Skewed and Reviewed Interviews Craig Zinkievich! (November 20, 2008)

[jsutich]

[jagerbolt]

nice to see some new info!

[djnattyd]

nice to see some new info!

ditto, although some was already known from the previous interview with craig and the last ask cryptic

[jagerbolt]

yeah a lot of it was the same info we've seen over and over. but I guess I'll take whatever small new bits they have. :D

[marscentral]

Cool to see a new interview. I noticed Craig mentioned that custom races can be given racial bonuses. Awesome to know.

[chaotix987]

Very nice. I've been hoping for a new interview for some time.

[IanD967]

nice interview :D

shame most of it was the same but atleast not all of it was the same :) such as details on your first ship and the reveal that you can keep your first one and constantly upgrade it if you want too heh

[LordDave]

Did anyone else notice that several questions could have been answered in the FAQ?

[boothby]

nice to see a little bit more informations for sto...

[djnattyd]

Did anyone else notice that several questions could have been answered in the FAQ?

I DID, I DID, I DID!

[Stronin]

I won't deny being a bit curious as to why several of the questions were about player crews, which is as we all know a topic that has been discussed ad-naseum on the forums. The site must have submitted the questions a long time ago, or something... *shrug*

Still some good info. I liked that we at least finally have Deep Space 9 confirmed as a visitable location :)

[TheHybrid]

I Always look forward to new news and updates. Thanks Guys!

[Angelphoenix12]

im excited, one of my questions was answered :). the one with the ships, if we can keeep the 1 we like or have to move. for me thats the greastest news about the game at this time. :)

[Varrangian]

[ExAstris]

By the wording of the response it seems like xp will be gained by accomplishment instead of real-time training ala EVE. I guess either system works so I'm interested to see exactly how theirs is put together and what limits the upper bar for a player (a generic cap on total skill points, or just max out everything, or some other less silly balancing measure)

But its also nice to see more confirmation that 'level's will basically not exist in the game. They had officially said they were leaning towards the a skill based system, and these responses indicate that more than ever. So I'd call that good news.


Thanks for the update :)

[Angelphoenix12]

you me both van :D, im extreamily happy :d, now if i want i can keep my akira or move up to a sove or galaxy :D

[marscentral]

That got me too, as well as this:

Players will be able to customize the appearance of their new race, name it and choose racial abilities from a pool of bonuses

[Varrangian]

That got me too, as well as this:

Lol! that was the next post I was going to make. I think I'm in love with Cryptic... they sure know how to woo me :D

[marscentral]

I'm officially "wooed"

[jayrelo]

indeed, good stuff. lot of rehash, but any news is good news. :)

[capgjt585]

By the wording of the response it seems like xp will be gained by accomplishment instead of real-time training ala EVE. I guess either system works so I'm interested to see exactly how theirs is put together and what limits the upper bar for a player (a generic cap on total skill points, or just max out everything, or some other less silly balancing measure)

But its also nice to see more confirmation that 'level's will basically not exist in the game. They had officially said they were leaning towards the a skill based system, and these responses indicate that more than ever. So I'd call that good news.

Indeed. Levels are just too arbitrary for a Star Trek game, after all you do have to EARN those captain's pips, right?:D

"GVK: Will anyone from the series of films show up and provide voices?

CZ: In 2409, most of the major characters have retired or moved on. We’re exploring ways to involve some of the actors from the films and series in the game, but they might not be playing “their” characters."

Interesting. So what could it mean? Would we have Alexander Rozhenko or Miral Paris (for instance) appearing and voiced by the actors playing either the father or mother? Or would the main actors just have a cameo?

"GVK: How will player deaths be handled in the game?

CZ: We’re not ready to provide exact details, but the defeat penalty won’t be harsh. I think we’re past the days of outrageous death penalties in MMOs. People want to play and have fun."

So presumably no blown up ships?

"GVK: How will missions and tasks be assigned, and will command characters be based on player level?

CZ: There are a variety of ways you will get missions and tasks. You may receive hails from ships in distress or planets that need help or you could have a task assigned to you by Starfleet or the Klingon Defense Force. And as you explore the universe, you’ll find points of interest that can lead to a new adventure or problem to solve."

Good. I like that structure. More or less like the show. :)

"GVK: Will the Borg or known enemies from the past series be in the game?

CZ: Definitely! You’ll see many of the familiar races from the series. It wouldn’t be Star Trek without trying to figure out how to penetrate the shields on a Borg cube or what to do to stop a Romulan plot."

XD Yay!

"GVK: Is ship navigation and combat in real-time?

CZ: If you mean instead of turn-based, then yes. If you mean “true to life,” it’s not exactly like that. We don’t want you to have to spend 16 hours warping from one system to another. That’s not fun."

Makes sense. It's only 1x time during battle, otherwise they speed it up.

"GVK: Will players be able to pilot shuttles in the game and use transporters? If so, how will this work?

CZ: Most of the time, you and your away team will use the transporters. You’ll be beaming all over the place! There will be some content that you need a shuttle to reach, but you won’t be manually flying the shuttle through the atmosphere and landing on the surface of a planet."

Oh rats! I was REALLY hoping to do shuttle runs!:(

"GVK: How do you address the issue of players dropping out of game during ship missions, as I can imagine losing your helmsman or tactical officer during a firefight could be tough?

CZ: In space, each player is the captain of their own ship. So if they drop connection, it’s like a player logging out of any MMO. On an away team, if a player drops out of your team you can replace him or her with one of your bridge officers.

GVK: Final question how do you plan to address player waits during travel times between destinations and how many planets will be open for players to explore and travel to?

CZ: Players will have a lot to do during travel. They’ll be outfitting their crew for upcoming adventures, chatting with their teammates and looking for new places to explore. We don’t want to make travel between systems onerous."

Addressing practical issues. Very nice.

[/analysis]

[willriker09]

Any STO news is good STO news to me.

Some new things introduced, very nice. Thanks Cryptic.

[STOFan]

What is the point of an interview that asks and answers the questions word for word from the FAQ section of this website? That whole interview as a waste of time, they should have just put a link to the FAQ!

[Varrangian]

So... upgrades and ships equipment. Does this possibly mean ships will be "modular" as I have suggested/asked for?

I really like the idea of modular ship interiors even if we can't access all of these places, I like the idea of have X amount of space per ship hull and then being able to place modules that serve various functions.

[LordDave]

I thought modular ships were assumed.

Also:
While I'm sure you can give your first ship the highest level of phasers possible, I'm also sure that it's going to have one HELL of a slow recharge and lack of power.

To me, it seems that, yes, you can upgrade ships, but even that has limits before you have to move onto something bigger.

[Rapace]

I totally want an enterprise - e :eek:

[CasiusOntius]

At least it was a good long interview. Good read!

[Varrangian]

I thought modular ships were assumed.

Also:
While I'm sure you can give your first ship the highest level of phasers possible, I'm also sure that it's going to have one HELL of a slow recharge and lack of power.

To me, it seems that, yes, you can upgrade ships, but even that has limits before you have to move onto something bigger.

I didn't think modular was assumed, but maybe I'm in the minority there.

I agree in that yes you should be able to upgrade you ship, but that there should be a motivation to leave a "lower tier level" ship for as you put it "something bigger and better".

Part of the answer is contained in the modularity idea. If our access to ships of a larger size is a part of progression it would mean that the lower leveled ships would have less room and therefore modularity would force all but the die hard to move to a ship that allowed them to equip more.

[Meehile]

Excellent. It will be lots of fun upgrading various capabilities of my ship. Just another feature that has mne counting the days till launch.

[marscentral]

While ships are apparently modular, don't forget that some ships are more specialized. I take it from that that will mean some ships will just naturally excel at combat or science no matter how you upgrade them.

[Varrangian]

While ships are apparently modular, don't forget that some ships are more specialized. I take it from that that will mean some ships will just naturally excel at combat or science no matter how you upgrade them.

Of course, but this seemed obvious when they announced that ships would have roles. This is the thing that actually made me think ships would not be modular or really upgradable.

It appears they are going for a hybrid system and I'm very, very excited about it!

[Trekkie]

Even though there was some information we already knew in this interview, it was quite insightful nonetheless! Thank you for posting this!

[Trekkie]

This was definitely one of the best parts of the interview and I, too, am quite excited about it.

[Father_Origin]

I thought modular ships were assumed.

Also:
While I'm sure you can give your first ship the highest level of phasers possible, I'm also sure that it's going to have one HELL of a slow recharge and lack of power.

To me, it seems that, yes, you can upgrade ships, but even that has limits before you have to move onto something bigger.

do keep in mind, beauty is only skin deep, in otherwards..you might be able to radically change
a ships appearence...but the functionality (how it works) might be pretty standard.

[jonleach]

Even though there was some information we already knew in this interview, it was quite insightful nonetheless! Thank you for posting this!

Agreed, I too appreciate more information. Even though some of it was the same info, when given by someone else you can pick up a little more of the bigger picture.

[112310]

I've got to say these interviews are keeping me waiting but once the beta comes out ill be the first ti sign up

[Saladin_Class]

One might asume that you will have a power/equipt/weight ratio to maintain

[bighair83]

Unfortunately (sort of), every game reviewer and media outlet with an opportunity to interview a Cryptic rep will undoubtably cover much of the same territory; they have a boss to satisfy as well, and thats journalism. I have no problem with repeat information, as it seems most repeat questions bring more and more detail as we progress through the development process.

Excited as always, thanks Cryptic :D

[bighair83]

From what we can infer about progression through the game (skill based vs levels), I'm thrilled that a player's command ability takes precident (to a degree) over who spent the first 96 hours post launch, sans sleep ;) , grinding their way into a superior ship class, and therefore becoming automatically untouchable. I would love to have Klingon fleets telling their captain's about the little Nova class that mopped the sector with their hull :cool:

[rongstadfamily]

Hey I appreciate any and all information that I receive. You can rehash the same information over and over again and something new will come out in every interview. Thanks Cryptic we are wanting and waiting. Hey if it wouldn’t be much trouble could we get more awesome screen shots. Its been a while. Thanks again.

[djnattyd]

maybe they should write it out backwards... In Klingon!

[KirksOtherSon]

Did anyone else notice that several questions could have been answered in the FAQ?

Yes. What really threw me was how, after Craig explained the whole "you play the captain, you control the starship -- your bridge crew are NPC pets" thing, later on, the interviewer asks how you handle it when `your helmsman' has to log off in the middle of a mission.

Craig knew his end of things, but the interviewer seemed a little out of synch ...

Still, some new tidbits of info confirming suspected game procedures, so its all good.

KOS

[Ahsoka]

If you use EVE as an example, 90% of the new pilots go like crazy to get into a battle ship.

Thier skills barely cover a crusier, and they lose their BS in a few days.

I fear this will happen here also

[capgjt585]

Yes. What really threw me was how, after Craig explained the whole "you play the captain, you control the starship -- your bridge crew are NPC pets" thing, later on, the interviewer asks how you handle it when `your helmsman' has to log off in the middle of a mission.

Craig knew his end of things, but the interviewer seemed a little out of synch ...

He was probably discussing in hypotheticals, but it might be that a certain user could be assigned temporarily as a helmsman, first officer, etc. of a larger ship during a joint assignment.

Eg. "Character X, you are appointed to be (insert position here) under Character Y for the duration of this mission. -Starfleet Command"

Or something like that.:D

[BreachAndClear]

The part about either upgrading the ship or moving onto to a new class doesn't get me particularly excited, since the answer is vague enough that it can be used to accurately describe the ship progression system in Star Wars Galaxies.

i.e. the system will allow you to hold onto your Akira (the ship mentioned by a previous poster) for a little longer, but it wouldn't be a smart idea to hold onto it indefinitely.

For instance, in Galaxies the progression system goes something to the effect of (I'm improvising)

Z-95 & lvl 1 equipment --> Y-wing ---- > level 2 equipment -----> Longprobe Y-wing level 3 equipment ----> X-wing and lvl 4 equipment

Thus, at the time you're unlocking the X-wing, you might go ahead and choose to stick with the Longprobe Y-wing and deck it out with lvl 4 equipment if it's more conducive to you're playstyle and still do just fine, but there's no way that you're still going to be using the Z-95, you can't effectively equip a Z-95 with the better equipment.

Likewise, in STO (again I'm improvising as far as the tech tree goes) you might be able to hold onto your Norway class when you're unlocking the Akira, and bypass using the Akira, but you're probably not going to be holding onto the Norway when it comes time to unlock the Sovereign, and you probably won't be able to make use of the Norway nearly as effectively as the Sovereign.

Also, Jack mentioned a while back that ships will have different performances, and the example given was that the Galaxy class would be well rounded, while the Defiant will be more of an offensive specialist but weaker defensively. I don't know that we'll be able to alter these basic characteristics. For instance, I don't think we'll be able to modify the Defiant such that it has Galaxy class performance in a Defiant class chassis.

[miqrogroove]

The length was good but the recycled old screenshot felt demeaning. It's 2008 guys, the PrintScrn button has been around longer than I have.

[eqfan592]

If you use EVE as an example, 90% of the new pilots go like crazy to get into a battle ship.

Thier skills barely cover a crusier, and they lose their BS in a few days.

I fear this will happen here also

I would think the exact opposite would be the case, that it would be less likely to happen in STO, given everything we have heard so far....

[eqfan592]

The part about either upgrading the ship or moving onto to a new class doesn't get me particularly excited, since the answer is vague enough that it can be used to accurately describe the ship progression system in Star Wars Galaxies.

i.e. the system will allow you to hold onto your Akira (the ship mentioned by a previous poster) for a little longer, but it wouldn't be a smart idea to hold onto it indefinitely.

For instance, in Galaxies the progression system goes something to the effect of (I'm improvising)

Z-95 & lvl 1 equipment --> Y-wing ---- > level 2 equipment -----> Longprobe Y-wing level 3 equipment ----> X-wing and lvl 4 equipment

Thus, at the time you're unlocking the X-wing, you might go ahead and choose to stick with the Longprobe Y-wing and deck it out with lvl 4 equipment if it's more conducive to you're playstyle and still do just fine, but there's no way that you're still going to be using the Z-95, you can't effectively equip a Z-95 with the better equipment.

Likewise, in STO (again I'm improvising as far as the tech tree goes) you might be able to hold onto your Norway class when you're unlocking the Akira, and bypass using the Akira, but you're probably not going to be holding onto the Norway when it comes time to unlock the Sovereign, and you probably won't be able to make use of the Norway nearly as effectively as the Sovereign.

Also, Jack mentioned a while back that ships will have different performances, and the example given was that the Galaxy class would be well rounded, while the Defiant will be more of an offensive specialist but weaker defensively. I don't know that we'll be able to alter these basic characteristics. For instance, I don't think we'll be able to modify the Defiant such that it has Galaxy class performance in a Defiant class chassis.

Here's the thing, especially to your last point; I don't think people are going to WANT to do that sort of thing. If you wanted a Galaxy type performance, then wouldn't you logically go after a Galaxy?

I don't think anybody here is expecting that they will make any ship in the game do everything else that any other ship in the game can do (what would be the point of having other ships then?) but rather I think people are hoping that they won't be forced, either by hard code or by necessity, to change to a "bigger" ship right away. There are things that the smaller ships can do better than the larger ships (to make it real simple) and I think most of us are just hoping that the game doesn't fall into a "bigger = better" mindset, and so far it appears to be avoiding that pretty well.

[Jonathan_Talon]

Where is Skewed and Reviewed based out of? I'm getting the feeling from the comments on the site that they are in Seattle, Washington.

[Sorbek]

Not much new info but I do like all the new info I read about.

[Qnaz]

CZ: In 2409, most of the major characters have retired or moved on. We’re exploring ways to involve some of the actors from the films and series in the game, but they might not be playing “their” characters.

I think this is going to be awesome. We might not see our favorite heros but maybe decendents or some different form of them (holo-recreations). I figured this works around some sort royalties.

CZ: In space, each player is the captain of their own ship. So if they drop connection, it’s like a player logging out of any MMO. On an away team, if a player drops out of your team you can replace him or her with one of your bridge officers.

I could see this working in an emergency beam out situation but hows this work in space? Does my group members ship just warp away?


All repetitive questions aside, good to see any kind of interview.

[Blackfire2]

Nothing really new in this interview, IMO. But I think that this may actually be the first MMO that wont have for once that terrible grind, that a lot of us hates so much. I say this because from what I see, the exploration end of this game will feature different missions each time we log on and for this I am truly thankful. I can never be bored with visiting new worlds that offer meeting new species, finding new resources or technologies, responding to distress calls, or even finding that odd derelict that needs to be checked out.

This is one MMO I can safely say, I'm really looking forward to playing.

[BreachAndClear]

... don't think people are going to WANT to do that sort of thing. If you wanted a Galaxy type performance, then wouldn't you logically go after a Galaxy?...

I respectfully disagree. While I personally would go with the Galaxy class (if I end up wanting a ship that performs like one), there appear to be plenty of people that are hell bent on acquiring ships like the Miranda and Akira and holding onto them as long as possible by refitting them. It appears to me that quite a few people think that they're going to be able to refit a Miranda or Excelsior class ship such that it can perform just as well as the Galaxy or Sovereign classes, which is just wishful thinking in my opinion.

Personally, my favorite ship is the Steamrunner, and if the ship is included in STO, then I'll surely choose it. However, I am not so attached to the Steamrunner that I would be unwilling to pass it up for a less elegant (IMO) ship that performs better.

...I think most of us are just hoping that the game doesn't fall into a "bigger = better" mindset, and so far it appears to be avoiding that pretty well.

But I do think that is the general trend that we'll see, with the Defiant and Miranda classes being the only real notable outliers. I wouldn't be surprised that - as far as cruisers go - the progression might go something like:

small one man ship ----> Miranda class ---> saber class ---> Norway ---- > Steamrunner ----> Nebula ----> Intrepid ---> Galaxy

**I'm not sure that all these ships will make it into the game, and I've not included any of the new ships Cryptic is introducing because I don't know their class identifications and can't speculate on how they will perform**

With the general trend being a correlation between size and power. Again, there would have to be some exceptions, such as the Miranda being outperformed by the smaller Saber, and the Excelsior being outperformed by the smaller Defiant.

The trend can definately be seen in the Klingons though, with the better ships in the ST series definitely being of larger size.

[jayrelo]

at this point, i should note, with some bias that one of my favorite ship designs is the akira, it think according to lore, an akira would open a whoop all on a galaxy.

not intended to induce flame, just given that ship class some props.

i mean, i read that it has so many freakin torp tubes, that some of them are actually arc'ed for dedicated port and starboard targets. thats crazy.

[DanSeale]

Things are starting to look up a bit .. I can't wait for Beta announcements.

[jayrelo]

Things are starting to look up a bit .. I can't wait for Beta announcements.

only 6 months till that prolly.

not too bad, seeing as how some people have been waiting 10 years for this. i'm not one of them, but i definitely feel their pain...

[garethmb]

I did the original interview for the game years back for the old developer. The story was so popular PC Gamer picked it up. For the new one, I made sure not to read any new info or interviews as we had the angle to ask many of the same questions as well as some new ones and then compare the two and see how the game has changed.

Gareth

If interested, I did a Holiday Gift Guide for the big Radio Show in Seattle and the link to the audio is below. We talk about all sorts of new releases.

http://sknr.net/2008/11/18/2008-holiday-video-game-gift-guide-on-kisw-radio-audio-file/

[DanSeale]

only 6 months till that prolly.

not too bad, seeing as how some people have been waiting 10 years for this. i'm not one of them, but i definitely feel their pain...

Well I don't know about the 10 years .. but definatly the last 3. I'm on WOW with it's latest XP ... I'd rather be testing or doing something constructive (Like offering one of my 3-D models to STO ) ... anything to help.

I am hoping the best for the DEV team and for a very successful game. Everything after SFC-3 was something of a dissapointment from a Trek based game point of view ...

I AM READY for some good times with some old friends... It's long over due.

[jayrelo]

Everything after SFC-3 was something of a dissapointment from a Trek based game point of view ...


heh, not just after...

[Keldaria]

Did anyone else notice that several questions could have been answered in the FAQ?

yes... I was disappointed by the lame repeat questions like the questions about bridge crews and such. Purhaps the next interview could be for someone who's actually read the faq and followed the game info releases. But hey a fair ammount of new info made it into the interview too soo i'm happy with that.

[THORN74]

I respectfully disagree. While I personally would go with the Galaxy class (if I end up wanting a ship that performs like one), there appear to be plenty of people that are hell bent on acquiring ships like the Miranda and Akira and holding onto them as long as possible by refitting them. It appears to me that quite a few people think that they're going to be able to refit a Miranda or Excelsior class ship such that it can perform just as well as the Galaxy or Sovereign classes, which is just wishful thinking in my opinion.

Personally, my favorite ship is the Steamrunner, and if the ship is included in STO, then I'll surely choose it. However, I am not so attached to the Steamrunner that I would be unwilling to pass it up for a less elegant (IMO) ship that performs better.



But I do think that is the general trend that we'll see, with the Defiant and Miranda classes being the only real notable outliers. I wouldn't be surprised that - as far as cruisers go - the progression might go something like:

small one man ship ----> Miranda class ---> saber class ---> Norway ---- > Steamrunner ----> Nebula ----> Intrepid ---> Galaxy

**I'm not sure that all these ships will make it into the game, and I've not included any of the new ships Cryptic is introducing because I don't know their class identifications and can't speculate on how they will perform**

With the general trend being a correlation between size and power. Again, there would have to be some exceptions, such as the Miranda being outperformed by the smaller Saber, and the Excelsior being outperformed by the smaller Defiant.

The trend can definately be seen in the Klingons though, with the better ships in the ST series definitely being of larger size.

breachandclear..... i think your basic concept is pretty sound, but i dont think anyone will have access to a miranda or excelsior class. If you figure on the conservitive side most SF ships have a 100 yr lifespan (maybe 200 if you figure liberally) meaning thses ships were well into the end of there lifecycle durring the TNG era. now add another 30+ years on to that .... they should be long gone.


i have noticed a few other comments that bother me.

1: someone said people would just put the biggest phaser on the smallest ship. hopefully the physics engine is smart enough to handle this correctly. if u overload your spaceframe with too much mass everything will be fine while you are stationary, but the minute you accellerate your ship would crush it self under it own weight and the force of your engines.

2 : some of that new article makes me think there will be no ship classes we are familliar with (no nebula, intrepid, galaxy, sovereign, etc...) instead there will only be generic scout, escort, crusier, explorer types. with each type having a collection of parts to make what ever ship we want. I certianly hope i am wrong in this assumtion. I very much want to see ALL the ships from the TNG era and then have the abillity to change them if we want to, or leave them the same if we choose.

3: upgrading the abillities of your ship is great news !! as someone who like the smaller/ middle weight ships (i am shooting for an Intrepid, Akira, or prometheus) it would be great to keep them reletive in combat with upgraded defenses. Of course there needs to be a limit, bit i am excited about this aspect.

[cavilier210]

breachandclear..... i think your basic concept is pretty sound, but i dont think anyone will have access to a miranda or excelsior class. If you figure on the conservitive side most SF ships have a 100 yr lifespan (maybe 200 if you figure liberally) meaning thses ships were well into the end of there lifecycle durring the TNG era. now add another 30+ years on to that .... they should be long gone.


i have noticed a few other comments that bother me.

1: someone said people would just put the biggest phaser on the smallest ship. hopefully the physics engine is smart enough to handle this correctly. if u overload your spaceframe with too much mass everything will be fine while you are stationary, but the minute you accellerate your ship would crush it self under it own weight and the force of your engines.

2 : some of that new article makes me think there will be no ship classes we are familliar with (no nebula, intrepid, galaxy, sovereign, etc...) instead there will only be generic scout, escort, crusier, explorer types. with each type having a collection of parts to make what ever ship we want. I certianly hope i am wrong in this assumtion. I very much want to see ALL the ships from the TNG era and then have the abillity to change them if we want to, or leave them the same if we choose.

3: upgrading the abillities of your ship is great news !! as someone who like the smaller/ middle weight ships (i am shooting for an Intrepid, Akira, or prometheus) it would be great to keep them reletive in combat with upgraded defenses. Of course there needs to be a limit, bit i am excited about this aspect.

actually, if you watch closely, the galaxy class is in the trailer in its origenal configuration. Also, the trailer is in-game action, so i'll safely bet that the galaxy class is in there

[Varrangian]

i have noticed a few other comments that bother me.

1: someone said people would just put the biggest phaser on the smallest ship. hopefully the physics engine is smart enough to handle this correctly. if u overload your spaceframe with too much mass everything will be fine while you are stationary, but the minute you accellerate your ship would crush it self under it own weight and the force of your engines.

This is why modularity is the ideal. If you make a ships modular and give each ship x # of slots you restrict the way people can configure their ships. This would work with weapons too, a Nova Class ship should have X slots for weapons, and that # should be smaller than a Galaxy class. To further this make it so it is realistic and that power output is related to weapons capability. So a Nova class can't possibly power some of the weapons a Galaxy can because it can't fit a warp core the same size as a Galaxy.

2 : some of that new article makes me think there will be no ship classes we are familliar with (no nebula, intrepid, galaxy, sovereign, etc...) instead there will only be generic scout, escort, crusier, explorer types. with each type having a collection of parts to make what ever ship we want. I certianly hope i am wrong in this assumtion. I very much want to see ALL the ships from the TNG era and then have the abillity to change them if we want to, or leave them the same if we choose.

They have specifically mentioned Galaxy and Sovereign class ships as part of the Cruiser/Explorer roles, so there is no indication that we will have "generics". They have said we will be able to customize these ships, but that does not mean we have to customize them.

3: upgrading the abillities of your ship is great news !! as someone who like the smaller/ middle weight ships (i am shooting for an Intrepid, Akira, or prometheus) it would be great to keep them reletive in combat with upgraded defenses. Of course there needs to be a limit, bit i am excited about this aspect.

I think the question is "relative" to what? They seem to have developed a hybrid system for ships here. The first part of the system is "role" so every ship will fit into a "role" (Escort, Science, Cruiser/Explorer for Feds) first. But you can The second part of the system is some form of "role" customization. So I might pick an Intrepid because I want to focus on the "Science" role, but I can customize it to be a little heavier on fire-power thus sacrificing some of the science abilities. That customized Intrepid though should never be as good at combat as an Escort of the same "tier". Because it has a role defined by the class of the ship.

[Thibor]

This is why modularity is the ideal. If you make a ships modular and give each ship x # of slots you restrict the way people can configure their ships. This would work with weapons too, a Nova Class ship should have X slots for weapons, and that # should be smaller than a Galaxy class. To further this make it so it is realistic and that power output is related to weapons capability. So a Nova class can't possibly power some of the weapons a Galaxy can because it can't fit a warp core the same size as a Galaxy.

This pretty much makes sense to me. For those that played SWG, think about how structure placement worked. You want to drop a small house, you only needed to find a smallish flat area and you're in business. Want to drop a huge house, you needed more flat land to accomodate it so your choices were reduced on where you could place it.

Similar idea. Larger weapon capabilities require either more power or more space. Smaller ship classes simply may not be able to accomodate them. There are several fairly simple ways the devs can limit ship upgrades so they don't get out of hand to the point of absurdity.

[THORN74]

This is why modularity is the ideal. If you make a ships modular and give each ship x # of slots you restrict the way people can configure their ships. This would work with weapons too, a Nova Class ship should have X slots for weapons, and that # should be smaller than a Galaxy class. To further this make it so it is realistic and that power output is related to weapons capability. So a Nova class can't possibly power some of the weapons a Galaxy can because it can't fit a warp core the same size as a Galaxy.

I think the question is "relative" to what? They seem to have developed a hybrid system for ships here. The first part of the system is "role" so every ship will fit into a "role" (Escort, Science, Cruiser/Explorer for Feds) first. But you can The second part of the system is some form of "role" customization. So I might pick an Intrepid because I want to focus on the "Science" role, but I can customize it to be a little heavier on fire-power thus sacrificing some of the science abilities. That customized Intrepid though should never be as good at combat as an Escort of the same "tier". Because it has a role defined by the class of the ship.

a nova shouldnt ever be able to have type X phasers .... the galaxy has type X .... Xs would be way to big/heavy for a small nova, not to mention as others have the power requirements.

sorry about "reletive" i ment 'relevent' and yes i agree you should never expect a nova to equal a sovereign (or any other comparison) you should be able to "beef up" a smaller ship so could last more than 10 seconds in a fight. nothing suck more than being the smallest guy in the group and not being able to carry your weight in a fight. you are either ignored, picked on, or trageted.

[bighair83]

So I might pick an Intrepid because I want to focus on the "Science" role, but I can customize it to be a little heavier on fire-power thus sacrificing some of the science abilities. That customized Intrepid though should never be as good at combat as an Escort of the same "tier". Because it has a role defined by the class of the ship.

Can't turn a ho into a housewife ;) A little Ludacris to lighten the mood....lol

In all seriousness though, I totally agree. The Akira, for example, was designed specifically as a combat vessel to counter against threats to the Alpha Quadrant (Dominion, Borg etc), and represented a shift in thinking for Starfleet; less as scientists and explorers with some teeth to scientists and explorers with friends who have lots of really big guns to back them up.

As far as ship customization goes, modular is a very practicle way to go about this. Snubfighter customization in SWG worked within a pool of mass points for a specific chassis. More mass meant larger reactors, larger reactors mean more energy, more energy means better weapons and engines. This concept works fine and dandy in that situation, but Starfleet ships specifically (although Klingons wouldn't have stopped hitting each other with sharp sticks withough science and exploration) require a much wider range of specialization. I think SOE had it right for their purposes, but the system needs refinement to be exceptional, in relation to STO

[Kinneas]

Sticking with canon tech is nice and 'modular design' is part of that.

Yet folks are already stating 'total' limitations on interior space for modules and believing that people must upgrade to something bigger at some time while not considering tech manual engineering skills that may allow star ship superstructure construction.

If an engineer has the proper skills/credits/prestige/resources, he/she 'should' be able to strip off the hulls and make adjustments to the superstructure to fit in larger modules.

Not to make things so easy though there should still be a lot of skill sets in between to make it all work properly.

One could 'pay' to have the below done...but if STO allows, it would be better just to be able to do it yourself with some engineering and cross discipline experience (Not a complete list by any means).


- Antimatter systems /repair/upgrade/construction
------antimatter production.
------antimatter storage

-Coil technology /repair/upgrade/construction
-----EM fields, shields, radiation,

-Propulsion
----- old technology impulse engines (chemical to ion), MHD impulse propulsion, multi-vector impulse tech( akin to f22 raptor tech.)

-Bussard Technology/repair/upgrade/construction

-Plasma technology (EPS) conduit. Step up and step down node technology. Wireless energy nodes(not sure if this exist in the tech manuals yet).

-Replicator Technology

-Hulls

-Main computer tech: placing, maintainining, upgrading Data lines. Upgrading computers. wireless communication

-Waste/Water systems

- Organic and non-organic matter processing systems

- Sensor Platform: /repair/upgrade/construction

- Physics telescope technology

- Modular design
----- connecting module ports (energy, waste/water/replicator lines, data lines)

- Superstructures

------------------------
To suggest a few.

If someone does not want to move beyond their dream ship and would rather keep modifying it...let there be some means to do so.

No problems...only solutions - J. Lennon.

Make mine a Connie refit, refit, refit, refit, refit, refit, refit. refit, refit.

[bighair83]

Make mine a Connie refit, refit, refit, refit, refit, refit, refit. refit, refit.

HAHAHA awesome

This is the kind of concept I think Cryptic should seriously consider (I am acknowledging the obvious finite nature of any ability to refit BTW), as a customization system which allows, if desired, the ability to tweak your ship right down to the last power coupling (not literally lol). Allowing players to wholesale swap systems based upon mass allocation or whatever gives the casual gamer an ability to customize their ship to their play style, whereas having a more advanced knowledge of Trek and/or engineering in general gives a serious gamer the ability to stretch their class to the max. I think this idea helps avoid the idea of having "leetzor endgame epics", and instead gives players an ability to improve through innovation and experimentation.

Obviously Cryptic wants players to progress through ship classes and whatnot, and there are obvious eventual tech limitations on having refit squared, so apply an efficiency penalty to tech systems which are outdated, but rigged to improve beyond their spec capabilities, or a cost penalty to retrofit old hulls with new parts.

[eqfan592]

I respectfully disagree. While I personally would go with the Galaxy class (if I end up wanting a ship that performs like one), there appear to be plenty of people that are hell bent on acquiring ships like the Miranda and Akira and holding onto them as long as possible by refitting them. It appears to me that quite a few people think that they're going to be able to refit a Miranda or Excelsior class ship such that it can perform just as well as the Galaxy or Sovereign classes, which is just wishful thinking in my opinion.

Personally, my favorite ship is the Steamrunner, and if the ship is included in STO, then I'll surely choose it. However, I am not so attached to the Steamrunner that I would be unwilling to pass it up for a less elegant (IMO) ship that performs better.



But I do think that is the general trend that we'll see, with the Defiant and Miranda classes being the only real notable outliers. I wouldn't be surprised that - as far as cruisers go - the progression might go something like:

small one man ship ----> Miranda class ---> saber class ---> Norway ---- > Steamrunner ----> Nebula ----> Intrepid ---> Galaxy

**I'm not sure that all these ships will make it into the game, and I've not included any of the new ships Cryptic is introducing because I don't know their class identifications and can't speculate on how they will perform**

With the general trend being a correlation between size and power. Again, there would have to be some exceptions, such as the Miranda being outperformed by the smaller Saber, and the Excelsior being outperformed by the smaller Defiant.

The trend can definately be seen in the Klingons though, with the better ships in the ST series definitely being of larger size.

I do see your point, and anybody who thinks they'll be able to get a Nova to fight like a Galaxy is day dreaming. And while I agree there are folks around here who seem to want that, i think the majority of people who talk about not being forced into a larger ship are people that LIKE the smaller ships because of the things they do better than the larger ships naturally. Smaller ships are generally faster, more agile, and often more flexible than their larger counterparts.

I think what people what most is the ability to upgrade their smaller ships, not necessarily to the point where they can go toe to toe with a Galaxy, but rather so they can continue to excel in the roll that smaller ships play without feeling "hamstrung" because they DIDN'T move on to a bigger ship. That's what I was referring to when I said that it sounds like that's the direction things are going. The ability to upgrade your current, smaller ship so that it becomes better and better at the functions it's supposed to be performing is what I think most people in that category are looking for.

This is very long winded, and I'm not sure if I'm making all that much sense, so if not, I do apologize! :D

[Zike]

They really should provide an option to step down from captain of your own ship and allow you to abord a friends ship to take over the role of one of the assigned NPCs. Perhaps your ships second in command could take over the captain role and become a pet like option or return to a startport. This type of system could be used to advance sub roles at a greater rate or something.

[bighair83]

Blame my paranoia, but I keep seeing the Nova class getting tossed around and think I'm being referred to :eek:

I really don't have any delusions of grandeur as far as the longevity and servicability of smaller classes of ships, but I wouldn't mind having the opportunity to have the dude on the other end of that Vorcha thinking "man that little ******* gave me a good scrap" after I have been thorougly vaped :D

[THORN74]

I do see your point, and anybody who thinks they'll be able to get a Nova to fight like a Galaxy is day dreaming. And while I agree there are folks around here who seem to want that, i think the majority of people who talk about not being forced into a larger ship are people that LIKE the smaller ships because of the things they do better than the larger ships naturally. Smaller ships are generally faster, more agile, and often more flexible than their larger counterparts.

I think what people what most is the ability to upgrade their smaller ships, not necessarily to the point where they can go toe to toe with a Galaxy, but rather so they can continue to excel in the roll that smaller ships play without feeling "hamstrung" because they DIDN'T move on to a bigger ship. That's what I was referring to when I said that it sounds like that's the direction things are going. The ability to upgrade your current, smaller ship so that it becomes better and better at the functions it's supposed to be performing is what I think most people in that category are looking for.

This is very long winded, and I'm not sure if I'm making all that much sense, so if not, I do apologize! :D


here here, you said it better than i did. I too like the middleweight classes .... particularlly like the Intrepid, Akira, and Prometheus. and with the exception of the prometheus (that small ship IS as powerfull as a sovereign) i dont expect a smaller ship to be able to take a ship the size of a sovereign or galaxy.

however, i would very much not want to feel left behind because i chose to keep a smaller ship till my character maxes out. So i would like to be able to upgrade my smaller ships system so it can "compete" or hold its own with other player of similar experiance. I would hate to be an admiral or captian in rank with a very experianced crew and have some dumb LT jg with an inexperianced crew stomp me JUST because he has a bigger ship than i do.

[Varrangian]

To address a few things.

First to address refits and the idea of "re-engineering" a ship. I am fine with this idea, but there must be limits. The "refitting" cannot change the role of a ship. I'll give a real life example. The Military will often take older aircraft and put new "parts". The most common parts being electronics. This changes the aircraft to a degree, but you will never see an A-10 become an F-16. They have different roles and they have different aerodynamics, they are different aircraft. So refitting to me is fine, as long as you don't alter the physicalities of the ship.

On the idea of upgrading components vs. upgrading ship. I think there will be times when we are forced to upgrade to a new ship. For instance it has been said that we will start out with a ship roughly the size of a shuttle craft (GI article), no one is going to keep that ship. My suggestion is that ships are divided into "tiers" kind of like how SWG unofficially did things. So there will be a list of Escorts for the Feds that have a "tier" range and once you hit the end of that range you'll face "gimping" yourself or upgrading. Now there should not be any drastic differences between all Escorts, but a tier 1 escort should not have as many module slots as a tier 3 nor should it have as good of stats. In addition, a Tier 3 Escort should not have the same number of slots as a tier 3 Cruises/Explorer, but it should have stats that compare, but with a different focus.

[THORN74]

yes no one should be able to "moddify" their norway class ship into a galaxy class ship, no matter how many parts combinations their are.

i think something along the lines of SFC3 would be inorder. Ever Class or typr of ship has a minimum and maximum mass. you should not be allowed to exceed either limit, but you would be allowed just about any modds within those parameters. for example maybe lower your sensor pallet 1 lvl to free up mass for more weapons. or lowering your weapons 1 lvl to give the mass to bigger engines for a faster ship.

that kind of modding would be acceptable to me.

[Azurian]

Indeed, I liked the SFC3's upgrade ideas. Where you can have a fast, but lightly armed ship. Which in you be harder for you to be attacked. Or load up your ship for pure combat, but be slow.

But with STO, you got other variables as well, like more sensor pallets for exploration. Perhaps something like from the Starship creator where you can specify crew quarters, which could spare room for other equipment, or have leg-stretching room and have your crew happier.

That sort of thing.


Hopefully we will soon learn more about this possibility.

[Zike]

I made a reply to your thread(http://forums.startrekonline.com/showthread.php?t=11526) and my post seems to be gone. Do you have any record of why this was removed? The question was regarding ship/crew management and the possibility of being apart of another ships crew.

PS: Please clear or make room for private messages. :)

Thank you,
Mike W

[KO_Gilligan]

I was kinda surprised how much Craig embraced the many non-combat aspects. The last statement about the generated combat taking it where no other game has really caught my attention.

I think it's a wake up call for alot of people who keep claiming this is just a shoot-em-up.

[arakkis]

Hmm, not sure how I feel about a 50/50 space/ground distribution. I hope this is not enforced harshly because sometimes I will just want to get in my ship and fly.

[Minty]

"Exploration is almost endless! Players will be visiting major Trek locations like Vulcan and Deep Space Nine, "

Now that's what I'm talking about! I can't wait to visit DS9! Great read and answered some burning questions for me :)

[Freejack]

CZ: We don’t want to focus on making an MMO so much as bringing the Star Trek Universe to life. The biggest obstacle may be reaching the incredibly high bar that we, as Trek fans, have set for ourselves. I’m confident that the talented, dedicated team we have working on Star Trek Online is up to the task.

This was my favorite response. :cool:

[mcdermottgl]

some random thoughts from me about this interview, probably moving away a bit from your discussion of ships (i am amazed at how familiar with ships some of you seem, i've been watching star trek since TNG was originally aired and ships have always seemed incidental to the missions, so i just don't remember as much as you guys)

i am delighted to see reference to DS9 as a visitable location in the game. this excited me. I was also happy with the mention that there is an emphasis on fun. obviously it is not clear how deaths will be dealt with, but it was something that had been niggling me.

how do people feel about shuttles being pretty much set on "auto"? (or did i pick that up wrong?)

i know a lot of that info was known to those of us that spend a lot of time on forums, but we must remember that they are trying to hook new people in. had i come across this interview six weeks ago it would have answered many a question, many a question i tell you, and i'd have been thrilled with the prospect of the game.

can anyone explain the prhase "modular ships" for me?

i'm wondering if cameos from familiar faces might be in the form of historical flashbacks, holograms etc. So they may be playing recreations of "their" characters. hmmm?

and i hope that nobody is "untouchable", even if they have tirelessly worked their way into the best ship in the fleet. that would really not be in line with the trek experience, imo.

well, my interest has been stoked again Cryptic.

[ShiXin]

I wish someone would ask these guys what are the top three games they are looking at for the "shoulds" and "should nots" of MMO's these days. Or has someone already asked?

[zinc]

I wish someone would ask these guys what are the top three games they are looking at for the "shoulds" and "should nots" of MMO's these days. Or has someone already asked?

I hope nobody asks us that! I don't think there's a good answer to that question. There's such a library of games that we use for our design vocabulary that narrowing it down to 3 would be impossible - not to mention irresponsible!

i am amazed at how familiar with ships some of you seem

I concur. I've been following this thread for the past couple days and am really excited with how knowledgeable (Trek and MMO) you guys are. It's awesome to see this community thinking about the game as hard as we are! Keep it up! Your ideas help shape the game.

-Zn

Man - I hope this doesn't just illicit "there's no new information in his post!" responses! : )

[headlockman]

Ship combat is paced and more strategic. You’ll have to think about positioning, transferring power to boost weapons or shields, and how to best exploit your opponent’s weaknesses.

That Quote makes the space combat sound limiting? mabey not true real time?

What do you guys think about the space combat?

[Varrangian]

It's awesome to see this community thinking about the game as hard as we are! Keep it up! Your ideas help shape the game.

Shhhhh don't say that you'll only encourage me :p But seriously thanks for stopping by. We all like to know we're being watched.

[Ensign.Ricky]

GVK: Will players be able to pilot shuttles in the game and use transporters? If so, how will this work?

CZ: Most of the time, you and your away team will use the transporters. You’ll be beaming all over the place! There will be some content that you need a shuttle to reach, but you won’t be manually flying the shuttle through the atmosphere and landing on the surface of a planet.

I hope they are literal when they say beaming all over the place. I would love to see total control of the transporter locations so I can beam anything or anyone with freedom.

I'm a bit sad about the shuttle info since that seemed like it would've been a fun concept. I noticed they specifically said atmosphere to landing. Maybe they still might add shuttles but just not in that scenario.

[picardalpha2clearance]

Razor,

As much as I love updates there are so many questions that have been posed, I would hope that your team could review them and start answering questions that have been posted. In my humble opinion these questions could help direct or brain storm for the game, You never know where the imagination can take you unless you consider the options.

[Varrangian]

Razor,

As much as I love updates there are so many questions that have been posed, I would hope that your team could review them and start answering questions that have been posted. In my humble opinion these questions could help direct or brain storm for the game, You never know where the imagination can take you unless you consider the options.

Just about once a month they do an "Ask Cryptic" thread and answer forum member questions. Three of mine have been answered thus far. :D

[TheLoner]

I'm a bit sad about the shuttle info since that seemed like it would've been a fun concept. I noticed they specifically said atmosphere to landing. Maybe they still might add shuttles but just not in that scenario.[/QUOTE]

Not if you could land the ship that would be cool to do sometimes

[TheLoner]

I'm a bit sad about the shuttle info since that seemed like it would've been a fun concept. I noticed they specifically said atmosphere to landing. Maybe they still might add shuttles but just not in that scenario.

Not if you could land the ship that would be cool to do sometimes

[CherryTerri]

Would someone please explain to me the difference between experience going to levels and that of leveling skills? I've never played EVE, and my guess is where the skills come in.

It all does look interesting. I've just come to the boards so I don't know alot of info many of you prolly do so far.

[Varrangian]

Would someone please explain to me the difference between experience going to levels and that of leveling skills? I've never played EVE, and my guess is where the skills come in.

It all does look interesting. I've just come to the boards so I don't know alot of info many of you prolly do so far.

A couple of things. Though they've said the game will be "skill based vs. Level based" it is not clear what they mean by that. SWG at launch was considered skill based, but it used a system that almost mimicked levels.

Eve's skill system works basically like this. You have skill x the more times you use skill x you incrementally get better at it. The complaints I've heard about Eve's system is that it hinders new players from being able to compete because they cannot catch up.

There are many, many ways to make a game skill based though, so we really do need more information on the system they have in mind.

[Paratus6]

A couple of things. Though they've said the game will be "skill based vs. Level based" it is not clear what they mean by that. SWG at launch was considered skill based, but it used a system that almost mimicked levels.

Eve's skill system works basically like this. You have skill x the more times you use skill x you incrementally get better at it. The complaints I've heard about Eve's system is that it hinders new players from being able to compete because they cannot catch up.

There are many, many ways to make a game skill based though, so we really do need more information on the system they have in mind.
Ok, first of all, let me say that I played EVE for over a year and I can state, catagorically, that the above poster's synopsis of skill leveling for EVE is basically wrong. It's skill system is NOT based on usage of a skill.
Here's an accurate brief on how skill learning occurs in EVE.
Your avatar "learns skills" via accessing "skillbooks", aquired by various means (loot drops, purchasing, mission rewards, etc.) and it takes RealTime to aquire the knowledge. The higher the skillset, the more time it takes (in RealTime) to learn it.
In other words, as a simplified example, if you wish to learn how to use a Battleship-Class vehicle, you need to learn the skill "Ship Captain Level 4" (again, this is a generalized synopnis of how it works, and is not specific to it's actual mechanism in EVE). Before you can learn this skill, you must have learned Ship Captain Levels 1, 2, and 3, and those could have taken you up to several months (in RealTime) to aquire. In addition, you may also need to learn several other skillsets, of various levels, in order to qualify for the right to learn this skillset. Each level of skill in any given area can also give bonuses to the efficacy of the equipment you use. Your personal ability to manuever, aim, and shoot, is pretty much moot...other than the timing of said events in RealTime.
In other words, the mechanical skills of your avatar in EVE is mostly based on a combination of skillsets based on RealTime dedication to skillset aquisition and selection. A person who has been in the game for 2 years can pretty much "wtfbbqpwn" anybody who has been in the game for 6 months, but it's also partly dependant upon the ship and equipment they take with them into the battle. That being said, I've seen solo Frigates killing Battleships in that game, simply because the captain of the Frigate had been skilling up for 4 years, versus the Battlecruiser captain with 2 years of skillsets.
There is no "Grind" as it is known in most other MMOs, just a dedicated RealTime to learning focused skillsets of the avatar and the appropriation of highend equipment.
It's a system that I have found to be largely lopsided toward the vets of the game. It's not based upon the actual personal skills of the individual, and this is the problem I have with such game systems.
I personally prefer a game that is based solely on the personal skills of a Player, rather than on an avatar for it's longevity in said game.
In the Star Trek canon, good Captains could beat the odds with intelligence and cunning. Think of Kirk and the Kobayashi Maru Test. He was, supposdly, the only one to beat it. Yeah, he cheated, but he used his intelligence and cunning to do so.
This is what I would like to see in STO.

[bachuss]

nice to see progress, i so sick of all the mmo's out there, need STO soon :(

[Varrangian]

Ok, first of all, let me say that I played EVE for over a year and I can state, catagorically, that the above poster's synopsis of skill leveling for EVE is basically wrong. It's skill system is NOT based on usage of a skill.
Here's an accurate brief on how skill learning occurs in EVE.
Your avatar "learns skills" via accessing "skillbooks", aquired by various means (loot drops, purchasing, mission rewards, etc.) and it takes RealTime to aquire the knowledge. The higher the skillset, the more time it takes (in RealTime) to learn it.
In other words, as a simplified example, if you wish to learn how to use a Battleship-Class vehicle, you need to learn the skill "Ship Captain Level 4" (again, this is a generalized synopnis of how it works, and is not specific to it's actual mechanism in EVE). Before you can learn this skill, you must have learned Ship Captain Levels 1, 2, and 3, and those could have taken you up to several months (in RealTime) to aquire. In addition, you may also need to learn several other skillsets, of various levels, in order to qualify for the right to learn this skillset. Each level of skill in any given area can also give bonuses to the efficacy of the equipment you use. Your personal ability to manuever, aim, and shoot, is pretty much moot...other than the timing of said events in RealTime.
In other words, the mechanical skills of your avatar in EVE is mostly based on a combination of skillsets based on RealTime dedication to skillset aquisition and selection. A person who has been in the game for 2 years can pretty much "wtfbbqpwn" anybody who has been in the game for 6 months, but it's also partly dependant upon the ship and equipment they take with them into the battle. That being said, I've seen solo Frigates killing Battleships in that game, simply because the captain of the Frigate had been skilling up for 4 years, versus the Battlecruiser captain with 2 years of skillsets.
There is no "Grind" as it is known in most other MMOs, just a dedicated RealTime to learning focused skillsets of the avatar and the appropriation of highend equipment.
It's a system that I have found to be largely lopsided toward the vets of the game. It's not based upon the actual personal skills of the individual, and this is the problem I have with such game systems.
I personally prefer a game that is based solely on the personal skills of a Player, rather than on an avatar for it's longevity in said game.
In the Star Trek canon, good Captains could beat the odds with intelligence and cunning. Think of Kirk and the Kobayashi Maru Test. He was, supposdly, the only one to beat it. Yeah, he cheated, but he used his intelligence and cunning to do so.
This is what I would like to see in STO.

I'm sorry if I've been misinformed about Eve. While I may have been incorrect in the way the skills work. My main point though was to demonstrate that there are many ways that a game can be "skill" based.

I will asked this... "It's a system that I have found to be largely lopsided toward the vets of the game. It's not based upon the actual personal skills of the individual, and this is the problem I have with such game systems.
I personally prefer a game that is based solely on the personal skills of a Player, rather than on an avatar for it's longevity in said game."

It seems you are suggesting STO should be "twitch" based? If so I disagree whole heartedly. I do not want a system like Eve, but I do not think the only alternative it twitch based. Twitch based pretty much means those with physical handicaps are incapable of playing these games, and I know to many MMO'ers who are handicapped to believe a system like that is the right direction for anything but MMOFPS's

[Captain_Starblazer]

No mention was made of wither it will be consensual PVE. Me and mine aren't about to spend money on a game that annoys the snot out of you because someone thought it would be 'fun' to wreck someones mission or quest. If you have to 'PvP' your way threw the game. We would give it a very reluctant miss. :

In Example:
Enroute to a planet to explore someone decides it would be fun to destroy your ship with there overpowered outclassed battle wagon.

Your away team is on a planet and another 'human controlled' away team decides you don't deserve to be there and annihilated your entire group.

My large 'clan' is extremely looking forward to this game, but not if it will be a 'gankfest' when all some people want to do is play and have fun without the 'my genitals are bigger than yours' crowd destroying your game play. EVE is a prime example of this. The minute you go out of the 'noob' area your space dust. (And some of us didn't care to 'adapt', we just wanted to play the game without human interference)

PVP is fine in a place that EVERYONE agrees to (and this is NOT in the mainstream of the game)

Cheers

[Varrangian]

No mention was made of wither it will be consensual PVE. Me and mine aren't about to spend money on a game that annoys the snot out of you because someone thought it would be 'fun' to wreck someones mission or quest. If you have to 'PvP' your way threw the game. We would give it a very reluctant miss. :

In Example:
Enroute to a planet to explore someone decides it would be fun to destroy your ship with there overpowered outclassed battle wagon.

Your away team is on a planet and another 'human controlled' away team decides you don't deserve to be there and annihilated your entire group.

My large 'clan' is extremely looking forward to this game, but not if it will be a 'gankfest' when all some people want to do is play and have fun without the 'my genitals are bigger than yours' crowd destroying your game play. EVE is a prime example of this. The minute you go out of the 'noob' area your space dust. (And some of us didn't care to 'adapt', we just wanted to play the game without human interference)

PVP is fine in a place that EVERYONE agrees to (and this is NOT in the mainstream of the game)

Cheers

Have you seen the FAQ on the front page?

Q: Will there be PvP, PvE and RP rule set servers?
A: There will not be separate servers for PvP and PvE rulesets. Open PvP will be restricted to designated sectors of space (far-off reaches of unclaimed territory). Consensual PvP and competitive PvE will occur between the realm borders (the Neutral Zone), where players will be competing over territory and resources with the option to PvP.

[KO_Gilligan]

It's awesome to see this community thinking about the game as hard as we are! Keep it up! Your ideas help shape the game.


A few of us get a bit defensive with people who are critical on the boards... like we are sticking up for you guys. But really I imagine you all know, as well as we do, when people are being unreasonable.

I really appreciated this part about exploring generated content being unique... In my last post i said "combat" when I meant "content" - We all know it will have fun combat, but what about the "More"...
anyway, here's my favorite quote - I hope you live up to it :D

Exploration is almost endless! Players will be visiting major Trek locations like Vulcan and Deep Space Nine, but they’ll also be beaming down to the surfaces of unexplored planets and making first contacts with new civilizations. Cryptic has developed some really cool technology that allows us to generate exploration content that is compelling and complex. I don’t know of another game that’s taken it to this level.

[The_Padre]

Ship combat is paced and more strategic. You’ll have to think about positioning, transferring power to boost weapons or shields, and how to best exploit your opponent’s weaknesses.

That Quote makes the space combat sound limiting? mabey not true real time?

What do you guys think about the space combat?

I don't know about that, Bridge Commander was based around a similar principle and I never considered that games combat system to be that limiting.

[lizzard981]

This sounds very good.I cant wait to play the game.Has anybody got any idea when the game is comming out?

[Quin_Draco]

Here is a good rumor......several months ago while at Gamestop the clerk mentioned that STO had a scheduled release date but when he checked the system it was not there. He seemed to think it was for the first quarter of next year.....but not anymore.

[Varrangian]

Here is a good rumor......several months ago while at Gamestop the clerk mentioned that STO had a scheduled release date but when he checked the system it was not there. He seemed to think it was for the first quarter of next year.....but not anymore.

The reason the clerk thinks there is a release date is because in the Game Informer Article it was said they are planning for a release a little over one year from the article. So roughly Nov of 2009, but this would not mean there is a specific day set in stone yet.

[LtPowers]

Ship combat is paced and more strategic. You’ll have to think about positioning, transferring power to boost weapons or shields, and how to best exploit your opponent’s weaknesses.

That Quote makes the space combat sound limiting? mabey not true real time?

What do you guys think about the space combat?

It just means you won't be dogfighting in a Galaxy-class ship. And even in a Defiant-class ship, the speed will likely be balanced such that strategy has somewhat more weight than aim.

That's how I read it, at least.


Powers &8^]

[Vegeta]

borg ships have shields?
warp will be like teleportation?
something is wrong in this interview

[CherryTerri]

When did Borg not have shields?

THought they did .. hm .. will have to watch those episodes again. They have some sort of field around them I think (when Worf and Data got Picard as Locutus, I thought they commented about going through the Borg's something-field)

[Jomangor]

Is anyone else disappointed at how infrequent the updates have been of late? I mean, we get one long-ish interview that's mostly old information, and we pick it apart like vultures trying to glean some new meat from the old info carcass.

Do we know of any plan by cryptic to give us more tidbits more often?

[garethmb]

I had to wait to post the first interview. PC Gamer purchased it from me and as such I was only able to link to a forum that posted the original interview. I am working on a follow up with Cryptic that will alllow fans to send in questions they want to ask.


Original interview is linked below.

http://www.guardianhq.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=412

[Fernos]

We are not focusing on making a great Star Trek MMO, we are focusing on making a great MMO, we want to draw in that fan that may not like Star Trek but loves MMOs' :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: One of the dumbest things any devloper has said ever.


We don’t want to focus on making an MMO so much as bringing the Star Trek Universe to life. The biggest obstacle may be reaching the incredibly high bar that we, as Trek fans, have set for ourselves. I’m confident that the talented, dedicated team we have working on Star Trek Online is up to the task..

See this is the difference; this is why the ST mmo is in such awesome hands now compared to the disaster of NGE proportions that Perpetual was creating

[mcfemtp]

Thanx for the updates. All the info is very helpful and exciting to hear.

[achaney23]

Is anyone else disappointed at how infrequent the updates have been of late? I mean, we get one long-ish interview that's mostly old information, and we pick it apart like vultures trying to glean some new meat from the old info carcass.

Do we know of any plan by cryptic to give us more tidbits more often?

No, not at all. I take updates as they come in. I'm not chomping at the bit for more information. It also means they may be actually working on the game and not messing around like that other developer did. Cryptic has taken Perpetual's lessons to heart. Never ever promise something you cannot deliver on. Never ever lie to your future customers to grab headlines or for any other justification. Be very very careful what you do say, because every word, every syllable, will be dissected and scrutinized down to the nth degree.

Cryptic, take your time. Do it right.

[Cpt.Medo]

Here is a gift to all the star trek fans out there that did not know about this new project. www.startrekofgodsandmen.com This is a low budget movie directed by Tim Russ who also played Tuvok. Considering that it is a low budget movie I found it very good. I don't want to spoil anything but you are going to find a lot of familiar characters in this movie. It is about one hour a thirty minutes long. Like I said, it is a low budget movie but it was done nicely. I am a big Star Trek fan and I have to be honest that I loved it.

Again the website is www.startrekofgodsandmen.com