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?
If you're looking for a carbon copy of your favortie trek series then you're going to be disappointed. If you're looking for something that, on its own merits fits into the trek universe, then yeah, it's got that Star Trek feeling.
Look at it this way: People have complained that each and every Star Trek spinoff hasn't felt Star Trek enough, from TNG right up to Enterprise. Everyone has a different view of what Star Trek is, but like I said in the article, the game feels like a part of the universe.
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.
I think that you think your opinion carries more weight than it does. You're welcome to it, of course, but try expressing it without insulting people who don't think like you do is more effective for grown ups.
I'm a Trek fan and I'm neither blind nor delusional (you spelled it wrong, by the way).
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.
Keep in mind, most people don't read the forums. So repeating a few of those old arguments will be necessary for it to make sense. All I ask is that the article make sense unto itself with no background reading. Bring in a wider range of voices.
Anyway, if you can get me something by Tuesday next week, we can use it this year. Keep me posted (by email, as I likely won't stay on this thread forever).
Dana Massey Formerly of MMORPG.com Currently Lead Designer for Bit Trap Studios
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.
on the player crew vs npc crew, its faster and easier to put the npc in at first, and given time, modify the game...
it would be difficult to man a whole bridge crew right off the bat at start up...
with cryptics past examples of adding content and new twists to the game over time, i think if it is possible to have pc crew members, and the demand is high enough after start, they will put it in...
for now, let them get the game live and working... feb 2010 is just a few months away...
I didnt intend for my post to be a personal attack only that we have two very different views on STO so much so that it seems there are two different games.
the one im familar with seems to be all about shallow shoot em up some music is perfect,, some sounds like star wars battle music not quite there needs more hvy drums
I can only speak globaly that if you read between the lines of the trailers you can piece together some of the problems.
i think if people like this game 30 days after release than their game bar is set prety low
and your right my opinion carries about as much weight as a grain of sand,, maby someone sees my posts and takes a closer look before they drop down 50$ (maby they dont)
make a world, not a game, we dont want another game.
People are comparing player crews to parties in fantasy MMOs. They truly aren't the same. Without even looking at the complexities or lack thereof of specific jobs, there's a specific model difference in execution. For example, let's look at a fantasy party. You have your setup of tank, heals, and Dps, right? Let's say a five player party. They combine their skills and resources and apply it directly towards the goal, which is defeating the boss/encounter. In a crew, it's a bit different. Each member of a crew is applying their skills to an intermediate goal, which is piloting a vessel. The vessel is then the focus towards the ultimate goal, defeating the boss/encounter.
The complication comes in with figuring out how the formula works. In the case of the fantasy party, all the efforts went directly into the ultimate goal, defeating the monster. Every player is in their own independent control of their own selves. Their own personal placement, what skills they used, how effectively they do their job, it all directly figures into the boss. Their abilities directly deal damage to the boss, the healer keeps the party going, the tank absorbs as much damage as he can without dying. In a sense, it will seem like they're operating one vessel in a figurative sense, but they're still very much in control of their selves, and the programmer doesn't have to come up with a magic formula to combine their skills. So, if they're of multiple level groups, individual contributions are already figured out without the need of it being intrinsically being programed into the game.
Let's look at SWG, and their space combat, in comparison to STO's. SWG decided to go with an entirely action based ship control. It is akin to a simple [yet admittedly well design] ship combat game, a la Rogue Squadron. They created an entirely different leveling tree for Piloting, and made no gains from that directly related to skill/damage/precision. They gave you access and the ability to pilot news ships, which were the only place stats came into play. You could equip your ship with new weapons/armor/shields/engines/etc. But, your own personal pilot level never came into play once you were out and shooting stuff. So, when you combined into a player crew, someone controlled the piloting, someone controlled the guns, and most of what everyone else did was related to keeping the ship going and didn't directly effect outside battles. Even if you have a crack medic and a natural crafter mending your ship, it wasn't going to make you kill other ships faster. Made you harder to kill, admittedly, but a ship that isn't doing any real damage isn't a threat and can be handled last with a concerted effort.
Another big difference is that Star Wars had personal fighters, and ships that were somewhat bigger than that. Meaning you rarely broke single digits in crew, ever. Imagine trying to pilot a capital ship, with thousands on board, it becomes a completely different mess. To control that with a smaller number of actual players, concepts become abstract. Rather than actually fixing the hull after damage, you're ordering the crew to do that. Instead of increasing speed, you're ordering the engineering crew to give 'er all she got, captain. The bridge's work is essentially is to relay information to you, and relay orders to the ship. Which is why they get to stand there instead of running around like a smaller crew would have to do, a la SWG. The work becomes so complicated, in fact, it's easy to get lost in keeping the ship going rather than focusing on maneuvers and targets and unit cohesion and other very important concepts, and whereas the chance to pilot a ship of that magnitude in simulation would be a blast it's clearly not the point of STO.
[><; Okay, I got a little sidetracked. Sorry, back on point.]
Having not played STO, I don't know how the combat actually works, but being such a big part of the game as compared to SWG where it wasn't as big, I'd say character levels play an important role in the piloting the ship. Exactly how much should level differences effect the ship's performance, and how much should each role account for the success?
Also, considering your bridge is essentially a go between for the captain and the actual crew of the ship, how exactly could a NPC not do it just as well if not better. If a problem occurs, the NPC will report it directly to the captain, whom would order it handled, whom would immediately handle said problem. With a human, you get human reaction times, the player officer will have to become aware of a problem, report it to the captain, receive orders, and then solve the problem themselves.
And even more pokey, is why conceptually should the same ship be more effective with a player button pusher than a NPC button pusher? A crew of captains isn't anymore better suited for a hard mission than a team of specialists. If you confer bonuses for Player Crews the entire experience would feel forced, as well as not fair in a pvp situation.
But I'm going to go ahead and shut up and get off this soapbox I've seemed to have found before I keep talking and make a total fool of myself.
And even more pokey, is why conceptually should the same ship be more effective with a player button pusher than a NPC button pusher? A crew of captains isn't anymore better suited for a hard mission than a team of specialists. If you confer bonuses for Player Crews the entire experience would feel forced, as well as not fair in a pvp situation.
Personally I think this should just switch to a thread on the STO board, it is more than a bit off topic. That said, the idea that every ensign, lieutenant, etc are created equal is ridiculous. In the show and real life, the the best ships have better people at any rank.* Place a random person from the fleet in one of those positions and you will have poorer performance (reaction time and judgment probably suffers). It is far from unreasonable to have something like this at work for player crews.
Anyhow, I'm just in this thread because I want that non-combat mission detailed more.
*Joke for those that didn't like Voyager: There's a reason why they weren't crewing a Galaxy-class ship.
ok it never astonishes me how at ad nauseaum people keep referring to cannon and the preservation of an ip. If the trek ip was kept as gene roddenberry had intended trek never would have become successful as it did. After the first season of TNG he was relegated to a consultant and not an executive producer of anything trek related from that point on. To argue that the fundamental changed cryptic made to ensure a fun, immersive game that attracts a broad swath of the public to atleast try the game breaks or some how alters the ip is a bit ridiculous. Half the games out out under the trek name failed because they tried too hard to appease the cannon hugging minority of the trek fan base. even most of the writers for all three recent series cited the suffocating constraints adhering to cannon and trek techno-babble as something that eventually led to the near death of trek. I for one was thrilled that they opted not to puse for player controlled crews, I despise depending on people who are inherently undependable to show up for mmo events and or participate in raids etc. And for the peopel who argue that it fundamentally stops being a trek experience for me trek was and always will be about the ships, which cryptic as painstakingly made an effort to get right both in exploration and combat. There's always going to be nay-sayers but for the love of god stop citing ip and cannon when in fact the ip and or cannon hasn't been adhered to for some time, and stop say my or our trek..it isn't your franchise to mainuplate it's paramounts and for once it looks as if they found the right people to do justice to us fans who have suffered through over a decade of awful trek games
ok it never astonishes me how at ad nauseaum people keep referring to cannon and the preservation of an ip. If the trek ip was kept as gene roddenberry had intended trek never would have become successful as it did. After the first season of TNG he was relegated to a consultant and not an executive producer of anything trek related from that point on. To argue that the fundamental changed cryptic made to ensure a fun, immersive game that attracts a broad swath of the public to atleast try the game breaks or some how alters the ip is a bit ridiculous. Half the games out out under the trek name failed because they tried too hard to appease the cannon hugging minority of the trek fan base. even most of the writers for all three recent series cited the suffocating constraints adhering to cannon and trek techno-babble as something that eventually led to the near death of trek. I for one was thrilled that they opted not to puse for player controlled crews, I despise depending on people who are inherently undependable to show up for mmo events and or participate in raids etc. And for the peopel who argue that it fundamentally stops being a trek experience for me trek was and always will be about the ships, which cryptic as painstakingly made an effort to get right both in exploration and combat. There's always going to be nay-sayers but for the love of god stop citing ip and cannon when in fact the ip and or cannon hasn't been adhered to for some time, and stop say my or our trek..it isn't your franchise to mainuplate it's paramounts and for once it looks as if they found the right people to do justice to us fans who have suffered through over a decade of awful trek games
*cough**cough* Amen.
Also, I for one very much enjoyed the recent and action packed Star Trek. <.<
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 was responding to the line where you said, "Writing full articles is not my thing. It's a long time since English class and I do not write professionally." I don't think that'll be an issue. Not implying that you can't string a sentence together. 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. Since I only follow the MMOS that interest me and I don't read every post, yeah you're probably right here. 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.
This puts it in perspective, and actually makes me more interested to see what you come up with. Again, I agree with another poster where I tend to focus on what the MMO is more than what it isn't. I also see the potential of a well-made MMO, and over the course of time I've seen significant improvement in the genre overall (and not just graphically). It's easier to become disappointed with an MMO because they don't live up to the potential the you can envision. Would I have included player-run ships (no NPCs, players running the ship taking up different roles) at launch...you bet your @#$. Would I have focused less on how neat-o I can customize my Ferengi's ears and more on player races and the intricacies of ground exploration and diplomacy (aka exploring new worlds and new civilizations)...you bet your @#$.
But the sad truth is, I can't have a player-run/nonNPC run ship at launch, but I can still play in a team and do ground missions with my friends and family. I think the exploration and diplomacy bits will not be nearly as intricate as they could potentially be, but I can still run a diplomatic-type quest and I can still explore to a certain extent. Like I said, I can only look at the game for what it is (not what it isn't)...my internal disappointment-meter is better for it.
[Edit: fixed typo]
-------------- Played: Age of Conan, DDO, Saga of Ryzom, SWG, DaOC, MxO, EQ2, and so on... Wish List: Jumpgate Evolution, Star Wars: TOR, Star Trek
Hmm, I'll ask again. Can we get some more detail on that non-combat mission?
There are plenty more articles to come.
I'll turn this around, aside from non-combat missions (just noted it), what would you guys like us to focus on?
Group combat mechanics (particularly in space) would also be nice. One rarely sees them discussed in general, but they are an important part of any MMO.
Im interested in how much breathing room you have in space. How long does it take to run into an invisible barrier?
Also, have you run into any missions that require you to use a shuttlecraft instead of the transporter?
How long can you go in a tier ship before you HAVE to upgrade? I'm a old school trekkie and my ultimate ship was and will forever be the Constitution Class, both her original and refit versions. Would I be able to complete missions in one of those ship far into the content? Not worried about it be very difficult, I'd just like to get as much time as possible in the center seat of those beauties.
Family man first, Gamer second!
ArmySurplus makes no apologies if someone other than him has already posted his reply in part or otherwise. He cant be expected to read every single post on a thread and makes no promise to do so. If you posted a similar reply before him you undoubtedly stole his thoughts and used them without his written authorization. Please return to your post and edit it so that his post is the first to state whatever the hell he was thinking at the time. Thank you!
Im interested in how much breathing room you have in space. How long does it take to run into an invisible barrier?
Also, have you run into any missions that require you to use a shuttlecraft instead of the transporter?
How long can you go in a tier ship before you HAVE to upgrade? I'm a old school trekkie and my ultimate ship was and will forever be the Constitution Class, both her original and refit versions. Would I be able to complete missions in one of those ship far into the content? Not worried about it be very difficult, I'd just like to get as much time as possible in the center seat of those beauties.
Jotting these down (and the above post)....
Dana Massey Formerly of MMORPG.com Currently Lead Designer for Bit Trap Studios
Hmm, I'll ask again. Can we get some more detail on that non-combat mission?
There are plenty more articles to come.
I'll turn this around, aside from non-combat missions (just noted it), what would you guys like us to focus on?
There are loads of things I'd love to ask, but the ones I've been wondering about most recently relate to klingons and cloaking. Hopefully some (or all) of these will be answered when the article on klingon gameplay comes out.
In almost all the Star Trek shows the ships only ever raise shields right before combat (often only after the enemy has locked weapons). One huge advantage of a cloaking device was/is therefore to be able to attack an enemy before they raise shields by surprising them. Does STO have any sort of system/mechanism in place to simulate this or should we expect players to fly around with shields at maximum all the time?
We already know that science vessels will have ways of detecting cloaked ships, but it would be great if we could get some details on how this works. Will it be similar to the shows where the crew is able to detect anomalies that might be cloaked ships, and if so will there also be other anomalies and/or sensor ghosts/glitches that give similar readouts but that aren't cloaked ships?
In several different episodes of TNG, and also in DS9, we see examples of ships using their cloaking device to de-cloak, fire off one or two shots and then rapidly re-cloak before the ship under attack is able to lock weapons on them. While I can see that this would not make for a fun pvp experience I am curious if the game attempts to model this process of acquiring a target and locking weapons. For example, if I target a ship while cloaked and start attacking (making myself visible) will the enemy have to target me, will this take time (faster with a better bridge officer skill etc), or will it be like most MMOs where as soon as I attack the game autotargets me back?
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?
This is a nice comparision. Mind if I steal it?
Thanks. Knock yourself out.
"Gypsies, tramps, and thieves, we were called by the Admin of the site . . . "
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?
If you're looking for a carbon copy of your favortie trek series then you're going to be disappointed. If you're looking for something that, on its own merits fits into the trek universe, then yeah, it's got that Star Trek feeling.
Look at it this way: People have complained that each and every Star Trek spinoff hasn't felt Star Trek enough, from TNG right up to Enterprise. Everyone has a different view of what Star Trek is, but like I said in the article, the game feels like a part of the universe.
Fair enough. Thanks for the response.
"Gypsies, tramps, and thieves, we were called by the Admin of the site . . . "
By breathing room I ment both using impulse and warp engines. Warp is always the main travel speed, but how much room do we have to roam on impulse?
Just thought of another one, are they using the same naming structure they did with Champions, where your characters name is followed by a global handle? I think it was Armysurplus@trekjunkie or something like that.
Granted I will be taking advantage of the open beta, but any tidbits that you are allowed to pass along would be most welcome.
Family man first, Gamer second!
ArmySurplus makes no apologies if someone other than him has already posted his reply in part or otherwise. He cant be expected to read every single post on a thread and makes no promise to do so. If you posted a similar reply before him you undoubtedly stole his thoughts and used them without his written authorization. Please return to your post and edit it so that his post is the first to state whatever the hell he was thinking at the time. Thank you!
This article isn't telling me very much at all. Actually it almost reads like the first impressions of someone excited to be able to play the STO beta.
I agree that the music and sound effects are important, and from what I've seen the SFX are nearly spot on for Star Trek (there are a few City of Heroes/Champions Online sound effects mixed in I've noticed.) However, apart from the opening fanfare, none of the music seems very "Star Trek" to me (not to say it isn't at least decent.) Why hasn't Cryptic raided the Star Trek music archive and used iconic pieces from the shows and movies? One thing I loved about the Starfleet Academy video game for SNES was that I engaged in battles with the midi strains of the amazing Star Trek II soundtrack. Cryptic would be completely amiss to ignore Star Trek's rich musical heritage.
What's everyone's take on the recent new that Zachary Quinto is being used as a voice over for the EMH program within the game?
Personally I feel like it's a sellout move to capitalize off of the most recent movie's popularity. If you're going to get Quinto use him for Spock. Use Robert Picardo for the EMH, who knows he might even be cheaper to hire out for talent right now than Quinto is.
One of the defining elements of MMO gaming for me has always been individuality. WoW, for all it's community related shortcomings, is a masterpiece of gaming in many ways. One of those ways is certainly not making the player feel like an individual, a unique or important presence. Your look = your gear. End of. Your character = your archetype. Join a team and you are "Tank" or "Healer" etc. Just another drone. Sure, you might be "drone with big shiny stick +2 to mana" but a drone nonetheless.
Which brings me to why I enjoyed CoH/'V so much, and played them way more than any of the numerous other MMO's I've ever tried. The best character customization tool in the history of gaming. No matter how skilled or creative you were at designing your look, it was always there as a point of conversation with your fellow Heroes/'Villains:
"Man that's a good outfit!"
"Gee...big fan of black then?"
"I see what you did there. Like "The Thing" but purple. Like it."
Your look, along with your power customization choices, made your character feel unique. In a team, you always had a distinct presence, greater than the sum of your archetype parts.
The same could be said of Champions of course, but getting into the debate of "over-compensating for the soloists who want to play alone in an MMO" would be inappropriate here
So, my question is: How important/unique/defined are you as an individual in STO?
Am I "Another Captain", or am I "The Character I Created"?
ok it never astonishes me how at ad nauseaum people keep referring to cannon and the preservation of an ip. If the trek ip was kept as gene roddenberry had intended trek never would have become successful as it did. After the first season of TNG he was relegated to a consultant and not an executive producer of anything trek related from that point on. Seriously, you need to research your history a little better. He was heavily involved with the development of ST:TNG -- title not withstanding. He wasn't 'relegated' to consultant -- his personal health was in decline, and he gave the day to day control of the series over to others. He still consulted on the series, but no one had pushed him aside as you imply. Did it become better because of bringing others in? Possibly. The original series is pretty damn good. But just because he brought others in to the fold doesn't mean he lost control. It was still ultimately vetted through his vision.
To argue that the fundamental changed cryptic made to ensure a fun, immersive game that attracts a broad swath of the public to atleast try the game breaks or some how alters the ip is a bit ridiculous. Half the games out out under the trek name failed because they tried too hard to appease the cannon hugging minority of the trek fan base. Proof? Evidence? Some might argue they failed, not because they tried to appease the canon, but because they just sucked as games. Some might even argue that they failed because they did not follow canon enough. even most of the writers for all three recent series cited the suffocating constraints adhering to cannon and trek techno-babble as something that eventually led to the near death of trek. You certainly love unsubstantiated claims. Even if this were true, said constraints would have been even more harsh on ST:TNG since things were still vetted through Roddenberry. And yet that series did rather well. Possibly these unnamed and 'nebulous' writers you refer too just plain sucked at writing scripts. God knows there are plenty of bad script writers in Hollywood who some how find work. I for one was thrilled that they opted not to puse for player controlled crews, I despise depending on people who are inherently undependable to show up for mmo events and or participate in raids etc. And for the peopel who argue that it fundamentally stops being a trek experience for me trek was and always will be about the ships, which cryptic as painstakingly made an effort to get right both in exploration and combat. Player Crews = optional. That pretty much shoots your blustering down.
There's always going to be nay-sayers but for the love of god stop citing ip and cannon when in fact the ip and or cannon hasn't been adhered to for some time, and stop say my or our trek..it isn't your franchise to mainuplate it's paramounts and for once it looks as if they found the right people to do justice to us fans who have suffered through over a decade of awful trek games Sorry, but the canon HAS been adhered to -- up until the most recent movie -- and perhaps Enterprise (which sucked on many levels not the least of which was its apocryphal tendencies.)
_____________________________ 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.
Comments
If you're looking for a carbon copy of your favortie trek series then you're going to be disappointed. If you're looking for something that, on its own merits fits into the trek universe, then yeah, it's got that Star Trek feeling.
Look at it this way: People have complained that each and every Star Trek spinoff hasn't felt Star Trek enough, from TNG right up to Enterprise. Everyone has a different view of what Star Trek is, but like I said in the article, the game feels like a part of the universe.
Cheers,
Jon Wood
Managing Editor
MMORPG.com
I think that you think your opinion carries more weight than it does. You're welcome to it, of course, but try expressing it without insulting people who don't think like you do is more effective for grown ups.
I'm a Trek fan and I'm neither blind nor delusional (you spelled it wrong, by the way).
Cheers,
Jon Wood
Managing Editor
MMORPG.com
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.
Keep in mind, most people don't read the forums. So repeating a few of those old arguments will be necessary for it to make sense. All I ask is that the article make sense unto itself with no background reading. Bring in a wider range of voices.
Anyway, if you can get me something by Tuesday next week, we can use it this year. Keep me posted (by email, as I likely won't stay on this thread forever).
Dana Massey
Formerly of MMORPG.com
Currently Lead Designer for Bit Trap Studios
on the player crew vs npc crew, its faster and easier to put the npc in at first, and given time, modify the game...
it would be difficult to man a whole bridge crew right off the bat at start up...
with cryptics past examples of adding content and new twists to the game over time, i think if it is possible to have pc crew members, and the demand is high enough after start, they will put it in...
for now, let them get the game live and working... feb 2010 is just a few months away...
cant wait until feb...
I didnt intend for my post to be a personal attack only that we have two very different views on STO so much so that it seems there are two different games.
the one im familar with seems to be all about shallow shoot em up some music is perfect,, some sounds like star wars battle music not quite there needs more hvy drums
I can only speak globaly that if you read between the lines of the trailers you can piece together some of the problems.
i think if people like this game 30 days after release than their game bar is set prety low
and your right my opinion carries about as much weight as a grain of sand,, maby someone sees my posts and takes a closer look before they drop down 50$ (maby they dont)
make a world, not a game, we dont want another game.
Ditto on this! Except I don't have a wife or kids, so I guess I offer you nothing.
Hmm, I'll ask again. Can we get some more detail on that non-combat mission?
People are comparing player crews to parties in fantasy MMOs. They truly aren't the same. Without even looking at the complexities or lack thereof of specific jobs, there's a specific model difference in execution. For example, let's look at a fantasy party. You have your setup of tank, heals, and Dps, right? Let's say a five player party. They combine their skills and resources and apply it directly towards the goal, which is defeating the boss/encounter. In a crew, it's a bit different. Each member of a crew is applying their skills to an intermediate goal, which is piloting a vessel. The vessel is then the focus towards the ultimate goal, defeating the boss/encounter.
The complication comes in with figuring out how the formula works. In the case of the fantasy party, all the efforts went directly into the ultimate goal, defeating the monster. Every player is in their own independent control of their own selves. Their own personal placement, what skills they used, how effectively they do their job, it all directly figures into the boss. Their abilities directly deal damage to the boss, the healer keeps the party going, the tank absorbs as much damage as he can without dying. In a sense, it will seem like they're operating one vessel in a figurative sense, but they're still very much in control of their selves, and the programmer doesn't have to come up with a magic formula to combine their skills. So, if they're of multiple level groups, individual contributions are already figured out without the need of it being intrinsically being programed into the game.
Let's look at SWG, and their space combat, in comparison to STO's. SWG decided to go with an entirely action based ship control. It is akin to a simple [yet admittedly well design] ship combat game, a la Rogue Squadron. They created an entirely different leveling tree for Piloting, and made no gains from that directly related to skill/damage/precision. They gave you access and the ability to pilot news ships, which were the only place stats came into play. You could equip your ship with new weapons/armor/shields/engines/etc. But, your own personal pilot level never came into play once you were out and shooting stuff. So, when you combined into a player crew, someone controlled the piloting, someone controlled the guns, and most of what everyone else did was related to keeping the ship going and didn't directly effect outside battles. Even if you have a crack medic and a natural crafter mending your ship, it wasn't going to make you kill other ships faster. Made you harder to kill, admittedly, but a ship that isn't doing any real damage isn't a threat and can be handled last with a concerted effort.
Another big difference is that Star Wars had personal fighters, and ships that were somewhat bigger than that. Meaning you rarely broke single digits in crew, ever. Imagine trying to pilot a capital ship, with thousands on board, it becomes a completely different mess. To control that with a smaller number of actual players, concepts become abstract. Rather than actually fixing the hull after damage, you're ordering the crew to do that. Instead of increasing speed, you're ordering the engineering crew to give 'er all she got, captain. The bridge's work is essentially is to relay information to you, and relay orders to the ship. Which is why they get to stand there instead of running around like a smaller crew would have to do, a la SWG. The work becomes so complicated, in fact, it's easy to get lost in keeping the ship going rather than focusing on maneuvers and targets and unit cohesion and other very important concepts, and whereas the chance to pilot a ship of that magnitude in simulation would be a blast it's clearly not the point of STO.
[><; Okay, I got a little sidetracked. Sorry, back on point.]
Having not played STO, I don't know how the combat actually works, but being such a big part of the game as compared to SWG where it wasn't as big, I'd say character levels play an important role in the piloting the ship. Exactly how much should level differences effect the ship's performance, and how much should each role account for the success?
Also, considering your bridge is essentially a go between for the captain and the actual crew of the ship, how exactly could a NPC not do it just as well if not better. If a problem occurs, the NPC will report it directly to the captain, whom would order it handled, whom would immediately handle said problem. With a human, you get human reaction times, the player officer will have to become aware of a problem, report it to the captain, receive orders, and then solve the problem themselves.
And even more pokey, is why conceptually should the same ship be more effective with a player button pusher than a NPC button pusher? A crew of captains isn't anymore better suited for a hard mission than a team of specialists. If you confer bonuses for Player Crews the entire experience would feel forced, as well as not fair in a pvp situation.
But I'm going to go ahead and shut up and get off this soapbox I've seemed to have found before I keep talking and make a total fool of myself.
Personally I think this should just switch to a thread on the STO board, it is more than a bit off topic. That said, the idea that every ensign, lieutenant, etc are created equal is ridiculous. In the show and real life, the the best ships have better people at any rank.* Place a random person from the fleet in one of those positions and you will have poorer performance (reaction time and judgment probably suffers). It is far from unreasonable to have something like this at work for player crews.
Anyhow, I'm just in this thread because I want that non-combat mission detailed more.
*Joke for those that didn't like Voyager: There's a reason why they weren't crewing a Galaxy-class ship.
ok it never astonishes me how at ad nauseaum people keep referring to cannon and the preservation of an ip. If the trek ip was kept as gene roddenberry had intended trek never would have become successful as it did. After the first season of TNG he was relegated to a consultant and not an executive producer of anything trek related from that point on. To argue that the fundamental changed cryptic made to ensure a fun, immersive game that attracts a broad swath of the public to atleast try the game breaks or some how alters the ip is a bit ridiculous. Half the games out out under the trek name failed because they tried too hard to appease the cannon hugging minority of the trek fan base. even most of the writers for all three recent series cited the suffocating constraints adhering to cannon and trek techno-babble as something that eventually led to the near death of trek. I for one was thrilled that they opted not to puse for player controlled crews, I despise depending on people who are inherently undependable to show up for mmo events and or participate in raids etc. And for the peopel who argue that it fundamentally stops being a trek experience for me trek was and always will be about the ships, which cryptic as painstakingly made an effort to get right both in exploration and combat. There's always going to be nay-sayers but for the love of god stop citing ip and cannon when in fact the ip and or cannon hasn't been adhered to for some time, and stop say my or our trek..it isn't your franchise to mainuplate it's paramounts and for once it looks as if they found the right people to do justice to us fans who have suffered through over a decade of awful trek games
so say we all
*cough**cough* Amen.
Also, I for one very much enjoyed the recent and action packed Star Trek. <.<
@Cylon8 & kushinagi your walls of text hurt my eyes. Edit for brevity for the love of all that is holy and just.
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.
This puts it in perspective, and actually makes me more interested to see what you come up with. Again, I agree with another poster where I tend to focus on what the MMO is more than what it isn't. I also see the potential of a well-made MMO, and over the course of time I've seen significant improvement in the genre overall (and not just graphically). It's easier to become disappointed with an MMO because they don't live up to the potential the you can envision. Would I have included player-run ships (no NPCs, players running the ship taking up different roles) at launch...you bet your @#$. Would I have focused less on how neat-o I can customize my Ferengi's ears and more on player races and the intricacies of ground exploration and diplomacy (aka exploring new worlds and new civilizations)...you bet your @#$.
But the sad truth is, I can't have a player-run/nonNPC run ship at launch, but I can still play in a team and do ground missions with my friends and family. I think the exploration and diplomacy bits will not be nearly as intricate as they could potentially be, but I can still run a diplomatic-type quest and I can still explore to a certain extent. Like I said, I can only look at the game for what it is (not what it isn't)...my internal disappointment-meter is better for it.
[Edit: fixed typo]
--------------
Played: Age of Conan, DDO, Saga of Ryzom, SWG, DaOC, MxO, EQ2, and so on...
Wish List: Jumpgate Evolution, Star Wars: TOR, Star Trek
There are plenty more articles to come.
I'll turn this around, aside from non-combat missions (just noted it), what would you guys like us to focus on?
Dana Massey
Formerly of MMORPG.com
Currently Lead Designer for Bit Trap Studios
There are plenty more articles to come.
I'll turn this around, aside from non-combat missions (just noted it), what would you guys like us to focus on?
Group combat mechanics (particularly in space) would also be nice. One rarely sees them discussed in general, but they are an important part of any MMO.
Im interested in how much breathing room you have in space. How long does it take to run into an invisible barrier?
Also, have you run into any missions that require you to use a shuttlecraft instead of the transporter?
How long can you go in a tier ship before you HAVE to upgrade? I'm a old school trekkie and my ultimate ship was and will forever be the Constitution Class, both her original and refit versions. Would I be able to complete missions in one of those ship far into the content? Not worried about it be very difficult, I'd just like to get as much time as possible in the center seat of those beauties.
Family man first, Gamer second!
ArmySurplus makes no apologies if someone other than him has already posted his reply in part or otherwise. He cant be expected to read every single post on a thread and makes no promise to do so. If you posted a similar reply before him you undoubtedly stole his thoughts and used them without his written authorization. Please return to your post and edit it so that his post is the first to state whatever the hell he was thinking at the time. Thank you!
Jotting these down (and the above post)....
Dana Massey
Formerly of MMORPG.com
Currently Lead Designer for Bit Trap Studios
There are plenty more articles to come.
I'll turn this around, aside from non-combat missions (just noted it), what would you guys like us to focus on?
There are loads of things I'd love to ask, but the ones I've been wondering about most recently relate to klingons and cloaking. Hopefully some (or all) of these will be answered when the article on klingon gameplay comes out.
In almost all the Star Trek shows the ships only ever raise shields right before combat (often only after the enemy has locked weapons). One huge advantage of a cloaking device was/is therefore to be able to attack an enemy before they raise shields by surprising them. Does STO have any sort of system/mechanism in place to simulate this or should we expect players to fly around with shields at maximum all the time?
We already know that science vessels will have ways of detecting cloaked ships, but it would be great if we could get some details on how this works. Will it be similar to the shows where the crew is able to detect anomalies that might be cloaked ships, and if so will there also be other anomalies and/or sensor ghosts/glitches that give similar readouts but that aren't cloaked ships?
In several different episodes of TNG, and also in DS9, we see examples of ships using their cloaking device to de-cloak, fire off one or two shots and then rapidly re-cloak before the ship under attack is able to lock weapons on them. While I can see that this would not make for a fun pvp experience I am curious if the game attempts to model this process of acquiring a target and locking weapons. For example, if I target a ship while cloaked and start attacking (making myself visible) will the enemy have to target me, will this take time (faster with a better bridge officer skill etc), or will it be like most MMOs where as soon as I attack the game autotargets me back?
This is a nice comparision. Mind if I steal it?
Thanks. Knock yourself out.
"Gypsies, tramps, and thieves, we were called by the Admin of the site . . . "
If you're looking for a carbon copy of your favortie trek series then you're going to be disappointed. If you're looking for something that, on its own merits fits into the trek universe, then yeah, it's got that Star Trek feeling.
Look at it this way: People have complained that each and every Star Trek spinoff hasn't felt Star Trek enough, from TNG right up to Enterprise. Everyone has a different view of what Star Trek is, but like I said in the article, the game feels like a part of the universe.
Fair enough. Thanks for the response.
"Gypsies, tramps, and thieves, we were called by the Admin of the site . . . "
Sorry was a bit rushed with my last post.
By breathing room I ment both using impulse and warp engines. Warp is always the main travel speed, but how much room do we have to roam on impulse?
Just thought of another one, are they using the same naming structure they did with Champions, where your characters name is followed by a global handle? I think it was Armysurplus@trekjunkie or something like that.
Granted I will be taking advantage of the open beta, but any tidbits that you are allowed to pass along would be most welcome.
Family man first, Gamer second!
ArmySurplus makes no apologies if someone other than him has already posted his reply in part or otherwise. He cant be expected to read every single post on a thread and makes no promise to do so. If you posted a similar reply before him you undoubtedly stole his thoughts and used them without his written authorization. Please return to your post and edit it so that his post is the first to state whatever the hell he was thinking at the time. Thank you!
This article isn't telling me very much at all. Actually it almost reads like the first impressions of someone excited to be able to play the STO beta.
I agree that the music and sound effects are important, and from what I've seen the SFX are nearly spot on for Star Trek (there are a few City of Heroes/Champions Online sound effects mixed in I've noticed.) However, apart from the opening fanfare, none of the music seems very "Star Trek" to me (not to say it isn't at least decent.) Why hasn't Cryptic raided the Star Trek music archive and used iconic pieces from the shows and movies? One thing I loved about the Starfleet Academy video game for SNES was that I engaged in battles with the midi strains of the amazing Star Trek II soundtrack. Cryptic would be completely amiss to ignore Star Trek's rich musical heritage.
What's everyone's take on the recent new that Zachary Quinto is being used as a voice over for the EMH program within the game?
Personally I feel like it's a sellout move to capitalize off of the most recent movie's popularity. If you're going to get Quinto use him for Spock. Use Robert Picardo for the EMH, who knows he might even be cheaper to hire out for talent right now than Quinto is.
One of the defining elements of MMO gaming for me has always been individuality. WoW, for all it's community related shortcomings, is a masterpiece of gaming in many ways. One of those ways is certainly not making the player feel like an individual, a unique or important presence. Your look = your gear. End of. Your character = your archetype. Join a team and you are "Tank" or "Healer" etc. Just another drone. Sure, you might be "drone with big shiny stick +2 to mana" but a drone nonetheless.
Which brings me to why I enjoyed CoH/'V so much, and played them way more than any of the numerous other MMO's I've ever tried. The best character customization tool in the history of gaming. No matter how skilled or creative you were at designing your look, it was always there as a point of conversation with your fellow Heroes/'Villains:
"Man that's a good outfit!"
"Gee...big fan of black then?"
"I see what you did there. Like "The Thing" but purple. Like it."
Your look, along with your power customization choices, made your character feel unique. In a team, you always had a distinct presence, greater than the sum of your archetype parts.
The same could be said of Champions of course, but getting into the debate of "over-compensating for the soloists who want to play alone in an MMO" would be inappropriate here
So, my question is: How important/unique/defined are you as an individual in STO?
Am I "Another Captain", or am I "The Character I Created"?
_____________________________
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/