Fleet Loyalty vs. Faction Loyalty

[Flatfingers]

I was reading some comments earlier today about player fleets when I started wondering: will fleets tend to compete with each other, or will they cooperate on behalf of their faction?

If Klingon fleets are notionally set up like Houses, it could be a lot of fun to let them compete amongst themselves, even at the expense of internal stability and productivity within the Empire. Maybe that's how the Chancellor is chosen.

But the more I think about it, the less I like the possibility that Federation fleets would behave the same way. Maybe it's a failure of imagination on my part, but the idea that Federation fleets would fight amongst themselves in any meaningful way -- even to the detriment of the UFP -- seems absolutely wrong to me. It might be OK as generic MMORPG gameplay, but Star Trek Online won't be a generic MMORPG -- it's going to be a Star Trek MMORPG, which I believe means that some reasonable deference needs to be paid to designing gameplay rules that will help to create and maintain the fiction.

Of course it's true that Star Trek Online is going to be a game, not a "simulation" of the Star Trek universe. But I don't agree that it should always be the case that MMORPG > Star Trek. Sometimes Star Trek > MMORPG, and in most cases, I hope the gameplay will actually serve both interests equally.

So what about this case?

We've seen Starfleet ships (and so, presumably, fleets) competing to see who can maintain the highest efficiency rating and other such non-destructive forms of competition. What we haven't seen is Starfleet ships (or groups of ships) competing destructively among themselves as a normal mode of activity. There are the occasional dustups ("Oh noes, a holodeck character/experimental computer/alien parasite has taken over the ship again, shoot to kill!"), but it has never been the case that Starfleet ships or fleets are constantly attacking each other or trying to take away resources from each other.

Just the opposite, in fact; Starfleet ships (and again, presumably fleets as well) almost always put the perceived needs of their faction, the United Federation of Planets, ahead of their individual or group interests. That's a crucial part of what gives Starfleet its unique "feel": the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one.

The thing is, I realize that this is at odds with some conventions of today's MMORPGs. I think it's very likely that there will be some potential players of a Star Trek Online who will expect/insist/demand that it shouldn't matter which faction they create a character in; if they want to be able to fight another fleet to the death, there should not be any gameplay rules preventing them from doing so regardless of any Star Trek story or lore stuff.

I freely admit I think Star Trek lore should be respected here, and that fleets of ships flagged to the Federation faction (through Starfleet) should be able to have fun competitions but not destructive PvP against each other.

That said, I also want to try to respect the desires of players to have the kind of fun they enjoy. So rather than insisting on my "solution," I'd like to open this up as a question to you folks.

Should Star Trek Online be designed such that loyalty to the Federation is more important than loyalty to a particular player fleet, even if that means imposing gameplay rules that restrict inter-fleet destructive competition for players of Federation-faction characters?

Or should there be no faction-based limits on action of any kind, and fleets should be able to do whatever they want to any other fleet regardless of factional affiliation?

Or should there be some restrictions in most places, but no restrictions in designated PvP zones?

Or is there some other design approach that works better than all of these to insure that the feel of the Star Trek universe and the open gameplay of typical MMORPGs can both be enjoyed to a reasonable extent in Star Trek Online?

--Flatfingers

[RookActual]

There is competition, and then there is conflict. I see competition as an improvement upon one's self, by setting a goal to be better than another. It is not truly competition when your goal is to subvert another's position so that your own position is improved, as you've only altered the contrast in your favor and not really your post.

I usually sum up the Federation as sportsmen, the Romulans as subversive and the Klingons as contentious.

A Federation Captain would love to have the glory of a victory, per se, but would be just as happy the victory were acheived.

A Klingon Captain wants the glory of the victory, may even try and gain it for himself, but victory is always sufficient.

A Romulan Captain may see that obtaining credit for victory is his only way to be promoted, so he may sabotage or attempt to destroy the reputation of one of an equal or even a superior to assure he leads the charge or as accredited with victory.

A Ferengi would lose if it were profitable.(Sorry had to add that)

[Hagon]

Really it shouldn't be an issue. This is a faction vs faction game, and as such it should be set up so that the only inter-faction competition involves things like performance rankings or some such. Nothing more than bragging rights basically.As far as inter-faction conflict, at the most there should only be a form of duelling allowed (maybe for STO it could be included as "training exercises" between individuals and even possibly fleets) that has no real lasting damage or loss. Just something to do for fun, or training for real, or even bragging rights again.

The foundation of a faction based system is the members of each faction working together, to some degree anyway, for the betterment of their chosen side.

Any thought of rationalizing inter-faction competition or conflict (beyond what I stated before) based on story elements should be overruled in deference to fostering the individual factions cohesiveness. This is most definitely a time when game play trumps canon or lore or whatever.

Any consideration for taking things further on the basis of any RP rationalization is pointless, since only a relatively tiny percentage of people will RP in the game anyway, and those that do can very simply adjust their RP to suit the mechanics of the game (which is as it should always be anyway).

[Sevenblade]

Frankly, I can't see the Federation having inter-fleet 'competition' to the point of attacking each other. It makes no sense to me whatsoever in context of any Star Trek series or movie. We're lead to believe that the Federation is a mostly peaceful coalition of many races and planets that work together as a cohesive whole to better the galaxy, not one that bickers amongst itself on who will be top dog. I could see this being more applicable to the Klingon fleets, but definitely not Federation. I hate to be one of those people who flat out refuses gameplay aspects for what I feel is canon, but I find it hard to believe that anyone would accept this simply so they can attack fellow factionmates.

At some point you have to ask, are we creating a game that accurately represents the Star Trek universe that has been established by the franchise over the years, or are we simply asking for a game where we can do anything we want, including needless infighting that doesn't make sense? I think it's a general consensus that people don't want a generic MMO that has the Star Trek tag slapped meaninglessly onto it, and I feel that this is what would happen if we allowed the Federation to fight each other.

OTOH, nothing rules out a Federation civil war in the future of the storyline. Whatever turn of events that happens could lead to this, which would be really interesting storywise (mostly because we haven't seen it yet in the Trek franchise, and the Federation's reaction to rebellion would be intriguing). Not to mention it could satisfy anyone who does feel the need to attack their fellow redshirts.

EDIT: I have to agree with Hagon, though. We should definitely be allowed to at least 'duel', for this is fairly common in the MMO's I've played, and is a way for faction mates to test their skills against one another. "Training exercises" sounds like a perfect way to explain that, for me.

[cocoa-jin]

Faction vs Faction only...please.

[RookActual]

OTOH, nothing rules out a Federation civil war in the future of the storyline. Whatever turn of events that happens could lead to this, which would be really interesting storywise (mostly because we haven't seen it yet in the Trek franchise, and the Federation's reaction to rebellion would be intriguing). Not to mention it could satisfy anyone who does feel the need to attack their fellow redshirts.



I ran an RPG once that resulted in a Federation Civil War.....it was one of the most awesome games we ever had.

[Sevenblade]

I ran an RPG once that resulted in a Federation Civil War.....it was one of the most awesome games we ever had.

Really? What was the backstory, and what splinter groups were fighting?
Sounds really interesting :D

[RookActual]

Really? What was the backstory, and what splinter groups were fighting?
Sounds really interesting :D

I can PM it if you want...I'm actually in the process of revisiting it with a different take. Im not gonna post it here, that'd be threadjacking.

[Sevenblade]

I can PM it if you want...I'm actually in the process of revisiting it with a different take. Im not gonna post it here, that'd be threadjacking.

That'd be nice, thanks. Yeah, try not to divert any more threads, you low-brow scrub ;):p

[RookActual]

That'd be nice, thanks. Yeah, try not to divert any more threads, you low-brow scrub ;):p

Washout works, too! :D:cool:

[Sevenblade]

Back on topic, though, I could see this working for the Klingons, but it seems counter productive. If we're keeping it mostly faction vs. faction, the Klingons would be shooting themselves in the foot (perhaps literally) with infighting if they're trying to fight the Federation at the same time. I'd be more inclined to see more of a political intrigue competition than flat out civil war between houses/fleets. This could easily work for the Romulans, as well. Probably even more so, knowing their propensity for subterfuge and deceit.

[RookActual]

PM sent, 7B.

[Flatfingers]

If we're keeping it mostly faction vs. faction, the Klingons would be shooting themselves in the foot (perhaps literally) with infighting if they're trying to fight the Federation at the same time.

Sure... but wouldn't that be in keeping with how we've seen the Klingons portrayed?

Allowing Klingon-faction fleets to destructively compete with each other -- without forcing anyone to do so -- seems like it might be one of those golden opportunities where MMORPG gameplay and license lore are actually in agreement.

The tricky bit, at least from my point of view, is what we tell potential players who want both to run a Federation character and to be free to materially compete against any fleet, regardless of faction. Should it be OK to just flat-out say to those gamers, "Nope, sorry, you can't do that -- if you want to do that, you have to run a Klingon character"?

Is there some better way to say that that points out that the goal is to make the whole game feel more satisfying to as many players as possible?

...

But there's actually a larger question here that I'm asking. Combat is the most obvious form of inter-fleet competition, but it's not the only form. Economic competition is also a form of PvP gameplay -- so what happens if fleets need certain resources, and those resources are limited in order to create interesting economic gameplay?

Any of us who've played these MMORPG things for a while has seen examples of one or two really large guilds basically taking over a server through economic means. Their size, and the elimination of internal costs (due to belonging to a trust group), allows them to economically dominate all other guilds and individual players on a server.

So what happens in Star Trek Online when some fleet becomes very large relative to other fleets? Should that fleet, because of its size, be able to wield economic resource power against other fleets within the same faction?

Again, it seems to me that this would be OK for Klingon fleets. They wouldn't be required to compete against each other, either militarily or economically, but they could if they wanted to.

For Starfleet players, though... would that "feel" right?

If not, how could this be prevented without badly disrupting economic gameplay or making such gameplay a lot harder to design and implement?

I've actually proposed letting players become Admirals, and that the admiral-level game stops being about blazing away with phaser rifles on away missions or barking out command commands from the Big Chair of a ship. Instead, with flag rank the game becomes about locating, acquiring, defending, and exploiting strategic resources. In this kind of game, player admirals would be able to cooperate with each other, but they'd also be able to compete among themselves for resources that they could assign to player fleets of their faction.

Does that seem not quite right for Starfleet characters as well? Should Federation fleets not even be able to compete in this indirect way?

What would be an analog of "training exercises" for economic competition?

...

The bottom line here for me is not to take a stick to fleets; I'm not looking for an excuse to hobble the gameplay of gamers who want to join a fleet. What I'm trying to do here is take the temperature of potential players of Star Trek Online to see how far conventional guild-based competitive gameplay should be implemented in this particular game, or if fidelity to the license needs to impose some limits on some aspects of gameplay.

Basically, should the degree to which Starfleet fleets can negatively affect each other (in any context) be limited by design?

And if so, how far should such limits go?

--Flatfingers

[sylvermane64]

Washout works, too! :D:cool:

Not to mention Inflated Post Poster. :D

[Sevenblade]

Sure... but wouldn't that be in keeping with how we've seen the Klingons portrayed?

Allowing Klingon-faction fleets to destructively compete with each other -- without forcing anyone to do so -- seems like it might be one of those golden opportunities where MMORPG gameplay and license lore are actually in agreement.

The tricky bit, at least from my point of view, is what we tell potential players who want both to run a Federation character and to be free to materially compete against any fleet, regardless of faction. Should it be OK to just flat-out say to those gamers, "Nope, sorry, you can't do that -- if you want to do that, you have to run a Klingon character"?

Is there some better way to say that that points out that the goal is to make the whole game feel more satisfying to as many players as possible?

...

But there's actually a larger question here that I'm asking. Combat is the most obvious form of inter-fleet competition, but it's not the only form. Economic competition is also a form of PvP gameplay -- so what happens if fleets need certain resources, and those resources are limited in order to create interesting economic gameplay?

Any of us who've played these MMORPG things for a while has seen examples of one or two really large guilds basically taking over a server through economic means. Their size, and the elimination of internal costs (due to belonging to a trust group), allows them to economically dominate all other guilds and individual players on a server.

So what happens in Star Trek Online when some fleet becomes very large relative to other fleets? Should that fleet, because of its size, be able to wield economic resource power against other fleets within the same faction?

Again, it seems to me that this would be OK for Klingon fleets. They wouldn't be required to compete against each other, either militarily or economically, but they could if they wanted to.

For Starfleet players, though... would that "feel" right?

If not, how could this be prevented without badly disrupting economic gameplay or making such gameplay a lot harder to design and implement?

I've actually proposed letting players become Admirals, and that the admiral-level game stops being about blazing away with phaser rifles on away missions or barking out command commands from the Big Chair of a ship. Instead, with flag rank the game becomes about locating, acquiring, defending, and exploiting strategic resources. In this kind of game, player admirals would be able to cooperate with each other, but they'd also be able to compete among themselves for resources that they could assign to player fleets of their faction.

Does that seem not quite right for Starfleet characters as well? Should Federation fleets not even be able to compete in this indirect way?

What would be an analog of "training exercises" for economic competition?

...

The bottom line here for me is not to take a stick to fleets; I'm not looking for an excuse to hobble the gameplay of gamers who want to join a fleet. What I'm trying to do here is take the temperature of potential players of Star Trek Online to see how far conventional guild-based competitive gameplay should be implemented in this particular game, or if fidelity to the license needs to impose some limits on some aspects of gameplay.

Basically, should the degree to which Starfleet fleets can negatively affect each other (in any context) be limited by design?

And if so, how far should such limits go?

--Flatfingers

You make very good points, especially on faction balance, which I was considering myself. Unfortunately, I couldn't really come up with any solutions, either. I guess perhaps you could say that fleets would be able to compete against each other economically fairly believably, because all the elements of Starfleet didn't work as an entirely cohesive whole. Section 31 alone or even the Dept. of Temporal Investigations often were at loggerheads with many in the naval section of Starfleet. Generally, this was more of a political struggle, but those machinations and departmental political games could transfer to game if we wanted them to, at least IMHO. The whole competing for resources or perhaps the support of high-ranking Starfleet officials (or members of the Federation Counsel) could be seen as a means to fulfill this struggle between fleets while staying true to the canon and feel of Trek. This is, of course, assuming that we really need the ability to compete between fleets in the game, which some may push for simply because they feel the need to play a certain way, or at least not be restricted in their play by excessive rules.

I would flatout say that at the very least, the Federation should be limited by the license and precedent of the Star Trek franchise to not shoot each other up. The Klingons, maybe, as they favor violence as a mean to an ends, but then again they didn't seem to have open warfare between themselves except when deep blood feuds were present, especially when vying for a very high position (like Gowron vs. the Duras sisters for Chancellor, or Houses Duras vs. Mogh). So to me, apart from 'training exercises' as a form of duel, fleets shouldn't be able to compete other than politco-economically.

[sylvermane64]

I seem to recall that in some ST episode there was a War Game Simulation match between....ah...I just remembered it. The TOS episode with the M5. Where the M5 machine was hooked to the Enterprise and then tested in a Federation War Game against 4 other Constellation Class ships.

Personally, I'm sure that even the Federation, or Starfleet has War Games to keep their Captains honed and allow the winning ship or group to gloat a little bit. I personally don't see a problem with Federation Ships having these types of competitions.

[Sevenblade]

I seem to recall that in some ST episode there was a War Game Simulation match between....ah...I just remembered it. The TOS episode with the M5. Where the M5 machine was hooked to the Enterprise and then tested in a Federation War Game against 4 other Constellation Class ships.

Personally, I'm sure that even the Federation, or Starfleet has War Games to keep their Captains honed and allow the winning ship or group to gloat a little bit. I personally don't see a problem with Federation Ships having these types of competitions.

No, definitlely no problem there, which is what I think most people are in agreement with. The problem is can you let Federation fleets actually fight each other for actual dominance, rather virtual battles to maintain their skills (War Games).

[Merchanter]

Try this thought on for size. The U.S. Holds training exercizes like at the international level.

For each side Simply have a Zone that is for fleet vs fleet only penalty or reward for any competing fleet would be bragging rights.

Set up one in federation space and one in Kligon. then later, one in the space of each new faction added in future expansions.

[sylvermane64]

No, definitlely no problem there, which is what I think most people are in agreement with. The problem is can you let Federation fleets actually fight each other for actual dominance, rather virtual battles to maintain their skills (War Games).

Putting it that way. Absolutely NOT.

My personal opinion on that is, while the Klingons, Romulans and others may do it, keeping with what the entire game is about, the Federation does not, and should not, have fleets of Starfleet vessel out there fighting with one another over a parsec of space.

The game shouldn't cater to those that even want something like that, since it goes against everything that stands for Star Trek. So if my view lumps me into a Canonizer, so be it.

I love to PvP, but not if I'm a member of the Starfleet Faction. It just goes against everything.

[Merchanter]

I agree with you, but their are a lot of people that will want it. and reguardless of which faction you belong to their will be people that want it. I am just giving a RL example that is feasable and the least painfull.

[RookActual]

This is one of those times when I say canon, and perhaps reality, need to over ride game mechanics. We don't need inter-fleet conflict.

[Sevenblade]

Putting it that way. Absolutely NOT.

My personal opinion on that is, while the Klingons, Romulans and others may do it, keeping with what the entire game is about, the Federation does not, and should not, have fleets of Starfleet vessel out there fighting with one another over a parsec of space.

The game shouldn't cater to those that even want something like that, since it goes against everything that stands for Star Trek. So if my view lumps me into a Canonizer, so be it.

I love to PvP, but not if I'm a member of the Starfleet Faction. It just goes against everything.

I'm glad to see that pretty much everyone who posted here is on the same page :D

[RookActual]

Yeah, I should be able to trust my fellow Captains in Starfleet. If I Were a Romulan, I'd probably want to suspect other Captains and have them suspect me. Not to a point of constant outright battles, but the occasional spat, with a cooldown...but it'd also have to be done more subversively than just opening fire. Sending over a spy to a rival Captain's ship and having them sabotage something or steal resources/equipment.

[thefreshjedi]

The only problem I see with inter-factional fighting is that specifically with StarFleet, we've seen per canon that it is possible to low-jack another ship's controls, and overide them to lower the shields, etc. This was apparent in Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Star_Trek_II:_The_Wrath_of_Khan). Which was a brilliant move by Kirk to begin with. Unless the developers went against canon in this case and made it impossible for Federation ships to hack into each other.

I don't know if that would work from a balance standpoint: It would suck to be a Klingon of the Toras faction, which is currently figting with the Duras faction, to be currently in a fight with a StarFleet ship, only to be ganked from behind by a decloaking Duras Klingon.

I think a dueling mechanism will have to be in place for those who wish to fight their own factions, I guess.


-Avery

[RookActual]

Well, I could see situations with the Romulans where a Captain is mining an asteroid field, and suddenly notices his entire stores are missing....I can't help but think Romulans would do that kinda crap to eachother.

[Sevenblade]

Yeah, I should be able to trust my fellow Captains in Starfleet. If I Were a Romulan, I'd probably want to suspect other Captains and have them suspect me. Not to a point of constant outright battles, but the occasional spat, with a cooldown...but it'd also have to be done more subversively than just opening fire. Sending over a spy to a rival Captain's ship and having them sabotage something or steal resources/equipment.

Well, I could see situations with the Romulans where a Captain is mining an asteroid field, and suddenly notices his entire stores are missing....I can't help but think Romulans would do that kinda crap to eachother.

I gotta agree with ya, Rook. While originally we were talking about Klingons being the more likely ones to fight amongst themselves, that's only openly, and as I stated above, that happens fairly infrequently. The Romulans strike me more as the insidious, opportunist type that would strike when their "enemy's" back is turned. I mean, hell, Tal'Aura and Shinzon thal-nuking the Senate is probably the biggest case of inter-fighting ever.

[RookActual]

I gotta agree with ya, Rook. While originally we were talking about Klingons being the more likely ones to fight amongst themselves, that's only openly, and as I stated above, that happens fairly infrequently. The Romulans strike me more as the insidious, opportunist type that would strike when their "enemy's" back is turned. I mean, hell, Tal'Aura and Shinzon thal-nuking the Senate is probably the biggest case of inter-fighting ever.

I'd definitely think the Romulans should be a bit dangerous towards each other. It has to be regulated, though, punishable to some extent if it gets too destructive. I'd think anything a Romulan could do to an enemy vessel, a Romulan would do to a friendly vessel...Romulans live by the code "The only crime is being caught."

[Sevenblade]

I'd definitely think the Romulans should be a bit dangerous towards each other. It has to be regulated, though, punishable to some extent if it gets too destructive. I'd think anything a Romulan could do to an enemy vessel, a Romulan would do to a friendly vessel...Romulans live by the code "The only crime is being caught."

Yes. Outright flying into space over Romulus and engaged the first uncloaked vessel you see is just stupid, and should be out of the question (though this will probably be regulated by the fact that it's suicide, anyways :p). Now, if a captain of a cloaked D'deridex just happens to see his house rival in a damaged Valdore limping it's way back all alone, who's to know if a couple of plasma torpedoes go missing, along with said Valdore ;)?

[sylvermane64]

While on the flip side with the Klingons.

The Klingon High Council frowns deeply on Houses fighting against each other. And the Klingons are KNOWN for fighting over honor, so I could see in-fighting with them.

Perhaps some system could be put in place that allows a Klingon that feels he has been slighted by another House, can petition the High Council to have a Duel with the opposing House, or even a Fleet Battle against the opposing House.

[Sevenblade]

While on the flip side with the Klingons.

The Klingon High Council frowns deeply on Houses fighting against each other. And the Klingons are KNOWN for fighting over honor, so I could see in-fighting with them.

Perhaps some system could be put in place that allows a Klingon that feels he has been slighted by another House, can petition the High Council to have a Duel with the opposing House, or even a Fleet Battle against the opposing House.

See, that makes more sense to me. A specific challenge of honor, rather than outright battling whoever you come across. That fits more in canon.

[RookActual]

While on the flip side with the Klingons.

The Klingon High Council frowns deeply on Houses fighting against each other. And the Klingons are KNOWN for fighting over honor, so I could see in-fighting with them.

Perhaps some system could be put in place that allows a Klingon that feels he has been slighted by another House, can petition the High Council to have a Duel with the opposing House, or even a Fleet Battle against the opposing House.

Definitely. I'd almost say do it like a Trial of Possession as seen in the Kerensky Clans of Battletech. If you have the right level of prestige or something, you can challenge a rival Klingon over something. They can turn it down, but if they win, they get a prestige bonus, if they lose, they lose whatever the challenge was over.

[Sevenblade]

Definitely. I'd almost say do it like a Trial of Possession as seen in the Kerensky Clans of Battletech. If you have the right level of prestige or something, you can challenge a rival Klingon over something. They can turn it down, but if they win, they get a prestige bonus, if they lose, they lose whatever the challenge was over.

Also, I think that if they turned it down, they should have at least a small drop in prestige, as they appear cowardly, and therefore are less honorable by shying away from a fight/challenge.

[RookActual]

Also, I think that if they turned it down, they should have at least a small drop in prestige, as they appear cowardly, and therefore are less honorable by shying away from a fight/challenge.

I agree with you, but it opens the door for griefing, so I didn't include that.

"House of K'rotch always turns down challenges. Let's just challenge them repeatedly."

I'm typically against restricting things just because some people abuse them, but usually those are superficial matters like naming. However, if you're limited to so many challenges over a period of time, perhaps you would be more cautious how you used them.

[Sevenblade]

I agree with you, but it opens the door for griefing, so I didn't include that.

"House of K'rotch always turns down challenges. Let's just challenge them repeatedly."

I'm typically against restricting things just because some people abuse them, but usually those are superficial matters like naming. However, if you're limited to so many challenges over a period of time, perhaps you would be more cautious how you used them.

That's true. But then I think your challenge limits provides a nice antidote to the griefing problem, so I still think the disgrace factor for turning down a challenge should factor in.

Oh, and 'House of K'rotch'? :rolleyes::p

[RookActual]

That's true. But then I think your challenge limits provides a nice antidote to the griefing problem, so I still think the disgrace factor for turning down a challenge should factor in.

Oh, and 'House of K'rotch'? :rolleyes::p

Yeah, that's why I threw it in there. If you have a limit to your challenges, then it would greatly limit the griefing factor. I also think each Fleet should have a set limit per fleet, per week. No matter how big the Fleet is. In fact, expecially when the Fleet is bigger, because a larger Fleet should be challenged more often than it challenges.

"I, S'hlonG of K'rotch, challenge you to combat!!"

[Sevenblade]

Yeah, that's why I threw it in there. If you have a limit to your challenges, then it would greatly limit the griefing factor. I also think each Fleet should have a set limit per fleet, per week. No matter how big the Fleet is. In fact, expecially when the Fleet is bigger, because a larger Fleet should be challenged more often than it challenges.

"I, S'hlonG of K'rotch, challenge you to combat!!"

Definitely makes sense. A larger fleet has more envious adversaries all eager to knock them off their pedestal. And a truly good fleet would be able to fend off underling challengers, so it's not like they can complain.

So, in that House, would they give rank based on the size of the bat'leth? Or is it not about size, and more how you swing it :D?

[Flatfingers]

"I, S'hlonG of K'rotch, challenge you to combat!!"

Captain, with my advanced empathic powers, I sense this thread going downhill rapidly....

(Kidding! :D )

These are exactly the kinds of observations I was hoping this thread would spark. One of the things I found strangely unappealing about Star Wars Galaxies (among all the things I liked) was the decision made early on that Rebels and Imperials had to be perfectly balanced in all things. The unfortunate result was that there wasn't enough "flavor" to either side -- there was no reason why Player A would naturally prefer to play as a Rebel and Player B would feel drawn toward playing an Imperial.

I think Star Trek Online has a chance to handle that kind of thing in a more enjoyable way by allowing the gameplay rules to be different for different factions. Let each faction have its own unique strengths and weaknesses. It can work. Really.

Of course the rules of play need to be defined so that there's a "balance of fun" overall among the top-level factions. But that doesn't mean every character has to be able to do exactly the same kinds of things as every other character, just with different factional gear (as in SWG). For the Klingons, it's OK to relax the rules on infighting somewhat (though, as RookActual rightly pointed out, not entirely), as long as it's clearly communicated that the price for being able to attack others is the possibility of being attacked yourself and a slower rate of progression for your faction's interests.

For Federation players, meanwhile, it's likewise perfectly fine for them if the rules of play are specifically designed to require more cooperative behavior, because the payoff for loyalty to your top-level faction is knowing that other players will always have your back. Similarly for Romulans (upside, you get to be sneaky in all kinds of deviously fun ways; downside, no one will trust you even when you tell the truth), and Cardassians (upside, leaders will have significant power; downside, at the first sign of weakness you'll be torn apart), and so on.

Basically I'm hoping to see the gameplay rules allowed to be slightly but materially different for characters and fleets flying the flag of each major playable faction. I look forward to a design in which factions are sufficiently distinct that new players of Star Trek Online will be heard to say, "Oh, man, I can't wait to create my Klingon explorer, S'hlonG of K'rotch!"

Or something like that. :)

--Flatfingers

[Sevenblade]

Captain, with my advanced empathic powers, I sense this thread going downhill rapidly....

(Kidding! :D )

These are exactly the kinds of observations I was hoping this thread would spark. One of the things I found strangely unappealing about Star Wars Galaxies (among all the things I liked) was the decision made early on that Rebels and Imperials had to be perfectly balanced in all things. The unfortunate result was that there wasn't enough "flavor" to either side -- there was no reason why Player A would naturally prefer to play as a Rebel and Player B would feel drawn toward playing an Imperial.

I think Star Trek Online has a chance to handle that kind of thing in a more enjoyable way by allowing the gameplay rules to be different for different factions. Let each faction have its own unique strengths and weaknesses. It can work. Really.

Of course the rules of play need to be defined so that there's a "balance of fun" overall among the top-level factions. But that doesn't mean every character has to be able to do exactly the same kinds of things as every other character, just with different factional gear (as in SWG). For the Klingons, it's OK to relax the rules on infighting somewhat (though, as RookActual rightly pointed out, not entirely), as long as it's clearly communicated that the price for being able to attack others is the possibility of being attacked yourself and a slower rate of progression for your faction's interests.

For Federation players, meanwhile, it's likewise perfectly fine for them if the rules of play are specifically designed to require more cooperative behavior, because the payoff for loyalty to your top-level faction is knowing that other players will always have your back. Similarly for Romulans (upside, you get to be sneaky in all kinds of deviously fun ways; downside, no one will trust you even when you tell the truth), and Cardassians (upside, leaders will have significant power; downside, at the first sign of weakness you'll be torn apart), and so on.

Basically I'm hoping to see the gameplay rules allowed to be slightly but materially different for characters and fleets flying the flag of each major playable faction. I look forward to a design in which factions are sufficiently distinct that new players of Star Trek Online will be heard to say, "Oh, man, I can't wait to create my Klingon explorer, S'hlonG of K'rotch!"

Or something like that. :)

--Flatfingers

Dibs on that name for my Klingon alt ;):p
I know Rook made it up, but I called it first, so it's fair and square lol.

[Hagon]

Like I was talking about before, allowing for any type of inter-faction "conflict" beyond what would essentially be a duelling feature, or competition beyond things that are considered bragging rights, is corrosive to the core faction building and faction cohesion elements that need to be in the game for it to work properly. It's something that shouldn't ever be seriously considered in this type of game. It's a situation where any other consideration such as RP, cannon, lore, has to take a backseat.

Economic competition will be there if it's a player driven economy, but that's a good thing, and is most often competition between individuals. Sometimes large guilds can try and corner the markets, but it would be extremely rare for them to succeed, and that kind of thing is easily overcome by other players cooperating just a little.

[Mailman653]

I'm loyal to neither as soon as the Romulans are included in the game I am defecting from whichever side I'm on and go serve the Praetor. :p

[Flatfingers]

Like I was talking about before, allowing for any type of inter-faction "conflict" beyond what would essentially be a duelling feature, or competition beyond things that are considered bragging rights, is corrosive to the core faction building and faction cohesion elements that need to be in the game for it to work properly. It's something that shouldn't ever be seriously considered in this type of game. It's a situation where any other consideration such as RP, cannon, lore, has to take a backseat.

Maybe I'm just seeing it funny somehow, but the way I think of "faction" is that it's there to help support roleplaying/canon/lore.

I believe the top-level factions in STO (whether playable or not) will be defined to be analogs of the known political entities from the Star Trek license. So by defining the rules of play to encourage some players to prefer loyalty to a Star Trek faction over loyalty to a particular player fleet, I see that as emphasizing the roleplaying/canon/lore above generic large-group gameplay.

It's interesting that we're looking at (and agreeing on) the same thing, but perceiving its purpose and function in two completely different ways.

Economic competition will be there if it's a player driven economy, but that's a good thing, and is most often competition between individuals. Sometimes large guilds can try and corner the markets, but it would be extremely rare for them to succeed, and that kind of thing is easily overcome by other players cooperating just a little.

It may be a matter of the online games we've each played and our experiences and observations in them, but I'm not as optimistic about the effects of large guilds/fleets as you appear to be.

I'm a big fan of fully player-driven economies in MMORPGs generally. That said, they often quickly demonstrate and maintain a power law effect, where a relatively small number of players are able to leverage group play rules to capture the vast majority of the wealth on a server. (Raph Koster had a fantastic graph showing this effect in Star Wars Galaxies; unfortunately it was long since thrown down the memory hole by the people running SWG.)

My theory -- and that's all I'd claim for it -- is that a few design decisions allow this to happen in a MMORPG:

a "perfect competition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_competition)" crafting/economy design
players can assign resource-collection rights to others
players join with other players in guilds with the express intention of dominating a server
there are no gameplay restrictions on how much time you can spend in the game crafting
Individually there's little wrong with any of these features. They actually seem nice to have, and reasonable. Even the desire of some players to dominate a server (i.e., all the other people on a server) can be seen as as a valid preference for a particular style of gameplay. It's when all of these factors come together in a gameworld that things get interesting on a large scale.

When a market is easy to get into and there's no way to compete on features, which is the case in MMORPGs that allow any player to craft only instances of preset object types, and when the rules permit very social players to accumulate far more than the usual number of rights to collect resources or craft objects, and when several of these players can get together as a group and craft non-stop... at that point, size imparts an enormous economic advantage, and one or two big guilds exerts a disproportionate impact over an entire server. Because their resources are vast, their production rate is high, and their variety of output is maximized, these groups can and do supply the widest selection of goods at the lowest prices.

Because it's a perfect competition economy, where goods can't be differentiated on features, consumers devolve to price-seeking -- they'll buy whatever's easiest to find at the lowest price. That tends to eliminate other sources; once you realize you can always get the thing you want at the best price from a particular source in a game, you don't waste time looking for another supplier -- you always buy from them.

From what I've seen, once this happens it's incredibly hard -- to the point of being impossible -- for any other group to dislodge the early winners. It's hard for any other group to grow large enough by other means to have the same kind of volume production capability, and it's not possible to create new kinds of objects with more desirable features. So, as the old rule put it, them as has, gets.

Which brings me back (finally!) to the idea of setting up the rules of play for certain factions so that competing economically (and otherwise) with other player groups within one's faction is more expensive than it's worth. I think this would be the right thing to do for a Starfleet faction in a Star Trek MMORPG, but I also want to try to recognize and work with the reality that there will be players who want both 1) to create Starfleet characters and belong to Starfleet fleets, and 2) to dominate other fleets in the game in some way, including economically.

My concern is that it's going to be tough to explain to these players that, in order to support factional gameplay that respects the lore of the license, the game rules that apply to their preferred faction prevent them from dominating other players of that faction. I suspect that these folks are accustomed to other games that seem to encourage such domination-focused gameplay, and if Star Trek Online doesn't similarly cater to that expectation, they'll be puzzled and frustrated... which is not a good thing for customer satisfaction.

Maybe it shouldn't be the primary goal of Cryptic to satisfy these players. Or should it? Are their interests vital enough to the success of Star Trek Online that it should be designed to allow players of any faction (including UFP/Starfleet) to compete with each other economically, even if that might mean negatively affecting the gameplay of other players in a faction that -- according to canon -- is supposed to be all about mutual cooperation?

I'm trying not to take sides here, so this seems like a potentially tricky decision to me. But maybe I'm overthinking it.

What do you folks think?

--Flatfingers

[seventodark]

I rather go for fleet loyalty casue there people you know and people you act with instead just becuase you have the same sort of race

[RookActual]

I rather go for fleet loyalty casue there people you know and people you act with instead just becuase you have the same sort of race

Normally, the independent gamer crowd that yells how terrible forced-grouping is all the time, makes me pull my hair out. However, if you're a Romulan and have to worry about getting toasted by another Romulan all the time, you won't be able to go anywhere without a buddy. That's a big stretch further than even I, a proponent of social play, would ever take it.

[Hagon]

Maybe I'm just seeing it funny somehow, but the way I think of "faction" is that it's there to help support roleplaying/canon/lore.

I believe the top-level factions in STO (whether playable or not) will be defined to be analogs of the known political entities from the Star Trek license. So by defining the rules of play to encourage some players to prefer loyalty to a Star Trek faction over loyalty to a particular player fleet, I see that as emphasizing the roleplaying/canon/lore above generic large-group gameplay.

It's interesting that we're looking at (and agreeing on) the same thing, but perceiving its purpose and function in two completely different ways.Factions in these games are basically just teams. That's it. Players pick their sides based on the classes and looks that they find fun and play for their team. For the vast majority of people anyway. Most people don't RP, not even close, the number of people that RP in any game is easily @ 1/20th of the population, if even that. There's just no way around that, and no offence, but constantly trying to analyze things from a RP perspective simply doesn't cut it. Not if one is coming at an issue to see how it works in general. It hasn't cut it for years and years (and no, before someone laments WoW as it's downfall, it wasn't. RP was well on it's decline long before WoW came along).

Now this may be a situation where RP considerations coincidently match up with basic game design mechanics, but that's all it is. Player factions work in a faction vs faction system because it's team play. People like team play in games, and not just in computer games either. It fosters camaraderie and cooperation within one's team. A sense of belonging, and once that sense of belonging is instilled, a strong desire to work for the betterment of your team. Camaraderie and cooperation are the two things at the very core of why most people play MMOGs now ( and this is a separate issue from solo vs grouped game play). RP is now way down near the bottom of the list of secondary reasons.

That's why it's so important that a game that's chosen a faction vs faction system doesn't make the mistake of allowing for inter-faction conflicts to be played out beyond harmless duelling kinds of things. People's natural tendency will be to stick with their own smaller insular groups,. i.e. guilds/fleets/clans/etc., and if the game doesn't foster the importance of all the members of a faction working together, then things just degrade into little pockets of conflict and competition here and there, and tends not to have much basis in the game's overall story. That gets old very fast, and isn't conducive to a game's long term viability.

We've had similar discussions touching on some of these same lines before Flatfingers, and again I'm not trying to offend you or anyone else, but in my opinion you're often using very very outdated concepts in how you're approaching these games as they are today.




When a market is easy to get into and there's no way to compete on features, which is the case in MMORPGs that allow any player to craft only instances of preset object types, and when the rules permit very social players to accumulate far more than the usual number of rights to collect resources or craft objects, and when several of these players can get together as a group and craft non-stop... at that point, size imparts an enormous economic advantage, and one or two big guilds exerts a disproportionate impact over an entire server. Because their resources are vast, their production rate is high, and their variety of output is maximized, these groups can and do supply the widest selection of goods at the lowest prices.

Because it's a perfect competition economy, where goods can't be differentiated on features, consumers devolve to price-seeking -- they'll buy whatever's easiest to find at the lowest price. That tends to eliminate other sources; once you realize you can always get the thing you want at the best price from a particular source in a game, you don't waste time looking for another supplier -- you always buy from them.

From what I've seen, once this happens it's incredibly hard -- to the point of being impossible -- for any other group to dislodge the early winners. It's hard for any other group to grow large enough by other means to have the same kind of volume production capability, and it's not possible to create new kinds of objects with more desirable features. So, as the old rule put it, them as has, gets.Well all I can do is reference those games that I've played with player driven economies, which is quite a few, and say that I've very rarely seen any one group being able to corner markets on any product, and the very few times I did see it were in games years back. Even back then though, those monopolies didn't last very long. In fact the only game that I've even just heard about it being possible in anymore is EvE (although I never spent enough time in that game to really see it), but as I understand it CCP has a very different take on it, and has never taken steps to prevent it (I might be wrong about that though I admit).

There's a great deal more understanding of how player driven economies work now, and developers that commit to having one aren't naive anymore. They know it's complex, and they've gotten pretty good at designing them so these sorts of things don't happen. First and foremost in things that they do now is having great diversity in producible goods, and great diversity in base components or resources to produce those goods. I could put up a text wall to explain why this works to negate monopolies, but even though I don't agree with you on some things, I respect your evident intelligence, and so I'm confident in your ability to work it out for yourself.

Which brings me back (finally!) to the idea of setting up the rules of play for certain factions so that competing economically (and otherwise) with other player groups within one's faction is more expensive than it's worth. I think this would be the right thing to do for a Starfleet faction in a Star Trek MMORPG, but I also want to try to recognize and work with the reality that there will be players who want both 1) to create Starfleet characters and belong to Starfleet fleets, and 2) to dominate other fleets in the game in some way, including economically.

My concern is that it's going to be tough to explain to these players that, in order to support factional gameplay that respects the lore of the license, the game rules that apply to their preferred faction prevent them from dominating other players of that faction. I suspect that these folks are accustomed to other games that seem to encourage such domination-focused gameplay, and if Star Trek Online doesn't similarly cater to that expectation, they'll be puzzled and frustrated... which is not a good thing for customer satisfaction.

Maybe it shouldn't be the primary goal of Cryptic to satisfy these players. Or should it? Are their interests vital enough to the success of Star Trek Online that it should be designed to allow players of any faction (including UFP/Starfleet) to compete with each other economically, even if that might mean negatively affecting the gameplay of other players in a faction that -- according to canon -- is supposed to be all about mutual cooperation?

I'm trying not to take sides here, so this seems like a potentially tricky decision to me. But maybe I'm overthinking it.

What do you folks think?

--FlatfingersReally in every game that chooses the faction vs faction style there's always those that bemoan the fact that they can't "be against", for lack of an better all encompassing term, members of their own faction. That's just the way some people are wired. They relish the "me against the world" mentality. Or the "My small bunch against the world" in the case of guilds and such. It's just one of a whole bunch of little play style preference sub-sets.

The thing is though, they also know the score in regards to the basics of the game they're going into, and they either adapt to it or they simply choose not to play it (By far most will just adapt to it though, because really there'll still be plenty of conflict and competition to satisfy anyway). Even though more companies are getting on the ball and trying to be more inclusive to the different play styles, there's still always going to be only so much they can do. They know full well that their game is definitely not going to be for everybody, and so they have to stick to their basic vision and hope that's enough. It's the same for every other feature and mechanic that goes into a game pretty much. You can bet that there's going to be people that'll not play STO simply because of the graphics for instance (not criticizing them, just using it as an example), or the ship controls, or the NPC crews, or a multitude of other reasons.

It just comes down to whether or not Cryptic wants a true faction vs faction environment. If they do then they'll not allow for such things to happen. If they decide to go for a watered down version to cater to that element that wants inter-faction conflict, then they'll do that. I maintain that if they did do that it'll diminish the game a great deal simply because it'll severely effect it's long term viability, but they may have another opinion.

[General_Erko]

While on the flip side with the Klingons.

The Klingon High Council frowns deeply on Houses fighting against each other. And the Klingons are KNOWN for fighting over honor, so I could see in-fighting with them.

Perhaps some system could be put in place that allows a Klingon that feels he has been slighted by another House, can petition the High Council to have a Duel with the opposing House, or even a Fleet Battle against the opposing House.

I like this idea, sounds like it could be fun. On the flip side though infighting in Starfleet does not make sense.

[Redshirt_40067]

Humans are competitive by nature. Even in the enlightened era that is Star Trek, humans are still that way. Having served in the military I can assure you that soldiers are more loyal to their units in a "bragging rights" sort of way. This was also evidenced in Enterprise when Malcolm has a dislike for the MACOs. Crew that have served on high profile ships will be more prone to look down on new crewmates should they transfer. Also, different fleets will have the same kind of rivalry. At the end of the day though, when the photon torpedos are flying, everyody is on the same side.

[Ensign.Ricky]

I once played a game that divided their Factions to appeal to the "philisophical differences" (1 being loyal to the current faction and the other being slightly lenient to the "opposing" faction) In my opinion it caused the bad kind of competition between the factions. I prefer Faction vs Faction rather than the Fleet/House vs Fleet/House competition. Better for the community.

[Alekks]

As soon as Cryptic threw out the term "Competetive PvE" my radar lit up. I initially assumed it was referring to the initial resource gathering period all fleets (guilds) are likely to be in for the first period of time after launch.

It makes sense that rival Klingon Houses would be very competetive over extracting resources that could then be used to upgrade bases and build more starships. The competetion could easily get to the point of armed exchanges over rich ore deposits.

But what about the Federation side of this process? I can see a mad dash to scout out and locate good resource zones by each of the fleets. Competing to get to a rich location first to "plant a flag" so to speak and begin ore extraction for their respective fleet. Almost like a re-visit of the land grab rush in the 19th century. But would it devolve down to armed exchanges?....In the 25th century?.....When looked at from an RP objective, the answer would be absolutely not.

However, the game make take place in the 25th century with enlightened Humans and the other races in the Federation taking part, but the person behind the toon is still a 21st century Human, with all the good and the bad that comes with that. Cryptic will need to decide how this will play out.

[Flatfingers]

It just comes down to whether or not Cryptic wants a true faction vs faction environment. If they do then they'll not allow for such things to happen. If they decide to go for a watered down version to cater to that element that wants inter-faction conflict, then they'll do that. I maintain that if they did do that it'll diminish the game a great deal simply because it'll severely effect it's long term viability, but they may have another opinion.

We seem to be in general agreement on this, which really is the point of this thread. So I hesitate to say anything that might undercut that agreement, buuuuut.... ;)

Factions in these games are basically just teams. That's it.

Well, I would say "that's it" if that's how Cryptic designs the game. But they're not required to do so; they're free to make more complete use of the faction mechanic if they feel that will help make gameplay more satisfying for more players.

Most people don't RP, not even close, the number of people that RP in any game is easily @ 1/20th of the population, if even that. There's just no way around that, and no offence, but constantly trying to analyze things from a RP perspective simply doesn't cut it. Not if one is coming at an issue to see how it works in general. It hasn't cut it for years and years (and no, before someone laments WoW as it's downfall, it wasn't. RP was well on it's decline long before WoW came along).

I think this is one of those things on which we're just not going to agree, so I won't hit this too hard.

I'll just note that social worlds have even more subscribers than MMORPGs, including WoW. In terms of providing online entertainment, the relationship-oriented social worlds are clearly appealing to people that aren't interested in the aggression- and loot-oriented MMORPGs that are essentially all that are available today.

I understand the theory that there never were all that many people interested in the narrative (i.e., storytelling + roleplaying) aspect of RPGs. I simply disagree with that theory; I believe their numbers only appear small if we ignore the fact that today's MMORPGs clearly aren't designed to appeal to those folks, so they've very sensibly gone elsewhere.

To my mind, what that really is is a fantastic business opportunity. The MMORPG developer who looks objectively at the numbers of people who enjoy light socializing and storytelling, and who sees that there's no current MMORPG that offers these folks anything they want, ought to be champing at the bit to make a game that treats story-based play as something more than an afterthought (if that) to combat gameplay.

Right now it looks like BioWare has decided to be that developer. They've gone so far as to call story-based gameplay the "fourth leg" of MMORPG design. They've been pretty successful with their games so far -- are we really ready to say they've suddenly become stupid for deciding to cater more to the roleplaying/story-preferring gamers than today's MMORPGs do?

Me, I can't imagine why Cryptic would want to let BioWare be the only guys in town with a game that appeals to the people looking for a game where the action has actual emotional depth. And that's especially true when Cryptic has the exclusive license to make an online gameworld from the Star Trek universe that's so rich with interesting characters and meaningful stories.

But I acknowledge that accepting this conclusion does depend on your buying into the theory that there are lots of potential non-combat gamers; they've just abandoned the MMORPGs that clearly don't want them, but they'd return in financially meaningful numbers to a high-quality MMORPG that finally shows them some respect. If you're not buying that theory, then I certainly wouldn't expect you to accept the conclusion that flows from it -- namely, that Cryptic ought to design Star Trek Online with a major emphasis on strong NPC characterizations and lots of emotionally engaging story-based content relative to the amount of zero-sum economic and aggressive combat content offered.

There's a great deal more understanding of how player driven economies work now, and developers that commit to having one aren't naive anymore. They know it's complex, and they've gotten pretty good at designing them so these sorts of things don't happen. First and foremost in things that they do now is having great diversity in producible goods, and great diversity in base components or resources to produce those goods. I could put up a text wall to explain why this works to negate monopolies, but even though I don't agree with you on some things, I respect your evident intelligence, and so I'm confident in your ability to work it out for yourself.

Well, certainly I'm a believer in the scientific method, and in particular I trust Karl Popper's notion of "falsifiability" of hypotheses. Right now, based on what I've seen of online games, my hypothesis is that when a MMORPG's economic model has the features I described earlier -- starting with being a near-textbook example of perfect competition -- that game naturally develops power-law distributions of wealth unless the developers actively interfere.

As far as I'm currently aware, all the major MMORPGs, as loot-centric as they are, tend to demonstrate power-law effects. So currently I see no reason to think that my theory's wrong. But if I were to become aware of examples of MMORPGs with complex economies but where big groups (like BoB in EVE) or extremely energetic individuals (as in SWG) don't wind up controlling significant chunks of the economy at the expense of other groups, then I'd be forced to consider that hypothesis falsified. Until then, it seems to pretty accurately describe today's MMORPGs.

Therefore such I would expect the same thing to happen in Star Trek Online -- a few big fleets dominating the game economy and thus essentially "competing" against other fleets in their faction -- if STO also adopts most or all of the key economic rules of those other games: perfect competition (no player creation of truly new kinds of things), "crafting" designed as mass production and sales rather than as creative or artistic play, and a linear increase in the volume of goods that can be crafted as group size increases.

If Cryptic chooses to implement the Star Trek Online economy using different rules -- such as not making a loot-centric game in the first place -- then we might reasonably hope to see a different outcome. I'm not expecting that; I fully expect Star Trek Online's designers will crank out a generic model of economic play (probably in order to spend time designing combat systems) that leads to the usual power-law distibution of wealth among a few fleets. But I wouldn't mind being proven wrong on that prediction.

We've had similar discussions touching on some of these same lines before Flatfingers, and again I'm not trying to offend you or anyone else, but in my opinion you're often using very very outdated concepts in how you're approaching these games as they are today.

No offense taken, since I can simply disagree. :) In fact, from my point of view I'm the one pointing out where MMORPG designers can (and IMO should) discard certain dogmatic design concepts in favor of trying some new ideas (and putting a greater emphasis on storytelling is indeed a new idea for graphical MMORPGs) that could potentially lead to a significant increase in subscriptions. Meanwhile you and some others seem to see only current gamers as a target and insist that designers should continue to provide only features that cater to this group. I believe that's a losing strategy over the long term because it makes no effort to grow the definition of "gamer."

Naturally, you're free to think I'm as wrong about that as I think you are regarding my opinions on this subject. We've both had the chance to air our views, and that's all we can really ask for, so I'm good.

--Flatfingers

[Hagon]

I'll just note that social worlds have even more subscribers than MMORPGs, including WoW. In terms of providing online entertainment, the relationship-oriented social worlds are clearly appealing to people that aren't interested in the aggression- and loot-oriented MMORPGs that are essentially all that are available today.

I understand the theory that there never were all that many people interested in the narrative (i.e., storytelling + roleplaying) aspect of RPGs. I simply disagree with that theory; I believe their numbers only appear small if we ignore the fact that today's MMORPGs clearly aren't designed to appeal to those folks, so they've very sensibly gone elsewhere.

To my mind, what that really is is a fantastic business opportunity. The MMORPG developer who looks objectively at the numbers of people who enjoy light socializing and storytelling, and who sees that there's no current MMORPG that offers these folks anything they want, ought to be champing at the bit to make a game that treats story-based play as something more than an afterthought (if that) to combat gameplay.

Right now it looks like BioWare has decided to be that developer. They've gone so far as to call story-based gameplay the "fourth leg" of MMORPG design. They've been pretty successful with their games so far -- are we really ready to say they've suddenly become stupid for deciding to cater more to the roleplaying/story-preferring gamers than today's MMORPGs do?

Me, I can't imagine why Cryptic would want to let BioWare be the only guys in town with a game that appeals to the people looking for a game where the action has actual emotional depth. And that's especially true when Cryptic has the exclusive license to make an online gameworld from the Star Trek universe that's so rich with interesting characters and meaningful stories.

But I acknowledge that accepting this conclusion does depend on your buying into the theory that there are lots of potential non-combat gamers; they've just abandoned the MMORPGs that clearly don't want them, but they'd return in financially meaningful numbers to a high-quality MMORPG that finally shows them some respect. If you're not buying that theory, then I certainly wouldn't expect you to accept the conclusion that flows from it -- namely, that Cryptic ought to design Star Trek Online with a major emphasis on strong NPC characterizations and lots of emotionally engaging story-based content relative to the amount of zero-sum economic and aggressive combat content offered.II'm kind of pressed for time at the moment, so don't take my being straight to the point as trying to antagonize you please.

I'm not sure why you believe that being social and caring about the story in the game is something exclusive to RP enthusiasts. Really it isn't at all. Most everyone that plays these games plays them to be social, in varying degrees of course, but they're still wanting to interact with others and such. Most everyone enjoys the story in the games too. The difference is that most don't want to live it. They just want to experience it, and although the story usually involves them being the "hero", or a central character, they experience it with a sense of detachment. Even most of the PvPers I know enjoy the story aspect of MMOs. That's why so many are so frustrated when companies just treat PvP as a tacked on afterthought. These people want the PvP to be just as intertwined with the game's story as people that PvE do.

As well, maybe you can make me understand where you're coming from better if you list out some recent MMOs that weren't story based. Because I'm trying to think of some that aren't, and frankly I'm having a hard time coming up with one. Even the free to play MMOs out there have a heck of a lot of story as you progress, and most certainly every western based one I can think of is steeped in a storyline. This "story based" catch phrase is something I've been hearing a lot recently (just so you know the people making SGW have been calling their game a "story based MMO" for quite awhile now), but like I said, I don't know of any MMO that isn't story based (well maybe Tabula Rasa? I think it does have a story too though). Heck, even WoW, the bane of the MMO world to so many, is deeply based in story. In fact as I remember, it had a pretty decent story that followed you right up to the highest end raids and such.

All these games also still provide more than ample RP tools, environments, chat channels and filters, etc for people that do want to get their RP on to do so unencumbered.

So taking all that into consideration I'm afraid I just can't buy what you were trying to sell there, so to speak. ;)


Well, certainly I'm a believer in the scientific method, and in particular I trust Karl Popper's notion of "falsifiability" of hypotheses. Right now, based on what I've seen of online games, my hypothesis is that when a MMORPG's economic model has the features I described earlier -- starting with being a near-textbook example of perfect competition -- that game naturally develops power-law distributions of wealth unless the developers actively interfere.

As far as I'm currently aware, all the major MMORPGs, as loot-centric as they are, tend to demonstrate power-law effects. So currently I see no reason to think that my theory's wrong. But if I were to become aware of examples of MMORPGs with complex economies but where big groups (like BoB in EVE) or extremely energetic individuals (as in SWG) don't wind up controlling significant chunks of the economy at the expense of other groups, then I'd be forced to consider that hypothesis falsified. Until then, it seems to pretty accurately describe today's MMORPGsWell as I said they are out there.

If you want to see for yourself, go do the free trial of PotBS (just because it's the most recent example that pops in my mind). It's economic and production system is pretty much based on the EvE model, except in PotBS there's a very wide diversity of products, and a very wide diversity of resources to make those products. Then to top that off, the primary end products, the higher end ships, take a very large number of produced items to build.

In effect no one society (what guilds are called) can gain a monopoly on any one product, or gathered resource, because the shear amounts of everything needed by everyone is too staggering a number. The society would almost have to encompass the entire population of a given nation to achieve it. Even when the population on one server I was on dwindled down to the point where the company decided to consolidate servers, no one group could do it. So given that it couldn't be done when there was a healthy population, I think I'm safe in saying that in that game it was impossible to do. as i said it's not the only one out there that's got that part working right either.

Therefore such I would expect the same thing to happen in Star Trek Online -- a few big fleets dominating the game economy and thus essentially "competing" against other fleets in their faction -- if STO also adopts most or all of the key economic rules of those other games: perfect competition (no player creation of truly new kinds of things), "crafting" designed as mass production and sales rather than as creative or artistic play, and a linear increase in the volume of goods that can be crafted as group size increases.Well I believe that all it'll take for that not to be an issue is for Cryptic to realize that they can't enter into having a player driven economy lightly. They need to put a lot of thought into it and come up with a very large amount of products that need to be produced, and a very large number and amount of resources that need to be gathered.

If Cryptic chooses to implement the Star Trek Online economy using different rules -- such as not making a loot-centric game in the first place -- then we might reasonably hope to see a different outcome. I'm not expecting that; I fully expect Star Trek Online's designers will crank out a generic model of economic play (probably in order to spend time designing combat systems) that leads to the usual power-law distibution of wealth among a few fleets. But I wouldn't mind being proven wrong on that prediction.

No offense taken, since I can simply disagree. :) In fact, from my point of view I'm the one pointing out where MMORPG designers can (and IMO should) discard certain dogmatic design concepts in favor of trying some new ideas (and putting a greater emphasis on storytelling is indeed a new idea for graphical MMORPGs) that could potentially lead to a significant increase in subscriptions. Meanwhile you and some others seem to see only current gamers as a target and insist that designers should continue to provide only features that cater to this group. I believe that's a losing strategy over the long term because it makes no effort to grow the definition of "gamer."
You see there you go again. Your saying that you're trying to push new ideas, but you keep talking about concepts that were rejected and dropped from most of these games years ago. I know that's a blunt statement, but there it is. You're talking about things (except for te storytelling thing. As I alluded to I don't agree that today's MMOs are lacking in story at all) that were elements of EQ, UO, SWG, and early DAoC, but they were things that too many people just generally didn't like all that much .

So why would businesses go backward to provide elements that not enough wanted back then? For all it's faults, WoW most surely proved one thing, and that was offering things that people want is a good idea. Yes, it should have been a nobrainer, but for some reason it wasn't. Amazingly enough, in the case of some games, it still isn't.

[sylvermane64]

I still think that we need ALOT more info before we can really get into the meat of this particular issue.

I just can't picture the Federation, actually Starfleet, allowing certain Fleets of their own ships to hoard particular resources. It just really goes against all that the Federation stands for. Let's face that truth right up front. Starfleet is the military arm of the Federation, not the other way around.

Has there been a military uprising and Starfleet has taken over the Federation? I don't see that happening.

I can't see Starfleet groups hoarding resources from other members of the Federation, or other members of Starfleet. Once again, it goes against everything we know. There is no precedent in the history of ST to even remotely show it.

In my opinion I can't even see the Klingons, Romulans or Cardassians doing that to their own militaries units either. It would weaken them as a whole, thus they would not be able to defend or attack their enemies. I mean look at this scenerio...

One Klingon House in the STO game has the hammerlock on Dilthium Crystals and they refuse to share it with the rest of the military, unless they bow before them, or force the entire Klingon nation to make them the rulers over them all. Well, the rest of the Klingons would be ****ed off and refuse, and a huge Civil War begins. This weakens the entire Klingon Nation as a whole and the Federation, Romulans or whoever would be able to wipe them out, due to the fact that the Klingons can't work together and fail to share resources.

We definately need to see more info from Cryptic on this matter. It will be interesting to see what they come up with.

[RookActual]

I always saw Starfleet as the arm that gathers most of thes resources for the civilizations of the Federation. Or at least ensures the Federation civilian vessels can do so unhindered. It's the only real explanation of how the Federation has so many resources and doesn't necessarily need currency. It's military arm is designed to not only be self sufficient, but also the primary manager of resources. Starfleet finds it, secures it, Federation personnel move in and gather and refine it, then Federation citizens benefit. Starfleet takes it's share of it's discoveries to maintain it's fleet, and in a reverse of how we know it, actually pays it's own form of taxes.

[Redshirt_40067]

Starfleet would actually police the spacelanes for the civilians that mine ore and haul raw mats and goods across the Federation. Starfleet wouldn't actually gather them except in rare circumstances where they were far from a repair facility and needed to manufacture replacement parts. Where possible, they traded with indigenous peoples for ore already mined.

[Flatfingers]

II'm kind of pressed for time at the moment, so don't take my being straight to the point as trying to antagonize you please.

Directness is not a problem, but I appreciate your checking.

I also appreciate your commenting back to me what you thought I was saying, because that gives me the chance to highlight what might be a source of our disagreement:

I'm not sure why you believe that being social and caring about the story in the game is something exclusive to RP enthusiasts.

maybe you can make me understand where you're coming from better if you list out some recent MMOs that weren't story based. Because I'm trying to think of some that aren't, and frankly I'm having a hard time coming up with one. Even the free to play MMOs out there have a heck of a lot of story as you progress, and most certainly every western based one I can think of is steeped in a storyline.

I'm glad to be able to correct the record here: It's not an accurate statement of my views to say that I think only roleplaying enthusiasts enjoy social and/or narrative-rich play -- that's a much more extreme view than I actually hold.

What I actually think is that people are perfectly capable of enjoying different aspects of play, but each of us does have certain preferences for particular kinds of play over other kinds. I can't do better to communicate the details of that belief than my Full Chart (http://flatfingers-theory.blogspot.com/2005/01/styles-of-play-full-chart.html) essay. For now, I'll just say that while lots of us may not mind a story, only some consider it the most important thing they look for in a MMORPG... and the typical PvP enthusiast or Achiever isn't that kind of gamer. They may not mind a bit of story if it doesn't interfere with their real interest, which is usually combat and accumulation of first/most/best trophies of various kinds, but it's not a selling point for them as it is to other gamers. (Likewise, some of those other gamers whose main interest is roleplaying goodness may not mind a bit of PvP or economic competition, but it's not what they look for when they evaluate a game.)

This relates to the second quote above in that of course no major MMORPG is completely barren of story. They still pay lip service to the "RPG" part of "MMORPG." But I think it's fair to state as a fact that most of these games have a very obvious emphasis on competitive/acquisitive gameplay features above and beyond anything else. That these action-oriented features are wrapped in a veneer of story/RP content (such as an NPC's canned quest dialog) does not justify calling these games "story-based." That's just not an accurate description when the developers make it very clear through the number and scope of the features they put in the game at launch -- and add later through patches and expansions -- that attracting and retaining gamers who prefer competition/acquisition is their overriding focus.

It's important not to conclude from my expressing the above view that I'm calling MMORPG developers stupid or ignorant or evil or any other such thing. They're looking at the kinds of people currently coming to play MMORPGs, seeing that most of them say they want competitive/acquisitive content, and giving it to them. And there's nothing whatsoever wrong with that as a tactical business decision.

The problem I believe I see is that strategy trumps tactics -- it's possible to win most of the battles and still lose the war. And I think that's exactly what most MMORPG developers are doing by not designing their gameworlds to provide a better balance of features for Achievers and Explorers and Socializers. By focusing as extensively as I believe they have on combat and looting and "dominance" gameplay, I think these developers are hurting themselves in the long run by failing to grow the marketplace. They're not attracting the significant numbers of people online who, because they're turned off by the aggression promoted by design in today's MMORPGs, go to social and casual sites instead.

I've expressed this view for some time before BioWare's announcement that they, too, think a more narrative-oriented MMORPG can succeed. But I'm glad to see that one respected game developer has finally realized that there's a financially meaningful number of gamers whose play interests are going badly unfulfilled by today's MMORPGs, and who are working to provide a game that will capture and hold these potential gamers before they give up on games altogether.

My only beef on this particular score will be if the only such developer winds up being BioWare because Cryptic chose to cater primarily to today's combat-oriented gamers. I'm encouraged somewhat by Cryptic's words that they understand the value of exploration and cooperation and story in a MMORPG based on the Star Trek license. But so far those are just words, which all developers love to say -- the proof will be in the actual game that launches and the features added to the game over time.

Finally, I want to emphasize that I'm not saying I think all MMORPGs should do this. Nor am I saying that I think Star Trek Online should be all or even mostly a narrative-focused game. I'm only saying that I think there should be some MMORPGs that give narrative and creativity equal prominence with competitive action, and that I think Star Trek Online, because of its license, should be one of those games.

You see there you go again. Your saying that you're trying to push new ideas, but you keep talking about concepts that were rejected and dropped from most of these games years ago. I know that's a blunt statement, but there it is. You're talking about things (except for te storytelling thing. As I alluded to I don't agree that today's MMOs are lacking in story at all) that were elements of EQ, UO, SWG, and early DAoC, but they were things that too many people just generally didn't like all that much.

With respect, I don't believe that view of MMORPG history fits the facts. I don't think history shows that narrative- and discovery-based play has been given a completely fair shot in graphical MMORPGs and found wanting, and thus was sensibly dropped as not cost-effective.

I believe it's more accurate to observe that developers of Diku-inspired graphical MMORPGs from Meridian 59 onward have never been as interested in storytelling or cooperative social or creative gameplay as they have been in implementing easy-to-understand combat gameplay. As I see it, these graphical MMORPG things have never been designed in a way that would attract and retain the true numbers of Socializers and Explorers who might otherwise have been willing to play.

At least one major AAA game did try: Star Wars Galaxies. The rules of the gameworld were defined such that combat-oriented players needed non-combat players; they could not enjoy their preferred style of gameplay without interacting with non-combat gamers. And so, more than other games, SWG attracted roleplayers and explorers to a greater extent than other games.

The only problem (which I point out with the amazing power of 20/20 hindsight) is that the game wasn't designed such that non-combat players really needed each other. So when SWG got more and more and more combat-oriented over time (which I've documented here (http://flatfingers-theory.blogspot.com/2005/09/categorization-of-changes-to-star-wars.html)), and the combat-oriented players complained that they were too dependent on crafters and Doctors and Entertainers, the rules were changed to eliminate those dependencies. At that point -- and most especially after the CU and NGE -- SWG became like the other MMORPGs that clearly didn't care about retaining Socializers and Explorers. So they left.

In other words, SWG's developers didn't cut non-combat content because these players left; these players quit playing SWG because the developers obviously didn't care about providing non-combat content. To paraphrase Ronald Reagan, these players didn't leave SWG -- SWG left them.

But they're still out there. The SWG Refugees (http://forums.startrekonline.com/showthread.php?t=3839) thread I started here indicates there's interest in finding another game that was as fun for them as the original SWG. They're waiting for a developer who'll respect their preference for story-centric gameplay that's about something more positive than destroying stuff and accumulating wealth tokens, and who will maintain that level of respect (by preserving a balance of playstyle-focused content) throughout the lifespan of the game.

Right now it looks like BioWare wants to be that developer. I'm glad to see that; I think they're going to make decent money from a game design that gives story as much weight as pure action.

To Cryptic, I would just ask: Why should BioWare have all the fun?

You know, I'm as eager as everyone else to see how Cryptic will address this question of inter-factional competition. Some days issues like this one make me think, "Man, it must be tough to be a working MMORPG developer."

But most days I think, "Man, getting to try to solve problems like this must be incredibly fun." :)

--Flatfingers

[Samodelkin]

Hello again, Flatfingers.

I am not sure I entirely understand what you mean by this question. You are asking, "what is important." What I think you are asking is, "How should the game handle a breach of fleet loyalty compared to a breach of faction loyalty?"

I think STO should emulate the conditions of the Star Trek universe. "What would happen in Star Trek?" If a player-owned federation-affiliated ship opens fire on another player-owned federation-affiliated ship, the exterior consequences would depend on where the two ships are. However, the order to target and fire upon an allied ship would be recorded in the ship's logs, so the perpetrator would expect retribution from Starfleet, ranging from loss of faction-points to being expelled from the federation to becoming a wanted criminal.

The important part is to leave the players with choices, no matter what. Some NPC conversations would definitely come up. The victim could say, "That shot was an accident." and the federation would forgive and forget. The perpetrator could surrender and take the punishment like Picard would, or he could try to sneak away like Harry Mudd would, or he could go space-postal and become a wanted criminal across the galaxy like the GTA guy would. If the latter is the case, nearby vessels would be automatically notified that a space-psycho is on the loose, the sector would be automatically reinforced with law-enforcement NPC vessels, and it would become nearly impossible to grief in that region. But even the space-psycho would still have choices.

It's easy for the developers to type some lines of code that say, "you can't fire upon an allied vessel." That's a mediocre way to fix the problem, because it does so at the expense of immersion. The more restricted the developers make a game, the shallower it gets; the shallower it gets, the less of it there is.

There is a way to legally enable PVP between allied vessels without invoking punishment or sacrificing the canon. In Star Trek: 25th Anniversary (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/index.html?curid=207262), the computer game, in the very beginning, the Enterprise is simulating a fight with another vessel. The two vessels fly around like they would, but the phasers and photon torpedoes they fire at one another are virtual. Both ships take virtual damage, and whichever one experiences a virtual hull breach first, looses.

If the player loses this fight, Kirk just says, "oh no, my beautiful ship!" and then he talks to the captain of the other ship:
"Good game."
"Better luck next time."
"To you too, you will need it."
And then Kirk gets an order from the admiral to explore some strange new world, and gets on with his life. No crime, no punishment. I guess the only limitation is that you can't ram the other ship, but that limitation can be sidestepped by keeping the maneuvering virtual as well. In other words, the two captains would be essentially playing a multiplayer computer game on the most epic rigs evar.

[edit]

On page 2, you ask, "what should the players of different factions be allowed to do?" The way I would rephrase this question is, "what should the consequences be for players who do as they please, within different factions?" Games aren't fun if the players are restricted from doing as they please. There should always be choices, and with choices, consequences. That's what videogames are about, besides skill and luck - there must always be choice and consequence.

I guess I just hate it when games tell me something along the lines of "You can't poke Darth Vader!" and leaving it at that. Instead, the game could kill me and say something along the lines of, "This is why you shouldn't poke Darth Vader." (Although, SWG actually lets you poke Darth Vader and get away with it. :rolleyes:)

[edit]

Another thought. Players would probably start in some faction, if only to get an education. (Tutorial level in the Starfleet academy.) But after that, they would choose for themselves. In WoW, you side with the Alliance or the Horde based on your species, and cannot change that. In STO, I assume you start on a certain faction based on your species, but it would be cool if you could desert your faction. Freelance is one way to go, or you could join another faction. This would lead to espionage, counter-espionage, double- and triple-agents, and add a new dimension to the game. Star Trek is all about the "what if", and the worst answer to a "what if" is "that won't happen."

[sylvermane64]

Hello again, Flatfingers.

I am not sure I entirely understand what you mean by this question. You are asking, "what is important." What I think you are asking is, "How should the game handle a breach of fleet loyalty compared to a breach of faction loyalty?"

I think STO should emulate the conditions of the Star Trek universe. "What would happen in Star Trek?" If a player-owned federation-affiliated ship opens fire on another player-owned federation-affiliated ship, the exterior consequences would depend on where the two ships are. However, the order to target and fire upon an allied ship would be recorded in the ship's logs, so the perpetrator would expect retribution from Starfleet, ranging from loss of faction-points to being expelled from the federation to becoming a wanted criminal.

But there is no mention of any other factions, to date. So if they were expelled, what Faction would they then belong to? There is no pirate faction. And if something like this did happen, I could see many folks attacking their own faction ships purposely so they could get kicked out and start their own faction elsewhere. Then we would run into the dangers of the EvE Universe. Players from BoB, Goonswarm and others would quickly overtake the game, and then we would just have another EvE with a ST skin on it.

Lost of Rank, or Faction Points, perhaps even a downgrade of ship would be good. Or, even if they continue to attack their own faction ships, their NPC crew would mutiny, or not work to the best of their abilities. Lost of the ability to draw new crew from any Federation planet would be good too.

Another thought. Players would probably start in some faction, if only to get an education. (Tutorial level in the Starfleet academy.) But after that, they would choose for themselves. In WoW, you side with the Alliance or the Horde based on your species, and cannot change that. In STO, I assume you start on a certain faction based on your species, but it would be cool if you could desert your faction. Freelance is one way to go, or you could join another faction. This would lead to espionage, counter-espionage, double- and triple-agents, and add a new dimension to the game. Star Trek is all about the "what if", and the worst answer to a "what if" is "that won't happen."

Jack and prior interviews have stated that their won't be any Freelancer Factions at lounch. Maybe later.

[Samodelkin]

But there is no mention of any other factions, to date. So if they were expelled, what Faction would they then belong to? There is no pirate faction. And if something like this did happen, I could see many folks attacking their own faction ships purposely so they could get kicked out and start their own faction elsewhere. Then we would run into the dangers of the EvE Universe. Players from BoB, Goonswarm and others would quickly overtake the game, and then we would just have another EvE with a ST skin on it.

Lost of Rank, or Faction Points, perhaps even a downgrade of ship would be good. Or, even if they continue to attack their own faction ships, their NPC crew would mutiny, or not work to the best of their abilities. Lost of the ability to draw new crew from any Federation planet would be good too.

As I understand, there will be small "fleets" within a faction. That would take care of anyone who wants to start a group without an explicit need to go freelance.

Your ideas on loss of rank, faction points, crew loyalty, and ship level are good. However, a player could be allowed to simply resign from Starfleet with much lesser penalties.

Of course, freelance fleets would have to be kept in check. But restrict freelance completely, and the game turns all the way from EVE to WoW, where race determines faction. Some players may want to do something that neither the Federation nor the Empire would allow, so they would want to ditch them both.

Solutions for when the freelance faction shows up:

If players are expelled from their faction, they are automatically freelance. That's the default, no-faction faction.
Players can start freelance fleets, and as far as they care, they are really small factions in everything but name.
To prevent it from becoming another EVE, make it advantageous to belong to either the Federation or the Empire. Perks can include free training, tours of duty, purchasing ships and stuff with faction points, protection from griefers in secured regions of space by means of NPC law-enforcement ships, and access to the faction's technology databases. Oh, and ships that belong to the Klingon Empire don't get fired upon for entering Klingon space. Freelance would be good for shady weapons dealers, space pirates, mad scientists, anarcho-capitalists, and the Ferenghi who don't like Federation laws.
Going freelance would have to be risky. There's no one to cover you if space thugs demand protection money. Heavier death penalties. No NPCs to run to for protection but your own. However, you can always complain to the federation, and they might send some ships on a peace-keeping mission. In this situation, the freelance Goonswarm fleet would be at a disadvantage.
Freelancers would have to take care of themselves. They would have to defend their space stations, satellites, and installations. They will have to mine, refine, and manufacture stuff from space dust. Or, they could buy stuff, but they will need money first.


Space is big. Very big. It's impossible to adequately describe how big space is. Surely, there must be enough room for more than just two factions.

[RookActual]

Starfleet would actually police the spacelanes for the civilians that mine ore and haul raw mats and goods across the Federation. Starfleet wouldn't actually gather them except in rare circumstances where they were far from a repair facility and needed to manufacture replacement parts. Where possible, they traded with indigenous peoples for ore already mined.

I don't think you understood my statement, at all.

[RookActual]

Space is big. Very big. It's impossible to adequately describe how big space is. Surely, there must be enough room for more than just two factions.

There is room for more than two factions. We'll receive those in an expansion and they'll likely be the Romulans, the Cardassians, possibly the Dominion. The only 'freelancers' in Trek that I can think of would have been the Orion, and in this story arc, they're part of the Klingon Empire. Freelancing is not Trek. That's not one of those grey areas that floats in people's personal perception of it. Trek is about loyal Starship Captains, whether it be in any three of the major factions. Captains who believe in duty to the betterment of their kind. It's not about being a pirate. That fits better with Star Wars.....

[Hagon]

too much to quote yet again

--FlatfingersWell as always I just have to agree to disagree with you.

I don't see any games out there that are lacking in story, and to tell you the truth I don't think that we'll see any difference in the amount of story that goes into Stargate Worlds or The Old Republic from what we've already seen. We might see some difference id SWTOR in them offering choices to make when completing missions that effect one's character in regards to how one is treated by different NPCs (and to a smaller degree impart a certain slant to people that are in fact RPing their character), but then again, many games have done that kind of thing in the past just presented it in a different way.

I also don't agree with your assertion that people that enjoy the more action oriented or item acquisition parts of the game are less inclined to fully appreciate a good story line, or that they desire it any less. I think that there's a reason why most of these people choose to play a MMO as opposed to games of another genre, and story along with social interaction is mainly it.

I also maintain that many of the elements that you keep presenting as things that are new, or that weren't given a fair shake, are not in fact new, and were given more than a fair shake. They were just not popular enough to keep pouring resources into providing them on the level that they were in games before. Notice I don't say eliminate though, because as I've said before, by far most these games still provide ample features for people that aren't action oriented to enjoy.

So essentially what I see in a lot of what you post, and this relates to just about every topic you post on, is the same old lamentation about the fact that the games have evolved and went in a direction that wasn't directly involved with catering more to the types of players that hearken back to the old TTRPGs and MUDD style of play. Those that essentially want to "live" in the game world. Let me be clear in that I'm not attacking you for feeling that way. It's pretty much part of the human condition to look back and think things were better back when.

The thing is, I don't think it's healthy to want to turn the clock back .

These companies didn't just suddenly wake up and say 'Ok, we don't like RP and such, and we're going to change these games so that we can push these people out!". These companies pay a lot of money for market research before they start a game. They pour over exit surveys, do their own surveys, pull in focus groups and ask questions, etc. They basically know what most people want. The trick is getting those things that people want into the games in a way that's palatable, provides enough fun game play, can run on a wide variety of systems, can run relatively bug free, etc. The simple fact that many of the games of today are being made by people that got their start writing TTRPGs and running MUDDs should be evidence enough of that.

Take people like Mark Jacobs for instance (and lets not get bogged down with the one example, there's quite a few others). Now if there was anyone that would create a game specifically catering to, or heavily catering to, or even definitely leaning in the direction of catering more to, people that want to "live" in the games and have the old time features be there in spades, it would be this guy. You can be absolutely positive that if he saw any real value in it beyond making sure the basic features and tools are still there, he'd be on it like a bear to honey. He doesn't, and the reason he doesn't is he knows that there's simply not enough of these kinds of people to carry a modern MMOG anymore.

That's not his fault. It's not any developers fault. It's not my fault either. Nor anyone else's. That's the way the genre has evolved.It just is what it is. Things change and move on. Such is life.

[sylvermane64]

As I understand, there will be small "fleets" within a faction. That would take care of anyone who wants to start a group without an explicit need to go freelance.

Your ideas on loss of rank, faction points, crew loyalty, and ship level are good. However, a player could be allowed to simply resign from Starfleet with much lesser penalties.

Of course, freelance fleets would have to be kept in check. But restrict freelance completely, and the game turns all the way from EVE to WoW, where race determines faction. Some players may want to do something that neither the Federation nor the Empire would allow, so they would want to ditch them both.

Solutions for when the freelance faction shows up:

If players are expelled from their faction, they are automatically freelance. That's the default, no-faction faction.
Players can start freelance fleets, and as far as they care, they are really small factions in everything but name.
To prevent it from becoming another EVE, make it advantageous to belong to either the Federation or the Empire. Perks can include free training, tours of duty, purchasing ships and stuff with faction points, protection from griefers in secured regions of space by means of NPC law-enforcement ships, and access to the faction's technology databases. Oh, and ships that belong to the Klingon Empire don't get fired upon for entering Klingon space. Freelance would be good for shady weapons dealers, space pirates, mad scientists, anarcho-capitalists, and the Ferenghi who don't like Federation laws.
Going freelance would have to be risky. There's no one to cover you if space thugs demand protection money. Heavier death penalties. No NPCs to run to for protection but your own. However, you can always complain to the federation, and they might send some ships on a peace-keeping mission. In this situation, the freelance Goonswarm fleet would be at a disadvantage.
Freelancers would have to take care of themselves. They would have to defend their space stations, satellites, and installations. They will have to mine, refine, and manufacture stuff from space dust. Or, they could buy stuff, but they will need money first.


Space is big. Very big. It's impossible to adequately describe how big space is. Surely, there must be enough room for more than just two factions.


As Rook said above. There will be no 'Freelance' fleets. You will belong to either the Federation or the Klingons at the start of this game. They will add two more factions in the expansion, which Rook has already stated the ones that will probably be in that. So you might as well get Freelance out of your head. I'm probably about 98% sure of that.

As far as 'space is big'. In Reality, yes, it is. But in a MMO, Space is only as big as the server and the programming.

[Samodelkin]

Freelancing is not Trek. That's not one of those grey areas that floats in people's personal perception of it. Trek is about loyal Starship Captains, whether it be in any three of the major factions. Captains who believe in duty to the betterment of their kind. It's not about being a pirate. That fits better with Star Wars.....

There is plenty of underground activity in the Star Trek universe. But all of the movies and series are about altruistic Starfleet captains, so one could indeed say that Star Trek is about captains. However, their universe is full of freelancers, profiteers, and the inevitably-existing scumbags. There's Harry Mudd, the Ferenghi, the weapons dealer in Voyager, the self-proclaimed king of the universe in The Original Series.

And without a doubt, some players will want to take on these roles, evil or not. Even less doubt that Cryptic knows it - they made City of Villains! Now, do we really want that kind of players to play the "loyal and altruistic Starfleet captains", or the "courageous and honorable Klingons"? Wouldn't it enrich the Star Trek universe if they played the part they play best?

I know that freelance won't be there when the game is released. But that doesn't mean it can't and shouldn't be added eventually.

[Flatfingers]

Hagon, I've pretty much spelled out my perspective as best I can without completely exhausting everyone's patience, so I'd like to wrap up this part of our exchange by just agreeing that we do disagree. What you see as past, I see as present -- the people who like deep story and cooperation and creativity in their games haven't mysteriously gone extinct while MMORPG developers (for the most part) focused on trying to satisfy the many Achiever gamers; they've simply waited out the drought by doing something else with their time and money.

I think it's unrealistic to expect BioWare's game to draw WoW-like numbers, since I believe that WoW's success can't entirely be attributed to its gameplay. That said, I expect SWTOR to do very well commercially because I think they'll follow through on their promise to bring story up to the level of rules-based gameplay, and by doing so will attract the SWG Refugees and other non-Achievers who, yes, will happily pay for a high-quality gameworld they can "live in." I guess we'll just have to wait for that game to launch to see whose grasp on this subject more accurately reflects reality.

While we wait for that, I expect you and I will continue to be at odds with regard to the direction that we believe Star Trek Online should take. On that question it looks like we're just not going to find much common ground. I presume that you will insist that it should be completely obvious to any intelligent and informed person that STO has to put rules-based Achiever-oriented gameplay first and foremost, while I'm pretty confident that a more balanced design will be more successful by attracting non-Achievers (whose numbers are not negligible and whose interests are not currently being met by any major MMORPG) without unduly alienating Achiever gamers. If that's an accurate summary, then you and I are probably going to butt heads on subjects like this one in the future, since both of us have the same privilege of posting on this forum.

For my part, I intend to defend your privilege (and anyone else's) to express your position on this stuff consistent with forum guidelines, even when it differs from my own views. I hope you'll do the same... regardless of how obstinately and blindingly and repetitively wrong you think I am. :)

Meanwhile....

Hello again, Flatfingers.

Ah, Mr. Bond -- we meet again!

Or something like that. ;)

I am not sure I entirely understand what you mean by this question. You are asking, "what is important." What I think you are asking is, "How should the game handle a breach of fleet loyalty compared to a breach of faction loyalty?"

Your phrasing is a little more specific, but the sense of the question is the same: should Star Trek lore, which says that one of the unique strengths of Starfleet personnel is that they almost always cooperate with each other, take precedence over what's likely to be the desire of some players of Star Trek Online to roll up Starfleet characters and dominate each other?

To put it another way, is it in Cryptic's best interest to design gameplay rules that help create an experience for players of Starfleet characters that "feels" like the TV show? Or would they be better advised to let players compete to whatever degree they want against anyone they want, even if that gameplay freedom will lead to a game universe that diverges greatly from the "feel" of the Star Trek we know?

The impression I have is that you're suggesting a middle way: let players fight their own faction, but impose meaningful negative consequences for doing so, up to and including kicking those players out of Starfleet.

Assuming Cryptic decided to allow a neutral or enemy-to-all faction for player characters, I wouldn't be opposed to that approach. I generally prefer choices-with-consequences over you-just-can't-do-it. I think that creates a much more interesting gameworld.

Unfortunately, most game designers today seem to have gotten this idea lodged in their heads that "success" requires locking down every possible thing that any player might ever do to just a few very specific options; they seem to think that "fun" can only be guaranteed if players are channeled into doing only those few things that they (the developers) think they should do because the outcomes can be narrowly defined. An "interesting" gameworld -- a gameworld in which the result of every possible player action isn't known in advance -- is the last thing they want!

Which is how we get games like Spore, which should have been the greatest game ever made but isn't because the people implementing Will Wright's idea had this "If We Don't Constrain Their Actions They Might Not Have The Kind Of Fun We Think They Should Have" notion in their skulls.

So I'd be surprised if the designers of Star Trek Online were open to the idea of allowing seriously "bad" outcomes to player choices, even if they did plan to allow players to belong to anything other than Federation or Klingon faction when STO launches. That doesn't mean the idea of letting players get themselves kicked out of the Federation is a bad one; it just means it's unlikely.

Bearing in mind then that I'd probably be in favor of that approach, what about the case where it's not an option, where players of Starfleet characters can either compete destructively with fellow Starfleet fleets (and thus likely come to dominate a server at the expense of the Star Trek "feel"), or can't do so (and thus play like Starfleet personnel but at the expense of player choice)?

Which direction would Cryptic be smartest to go in? And why?

--Flatfingers

[RookActual]

There is plenty of underground activity in the Star Trek universe. But all of the movies and series are about altruistic Starfleet captains, so one could indeed say that Star Trek is about captains. However, their universe is full of freelancers, profiteers, and the inevitably-existing scumbags. There's Harry Mudd, the Ferenghi, the weapons dealer in Voyager, the self-proclaimed king of the universe in The Original Series.

And without a doubt, some players will want to take on these roles, evil or not. Even less doubt that Cryptic knows it - they made City of Villains! Now, do we really want that kind of players to play the "loyal and altruistic Starfleet captains", or the "courageous and honorable Klingons"? Wouldn't it enrich the Star Trek universe if they played the part they play best?

I know that freelance won't be there when the game is released. But that doesn't mean it can't and shouldn't be added eventually.

I can't think of many freelance situations in Trek that ended well. The best example is the Maquis, who were best described as more friendly to the Federation, as they were former Federation citizens. The Federation even understood their point of view, and then proceeded to obliterate them because of their unchecked and violent methods. Freelance factions don't succeed in Trek. Trek, yet again, is not about the freelancer, in fact, I think Trek is more about pointing out that people who only serve themselves and their own causes will indeed not succeed. Freelance stuff works for Firefly, Wing Commander, Eve(I suppose), Star Wars in particular, it usually does not end well in B5. I understand that you think it's 'cool' because it's cool in all those things, but Trek is Trek, and for better or worse this game needs to be Trek, not every other Sci Fi out there. I mean, seriously, if you don't want to play as the Federation, Klingon Empire or Romulan Empire, then I don't know what to tell you, that's what Trek has to offer and it should be more than ample variety for any Trek fan. If you don't like any of those, I don't really know why you'd want to play Trek at all. The cool ships? God I hope the game has more substance than that.

[trek68]

I hope the game promots and rewards faction loyalty first them fleet loyalty 2nd.

I myself will be part of the Fed and would preferr the surivival of the UFP if I have to sacrafice myself.

[Samodelkin]

Because freelance would have to be to a faction what anarchy is to a government, it is understandable and perfectly acceptable that freelance factions would be unsuccessful, even impractical. That's the point I am trying to make: I agree that over 90% of players should be affiliated with some faction. The function of the freelance option is like the drip-catching tray that goes under a leaky container. It would not be a major part of the game, but it will make the game more full just by being there. You can have mathematics without the number zero, but then you can't subtract a number from itself, which becomes the new divide-by-zero.

Now, I also accept that the developers won't have freelance at the beginning, just like WoW. It's cool if they first make the game work, see how the fans like it, and later modify it to please more people. As Flatfingers said, there are only two options now: let players compete at the expense of Star Trek, or enforce Star Trek at the expense of players. I would go with the former, and add the "this is why you shouldn't poke Darth Vader" type of system.

Before freelance is added, destructive competition could cost players faction points, or whatever is important and used to get better ships and legions of redshirts. This will be effective because there would be only a difficult way forward through destructive competition, without explicitly restricting the players from doing so.

After freelance is added, the players could be kicked out of their glorious faction into the drip-tray faction; since they can't get the tours of duty there, they would feel compelled to join another faction and start from the lowest ranks. The good part is - the player character retains his personal experience, and now there's a way to choose between factions independently of race. The player could also resign from a faction if he wants to go elsewhere, with lesser penalties than getting kicked out. But that's after freelance is added, which is not at first release, so it's not important now.

[RookActual]

Let's try this game: Name a freelance faction you would like to be part of. We're setting directions without establishing a destination or really a route. You need to know where you're going before you can determine how you're getting there. Create a faction and their cause if you need to, no need digging around canonical 'mercenary' factions if it wouldn't be expedient. Preferable, but not necessary.

[Samodelkin]

Let's try this game: Name a freelance faction you would like to be part of. We're setting directions without establishing a destination or really a route. You need to know where you're going before you can determine how you're getting there.

You mean a freelance fleet I would like to be a part of, right? Because freelance IS the lack of a faction. Also, I can't be "part of" freelance because freelance lacks structure. Also, one could be freelance without joining a fleet. And finally, one would have little reason to "want" to be freelance, though there would be reasons.

All right, I will play this game, but I must acknowledge that I'm forced to make some assumptions that may diverge from the actual game mechanics.

Suppose I create a fleet with the opposite prime directive. "Interfere with developing civilizations! Give advanced weapons to the oppressed minorities to get them to take over their respective world for you! Organize global governments, then come every year to collect your 'cut of the action!' And without revealing yourself to the populations of such planets, make them as hilariously uncooperative to all other factions as possible!" Why? For the lulz.

[RookActual]

And finally, one would have little reason to "want" to be freelance, though there would be reasons.
[/INDENT]

So, being freelance is a punishment for not behaving yourself according to the principles of your allegiance? Being a freelancer, whether part of a larger organization of misfits or not, is intended to make the game less enjoyable for a player who was not in accordance with these ethics, laws or principles?]

Because freelance IS the lack of a faction.

This is not true, and with the game mechanics, most likely impossible for you to even consider playing the game as an individual. You will require a crew to survive or accomplish missions even in the more friendly situation. Your entire crew would have to defect, with Starfleet property nonetheless, as well. I can guarantee Starfleet would make a special exception for their typical generosity to recover the vessel, it's technology and imprison the crew. The Klingons and Romulans would not be much more friendly to you, despite what you may think about having a bartering chip. That's excluding the fact, as a freelancer, you would not join these Empires anyways. So, you're just as as much a target to them as a freelancer as you would have been under the Federation, but now with no hopes of support.

[Samodelkin]

So, being freelance is a punishment for not behaving yourself according to the principles of your allegiance? Being a freelancer, whether part of a larger organization of misfits or not, is intended to make the game less enjoyable for a player who was not in accordance with these ethics, laws or principles?

Not a punishment, but a choice with a consequence. Not less enjoyable, but definitely more challenging. The natural place for those who are not in accordance with ethics, laws or principles. It would be less enjoyable for such players to be forced to remain in the faction they disagree with.

This is not true, and with the game mechanics, most likely impossible for you to even consider playing the game as an individual. You will require a crew to survive or accomplish missions even in the more friendly situation. Your entire crew would have to defect, with Starfleet property nonetheless, as well. I can guarantee Starfleet would make a special exception for their typical generosity to recover the vessel, it's technology and imprison the crew. The Klingons and Romulans would not be much more friendly to you, despite what you may think about having a bartering chip. That's excluding the fact, as a freelancer, you would not join these Empires anyways. So, you're just as as much a target to them as a freelancer as you would have been under the Federation, but now with no hopes of support.

I think I speak for everyone here when I say, "to hell with the orders."

There would be three ways to leave a faction: resign, defect, or get kicked out. If you defect, the crew would side with whom they are more loyal to, their loyalties would be represented by numerical scores which can be compared. If you resign or get kicked out, you can get a new, fresh crew on neutral planets. Starfleet may attempt to recover the vessel if you just defect, but if you resign or just get kicked out, you get some cheap little one for free. If you defect or get kicked out, you could come back to the Federation and give up, restarting from low ranks. If you just resign, you could probably come back to some ranks in the middle because you would retain the reputation.

The Klingons will never be friendly, that's a given; the Romulans would always be suspicious. Still, they might have a use for someone who doesn't look like a Klingon or Romulan, and is not freaked out by Tribbles. Furthermore, there's no reason a player could be on both sides of the fence, if you know what I mean.

[RookActual]

Not a punishment, but a choice with a consequence. Not less enjoyable, but definitely more challenging. The natural place for those who are not in accordance with ethics, laws or principles. It would be less enjoyable for such players to be forced to remain in the faction they disagree with.

I'm not sure why a Star Trek would appeal to players who do not want to be members of the Federation, Klingon Empire or eventually the Romulan Star Empire. If none of these appeal to you, then Trek must not appeal to you. These are the three major powers that have been the focus of Star Trek since the beginning. Your ideas and concepts are creative, and not without merit, excluding the fact that this is not Eve or Star Wars.

[Samodelkin]

I'm not sure why a Star Trek would appeal to players who do not want to be members of the Federation, Klingon Empire or eventually the Romulan Star Empire. If none of these appeal to you, then Trek must not appeal to you. These are the three major powers that have been the focus of Star Trek since the beginning. Your ideas and concepts are creative, and not without merit, excluding the fact that this is not Eve or Star Wars.

I am eagerly anticipating STO, and the Federation does appeal to me. I would probably be a member of one a large faction 95% of the time, if below 100% was allowed. I just don't want it to be a closed system where race explicitly determines faction, like in WoW. You too bring up some good points relevant to this discussion, but I am convinced that the drip-tray faction is as necessary (even if small) part of Star Trek as Harry Mudd is.


Here's the difference between Star Wars and Star Trek, as I see it:

Star Wars Galaxies:

Imperial Overt:
=

Imperial Covert:
==========

Neutral:
================================================== ========================

Rebel Covert:
===============

Rebel Overt:
=



Star Trek:

Federation:
==================================

Klingon Empire:
=================================

Romulans:
===============================

Freelance:
==

In Star Wars, 99% were effectively freelance. In Star Trek, I believe the distribution would be reversed, with 90-something-% of the people overtly siding with a major faction.

I think it would be wise at this point to leave this debate until STO is released and move on, because I am running out of logical things to back up my point, and I'm sure I'll never be convinced that the free faction wouldn't improve STO. The thread is about fleets as well as factions, anyways.

[sylvermane64]

Actually, this thread is about loyalties between Fleet and Factions. Not about whether it would be good to add a completely separate faction that has no loyalties to any of the established factions in the Star Trek Universe.

Freelancers don't make up but a 'very' small faction of the Star Trek Universe, and I do mean 'very' small part.

The players of this game will have to join one of the established factions of the ST Universe and build upon their character from there. That is the whole purpose of joining the game. Join the Federation/Klingon/Romulan races and then fight and explore for your chosen faction. Not join one and then become disenchanted or attack our own faction so we can become a rebel without our own, and start your own faction, or become a lone wolf.

[RookActual]

I just don't want it to be a closed system where race explicitly determines faction, like in WoW.

It's been suggested that this is not the case. The character customization abilities will allow you to draw from any number of races as well as create your own from the beginning of the game. According to my understanding. While I'm uncertain this liberal functionality will be available to either of the Empires, it is certain that in the Federation you can be from any race. It may be available to the Klingon and Romulan Empires(when the Romulans are released), but I don't prescribe to that logic. Regardless, I'm quite confident that race will not dictate your allegiance. Most City of Heroes/Villains veterans have had great amounts of praise for the character creation aspects of those games, despite complaints elsewhere. So with some qualified level of confidence I will say that race and faction are not necessarily mutual.

[RookActual]

Join the Federation/Klingon/Romulan races and then fight and explore for your chosen faction.

I already said this, Nichalus. If you don't have anything new to add to the conversation, go hang out with the scrubs. :eek::D

[sylvermane64]

I already said this, Nichalus. If you don't have anything new to add to the conversation, go hang out with the scrubs. :eek::D

I'm hanging out with you aren't I? :D

[RookActual]

I'm hanging out with you aren't I? :D

....:o....

[Samodelkin]

I just don't want it to be a closed system where race explicitly determines faction, like in WoW.

I should have phrased this differently. I meant, I don't want it to be a completely closed system like WoW, with the emphasis of "closed," without any mobility at all between factions. Of course a sealed system like that won't need the drip-tray. I am advocating the open system, not the drip tray. (The drip tray is part of the open system.)

[Trekkie]

I really think the question of whether or not fleets will compete with each other will depend on which faction those fleets are affiliated with; although there will definitely be a plethora of Federation-based fleets, I would hope that most would work together. On the other hand, I could definitely see different fleets in the Klingon Empire being much more competitive with one another.