Epic Battle Axe Interview

[JJung]

http://www.epicbattleaxe.com/choice-cuts/2009/3/31/choice-cuts-star-trek-online.html

[dyvimtorm]

Great find.

Hmmmm...several new interviews which have substantially more info, maybe this a buildup to, dare I say it, BETA. Yes I said it! And I'm glad I did...muhahahahahaha! Perhaps we're just around the corner (month or two, I hope) to some sort of closed beta?

Starting more bad rumor threads, and happy to do it,

Pavel Bester

[Vorador]

I wish I worked for Cryptic so I could play STO from home :D.

It sounds almost like they are in a late alpha stage or internal beta stage already. Maybe in a few months beta signups will start :).

[Moryan_Sorg]

Yeah, nice find. Hasn't been sent to me in my google update yet :). The TenTonHammer has a bit more in the way of actual good news, but I liked the new (new to me) klingon screen shot.

I agree with Alphaish stage. The way Craig sounded in both the TTH and this interview it seemed as if the game has a good amount of polish to it already. *crosses fingers for beta to start soon*

[Sythian]

So according to what Craig Zinkievich,"we have an external server hooked up so everyone at Cryptic Studios can play from home." so I need to be looking to get a job at Cryptic.

Heck doesn't matter which either, any Janitor positions open?

[Loekii]

That looks like a new Klingon Ship screenshot - at least for me.

http://www.epicbattleaxe.com/eba-game-pics/star-trek-online/

[threeedgedsword]

That looks like a new Klingon Ship screenshot - at least for me.

http://www.epicbattleaxe.com/eba-game-pics/star-trek-online/


I'm pretty sure this is a new screenie, I don't remember seeing any screenshots of Vor'cha classes around before :)

[Lukasks]

New interview at epicbattleaxe with 3 new screenshots :)

we have the Screens on www.sto-center.de
http://www.epicbattleaxe.com/choice-cuts/2009/3/31/choice-cuts-star-trek-online.html

[Citationpilot]

nice shots

[CinC-UFPForces-Cardassia]

There's already an active thread (http://forums.startrekonline.com/showthread.php?t=17345)on this interview.

[Lukasks]

sorry, i don t have see this :(

[Krakkken]

sounds great and a wide open game unlike all the failure level based games that has emerged in the last year. One point did scare me, the "dozens of hours of content" gave me the impression that very little written content is actualy in play as of now. I know that will expand but it made me think of the release dates pushed back with that little dev content available. graphics look better and better.

[_Pax_]

Just reading the article now; I want to pick out and comment on one specifid thing:

CZ: Cryptic believes that ongoing development is an essential part of the MMO equation. It's so important to us that our development teams don't change size after launch. We'll have as many people working to expand our games as we have working to create them.
Wow, that's great! That says to me: regular, FREQUENT updates that are free, and still enough manpower to push towards paid expansions - maybe annually or bi-annually. Awesome!

[-Rufus-]

Nice find and two interviews so close together makes me even more excited.

The top screenshot with the Souvereign and Galaxy Class refits (was new to me and) looks really nice ... I hope we can get a bundle of Ship updates in the coming weeks. Not just one per update, but at least bundle those which we already know about.

[Manta2015]

Vor'Cha baby... I like it =)


-Manta-

[Sckullzy]

Great find.

Hmmmm...several new interviews which have substantially more info, maybe this a buildup to, dare I say it, BETA. Yes I said it! And I'm glad I did...muhahahahahaha! Perhaps we're just around the corner (month or two, I hope) to some sort of closed beta?

Starting more bad rumor threads, and happy to do it,

Pavel Bester

It could just be because GDC09 is this week. Cryptic is probably there or just riding the wave of MMO hype it's stiring up.

[Varrangian]

Just reading the article now; I want to pick out and comment on one specifid thing:

CZ: Cryptic believes that ongoing development is an essential part of the MMO equation. It's so important to us that our development teams don't change size after launch. We'll have as many people working to expand our games as we have working to create them.
Wow, that's great! That says to me: regular, FREQUENT updates that are free, and still enough manpower to push towards paid expansions - maybe annually or bi-annually. Awesome!

I agree, I saw that and was very happy. Nice to know that the team size will not change, while we may lose some of the Devs to other projects I think a sense of responsibility to a game is important post launch.

I was happy about this as well...

EBA: What new details do you have pertaining to customization options for both characters and ships?

CZ: You will be able to customize your ship, your Bridge Crew and your character.

Options for ships and Bridge Crew will be both cosmetic and functional. You will be able to add equipment to your ship that will enhance its performance in combat and gameplay, and also train your crew to expand their abilities over time. This lets players create exactly the ship and crew they want.

I've often argued that one of the key elements of MMO retention is ownership. We all know what SWG did to drive players away, but those who stayed usually stayed because of the great amount of "ownership" one was given over their character and the life of that character.

[phifur]

OMG Overload of information today :D

[jagerbolt]

Lots of new info today, good stuff. I am liking where the game is headed. If they are playing from home and treating it as a live environment then it is def in at least an early alpha stage.

Sounds like their main focus now is on ground combat, the economy, and adding content. Good stuff, hopefully this means more info will start coming out as more is finalized.

[Flatfingers]

Thanks to Craig for the interviews to EpicBattleAxe (EBA) and TenTonHammer (TTH). I now have many things to say. :)

(Note: There are some things that cut across both interviews, but rather than posting two responses I hope it'll be OK if I combine them in this one post in this one thread.)

First, I'd characterize both interviews as fairly standard -- a certain amount of boilerplate text, a few new things I was glad to hear, a couple things I was not glad to hear, and, finally, what I am now forced to believe is the latest salvo in Craig's ongoing effort to drive me completely insane.

...

Let's get to the good stuff first.

TTH: [T]here are over a dozen different classifications or configurations are what we call them, of ships within the game. So you have your basic Miranda type, your Akira configuration, your Galaxy configuration.

A dozen configurations for each faction (if that's what Craig is really saying here) could make sense. Three "classes" of ship (escort, science, engineering) times four tiers equals twelve configs, plus a few extras for variety or because they don't seem to fit the game-defined escort/science/engineering classification model.

TTH: With the major careers in the game being Engineering, Science and Tactical, you could say, “Oh man, there's only 3 classes in the game, how boring is that?” But we've purposefully made them really, really wide in how they function. So within those classes, or within your career choices there's so much that you can explore. The player can say, “Look, I'm really going to try to learn these skills or really try to push myself in this direction and maybe it'll work or maybe it won't. If it doesn't I'll just go learn these skills now and play this today.”

EBA: You start by picking a career path, such as tactical, science or engineering. You can either stay in that path throughout your career, or cross-train in different paths.

This information about cross-training and specialization is very good to hear. I'm not sure it's the kind of skill-oriented model some of us have been hoping for, but perhaps it will offer the best aspects of that approach.

TTH: “OK, let me go back and I'll respawn. I lost that system, that system got totally destroyed and the durability on some of my weapons is hurt.”

I take this as confirmation that ship components can take damage (lose durability) and be destroyed. Obviously that's a hook into the game economy... but does it open up any opportunities for Engineering gameplay?

TTH: You'll pick up different members as you play, or you'll run across unique alien races that have unique, cool skills that you can't get any other way. And whether or not you take one of those guys and recruit him into Starfleet or whether you ask him to train one of your bridge officers in those skills is really up to you. I mean, you don't want to start off with Spock and then have to cut Spock loose just because you found some phat loot.

Bravo! Good, thoughtful, cross-playstyle design.

EBA: Cryptic believes that ongoing development is an essential part of the MMO equation. It's so important to us that our development teams don't change size after launch. We'll have as many people working to expand our games as we have working to create them.

I'm with _Pax_ on this; it's how all MMORPG developers should plan to operate post-launch.

EBA: A player who wants to take a support role will choose different skills and equipment than one who wants to be on the frontlines.

As my cat might say, "Mrrrrptt?" This is the first I've heard that players will be able to choose to actively play the game in either a "front-line" (presumably combat-oriented) mode, or a behind-the-lines "support" mode. What kind of gameplay is available when we're acting in a support role? Is that just a code word for non-combat gameplay, or is there some distinctive gameplay being developed that's specific to supporting other players in combat and non-combat activities?

EBA: [W]e're looking to develop an economy that is deep but very much in the Trek genre. Gathering resources, inventing technology and understanding alien technology - and then trading those items and knowledge - will be the basis of the economy.

"nventing technology and understanding alien technology" sounds exactly like what I was hoping to see as the basis of the Star Trek Online economy. That part, I'm really pleased to hear about.

...

And now, the possibly not-so-good stuff.

TTH: So generally you'll know what role that ship is playing whether or not it's more of a support role, or whether it's more of a DPS role you can kind of tell that by looking at somebody's ship.

Ouch. In all honesty, this sounds to me exactly like starting with the crusty old combat-oriented tank/DPS/support+aggro mechanic and slapping a coat of Star Trek paint on it.

Why should the ships of Starfleet in particular be classified according to whether their primary value in the game is dealing damage, taking damage, or healing damage? What does that have to do with exploration? How does defining ships in terms of how they fit into some artificial, fantasy-based "role" system meet the goal of starting with Star Trek and finding fun gameplay that highlights its most iconic elements?

This latest mention of STO ships being defined by "support" and "DPS" roles does not make me more excited for this game -- just the opposite. I might be misunderstanding or missing some virtue of this approach, though, so I'm open to other thoughts on it. But right now... meh.

TTH: There's definitely docking stations where you'll do repairs, but also – it's not your bridge officers per se, although some of the bridge officers have skills to help you repair your ship and do hull repairs. But it's your ships greater crew that does that, and kind of the makeup of that crew that helps you repair your ship outside of combat.

So no active repair-based gameplay for Engineering-oriented player characters, then?

EBA: [W]e're looking to develop an economy that is deep but very much in the Trek genre. Gathering resources, inventing technology and understanding alien technology - and then trading those items and knowledge - will be the basis of the economy.

Resource gathering?

By Starfleet officers and doughty Klingon warriors?

Really?

EBA: On the ground, choosing the right members of your crew for your away team is very important. The make-up of your team helps define how you play and what options you have. And when you're playing in a team, your skills and equipment choices will be a major factor that affects your role in the mission.

This isn't really a "bad thing" per se, but it does leave me wondering: why would we ever compose the four NPC members of our away team (when we aren't playing with other humans) of anything but Tactical, Engineer, Science, and Medical? Will scenarios always tell us right up front, "Hey, better stock up on redshirts; this one needs Tactical officers"? If not, then won't we always have to put one of each specialty into each slot just to make sure we can deal with any contingencies?

EBA: We’re making a game, not a space simulation.

Grrrrrrrr.

Was that really necessary?

How about, "We'd love to faithfully represent the actual structure of our galaxy as seen in Star Trek, but this is one area where we believe that accurately modeling reality would actually make the game less fun."

That, I could respect.

...

And then there's the part where Craig appears to be actively trying to make my brain explode:

TTH: I think the positional aspect of ship combat is really, really cool. In team play it adds another order of magnitude to the strategy that's available.

EBA: Space combat is very measured and strategic.

/groan

No. No, no, no. Please stop referring to this kind of gameplay as "strategic." It just isn't.

"Strategies" are high-level, long-term plans for winning campaigns across an entire theater of operations.

"Tactics" are hands-on, immediate actions taken in a local environment to win individual battles.

I keep mentioning this because it affects gameplay design in a potentially significant way. Misusing the term "strategic" -- such as for describing positioning activity between two ships -- suggests that real, live, actual strategic gameplay is not going to make it into this game because its developers think they're actually including it when they're not.

There is [i]nothing whatsoever wrong with calling maneuver-based combat between two or a small group of ships "tactical" gameplay! That's what it is. Trying to market this perfectly good tactical gameplay by calling it "strategic" is not helpful, in the first place because that's not accurate, and in the second place because doing so cuts off any opportunity to develop game content that actually is strategic in the true meaning of that word.

As someone who enjoys a strategic challenge, and who thinks that kind of play absolutely has a valid place in a MMORPG based on the Star Trek universe, it really bothers me to see the possibility of some great gameplay being squandered through what appears to be a misunderstanding of the actual meaning of a particular term of the military arts.

Consider: Worf was a Tactical Officer (http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Tactical_officer) on the Enterprise; when he signed aboard Deep Space Nine his role (and his job) changed to strategic Operations Officer (http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Strategic_operations_officer). Yes, sometimes he did tactical stuff... but that was no longer his main job.

So even Star Trek distinguished the actions of these terms from each other.

Why can't the designers of Star Trek Online take advantage of that distinction when creating gameplay systems?

OK, rant over. :p

But still.

...

Overall, there's a lot to like about the latest comments regarding Star Trek Online. Naturally, there are a few things that don't float my personal boat, but that's how it goes -- for the most part, these latest remarks increase my "do want" level just a bit.

How do you other folks feel about these things?

--Flatfingers

[_Pax_]

TTH: [T]here are over a dozen different classifications or configurations are what we call them, of ships within the game. So you have your basic Miranda type, your Akira configuration, your Galaxy configuration.

A dozen configurations for each faction (if that's what Craig is really saying here) could make sense. Three "classes" of ship (escort, science, engineering) times four tiers equals twelve configs, plus a few extras for variety or because they don't seem to fit the game-defined escort/science/engineering classification model.
Our starter ship could in fact be a "no real specialty" configuration ...

EBA: A player who wants to take a support role will choose different skills and equipment than one who wants to be on the frontlines.

As my cat might say, "Mrrrrptt?" This is the first I've heard that players will be able to choose to actively play the game in either a "front-line" (presumably combat-oriented) mode, or a behind-the-lines "support" mode. What kind of gameplay is available when we're acting in a support role? Is that just a code word for non-combat gameplay, or is there some distinctive gameplay being developed that's specific to supporting other players in combat and non-combat activities?

Obviously I'm not one of Cryptic's people, but I can see this very easily, FF. Picture this scenario: you and I are teamed up. You've got your Tactical-path Captain in a nicely-kitted-out Oslo-class escort; I've got my Science-path Captain in a well-equipped Oberth. In a combat situation, you are the front-liner, and I am playing in a "support" role.

How do I "support" you? With buffs on you, with debuffs on the enemy. Maybe with an "aura" ability that reflects superior senors and fire-control data. All the sort of "information and treknobabble" stuff that science officers probably bring to the table.

Which is not to say that I'm not firing phasers and torpedoes, nor having weapons fired AT me. It's just ... while your contribution to victory is "amazing DPS", my contribution is "giving us both multiple added tactical advantages". Maybe I can interfere with their propulsion systems, slowing them down so that we can more readily maneuver into their weak arcs. Maybe I can create some "sensor ghosts" of your ship, so that they don't hit you as often as they might have - letting you shift more power from shields, to weapons. Maybe I can inhibit the regeneration rate of their shields, so that more of your damage "sticks". Maybe I can use my more-precise sensors to locate weak points in their defenses - spots where their shields don't quite overlap properly; key systems to target; etc - and can relay that directly to your tactical officer, allowing him to pick better targets for your weapons (reflected in a damage increase, or a higher hit% for subsystem targeting).

Lots of ways I can choose to support the DPSer.

And the cool thing is - those're all useful for ME, too, when I'm operating solo. I may not have the firepower to take advantage of those little nudges the way you can - but they're still things I'll use when on my own, too.


TTH: So generally you'll know what role that ship is playing whether or not it's more of a support role, or whether it's more of a DPS role you can kind of tell that by looking at somebody's ship.

Ouch. In all honesty, this sounds to me exactly like starting with the crusty old combat-oriented tank/DPS/support+aggro mechanic and slapping a coat of Star Trek paint on it.

As I've said to you before, IIRC: I think you're reading too much into the use of those terms. The terms exist because they really DO define archetypal roles in an MMO. In any RPG, really.

There are three aspects to any character, in combat, within an RPG: ability to deal damage; ability to endure damage; ability to alter the parameters of the encounter.

That is to say: DPS, Tank, Buff.

Seriously.

For a starship, what aspects do we have, at the uttermost basic-est level? Firepower, Defense, Other.

Federation Escorts: +Firepower. In other words, DPS.
Federation Explorer: +Defense. In other words, Tank.
Federation Science: +Other. In other words, Buff/Debuff.

Keep in mind: just because, say, an Escort is especially good at DPS, doesn't mean it's completely devoid of defense of buff/debuff. In Cryptic's prior product, City ofHeroes, any character can solo. Any mix of characters, regardless of class/archetype, can form a viable team.

I doubt they'll throw that sort of design principle out the window for STO.

Why should the ships of Starfleet in particular be classified according to whether their primary value in the game is dealing damage, taking damage, or healing damage? What does that have to do with exploration? How does defining ships in terms of how they fit into some artificial, fantasy-based "role" system meet the goal of starting with Star Trek and finding fun gameplay that highlights its most iconic elements?
First off, "support" != "healing". It can also include buffs and debuffs.

Second off, those roles are not exclusively Fantasy. World War 2? The medic is a Support character. The guy with the LMG is a DPSer. The guy driving the armored vehicle is a Tanker (quite literally, perhaps).

This latest mention of STO ships being defined by "support" and "DPS" roles does not make me more excited for this game -- just the opposite. I might be misunderstanding or missing some virtue of this approach, though, so I'm open to other thoughts on it. But right now... meh.
I didn't get that the SHIPS were being defined in those roles, so much as "ship + captain + crew".


This isn't really a "bad thing" per se, but it does leave me wondering: why would we ever compose the four NPC members of our away team (when we aren't playing with other humans) of anything but Tactical, Engineer, Science, and Medical?
Who sys ground missions will be solely and exclusively combat? Besides, even if I do expect combat ... I'm bringing a medical officer, and an engineer.

But I suspect, you'll generally want a broad range of specialties - and occasionally, you'll have an idea that you need more of X or Y skillset in your away team. For example, beaming over to a Borg cube? Sent an extra tactical officer, keep the medic at home - if anyone gets stuck in the neck, the medic can't help them ANYway.

EBA: We’re making a game, not a space simulation.

Grrrrrrrr.

Was that really necessary?
Yes, it was. After all, how often have we chided the rabid-Trek-Sim-or-Bust people "This will be a Trek game not a Trek sim" ...?

[dyvimtorm]

It could just be because GDC09 is this week. Cryptic is probably there or just riding the wave of MMO hype it's stiring up.

No no no. Fingers in my ears, chanting "beta beta beta".

Spoil my fun, willya :P

Pavel Bester

[Loekii]

Our starter ship could in fact be a "no real specialty" configuration ...


Craig mentioned in the Dev chat that your starter ship will be a Nebula I believe. Or was it Miranda? Regardless, it was a specific type of ship.

[Varrangian]

Craig mentioned in the Dev chat that your starter ship will be a Nebula I believe. Or was it Miranda? Regardless, it was a specific type of ship.

Just listening to the MP3 now... he said Miranda "configuration".

[_Pax_]

Craig mentioned in the Dev chat that your starter ship will be a Nebula I believe. Or was it Miranda? Regardless, it was a specific type of ship.

I meant in terms of Escort/Explorer/Science. If we ALL start in the SAME type of ship, that supports my hypothesis perfectly.

[Loekii]

I meant in terms of Escort/Explorer/Science. If we ALL start in the SAME type of ship, that supports my hypothesis perfectly.

Well he just said what *you guys* are starting in, but nothing about the Klingons. :D

Probably will be a small basic BoP style ship.

[Flatfingers]

Those were fair responses all the way around, _Pax_. Thanks.

In a combat situation, you are the front-liner, and I am playing in a "support" role.

I see this as a strong possibility as well... but look closely at Craig's actual words:

A player who wants to take a support role will choose different skills and equipment than one who wants to be on the frontlines.

As I read that, I don't get the impression that he's necessarily talking about small group ops. I'm reading it more as "combat-oriented ships/characters up on the front lines do the actual fighting; support-oriented ships/characters behind the lines do stuff like crafting and resource-hunting exploration to keep the war effort going."

In other words, I'm seeing "support" as meaning supporting one's faction, not necessarily as supporting another individual ship in a group of ships.

Am I completely off base here, or is that a potentially valid read of what Craig said?

As I've said to you before, IIRC: I think you're reading too much into the use of those terms. The terms exist because they really DO define archetypal roles in an MMO. In any RPG, really.

We have gone round on this before, so probably best not to do so again in this thread.

I'll just say that my objection is based on two things:

1. I don't believe that the tank/DPS/support+aggro mechanic is inherent to MMORPGs; I consider it primarily a quick hack to get around the problem of decent collision detection eating too many CPU cycles in early online games. Why perpetuate a mechanic that's no longer necessary just because other games do it? That's cargo cult thinking.

To support the idea of twisting the well-understood Star Trek roles (Science, Engineering, Tactical, Command) into the tank/DPS/support model of other games, I'd need to see that it was clearly superior to alternative grouping designs that could be a better fit for a Star Trek MMORPG. Why not light weapons/heavy weapons/special weapons (no "tank" type needed)? I could accept those as role competencies for ships and characters in a combat context -- so how is that model (or any other) necessarily worse than the tank/DPS/support model that just happens to have been cloned by other MMORPGs?

And precisely how is aggro, on which the whole "tank" concept rides in particular, in any way whatsoever a play mechanic that is naturally inherent in the very concept of a MMORPG?

If it's not, then why does this game need it and the tank role that flows from it?

2. Regardless of the above, I'm philosophically opposed to basing the gameplay roles of ships or characters in a Star Trek MMORPG, which ought IMO to promote exploration as its core value (especially for Starfleet ships/characters), on roles that are based exclusively on suitability for small-group combat gameplay.

As noted above, however, I'm perfectly fine with saying, "We've based our ships and character roles directly on the roles we've seen for forty years in Star Trek -- now, here how those roles work in a combat context; here's how those roles work in an exploration context; here's how those roles work in a scientific/engineering context; here's how those roles work in a diplomatic context." In other words, in what I would consider the right design for this particular game, combat would be just one context among several -- it wouldn't be the single starting point for ship and character design (as seems to be the case now), where all other contexts just have to settle for being second-class citizens at best.

/shrug

Old argument. I don't expect it to persuade anyone who likes the familiar combat-centric tank/DPS/support mechanic until some developer just says the hell with it, implements something different, and proves with an actual playable game that something different can work just fine....

Yes, it was. After all, how often have we chided the rabid-Trek-Sim-or-Bust people "This will be a Trek game not a Trek sim" ...?

I believe the correct answer to that question is "far too many times."

"It's not going to be a simulation" is a horrifically cheap way of avoiding serious and valid questions about whether modeling some aspect of reality might make a game more fun for more players. Asking about the possibility of modeling in a limited way some individual real-world or IP-based feature is in no way, shape or form a rabid demand for "a" simulation. So quipping that the game isn't going to be "a" simulation just targets a straw man; it doesn't address in a direct and honorable way the limited questions being asked.

It's bad enough when gamers do that sort of thing as a kind of shorthand for "I personally don't want the feature you've just suggested." I expect better from game designers.

Meh. Another old argument that we won't be resolving here. :p

...

At any rate, I'd like to stress again that most of the things Craig said today sounded pretty good to me. I stand by my concerns about a few things he said, but they're the minority of my takeaways from today's interview remarks.

--Flatfingers

[_Pax_]

Am I completely off base here, or is that a potentially valid read of what Craig said?
I don't know ... but I look at what he said, and what you got, and .... Underpants Gnomes, Step 2.

1. I don't believe that the tank/DPS/support+aggro mechanic is inherent to MMORPGs; I consider it primarily a quick hack to get around the problem of decent collision detection eating too many CPU cycles in early online games. Why perpetuate a mechanic that's no longer necessary just because other games do it? That's cargo cult thinking.
The thing is ... Tank/DPS/Support roles in Team-based gameplay predate the internet. Seriously, they're from Dungeons and Dragons style games. And before that, even, in wargaming. Even in non-class-based game systems (and I'm still talking non-Computer games, here), the skills you pick generally will determine which of those roles you have, within the game.


To support the idea of twisting the well-understood Star Trek roles (Science, Engineering, Tactical, Command) into the tank/DPS/support model of other games, I'd need to see that it was clearly superior to alternative grouping designs that could be a better fit for a Star Trek MMORPG. Why not light weapons/heavy weapons/special weapons (no "tank" type needed)?
Well, here's the thing. Bob has "Light weapons" - as such, his damage output is lower than Sarah, who has "Heavy weapons".

What does Bob get to compensate him for having less damage output? Or, alternately, what did Sarah have to give up, in order to acquire her relatively-speaking improved damage output?

...

Usually, lower damage output ---> higher endurance. So, Bob is the "Tank", and Sarah is the "DPSer".

When Brian shows up, with his "special effects" / "special weapons" ship - he takes a "Support" role, using the effects of his weapons to leverage both Bob's higher endurance, and Sarah's higher DPS.

...

How do YOU expectyour "Light/Heavy/Special" setup to work?

And precisely how is aggro, on which the whole "tank" concept rides in particular, in any way whatsoever a play mechanic that is naturally inherent in the very concept of a MMORPG?
It's inherent in the way the AI works. Until we have true, smarter-than-people, self-aware AI ... expect there to be some mechanism by which the AI determines who to be aggressive towards.

Remember though, "tank" need not include any inherent ability to acquire and hold aggro above and beyond what anyone else can. In City of Villains, Masterminds were often tasked with Tank roles - and had ZERO "aggro management" abilities of their own. Heck, smart masterminds tried to AVOID direct aggro (they had the personally lowest HP in the entire game, at all levels); instead, they tried to get their PETS out on the pointy end. Their replacable, don't-quit-the-team-in-disgust-when-they-faceplant-repeatedly, pets.


In other words, in what I would consider the right design for this particular game, combat would be just one context among several -- it wouldn't be the single starting point for ship and character design (as seems to be the case now), where all other contexts just have to settle for being second-class citizens at best.
We - both you and I - have no real evidence except lack of direct mention of any other scenario that combat is "the single starting point" at all.

I think you're being a bit of a Chicken Little just now. No offense, mind.

[0wl]

Vorcha! :eek:

[Flatfingers]

I look at what he said, and what you got, and .... Underpants Gnomes, Step 2.

:D

I'm not sure that reading Craig's comments as indicating that STO will offer non-combat ("support") gameplay that's distinct from combat is a leap equal to jumping from "1. Collect underpants" to "3. Profit!" But it's an interpretation that's open to question, I'll definitely agree with you there.

The thing is ... Tank/DPS/Support roles in Team-based gameplay predate the internet. Seriously, they're from Dungeons and Dragons style games. And before that, even, in wargaming. Even in non-class-based game systems (and I'm still talking non-Computer games, here), the skills you pick generally will determine which of those roles you have, within the game.

All I can say is that my experience, which dates back to Chainmail and the original D&D, differs. There was no "aggro." If you were in a narrow corridor, the DM and everyone else simply understood that "collision" was happening: you were the one who was going to get hammered on. Otherwise everybody picked a target (including the DM, who would generally choose PC targets for all attacking NPCs using an aesthetic "what's the most fun gameplay" basis) and went to town.

Based on my recollection from that time and after, aggro -- and from aggro, the notion of a "tank" role (and the later "crowd control" role) specifically designed to manage aggro -- showed up only in computer games. The fundamental problem was and is that computer make sucky DMs. They have no aesthetic sense. So programmers have to come up with code that tries to mimic a good DM's ability to run NPCs like intelligent/adaptable/goal-oriented beings.

So far, they haven't done a very satisfying job of that. Aggro is better than nothing, but it's still nowhere near as good as a human DM can do.

I'd like to think that our progress toward that goal will not stop with "aggro" (and its handmaiden roles) out of a mistaken belief that that mechanism is a desirable end in itself. It's not. It's one means to an end -- good DMing -- and as such MMORPG developers ought to feel free to replace it with some better means as gaming and communication technology improve.

Well, here's the thing. Bob has "Light weapons" - as such, his damage output is lower than Sarah, who has "Heavy weapons".

What does Bob get to compensate him for having less damage output? Or, alternately, what did Sarah have to give up, in order to acquire her relatively-speaking improved damage output?

Yes, I thought you might go there. :) It's the correct question to ask.

Lower damage endurance is, as I've said before, an obvious way to go if you're a programmer under the gun to make combat work in a big, complex gameworld.

But mobility is another viable option. Dedicating a higher proportion of skills or hull space to heavy weapons or special weapons could mean fewer skills (from a character perspective) or less speed/agility (from a vehicle perspective) for adapting quickly to changes in the battlespace.

The opposite historically holds true as well. Horse cavalry is a classic example of choosing to accept a reduced damage-inducing potential in exchange for an increased tactical maneuver capability.

So with all the advances in gaming technology since the days when the "aggro" hack was deployed, why can't we consider improvements or reductions to mobility -- with all the tactical gameplay goodness that flows from such a feature -- as a viable alternative to aggro?

More importantly, mobility is merely one option for gameplay-oriented plus/minus tradeoffs that seem natural if we wanted to design combat gameplay around light/heavy/special weapons roles. Those roles are just examples I pulled out of the air as alternatives to the tank/DPS/support roles to demonstrate that there's nothing sacred about the latter role design and the aggro notion that inspired it. I expect we could come up with even more alternatives if we put our minds to it.

And we're not professional game developers. (Or at least I'm not.)

I think it's reasonable to expect Cryptic to do what they've said they were going to do: start with Star Trek and develop gameplay (including combat roles) from it -- not the other way around.

To be fair, it's possible that that's exactly what they've done, and that Craig is just trying to describe the unique combat gameplay of Star Trek Online in terms that will be familiar to today's online game players.

If so, it's an understandable marketing decision. But it does carry a potential danger if, when the game launches, combat turns out not to be the simple tank/DPS/support+aggro that the use of those terms in interviews led people to expect.

If combat in Star Trek Online isn't about aggro management, then I think Craig would do better not to use "DPS" (for example) as a way to describe that gameplay.

On the other hand, if he does use the term "DPS," then perhaps aggro management is indeed what combat in STO is being designed around, just like in all those other MMORPGs... in which case all of my criticisms of that choice for this particular game stand as given.

We - both you and I - have no real evidence except lack of direct mention of any other scenario that combat is "the single starting point" at all.

I think you're being a bit of a Chicken Little just now. No offense, mind.

No offense taken. You might be right.

If utility for killing things isn't the single starting point around which character skills and ship functions have been designed, I'll be happy to admit that my concerns on that score were unfounded.

If.

--Flatfingers

[_Pax_]

All I can say is that my experience, which dates back to Chainmail and the original D&D, differs. There was no "aggro."
Because there was a Human Being making the decisions for the NPCs.

Nonetheless, some characters were "damage sinks" (call them Tank, Brick, or Damage-Sponge, as you prefer), some were "dealers of death-en-mass", some were "buffbots" or "healers".

So far, they haven't done a very satisfying job of that. Aggro is better than nothing, but it's still nowhere near as good as a human DM can do.
And until the game's AI can match a human for both logic AND intuition, we will require some sort of "aggro" mechanic.

[...] as such MMORPG developers ought to feel free to replace it with some better means as gaming and communication technology improve.
I don't believe computing technology has improved enough to do away with "aggro" entirely. Honestly, I don't think it EVER will - the mechanics of it will simply become more and more sophisticated, more four-dimensional, and less game-able.

Yes, I thought you might go there. :) It's the correct question to ask.

Lower damage endurance is, as I've said before, an obvious way to go if you're a programmer under the gun to make combat work in a big, complex gameworld.

But mobility is another viable option.
STO seems to be making Mobility, itself, part of the "deals damage more efficiently" equation, though. So "more damage" does not necessarily mean "lots more guns", it could instead mean "a couple extra fguns, and really good maneuverability".

The opposite historically holds true as well. Horse cavalry is a classic example of choosing to accept a reduced damage-inducing potential in exchange for an increased tactical maneuver capability.
Depends on the sort of cavalry in question. Light cavalry, yes. Rifle or Pistol cavalry, sure. Heavy Armored Cavalry, pre-firearms era? :) Mass + Speed + Numbers = Dead Peasants

So with all the advances in gaming technology since the days when the "aggro" hack was deployed, why can't we consider improvements or reductions to mobility -- with all the tactical gameplay goodness that flows from such a feature -- as a viable alternative to aggro?
Write the algorythm that produces it, then. I honetly don't think that computers, and the software that runs them, is advanced enough to do away with an aggro mechanic of SOME sort. Rather than beg for "something else", instead, perhaps you should campaign for the (IMO) more-realistically-achievable "more sophisticated".

And we're not professional game developers. (Or at least I'm not.)
Yeah, I wish I was a professional game designer. ^_^

To be fair, it's possible that that's exactly what they've done, and that Craig is just trying to describe the unique combat gameplay of Star Trek Online in terms that will be familiar to today's online game players.
I honestly and truly beleive that this is at least a LARGE PART of the case. It may be that Cryptic just couldn't mvoe entirely away from "Traditional aggro mechanics" - as I have said, I doubt technology is up to that clean of a break, just yet - but I trust them to have made a supreme effort to make those mechanics as unobtrusive as possible.

If combat in Star Trek Online isn't about aggro management, then I think Craig would do better not to use "DPS" (for example) as a way to describe that gameplay.
DPS has nothing inherently to do with aggro-mechanics, though. It has to do with how fast you can pump damage into your target. Literally, it is "Damage per Second".

I begin to think that you, perosnally, just are unable to see the how those terms might apply outside the traditional "holy trinity" application of aggro-mechanics.


If utility for killing things isn't the single starting point around which character skills and ship functions have been designed, I'll be happy to admit that my concerns on that score were unfounded.

If.

--Flatfingers
And if it turns out that "utility for kiling things" is the baseline meter-stick by which ship hulls have been measured and designed, I'll join you in rallying an angry mob, and then distributing the torches and pitchforks outside Cryptic's corporate HQ. :)

Deal? :)

[Flatfingers]

As I said earlier, we've kicked the tires on this subject before; no need to steer this thread completely off the road with more extended commentary on it.

That said:

DPS has nothing inherently to do with aggro-mechanics, though. It has to do with how fast you can pump damage into your target. Literally, it is "Damage per Second".

I begin to think that you, perosnally, just are unable to see the how those terms might apply outside the traditional "holy trinity" application of aggro-mechanics.

If you go back and look at what I've written, you'll see that I've been careful not to claim that DPS is a direct outcome of choosing to copy the aggro mechanic. I've talked about the tank role as a direct outcome; the DPS and support roles are indirect follow-ons that naturally follow from the decision to implement a tank role.

This chaining effect is why I focus on aggro. I see it as the prime mover for the "trinity," so that's why I tend to dismiss deep discussions of tank/DPS/support. They're symptoms, so they're easy to see and convenient to talk about. But the underlying disease itself is the notion of aggro, which I don't agree is so inherently a part of the fundamental definition of "MMORPG" that it'll be with us forever in some form.

Time will tell which of these views was the more accurate.

And if it turns out that "utility for kiling things" is the baseline meter-stick by which ship hulls have been measured and designed, I'll join you in rallying an angry mob, and then distributing the torches and pitchforks outside Cryptic's corporate HQ. :)

Deal? :)

Deal, as long as we can do virtual torches and simulated peasants -- the real things tend to lead to... complications. (Silence, Igor!)

Honestly, I hope it turns out that you're right and the whole "oh noes they copying DPS!!" thing proves to be an unwarranted concern on my part, either because it's not what they implemented or because they did implement it but it turned out to be the most fun approach possible.

From the comments we've seen in print so far, I'm not ready to dismiss that concern as unfounded. But if it turns out to have been wrong in either of the ways described above, I'll be the first to admit my mistake.

Again, though: if.

I wouldn't ask more than that of anyone else.

...so what about the other things that Craig said in the TTH and EBA interviews? Any "hell, yeah!" or "dude, what are you smoking?" reactions to the other stuff?

--Flatfingers

[_Pax_]

I already posted my "hell, yeah" comment. ^_^

[Sarile]

Very nice read-thanks!

Live Long and Prosper

[nhamlett]

Epic Battle Axe has an interview up with Star Trek Online's Executive Producer Craig Zinkievich. New screenshots are included! Check it out. (http://www.epicbattleaxe.com/choice-cuts/2009/3/31/choice-cuts-star-trek-online.html)

Then, tell us what you think!

[Levry]

Nice read. Good to see the designers understand that there is lots of material to pull from.

[foo]

I will read this.

[Rgoodfel]

What is the name of the Klingon ship they have one their site? It looks awesome!

[vtack]

Nice shot of the Vor'cha class. I'm constantly impressed with how much detail goes into the ships.

From the interview I'm wondering about the cosmetic versus functional ship modifications. Does this mean that a cosmetically different nacelle can be added that won't necessarily improve ship funcitons or does this mean that a different nacelle will have both a cosmetic impact (your ship looks different) and a functional impact (you go faster).

Also we've seen some of these upgrades for fed shisp, but I haven't seen any for the klingon ships. Hope that they are just as interesting as their fed counter parts.

[Rgoodfel]

Nice shot of the Vor'cha class. I'm constantly impressed with how much detail goes into the ships.



Thanks for the info vtack. I am not too concerned that Cryptic will not do as much for the Klingon side as they have done for the Feds. However, I do think they forget to show us the Klingon stuff.

[Voyager24]

Interesting interview, I enjoyed reading it.

[Nasedo]

Epic Battle Axe has an interview up with Star Trek Online's Executive Producer Craig Zinkievich. New screenshots are included! Check it out. (http://www.epicbattleaxe.com/choice-cuts/2009/3/31/choice-cuts-star-trek-online.html)

Then, tell us what you think!

Awen! im so pumped for this game i so cant wait,

if everything you guys say is in the game, this well break wow's 12 million people

thanks for the interview

(Hugs Awen)

[Reinkaos]

Loving the sound of space combat :D and the composition of away teams sounds fun too! This game is sounding great :)

[ronaldheld]

Will read it later tonight.

[SenshiBat]

Always nice to see new or newer views of this STO subject matter.

[Roo_Rocket]

Idea for holodeck:

It can be used to improve your skills. You could simulate an away mission to a planet and you could get experience, but it would take as long as a normal away team mission.

It could also be used as just plain training (i.e. target practice) for the benefit of the crew

[AaronH]

One of the things that I am still heavily wondering about is if it will be possible to not take our captain on away missions. Can I put together an away team that doesn't include my captain? Its something I would really like to see.

[Rgoodfel]

Idea for holodeck:

It can be used to improve your skills. You could simulate an away mission to a planet and you could get experience, but it would take as long as a normal away team mission.

It could also be used as just plain training (i.e. target practice) for the benefit of the crew

I think the holodeck would be better used for things that you normal can't do in the game. If it was just used for game stuff why don't you just play the game?

[Nasedo]

Epic Battle Axe has an interview up with Star Trek Online's Executive Producer Craig Zinkievich. New screenshots are included! Check it out. (http://www.epicbattleaxe.com/choice-cuts/2009/3/31/choice-cuts-star-trek-online.html)

Then, tell us what you think!

Sweet interview... so many thing are coming out fast!!!

keep them coming AWEN!! (hug)

[Trekkie]

I really like the screenshots from this interview, and I, too, am very glad that there is so much information about the game being released so quickly!

[SnuffleKitty]

Two thoughts:

1. Will the ground game be twitch based?

2. Will we ever see another successful sandbox (SWG) style MMO again?

Regardless, a fantastic interview.

-Snuffles

[Sherp]

EBA: [W]e're looking to develop an economy that is deep but very much in the Trek genre. Gathering resources, inventing technology and understanding alien technology - and then trading those items and knowledge - will be the basis of the economy.

Resource gathering?

By Starfleet officers and doughty Klingon warriors?

Really?

If I am asked to put anything on my starship that could possibly be described as a "mining laser" I will sharpen pitchforks for the angry mob.

Assuming that Cryptic is not going to implement such an obvious "EVE clone" feature, how could resource gathering be implemented in a Star Trek manner?

For the Federation, agreeing to provide material resources could be required for Federation membership. I wouldn't at all be surprised to hear that member worlds are required to pay dues of some sort. Therefore, whenever you explore a new star system, make First Contact, and successfully persuade a planet to join the Federation, you're opening a new stream of resources back to the Federation for which you will constantly be credited (unless and until the system decides to leave the Federation for one reason or another, e.g. being conquered by the Klingons. There's the "indirect PvP" Craig was talking about.)

If a freshly-contacted FTL-capable civilization likes you but isn't ready to join just yet, you could still arrange a trade of some kind. They could agree to send a freighter full of refined dilithium (or something) Starfleet's way in exchange for valuable technology or information. This would be a one-shot resource boost to the Federation for which you would be credited.

In either case, the Federation's ideals of diplomacy and exploration would be fulfilled and would also have the effect of gathering resources in a manner for which players could be credited.

Things are considerably simpler for the Klingons. Replace "negotiate" with "conquer" and "trade" with "pillage" and you're most of the way there. :)

In any case, military starships from either faction should NEVER be filling their holds with commercial cargo. That is not the job of a starship, it is the job of a freighter. If a starship needs to get cargo from point A to point B, it should do so by escorting a freighter.

[CommanderDP]

how much longer wil it be befor we can play the game?:confused:

[KL0k]

i just cant imagine how the spacecombat works. could the dev-team pretty please upload a short ingame-video from the perspective of a player? even if its just 30seconds long or something, just for the sake of understanding.

[Arsinoe]

This has really made me more excited to play this game.

More Cryptic, more more more hehehehe....... :D

Ok i sense i need a break.

[miqrogroove]

Why do the new screenshots say Atari on them? That seems really lame to me.

[Flatfingers]

If I am asked to put anything on my starship that could possibly be described as a "mining laser" I will sharpen pitchforks for the angry mob.

...

If a freshly-contacted FTL-capable civilization likes you but isn't ready to join just yet, you could still arrange a trade of some kind. They could agree to send a freighter full of refined dilithium (or something) Starfleet's way in exchange for valuable technology or information. This would be a one-shot resource boost to the Federation for which you would be credited.

...

In any case, military starships from either faction should NEVER be filling their holds with commercial cargo. That is not the job of a starship, it is the job of a freighter. If a starship needs to get cargo from point A to point B, it should do so by escorting a freighter.

We are definitely thinking along the same lines here.

I don't have a problem with player actions benefiting the faction (or possibly a player fleet, though I might have to think about that one) with respect to resources. What concerns me is the prospect of "resources" being defined as specific, tangible items that individual players can "mine" and then put into their personal inventories. That sort of thing is lovely in other games; it's pretty much all I did in SWG towards the end... but it's not right for this particular game.

Klingon heros don't get their hands dirty with mere economic labor.

And Starfleet officers don't engage in commerce for personal advancement.

I've spoken in favor elsewhere of certain gameplay features being so important or valuable that they trump the need to respect Star Trek canon. I don't think this question of "resource gathering" is one of those bits of gameplay.

And that's because there are other ways of designing resource gathers (i.e., economic gameplay) that don't stick a thumb in the eye of canon. Your notion of trades as a result of diplomatic actions is one perfectly valid approach. Not only does it set the right tone lore-wise, it gets the economic job done gameplay-wise by directing resources where they're needed.

I suggested elsewhere another approach, which was to let player Admirals create optional missions for other players in particular locations. Over time, if the players of one's faction were mostly successful, military and/or political control would be imposed over areas of space containing worlds containing faction-strategic resources. At that point the benefits of that strategic resource (could be raw economic resources, or alien-manufactured goods, or even a special stationary object like the Guardian of Forever) would become available to all players of that faction.

The point is that these are just a couple of (I believe) reasonable ways that an economic game can be designed that doesn't require turning warriors and explorers into Cyrano Jones. If you and I can come up with ideas this easily, surely the pros at Cryptic can think of even better ways to enable economic gameplay that's both fun and functional without unnecessarily honking up the important "heroes don't engage in direct commerce" aspect of Star Trek lore.

It's definintely going to be interesting to see how STO's designers have chosen to define "economic gameplay" for the MMORPG based on this special IP....

--Flatfingers