Focusing the Experience - Latest MMORPG Blog

[nhamlett]

If you haven't read it - Get it here! (http://www.mmorpg.com/blogs/Awenyddion/3505_Focusing-the-Experience-Craig-Zinkievich.html)

Then, tell us what you think!

[The.Grand.Nagus]

I beat (http://forums.startrekonline.com/showthread.php?t=16534) you to it! :p

[Nasedo]

If you haven't read it - Get it here! (http://www.mmorpg.com/blogs/Awenyddion/3505_Focusing-the-Experience-Craig-Zinkievich.html)

Then, tell us what you think!

Awesome Read!. you guys are doing an Awesome job!

Thanks for posting Awen!!

(we all know who's working harder then anyone! *Blink* *Blink*)

[nhamlett]

I beat (http://forums.startrekonline.com/showthread.php?t=16534) you to it! :p Let's focus the forum experience and keep it all in one place. :) I closed your thread, but I appreciate that you were more on the ball!

[Jerosh_Skitari]

For what it's worth, I think Cryptic made the right choice about how to focus ST:O for initial release. That being said, I think it would be a nice feature in an expansion or content patch to have multi-player ships.

[Jenshae]

I want to say it and I know there has been a thread already closed for this link and I might get banned or this could be completely futile:

http://www.mmorpg.com/blogs/Awenyddion/032009/3505_Focusing-the-Experience-Craig-Zinkievich

I feel that they chickened out. Making up waffle to come up with a reason to not do it. Yes, everyone can and probably does want to be a captain but here is the key question I have:

Why can't we guest on someone else's ship? Controlling a "pet" crew member from our ship for a mission or something? Have both one person controlling a ship and multiple as an option; why can't that be made? Why did that not occur to them in all those three hour sessions?

For the boring parts:

You wouldn't be sitting in a room. You would be tending your own ship. It is something that those who can "multi-task" would enjoy most. A case of switching between cameras, from your captain to your engineer.

[marscentral]

I agree with the decisions. It's all very well going for the authenticity of player crews, but the game does need to be fun too and I don't think there's a viable way to do both. But I've been saying that for months :P

[BreachAndClear]

They never ruled out player crews, they may be included later. And I think "guesting" on another player's ship requires ships to have their own interiors, which to my knowledge is still a toss up as to whether or not they'll be included at launch.

[Banach]

I want player crews, not "maybe later"... :(

[Loekii]

They never ruled out player crews, they may be included later. And I think "guesting" on another player's ship requires ships to have their own interiors, which to my knowledge is still a toss up as to whether or not they'll be included at launch.

Bingo!

Not to mention having to create 'content' for the 'guest' player to do. Sitting around 'riding' in a room is not worth the effort, and creating content for you do something is not an easy task.

I think Craig explained it well when talks about too many game play experiences. Most MMOs have problems just getting one or two gameplay experiences correct. STO already has far too much on its plate, and adding all this content would only further create problems.

I am happier that they are not trying to spread themselves far too thin, and hopefully that will result in some quality in the game, imo.

[Arodin]

It makes sense, but there are issues with having Captain-only players. One being that in Starfleet, Captains don't normally go on away missions. Star Trek fans are sticklers for things like that, so getting around that and letting players beam their Captains down into dangerous situations without annoying Trekkers may be a challenge. Also it seems like it may limit the replayability of the game -- in almost every MMO you can start as one class and if you don't enjoy the gameplay you can start over with a different class that plays totally different. If everyone is a Captain in STO, the gameplay is probably always the same or at least very similar regardless of how you make your character.

[marscentral]

I've saved myself time repeating myself. Player crews won't work here (http://marscentral.blogspot.com/2009/03/sto-recurring-themes-player-crews.html) is why.

[Jenshae]

You wouldn't be sitting in a room. You would be tending your own ship. It is something that those who can "multi-task" would enjoy most. A case of switching between cameras, from your captain to your engineer.

[BreachAndClear]

...Player crews won't work...

Yeah, there's that too. And I think Craig pretty much summed up the reasoning adequately.

[STO]

as with many of these other site posts, it is a rehash of what Craig has said to us all along. There is a lot that goes into the decisions the Dev team makes. Great read though, I wish it would be read by a lot of the nay sayers that have been lurking here lately.

[The.Grand.Nagus]

I want player crews, not "maybe later"... :(

This issue was explained rather clearly in the Blog update. They originaly wanted to have player crews, but they realized that to do it RIGHT(meaning each person actually having somethng fun and entertaining to do) would take so long that STO's release would be years away. So in reality, you would STILL have to wait several years to have player crews, whether STO is released this year and they are later added or whether the game was delayed until they were ready.

Personally, I'll take the game this year and be happy when functioning player crews are implimented at some time in the future. That said, you can wait to play STO until player crews are in game if you want to; no one will make you play it at launch :o

[CinC-UFPForces-Cardassia]

I want to say it and I know there has been a thread already closed for this link and I might get banned or this could be completely futile...

Can I recommend easing up on the drama a little? Nagus's thread was closed because the developers opened a main thread in the News section of the forum. You're not going to get banned for expressing your opinion.

[Loekii]

But heck – if we made that many full-featured and deep games, we’d end up either never getting the game out to you guys or providing a huge range of thin and rather crappy experiences. Neither is an attractive option.

I like this approach - Quality over Quantity.

[The.Grand.Nagus]

Let's focus the forum experience and keep it all in one place. :) I closed your thread, but I appreciate that you were more on the ball!

Though someone has posted yet another thread about the blog update on the STO discussion forum, I understand your position. And I doubt its that I was 'more on the ball' so much as you are probably bussier than I am atm :o

[marscentral]

Yeah, there's that too. And I think Craig pretty much summed up the reasoning adequately.

He did. I saw his twitter half way through writing. I may be psychic.

[TreffnonX]

I was most excited about player crews when i heard of the idea of STO and i definetly wanted it because of the teamwork aspect, but since cryptic has declared that this is not going to happen i have mostly ccepted it due to the fact that the game has NO chance if they include it.
I want to play STO and not in 5 years but asap and that will only work if we accept that it might come down to a reduced gameexperience, but a great experience nevertheles.
If you want the whole thing, the ultimate bridgecrew-feeling with your friends, you either need to develope your own fan-game or you have to wait till either STO2 is released or STO will have it, please don't ask for it again, we know it by now...

[Jenshae]

There is a new section? People actually read it? People actually use Youtube? Okay, never mind, there are people that play WoW, it is confirmed.

[Moryan_Sorg]

You wouldn't be sitting in a room. You would be tending your own ship. It is something that those who can "multi-task" would enjoy most. A case of switching between cameras, from your captain to your engineer.

Ok, I totally agree with this. I think that as the captain I should be able to step in and do the job of my NPC crew if I so choose. This could be managed from an NPC window on the UI.

At release there could be just a few graphics and things that a captain could do/cpmmand. Like others have stated, they can gradually release other tasks/interiors until eventually they build up enough content that you could actually have Guest NPCs and full ship interiors. I find this approach very reasonable.

[BreachAndClear]

Ok, I totally agree with this. I think that as the captain I should be able to step in and do the job of my NPC crew if I so choose. This could be managed from an NPC window on the UI.

At release there could be just a few graphics and things that a captain could do/cpmmand. Like others have stated, they can gradually release other tasks/interiors until eventually they build up enough content that you could actually have Guest NPCs and full ship interiors. I find this approach very reasonable.

It's better, if they ever intend to have player crews, for them to develop the mechanics fully and release the feature when it is fully developed rather than start out with bits and pieces providing a mediocre experience, upon which to gradually build, that is going to result in disappointed fans and poor reviews.

[Moryan_Sorg]

It's better, if they ever intend to have player crews, for them to develop the mechanics fully and release the feature when it is fully developed rather than start out with bits and pieces providing a mediocre experience, upon which to gradually build, that is going to result in disappointed fans and poor reviews.

I don't think that is necessarily true. If they chose to they can release it in pieces and see what works/what is fun and what isn't. It may actually create a better experience.

Anyway, the main point of the article is that some things had to be cut/delayed so that other things received the required attention. Things like the episodic mission generator seem to be a much bigger priorities, and I think they should be.

[Counselor_Zexx]

This is the best approach to capturing the Trek experience, at least in my opinion.

When we watch a Star Trek movie or series, we're witnessing what is the very core of the essence of Star Trek, that's collaboration. Different species, different people - all cooperating to reach a mutual goal. And while that may seem to contradict the path the Devs took, it's really not.

Part of the experience includes association with all of the bridge crew, not just one. Likewise, the ship you command should follow that form. I'm going into the game not just excited to play Captain, but ultimately playing every role of my ship, and even playing the ship itself on some level.

Ideally I'd love opportunities for mini-games involving targeting ships from tactical and serving some drinks as the 10-Forward bartender, but that's not the crux of the game or the series. That always rests firmly with the captain, be it Janeway or Kirk.

I'm hoping our "pets" won't become disposable redshirts who will be replaced with little or no hassle. I'm hoping a veteran crew who've been under your command for a long time will likewise grow with you - and I hope there are options for humanizing (for lack of a better term) them and fleshing out their lives - and maybe even inhabiting them as well as the forgotten roles on a starship.

"Lower Decks" remains a fan favorite TNG episode precisely because of that.

[phifur]

Thank you it was a nice read :)

[Moryan_Sorg]

[...]
I'm hoping our "pets" won't become disposable redshirts who will be replaced with little or no hassle. I'm hoping a veteran crew who've been under your command for a long time will likewise grow with you - and I hope there are options for humanizing (for lack of a better term) them and fleshing out their lives - and maybe even inhabiting them as well as the forgotten roles on a starship.

"Lower Decks" remains a fan favorite TNG episode precisely because of that.

I can't remember where, but I remember reading a dev post that said that the NPC crews won't die. During battle %ages of the crew will die and decrease performance, but not the actual NPC crew that you'll be able to take on away missions. The NPC crews, captain and ship will be disabled/incapacitated and not destroyed/killed. At least that seems to be the plan right now.

I like your post on a whole. There was a thread a week or two ago, "NPC crews is a lie" and it was basically pointing out that while they state that the PC is the captain, it will probably feel more like the PC is the whole ship. Cryptic seems to be trying to give each individual player a whole episode feel, and not just from the perspective of one of the crew members. I really like that approach.

[OddjobXL]

They deleted my reply. *laughs* I guess that means they read it at least.

[Counselor_Zexx]

I can't remember where, but I remember reading a dev post that said that the NPC crews won't die. During battle %ages of the crew will die and decrease performance, but not the actual NPC crew that you'll be able to take on away missions. The NPC crews, captain and ship will be disabled/incapacitated and not destroyed/killed. At least that seems to be the plan right now.

I like your post on a whole. There was a thread a week or two ago, "NPC crews is a lie" and it was basically pointing out that while they state that the PC is the captain, it will probably feel more like the PC is the whole ship. Cryptic seems to be trying to give each individual player a whole episode feel, and not just from the perspective of one of the crew members. I really like that approach.

Thanks. I'll have to check out that thread if its still up.

I think this is often an overlooked tid-bit that both hardcore trekkers ("I want to be Engineer NOT Captain"), Casual Trek Fans ("I watched a show and a movie here and there") and total newbies ("Star Trek? Is that the one with the laser swords?") can all agree on: the crux of Star Trek is the ships and their crews.

You don't see a show named "Star Trek: Janeway." It's called "Voyager." I really hope we'll come to identify as the ship itself, because that's where the mythology comes from. The ship becomes a living entity. Yes there are mythic captains, but there's also mythic engineers and doctors. And they form a cohesive whole. Ultimately its the crew of Voyager that got her home from the Delta Quadrant - and ultimately when two player's ships, for example, the USS Scotland meets the USS Ghandi en-route to a mission. You'll be able to see the renown and exploits not of just the captain, but of every crew member who helped build that reputation.

[Razorburn]

Cryptic seems to be trying to give each individual player a whole episode feel, and not just from the perspective of one of the crew members. I really like that approach.

I agree on this point, and is one reason I disagree with having player crews. Realistically most people would rather be on their own ship instead of someone else's...the latter would be rare at best. The "Star Trek experience" isn't about PC crew interaction, it's about morality and adventure.

[keeperofthepies]

It's great to see the process that they went through before coming to what is being planned now. Another point on player operated crews, you'd have to have EVERYONE online to have a combat ready ship. Not too fun when your chief engineer takes a beach vacation.

Good read, looking forward to more articles like this in the future!

[vampirefiredragon]

plaese can any one you is abilule down lound
I want to know how to downloud mmmorpgw



I will want you my crew

[vampirefiredragon]

Hi my name is vampirefiredragon. I want to how to get on star trek online game.

[Vicelance]

Hi my name is vampirefiredragon. I want to how to get on star trek online game.

It's not out yet. probably not till the end of this year at least.

[Loekii]

Ok, I totally agree with this. I think that as the captain I should be able to step in and do the job of my NPC crew if I so choose. This could be managed from an NPC window on the UI.

At release there could be just a few graphics and things that a captain could do/cpmmand. Like others have stated, they can gradually release other tasks/interiors until eventually they build up enough content that you could actually have Guest NPCs and full ship interiors. I find this approach very reasonable.

The issue is that when your 'pets' are doing it, the content requirements are completely different than if you or a friend did that same function.

For example, when your weapons Officer targets the enemy ship -- the Pet is not moving the cross hairs over the target, and then performing tasks to lock the target, etc -- it is simply performing all the functions in computer code. They would have to create the content that 'you' would perform in that same task.

[Captain_Intrepid]

It is just as well as there not be Player Crew in the meantime.

From having to invest more on Starship interiors, to not having to worry about being chained to your workstation let alone get bored of looking for little lifesigns, etc.

Some things are best to wait for. I for one can wait until later for these things to come polished and ready without having to delay the game's launch for it.

It'll be interesting to hear what Player Captains say about their time as members of someone else's ship.

'My ship's in spacedock for repairs.'
'The Borg assimilated my ship, so while I'm waiting for a new ship, I asked for a transfer.'
'I was publicly demoted so I could join this crew while another takes my ship into the Gamma Quadrant.'

[chrisdanger]

I think narrowing down ST to its essence (Discovery, Adventure, Drama) is something that the devs are getting and working on accordingly. Im also glad that "bridge/ship" sets are being held off until they're working properly, as the same with "player" crews. I dont see a big issue with them, but lets be honest, noone wants to play a "transporter chief" minigame all day where you sit at a console and play with a slider and wishing "Gee, I wish I could go down to the planet and partake in the fun too"

[onebuffyfan2]

some times, team work sucks.it goes to the saying " too many chiefs and not enough indians" . guilds would be good for player crews those who play together all day everyday at the same time but for most thats not possible. remember there are going to be storyline tours of duty that you will have to complete to advance and you may not beable to do it at the same time other players even your freinda may do them without you and continue to advance while you have to wait till you get home from work or school to play.the npc crew will compensate. as for me i hate to be told what to do by some frakken indiavidual with a blotted image of themselves as a captain f that. give me an npc crew a cool group of captains who will laugh when they get destroyed as well as laugh at you when you get destroyed and i am set :D

[MESSY]

I dont know spock what do u think ? Well jim i just hope they give us a date for release soon. What about u bones . Dammit jim im just a doctor ! Well scotty ? Captain im doing all i can but we gonna need a release date soon i dont know how much more she can take !!!!!!!!! :D

[ethanADAMS]

Sounds like the best solution for now. i agree, but why not have the captain play the whole crew on his ship. taking orders from his commanders, admirals, who in turn take thier orders from Star Fleet Command.

The captain has is orders, be what ever it may be, gather information, scan a an unknown cluster of plantes, to say explore a sector.... he warps out>>>>>>>he is on his own and reports to his immediate chain of command. in fact, he is the crew, the ship..so to speak...I can dig it !!!! Let the Captain play each of the crew....The whole enchilda*********

Really llooking forward....I can feel the dilithuim cystals in the air!!!! "Can you dig it !!!!?????"



"E N G A G E ">>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

[Interdictor]

I think Cryptic made the right decision. Player crews, if they would work at all, would require a LOT of development time, and even then would probably be as boring as hell.

[bighair83]

For the record, I am a huge supporter of the evolution of MMO teamwork, and I see great value in adding player crews.

That being said (as has been beaten to death countless times in countless threads), STO is a product in Cryptic Studios' (ultimately Atari now) portfolio, and is expected to make money. Developing this game is a money pit until the moment you and I start sinking in our subscriptions and buying software. I would much rather see a top notch game launched in the next 12 months, taking advantage of momentum from the movie, amongst other things. When the cash comes in, the company can invest in staff and resources to add the content we would all love to see.

Just my opinion, but I think in the long run, we will all reap the rewards.

[trapline]

well I for one liked this candid explanation of the reasoning behind no player crews.

The flip side is that crews, and walking around on your ship are a massive part of star trek, the ships are characters themslselves

I think that the best compromise is to really give the player a good interactive npc crew they can raise and train, and trade!

naming your engineer, giving him equipment, assigning stats, personality, race..all will make players more immersed in the ship. Kotor type dialogue from time to time?

Imagine piloting your ship, you pass by an anomaly, you have points assigned in your science officers scanning stats or something and your communicator goes off, a mini animated pic of your science officer pops up and reports the anomaly, some star trek gibber science and you are offered a response tree like

-set course lets investigate
-focus your energy on finding a planet
-not now spock not now

you get the idea, the response comes back either peevish, happy whatever based on your stat allocation, and maybe a point based personal like/dislike system based of previous responses.

Immersion would be great, your crew is a part of the operation, not just some behind the scenes numbers floating in space.

ship combat should also be affected, if you get your engine shot up what if there is a chance to lose your favorite engineer?

it would add a nice dimension MMO's don't have, and make soloing enjoyable., away teams comprised of crew you actually care about...making the risk and reward of missions and exploration more thrilling.

just my two cents.


/end wall of text.

[Trekkie]

I also really enjoyed this article and found a lot of the information in it to be quite a pleasant surprise. I think that the direction that Cryptic Studios has chosen to take with the game is a good one, because even though some features are inevitably going to be left out, it seems like those that have been included will be well-implemented. The game sounds like it will be really fun to play at launch, and I cannot wait to see what kinds of features will be added as the game is expanded upon!

[Flatfingers]

For the record, I (still) respectfully disagree with the decision.

In my judgement -- for whatever it's worth -- playing as part of a crew in one familiar ship is one of the most essential and defining elements of Star Trek. A MMORPG intended to be based on Star Trek that fails to implement this iconic element of the IP starts out with one huge strike against it.

About that, several points.

1. I don't say this because I have some burning personal desire to experience player crew gameplay and just can't take "not now" for an answer. I have no interest in playing in groups of any kind. I restate my opinion on this subject because I want the whole game to succeed wildly, because I believe that a player crew feature is an important step in that direction, and because I haven't seen anyone else express this reservation regarding Craig's remarks on the subject.

2. I think Craig did exactly the right thing in providing an explanation for the "no player crews at launch" decision as his very first MMORPG.com devblog entry. People won't be any happier about it later; might as well get it out of the way now.

3. I do take exception to part of the post:

One undisputed fact about Star Trek Online was that as much as some people may want to be that engineering officer and play a supporting role on someone else’s ship, that almost EVERYONE at some point in time was going to want to be a Captain. Players would want to take the center seat and command their own starships.

I emphatically do not agree that this is an "undisputed fact." I dispute it, for one. It does not jibe with my personal experience and observation of people generally and of online gamers specifically.

Not every person innately feels a need to always be the center of attention or source of control. Not "almost EVERYONE" feels that way. Some do, certainly. But there are many, many people in this world whose happiness and satisfaction come naturally from serving other persons... and some of these service-oriented people play MMORPGs.

Having said that, I will agree that if the unquestioned assumption quoted above is treated as "fact," then it does follow that:

... that’s what we finally decided was our core, our kernel, to build the game around. We would make sure that as we designed and developed Star Trek Online, we wouldn’t do anything to close the door on being able to add player crew members, but for the launch, our focus was going to be making the coolest possible game with YOU as the Captain.

3. I agree that the ability to operate a starship in STO as a solo commander is a must-have feature. If I were designing STO, I too would make that feature my top priority. I don't disagree with that decision -- I disagree with characterizing the player crew feature as somehow less desired by players as a way to justify the decision not to do both.

4. If hitting a firm launch date (presumably set at Q4 2009 to get Christmas sales) takes priority over everything else, then no, it probably is not possible to design and implement both fun/polished "you are the commander" plus "you can group with friends in other ships" gameplay as well as fun/polished "you can play a role with friends on one ship" plus "player ship interiors" gameplay. Both are vital, IMO, but I would agree that "you are the commander" is slightly more vital.

So if every feature decision is for some reason being held hostage to a fixed launch date, and enjoyable player crew gameplay (including player ship interiors) is perceived as requiring more time to do well that a hard schedule permits, then yes, the player crew feature loses, period.

5. I understand that everything I've said here is moot. It won't change Cryptic's plans, and it won't change the mind of anyone who's decided they see no value in letting friends play together on one ship. I say all the above because I want to be clearly on record as feeling that this game's chances of success are being unnecessarily injured by what appears to be an unreasonably short development window.

I don't know who's imposing STO's launch date. Maybe it's Cryptic executives. Maybe it's investors. Maybe it's CBS. Maybe it's all the above. Whoever it is, I think they're making a serious mistake by refusing to allow STO's developers the time they need to implement the interiors/player-crew feature.

...

I'll conclude my comments on this subject (probably for the last time) by adding that I believe in standing by what I say. If I decide I was wrong, I'll change my mind. And that's not a defense for anyone who deliberately misrepresents the intent of my statements. But either way, when I say something I don't pretend I never said it.

So if Star Trek Online launches and does fantastically well without player ship interiors and player crews, I will admit -- as publicly as I've said all the above -- that I was mostly wrong. (I say "mostly" because I'll always think STO could have done better with those features. ;))

If it launches and doesn't do well, and the lack of player ship interiors and player crews seems to be an important reason why, I think I'll be entitled to an "I told you so." But I won't take any pleasure in it.

Bottom line, I want this game to succeed just like I assume everyone else here does. If my vision for how to get there is a little different from that of others, I hope you won't hold it against me, but will accept my word that I'm trying to offer the best advice I can according to my limited understanding and imagination.

Thanks for letting me express my opinion on this subject. I encourage anyone, whether you agree with the above comments or disagree strongly with them, to do likewise.

--Flatfingers

[Calibre]

I'm back and forth on this. That is, looking at 'player crews' as the FOCUS of the game. I see all the arguments. I agree with both sides. And for the stated reasons. Yeah, I want player crews because that's true Star Trek: cooperation, teamwork, allowing each member of a team to contribute, to form the gestalt, to experience the mind fugue when someone on your team finds the answer just before total annihilation. That's Star Trek. Every episode demonstrates this in enthralling ways.

But crafting a game on that level would be impractical.

What if you provide options for player 'crews' rather than focus? Similar to 'monster play' on LOTRO: you may log in and play a random (and as you level, you get to choose more specific) crewmembers on a Captain's ship? Get it? You still focus on being the captain of your ship, but 'crew play' allows you to log into a kind of 'pergenerated' character on a ship and you can play that role. You'd have less choices/customization perhaps and less leeway with your actions, but you'd get to the chance to join your favorite captain on his/her ship---never taking away from your own primary focus as a captain of your own ship. Of course, Captains could flag their ships as 'crew play' allowed or not.

As for starbases and the like: makes no sense not to allow us to generate characters thereon and to have that level of gameplay. I can forsee many players not wanting to be captains or crew, but desiring secondary roles (like Quark, as you mentioned).

Go the extra mile and include a deeper level to your game if you can spare the time and resources for it. If not by launch, certainly down the road.

Regardless, I think you have a winning game here.

Cal

[jbarker82]

Nice read :)

It gives a good insight into the decision making processes going on over at Cryptic and really solidifies my belief that Cryptic are the best people for this job. It's nice to know that a game I have such high hopes for is being treated with the respect it deserves and I agree with the 'quality over quantity' decision.

They never said they definately wouldn't have player crews, just that it might take a lot more time to add in at launch which means we could wait another few years before it was ever released.

At least they are focusing in the core aspects of the game to make it fun and engaging (no pun intended :o) for as many people as possible and i'd rather that than using their resources too thinly across the board to rush to get in a feature at launch that many people seem unsure is going to be worth having or not.

[Doug3575]

I'm glad they left the door open for having more than one player on a ship. But it is important to start somewhere so they can move forward with dev, and we can finally play.

[Duckdee]

I now want to see space Rabbids.

*waves sonic plunger* DAAARGH!!1!

[chrisdanger]

Player crews: Not a bad idea, but not one that can be implemented properly until a later update/patch. Besides, id rather have control over my own missions than get involved with a massive crew whos doesnt keep the same schedule that I do. Virtual Crews will work fine on this behalf.

Bridges: It will happen, just not at the start. Id rather see the design work properly and look decent than a thrown together "generic bridge #14" set that has clipping issues.

[Sarevok]

Well, he makes a good case. IMO, he should have posted it a little earlier, though... It might have lessened the uproar a little bit when they announced it.

[Loekii]

For the record, I (still) respectfully disagree with the decision.

In my judgement -- for whatever it's worth -- playing as part of a crew in one familiar ship is one of the most essential and defining elements of Star Trek. A MMORPG intended to be based on Star Trek that fails to implement this iconic element of the IP starts out with one huge strike against it.

About that, several points.

1. I don't say this because I have some burning personal desire to experience player crew gameplay and just can't take "not now" for an answer. I have no interest in playing in groups of any kind. I restate my opinion on this subject because I want the whole game to succeed wildly, because I believe that a player crew feature is an important step in that direction, and because I haven't seen anyone else express this reservation regarding Craig's remarks on the subject.

2. I think Craig did exactly the right thing in providing an explanation for the "no player crews at launch" decision as his very first MMORPG.com devblog entry. People won't be any happier about it later; might as well get it out of the way now.

3. I do take exception to part of the post:



I emphatically do not agree that this is an "undisputed fact." I dispute it, for one. It does not jibe with my personal experience and observation of people generally and of online gamers specifically.

Not every person innately feels a need to always be the center of attention or source of control. Not "almost EVERYONE" feels that way. Some do, certainly. But there are many, many people in this world whose happiness and satisfaction come naturally from serving other persons... and some of these service-oriented people play MMORPGs.

<snip>

--Flatfingers

While I respect your opinion, I think you are not seeing that it is just one of many opinions.

To paraphrase Craig Z, Star Trek is many things to many people -- so I would say it is incorrect to say that 'Player Crews' is a *Must* for Star Trek. It is a must for you and those that share your opinion, but that is not everyone.

*My Star Trek* does not contain player crews. Such a game mechanic is completely unappealing to me. Infact, I would rather be an engineer on an AI controlled ship, than one controlled by other players. While I do not mind 'Pugging', I am familiar with all its faults, and would never want to play a game that would be so dependant on Proper group play. I know others share that exact feeling.

An MMO cannot satisfy everyone. We all have to 'give' something, and hope we 'get' something. There are aspects of 'star Trek' that I think are important, but will not be in the game. There are things that will be in the game that I dislike. And there will be things in the game I want and like. Its the deal with MMOs -- its not being designed for me alone, but for many people.

Craigs comments in this Blog reflect that point -- where they have decided to focus on things Loekii likes, instead of going with what you FlatFingers want.

[LtPowers]

Imagine piloting your ship, you pass by an anomaly, you have points assigned in your science officers scanning stats or something and your communicator goes off, a mini animated pic of your science officer pops up and reports the anomaly, some star trek gibber science and you are offered a response tree like

That sounds great for a single player game. But why shouldn't that science officer who pops up be another player? More to the point, why not at least make that option available?

Is it because the science officer wouldn't have anything to do until called upon?

Well, I categorically reject the assumption that "minigames" would have to be implemented for every crew position, and thus take inordinate amounts of development time.

In the current design of the game, the Captain will have to perform certain tasks. By simply dividing those tasks among multiple players, without any other additions to the game, those of us who want to, at least sometimes, play a single supporting character instead of an entire ship's complement would be satisfied, with very little development cost.

That's all I want. Just the ability to have my character sit on someone else's bridge and collaborate together to solve a problem and complete a mission. I don't need a minigame to keep me busy; that's what roleplaying is for. Would it be nice? Maybe. But it's not essential to allowing this type of gameplay from launch.


While I do not mind 'Pugging', I am familiar with all its faults, and would never want to play a game that would be so dependant on Proper group play.

I do not see where anyone has suggested that PC crews means everyone must use PC crews. At least not in the last several months. All we want is the option, while still (very properly) allowing players to Captain a ship alone if they like.

The only argument against allowing this option is development time, but we're not asking for a huge investment, as I point out above. Just the ability to sit on the bridge and be a valuable member of the crew instead of taking on all the roles ourselves. All that takes is some imaginative roleplaying and a little support from the Devs, not a whole expansion-sized subsystem.

And that's what Craig doesn't get.


Powers &8^]

[LunaticFringer]

While it wasn't the answer most of the hard core Pro-Player Crew people were hoping for, I think this article should at the very least be pretty uplifting for all gamers on the subject. Why? Because this shows that at least some of the developers wanted it too. It at least makes me think that we're more likely to get the Player Crews after launch as well instead of something they say they may add and never do.

I still think, as much as with Star Trek as any other setting, you've got to kind of compare what makes an mmo work as opposed to bad additions in other mmos as well though. My point of view being a gamer rather than a designer obviously; but it just makes sense to me. Use what worked in terms of mechanics and stay true to your setting at the same time.

I still have reservations on what is, or isn't, a mistake to do for launch but at least I can be very critical of one thing; Space. It's there. I've said it, as have others, that making a Sci-fi game with "Star" in the title but no space game at launch is kind of a killer for said game. In this case we can't say they did that wrong even if expectations were mixed on certain aspects of it. In other words... crewed ships.

[SenshiBat]

The "Pets" v PC Crew -Issue has been explained to focus the ease of getting a game running while not waiting for an
Engineer to log on. a Valid point all the same.

Ideally sharing a Ride as you could in a B-17 for an Air Warriors Sim would be great.
They will still have common meeting interaction space at a Faction Space Stations like DS9 Quarks Bar.

Even be the Bartender I believe the DEV EXEC Pro.. Mr. Zinc said.. But the focus is getting people involved as Captains .As Captains of Said Ships we can interact with each other in inventive ways

If the MMO aspect is full on you could Team up on the Planets surface That's what they can do for us at launch

I see a Task Force of Ships working together that make joining Fleets [ie Guilds] Important but not a key to survival..

Unless a Mission means Capturing a Borg Cube with Landing/Away Parties of many Ships?

The Nature of Independent action remains so you aren't tied to a group obligated to go to a place you don't like as much as others.. in general terms. But still be available for trouble via the fast transit feature they speak of should you change your mind or they need help recovering a item?

To the 'Guest" on another ship issue why not? include the option as a Diplomatic Escort Mission>
A short term arrangment driven by Gozers or Kestrels Script for a Episode
to Deliver an Assistant to AMB Spock on Romulas?
But I believe thats for another day or Thread..

Mr CZ has given us excitment and drama to look forward to and as his interview -when the Cryptic office crowd wanted an amazing list of things. But, someone has to slow things down and make what is deliverd work and be playable fun and not thinned down.

I like that approach it is thoughtfull methodical and do-able. I personaly won't take a tricoarder out an knock them if the first Orion I see has a eyebrow 1cm off here or there. If I can survive getting to and from Orion
Thats a good start.

Thank you for your time..

-SB-

[onebuffyfan2]

Player crews: Not a bad idea, but not one that can be implemented properly until a later update/patch. Besides, id rather have control over my own missions than get involved with a massive crew whos doesnt keep the same schedule that I do. Virtual Crews will work fine on this behalf.

Bridges: It will happen, just not at the start. Id rather see the design work properly and look decent than a thrown together "generic bridge #14" set that has clipping issues.

yaaaa boy thats what i am talking about orion slave girls romulan ale phasers all the things that make life worth living for i agree 100%:D i dont like to hear waaa you didnt fire fast enough waaa you didnt turn the ship right like i said then they kick you off and you have to find a ship to serve on.

[ethanADAMS]

This is all very well written and a very good read. Personally I believe this is a very important thread. For a long time now I have been checking this site and checking how far it has come in Starting. STO has come a long way and all those involved should be congratulated! This is my own personal opinion, but in imagining how I see the game play was as many here have expressed.<player crews and all>. But…

The captain calls his Engineer, the screen changes to the Engineering Room. You see the Engineer, he says,”Aye Captain.” The Captain replies, “ I need more power and more warp speed, now!” He replies, “Aye, Aye Captain!” You move your mouse to the control that reads; <POWER LEVEL>The Engineer moves to the control and pushes a button….
The screen flashes to bridge. The captain orders the helmsman to, ’Engage!”
…I really don’t want to drag this out….But the engineer might not be called again for a while…Whats the engineer to do…Walk around the engine room. I’m trying to understand really. The XO, helmsman, the rest of the crew really what are they going to do? If they are not following orders from the Captain, do they walk around the ship chatting? Getting something to eat? Going to the Holodeck…that’s cool.

Ok, someone wants to beam aboard. “ Hi! What brings you here?” “Oh I just thought I’d beam over for a chat.” ‘Hey did you see the new lunchroom? Come with me I’ll show you.”

Going on a way-team, going down to a planet, starbase or going out in the star craft to manually gather space dust are things, I personally, in my opinion, would like. Player interaction with others.

Im an admiral, I can suggest to the captain on how he may approach a situation or how he may proceed, but really I cant tell him how to run his ship. I may give him orders of a mission or destination, but he runs the ship. I can respect the opinion of others and I don’t want to give the impression of any crew rank as less than or more than any other.

We are all members of Star Fleet and I believe it’s going to be a fantastic fun filled journey

eA

[Loekii]

I do not see where anyone has suggested that PC crews means everyone must use PC crews. At least not in the last several months. All we want is the option, while still (very properly) allowing players to Captain a ship alone if they like.

The only argument against allowing this option is development time, but we're not asking for a huge investment, as I point out above. Just the ability to sit on the bridge and be a valuable member of the crew instead of taking on all the roles ourselves. All that takes is some imaginative roleplaying and a little support from the Devs, not a whole expansion-sized subsystem.

And that's what Craig doesn't get.


Powers &8^]

I think you vastly underestimate the amount of work it will entail to provide that option, let alone simple personal interiors. It basically is creating another game, rather than simply providing a 'different skin'.

[Sarile]

Very interesting interview-gives a nice prospective of the challenges faced by the developers in creating Star Trek Online.

Keep up the good work developers! We can't wait to see the end result of your efforts to create a great online game and play it!

Live Long and Prosper

[OddjobXL]

And now they've undeleted my comments (among others). Cryptic's stand up. Though I really didn't mind. I tend to be longwinded and don't take it personally.

The blog is well worth reading and, especially if you support STO, go comment there too. As a MMORPG blogger I've got friends who'll comment in other forums about my blogs but won't go there and post. Too shy or not wanting to register. But it's a good shot in the arm to see responses there, and I won't lie, especially positive ones.

[StraboV2]

Well...I tend to avoid getting into the yea and nay topics of pre-beta games....but...

I do agree with folks about not having player crews. For a few reasons. First...SWG had player crews for POB ships. A crew of 4 was most effective, however the poor co-pilot would quickly get bored. But even then, for 4 people alone co-ordinating online times, unexpected afk's, disconnects and all that other RL stuff made it really not worth the time. (Though lot's of us tried our best I tell ya :D)

Another reason for player crews goes back to the traditional problems all MMO's face....and that is group roles. Anyone who has played an MMO invariably has been in a group at some point and heard the dreaded words "LF Tank" or "LF Healer". Player crews...especially to the scale of Star Trek would be much the same on a larger scale..."LF First Officer" "LF Engineer" "LF Doctor" "LF Tactical" and so on....

Then of course after 3 hours of waiting and getting a full group someone else will have to leave, and it starts all over again.

They have said players can group up on away missions and what not and I think what Cryptic is doing is a pretty good compromise. I do hope as someone pointed out NPC crews won't be redshirts that cost a dime a dozen. It would be nice to have NPC's that grow with you and that you can get attatched to and actually care about losing. But we'll see what happens :)

[Fencer8]

It was a good read. Thank you for it. People keep talking about Red shirts in the game. But what will be the roll of Red Shirts in the game?

[OddjobXL]

Well...I tend to avoid getting into the yea and nay topics of pre-beta games....but...

I do agree with folks about not having player crews. For a few reasons. First...SWG had player crews for POB ships. A crew of 4 was most effective, however the poor co-pilot would quickly get bored. But even then, for 4 people alone co-ordinating online times, unexpected afk's, disconnects and all that other RL stuff made it really not worth the time. (Though lot's of us tried our best I tell ya :D)

Actually, we still use them. There's quite a fleet over on Starsider both in the PvE roleplaying and PvP communities. The main reason PoBs are a problem (folks disconnect in dungeons and in other bad situations all the time and yet we still see dungeons in games) is that SWG's space had nothing to do. Hence no motivation to go into space aside from roleplaying and organized, often by roleplayers, PvP events (and SWG PoBs sucked at PvP).

We'd have to invent context and missions for ourselves and that isn't as easy to sustain as having existing content out there. My experience in HSPACE (MUSH space code package) where there were active objects in space and actual reasons to be out there, whether for commerce or military maneuvers, was that ships were incredibly potent sources of group cohesion, teamwork and just plain fun for people into that kind of thing. I'm guessing this would describe the majority of Trek fans which is why we see this subject just won't go away and even the developers state the door's not closed on it.

Another reason for player crews goes back to the traditional problems all MMO's face....and that is group roles. Anyone who has played an MMO invariably has been in a group at some point and heard the dreaded words "LF Tank" or "LF Healer". Player crews...especially to the scale of Star Trek would be much the same on a larger scale..."LF First Officer" "LF Engineer" "LF Doctor" "LF Tactical" and so on....

Then of course after 3 hours of waiting and getting a full group someone else will have to leave, and it starts all over again.

They have said players can group up on away missions and what not and I think what Cryptic is doing is a pretty good compromise. I do hope as someone pointed out NPC crews won't be redshirts that cost a dime a dozen. It would be nice to have NPC's that grow with you and that you can get attatched to and actually care about losing. But we'll see what happens :)

I'm actually pretty excited about NPC crews too. I'm a pet-class guy at heart. Having these NPCs take on real identities in my gaming, or at least my imagination, will help keep me very engaged. That said, my experience with PoBs is a bit different. My ship tended to be popular because we had some good roleplayers in our crew, as did the other more successful ones out there, so it was just plain fun to be around the gang. At one point I even formed a PA just for crew. We definitely recruited far more players than we had positions on the ship but that redundancy helped out with when we would take her up. "Extras" could hang out on the ship and RP or fly escort in snubs or backup PoBs.

It worked really well until I got tired of inventing reasons for us to go out all the time. Star Trek Online promises to have lots of content for players in space (or even just en route to a planet) so that huge hurdle will be out of the way.

[onebuffyfan2]

i don't know if anyone remembers or even played a game called age of pirates carbbean tales. it basicly used the same concept. it wasnt a mmorpg but it did have an online game of sorts and you had to go to the tavrens on diferant colonies and purchase officers and crew for the ship.i thought it was a fun concept .you had to hire officers like navigator, helm,boatswin,doctor,shipwright ect. and you could even hire bodyguards to go with you on ship boarding or in hostile towns.you also had to pay your officers and once in awile they would call you into the cabin and demand a raise or they were going to leave.so i think it is going to be an interesting prospect. will you beable to trade officers,will they have a moral cause and disagree with a choice or order you gave and ask for a transfer or report you to starfleet command who knows but there is alot of open teritory with it.:D i like the fact that they are going to level up with you and you will care about the npc crew as they grow.

[StraboV2]

Actually, we still use them. There's quite a fleet over on Starsider both in the PvE roleplaying and PvP communities. The main reason PoBs are a problem (folks disconnect in dungeons and in other bad situations all the time and yet we still see dungeons in games) is that SWG's space had nothing to do. Hence no motivation to go into space aside from roleplaying and organized, often by roleplayers, PvP events (and SWG PoBs sucked at PvP).

We'd have to invent context and missions for ourselves and that isn't as easy to sustain as having existing content out there. My experience in HSPACE (MUSH space code package) where there were active objects in space and actual reasons to be out there, whether for commerce or military maneuvers, was that ships were incredibly potent sources of group cohesion, teamwork and just plain fun for people into that kind of thing. I'm guessing this would describe the majority of Trek fans which is why we see this subject just won't go away and even the developers state the door's not closed on it.



Oh yes I know, I had my own smuggling crew for a long time as well :) I just meant in comparison to the number of people who tried to make it work (and still do during the weekly pvp nights) vs number of people online vs content...meant, as you pointed out, there was very little to do. Trying to make content for all positions in player crews is just not something really reasonable for cryptic to tackle. Player ship interiors and passengers sure, but player crews would not be worth it....as cool as it would be for us RP folk...we do have to consider gameplay for all.

Like you I'm really looking forward to the NPC's as well. PoTBS dissapointed me in the fact that crews were random generated, you didn't care if they dies in boarding, no first mate or things like that....I am hoping STO will have NPC's, like I said, that grow with you and are personalized named NPC's who can become integral to your success at missions and tasks...and that you really don't want them to be incapacitated or wounded in any way. It would be much more fun I think and alot more engaging than random spawns for crew.

[OddjobXL]

Oh yes I know, I had my own smuggling crew for a long time as well :) I just meant in comparison to the number of people who tried to make it work (and still do during the weekly pvp nights) vs number of people online vs content...meant, as you pointed out, there was very little to do. Trying to make content for all positions in player crews is just not something really reasonable for cryptic to tackle. Player ship interiors and passengers sure, but player crews would not be worth it....as cool as it would be for us RP folk...we do have to consider gameplay for all.

Again, I'll beg to differ. We had a pretty good time just diving into swarms out in Kessel and seeing how long we could stay alive. Granted, I had a different story behind what was going on usually, but the gameplay could be a rut in terms of lack of ship external content. Our copilot was often busy cycling shields or dumping power from cap to shields or tossing out a special when things got hot. It got a little less, well, exciting when the new PoB elite ship parts came out. Sure, we were somewhat more durable for PvP but PvE became too much of a cakewalk. (I really, really, hate everything about PvP in SWG, it just screwed everything up on ground and in space, and I say that as a bloodyminded Eve Online player).

Like you I'm really looking forward to the NPC's as well. PoTBS dissapointed me in the fact that crews were random generated, you didn't care if they dies in boarding, no first mate or things like that....I am hoping STO will have NPC's, like I said, that grow with you and are personalized named NPC's who can become integral to your success at missions and tasks...and that you really don't want them to be incapacitated or wounded in any way. It would be much more fun I think and alot more engaging than random spawns for crew.

I think that's the idea, from what I can tell. Since they know crews are important for the Star Trek experience and they know they're going, at least initially, with single player ships the NPC crewmen are likely going to be as big a deal as they can make them. They want us to get attached, to see the NPCs as being nearly as important, if not as important, to developing our abilities and career as our own character is. And me likee if that's how it goes. Custom appearance, names, skill sets, progression over time. I seem to recall someone suggesting they'd seen a story that we could recruit new crew from missions too sometimes! Talk about an evolving experience. But we're off topic....a little bit.

[StraboV2]

Again, I'll beg to differ. We had a pretty good time just diving into swarms out in Kessel and seeing how long we could stay alive. Granted, I had a different story behind what was going on usually, but the gameplay could be a rut in terms of lack of ship external content. Our copilot was often busy cycling shields or dumping power from cap to shields or tossing out a special when things got hot. It got a little less, well, exciting when the new PoB elite ship parts came out. Sure, we were somewhat more durable for PvP but PvE became too much of a cakewalk. (I really, really, hate everything about PvP in SWG, it just screwed everything up on ground and in space, and I say that as a bloodyminded Eve Online player).

I think that's the idea, from what I can tell. Since they know crews are important for the Star Trek experience and they know they're going, at least initially, with single player ships the NPC crewmen are likely going to be as big a deal as they can make them. They want us to get attached, to see the NPCs as being nearly as important, if not as important, to developing our abilities and career as our own character is. And me likee if that's how it goes. Custom appearance, names, skill sets, progression over time. I seem to recall someone suggesting they'd seen a story that we could recruit new crew from missions too sometimes! Talk about an evolving experience. But we're off topic....a little bit.

Well, thats what I mean by lack of things to do. As long as there are mobs of NPC's spawning yes you can run out and kill them repeatedly and make an event of it. But thats not engaging content. Thats people with imagination making do with what they have :P But SWG space allowed you to survive without pob's and player crews as you know. If you logged on and guildmates or friends were unavailable you could just jump in your fighter and go to it, but if there were no ships except POB's which required player crews then alot of the smaller less connected folk would have had ALOT more to complain about....especially when it came to running missions to progress. I ran ship crews too and had alot of fun doing it, but I wouldn't want to face the task of finding folks every time I went into space IC or OOC....especially if online time is scarce. Which is the issue alot have with the notion of player crews here. I always thought it might be neat to have NPC's by default but you could 're-assign' stations to players if you wanted. While positions not player filled would still be NPC controlled. But then there are still all the inherent problems with balancing and making it fun ect ect. But, something worth considering as mid ground maybe?

As for the crews, yes it was stated in the podcast and in an interview I think, that if you discover a new species and initiate first contact and get them to join your side then their race becomes selectable as crew. Thats a really cool notion I thought :D Custom crews I am looking forward to almost as much as main character customization :D

[OddjobXL]

What we know is going to happen will be single player controllable ships so it won't be a problem doing stuff if you're a loner or just happen to be online when your friends aren't around. Even my PoB crew spent most of their time doing other stuff. The ship was just a once or twice a week thing.

No different from getting together with a group to hit a dungeon in a way. Discons could be a problem, getting the right people in the group could be a problem, but the solution is the same in both cases. If someone discons in a PoB just hang on until they can relog. If they totally crap out and end up on a planet somewhere (say outside an instance in the case of a dungeon), go get them and start over. As for numbers of crew to make a ship work, well, that's what guilds are for! Just like dungeon running.

I agree with you the main problem is the lack of stuff to do in SWG's space though and the priority Cryptic has picked is the right one. What I'd like is more reassurance this is something they're planning for at least the possibility of. I don't know if you go back and make the gameplay multi-player ship friendly once it's cast in stone. There need to be hooks in the code for later development, I suspect.

[tallguy86]

I can't believe some of the things I saw people say they wanted to do with this game. Are there really people who are so mindlessly dull that they want to sit in front of their computers as a Trasporter or Comms officer and just wait for the cool kids to tell them what to do? Do these people lack any form of human ambition? I couldn't imagine the horribly dull life of someone that all they get to do is cut hair or stair at one information panel all day in a game. Those two experiences are completely at the mercy of PC's wanting to come in and interact with you. Why? I just lack any understanding for why someone would want those jobs. Sure on occasion those characters are cool but that is because they TAKE COMMAND of a situation and do it well. Do people really want to sit around at the mercy of a Captain and just do what he tells them to. I just can't understand that feeling.

Thank you STO team for doing the job as it should be done. Everyone should be a captain of a ship. There is no better way to give a person a feeling that they are in control of their own destinies. I look very much forward to this game and can't wait to hop in a science vessel, fly it out to an unexplored part of space and maybe meet somebody no one has ever met before. And if someone has beat me to it I'll just fly past that star and on to the next. I look forward to this game and keep up the good work.

[TreffnonX]

I can't believe some of the things I saw people say they wanted to do with this game. Are there really people who are so mindlessly dull that they want to sit in front of their computers as a Trasporter or Comms officer and just wait for the cool kids to tell them what to do? Do these people lack any form of human ambition? I couldn't imagine the horribly dull life of someone that all they get to do is cut hair or stair at one information panel all day in a game. Those two experiences are completely at the mercy of PC's wanting to come in and interact with you. Why? I just lack any understanding for why someone would want those jobs. Sure on occasion those characters are cool but that is because they TAKE COMMAND of a situation and do it well. Do people really want to sit around at the mercy of a Captain and just do what he tells them to. I just can't understand that feeling.

Thank you STO team for doing the job as it should be done. Everyone should be a captain of a ship. There is no better way to give a person a feeling that they are in control of their own destinies. I look very much forward to this game and can't wait to hop in a science vessel, fly it out to an unexplored part of space and maybe meet somebody no one has ever met before. And if someone has beat me to it I'll just fly past that star and on to the next. I look forward to this game and keep up the good work.

I think that there are people out there who would appreciate a game in which everybody had his own part and role. I woul very much like to be an engineer, but i'd hate to be a hairstylist.
Maybe there is somebody who likes to be a hairstylist and meet with the people who tell him about the action i dont know, but i concurr that not every job should be offered.

But if i look at RPG-forums where hundreds of people are something very different than a captain and still have fun, i cant imagine that there wouldnt be people doing something else. Also it can be cool to just watch and be conn. Furthermore you'd be in command when the higher officers are offline, so in fact there are those times when you are on top.
However i think cryptic made the right choice. The game will be great i am sure

[onebuffyfan2]

I can't believe some of the things I saw people say they wanted to do with this game. Are there really people who are so mindlessly dull that they want to sit in front of their computers as a Trasporter or Comms officer and just wait for the cool kids to tell them what to do? Do these people lack any form of human ambition? I couldn't imagine the horribly dull life of someone that all they get to do is cut hair or stair at one information panel all day in a game. Those two experiences are completely at the mercy of PC's wanting to come in and interact with you. Why? I just lack any understanding for why someone would want those jobs. Sure on occasion those characters are cool but that is because they TAKE COMMAND of a situation and do it well. Do people really want to sit around at the mercy of a Captain and just do what he tells them to. I just can't understand that feeling.

Thank you STO team for doing the job as it should be done. Everyone should be a captain of a ship. There is no better way to give a person a feeling that they are in control of their own destinies. I look very much forward to this game and can't wait to hop in a science vessel, fly it out to an unexplored part of space and maybe meet somebody no one has ever met before. And if someone has beat me to it I'll just fly past that star and on to the next. I look forward to this game and keep up the good work.

i couldnt agree more the ones who are *****ing about the player crews are megalamaniacs with some kind of short comming that in some way they have to beable to boss around someone.and why would anyone want to be at the mercy of some frak stick who thinks he or she is better then everyone online.:D

[Jenshae]

I just found where this thread disappeared to, days later, because of the contest debarcle.

http://forums.startrekonline.com/showpost.php?p=417247&postcount=6

I want to say it and I know there has been a thread already closed for this link and I might get banned or this could be completely futile:

http://www.mmorpg.com/blogs/Awenyddion/032009/3505_Focusing-the-Experience-Craig-Zinkievich

I feel that they chickened out. Making up waffle to come up with a reason to not do it. Yes, everyone can and probably does want to be a captain but here is the key question I have:

Why can't we guest on someone else's ship? Controlling a "pet" crew member from our ship for a mission or something? Have both one person controlling a ship and multiple as an option; why can't that be made? Why did that not occur to them in all those three hour sessions?

For the boring parts:

You wouldn't be sitting in a room. You would be tending your own ship. It is something that those who can "multi-task" would enjoy most. A case of switching between cameras, from your captain to your engineer.


I think it should probably have been editted and stuck into the locked NPC / PC thread.

[LtPowers]

I can't believe some of the things I saw people say they wanted to do with this game. Are there really people who are so mindlessly dull that they want to sit in front of their computers as a Trasporter or Comms officer and just wait for the cool kids to tell them what to do?

Why do opponents of player crews always trot out "transporter chief" or "comm officer" as examples? What we proponents want is the ability to be a senior officer -- Chief Engineer, CMO, Ops, etc. -- in a position to give advice to the Captain while attending to the administration of a shipboard department (Engineering, Medical, Operations, etc.). All this can be done with nothing more than roleplay, so long as multiple players are allowed on the Bridge with access to the relevant shipboard statuses.

Yet still the "Who wants to stand in a transporter room all day with nothing to do 99% of the time?" straw man remains popular. The mind boggles.


Powers &8^]

[OddjobXL]

The one that sticks out for me is "hairdresser" which has cropped up three times now in Cryptic interviews. "Where do we draw the line on player crew?"

Maybe where you drew the line on NPC crew? :D

I hope they're being sincere when they say they haven't ruled out multiplayer ships eventually. Just sometimes I wonder. Anyhow, over it. Moving on. Happy about other stuffs. Going to my happy place.

[Hagon]

Why do opponents of player crews always trot out "transporter chief" or "comm officer" as examples? What we proponents want is the ability to be a senior officer -- Chief Engineer, CMO, Ops, etc. -- in a position to give advice to the Captain while attending to the administration of a shipboard department (Engineering, Medical, Operations, etc.). All this can be done with nothing more than roleplay, so long as multiple players are allowed on the Bridge with access to the relevant shipboard statuses.

Yet still the "Who wants to stand in a transporter room all day with nothing to do 99% of the time?" straw man remains popular. The mind boggles.


Powers &8^]Yes because being the ship's Engineer playing some sort of mini game to keep the red pointy thing within the desired parameters on the meter would be so stimula............. Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

[pboduch321]

You're forgetting the possibility of chatting among friends. Lots of friends would like to be on same ship in different roles and then there could be bonuses to having actual players perform NPC pet functions and some tasks like rotating shields in battle and re-routing power to different systems couild be done by Chief Engineer and there would be battlefield functions done by tactical officers (the firing probably split between captain so he has something to do; maybe tactical aft and side photon/phaser launchers and captain firing forward weapons. Science officer would also have lots to do in battle, for example detecting signatures of special weapon buildup (yes, I brough those in again :D).

And there's always the holodeck to train in battle exercises to improve your phaser proficiency, etc.

In between battles, what does the captain do? Just point a ship to go somwhere. And then there's nothing but chat.

I know where Cryptic is coming from catering to the kiddies with the whole "I wanna be Captain now", but starting low and building up would make the Captainship a hell of a lot more meaningful. Plus some people might not choose to become Captains at all if their specific skill set just grew higher and higher while acting in a different capacity on the bridge and they would be highly sought after.

For example, the best time I've ever had in WoW was when I was leveling my druid to 15. All the weapons and gear were so crappy. The world seemed so big and terrifying and the glorious gear of the higher levels so unnatainable and grand. That is the feeling we want to engender. Once you reach 80 in WoW and realize there's just the raiding grind, honestly the game is not fun anymore and tons of people quit. This is why it has been confirmed that Blizzard's market share of MMOs is holding up and expanding because of tons of new players.

And friends would like to stick together on the bridge of the same ship and train different skills. Plus, you're forgetting if we do get women in the game (not to be sexist or anything) a lot of them may not be drawn to combat at all, and if we know anything about good and successful guilds or fleets (especially those that use vent), it's the women that make up the foundation.

[Hagon]

I know where Cryptic is coming from catering to the kiddies with the whole "I wanna be Captain now", but starting low and building up would make the Captainship a hell of a lot more meaningful.

Strange that there's virtually thousands here on this board that aren't "kiddies" that didn't want player crews though. I'm rather closely associated with @ 80 to 90 people all age 20+ to 50+ with not a one that I'm aware of that supports player crews.

Nice try mate, but that lame bird just ain't going to fly no matter how many times it gets thrown up in the air.

[Varrangian]

Why do opponents of player crews always trot out "transporter chief" or "comm officer" as examples? What we proponents want is the ability to be a senior officer -- Chief Engineer, CMO, Ops, etc. -- in a position to give advice to the Captain while attending to the administration of a shipboard department (Engineering, Medical, Operations, etc.). All this can be done with nothing more than roleplay, so long as multiple players are allowed on the Bridge with access to the relevant shipboard statuses.

Yet still the "Who wants to stand in a transporter room all day with nothing to do 99% of the time?" straw man remains popular. The mind boggles.


Powers &8^]

Let us break this down shall we....

Why do opponents of player crews always trot out "transporter chief" or "comm officer" as examples? What we proponents want is the ability to be a senior officer -- Chief Engineer, CMO, Ops, etc. -- in a position to give advice to the Captain while attending to the administration of a shipboard department (Engineering, Medical, Operations, etc.).

And what do you do when the captain does not need the advice of the Engineer, Medical or Ops officers? What is their content when the game does not call for their roles? Do the sit in Ten Forward and drink?

While the use of terms like "Transporter chief" ect... might seem hyperbolic to you. It is accurate that not everyone on a player crew can be someone who will be involved in the "action" at all times. In fact outside of the Captain of said player crew all characters will have to "wait their turn".

"But design content that involves everyone you might" say. That is far easier said then done. Even the writers of Trek could not include every major character in every episode, and they didn't have to program methods for those characters to interact with the sets or scripts.

All this can be done with nothing more than roleplay, so long as multiple players are allowed on the Bridge with access to the relevant shipboard statuses.

All that is need is access to the bridge and to the relevant statuses? Really because that's all the Chief Engineer or Medical officer do is have access to the relevant statuses?

If it is roleplaying alone why do they even need "access"? The roleplayers creed (I should know I am one) is that my character knows things I do not.

Yet still the "Who wants to stand in a transporter room all day with nothing to do 99% of the time?" straw man remains popular. The mind boggles.

And - "Cryptic can add PC crews it is easy." remains the retort. Yet none of these people have come up with a way to solve the simple problem of content. How do you make content that is engaging for more than just a Captain in a PC crew? You can't.

If you argue that you don't need content then you really are not looking for an MMORPG, you are looking for a Graphics heavy sim.

If you argue that content is important, but fail to solve the above problem then you've added nothing to the conversation.

I argued for the "Officer of the Deck" solution to this, yet even at that we (Me and a few other old timers around her) failed to create perpetual and engaging content for even a bridge crew on a ship.

[Varrangian]

I know where Cryptic is coming from catering to the kiddies with the whole "I wanna be Captain now", but starting low and building up would make the Captainship a hell of a lot more meaningful. Plus some people might not choose to become Captains at all if their specific skill set just grew higher and higher while acting in a different capacity on the bridge and they would be highly sought after.

And this is where you lose all respect by essentially name calling because Cryptic didn't give you what you want. Instead you are the one that comes off as the "kiddie".

[pboduch321]

Strange that there's virtually thousands

thousands *cough*

[Flatfingers]

Yet still the "Who wants to stand in a transporter room all day with nothing to do 99% of the time?" straw man remains popular.

You're not alone in lamenting that, Powers.

It's unfortunate. That kind of dismissive comment makes it hard to discuss the pros and cons of this important gameplay feature in a friendly and constructive way.

The best that can be done, I think, is to simply ignore those who aren't willing to exchange viewpoints in a respectful way (even in disagreement), and to reserve one's time and intellectual effort for responding to folks like Varrangian who are at least willing to deal in objective commentary.

Regarding which, there is that other popular line of defense, the argument that "if you cannot present a complete design document describing how to implement this feature in a way that every player would find enjoyable, you are not permitted to claim that such a feature is even possible."

The problem with that argument is that, while it might be true, if we enforced it evenhandedly on everyone here there'd be about three threads on the whole forum, and none of them would be longer than a couple of posts. Written by developers.

But let's consider it for a moment. It seems to be that there's an unspoken assumption being made by many of us that needs to be exposed: How long do you think you will be traveling in space with no active mission or immediate goal?

I get the feeling that many on the anti-player crew side believe that this "free time" could be extensive -- on the order of hours, perhaps -- while those who favor player crews appear to be assuming that there'll almost always be some specific goal in front of players and that free-flight will never last more than a few minutes at most.

If that feeling is correct, it could explain a lot of the rational disagreement on this subject. If there's a lot of time where we're flying around and nothing is happening, then it makes perfect sense that player bridge officers might get bored, that they might have nothing interesting to do. Even if we said there could be division-specific ship-based minigames, how long would those remain fun? It really is tough to imagine there being enough individual player bridge officer content to keep the game fresh for hours at a stretch.

OTOH, if the amount of free time is considerably less than that, if the most time we'd ever spend just getting from one place to another with nothing specific to focus on as a team of players on one ship is no more than a few minutes, then I wonder if the player crew concept suddenly looks more reasonable. If there's ever only a little time when players on one ship don't have some specific piece of gameplay content to concentrate on as a team -- in other words, if the game is designed so that players together on one ship are almost always running an episode or mission -- then doesn't letting friends who want to play together in specific roles on one ship seem more feasible? Maybe even practical? Maybe even... fun?

If folks still interested in this topic would like to comment on how much time they're assuming we'll spend in ships with nothing specific to do as a group, that might be informative.

Anyone williing to explore this possibility?

--Flatfingers

[Hagon]

I'll explore the possibility that no matter how much down time there would be, any up time would still involve extremely dull game play.

Except, that's not just a possibility in my opinion. More a certainty.

[OddjobXL]

Let us break this down shall we....

Oh, let's. Let me wander back out of my happy place to break this down with you, me lad.

And what do you do when the captain does not need the advice of the Engineer, Medical or Ops officers? What is their content when the game does not call for their roles? Do the sit in Ten Forward and drink?

While the use of terms like "Transporter chief" ect... might seem hyperbolic to you. It is accurate that not everyone on a player crew can be someone who will be involved in the "action" at all times. In fact outside of the Captain of said player crew all characters will have to "wait their turn".

"But design content that involves everyone you might" say. That is far easier said then done. Even the writers of Trek could not include every major character in every episode, and they didn't have to program methods for those characters to interact with the sets or scripts.

Here's how it works in the real world.

Multiplayer ship content will have to be focused. The main focus will have to be combat. Now you can leave hooks in for the ship's computer or assorted stations to relay data specific to a mission but the design will have to have a combat focus centrally simply because combat's where we see the most drama on the bridge.

The bridge is really the epicenter of action. There's not an episode of Star Trek: TNG, which really is the core of the whole concept, where the crew isn't on the bridge together. Even Geordi will wander up on a turbo lift to man an engineering station on the bridge during alerts.

So the bridge should be the main focus of the design. Other elements can come later as the developers figure out how to make them "functional" (which is the plan now, evidently), be used primarily as mission locations (as they are now) or just be for entertainment purposes (like Ten Forward, the Captain's Ready Room or the Observation Lounge but potentially including Sick Bay and Engineering and The Holodeck as important locales players might like to visit for their own reasons).

Now, the correct approach is to look at this combat bridge in the middle of a battle and ask yourself what should the players be doing?

Well, what do bridge crew do during the show? They focus on knowing things relating to their roles and relaying that information to a captain that's acting as a human CPU. This will require some new approaches but not alien ones to veteran gamers. The key is restricting information flow. No external views, yes I'm serious (and the dramatic potency of this approach is made clear in many sim games), and the captain should be dependent on the intelligence about his own ship and the tactical situation his officers relay to him.

This communication flow will echo what we see on the series.

This means ship battles, as they've already been described anyhow, will have to be measured and paced tactical affairs. This means a captain's got to learn how to understand bearings (http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Bearing) and will have time to react to information before the situation evolves too much.

The Engineer will be constantly monitoring the state of the engines and energy output (which fuels all other systems) and assigning which other stations get how much power. He'll be assigning repair teams. Now this doesn't sound thrilling on its own but when you're on a bridge with other, excitable, people and all hell is breaking loose outside of your cabin...boy howdy. There's pressure on you. But it's fun, that kind of teamwork builds friendships that can last outside the games that forged them.

Likewise the con will be busy relaying and inputting navigational information as the captain issues orders.

Ops will be the main sensor operator identifying threats, the status of threats and other tactical information. Ops may also be managing the resources other than energy and security deployments required by the ship. Ops will probably also be the guy who manages fighters on carrier ships though he may share that with tactical.

Tactical will be managing weapon and shield systems though he too will have some of the information available to ops. He will also manage security deployments and assign tactical away teams.

Medical will be there to patch people when panels blow and to assign medical teams to decks that are taking casualties. Which decks are most important given finite reesources? He's got the same kind of decisionmaking to do as the engineer with repair teams.

The Science Officer and others who aren't central to the tactical situation can well serve, on a "blind" ship, as additional eyes and ears on sensors. Maybe they'll each follow separate targets or navigational threats as they're assigned by Tactical or Ops or the Con. As these targets change states they'll hand off that information to The Captain.


It'll work.

Now the question is what do crews do while they're "en route" to a destination? What do people do in any MMO when they're waiting for a party to form or traveling? Checking inventory, preparing items they might need and chatting. Because we're on a starship, with replicators, odds are there will be items and things we can put together on the ship itself while we're going somewhere.

There will also be some people on station to monitor for "random encounters" or, if it's possible to incorporate this, anomalies with the ship's systems themselves.

Travel times won't be incredibly long but we do know the developers want a sense of distance to be in the game. Insta-travel isn't in the cards. Personally, after doing some long hauls in Eve Online alone on a ship I'd very much welcome having friends on board to get a sense of real socialization in the process rather than just chatting on a CB to distant truckers.

As far as simulation goes, this can be abstracted. You can create a layer of complexity between the fundamental singleplayer game mechanics and the input/output of the consoles. This means multiplayer ships, especially if you include the bridge-only view, will be much less effective in every situation than single player vessels but...not everyone coming to STO is obsessed with uberness. Some will be obsessed with Star Trek.

Multiplayer ships will be an option, not a requirement, for PvE play and will primarily be a diversion (or a focus for many) from the regular game. Over time though, I predict players will gravitate more and more to them just for the fun factor alone assuming that, unlike SWG, STO does have some original and exciting space content that can sustain heavy use over time.

Singleplayer ships are the priority though. I don't think being a solo-preference player or someone who enjoys squadron level tactical gaming should be penalized. They should have access to the same ships and Cryptic is correct to design for the single-player first. Even devoted ship-based crews will have players that spend more time playing alone when their friends aren't online.

Anyhow, this is what I want to see eventually. It doesn't have to be now. And note that the bridge roles I'm describing are functions of the bridge design. Any character should be able to fill in on any position but people with the right specializations should have more options or be more efficient at managing the stations.

If possible, and this might be harder to do, perhaps having the option for NPC crew to fill in on empty stations should be explored. However, NPCs simply wouldn't work the same way at all as a player on a station so it might not fit. One might have to have a full, basic, crew of four or five and room for a full "party" (including this core) on the supplementary science stations on the bridge behind tactical.

[Hagon]

In every instance you just described horrendously dull game play, and a situation where only one person is really part of the action, the ship's captain. All the rest are watching meters and relaying information.

Not insulting you, but do you really believe that all that wasn't thought of before? As Varrangian mentioned, but you may have missed, there were people trying to come up with game play for the player crews for quite awhile here months and months ago, but in the end all it ever amounts to is every station sitting or standing there staring at a meter or some other interface and relaying info to the one person getting to have all the fun, the captain.

I'm sure there are some out there that would accept being in such subservient and detached from the game play roles, but certainly not many.

It's something that might be fun for some when done in a instanced mission or two though. Something they can experience once or twice and then move on. I believe that would be the only viable way to include them in the game really.

[OddjobXL]

Hagon, you've never played a multiplayer ship game as far as I can tell and I have no way of knowing what experiences anyone on the dev team has had with them either. What I can do is relay ideas and maybe they've already been discussed. Cryptic does seem to be on the ball.

But making assumptions about things I know naught of isn't my specialty. I leave that to certain of my peers.

[Hagon]

Hagon, you've never played a multiplayer ship game as far as I can tell Yes you must be right, because I don't agree with you and didn't see the fun in it (which thousands and thousands that tried them in SWG never did as well by the way. In fact 99% of people that ever tried them avoided them like the plague in the future)) then I must never have been on one. That is excellent logic there.

Anyway, this isn't the thread for this. In fact the thread for this is stickied in the general discussion section. My apologies to Kestrel and the CRs for contributing to the pollution of this thread meant for something else. I'll refrain from doing it any more.

[OddjobXL]

We've been over this elsewhere Hagon and the errs of your ways were duly noted there. Anyhow, this is a good thread for this discussion because the subject of the linked discussion is why multiplayer ships won't be in at launch.

The stickied thread on multiplayer ship and bridge crews on the main forums is closed and has been for some time unless there's another one.

I'm content to leave things where they are and not push the issue for now. Hagon has been informed as to the nature of his flawed thinking previously and I doubt repetition of the lesson will be any more successful here so I won't waste my time.

[Varrangian]

Oh, let's. Let me wander back out of my happy place to break this down with you, me lad.



Here's how it works in the real world.

Multiplayer ship content will have to be focused. The main focus will have to be combat. Now you can leave hooks in for the ship's computer or assorted stations to relay data specific to a mission but the design will have to have a combat focus centrally simply because combat's where we see the most drama on the bridge.

The bridge is really the epicenter of action. There's not an episode of Star Trek: TNG, which really is the core of the whole concept, where the crew isn't on the bridge together. Even Geordi will wander up on a turbo lift to man an engineering station on the bridge during alerts.

The problem is there are several episodes where the WHOLE crew is not on the bridge or even a part of the story. So someone (even if you limit this to members of the bridge crew) will be left out of the game play some of the time.


So the bridge should be the main focus of the design. Other elements can come later as the developers figure out how to make them "functional" (which is the plan now, evidently), be used primarily as mission locations (as they are now) or just be for entertainment purposes (like Ten Forward, the Captain's Ready Room or the Observation Lounge but potentially including Sick Bay and Engineering and The Holodeck as important locales players might like to visit for their own reasons).

So this paragraph here is tantamount to saying - "They can do it, I don't know how, but they can". You've offered nothing.

Now, the correct approach is to look at this combat bridge in the middle of a battle and ask yourself what should the players be doing?

Well, what do bridge crew do during the show? They focus on knowing things relating to their roles and relaying that information to a captain that's acting as a human CPU. This will require some new approaches but not alien ones to veteran gamers. The key is restricting information flow. No external views, yes I'm serious (and the dramatic potency of this approach is made clear in many sim games), and the captain should be dependent on the intelligence about his own ship and the tactical situation his officers relay to him.

The fun thing about being Worf is that you know when you press buttons X, Y and Z that you've done something. Because of Woft's years at Starfleet Academy and his years of on the job training he has a keen knowledge of what he does. Of course Worf lives in a fictional universe and when Micheal Dorn presses buttons X, Y and Z nothing really happens he's acting the script moves the story along not his actions.

Relaying scripted information (because it is a game and unfortunately games do not have infinite resources or interactions, even the best games have a limited number of interactions) is not game play. It isn't even really RPing.

And now we have the key word (in red) SIM an MMORPG is not a sim and never the twain shall meet. [/QUOTE]

[Hagon]

We've been over this elsewhere Hagon and the errs of your ways were duly noted there. Anyhow, this is a good thread for this discussion because the subject of the linked discussion is why multiplayer ships won't be in at launch.

The stickied thread on multiplayer ship and bridge crews on the main forums is closed and has been for some time unless there's another one.

I'm content to leave things where they are and not push the issue for now. Hagon has been informed as to the nature of his flawed thinking previously and I doubt repetition of the lesson will be any more successful here so I won't waste my time.Actually, you were proved to be have very flawed memories when other individuals posted about how terrible the multi-player ship experience was/is in SWG. Just absolutely some of the most boring and undesirable content ever added to any mmorpg. Ever. Most of the few that still play the game don't even try and defend that huge mistake. An absolute waste of developer time and energy.

[OddjobXL]

The problem is there are several episodes where the WHOLE crew is not on the bridge or even a part of the story. So someone (even if you limit this to members of the bridge crew) will be left out of the game play some of the time.

This is one area (among several including ship destruction and character death) where the lines will have to be blurred for playability's sake.

So this paragraph here is tantamount to saying - "They can do it, I don't know how, but they can". You've offered nothing.

All I'm saying is what we already know or can assume in this paragraph. Other than the bridge the rest of the ship is optional and how it's handled isn't nearly as important to a successful multiplayer ship design. Elements can be incorporated but needn't be.

The fun thing about being Worf is that you know when you press buttons X, Y and Z that you've done something. Because of Woft's years at Starfleet Academy and his years of on the job training he has a keen knowledge of what he does. Of course Worf lives in a fictional universe and when Micheal Dorn presses buttons X, Y and Z nothing really happens he's acting the script moves the story along not his actions.

Relaying scripted information (because it is a game and unfortunately games do not have infinite resources or interactions, even the best games have a limited number of interactions) is not game play. It isn't even really RPing.

We're going to be on away teams and haven't ever handled a phaser in real life either. It's a game, man, elements can be abstracted or tailored for functionality while still conveying the essential content to express the experience. I doubt any station will perfectly recreate the actual functions possible in the series but they should look the part and convey key information in a way people familiar with the series can relate to.

And now we have the key word (in red) SIM an MMORPG is not a sim and never the twain shall meet.

They have and they will. Pirates of the Burning Sea may not be a full tall ship simulator but they do take into account wind and inertia/momentum and reloading times and boarding actions and port blockades. SWG's space from JtL is a pretty nifty space sim, expecially the multiplayer ships, but there's no content in space so space withers except for PvP on some servers. Sadly, multiplayer ships aren't very good at PvP being gigantic targets full of crew who'd be better off manning a flight of snub fighters.

As time goes on, and games become more developed and better aimed at specific markets, simulation of a setting's key elements will be what determines whether that game gets an audience or not.

That said, all simulations aren't made the same. Some are unduly complex and could do with more abstraction. That's the art of it though. Knowing which details are essential and which just add noise and busywork and unnecessary complexity to a design.

[Varrangian]

This is one area (among several including ship destruction and character death) where the lines will have to be blurred for playability's sake.

But to blur it in a more acceptable method by just making everyone a captain is wrong... it might not be your cup of tea, but that alone does not make it wrong.

All I'm saying is what we already know or can assume in this paragraph. Other than the bridge the rest of the ship is optional and how it's handled isn't nearly as important to a successful multiplayer ship design. Elements can be incorporated but needn't be.

This is what you said -

So the bridge should be the main focus of the design. Other elements can come later as the developers figure out how to make them "functional" (which is the plan now, evidently), be used primarily as mission locations (as they are now) or just be for entertainment purposes (like Ten Forward, the Captain's Ready Room or the Observation Lounge but potentially including Sick Bay and Engineering and The Holodeck as important locales players might like to visit for their own reasons).

Unfortunately you've not solved the problem. The bridge cannot provide constant (let alone engaging) content for a full PC bridge crew. This is the problem, yet you dance around it and avoid admitting it. Are there people who might be willing to over look this problem? Sure, are there enough to make a successful MMO out of it? No.

We're going to be on away teams and haven't ever handled a phaser in real life either. It's a game, man, elements can be abstracted or tailored for functionality while still conveying the essential content to express the experience. I doubt any station will perfectly recreate the actual functions possible in the series but they should look the part and convey key information in a way people familiar with the series can relate to.

You didn't read what I said. Standing at the bridge pressing buttons (without a knowledge of what they do) is not the same as firing phasers without a knowledge of them in real life. Relaying information to a PC captain to decided on orders is not the same as firing a phaser.


They have and they will. Pirates of the Burning Sea may not be a full tall ship simulator but they do take into account wind and inertia/momentum and reloading times and boarding actions and port blockades. SWG's space from JtL is a pretty nifty space sim, expecially the multiplayer ships, but there's no content in space so space withers except for PvP on some servers. Sadly, multiplayer ships aren't very good at PvP being gigantic targets full of crew who'd be better off manning a flight of snub fighters.


Have you played in the multi-player ships in JtL especially the fairly new gunboats. That's not multi-player ships. That is people sitting in turrets while another person flies the ship. Have you watched Trek there are no gun turrets, gun target is not manual it is done by computer.

[OddjobXL]

But to blur it in a more acceptable method by just making everyone a captain is wrong... it might not be your cup of tea, but that alone does not make it wrong.

Where did I say everyone being a captain is wrong? Didn't I say that singleplayer ships, the exact same ones we'd use for multiplayer, should be the first consideration? Why yes I did. Multiplayer ships can come later on and should be seen more as a diversion than as a cornerstone. Though I will admit I think they'll eventually become by far the most popular way to go it's not practical to design for that assumption. In any case players will be spending more time in singleplayer mode than in groups simply because their regular crews won't always be available.


Unfortunately you've not solved the problem. The bridge cannot provide constant (let alone engaging) content for a full PC bridge crew. This is the problem, yet you dance around it and avoid admitting it. Are there people who might be willing to over look this problem? Sure, are there enough to make a successful MMO out of it? No.

There's no satisfactory way in words I can describe how this plays out if you haven't experienced it. I've played SWG PoBs, HSPACE console driven space sims and FASA's tabletop RPG. I've also played games with NPC crews where it's not hard to envision or wish for players to be sharing the experience with like Silent Hunter III or, as we're discussing in the main forum, B-17 II.

You'll have to wait and see for yourself. Or not. It may never come to pass.

You didn't read what I said. Standing at the bridge pressing buttons (without a knowledge of what they do) is not the same as firing phasers without a knowledge of them in real life. Relaying information to a PC captain to decided on orders is not the same as firing a phaser.

I suspect I'm still not following you. Reading information from a console, out loud, and inputting new responses to that console as ordered by a captain is confusing? How do you think people in multiplayer games, sims and MMOs alike, coordinate tactical maneuvers? The flow of information and coordinated response is crucial whether you're playing Eve Online or Falcon 4. What's the difference between a squadron or fleet and the bridge of a starship?

Have you played in the multi-player ships in JtL especially the fairly new gunboats. That's not multi-player ships. That is people sitting in turrets while another person flies the ship. Have you watched Trek there are no gun turrets, gun target is not manual it is done by computer.

Yes, but that doesn't make an SWG PoB not a sim. In HSPACE, while on my ship gunners were technically in turrets, it was a text-based game so they coordinated their firing actions on a console. The nav station was a console. The pilot's station was a console. Engineering was a console. And we used a ship's intercom to communicate and coordinate actions by typing. This was real time. FASA's RPG handed out cards to everyone at the table, except the captain, and the flow of dialogue from the players to the captain and back as he tried to coordinate actions was pitch perfect. Maybe that was just our group but I recall being amazed by how fun and dramatic it all was.

Now if I scanned in those old pads and described the simplicity of the system you'd probably say, "Balderdash! How could that possibly be entertaining?!" Maybe not with the balderdash part.

However the overall effect was gripping and dramatic. Any part in isolation, not so much, but the gestalt was magic. You were on the bridge.

[Flatfingers]

It might be worth reiterating (or maybe not, but what the heck) that if the ability for players to fill specific bridge roles on one ship is implemented as an optional feature, then that says something useful about the appropriate requirements for player bridge crew content.

Maybe player bridge crew content doesn't need to be designed to push itself at players who might otherwise complain, "I'm bored! There's nothing to do!" because the only people who'll willingly show up to play a bridge role other than ship's commanding officer are the ones who'll want to be there in the first place. They're not likely to be heard muttering, "Bored now!"; these are gamers who are more likely to be saying things like, "Whoa! I get all these sensors and laboratories to play with? Cool!" and "We've got a few minutes between missions -- I wonder what I'd find if I did an internal security scan?"

In other words, the most likely consumers of bridge crew content are going to be players who are already predisposed to enjoy sharing a bridge with friends. They're already thrilled to be there; giving them functional ship systems and interesting things to do with those systems is a bonus, not a requirement.

That reduces the degree of difficulty considerably, I'd say.

And if the space game is designed so that there's generally little time when players are flying around with no specific task before them as part of a mission or episode? Even better.

If there's almost always some relatively high-level thing to do in space -- solving a puzzle, finding an artifact, defending the ship from hostiles, discovering a lost world, transporting interesting NPCs hiding a secret, mapping a new star system, or escaping a trap, for just a few examples off the top of my head -- then that goal can be decomposed into specific tasks for players to perform according to the division in which their character presently serves. In some cases, these will be solo tasks ("scan the mysterious vessel's cargo holds for a canister of fleabaggium" or "perform a tactical analysis on that mysterious vessel to boost our chances of hitting in case it turns hostile"). In some (preferably many) cases, these will be tasks that call for cooperation among two or more bridge crew officers ("develop an anaesthetic gas the holographic Tac officer can administer that will knock out the intruders who've taken over Engineering" or "outfit the CO with a neural amplifier boosting her already-incredible charisma in order to fast-talk some hostile aliens").

Either way, the point is that perhaps it's not a requirement to crank out so much player crew content that no one playing a bridge crew officer with other players could ever possibly get bored for a split second. Perhaps only some such content is necessary, for those times when players who want to be sharing a bridge with friends aren't using these starships and their cool systems to tell their own stories.

Just a thought.

--Flatfingers

[LtPowers]

Either way, the point is that perhaps it's not a requirement to crank out so much player crew content that no one playing a bridge crew officer with other players could ever possibly get bored for a split second. Perhaps only some such content is necessary, for those times when players who want to be sharing a bridge with friends aren't using these starships and their cool systems to tell their own stories.

That's exactly what I've been trying to say.

I just want the opportunity; I don't need mini-games or some sort of special content to occupy my time. But instead of saying "You can operate your own ship at any time, and you will be using NPC crew members most of the time, but you can man a station on another person's ship any time you want," Cryptic is saying "You MUST operate your own ship at all times, and use ONLY NPC crew members."


Powers &8^]