Not to scale? Well how tall is the captian sitting in the chair. In this game i imagine you have quite a range of heights and body types. The chair will have to fit them all, just make your captian bigger if you think it is an eyesore.
Ship interiors had to go in. Hate to say it cryptic, players are going to want the entire cake, better get busy. Sick bay, the transporter room, the engine room, the briefing room, hallways, jeffries tubes, shuttle bays, holodecks, crew quarters. NPC crews waliking around. You Have to put it all in now. Oh, and you have to have episodes that take you into all thoses areas as well. Face it, having those areas makes it so you can tell a real star trek story. Thank you for listening, but this was just an admission by you that it was needed, now you have to go all the way.
Nice work cryptic, now invent replicaters. Tea! Earl grey!.....Hot!
Haha, well said. Tho I'd prefer a strong Raktajino. XD
EDIT: Oh, but the options for evil! Sshhh, buy now this elegant Enterprise D luxury bridge! It's only $19,99 today! *__*
I was surprised to read they took it to the new movie timeline. Kinda sad, now that Romulus AND Vulcan are destroyed, the homeworlds of my two fav. races. *sigh*
Unless there is some explaination I have not read, Vulcan is still there. This game is set in the far future (10 years after Star Trek NG: Nemesis) of the original universe. The new Star Trek film is in its own universe. It is missing Vulcan but not Romulus... yet.
Hurm, let me read it again... Quote:
"The game is set 22 years after the supernova that destroyed the Romulan homeworld and transported an elder Spock and the villainous Nero into director J.J. Abrams' reimagined "Star Trek." Peace between the Federation and Klingons has since evaporated, meaning space combat will play a vital role in the game, though there are still strange new worlds to explore.
"It's familiar, but it's new," said Zinkievich. "We've changed a few things and added a few things to the universe. I think that's what keeps us from stepping on the hardcore Trekkies' toes. The team is made up of 'Star Trek' fans and avid MMO fans, so if we can make a game that doesn't churn our stomach, then I think we can definitely satisfy the fans."
Difficult to read. If it were after the Abrams film Vulcan and Romulus are gone. Unfortunate that would be. But he also says they changed and added things not to step on Trekkies toes. (I am always surprised how many phrases in German exist in English also btw.) It's not entirely clear how that can be. How can the Star Trek 11 events happen and still Romulus and Vulcan exist? Does anyone has recent facts about all this? I always wanted to play a treacherous Romulan, hrhr. Don't like it that they added those stupid forehead ridges to them. They are the same race as Vulcans, just 1000 years or so later. Way to little to evolve different foreheads! Pft.
People don't ask questions to get answers - they ask questions to show how smart they are. - Dogbert
I am so cautious now of any games that are coming out and over hyped beyond belief until I get my hands on them and test them or demo them. I still haven't bought Dragon Age simply because I am not sold on it after playing it abit on friends PC. I did get a copy of Modern Warfare 2 simply because I tried a friends copy and loved it. So I had to have it. FPS fan and all. Still haven't played Borderlands...just not my cup of tea....game looks bland. I dunno...I'm just very sceptical any more about a game delivering a fun and challenging game that will be worth the money I spend on it.
That's a really nice development. Many Trek fans really wanted to see this in the game, and it seems like Cryptic has listened. Now, if they can only manage to stick with a subscription model, without adding any game-changing RMT crap, I'm in. If they can then manage not to have major game revamps that totally screw player progress, I'll probably be in for the long haul. I can't think of anything more relaxing and enjoyable than an online Star Trek adventure.
I'm still waiting to see how "The same ship team-coop play" can be done in such a way as to be fun for everyone involved. A bunch of people "want" it, but are failing to describe a fun system. The TV show had episodes lasting what, 30 minutes to an hour with commercials, so 20-40 minutes? And had a week inbetween shows. And if you notice, half the time, MOST of the crew is left out, sometimes it was scotty you didn't see, or spock, or the doctor, or the chekov or uhura... and then there's all the OTHER crew... and they weren't having "fun" most of the time. So, lets see this amazing game design document that details how to make playing co-op for hours on end to be fun for everyone... I'm waiting.... ... but I'm not holding my breath.
First of all one of the many issues brought up by people who think multi-player ship crews is a bad idea is that everyone wants to be the captain, or that no one wants to take orders. This of course completely ignores the fact that the standard in MMO grouping is that someone is leader and most players have defined roles to play in the group (healer, tank, dps, etc...)
Ok, with that out of the way, here is how I think it could work. You have various ships of various sizes. Ships below a certain class size are solo flyable. Above a certain size crew positions begin to open up, larger ships needing more crew. Crew can be filled by players OR by npc's. Skill of the NPC's would be determined by the skill/lvl of the captain. In multi-player scenarios any loss of player (disconn/dinner/significant-other aggro, etc...) is automatically filled with an npc.
The positions held on board a ship could be for as long or short as desired. Long time for a guild situation, until the players level enough to captain their own multi-crew ships, or just for a mission ala (LFG Medic for Banging Green Skin Freaks)
The upshot is those who want to go it alone can and those who want more of the classic Star Trek crew interaction dynamic get that too.
I am so cautious now of any games that are coming out and over hyped beyond belief until I get my hands on them and test them or demo them. I still haven't bought Dragon Age simply because I am not sold on it after playing it abit on friends PC. I did get a copy of Modern Warfare 2 simply because I tried a friends copy and loved it. So I had to have it. FPS fan and all. Still haven't played Borderlands...just not my cup of tea....game looks bland. I dunno...I'm just very sceptical any more about a game delivering a fun and challenging game that will be worth the money I spend on it.
Yeah. Its a bit like with the boy who cried wolf too often, just the other way around.
People don't ask questions to get answers - they ask questions to show how smart they are. - Dogbert
I thought you already had the gameplay element of boarding other people's ships...... I'm pissed(vexed (angry)) that I may not be boarding other people's ships to blow them up or to make them surrender and that sucks.
They listened! Good to see they came to their senses and put a bridge in for launch, the bridge is a major part of Star Trek, to release a Star Trek MMO without one would have set the wrong tone for the game at launch, the game need to be complete to hit the ground running as Trek Fans are very unforgiving to lack of attention to important detail of Star Trek.
I''ll be catching up on a lot of missed single player games until Feb next year when this is released! It's the only MMO I want to play now when faced with all the choices of MMO out there now, I'm very jaded with them.
I will never understand a core of players obsessions with having other players filling in roles on the bridge, I posted about this loads in the Official Forums.
Yet soon as they go 'Yeah we will add bridges as a social aspect' this core once again starts up with 'Want player manned stations' chant again
As people have already said it would represent a MAJOR shift in game concept and for these reasons
1) A ship with player manned stations will ALWAYS be superior to a ship with AI manned stations, thus giving groups of people on one ship and advantage over solo players
2) just how do you make player manned stations exciting? 'Engineering, transfer more power to shields *click* ahh am done'
3) Player manned ships would suffer from the lag and disconnects that occur on the interwebs daily, in middle of combat your tactical officer suddenly loses connection
'Fire Phasers.....Fire...damn it Tactical is LD again, someone fire the phasers'
'But captain I cannae fire phasers I am an engineer, oh let me try this button'
*Warp Core Ejection in 5...4...3...2....1*
'Crap there goes the neighbourhood'
I am all for customisable bridges, this is the first step to enhancing the custom aspect of ships, get you Defiant with extra tactical stations or maybe extra engineering stations etc
And still it rages on..... I will never understand a core of players obsessions with having other players filling in roles on the bridge, I posted about this loads in the Official Forums. Yet soon as they go 'Yeah we will add bridges as a social aspect' this core once again starts up with 'Want player manned stations' chant again As people have already said it would represent a MAJOR shift in game concept and for these reasons 1) A ship with player manned stations will ALWAYS be superior to a ship with AI manned stations, thus giving groups of people on one ship and advantage over solo players 2) just how do you make player manned stations exciting? 'Engineering, transfer more power to shields *click* ahh am done' 3) Player manned ships would suffer from the lag and disconnects that occur on the interwebs daily, in middle of combat your tactical officer suddenly loses connection 'Fire Phasers.....Fire...damn it Tactical is LD again, someone fire the phasers' 'But captain I cannae fire phasers I am an engineer, oh let me try this button' *Warp Core Ejection in 5...4...3...2....1* 'Crap there goes the neighbourhood' I am all for customisable bridges, this is the first step to enhancing the custom aspect of ships, get you Defiant with extra tactical stations or maybe extra engineering stations etc
You just don't get it at all.
Losing your tac officer during combat is no worse from having your tank D/C in a standard MMORPG instance. Have you no experience grouping in an MMO at all?
We want a game that offers an MMO experience, and that includes grouping.
Your childish examples are not contributing anything of worth to the discussion.
Player crews would mean a major re-design? Maybe - they got around to the visible bridge pretty fast didn't they? Then get on that re-design - pronto.
"" Voice acting isn't an RPG element....it's just a production value." - grumpymel2
And still it rages on..... I will never understand a core of players obsessions with having other players filling in roles on the bridge, I posted about this loads in the Official Forums. Yet soon as they go 'Yeah we will add bridges as a social aspect' this core once again starts up with 'Want player manned stations' chant again As people have already said it would represent a MAJOR shift in game concept and for these reasons 1) A ship with player manned stations will ALWAYS be superior to a ship with AI manned stations, thus giving groups of people on one ship and advantage over solo players 2) just how do you make player manned stations exciting? 'Engineering, transfer more power to shields *click* ahh am done' 3) Player manned ships would suffer from the lag and disconnects that occur on the interwebs daily, in middle of combat your tactical officer suddenly loses connection 'Fire Phasers.....Fire...damn it Tactical is LD again, someone fire the phasers' 'But captain I cannae fire phasers I am an engineer, oh let me try this button' *Warp Core Ejection in 5...4...3...2....1* 'Crap there goes the neighbourhood' I am all for customisable bridges, this is the first step to enhancing the custom aspect of ships, get you Defiant with extra tactical stations or maybe extra engineering stations etc
You may have posted loads (of BS), but it is painfully obvious that you haven't internalized the rebuttals to your very sophomoric arguments.
1). You mean they're superior just like, uhm groups of players are superior to solo players? What a tremendous grasp of the obvious.
2). Exciting? Oh, I don't know, how does one make any group combat exciting? I suppose my healer in a fantasy game could just have a group heal over time that heals 20,000 damage per second -- he'd only have to hit his skill once, then sit back. But then that would be poor game design, wouldn't it? You see, it can go both ways. One could, if they had sufficient creative ability, invent a similar time intensive tasking system for each station on the ship, just as you have time intensive tasks for a tank, a healer, a dps class, etc.
As a Hunter in LoTRO, I have several options in a group. I have my attack skills, I have some crowd control, I have healing (self and poison). At any one moment, I'm assessing and analyzing the situation to see which skill to use. Mostly I'm DPSing, but the situation is fluid. My health goes down, I pop a self heal. Oi, our Minstrel has been poisoned, so I target him and cure poison, then it's back to DPS.
So now I imagine myself Weapons Officer in our ideal STO. I'm at the Weapons Station. I'm DPSing with phasors. Oi, the cooldown on my photon torpedoes has finished, so I fire another volley. But now I'm getting reports that the enemy ship is phasing its shields, so I have to hit another skill that allows me to adjust my phasor frequencies. And then, suddenly, the enemy has beamed a boarding party aboard the ship. I have another skill that directs a security team to the location I need them. If the boarding team lands on the bridge where I'm at, I can actually leave my station to fight if need be. Maybe I have to fight the boarding party AND some how fire phasors at the same time, defending my weapons console from destruction.
You know, I could go on. But I suspect you, like undoubtedly countless other times, will fail to internalize this answer. It will wash over you in your determination to be right on the interwebs.
3). Yeah, what the poster above said. Disconnects happen in groups...in Raids, it happens solo. So your point is a non-issue. But I might add that with a proper STO implementation, if a crew member goes LD, the ship AI could take over and you'd be in a better situation than say your typical Fantasy Raid situation.
_____________________________ 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.
You may have posted loads (of BS), but it is painfully obvious that you haven't internalized the rebuttals to your very sophomoric arguments.
1). You mean they're superior just like, uhm groups of players are superior to solo players? What a tremendous grasp of the obvious.
2). Exciting? Oh, I don't know, how does one make any group combat exciting? I suppose my healer in a fantasy game could just have a group heal over time that heals 20,000 damage per second -- he'd only have to hit his skill once, then sit back. But then that would be poor game design, wouldn't it? You see, it can go both ways. One could, if they had sufficient creative ability, invent a similar time intensive tasking system for each station on the ship, just as you have time intensive tasks for a tank, a healer, a dps class, etc.
As a Hunter in LoTRO, I have several options in a group. I have my attack skills, I have some crowd control, I have healing (self and poison). At any one moment, I'm assessing and analyzing the situation to see which skill to use. Mostly I'm DPSing, but the situation is fluid. My health goes down, I pop a self heal. Oi, our Minstrel has been poisoned, so I target him and cure poison, then it's back to DPS.
So now I imagine myself Weapons Officer in our ideal STO. I'm at the Weapons Station. I'm DPSing with phasors. Oi, the cooldown on my photon torpedoes has finished, so I fire another volley. But now I'm getting reports that the enemy ship is phasing its shields, so I have to hit another skill that allows me to adjust my phasor frequencies. And then, suddenly, the enemy has beamed a boarding party aboard the ship. I have another skill that directs a security team to the location I need them. If the boarding team lands on the bridge where I'm at, I can actually leave my station to fight if need be. Maybe I have to fight the boarding party AND some how fire phasors at the same time, defending my weapons console from destruction.
You know, I could go on. But I suspect you, like undoubtedly countless other times, will fail to internalize this answer. It will wash over you in your determination to be right on the interwebs.
3). Yeah, what the poster above said. Disconnects happen in groups...in Raids, it happens solo. So your point is a non-issue. But I might add that with a proper STO implementation, if a crew member goes LD, the ship AI could take over and you'd be in a better situation than say your typical Fantasy Raid situation.
Between this post and the one above it, I don't think anymore needs to be explained on this viewpoint. Very well said.
I thought you already had the gameplay element of boarding other people's ships...... I'm pissed(vexed (angry)) that I may not be boarding other people's ships to blow them up of to make them surrender and that sucks.
No I believe that option will still be in, but when you board you'll go into an instanced situation which won't have anything (look-wise) to do with that ships decorated bridge. You'll get stock footage of 'a' bridge to fight in. I'd say it would be just like PoTBS; it's just a shack from the outside, but when you instance in it's some huge nicely decorated living room.
I think it's good that they listened to the future player base and opened up part of the ship. I'm not totally impressed with the fact it's just for 'social hub' purposes but a) it is a step in the right direction and b) decorating does rate high on some peoples list of things to do.
Pity, I was excited when i read the title 'Bridge access granted' in the email. Not so when I read that all we're getting is 'bridge housing'.
Here's a hint...if one criticizes everything, then no progress is made. Encouraging the devs in an earnest and sincere way when they do take positive steps is important.
It could also be said that if no-one criticizes anything nothing will change. Besides if the devs have any sense they will base the feedback on what people say ingame and try to take anything in forums with a pinch of salt.
Personally I was hoping for an 'gaming' bridge to help with a sense of immersion into the star trek universe. I was bitterly disappointed not so much as to what is not happening as to what is. I could understand if they'd given us all quarters, a ready room or as others have suggested a version of 10 forward to decorate and socialise in. As far as i can remember though none of the captains altered the bridge design(apart from archer changing the chair) or used the bridge for social purposes beyond the odd diplomatic tour except for an episode of voyager. I thought the bridge was meant to be the functional command centre of the ship, and wasn't meant to be decorated or have everybody kicked out in order to hold the odd dinner party. My dislike of this goes to what game it sounds like they will be delivering and sounds less and less like a good deep star trek experience and more and more like the standard bland, superficial, generic game that everybody else puts out only this time with some trek backgrounds.
Also isn't the fact that the bridge is now customisable going to make it more difficult to program in a working bridge?
That also implies that you can now have more than one player onboard your ship, which is a good step forward! Now, if they would just make it so you could have lots of people onboard all controlling different things....
I see this sentiment posted very often and it always leaves me racking my brain for when in Stark Trek they actually showed what exactly the crew members did. Again I could be wrong as I've stated a bunch of times I'm a fairly casual observer of Star Trek except for the films all of which I've seen. But what exactly does Scotty,Spock,Ohura,Chekov and the rest actually "control" I've seen commands issued but have never seen them focus on what one particular crew member did.
but yeah, to call this game Fantastic is like calling Twilight the Godfather of vampire movies....
And still it rages on..... I will never understand a core of players obsessions with having other players filling in roles on the bridge, I posted about this loads in the Official Forums. Yet soon as they go 'Yeah we will add bridges as a social aspect' this core once again starts up with 'Want player manned stations' chant again As people have already said it would represent a MAJOR shift in game concept and for these reasons 1) A ship with player manned stations will ALWAYS be superior to a ship with AI manned stations, thus giving groups of people on one ship and advantage over solo players 2) just how do you make player manned stations exciting? 'Engineering, transfer more power to shields *click* ahh am done' 3) Player manned ships would suffer from the lag and disconnects that occur on the interwebs daily, in middle of combat your tactical officer suddenly loses connection 'Fire Phasers.....Fire...damn it Tactical is LD again, someone fire the phasers' 'But captain I cannae fire phasers I am an engineer, oh let me try this button' *Warp Core Ejection in 5...4...3...2....1* 'Crap there goes the neighbourhood' I am all for customisable bridges, this is the first step to enhancing the custom aspect of ships, get you Defiant with extra tactical stations or maybe extra engineering stations etc
This is largely the point I was trying to reach in my last reply to this, many of the naysayers talk so much about the depth of Star Trek but there was no true "functionality" to these control stations they were told what the captain wanted them to do and you maybe saw them flash a button or two and the "effect" happened. In that respect Star Trek the series did not allow you any more freedom than this game is offering.
I think in the end I agree which is why I'm often so against all these ideas of different players manning other stations. The amount of resources to make such a trivial part of the show possible seems hardly worth the effort especially for what it is going to come off as from a technical stand point.
I'm very happy with the addition of the bridge from launch but people really need to get off this mini game idea. The original makers of Trek didn't seem to pull it off as well as some peoples memory suggests and I think there is a specific reason for that.
but yeah, to call this game Fantastic is like calling Twilight the Godfather of vampire movies....
And still it rages on..... I will never understand a core of players obsessions with having other players filling in roles on the bridge, I posted about this loads in the Official Forums. Yet soon as they go 'Yeah we will add bridges as a social aspect' this core once again starts up with 'Want player manned stations' chant again As people have already said it would represent a MAJOR shift in game concept and for these reasons 1) A ship with player manned stations will ALWAYS be superior to a ship with AI manned stations, thus giving groups of people on one ship and advantage over solo players 2) just how do you make player manned stations exciting? 'Engineering, transfer more power to shields *click* ahh am done' 3) Player manned ships would suffer from the lag and disconnects that occur on the interwebs daily, in middle of combat your tactical officer suddenly loses connection 'Fire Phasers.....Fire...damn it Tactical is LD again, someone fire the phasers' 'But captain I cannae fire phasers I am an engineer, oh let me try this button' *Warp Core Ejection in 5...4...3...2....1* 'Crap there goes the neighbourhood' I am all for customisable bridges, this is the first step to enhancing the custom aspect of ships, get you Defiant with extra tactical stations or maybe extra engineering stations etc
You may have posted loads (of BS), but it is painfully obvious that you haven't internalized the rebuttals to your very sophomoric arguments.
1). You mean they're superior just like, uhm groups of players are superior to solo players? What a tremendous grasp of the obvious.
2). Exciting? Oh, I don't know, how does one make any group combat exciting? I suppose my healer in a fantasy game could just have a group heal over time that heals 20,000 damage per second -- he'd only have to hit his skill once, then sit back. But then that would be poor game design, wouldn't it? You see, it can go both ways. One could, if they had sufficient creative ability, invent a similar time intensive tasking system for each station on the ship, just as you have time intensive tasks for a tank, a healer, a dps class, etc.
As a Hunter in LoTRO, I have several options in a group. I have my attack skills, I have some crowd control, I have healing (self and poison). At any one moment, I'm assessing and analyzing the situation to see which skill to use. Mostly I'm DPSing, but the situation is fluid. My health goes down, I pop a self heal. Oi, our Minstrel has been poisoned, so I target him and cure poison, then it's back to DPS.
So now I imagine myself Weapons Officer in our ideal STO. I'm at the Weapons Station. I'm DPSing with phasors. Oi, the cooldown on my photon torpedoes has finished, so I fire another volley. But now I'm getting reports that the enemy ship is phasing its shields, so I have to hit another skill that allows me to adjust my phasor frequencies. And then, suddenly, the enemy has beamed a boarding party aboard the ship. I have another skill that directs a security team to the location I need them. If the boarding team lands on the bridge where I'm at, I can actually leave my station to fight if need be. Maybe I have to fight the boarding party AND some how fire phasors at the same time, defending my weapons console from destruction.
You know, I could go on. But I suspect you, like undoubtedly countless other times, will fail to internalize this answer. It will wash over you in your determination to be right on the interwebs.
3). Yeah, what the poster above said. Disconnects happen in groups...in Raids, it happens solo. So your point is a non-issue. But I might add that with a proper STO implementation, if a crew member goes LD, the ship AI could take over and you'd be in a better situation than say your typical Fantasy Raid situation.
It could stem from the fact that you use LOTRO as an example and it is currently my favorite game but your ideas sound exciting to say the least. It doesn't really sway my desire to see the game as designed but I could actually imagine the way you envision it pulled of successfully to say the least.
but yeah, to call this game Fantastic is like calling Twilight the Godfather of vampire movies....
That also implies that you can now have more than one player onboard your ship, which is a good step forward! Now, if they would just make it so you could have lots of people onboard all controlling different things....
I see this sentiment posted very often and it always leaves me racking my brain for when in Stark Trek they actually showed what exactly the crew members did. Again I could be wrong as I've stated a bunch of times I'm a fairly casual observer of Star Trek except for the films all of which I've seen. But what exactly does Scotty,Spock,Ohura,Chekov and the rest actually "control" I've seen commands issued but have never seen them focus on what one particular crew member did.
Having seen all the shows(even managed to sit through all of enterprise) and seen all the films bar the last one, mostly what the crew seemed to do is chat. I think the idea is that they man the stations and monitor the screens and don't actually do anything until needed. The tactical officer will only monitor for threats most of the time, science officer for anything interesting that shows up on scanners, communication for such etc.
Don't forget most of the people calling for player run ships have also unilaterally decided that star trek isn't about conflict and any online version must be an enterprise simulator and with the size of star trek ships you'll end up with only 1 per server
That also implies that you can now have more than one player onboard your ship, which is a good step forward! Now, if they would just make it so you could have lots of people onboard all controlling different things....
I see this sentiment posted very often and it always leaves me racking my brain for when in Stark Trek they actually showed what exactly the crew members did. Again I could be wrong as I've stated a bunch of times I'm a fairly casual observer of Star Trek except for the films all of which I've seen. But what exactly does Scotty,Spock,Ohura,Chekov and the rest actually "control" I've seen commands issued but have never seen them focus on what one particular crew member did.
Having seen all the shows(even managed to sit through all of enterprise) and seen all the films bar the last one, mostly what the crew seemed to do is chat. I think the idea is that they man the stations and monitor the screens and don't actually do anything until needed. The tactical officer will only monitor for threats most of the time, science officer for anything interesting that shows up on scanners, communication for such etc.
Don't forget most of the people calling for player run ships have also unilaterally decided that star trek isn't about conflict and any online version must be an enterprise simulator and with the size of star trek ships you'll end up with only 1 per server
That is completely untrue. I've never heard anyone calling for that. Also just because you're incapable of imagining how players could play crewmembers in no way means it can't be done. Also, that YOU or others would find such play boring in no way means it couldn't be provided for those that wouldn't find it boring WHILE keeping the singleplayer/npc setup you want. So whats the problem?
That also implies that you can now have more than one player onboard your ship, which is a good step forward! Now, if they would just make it so you could have lots of people onboard all controlling different things....
I see this sentiment posted very often and it always leaves me racking my brain for when in Stark Trek they actually showed what exactly the crew members did. Again I could be wrong as I've stated a bunch of times I'm a fairly casual observer of Star Trek except for the films all of which I've seen. But what exactly does Scotty,Spock,Ohura,Chekov and the rest actually "control" I've seen commands issued but have never seen them focus on what one particular crew member did.
Having seen all the shows(even managed to sit through all of enterprise) and seen all the films bar the last one, mostly what the crew seemed to do is chat. I think the idea is that they man the stations and monitor the screens and don't actually do anything until needed. The tactical officer will only monitor for threats most of the time, science officer for anything interesting that shows up on scanners, communication for such etc.
Don't forget most of the people calling for player run ships have also unilaterally decided that star trek isn't about conflict and any online version must be an enterprise simulator and with the size of star trek ships you'll end up with only 1 per server
I wouldn't say unilaterally. I will say that some of my favorite episodes involve watching the crew avoid FIGHTING which isn't the same thing as conflict. One can have conflict and tension without resorting to the lazy, last-ditch dramatic tool of combat. And I would argue that it is only after ever OTHER avenue has been attempted does combative drama feel real and earned. The last two seasons of DS9 are a good example of that. You had a lot of non-combative conflict that heightens dramatic tension leading up to the war. In today's MMO's, all we get is 'the war' portion, and it feels lame.
And the whole conard that STO must be an enterprise simulator is a straw man argument that has been debunked on every sight where it's appeared. Why people continue to use it, knowing full well it has been refuted, is beyond me. I guess it's to win the interwebs.
_____________________________ 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.
And still it rages on..... I will never understand a core of players obsessions with having other players filling in roles on the bridge, I posted about this loads in the Official Forums. Yet soon as they go 'Yeah we will add bridges as a social aspect' this core once again starts up with 'Want player manned stations' chant again As people have already said it would represent a MAJOR shift in game concept and for these reasons 1) A ship with player manned stations will ALWAYS be superior to a ship with AI manned stations, thus giving groups of people on one ship and advantage over solo players 2) just how do you make player manned stations exciting? 'Engineering, transfer more power to shields *click* ahh am done' 3) Player manned ships would suffer from the lag and disconnects that occur on the interwebs daily, in middle of combat your tactical officer suddenly loses connection 'Fire Phasers.....Fire...damn it Tactical is LD again, someone fire the phasers' 'But captain I cannae fire phasers I am an engineer, oh let me try this button' *Warp Core Ejection in 5...4...3...2....1* 'Crap there goes the neighbourhood' I am all for customisable bridges, this is the first step to enhancing the custom aspect of ships, get you Defiant with extra tactical stations or maybe extra engineering stations etc
You may have posted loads (of BS), but it is painfully obvious that you haven't internalized the rebuttals to your very sophomoric arguments.
1). You mean they're superior just like, uhm groups of players are superior to solo players? What a tremendous grasp of the obvious.
2). Exciting? Oh, I don't know, how does one make any group combat exciting? I suppose my healer in a fantasy game could just have a group heal over time that heals 20,000 damage per second -- he'd only have to hit his skill once, then sit back. But then that would be poor game design, wouldn't it? You see, it can go both ways. One could, if they had sufficient creative ability, invent a similar time intensive tasking system for each station on the ship, just as you have time intensive tasks for a tank, a healer, a dps class, etc.
As a Hunter in LoTRO, I have several options in a group. I have my attack skills, I have some crowd control, I have healing (self and poison). At any one moment, I'm assessing and analyzing the situation to see which skill to use. Mostly I'm DPSing, but the situation is fluid. My health goes down, I pop a self heal. Oi, our Minstrel has been poisoned, so I target him and cure poison, then it's back to DPS.
So now I imagine myself Weapons Officer in our ideal STO. I'm at the Weapons Station. I'm DPSing with phasors. Oi, the cooldown on my photon torpedoes has finished, so I fire another volley. But now I'm getting reports that the enemy ship is phasing its shields, so I have to hit another skill that allows me to adjust my phasor frequencies. And then, suddenly, the enemy has beamed a boarding party aboard the ship. I have another skill that directs a security team to the location I need them. If the boarding team lands on the bridge where I'm at, I can actually leave my station to fight if need be. Maybe I have to fight the boarding party AND some how fire phasors at the same time, defending my weapons console from destruction.
You know, I could go on. But I suspect you, like undoubtedly countless other times, will fail to internalize this answer. It will wash over you in your determination to be right on the interwebs.
3). Yeah, what the poster above said. Disconnects happen in groups...in Raids, it happens solo. So your point is a non-issue. But I might add that with a proper STO implementation, if a crew member goes LD, the ship AI could take over and you'd be in a better situation than say your typical Fantasy Raid situation.
It could stem from the fact that you use LOTRO as an example and it is currently my favorite game but your ideas sound exciting to say the least. It doesn't really sway my desire to see the game as designed but I could actually imagine the way you envision it pulled of successfully to say the least.
Thank you for being reasonable. (I'm enjoying LoTRO as well, btw). My example is crude -- I'm not a game designer. I just feel there's a vast failure of imagination in many MMOs these days. STO happens to be at the forefront in my book in this regard. Perhaps Cryptic is being timid because of pressure from Paramount, and they need to play it safe. I don't know.
_____________________________ 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 Cerion And the whole conard that STO must be an enterprise simulator is a straw man argument that has been debunked on every sight where it's appeared. Why people continue to use it, knowing full well it has been refuted, is beyond me. I guess it's to win the interwebs.
Perhaps it is to prime the market for mediocrity. High expectations and a shoddy game don't mix well. Warhammer Online for example.
"" Voice acting isn't an RPG element....it's just a production value." - grumpymel2
Comments
Not to scale? Well how tall is the captian sitting in the chair. In this game i imagine you have quite a range of heights and body types. The chair will have to fit them all, just make your captian bigger if you think it is an eyesore.
Ship interiors had to go in. Hate to say it cryptic, players are going to want the entire cake, better get busy. Sick bay, the transporter room, the engine room, the briefing room, hallways, jeffries tubes, shuttle bays, holodecks, crew quarters. NPC crews waliking around. You Have to put it all in now. Oh, and you have to have episodes that take you into all thoses areas as well. Face it, having those areas makes it so you can tell a real star trek story. Thank you for listening, but this was just an admission by you that it was needed, now you have to go all the way.
Haha, well said. Tho I'd prefer a strong Raktajino. XD
EDIT: Oh, but the options for evil! Sshhh, buy now this elegant Enterprise D luxury bridge! It's only $19,99 today! *__*
I was surprised to read they took it to the new movie timeline. Kinda sad, now that Romulus AND Vulcan are destroyed, the homeworlds of my two fav. races. *sigh*
Unless there is some explaination I have not read, Vulcan is still there. This game is set in the far future (10 years after Star Trek NG: Nemesis) of the original universe. The new Star Trek film is in its own universe. It is missing Vulcan but not Romulus... yet.
Hurm, let me read it again... Quote:
"The game is set 22 years after the supernova that destroyed the Romulan homeworld and transported an elder Spock and the villainous Nero into director J.J. Abrams' reimagined "Star Trek." Peace between the Federation and Klingons has since evaporated, meaning space combat will play a vital role in the game, though there are still strange new worlds to explore.
"It's familiar, but it's new," said Zinkievich. "We've changed a few things and added a few things to the universe. I think that's what keeps us from stepping on the hardcore Trekkies' toes. The team is made up of 'Star Trek' fans and avid MMO fans, so if we can make a game that doesn't churn our stomach, then I think we can definitely satisfy the fans."
Difficult to read. If it were after the Abrams film Vulcan and Romulus are gone. Unfortunate that would be. But he also says they changed and added things not to step on Trekkies toes. (I am always surprised how many phrases in German exist in English also btw.) It's not entirely clear how that can be. How can the Star Trek 11 events happen and still Romulus and Vulcan exist? Does anyone has recent facts about all this? I always wanted to play a treacherous Romulan, hrhr. Don't like it that they added those stupid forehead ridges to them. They are the same race as Vulcans, just 1000 years or so later. Way to little to evolve different foreheads! Pft.
People don't ask questions to get answers - they ask questions to show how smart they are. - Dogbert
I am so cautious now of any games that are coming out and over hyped beyond belief until I get my hands on them and test them or demo them. I still haven't bought Dragon Age simply because I am not sold on it after playing it abit on friends PC. I did get a copy of Modern Warfare 2 simply because I tried a friends copy and loved it. So I had to have it. FPS fan and all. Still haven't played Borderlands...just not my cup of tea....game looks bland. I dunno...I'm just very sceptical any more about a game delivering a fun and challenging game that will be worth the money I spend on it.
That's a really nice development. Many Trek fans really wanted to see this in the game, and it seems like Cryptic has listened. Now, if they can only manage to stick with a subscription model, without adding any game-changing RMT crap, I'm in. If they can then manage not to have major game revamps that totally screw player progress, I'll probably be in for the long haul. I can't think of anything more relaxing and enjoyable than an online Star Trek adventure.
First of all one of the many issues brought up by people who think multi-player ship crews is a bad idea is that everyone wants to be the captain, or that no one wants to take orders. This of course completely ignores the fact that the standard in MMO grouping is that someone is leader and most players have defined roles to play in the group (healer, tank, dps, etc...)
Ok, with that out of the way, here is how I think it could work. You have various ships of various sizes. Ships below a certain class size are solo flyable. Above a certain size crew positions begin to open up, larger ships needing more crew. Crew can be filled by players OR by npc's. Skill of the NPC's would be determined by the skill/lvl of the captain. In multi-player scenarios any loss of player (disconn/dinner/significant-other aggro, etc...) is automatically filled with an npc.
The positions held on board a ship could be for as long or short as desired. Long time for a guild situation, until the players level enough to captain their own multi-crew ships, or just for a mission ala (LFG Medic for Banging Green Skin Freaks)
The upshot is those who want to go it alone can and those who want more of the classic Star Trek crew interaction dynamic get that too.
In your face nay-sayers!
"Because it's easier to nitpick something than to be constructive." -roach5000
Sounds like good news..:) more options are always welcome..
Yeah. Its a bit like with the boy who cried wolf too often, just the other way around.
People don't ask questions to get answers - they ask questions to show how smart they are. - Dogbert
I thought you already had the gameplay element of boarding other people's ships...... I'm pissed(vexed (angry)) that I may not be boarding other people's ships to blow them up or to make them surrender and that sucks.
This is not a game.
They listened! Good to see they came to their senses and put a bridge in for launch, the bridge is a major part of Star Trek, to release a Star Trek MMO without one would have set the wrong tone for the game at launch, the game need to be complete to hit the ground running as Trek Fans are very unforgiving to lack of attention to important detail of Star Trek.
I''ll be catching up on a lot of missed single player games until Feb next year when this is released! It's the only MMO I want to play now when faced with all the choices of MMO out there now, I'm very jaded with them.
And still it rages on.....
I will never understand a core of players obsessions with having other players filling in roles on the bridge, I posted about this loads in the Official Forums.
Yet soon as they go 'Yeah we will add bridges as a social aspect' this core once again starts up with 'Want player manned stations' chant again
As people have already said it would represent a MAJOR shift in game concept and for these reasons
1) A ship with player manned stations will ALWAYS be superior to a ship with AI manned stations, thus giving groups of people on one ship and advantage over solo players
2) just how do you make player manned stations exciting? 'Engineering, transfer more power to shields *click* ahh am done'
3) Player manned ships would suffer from the lag and disconnects that occur on the interwebs daily, in middle of combat your tactical officer suddenly loses connection
'Fire Phasers.....Fire...damn it Tactical is LD again, someone fire the phasers'
'But captain I cannae fire phasers I am an engineer, oh let me try this button'
*Warp Core Ejection in 5...4...3...2....1*
'Crap there goes the neighbourhood'
I am all for customisable bridges, this is the first step to enhancing the custom aspect of ships, get you Defiant with extra tactical stations or maybe extra engineering stations etc
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/ab/Norsefire-logo.png
I can already hear the complaints about how disappointed people are with the bridge.
You just don't get it at all.
Losing your tac officer during combat is no worse from having your tank D/C in a standard MMORPG instance. Have you no experience grouping in an MMO at all?
We want a game that offers an MMO experience, and that includes grouping.
Your childish examples are not contributing anything of worth to the discussion.
Player crews would mean a major re-design? Maybe - they got around to the visible bridge pretty fast didn't they? Then get on that re-design - pronto.
"" Voice acting isn't an RPG element....it's just a production value." - grumpymel2
You may have posted loads (of BS), but it is painfully obvious that you haven't internalized the rebuttals to your very sophomoric arguments.
1). You mean they're superior just like, uhm groups of players are superior to solo players? What a tremendous grasp of the obvious.
2). Exciting? Oh, I don't know, how does one make any group combat exciting? I suppose my healer in a fantasy game could just have a group heal over time that heals 20,000 damage per second -- he'd only have to hit his skill once, then sit back. But then that would be poor game design, wouldn't it? You see, it can go both ways. One could, if they had sufficient creative ability, invent a similar time intensive tasking system for each station on the ship, just as you have time intensive tasks for a tank, a healer, a dps class, etc.
As a Hunter in LoTRO, I have several options in a group. I have my attack skills, I have some crowd control, I have healing (self and poison). At any one moment, I'm assessing and analyzing the situation to see which skill to use. Mostly I'm DPSing, but the situation is fluid. My health goes down, I pop a self heal. Oi, our Minstrel has been poisoned, so I target him and cure poison, then it's back to DPS.
So now I imagine myself Weapons Officer in our ideal STO. I'm at the Weapons Station. I'm DPSing with phasors. Oi, the cooldown on my photon torpedoes has finished, so I fire another volley. But now I'm getting reports that the enemy ship is phasing its shields, so I have to hit another skill that allows me to adjust my phasor frequencies. And then, suddenly, the enemy has beamed a boarding party aboard the ship. I have another skill that directs a security team to the location I need them. If the boarding team lands on the bridge where I'm at, I can actually leave my station to fight if need be. Maybe I have to fight the boarding party AND some how fire phasors at the same time, defending my weapons console from destruction.
You know, I could go on. But I suspect you, like undoubtedly countless other times, will fail to internalize this answer. It will wash over you in your determination to be right on the interwebs.
3). Yeah, what the poster above said. Disconnects happen in groups...in Raids, it happens solo. So your point is a non-issue. But I might add that with a proper STO implementation, if a crew member goes LD, the ship AI could take over and you'd be in a better situation than say your typical Fantasy Raid situation.
_____________________________
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/
You may have posted loads (of BS), but it is painfully obvious that you haven't internalized the rebuttals to your very sophomoric arguments.
1). You mean they're superior just like, uhm groups of players are superior to solo players? What a tremendous grasp of the obvious.
2). Exciting? Oh, I don't know, how does one make any group combat exciting? I suppose my healer in a fantasy game could just have a group heal over time that heals 20,000 damage per second -- he'd only have to hit his skill once, then sit back. But then that would be poor game design, wouldn't it? You see, it can go both ways. One could, if they had sufficient creative ability, invent a similar time intensive tasking system for each station on the ship, just as you have time intensive tasks for a tank, a healer, a dps class, etc.
As a Hunter in LoTRO, I have several options in a group. I have my attack skills, I have some crowd control, I have healing (self and poison). At any one moment, I'm assessing and analyzing the situation to see which skill to use. Mostly I'm DPSing, but the situation is fluid. My health goes down, I pop a self heal. Oi, our Minstrel has been poisoned, so I target him and cure poison, then it's back to DPS.
So now I imagine myself Weapons Officer in our ideal STO. I'm at the Weapons Station. I'm DPSing with phasors. Oi, the cooldown on my photon torpedoes has finished, so I fire another volley. But now I'm getting reports that the enemy ship is phasing its shields, so I have to hit another skill that allows me to adjust my phasor frequencies. And then, suddenly, the enemy has beamed a boarding party aboard the ship. I have another skill that directs a security team to the location I need them. If the boarding team lands on the bridge where I'm at, I can actually leave my station to fight if need be. Maybe I have to fight the boarding party AND some how fire phasors at the same time, defending my weapons console from destruction.
You know, I could go on. But I suspect you, like undoubtedly countless other times, will fail to internalize this answer. It will wash over you in your determination to be right on the interwebs.
3). Yeah, what the poster above said. Disconnects happen in groups...in Raids, it happens solo. So your point is a non-issue. But I might add that with a proper STO implementation, if a crew member goes LD, the ship AI could take over and you'd be in a better situation than say your typical Fantasy Raid situation.
Between this post and the one above it, I don't think anymore needs to be explained on this viewpoint. Very well said.
No I believe that option will still be in, but when you board you'll go into an instanced situation which won't have anything (look-wise) to do with that ships decorated bridge. You'll get stock footage of 'a' bridge to fight in. I'd say it would be just like PoTBS; it's just a shack from the outside, but when you instance in it's some huge nicely decorated living room.
I think it's good that they listened to the future player base and opened up part of the ship. I'm not totally impressed with the fact it's just for 'social hub' purposes but a) it is a step in the right direction and b) decorating does rate high on some peoples list of things to do.
SWG (pre-cu) - AoC (pre-f2p) - PotBS (pre-boarder) - DDO - LotRO (pre-f2p) - STO (pre-f2p) - GnH (beta tester) - SWTOR - Neverwinter
Here's a hint...if one criticizes everything, then no progress is made. Encouraging the devs in an earnest and sincere way when they do take positive steps is important.
It could also be said that if no-one criticizes anything nothing will change. Besides if the devs have any sense they will base the feedback on what people say ingame and try to take anything in forums with a pinch of salt.
Personally I was hoping for an 'gaming' bridge to help with a sense of immersion into the star trek universe. I was bitterly disappointed not so much as to what is not happening as to what is. I could understand if they'd given us all quarters, a ready room or as others have suggested a version of 10 forward to decorate and socialise in. As far as i can remember though none of the captains altered the bridge design(apart from archer changing the chair) or used the bridge for social purposes beyond the odd diplomatic tour except for an episode of voyager. I thought the bridge was meant to be the functional command centre of the ship, and wasn't meant to be decorated or have everybody kicked out in order to hold the odd dinner party. My dislike of this goes to what game it sounds like they will be delivering and sounds less and less like a good deep star trek experience and more and more like the standard bland, superficial, generic game that everybody else puts out only this time with some trek backgrounds.
Also isn't the fact that the bridge is now customisable going to make it more difficult to program in a working bridge?
I see this sentiment posted very often and it always leaves me racking my brain for when in Stark Trek they actually showed what exactly the crew members did. Again I could be wrong as I've stated a bunch of times I'm a fairly casual observer of Star Trek except for the films all of which I've seen. But what exactly does Scotty,Spock,Ohura,Chekov and the rest actually "control" I've seen commands issued but have never seen them focus on what one particular crew member did.
but yeah, to call this game Fantastic is like calling Twilight the Godfather of vampire movies....
This is largely the point I was trying to reach in my last reply to this, many of the naysayers talk so much about the depth of Star Trek but there was no true "functionality" to these control stations they were told what the captain wanted them to do and you maybe saw them flash a button or two and the "effect" happened. In that respect Star Trek the series did not allow you any more freedom than this game is offering.
I think in the end I agree which is why I'm often so against all these ideas of different players manning other stations. The amount of resources to make such a trivial part of the show possible seems hardly worth the effort especially for what it is going to come off as from a technical stand point.
I'm very happy with the addition of the bridge from launch but people really need to get off this mini game idea. The original makers of Trek didn't seem to pull it off as well as some peoples memory suggests and I think there is a specific reason for that.
but yeah, to call this game Fantastic is like calling Twilight the Godfather of vampire movies....
You may have posted loads (of BS), but it is painfully obvious that you haven't internalized the rebuttals to your very sophomoric arguments.
1). You mean they're superior just like, uhm groups of players are superior to solo players? What a tremendous grasp of the obvious.
2). Exciting? Oh, I don't know, how does one make any group combat exciting? I suppose my healer in a fantasy game could just have a group heal over time that heals 20,000 damage per second -- he'd only have to hit his skill once, then sit back. But then that would be poor game design, wouldn't it? You see, it can go both ways. One could, if they had sufficient creative ability, invent a similar time intensive tasking system for each station on the ship, just as you have time intensive tasks for a tank, a healer, a dps class, etc.
As a Hunter in LoTRO, I have several options in a group. I have my attack skills, I have some crowd control, I have healing (self and poison). At any one moment, I'm assessing and analyzing the situation to see which skill to use. Mostly I'm DPSing, but the situation is fluid. My health goes down, I pop a self heal. Oi, our Minstrel has been poisoned, so I target him and cure poison, then it's back to DPS.
So now I imagine myself Weapons Officer in our ideal STO. I'm at the Weapons Station. I'm DPSing with phasors. Oi, the cooldown on my photon torpedoes has finished, so I fire another volley. But now I'm getting reports that the enemy ship is phasing its shields, so I have to hit another skill that allows me to adjust my phasor frequencies. And then, suddenly, the enemy has beamed a boarding party aboard the ship. I have another skill that directs a security team to the location I need them. If the boarding team lands on the bridge where I'm at, I can actually leave my station to fight if need be. Maybe I have to fight the boarding party AND some how fire phasors at the same time, defending my weapons console from destruction.
You know, I could go on. But I suspect you, like undoubtedly countless other times, will fail to internalize this answer. It will wash over you in your determination to be right on the interwebs.
3). Yeah, what the poster above said. Disconnects happen in groups...in Raids, it happens solo. So your point is a non-issue. But I might add that with a proper STO implementation, if a crew member goes LD, the ship AI could take over and you'd be in a better situation than say your typical Fantasy Raid situation.
It could stem from the fact that you use LOTRO as an example and it is currently my favorite game but your ideas sound exciting to say the least. It doesn't really sway my desire to see the game as designed but I could actually imagine the way you envision it pulled of successfully to say the least.
but yeah, to call this game Fantastic is like calling Twilight the Godfather of vampire movies....
I see this sentiment posted very often and it always leaves me racking my brain for when in Stark Trek they actually showed what exactly the crew members did. Again I could be wrong as I've stated a bunch of times I'm a fairly casual observer of Star Trek except for the films all of which I've seen. But what exactly does Scotty,Spock,Ohura,Chekov and the rest actually "control" I've seen commands issued but have never seen them focus on what one particular crew member did.
Having seen all the shows(even managed to sit through all of enterprise) and seen all the films bar the last one, mostly what the crew seemed to do is chat. I think the idea is that they man the stations and monitor the screens and don't actually do anything until needed. The tactical officer will only monitor for threats most of the time, science officer for anything interesting that shows up on scanners, communication for such etc.
Don't forget most of the people calling for player run ships have also unilaterally decided that star trek isn't about conflict and any online version must be an enterprise simulator and with the size of star trek ships you'll end up with only 1 per server
I see this sentiment posted very often and it always leaves me racking my brain for when in Stark Trek they actually showed what exactly the crew members did. Again I could be wrong as I've stated a bunch of times I'm a fairly casual observer of Star Trek except for the films all of which I've seen. But what exactly does Scotty,Spock,Ohura,Chekov and the rest actually "control" I've seen commands issued but have never seen them focus on what one particular crew member did.
Having seen all the shows(even managed to sit through all of enterprise) and seen all the films bar the last one, mostly what the crew seemed to do is chat. I think the idea is that they man the stations and monitor the screens and don't actually do anything until needed. The tactical officer will only monitor for threats most of the time, science officer for anything interesting that shows up on scanners, communication for such etc.
Don't forget most of the people calling for player run ships have also unilaterally decided that star trek isn't about conflict and any online version must be an enterprise simulator and with the size of star trek ships you'll end up with only 1 per server
That is completely untrue. I've never heard anyone calling for that. Also just because you're incapable of imagining how players could play crewmembers in no way means it can't be done. Also, that YOU or others would find such play boring in no way means it couldn't be provided for those that wouldn't find it boring WHILE keeping the singleplayer/npc setup you want. So whats the problem?
I see this sentiment posted very often and it always leaves me racking my brain for when in Stark Trek they actually showed what exactly the crew members did. Again I could be wrong as I've stated a bunch of times I'm a fairly casual observer of Star Trek except for the films all of which I've seen. But what exactly does Scotty,Spock,Ohura,Chekov and the rest actually "control" I've seen commands issued but have never seen them focus on what one particular crew member did.
Having seen all the shows(even managed to sit through all of enterprise) and seen all the films bar the last one, mostly what the crew seemed to do is chat. I think the idea is that they man the stations and monitor the screens and don't actually do anything until needed. The tactical officer will only monitor for threats most of the time, science officer for anything interesting that shows up on scanners, communication for such etc.
Don't forget most of the people calling for player run ships have also unilaterally decided that star trek isn't about conflict and any online version must be an enterprise simulator and with the size of star trek ships you'll end up with only 1 per server
I wouldn't say unilaterally. I will say that some of my favorite episodes involve watching the crew avoid FIGHTING which isn't the same thing as conflict. One can have conflict and tension without resorting to the lazy, last-ditch dramatic tool of combat. And I would argue that it is only after ever OTHER avenue has been attempted does combative drama feel real and earned. The last two seasons of DS9 are a good example of that. You had a lot of non-combative conflict that heightens dramatic tension leading up to the war. In today's MMO's, all we get is 'the war' portion, and it feels lame.
And the whole conard that STO must be an enterprise simulator is a straw man argument that has been debunked on every sight where it's appeared. Why people continue to use it, knowing full well it has been refuted, is beyond me. I guess it's to win the interwebs.
_____________________________
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/
You may have posted loads (of BS), but it is painfully obvious that you haven't internalized the rebuttals to your very sophomoric arguments.
1). You mean they're superior just like, uhm groups of players are superior to solo players? What a tremendous grasp of the obvious.
2). Exciting? Oh, I don't know, how does one make any group combat exciting? I suppose my healer in a fantasy game could just have a group heal over time that heals 20,000 damage per second -- he'd only have to hit his skill once, then sit back. But then that would be poor game design, wouldn't it? You see, it can go both ways. One could, if they had sufficient creative ability, invent a similar time intensive tasking system for each station on the ship, just as you have time intensive tasks for a tank, a healer, a dps class, etc.
As a Hunter in LoTRO, I have several options in a group. I have my attack skills, I have some crowd control, I have healing (self and poison). At any one moment, I'm assessing and analyzing the situation to see which skill to use. Mostly I'm DPSing, but the situation is fluid. My health goes down, I pop a self heal. Oi, our Minstrel has been poisoned, so I target him and cure poison, then it's back to DPS.
So now I imagine myself Weapons Officer in our ideal STO. I'm at the Weapons Station. I'm DPSing with phasors. Oi, the cooldown on my photon torpedoes has finished, so I fire another volley. But now I'm getting reports that the enemy ship is phasing its shields, so I have to hit another skill that allows me to adjust my phasor frequencies. And then, suddenly, the enemy has beamed a boarding party aboard the ship. I have another skill that directs a security team to the location I need them. If the boarding team lands on the bridge where I'm at, I can actually leave my station to fight if need be. Maybe I have to fight the boarding party AND some how fire phasors at the same time, defending my weapons console from destruction.
You know, I could go on. But I suspect you, like undoubtedly countless other times, will fail to internalize this answer. It will wash over you in your determination to be right on the interwebs.
3). Yeah, what the poster above said. Disconnects happen in groups...in Raids, it happens solo. So your point is a non-issue. But I might add that with a proper STO implementation, if a crew member goes LD, the ship AI could take over and you'd be in a better situation than say your typical Fantasy Raid situation.
It could stem from the fact that you use LOTRO as an example and it is currently my favorite game but your ideas sound exciting to say the least. It doesn't really sway my desire to see the game as designed but I could actually imagine the way you envision it pulled of successfully to say the least.
Thank you for being reasonable. (I'm enjoying LoTRO as well, btw). My example is crude -- I'm not a game designer. I just feel there's a vast failure of imagination in many MMOs these days. STO happens to be at the forefront in my book in this regard. Perhaps Cryptic is being timid because of pressure from Paramount, and they need to play it safe. I don't know.
_____________________________
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/
Perhaps it is to prime the market for mediocrity. High expectations and a shoddy game don't mix well. Warhammer Online for example.
"" Voice acting isn't an RPG element....it's just a production value." - grumpymel2