which are being postulated on these boards, then we can more fairly judge. But the simple claim "player crews won't work" is soundly rejected as false.
Yes but what Star Trek feel exactly? The devil may care, tongue in cheek feel of the original series, with its large dose of cold war paranoia Americanism? The more mature, and somewhat constipated feel of STNG? The more wild wild west frontier justice meets space opera feel of Deep Space Nine? The strangers in a strange land feel of Voyager? Or the somewhat haphazard and confused feel of Enterprise?
Star Trek is a big big universe with a ton of history. From what I have seen so far is it looks like they just took all of it, tossed it in a blender and hit frappe. While this ersatz Trek salad may appeal to many fans, it just does not appeal to me. Honestly considering the nitpickiness of most Trek fans, no version they create will please all. Personally I think the best idea they could have used was to allow people to be a part of the Star Trek universe without having to be a part of Starfleet.
I know, your job isn't to comment on what could or should have been, but what is. However as a Trek fan yourself, Jon, do you think this game really nails the "in the Star Trek Universe" feeling, or will it just seem like we are hanging out at a virtual Trek convention?
"Gypsies, tramps, and thieves, we were called by the Admin of the site . . . "
I think a lot of people are forgetting just how conceptually massive the Star-Trek universe actually is, how could anyone possibly hit all of the nuances & possibilities within this IP & be produced by & represented in an MMO in under 30 years is just not possible.
I think people should judge the game on it's merits & what is can do on release, this potentially could become the most-expanded game in history thanks to it's hugely encompassing IP, but it has to start somewhere right?
I don't like the comments that Star Trek is equally about space and ground. I don't agree with that at all. Take DS9. There was rarely planet-side action. Generally, all the action was aboard the station or in a ship. Likewise, with Voyager almost all of the action took place on Voyager. Enterprise I would say was skewed more towards in-space action. I think TNG was a little more balanced and TOS was probably the most balanced space to ground. My point is Star Trek, as others have pointed out, encompasses a massive canon. Some people in the ST universe live their entire lives in space. I'm a little turned off by being fed this notion that every mission should involve ground action. It's just not true. It would be nice to be able to select missions that allow you to only do space actions. I'm not sure if that's supported or not, but it would be nice.
do you think this game really nails the "in the Star Trek Universe" feeling, or will it just seem like we are hanging out at a virtual Trek convention?
From the screenshots, it looks like all the space battles are of a scale seldom seen in Star Trek. How many times in the movies or any series did you see 20 ships on screen battling it out? I know there are a few examples, but most altercations were limited to two or three ships max. In the numbers we see in screenshots the ships look almost disposable.
I guess you never watched the last two seasons of Deep Space 9. There were massive battles all over the place.
I make spreadsheets at work - I don't want to make them for the games I play.
Comments
Hmm, regarding player crews, it'd actually be possible to do if you had the player beam over, come onto the bridge and "relieve" your NPC. Since we have captain roles, the visiting captain could have substantial buffs over the NPC bridge officer ones, even possibly giving your ship some of the abilities of their regular one.
It'd be a neat way to "mentor" someone too, as early ships just don't belong in some scenarios, say one where it takes a certain amount of shields to survive background radiation, or you need the sensors of a Science ship to locate something but are ambushed by a heavy military force, etc.
Just my .02 cred.
W
Edit - oh and good article Dana, thanks for the additional info. Good to hear they got a good "feel" going in the game, that's very important to keep people from just playing through to the endgame as fast as they can. I think it'll keep people from lapsing into WoW-in-space mode
Where do you see that MMO_Doubter has declined, refused or otherwise indicated a response to Dana's offer?
_____________________________
Currently Playing: LOTRO; DDO
Played: AC2, AO, Auto Assault, CoX, DAoC, DDO, Earth&Beyond, EQ1, EQ2, EVE, Fallen Earth, Jumpgate, Roma Victor, Second Life, SWG, V:SoH, WoW, World War II Online.
Games I'm watching: Infinity: The Quest for Earth, Force of Arms.
Find the Truth: http://www.factcheck.org/
Where do you see that MMO_Doubter has declined, refused or otherwise indicated a response to Dana's offer?
He's going by Internet time, lack of response for a number of hours (not days) results in forfeit.
That is a kind and generous offer.
Writing full articles is not my thing. It's a long time since English class and I do not write professionally. I rely on temporary inspiration to fuel my posting. Which is why I alternate from one-liners to walls of text.
I'm not sure if I can do more than re-state what I and others have already posted on this subject, but I will see what I can cobble together over the next few days. Available time permitting.
At least the readers here can enjoy a respite from my usual posting habits.
I'll see what I can do.
"" Voice acting isn't an RPG element....it's just a production value." - grumpymel2
That's great I love that he was offered a chance to write it out rather than being banned into oblivion. That being said and seeing there's some actual thought going on here....
What do you have to say about how Klingons have been handled? If not for the fact that they've been downsized to a monster play type of experience than how about how much of a doofus move it was to not market the 2nd faction as a different experience altogether?
There's another post on this but it's filled with so much angst it's difficult to get a thoughtful response out of anyone who isn't extremely pissed that they can't turn the redlights on, eat live worms and set their phasers to DOMINATE.
Only thing I want to know about this game is, what form of crafting does this game have?
Alot of info has been released about the game, but, very little has ben said about crafting. Are we looking at another game that crafting and player economy is a secondary, maybe even last minute, add on?
That's actually not true at all. Multi-player ships were available at JtL launch. I beta tested that xpac -- back when beta testing meant something, haha. But you have a point in so far as the JtL xpac was released months after the initial launch, so STO could possibly add Player Crew functionality.
But here's my fear, since I keep hearing from STO developers that if there's enough player demand, they'll add Player Crews: After launch they'll see if they've placated enough people with their current system in order to satisfy the bean counters -- to this end, I think they'll be successful. Thus STO won't feel obliged to introduce Player Crews because, through self-fullfilling rationalization, there won't be any 'demand'. You see how that's a self-fulfilling rationalization? It's like US automakers saying there isn't any demand for hybrid/electric cars, and yet how do they know or measure that demand when they aren't producing any of that product? lol. (Okay, let's not get into car talk here, it was just an example).
The ironic thing regarding SWG:JtL xpac was that there wasn't nearly the hue and cry for multi-player ships as there is here for STO. Yet those old SWG devs thought it would be cool and fun to add -- and they were right. Not only that, they figured out a way, as really good, creative developers can, a way to make multiple roles fun. Crafters repairing the ship as it breaks down, medics running around healing injured crew. They didn't even have NPC crews, something that a STO system would have.
I stand corrected, but I think that point should be emphasized lest we forget; Star Wars Galaxies... wait a sec... that needs more emphasis... *STAR* Wars... launched without a space component AT ALL.
Is that what destroyed the game?
I think not.
Still, one would likely be correct to point out that times have changed. Can you imagine what these boards would look like right now if Bioware had announced that TOR had no space combat? Hehehe... Epic Fail would suddenly become the two most used words in the English language.
Times may have changed indeed. Still, it was the love of the IP, not to mention a decent game, that caused players to temporarily live with that gaping hole.
I submit to the assembled that Star Trek is a similarly loved IP, and will survive minor bumps in the road such as launching without multi-player ships (not to mention perhaps not a fully fleshed out second faction like the Klingons).
I'll try the game when and if I can do so without paying them for the opportunity. I don't buy a car in order to test drive it. Especially not one with so few features and so many obvious flaws.
As for crew replacements - I will repeat what I and others have said before. It is nothing that guilds in other MMORPGs don't deal with every day, and temporary substitions are in line with the IP. The bridge crew in the various series change with virtually every episode.
You probably also wouldn't test drive a car that you've already determined that you don't like the looks of, or the features that it comes with. One need not be Nostradamus to see which way your "test" of STO will be going. RIP objectivity.
Games that mandate group play most or all of the time, or are based on an overreliance on other players, to do anything of consequence are going to have problems. WAR is a perfect example here - without a critical mass of friendlies to play with, or enemies to fight, the main focus of the game was impossible to enjoy.
A similar thing would likely occur in STO, especially during off-peak times, as you spam the LFC (looking for crew) channel just to operate your ship and play the game at its most rudimentary level. Most other games are more solo-friendly than such an STO design would be. Guilds in other games generally don't need to run minimum manning schedules 24 hours a day.
Again, I believe the design decision was made to give players the best overall experience at all times. I'm hoping they will continue to expand it, and make it so characters can man the same ship, but I understand and agree with the decision they've made so far.
Of course, I haven't played it yet, so don't know how much I'll enjoy it. I'm going to give it a fair shot, however.
How many times, really, does this canard have to be rebutted? No one advocates mandatory grouping to fill ship roles. The ship roles would be filled by NPCs as needed -- the very system that's in place now I expect. But one would have the option of playng as Bridge Crew in lieu of NPCs -- just like grouping in any MMO where people have differing roles AND differing game mechanics to learn for their selected "position".
There have indeed been at least a few advocates for mandatory player crew in the past (a quick review of threads from the "Everyone's a Captain" announcement era on several MMO boards confirms this). The idea of players replacing NPCs is a relatively new one, obviously stemming from that very announcement. Incidentally, there are still quite a few bemoaning this, as they yearn for PE's early vision of their Star Trek MMO.
While I would also like the option to eventually have multiple players crew the same starship, I'm sure there are a number of design problems that make a balanced implementation of this in STO very difficult, given the type of game it is. I can't imagine that Cryptic didn't examine this as a possibility, or is intentionally trying to piss off as many prospective players as possible by rejecting the idea out of hand. But let me ask you about your vision of player crews:
Do you think that player controlled stations would have to offer compelling, effective, powerful gameplay to the player working that station (something more complex than AI can realistically handle)? If so, does this in effect make a ship with player crew more powerful/effective than one controlled by the captain and NPC crew alone?
Or, do you think that NPC AI-controlled bridge crew should be able to equal the capabilities and effectiveness of human players? Is that even possible?
Given the above, how does Cryptic tune the content of the entire game to account for all the variables of crew manning to ensure that it offers the appropriate level of challenge in most circumstances?
How would player characters of different "levels" on the same ship be handled?
Lastly, given the current design, doesn't the idea of the captains of other ships routinely filling bridge positions on another ship also violate the IP? Or is your vision predicated on not all players being captains?
As I said, I'd also like to see player crew implemented, but in response to your "rebuttal" comment, I have yet to see an airtight, balanced, and well-considered solution offered - just the simple "sub a player for the NPC and giv'em a station interface" response.
Hey, at least then the complaining could transition from "game doesn't have player crew stations" to "game has poorly considered and unbalanced gameplay".
Hell hath no fury like an MMORPG player scorned.
As far as I know - there has been no space combat announced for the SWTOR launch. Once again - that's a deal-breaker for me.
"" Voice acting isn't an RPG element....it's just a production value." - grumpymel2
As far as I know - there has been no space combat announced for the SWTOR launch. Once again - that's a deal-breaker for me.
You seem to have a pretty specific set of deal-breakers when it comes to video games you might otherwise enjoy. personally, I prefer to judge games for what they are, rather than what they aren't.
-----Zero Punctuation Eve Online Review-----
I thought they said crafting was going to be in the game and AH and such. Though, given how the Klingon Empire turned out, I wouldn't hold out hopes of it being much good.
I rarely (next to never) agree with MMO_Doubters' comments, but I would be interested in seeing what he/she actually writes. I'm sure they have editors on-staff that can help with the English, grammar, and general verbiage since he/she isn't proficient in that area. I'm actually interested in what MMOs that poster actually likes since every post seems to be about what he/she dislikes. I may be surprised. Perhaps I missed a few 100 posts from him/her...but it seems, in a gaming genre where you see so many negatives, one has to wonder why you follow MMORPGS at all.
--------------
Played: Age of Conan, DDO, Saga of Ryzom, SWG, DaOC, MxO, EQ2, and so on...
Wish List: Jumpgate Evolution, Star Wars: TOR, Star Trek
I'll try the game when and if I can do so without paying them for the opportunity. I don't buy a car in order to test drive it. Especially not one with so few features and so many obvious flaws.
As for crew replacements - I will repeat what I and others have said before. It is nothing that guilds in other MMORPGs don't deal with every day, and temporary substitions are in line with the IP. The bridge crew in the various series change with virtually every episode.
You probably also wouldn't test drive a car that you've already determined that you don't like the looks of, or the features that it comes with. One need not be Nostradamus to see which way your "test" of STO will be going. RIP objectivity.
Games that mandate group play most or all of the time, or are based on an overreliance on other players, to do anything of consequence are going to have problems. WAR is a perfect example here - without a critical mass of friendlies to play with, or enemies to fight, the main focus of the game was impossible to enjoy.
A similar thing would likely occur in STO, especially during off-peak times, as you spam the LFC (looking for crew) channel just to operate your ship and play the game at its most rudimentary level. Most other games are more solo-friendly than such an STO design would be. Guilds in other games generally don't need to run minimum manning schedules 24 hours a day.
Again, I believe the design decision was made to give players the best overall experience at all times. I'm hoping they will continue to expand it, and make it so characters can man the same ship, but I understand and agree with the decision they've made so far.
Of course, I haven't played it yet, so don't know how much I'll enjoy it. I'm going to give it a fair shot, however.
How many times, really, does this canard have to be rebutted? No one advocates mandatory grouping to fill ship roles. The ship roles would be filled by NPCs as needed -- the very system that's in place now I expect. But one would have the option of playng as Bridge Crew in lieu of NPCs -- just like grouping in any MMO where people have differing roles AND differing game mechanics to learn for their selected "position".
There have indeed been at least a few advocates for mandatory player crew in the past (a quick review of threads from the "Everyone's a Captain" announcement era on several MMO boards confirms this). The idea of players replacing NPCs is a relatively new one, obviously stemming from that very announcement. Incidentally, there are still quite a few bemoaning this, as they yearn for PE's early vision of their Star Trek MMO.
And there are a few advocates everywhere who would like to see mandatory grouping in all MMOs. Thankfully the exception doesn't prove the rule. I see that you're obviously new to the discussion, so I'll be gentle. The idea of players replacing crews has been around a long time, even when Perpetual had the IP. Because guess what? The same tired argument was attempted, and shot down then as it is now.
While I would also like the option to eventually have multiple players crew the same starship, I'm sure there are a number of design problems that make a balanced implementation of this in STO very difficult, given the type of game it is. I can't imagine that Cryptic didn't examine this as a possibility, or is intentionally trying to piss off as many prospective players as possible by rejecting the idea out of hand. But let me ask you about your vision of player crews:
Intentionally trying to piss of people? No. Willfully? Yes. They know they are pissing off people. As I said elsewhere, it is highly possible that Cryptic devs simply aren't talented enough to pull off multi-player ships like the talented system designers of SWG. I guess there shouldn't be any shame in that -- not everyone is a genius. Doesn't mean I can't be disappointed.
Do you think that player controlled stations would have to offer compelling, effective, powerful gameplay to the player working that station (something more complex than AI can realistically handle)? If so, does this in effect make a ship with player crew more powerful/effective than one controlled by the captain and NPC crew alone?
I don't know, you tell me? Is your standard fantasy MMO group of tank/DPS/Healer/crowd control more powerful than a solo player? Or a solo player with a pet? I think you know the answer. Of course groups of players are going to be more poweful -- that is what group content is for.
Or, do you think that NPC AI-controlled bridge crew should be able to equal the capabilities and effectiveness of human players? Is that even possible?
See my answer above. Pets have typical MMO AI -- nothing different. Now I can imagine a design in which NPCs are buffed in some manner to balance human players -- but then again I see a clear separation between group content which would be exploited (not in the bad sense of the word) by Player Crews, and Solo content which could use AI.
Given the above, how does Cryptic tune the content of the entire game to account for all the variables of crew manning to ensure that it offers the appropriate level of challenge in most circumstances?
I don't know, ask any dev that has to balance fantasy MMO roles of tank/DPS/healer/crowd control. You make it sound as though balancing content for groups is some how a new and bizarre concept. Seriously, people, this concept isn't foreign at all.
How would player characters of different "levels" on the same ship be handled?
Uhm, again, how are players of different levels handled while grouping in a fantasy MMO? In many cases, it doesn't happen. But just look at how Cryptic solved this problem with CoH -- they used a mentoring system. Is it that far fetched to think the same company that invented the mentoring system couldn't implement something similar in one of their own games???
Lastly, given the current design, doesn't the idea of the captains of other ships routinely filling bridge positions on another ship also violate the IP? Or is your vision predicated on not all players being captains?
The idea behind Player Crews is that you are that officer, be it Science, Engineering, medical. That would be your choice as a character occupation. Could your character then 'captain' another ship as per Cryptic's own definition? Sure. This has been seen in many situations throughout the various series.
As I said, I'd also like to see player crew implemented, but in response to your "rebuttal" comment, I have yet to see an airtight, balanced, and well-considered solution offered - just the simple "sub a player for the NPC and giv'em a station interface" response.
Then you really aren't following closely.
Hey, at least then the complaining could transition from "game doesn't have player crew stations" to "game has poorly considered and unbalanced gameplay".
Only if you believe Developers in general are unable to balance gameplay across roles within groups -- then yes, and it wouldn't be a problem unique to this vision of STO.
_____________________________
Currently Playing: LOTRO; DDO
Played: AC2, AO, Auto Assault, CoX, DAoC, DDO, Earth&Beyond, EQ1, EQ2, EVE, Fallen Earth, Jumpgate, Roma Victor, Second Life, SWG, V:SoH, WoW, World War II Online.
Games I'm watching: Infinity: The Quest for Earth, Force of Arms.
Find the Truth: http://www.factcheck.org/
I want games that use a big name IP to draw in customers to match what the IP has to offer. Space combat is a huge part of Star Wars.
"" Voice acting isn't an RPG element....it's just a production value." - grumpymel2
It's because of the potential for entertainment in a really well-made MMO. Some of the best times I have had in gaming have come while playing MMOs. If I had no hope of a quality gaming experience, I would have left the genre long ago.
It's a lot like dating - you put up with a lot of disappointment because you only have to hit the jackpot once for it all to be worthwhile. I guess I'm a romantic, at heart.
"" Voice acting isn't an RPG element....it's just a production value." - grumpymel2
Well, I'll be dipped. You're right.
I guess I just assumed that there would be after watching the "sacking of Coruscant" trailer, which contains spacecraft (they are just not in space is all). There are also an interesting spacescape at the beginning of another trailer called "Diverse worlds".
Doesn't mean anything though, I suppose.
I do not understand the angst about this game (I am by no way garaunteeing success). Can anyone who is upset about player crews honestly tell me you would be 100% satisfied with the game if player crews were included? Conversely, those who are in favor of the current format... are 100% happy with the game without player crews? I realize no one has played it publicly but I would venture to say that everyone has their issues with the game. In fact, that is true with any game. You can never please anyone. If Cryptic included player crew only format (I realize that empty spot could be populated by NPCs), I'm sure there would just as much of an outcry from the non-player crew side of things.
Instead of focusing on the negative (no dorsal/ventral shields per se, Lack of klingon information/development it would seem, among a few other things) I try to keep in perspective a few things: 1) This is Cryptics offering of Star Trek, 30 years after Nemisis....how different is our lives now than they were 30 years ago? 2) The masses will never be please 100% (Cryptic has limited resources) 3) Don't knock it until you try it.
I have not played the game yet... I intend to try the open BETA. I do not preorder games for promotional stuff like access to BETA, Starship X etc (that is not to say ppl are dumb for doing it).
Just get OPen BETA and give it a try
Given that player crews would be optional, what would soloers have to complain about?
"" Voice acting isn't an RPG element....it's just a production value." - grumpymel2
you have the game that you reviewed mixed up with the STO in "this" reality
it might have started off that way with the previous owner,, its not now.
that misson you did with no combat on the planet was there combat elsewhere on that misson? how was the grouping with other players?
I think that all but the most dulisonal and blind star trek fans will be severly dissapointed and mad with STO
my sugestion is wait a few months and see what real players say after their first 30 days
not the stealth advertizers and promoters.
make a world, not a game, we dont want another game.
Yes but what Star Trek feel exactly? The devil may care, tongue in cheek feel of the original series, with its large dose of cold war paranoia Americanism? The more mature, and somewhat constipated feel of STNG? The more wild wild west frontier justice meets space opera feel of Deep Space Nine? The strangers in a strange land feel of Voyager? Or the somewhat haphazard and confused feel of Enterprise?
Star Trek is a big big universe with a ton of history. From what I have seen so far is it looks like they just took all of it, tossed it in a blender and hit frappe. While this ersatz Trek salad may appeal to many fans, it just does not appeal to me. Honestly considering the nitpickiness of most Trek fans, no version they create will please all. Personally I think the best idea they could have used was to allow people to be a part of the Star Trek universe without having to be a part of Starfleet.
I know, your job isn't to comment on what could or should have been, but what is. However as a Trek fan yourself, Jon, do you think this game really nails the "in the Star Trek Universe" feeling, or will it just seem like we are hanging out at a virtual Trek convention?
"Gypsies, tramps, and thieves, we were called by the Admin of the site . . . "
I think a lot of people are forgetting just how conceptually massive the Star-Trek universe actually is, how could anyone possibly hit all of the nuances & possibilities within this IP & be produced by & represented in an MMO in under 30 years is just not possible.
I think people should judge the game on it's merits & what is can do on release, this potentially could become the most-expanded game in history thanks to it's hugely encompassing IP, but it has to start somewhere right?
I don't like the comments that Star Trek is equally about space and ground. I don't agree with that at all. Take DS9. There was rarely planet-side action. Generally, all the action was aboard the station or in a ship. Likewise, with Voyager almost all of the action took place on Voyager. Enterprise I would say was skewed more towards in-space action. I think TNG was a little more balanced and TOS was probably the most balanced space to ground. My point is Star Trek, as others have pointed out, encompasses a massive canon. Some people in the ST universe live their entire lives in space. I'm a little turned off by being fed this notion that every mission should involve ground action. It's just not true. It would be nice to be able to select missions that allow you to only do space actions. I'm not sure if that's supported or not, but it would be nice.
This is a nice comparision. Mind if I steal it?
I guess you never watched the last two seasons of Deep Space 9. There were massive battles all over the place.
I make spreadsheets at work - I don't want to make them for the games I play.