Real People as Crewmembers

[Morgan711]

I'm not sure how to interpret what I've read on the website, and was wondering if anyone could shed any light on the subject with info they know, or any ideas that they have concerning the topic.

It states you can go on away missions with your friends, but suggests you are the only 'real' person on your ship, with yourself being a Captain. Does this mean you cannot have a crew of 'real people', of friends from the real world, with a proper ranking system (like a CMO, head of Security and XO, etc)?

[LunaticFringer]

Nope, no player crews at launch as of now. It has been a heated topic on the forums over the year.

[Morgan711]

Thanks. That is a real shame, because I was looking forward to teaming up with a few mates. I also didn't fell it was entirely reaslistic a Lt. Commander being the CO with a Commander on board. Not so much individuality about it. I could understand early players being quickly promoted, but more believability and structure would be nice.

[_Pax_]

Just to add some information that may assuage some of your disappointment: try, if you can, to imagine how difficult it would be to make sure every player on a fully human-crewed ship, always had somethign entertaining to do during every mission. The doctor doesn't have much to do during a cargo-delivery mission; the engineer isn't much help during a disease-rlief mission, and until the shooting starts, the guy at Tactical is pretty much just watching the clock.

It woudl be VERY difficult to write the game so that EVERY mission involved EVERY member of the bridge crew in a meaningful way. Even the television series never tried to do that. :)

Also:
I also didn't fell it was entirely reaslistic a Lt. Commander being the CO with a Commander on board.
The LtCDR wouldn't be the CO then - the CDR would be.

However, if the highest-ranking officer aboard was a Lieutenant Commander, and her bridge crew consisted of Lieutenants (both ordinary and Junior Grade) ...? Well, "being captain of the ship" is not the same as "holding the rank of Captain". 8)

[OddjobXL]

The devs seem to be fans of the idea of multiplayer ships based on what they've said so far and they have said they're not going to implement anything that would make this impossible down the road. Just, for practical reasons, we won't have functional multiplayer ships at launch.

I'm hoping this is one of the top priorities for expansions down the road. Clearly there's enough interest but you have to get the basics in place first and having a solid game that can be played by individuals first is going to be most important to attract and retain the early adopters.

I wouldn't expect fully rendered interiors for every deck and hundreds of players per ship. More likely player crew will fill the roles and functions NPC crew do now and will serve as bridge crew/away teams on a multiplayer vessel.

As I've said before we've got the multiplayer away teams one would expect in a Star Trek setting. The ships just need to catch up.

[Tamgros]

Just to add some information that may assuage some of your disappointment: try, if you can, to imagine how difficult it would be to make sure every player on a fully human-crewed ship, always had somethign entertaining to do during every mission. The doctor doesn't have much to do during a cargo-delivery mission; the engineer isn't much help during a disease-rlief mission, and until the shooting starts, the guy at Tactical is pretty much just watching the clock.

It woudl be VERY difficult to write the game so that EVERY mission involved EVERY member of the bridge crew in a meaningful way. Even the television series never tried to do that. :)

Also:

The LtCDR wouldn't be the CO then - the CDR would be.

However, if the highest-ranking officer aboard was a Lieutenant Commander, and her bridge crew consisted of Lieutenants (both ordinary and Junior Grade) ...? Well, "being captain of the ship" is not the same as "holding the rank of Captain". 8)

Just to continue this point, here's the executive producer's, Craig Zinkievich, devblog on the issue:
http://www.mmorpg.com/blogs.cfm?isapi_rewrite_remap=Awenyddion/032009/3505&bhcp=1

Another thing of note is that you will be able to team with people on any mission (as far as we know). The maximum player group size is varied, starting at a max of 5 for much of the episodic content and then expanding for end game and PvP type stuff.

Again, there will be plenty of grouping with people, it's just that each of you will have your own ship.:)

and welcome to the forums!

[Banar]

Actually the way it works in the Navy (thus being perfectly realistic) and in Starfleet is that even if a higher ranking officer is onboard a vessel under the command of say a Lt. Cdr (the CO) the Lt. Cdr. is still the CO of the ship, unless the superior officer has orders from higher up to say otherwise or there are extenuating circumstances like the CO being unfit for duty. However a Flag Officer (Any ranked Admiral) may take command without prior orders if they deem it necessary to do so. They arent "automatically" in command.

[Hagon]

I personally wish they would close the door on the idea except as maybe some special instanced missions people can group together for. Just so if they ever do it, we don't have to go through the game balance yo yo that it will invariably cause.

[Kinjiru]

/looks around

/backs out of thread slowly

:cool:

[wrussandrews]

SWG does this and while it is fun it is a bit hectic. Imagine yourself in a yt-1300 (the Millenium Falcon fis a yt-1300).

You have a pilot, two gunners, operations, and a bunch of people running around fixing stuff that gets blown up. Coordination is quite difficult.

I am sure we will see something like this eventually, but first things first.

[Skodz]

It sure would be nice to have the main deck crew as real people or being able to deploy small fighters players manned from the main ship but I guess thats not very star trek like.

[LunaticFringer]

My advice, since I'm a supporter of player crews as well, is to jockey for ideas or at least support getting the player crew ideas looked at again after we reach launch time and they can start diverting resources into making it happen.

Mistake or not they just aren't going to be there at launch. And since we do know at least a few of the Devs were behind the idea when they were brainstorming likely means it isn't a tossed out idea for the future. Just something on the back burner.

But I do think something that needs to be hammered on with the subject is that it be a completely optional form of game play. In other words not forcing those that want the npc crew members to suddenly have to adopt player crews just to play. This much I would hope we can all agree on.

[Hagon]

My advice, since I'm a supporter of player crews as well, is to jockey for ideas or at least support getting the player crew ideas looked at again after we reach launch time and they can start diverting resources into making it happen.

Mistake or not they just aren't going to be there at launch. And since we do know at least a few of the Devs were behind the idea when they were brainstorming likely means it isn't a tossed out idea for the future. Just something on the back burner.

But I do think something that needs to be hammered on with the subject is that it be a completely optional form of game play. In other words not forcing those that want the npc crew members to suddenly have to adopt player crews just to play. This much I would hope we can all agree on.Unfortunately we can't agree on it, since I don't see any way that they can implement player crewed ships without causing huge imbalances in the game, thus causing most fleets to consider having these player crewed ships a necessity, and inevitably making a lot of players feel forced onto them.

Instanced (maybe repeatable) missions where players can do it is all that's needed in my opinion.

[OddjobXL]

Unfortunately we can't agree on it, since I don't see any way that they can implement player crewed ships without causing huge imbalances in the game, thus causing most fleets to consider having these player crewed ships a necessity, and inevitably making a lot of players feel forced onto them.

Instanced (maybe repeatable) missions where players can do it is all that's needed in my opinion.

Well, I don't think crewed ships will be in any way superior to regular ships and quite the opposite. Look at the SWG example. Very few experienced PvPers chose multiplayer ships simply because they're more a chore than they're worth in that context. They're big fat targets with a different brain controlling each gun, the buffs and the movement of the vessel. In fact, for events, they often have special rules so that multiplayer ships can compete at all such as only multiplayer ships can aggress other multiplayer ships.

And this is fine. The main reason to have this functionality in the game is for fun. Not for minmaxing or ego boosting. It should be in, one day, because it is an element that many seem to find essential to the Star Trek experience: crewing a ship with their friends. I imagine it will be much more a PvE option than an PvP one.

[Suricata]

I've always believed that if they were to add player crews, it should only be done on guild 'hub' ships. Meaning that your regular player has thier own ship, but a guild can pull its resources together to have a guild ship, where the entire crew can man the ship and walk around it. Ofcourse, this would have to be done after launch, because for any plyer crewed ship to work, the ship would need an interior, and this isn't going to happen at launch, at least not on persistant ships (just of episode ships).

[LordDave]

Unfortunately we can't agree on it, since I don't see any way that they can implement player crewed ships without causing huge imbalances in the game, thus causing most fleets to consider having these player crewed ships a necessity, and inevitably making a lot of players feel forced onto them.

Instanced (maybe repeatable) missions where players can do it is all that's needed in my opinion.

I had proposed the idea of a holodeck like War games arena where people can take the stations of a ship and fight other people either same faction or other faction. Since it's the holodeck, there is no balancing issues really needed and it won't screw up the main universe. Plus you can then use it for player made missions.

But that's almost a game in and of itself.

[Neshy]

People have trouble understanding this and i have no idea why. its almost IMPOSSIBLE to have a player crew. even just a bridge crew. when are all of your friends gonna be on at the exact same time? it would also be boring. one guy piloting the ship. one guy firing phasers and torpedoes when the captain, who just sits there and chills, tells him to. it would be the most boring game in existence. the science officer would scan the area and look at a map the whole time. What would the security officer do? run around the hallways and make sure children dont fight and make a scene? the chief engineer will sit in engineering and make sure the warp core doesnt explode. so yeah. overall a player crew would have delayed communication as well. and what if someone decided they wanted to mess with the captain and defy orders. or all of the crew just messed around...

well...my 2 cents

-Neshy

[Kinjiru]

Unfortunately we can't agree on it, since I don't see any way that they can implement player crewed ships without causing huge imbalances in the game, thus causing most fleets to consider having these player crewed ships a necessity, and inevitably making a lot of players feel forced onto them.

Instanced (maybe repeatable) missions where players can do it is all that's needed in my opinion.

Well Hagon, it's a good thing that you're not a dev. :D

Seriously though, we've been through it many times, there are some workable suggestions, there are some valid concerns, but in the end, it's up to Cryptic to implement (or not) a way for players to crew another player's bridge. We do know that some people are asking for it, and we know that Cryptic's said that it's something they'd like to do, but not for launch. Let's just leave it at that. :)

[overlordthor]

No, but yo0u can team up with friends for away missions, and group up to take on big things, without anyone having to suffer being an ensign in charge of interpretting stellar telemetry.

[mook42]

I'm not sure how to interpret what I've read on the website, and was wondering if anyone could shed any light on the subject with info they know, or any ideas that they have concerning the topic.

It states you can go on away missions with your friends, but suggests you are the only 'real' person on your ship, with yourself being a Captain. Does this mean you cannot have a crew of 'real people', of friends from the real world, with a proper ranking system (like a CMO, head of Security and XO, etc)?


i would love this. but there not going to do it now .maybe in the furture we can pray:)

[scorpiovaeden]

Obviously we all want to experience this game, in the manner that we imagine star trek online should be.

In terms of player crews, the idea at this point in time is certainly impractical. It would be nice to have this option in some form in the future, once they can plan out the bugs and issues, to make it work for those players who want to experience that.

For myself I will be an NPC bridge crew player, as I would not have the time nor patience to play with other players while flying through the galaxy or taking orders from other players, cause I will be the captain of my ship, lol.

It would be good if we can group our away teams with other players for away team missions... almost in the form of ally unions of units... I may have my five officers in my away team, and my ally player may have his/her away team, this would be great for going up against large numbers of enemies... im not sure if this is what they have in mind for the away team multiplayer missions or not, but might work.

[LordDave]

Obviously we all want to experience this game, in the manner that we imagine star trek online should be.

In terms of player crews, the idea at this point in time is certainly impractical. It would be nice to have this option in some form in the future, once they can plan out the bugs and issues, to make it work for those players who want to experience that.

For myself I will be an NPC bridge crew player, as I would not have the time nor patience to play with other players while flying through the galaxy or taking orders from other players, cause I will be the captain of my ship, lol.

It would be good if we can group our away teams with other players for away team missions... almost in the form of ally unions of units... I may have my five officers in my away team, and my ally player may have his/her away team, this would be great for going up against large numbers of enemies... im not sure if this is what they have in mind for the away team multiplayer missions or not, but might work.

Away Team missions:

An away team consists of 5 people. You (your captain) and 4 others. The 4 others can be any combination of other players and your pets. Possibly their pets.
Ex:
Joe beams down with Bill. Joe's science and engineering officer also come as well as one of Joe's security guys.

[neomarsala]

People have trouble understanding this and i have no idea why. its almost IMPOSSIBLE to have a player crew. even just a bridge crew. when are all of your friends gonna be on at the exact same time? it would also be boring. one guy piloting the ship. one guy firing phasers and torpedoes when the captain, who just sits there and chills, tells him to. it would be the most boring game in existence. the science officer would scan the area and look at a map the whole time. What would the security officer do? run around the hallways and make sure children dont fight and make a scene? the chief engineer will sit in engineering and make sure the warp core doesnt explode. so yeah. overall a player crew would have delayed communication as well. and what if someone decided they wanted to mess with the captain and defy orders. or all of the crew just messed around...

well...my 2 cents

-Neshy

Agreed. I understand why the idea of player crews is appealing to some people, but I just don't think it could work.

[ComradeWolfie]

christ on a bike, not this **** again

[Flatfingers]

Yep, this again.

And it's going to continue to come up because the idea -- that several people should be able to voluntarily group to individually control the key systems of one ship -- is widely perceived to be an appropriate feature for this particular game.

Personally, I'd like to see the concern over "imbalance" get the scrutiny it deserves.

How many NPC-crewed ships will it take to equal one player-crewed ship?

Suppose it's 5:1. That means five people controlling all the functions of their own ship would need to group in order to equal five people who choose to focus on controlling one function of one ship.

Which will be easier to accomplish: getting five people together in their own ships? Or finding five people willing to serve together on one ship?

I suspect the former will be a lot easier to accomplish. There are likely to be more people flying around in their individual NPC-crewed ships than people seeking to crew one ship; it's always going to be easier to get a group of multiple ships together than to fill the crew roster with players on one ship.

Suppose it's five times easier to put together a group of NPC-crewed ships than to get five people onto one ship. In that case, retaining the assumption that player-crewed ships are five times more effective than NPC-crewed ships, there is no imbalance.

I understand that it will be tempting to focus on trying to shoot down the specific numbers I made up as examples here, but of course that would be silly since it would fail to address the key point: if it's easier to put together groups of NPC-crewed ships than fully player-crewed ships, that will serve to counterbalance any superiority that ships crewed by players might somehow have.

And if NPC-crewed ships actually turn out to be superior to player-crewed ships, what then? Is there still a concern over balance?

We have very definitely not heard the last on this subject of player crews. There are some really interesting game design questions still open for discussion with regard to how a player crew feature might be implemented.

I hope those looking to trade ideas on this subject in a friendly and constructive way will be permitted to do so.

--Flatfingers

[Hagon]

Well, I don't think crewed ships will be in any way superior to regular ships and quite the opposite. Look at the SWG example. Very few experienced PvPers chose multiplayer ships simply because they're more a chore than they're worth in that context. They're big fat targets with a different brain controlling each gun, the buffs and the movement of the vessel. In fact, for events, they often have special rules so that multiplayer ships can compete at all such as only multiplayer ships can aggress other multiplayer ships.

And this is fine. The main reason to have this functionality in the game is for fun. Not for minmaxing or ego boosting. It should be in, one day, because it is an element that many seem to find essential to the Star Trek experience: crewing a ship with their friends. I imagine it will be much more a PvE option than an PvP one.Very few players chose multi-player crewed ships AT ALL in swg, and why they didn't had absolutely nothing to do with PvP . They were a complete failure in garnering much interest in the player base, thus a complete waste of development time.

Star Trek isn't Star Wars. The ships in STO aren't going to have gunners and every aspect of the ship will be controlled via input to a computer. So instead of one person having to monitor all incoming data from various stations and making adjustments accordingly to all those systems whilst in the heat of a fight, it would be 5 or more people, each only having to concentrate on one aspect, and thus being able to control that aspect to a much greater degree and much more efficiently.

It would not only knock PvP out of balance, but every other mission, encounter, NPC foe, etc etc. It would entail a complete overhaul of the game long after the game was in a steady state, and unlike SWG's case, it wouldn't be a needed one to save the game.

[Hagon]

Yep, this again.

And it's going to continue to come up because the idea -- that several people should be able to voluntarily group to individually control the key systems of one ship -- is widely perceived to be an appropriate feature for this particular game.

No it is not. It's perceived to be an appropriate feature for this particular game by the tiniest niche possible pretty much.

[Janaus]

No it is not. It's perceived to be an appropriate feature for this particular game by the tiniest niche possible pretty much.

If that was true, then why does it come up as often as it does? In a positive light no less?

In terms of the imbalance though, my suggestion, as it was in the SWG forums, which was ignored unfortunately, was to make the multi-player ships limited to Fleet run vessels, or PVE instances. That way it never becomes an issue of PVP balance, and as such, for PVE instances at least, the difficulty levels can be assigned a "floating" value based on the number of crew, relative rank, etc...

[_Pax_]

I can admit - since my plans for STO include a Permanent Duo between myself and my girlfriend, I'd LOVE to see a way for us to both serve on a single ship. It'd be awesome, IMO.

But since that's not going to happen, well, I just have to accept that it's not going to happen. Instead, we'll be a pair of ships operating in concert - a bit more specialised for each of us, than a solo player's ship might ever manage to pull off. That has it's OWN storyline possibilities, so I can definitely live with THAT setup, too. :)

[GamerForever]

Well, my idea of having friends come aboard would be to share the experience of exploration with them. Plus who's to say that the strange new worlds that are discovered arn't hostile?

But like was said earlier, this would be a feature for fun, not so much for hardcore game play imo.

[Sarile]

I don't think I want another player to help me run my starship. Too many variables playing with other online players-like them having to leave for whatever reason in the middle of a heated battle. Suddenly you might find yourself stranded because your captain, first officer, whoever, disappears and you and your ship are destroyed.

Live Long and Prosper

[OddjobXL]

Very few players chose multi-player crewed ships AT ALL in swg, and why they didn't had absolutely nothing to do with PvP . They were a complete failure in garnering much interest in the player base, thus a complete waste of development time.

Star Trek isn't Star Wars. The ships in STO aren't going to have gunners and every aspect of the ship will be controlled via input to a computer. So instead of one person having to monitor all incoming data from various stations and making adjustments accordingly to all those systems whilst in the heat of a fight, it would be 5 or more people, each only having to concentrate on one aspect, and thus being able to control that aspect to a much greater degree and much more efficiently.

It would not only knock PvP out of balance, but every other mission, encounter, NPC foe, etc etc. It would entail a complete overhaul of the game long after the game was in a steady state, and unlike SWG's case, it wouldn't be a needed one to save the game.

We've already discussed possible designs and we're not going to rehash that here. It not only can be done but it can be done without disrupting the singleplayer ship approach. Or are you calling Cryptic's developers misleading in their statements that they won't put anything in the game that would impede the future development of a multiplayer ship aspect?

[stat]

People have trouble understanding this and i have no idea why. its almost IMPOSSIBLE to have a player crew. even just a bridge crew. when are all of your friends gonna be on at the exact same time? it would also be boring. one guy piloting the ship. one guy firing phasers and torpedoes when the captain, who just sits there and chills, tells him to. it would be the most boring game in existence. the science officer would scan the area and look at a map the whole time. What would the security officer do? run around the hallways and make sure children dont fight and make a scene? the chief engineer will sit in engineering and make sure the warp core doesnt explode. so yeah. overall a player crew would have delayed communication as well. and what if someone decided they wanted to mess with the captain and defy orders. or all of the crew just messed around...

well...my 2 cents

-Neshy

Thank you. What this man has said is the truth. Not only would Cryptic have have to develop the main game, but also develop a FUN WAY for someone to do engineering, tactical, science, helm, etc.

That simply isn't going to happen. Note the word "fun". It's a game. Why do we play games? For fun...

Also the other issue is pertinent as well. While it is reasonable to schedule a specific time between 5 or so people, you will have the issue of ninja AFKs.

Captain: "Bob, fire torpedoes or we're all doomed!!"
Captain: "...Bob?"
*your ship blows up*

[Azurit]

It woudl be VERY difficult to write the game so that EVERY mission involved EVERY member of the bridge crew in a meaningful way. Even the television series never tried to do that. :)


But thats not the only problem I see. How is it handled with the different online times? If you want to be a constant crew on a ship you can only play when everyone is on. What would you do in the game when no one is on?

[Hagon]

If that was true, then why does it come up as often as it does? In a positive light no less?It keeps getting brought up by the same very small number of people, the occasional person that's supposedly just found out about the game but mysteriously somehow knows all about the history of the issue here on the forums, and once in a blue moon a genuine new poster. Not only that, a large proportion of the tiny segment that keeps bringing up the issue can be traced to some small pre-existing text based ST ship sim groups out there that in the forum's first days (before the mod clued in on what they were doing and put a stop to it) tried to flood this forum with topics pertaining to player crews.

In terms of the imbalance though, my suggestion, as it was in the SWG forums, which was ignored unfortunately, was to make the multi-player ships limited to Fleet run vessels, or PVE instances. That way it never becomes an issue of PVP balance, and as such, for PVE instances at least, the difficulty levels can be assigned a "floating" value based on the number of crew, relative rank, etc...I agree that if Cryptic is going to waste their time including them, they should be included in the game within repeatable PvE instances. That way the tiny segment that wants the feature can have what they want and not effect the rest of the game.


We've already discussed possible designs and we're not going to rehash that here. It not only can be done but it can be done without disrupting the singleplayer ship approach. Or are you calling Cryptic's developers misleading in their statements that they won't put anything in the game that would impede the future development of a multiplayer ship aspect?People have discussed it, at great length, because you know, a tiny group just wouldn't let it go and kept flooding the forum with the topic and using one post wonder alts (like we now see one particular person doing all the time regarding ship interiors), and the best they could do (and from what we understand the best Cryptic could do when thinking about how to make it fit) was offer each station mini-game style content. Which even some of the most vocal proponents of player crews finally admitted would be very unsatisfying game play for most people. As well, there was no way come up with to be able to give each individual station a feeling of being part of what was going on outside the ship. It always comes back to there being only one player out of 5 or 6 or more that gets to actually see the game.

What a developer says they want to do in the early days of development is usually very different from what they end up doing in the end. Especially when what they say is more than likely said just to placate and quieten down some very vocal tiny minority that's starting to get annoying.

[Kazzy]

One thing that has been bugging me with this approach?

What would the captain and the command team actually do?

They could say fire and go this way and repair these systems, but ultimately their navigators, engineers and weapons officers would be the ones actually doing the firing and the steering, meaning the captain would actually do very little, especially if their crew don't actually have to listen to them at all, considering we aren't in an actual military.

I for one can't see this as an attractive gameplay option

[OddjobXL]

People have discussed it, at great length, because you know, a tiny group just wouldn't let it go and kept flooding the forum with the topic and using one post wonder alts (like we now see one particular person doing all the time regarding ship interiors), and the best they could do (and from what we understand the best Cryptic could do when thinking about how to make it fit) was offer each station mini-game style content. Which even some of the most vocal proponents of player crews finally admitted would be very unsatisfying game play for most people. As well, there was no way come up with to be able to give each individual station a feeling of being part of what was going on outside the ship. It always comes back to there being only one player out of 5 or 6 or more that gets to actually see the game.

Which in the design concept I put forward and is remarkably similar to some of the ideas Flatfinger has is an advantage. Look, trust me, I play computer games quite a bit. Maybe too much. I've seen these systems work before and there are unique ways a Star Trek game can take advantage of innovative systems along these lines. What I'm not going to do, or try to resist doing, is explain it over and over again because someone's just got it in their head something is impossible. Because, quite frankly, I don't think people fighting this tooth and nail care whether it is possible. They just see it as developer energy and effort being put into something that could be put, instead, into something they personally want more. That they may, in fact, feel fervent about. That's a good word fervent.

What a developer says they want to do in the early days of development is usually very different from what they end up doing in the end. Especially when what they say is more than likely said just to placate and quieten down some very vocal tiny minority that's starting to get annoying.

Personally, I have more trust in my favorite, self-proclaimed, carebear roleplaying designer. We'll see if it's warranted. Not like I haven't been mistaken before. Still, more fun to be optimistic than cynical.

[Hagon]

Because, quite frankly, I don't think people fighting this tooth and nail care whether it is possible. They just see it as developer energy and effort being put into something that could be put, instead, into something they personally want more. That they may, in fact, feel fervent about. That's a good word fervent. Ya, I'll cop to wanting them to concentrate on providing the funnest game possible to the widest spectrum of people and not getting side tracked trying to implement a feature that would only appeal to a tiny tiny subgroup that is willing to be subservient on someone else's ship and experience the game as a second class player. I'm standing up on a chair waving my arms and hopping on one leg proudly exclaiming that I'm all for that in fact.

[Kinjiru]

No it is not. It's perceived to be an appropriate feature for this particular game by the tiniest niche possible pretty much.

That is definitely not the case Hagon. I truly think that some of your ideas/suggestions have been decent, but you can't just say something to make it true.

*If*, as a group-based dynamic (away team based - 5 people) you were able to take over from an NPC bridge crewman (temporarily, only as long as the group stayed together, if you leave the group, an NPC takes back over) or if the group is disbanded (players respawn into their respective ships, no harm, no foul) the most that you can say with any degree of accuracy is that you don't care for the idea, or some people don't want to...

Not no one, or 3% of possible players, or a tiny niche. Because I can think of this (particular idea) working very well.

[Hagon]

That is definitely not the case Hagon. I truly think that some of your ideas/suggestions have been decent, but you can't just say something to make it true.

*If*, as a group-based dynamic (away team based - 5 people) you were able to take over from an NPC bridge crewman (temporarily, only as long as the group stayed together, if you leave the group, an NPC takes back over) or if the group is disbanded (players respawn into their respective ships, no harm, no foul) the most that you can say with any degree of accuracy is that you don't care for the idea, or some people don't want to...

Not no one, or 3% of possible players, or a tiny niche. Because I can think of this (particular idea) working very well.I say it without a shadow of doubt in my mind. Even at the height of this issue being tossed about here on the forums there were only @ 10 or 20 people that posted (and posted repeatedly... seemingly endlessly, then moved their campaign of intimidation and misdirection to another forum I'll not name here) on the subject.

Since the topic was pretty much dropped by those very very few here, we have hardly seen the subject broached by new posters that wouldn't know the history of the discussions here.

[Kinjiru]

I say it without a shadow of doubt in my mind. Even at the height of this issue being tossed about here on the forums there were only @ 10 or 20 people that posted (and posted repeatedly... seemingly endlessly, then moved their campaign of intimidation and misdirection to another forum I'll not name here) on the subject.

Since the topic was pretty much dropped by those very very few here, we have hardly seen the subject broached by new posters that wouldn't know the history of the discussions here.

heh... the subject wasn't dropped, it was closed by Razor. :)

Mainly because (IMHO) the Devs had seen all of the ideas/suggestions, and all of the pros/cons of the subject, and some people were starting to repeat themselves, whereas others wouldn't look at any other options, for the good or the bad.

I'm not familiar with the other forum, and I don't think that I even came close to intimidating anyone. (Did I?)

As an interesting aside, I started on the complete opposite side of the discussion (adamantly), but when I actually came up with a workable system, I decided that it was possible, and that Cryptic should at least have the opportunity to hear it. (Which I think they have, I hope so, anyway.)

To date, I have never seen one person able to refute my suggestion, or present any reasons why it would unbalance any aspect of gameplay. Of course, I could be missing something, and would welcome ideas, I like finding solutions to problems, and *if* Cryptic ever does give us this feature, I think it will likely take the form of something very similar to what I've got, if only because it's the only way that I can see it working. (I'm certainly not clairvoyant though :) )

A system based on a group dynamic, the exact same group dynamic that will be used for Away Team missions anyway. The architecture is already there, or will use existing gemaplay mechanics to function.

If you'd like to at least hear what I've got, (I don't think that you ever replied to any of my posts, so I don't know if you're familiar with it.) let me know, and I'll either post it here, or if you'd like, I could send it as a PM so we could discuss it between ourselves.

[seancorycooper]

player crews sound good, but won't be fun for all involved...why just be a tac officer when you can command your own starship?..

[Janaus]

player crews sound good, but won't be fun for all involved...why just be a tac officer when you can command your own starship?..

Because thats part of the ST experience, not everyone always wants to be the captain. Just like in RL, there are leaders, and there are followers. Plus, you don't really get the same thrill, IMO, saying "fire torpedoes" as pushing the button that launches projectile death at your enemies :P

Then of course, there's the RP part of it, which is pretty obvious...

[seancorycooper]

I hear you, but I still think that player crews in practice won't work generally..now, if you have a situation where your fleet has a sovereign, several large ships, and your fleet mates are the bridge crew on each ship, and your fleet is part of a larger fleet, where everyone is talking with each other, buzz of activity, and everyone has an immersive role in a battle situation..THEN..that would be cool. but it would be a logistical nightmare..what happens when your nav guy gets wife aggro mid-battle? or someone has to leave to put the kids to bed..you see my point..easier when each person has their own ship.

[Posidon]

Player crews can and would work quite well over AI controlled stations. Fine adjustments and the transferring of power to a certain degree, might make a ship last in combat much longer, or be able to scan and ID faster than there AI counterparts. It is all in how you do it (or implement it).

There is always something to do for the bridge crew. Secondary crew would not need to be playable, but it could be interchangeable (self "instanced" so to speak). If Cryptic want that level of detail and immersion, then STO is on course for one "hell-of-a-ride!" It would take some time, but completing this in steps would slowly place the game play from external view rotation, to internal / tactical based ship movement / combat. That would be the crowning achievement to any Star Trek based game until now. Time will tell. I think they are on this path, but no one knows for sure.

[seancorycooper]

well, the best way would then be to make player bridge stations a toggle-able option on all ships..also make the stations that are not player-manned, be captain-controlled in case you only have a partial player crew..best of both worlds..play as the sole controller when you want, have other aboard when you want..actually, come to think of it, a player creew would be a wonderful way for a whole family to play together on the same ship =)..

[LordDave]

Ugh...
Around and around we go, where we stop.. .nobody knows....

The Developers want to put this in BUT.... they REFUSE to do it unless ITS FUN and FUNCTIONAL. They will not put any player ship interiors unless the player can always do something in it. (besides looking around)

Now... to that end, dividing up the different stations is no easy task, especially when you have to figure out what the captain does if say... he's got a helmsman, but no tactical officer or if he has tactical and helm but no engineer, ect... (and by has none I mean noone is playing that role so it's AI controlled)
It can be done but it's going to take a hell of a long time to figure it all out. The design document alone is likely to be a good 100+ pages.

So. If this is a game breaker, then just wait and watch the forums, site, ect... for the Player Ship Interior update.
If it's not a game breaker, play the game until they put it in.

[nagash303]

Instanced (maybe repeatable) missions where players can do it is all that's needed in my opinion.

for instanced missions I believe it can work perfect. Search for members in advance, then go into the instance and everybody on same ship on the pre-assigned station hopefully knowing what they do. Instances have a repetitive nature you can do as often as you like. Or the quest could tell you that you have to be at least once in every chair in that ini to complete it.

I also agree with Neshy and stat on page 3 or 4.

[Posidon]

Ugh...
Around and around we go, where we stop.. .nobody knows....

The Developers want to put this in BUT.... they REFUSE to do it unless ITS FUN and FUNCTIONAL. They will not put any player ship interiors unless the player can always do something in it. (besides looking around)

Now... to that end, dividing up the different stations is no easy task, especially when you have to figure out what the captain does if say... he's got a helmsman, but no tactical officer or if he has tactical and helm but no engineer, ect... (and by has none I mean noone is playing that role so it's AI controlled)
It can be done but it's going to take a hell of a long time to figure it all out. The design document alone is likely to be a good 100+ pages.

So. If this is a game breaker, then just wait and watch the forums, site, ect... for the Player Ship Interior update.
If it's not a game breaker, play the game until they put it in.

My design document is bigger than 100 pages, but it does cover everything. Time to do this would have to be granted because the scripting is what will be the b****. Game intergration will also be a bit time consuming. In the end, one awesome MMOG! Always, think of the future............................................ .

[cenglandjr]

I'm not sure how to interpret what I've read on the website, and was wondering if anyone could shed any light on the subject with info they know, or any ideas that they have concerning the topic.

It states you can go on away missions with your friends, but suggests you are the only 'real' person on your ship, with yourself being a Captain. Does this mean you cannot have a crew of 'real people', of friends from the real world, with a proper ranking system (like a CMO, head of Security and XO, etc)?

I personally think that adding real players as teammates takes something away from the game. The whole purpose of the game is to put players into an environment where they can work together, but on a ship based detail, not in an officer capacity impo.

By placing players in that position then you limit thier ability to lead and learn. I personally don't want to see players just being officers on a crew, i think players should have ships only.

[Hagon]

My design document is bigger than 100 pages, but it does cover everything. Time to do this would have to be granted because the scripting is what will be the b****. Game intergration will also be a bit time consuming. In the end, one awesome MMOG! Always, think of the future............................................ .... and in the end it still is all about most players only seeing the game from the perspective of one bridge station, whilst only a few get to see the whole game. That, and for it to be worth doing, it still requires that enough people would be willing to play a subservient role aboard someone else's ship, and feel that was giving them a satisfying game experience. I frankly know that there wouldn't be enough to make it worth their time and effort.

[OddjobXL]

Let me explain how it rolls on multiplayer ships.

People only crew them because they want to. Nobody is making them anywhere. STO in particular is focusing on the captain experience to start with. SWG's most effective vessels for darn near anything, aside from static experience grinding which tends to make the Captain more of a bored chauffeur than a master and commander, are single player snub fighters not multiplayer ships.

People who treat crew like chattel, and I've definitely heard voices in this forum that might think they'd enjoy that approach, will find they don't have any crew. The Captain's job is to be the guy that entertains everyone else more than anything else. Like any party leader he needs to know what the plan is for this evening's outing, he needs to be on top of getting a crew there on time, he needs to know what each individual crewman is looking for out of the experience, and he needs to be delivering all of this with a sense of humor and patience.

The only way Captain Bligh is going to find a crew in a game people play for fun, rather than because they're pressganged forcibly from dockside ports, is if a multiplayer ship is a rarity or a reward of some kind. Make it common, for fun, and the folks actually suited for the job will rise to the top naturally. In fact, you may well see people having to sign up and wait to get a berth on the more popular ships.

Meanwhile they've got a game designed for single player ships so they don't have to wait around to do anything else.

In most cases you'll find many ships will have rotating captains. Not terribly canon I know, but not everyone wants to do all that work each time out. Sometimes folks just want to come along for the ride. It's really the easy and fun part especially from a roleplaying perspective. For roleplaying multiplayer ships, the Captain often is in charge of coming up with some kind of story behind what the group is doing if it's not an already scripted mission.

What I suspect will happen, if multiplayer ships aren't treated as some kind of ubergrinder's holy grail and there are sufficient alt slots (which has its own up and downsides), is that smaller Fleets will see each member as a captain but each member will also have alts they tend to play as regular bridge crew on each other's ships. These alts will also technically be regular characters who can captain ships on their own but, in regular play, they'll most often only crop up as needed for a night out on a particular vessel.

This approach is called troupe-style play in the tabletop roleplaying community and it takes the pressure off any one person to be super creative all the time. Though often one or two will find a proficiency and sense of reward from running adventures and coordinating a crew that causes everyone to tend to gravitate to them voluntarily.

[Hagon]

... and they were/are extremely unpopular in SWG. Hardly anyone every uses them except for a tiny handful. A complete and utter waste of developer time and energy . So much so that they have been voted as the most wasted hard drive space in any of these games to date on numerous gaming sites and forums.

[OddjobXL]

Hagon, at some point you've got trust I'm not saying stuff just to annoy you. We've already talked about these things.

Space in general isn't popular in SWG because there's not a thing to do out there except for PvP. Now the PvP is pretty good if you can get the hang of it, it's definitely twitch-base simulation stuff, and have time to grind for all the gear you need. There are players that are only there for the Space game at least on Starsider. But they're a fairly small number. The PvEers who should have flocked to space didn't because it was made anything but essential to the experience. Nobody ever has to go into space. They can "teleport" between planets without using a ship, in any real sense, and cargo has no weight or mass so they can also stuff their pockets full of tons of raw materials and finished products to teleport around with.

Even if they had to travel through space, which would make eversomuch sense except that ground pounding PvPers didn't want the "downtime" (the same reason they railed against item decay, entertainers and hosts of other things that got nerfed in the NGE - which, yes, I do in large part continue to hold the PvP focus of SWG responsible for or at least in its actual final form) they'd have found very little out there but static swarms of dumb NPCs and asteroids to mine. Asteroid mining is every bit as much fun as it sounds.

The ships are amazing. Space is the pits.

In STO, however, we know there will be loads of well realized content in space. Space is the glue that holds the little worlds and other locales together. It's the medium. Hopefully a medium well stocked with interesting encounters and unpredictable situations. Now the question is about the ships.

Multiplayer ships are actually far more popular than they should be in SWG, Hagon. They serve no useful function. Yet people form crews, decorate them and proudly advertise screenshots, and try to keep themselves busy with player organized events. Even PvPers, who tend to be utilitarian to a fault, try and create special rulesets for PvP-RP events so they can function as they're otherwise weak compared to the same number of people in single-seat, or twin-seat, snub fighters.

[DanSeale]

... and in the end it still is all about most players only seeing the game from the perspective of one bridge station, whilst only a few get to see the whole game. That, and for it to be worth doing, it still requires that enough people would be willing to play a subservient role aboard someone else's ship, and feel that was giving them a satisfying game experience. I frankly know that there wouldn't be enough to make it worth their time and effort.

Hagon...

I agree comnpletely. While I can appreciate how some folks might see a benifit of a "crew" of their friends all on the same ship each doing RP in varrious positions .. the likelihood of there being a large enough customer base to prefer that format to spend the time to develope it is very slim.

[OddjobXL]

Keep in mind, it's not just roleplayers though they are a primary consideration of mine, it's also fans of Star Trek. I suspect many of them, whether or not they actually roleplay, would like to serve on a ship together just like their iconic heroes do in the TV shows and the films.

[Hagon]

Hagon, at some point you've got trust I'm not saying stuff just to annoy you. We've already talked about these things.

Space in general isn't popular in SWG because there's not a thing to do out there except for PvP. Now the PvP is pretty good if you can get the hang of it, it's definitely twitch-base simulation stuff, and have time to grind for all the gear you need. There are players that are only there for the Space game at least on Starsider. But they're a fairly small number. The PvEers who should have flocked to space didn't because it was made anything but essential to the experience. Nobody ever has to go into space. They can "teleport" between planets without using a ship, in any real sense, and cargo has no weight or mass so they can also stuff their pockets full of tons of raw materials and finished products to teleport around with.

Even if they had to travel through space, which would make eversomuch sense except that ground pounding PvPers didn't want the "downtime" (the same reason they railed against item decay, entertainers and hosts of other things that got nerfed in the NGE - which, yes, I do in large part continue to hold the PvP focus of SWG responsible for or at least in its actual final form) they'd have found very little out there but static swarms of dumb NPCs and asteroids to mine. Asteroid mining is every bit as much fun as it sounds.

The ships are amazing. Space is the pits.

In STO, however, we know there will be loads of well realized content in space. Space is the glue that holds the little worlds and other locales together. It's the medium. Hopefully a medium well stocked with interesting encounters and unpredictable situations. Now the question is about the ships.

Multiplayer ships are actually far more popular than they should be in SWG, Hagon. They serve no useful function. Yet people form crews, decorate them and proudly advertise screenshots, and try to keep themselves busy with player organized events. Even PvPers, who tend to be utilitarian to a fault, try and create special rulesets for PvP-RP events so they can function as they're otherwise weak compared to the same number of people in single-seat, or twin-seat, snub fighters.Yet the JTL was extremely popular with those that were left playing the game. In fact it is the most popular expansion of the game to date. You keep acting like you believe I've never played the game. Like pretty much no one else has ever played the game . The fact isn't that they were more popular that they should be. The fact is, and anyone can see that fact for themselves if they play the game even for a short time, they're EXTREMELY unpopular. Having only a couple of hundred people using them in a game isn't a sign of popularity no matter how one looks at it. This in a game that, due to it's population make up these days, something like that should be right up the player's alley. You know I guess I can get someone trying to fudge the facts a bit when they think no one can disprove what they're saying, but when the game is out there for anyone to check out, why would someone keep doing it?

[OddjobXL]

Hagon, I've seen you so consistently wrong when you talk about SWG that I don't think you have played it. I'm not saying you're lying but when it comes to fudging facts I'm not the guy. He who smelt it dealt it. ("Hi Awen, lovely outfit you're wearing today. Hey, look over there! It's Brad Pitt!"). *scoots*

Folks can for sure log in to SWG. Heck, they don't even have to do that. Just visit the pilot forums and the Starsider forums. You'll see activity and some of it will be around multiplayer ships. However, space isn't the big thing it could have been because there's nothing out there. Any PvE gamer who's tried space in SWG knows this. You can cycle through a few scripted missions but it's deadly dull compared to just about any singleplayer space game with a dynamic environment.

I'd say, initially, JtL was a hit with some of the players. But let's face it it got stale faster than a tuna and mayo sandwich left out on a sunny day for the majority of players. Again, I haven't even looked myself, but you'll find almost all the activity in the pilot forums is from the same few folks, most of them on Starsider and almost all of them PvP oriented. Because that's the only thing there is to do. Not because it's particularly well designed mechanically but because that's all there is. You'll also find threads on multiplayer ships.

This isn't a secret. Go look. Anybody can. Draw your own conclusions or even better ask in the forums yourself for second opinions.

Edit: I decided to go peek for myself. The pilot forums are sure enough what I said, mostly space PvPers and Starsiders, and one of the biggest threads there is about folks wanting even bigger multiplayer ships. They want cap ships now. The Starsider forum often has folks recruiting for PoB (player on board) ship crews but I didn't see any today. Seems most of the RP community is still using an offsite (starsidergalaxy.com) forum these days and there you do have both individual captains and guilds recruiting for PoB crews.

[Hagon]

Yet you've never shown me to be wrong about the game.

In fact over and over your story gets altered to keep up the charade whenever I point out the false info you keep trying to flog about that game. You say space wasn't popular in SWG, yet anyone that played the game knows that it was, and still is. So then the story changes to "Oh no that's not what I meant to say. What I meant to say was that it's not popular anymore".

You say that the PoBs are popular, I point out that they're not and people can go have a look for themselves, so you say "Oh well, you won't see how popular they are in the game or on the SWG forums. You have to go look somewhere else at some other forum to see how popular they are. Though there is this big thread there usually, but well....not right now, and....."

I mean c'mon man. Give it up already. Only a couple of people are going to buy what you're trying to sell. Is it really worth the effort?

[OddjobXL]

You're really talking yourself into pretzels here with that logic. I think I'll save us both the trouble and put you on ignore.

[dyvimtorm]

You're really talking yourself into pretzels here with that logic. I think I'll save us both the trouble and put you on ignore.

Aw, I'm gonna miss these epic battles between you two :) lol j/king around.

[Kinjiru]

... and in the end it still is all about most players only seeing the game from the perspective of one bridge station, whilst only a few get to see the whole game. That, and for it to be worth doing, it still requires that enough people would be willing to play a subservient role aboard someone else's ship, and feel that was giving them a satisfying game experience. I frankly know that there wouldn't be enough to make it worth their time and effort.

You would be no more subservient than any member of any group. Seriously, what else do you call the guy who starts a group but the group leader. That doesn't mean that he requires you to kowtow to him, or sacrifice a goat in his honor, just that you joined a group that he formed and beamed over to his bridge.

You're not signing onto the guy's ship forever, just like you're not permanently in the group you joined to grab Nightsister loot on Dath, or make Mando armor.

And when the mission is done (or if you feel like leaving, so either the captain or NPC - however that ends up working - takes your place) everyone goes back to their own respective ships. You're not assigned under anyone, any more than if you joined a group with multiple ships, with everyone on their own bridge.

Why some of you guys keep looking at it like it's a black and white issue is beyond me. There are many shades of gray here. It's not an either/or thing.

[Hagon]

You're really talking yourself into pretzels here with that logic. I think I'll save us both the trouble and put you on ignore.Well I guess you had two options. Either finally admit that you've just been fudging things to prop a weak position, or put a blindfold on and continue on your merry way. I think most could have guessed the route you'd choose.

[Hagon]

You would be no more subservient than any member of any group. Seriously, what else do you call the guy who starts a group but the group leader. That doesn't mean that he requires you to kowtow to him, or sacrifice a goat in his honor, just that you joined a group that he formed and beamed over to his bridge.

You're not signing onto the guy's ship forever, just like you're not permanently in the group you joined to grab Nightsister loot on Dath, or make Mando armor.

And when the mission is done (or if you feel like leaving, so either the captain or NPC - however that ends up working - takes your place) everyone goes back to their own respective ships. You're not assigned under anyone, any more than if you joined a group with multiple ships, with everyone on their own bridge.

Why some of you guys keep looking at it like it's a black and white issue is beyond me. There are many shades of gray here. It's not an either/or thing.So to make matters even worse, it'll not only be all about people being subservient to one person, but everything they do will be for the benefit of that one person. It's totally different from a normal grouping and you know it. Not even close. It's someone using other people to get ahead without offering any benefit to those people for doing so.

[Kinjiru]

So to make matters even worse, it'll not only be all about people being subservient to one person, but everything they do will be for the benefit of that one person. It's totally different from a normal grouping and you know it. Not even close. It's someone using other people to get ahead without offering any benefit to those people for doing so.

Huh? How do you figure that? (Not flaming or anything, I'm really curious why you think that.)

The group leader gets xp/credit/prestige/Chance at loot/whatever and so would the group members, just like in any other group. If you want to split it into MMO terms, (and I despise these terms myself, but they are pretty accepted) you get... (Total speculation, of course.)

For example:
(Based in a group size of 5, each could potentially bring some of their own skills into the mix)

Captain: Group Leader (Organizes group, Chooses targets, overrides all ship functions if necessary, selects mission )
Tactical 1: Nuke (Locks on and Fires weapons)
Tactical 2: Tank (Handles shields, reroutes power from engines/shields/weapons as needed, Tractor Beam)
Helm/Nav: Rogue (Maneuvers ship {hands on}, initiates preprogrammed maneuvers {hands off})
Science: DPS (Scans targets, detects weak points, manipulates ship's crew {Damage control, medical})

Are these perfect, heck no, but they give at least an idea of what each could do. I really don't see how that could possibly amount to any one taking advantage of anybody else. And there is no more subservience there than there would be if you were in a group of 5 ships and the group leader says "Target THAT one!".

[Flatfingers]

There was a question I thought of earlier, but the recent posts have reminded me of it:

What do people think the differences will be between five players in a pick-up group in a fantasy MMORPG, and five players grouped on the bridge of a starship in a Star Trek MMORPG?

In particular, some have asserted various objections to the idea of allowing players in STO to voluntarily form a group, with different characters in specific functional roles, to control a starship. Why don't those objections also apply to players who form a group, with different characters in specific functional roles, to run dungeons?

What makes those things different?

When people request an optional ability to group with friends in specific roles to control one starship, what are they asking for that players aren't already doing in role-based groups in existing MMORPGs?

--Flatfingers

[Kinjiru]

When people request an optional ability to group with friends in specific roles to control one starship, what are they asking for that players aren't already doing in role-based groups in existing MMORPGs?


I'd like to know as well. I just don't think that I articulated it as well as you did. :)

[Eluos1979]

Kinjiru has the right idea with this. A bridge crew is perfectly analagous to a party in practicaly any other MMO. Player or NPC it doesn't matter, in the end they're doing the same things. Filing a position in the party.
and a player should just hop in or out of any of the 5 or so hot-seats on the bridge. hopping out simply means an npc fills the spot until a player wants the job. Multiplayerships wouldn't be for everyone and that all or nothing players or NPC is a narrow minded position to take.

The Heros in Guild Wars is a good example. they can fill out a party or be used as much or as little as the players wish. there is no real advantage or disadvantage. just certain situations where players would be more useful than npcs and vice versa.

And to be honest the bridge is where the heart of Trek really is. and where the game should start from. Most of Trek took place on a bridge. its a shame that it may not make it in to the launch.

i don't like EvE online much for that simple reason. space is cold and the ships are impersonal. i don't want to play a ship, i want to play someone ON a ship. (but the player bridge issue itself is another thread)

[Kinjiru]

Kinjiru has the right idea with this.

First of all, welcome to the forums!

Second, let me compliment you on your choice of words...

:D

[Eluos1979]

I've been watching from the shadows for a while. Promises of this game have been disappointing me for years. i never bother posting. not with many of the responders negative, pessimistic and flammatory natures.

still observing with dread. Multiplayer ships and/or player bridges are essential to the spirit of Star Trek. Omitting it from the game would be a tragedy.

[Hagon]

There was a question I thought of earlier, but the recent posts have reminded me of it:

What do people think the differences will be between five players in a pick-up group in a fantasy MMORPG, and five players grouped on the bridge of a starship in a Star Trek MMORPG?

In particular, some have asserted various objections to the idea of allowing players in STO to voluntarily form a group, with different characters in specific functional roles, to control a starship. Why don't those objections also apply to players who form a group, with different characters in specific functional roles, to run dungeons?

What makes those things different?

When people request an optional ability to group with friends in specific roles to control one starship, what are they asking for that players aren't already doing in role-based groups in existing MMORPGs?

--FlatfingersThe difference is one person doesn't own the quest/encounter. Just who is going to own these ships? One person is that's who, and they'll be advancing that ship on the backs of others. Or wait, next thing that ya'll are going to try and flog is that the people that will want to serve on these ships won't mind that. Or they'll be into the communal spirit because it's Star Trek and everyone will own the ship.

It still comes back to the same thing. One person using others. One person not just leading a group, but being in total control of a group of people's game play however temporary.

This on top of the fact that these ships would have to be balanced with the rest of the game, and they'd have to provide exciting and stimulating game play for everyone.

Sure, I know that some of you want everyone else to believe that players are going to be satisfied with watching a dial or a meter and/or playing what are essentially mini-games whilst one person gets to have the excitement of seeing and experiencing the real game, but I'm not buying it, and I don't think many other people are either.

What's the problem with having these as some instanced content where people that want to do it just group up, go into the instance and have at it? That would be much easier for Cryptic to do, and make much more sense in a cost/benefit context. Why this need to try and force Cryptic into wasting all that dev time and energy implementing these things into the open game world?

[Kinjiru]

It still comes back to the same thing. One person using others. One person not just leading a group, but being in total control of a group of people's game play however temporary.

Why couldn't the captain just share the mission, as you can do in AoC, PotBS and others?

Why does the mission reward need to be linked to the ship instead of the people involved in running it?

I've not played a game where mission xp would only go to the group leader. And if everyone has the mission, then they'd all get the mission payout as well.

This on top of the fact that these ships would have to be balanced with the rest of the game, and they'd have to provide exciting and stimulating game play for everyone.

This is the rub, I truly don't think that a ship with five players would be more effective than those same five players would be in their own ships. It would be merely a group dynamic so that players could serve with their friends for a short time.

And even if it did work out that way, how is balancing a group dynamic any different than balancing any other aspect of gameplay? They're already going to do it for multiperson away team missions. They're going to have to balance the ships against each other anyway.


Sure, I know that some of you want everyone else to believe that players are going to be satisfied with watching a dial or a meter and/or playing what are essentially mini-games whilst one person gets to have the excitement of seeing and experiencing the real game, but I'm not buying it, and I don't think many other people are either.

I thought I gave some pretty good examples of what a five person bridge crew could do, just off the top of my head. :rolleyes:


What's the problem with having these as some instanced content where people that want to do it just group up, go into the instance and have at it? That would be much easier for Cryptic to do, and make much more sense in a cost/benefit context. Why this need to try and force Cryptic into wasting all that dev time and energy implementing these things into the open game world?

If it's instanced as you suggest above, they're going to have to spend all of that same dev time working on it anyway. And it's certainly not a need, we're just presenting options and ideas. I'm, not (nor is Flatfingers) saying that the game must be thus and so, just giving the devs and potential players something to think about.

I'm curious as to why you are so adamantly against it though. If it could be guaranteed that a five person crewed ship would be no better in combat than a single player in a matching ship, would you object so strongly?

[terranova3y2]

Cryptic have mentioned that they are looking into ways of making it a possibility but not for launch.

I prefer being in control of my own ship but I would like the option to maybe try a PC crew at some stage.

[JeanLucKirk]

Hagon and Kinjiru are both way off as usual.

Neither of you have a trace of clue about making an MMO, so don't profess like you crazy cats have got all the tools and knowledge. Bottom line is you don't know what gamers want.

[Kinjiru]

Hagon and Kinjiru are both way off as usual.

Neither of you have a trace of clue about making an MMO, so don't profess like you crazy cats have got all the tools and knowledge. Bottom line is you don't know what gamers want.

I don't know about Hagon, but I've worked on two that never shipped. :cool::)

And I've never said that I do have all of the tools and knowledge. I don't know why the animosity, but it's certainly not contributing to the topic.

Why don't we start over...

"Hi, I'm Kinj, I'm not an alcoholic, but I play one on TV."

[JeanLucKirk]

I don't know about Hagon, but I've worked on two that never shipped. :cool::)

And I've never said that I do, I don't know why the animosity, but it's certainly not contributing to the topic.

Why don't we start over...

"Hi, I'm Kinj, I'm not an alcoholic, but I play one on TV."

'Never' Shipped' being the operative words.

[zeena07]

Just to continue this point, here's the executive producer's, Craig Zinkievich, devblog on the issue:
http://www.mmorpg.com/blogs.cfm?isapi_rewrite_remap=Awenyddion/032009/3505&bhcp=1

Another thing of note is that you will be able to team with people on any mission (as far as we know). The maximum player group size is varied, starting at a max of 5 for much of the episodic content and then expanding for end game and PvP type stuff.

Again, there will be plenty of grouping with people, it's just that each of you will have your own ship.:)

and welcome to the forums!Very food article, thank you :)

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.

So you focus the experience. (Unlike this rambling devblog!) You pick what is important and focus your resources on making that as great as you can

...........

It wasn’t easy – we argued, fought, waffled and fought some more – but 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. Says it beutifully, as only Zinc can ;)

But hey, we each have roles as I recall, even being captina, one can forus on engineering, research or tactical ;)

[Kinjiru]

'Never' Shipped' being the operative words.

And yet, by virtue of having been involved in the development cycle of a couple of unshipped games, I'd say that that qualifies me as "familiar" with said cycle.

I don't have all of the answers, I've never pretended to. I really don't know what your issue is... but if it makes your ePeen feel bigger, better you attack me than one of the newer members, I have a thick skin. :rolleyes:

[JeanLucKirk]

And yet, by virtue of having been involved in the development cycle of a couple of unshipped games, I'd say that that qualifies me as "familial" with said cycle.

I don't have all of the answers, I've never pretended to. I really don't know what your issue is... but if it makes your ePeen feel bigger, better you attack me than one of the newer members, I have a thick skin. :rolleyes:

I've just never been a fan of e-bullies. I find them intolerable.

[Kinjiru]

I've just never been a fan of e-bullies. I find them intolerable.

Anybody else catch the bitter irony here?

:confused:

[zeena07]

Obviously we all want to experience this game, in the manner that we imagine star trek online should be.

In terms of player crews, the idea at this point in time is certainly impractical. It would be nice to have this option in some form in the future, once they can plan out the bugs and issues, to make it work for those players who want to experience that.Agreed, and it's fine with me too :)

For myself I will be an NPC bridge crew player, as I would not have the time nor patience to play with other players while flying through the galaxy or taking orders from other players, cause I will be the captain of my ship, lol.Do you know if the NPC's aboard our ships will level up or not?
I'm assuming that they will, and if they do, will we be able to make them how we would like them to be?
You know, like spending attibute points and like?

Come to think of it, is that such a thing as levelling up at all?!? :confused:

It would be good if we can group our away teams with other players for away team missions... almost in the form of ally unions of units... I may have my five officers in my away team, and my ally player may have his/her away team, this would be great for going up against large numbers of enemies... im not sure if this is what they have in mind for the away team multiplayer missions or not, but might work.I hope it does work, cuz it sounds like soo much FUN!!

[zeena07]

We've already discussed possible designs and we're not going to rehash that here. It not only can be done but it can be done without disrupting the singleplayer ship approach. Or are you calling Cryptic's developers misleading in their statements that they won't put anything in the game that would impede the future development of a multiplayer ship aspect?They even said 'hollographic' NPC's would be available! :XD

[zeena07]

But thats not the only problem I see. How is it handled with the different online times? If you want to be a constant crew on a ship you can only play when everyone is on. What would you do in the game when no one is on?Here come those 'hollographic' NPC's again! :XD

[zeena07]

That is definitely not the case Hagon. I truly think that some of your ideas/suggestions have been decent, but you can't just say something to make it true.

*If*, as a group-based dynamic (away team based - 5 people) you were able to take over from an NPC bridge crewman (temporarily, only as long as the group stayed together, if you leave the group, an NPC takes back over) or if the group is disbanded (players respawn into their respective ships, no harm, no foul) the most that you can say with any degree of accuracy is that you don't care for the idea, or some people don't want to...

Not no one, or 3% of possible players, or a tiny niche. Because I can think of this (particular idea) working very well.Ahh, sorry, just noticed this post now-lol

Good point! :D

[zeena07]

Anybody else catch the bitter irony here?

:confused:Ayep.. :rolleyes:

[Kinjiru]

Ahh, sorry, just noticed this post now-lol

Good point! :D

Thanks Xena. I've put quite a bit of thought into it. So has Flatfingers... but my ideas are better. :D

/pokes Flatfingers :cool:

[zeena07]

/slaps Flatfingers with a fish

[IRC style, old school-lol]

[zeena07]

AWW DOOD!

I percieved it as a joke..
I honestly dun believe any harm was intended :(

PEACE friend!

Live long and prosper! :)

[JeanLucKirk]

AWW DOOD!

I percieved it as a joke..
I honestly dun believe any harm was intended :(

PEACE friend!

Live long and prosper! :)

Spoken like a genuine, good person.

I wish there were more like you around here.

[zeena07]

Spoken like a genuine, good person.

I wish there were more like you around here.Seek and ye shall find, knock and the door will be opened for you ;)

[Hagon]

Anybody else catch the bitter irony here?

:confused:Irony and sillyness. It's kind of hard to ne e-bullied when you have an ignore function there JeanLucKirk, so why don't you use it?

[_Pax_]

In particular, some have asserted various objections to the idea of allowing players in STO to voluntarily form a group, with different characters in specific functional roles, to control a starship. Why don't those objections also apply to players who form a group, with different characters in specific functional roles, to run dungeons?

Well, at least for PvP ... with a Fantasy MMO, a group of five people is five warm bodies in the combat zone. Five VISIBLE warm bodies, to be precise. You can tell, just by looking, that it's FIVE players arrayed against you, not ONE.

A group of five people aboard a single bridge, is ONE starship. How does a potential enemy know if that one ship is crewed by five specialists ... or one generalist? Operated by ONE human mind (with a single reaction speed, a single pair of eyes, a single pair of hands, and one functioning brain) ... or operated by FIVE human minds (with the ability to multi-task across five "jobs" without any loss of reaction speed, using FIVE pairs of eyes, FIVE pairs of hands, and FIVE brains to process inciming information) ...?

A single ship - say, a Negh'var, or a Sovereign - operated by FIVE people, must necessarily outperform the same class of ship, with the same resources invested in improving it, that is operated by only ONE person.

[dru_mcd]

NO, NO, A MILLION TIMES NO.
I will not pay $$$ to realign warp coils and listen to some 18-yo Napoleon-come-lately bark orders at me.
Nor will I pay $$$ to play a game, but can't 'cause all the other "crew" of the USS Rustbucket happens to be in English-093 today - try again tomorrow.
NO. NOT NOW, NOT EVER.

[Kinjiru]

A single ship - say, a Negh'var, or a Sovereign - operated by FIVE people, must necessarily outperform the same class of ship, with the same resources invested in improving it, that is operated by only ONE person.

Hypothetical question here, but what if Cryptic balanced things so that the five player ship was equal to a single player ship of the same type/loadout? If they guaranteed that the two would be an even match in PvP?

Speaking theoretically now, the only difference between the ships would be that certain functions are controlled by the five players, instead of one person controlling all of them. Same warp core, phaser type(s), torpedoes, etc.

Would that alter the perception of the basic idea at all? If not, why? (Not rhetorical here, I'd really like to see some cons/pros that aren't lost amidst a tangle of confusion.) :)

[Flatfingers]

Side notes first.

Hagon and Kinjiru are both way off as usual.

Neither of you have a trace of clue about making an MMO, so don't profess like you crazy cats have got all the tools and knowledge. Bottom line is you don't know what gamers want.

I think Kinjiru has established his bona fides. If I were you, I'd have the good grace to acknowledge that your assumption of ignorance on his part was not only mistaken but unnecessarily rude. But that's your call.

As for Kinjiru being an "e-bully"... huh? Are we talking about the same Kinjiru who is consistently positive and friendly and open to other people's viewpoints? :confused: You must have him confused with someone else....

/pokes Flatfingers

/slaps Flatfingers with a fish

[IRC style, old school-lol]

Hey! What's with all the poking and slapping; I bruise easily!

:D

(Sadly, now I have the music from Monty Python's "Fish-Slapping Dance" playing in my head. Poor, poor Flatfingers....)

...

Now, as for my question asking how a player crew feature in Star Trek Online is any different from role-based grouping in other MMORPGs, I appreciate your reply, Hagon.

I see that Kinjiru has responded to your points, but I hope you won't mind if I do so from my own perspective.

The difference is one person doesn't own the quest/encounter. Just who is going to own these ships? One person is that's who, and they'll be advancing that ship on the backs of others. Or wait, next thing that ya'll are going to try and flog is that the people that will want to serve on these ships won't mind that. Or they'll be into the communal spirit because it's Star Trek and everyone will own the ship.

It still comes back to the same thing. One person using others. One person not just leading a group, but being in total control of a group of people's game play however temporary.

I would say that no one has "total" control over my character if I can choose to exit a group at any time. For that matter, there's no reason for me to play -- and no reason for a ship's captain to want me there -- if I'm not free to make some gameplay choices on my own. So I don't think the charge that the ship owner is in "total control" over all other players holds up.

To your larger point, you almost sound like you're making a Marxist argument against capitalism: the ship captain (the owner of the means of production) profits from exploiting the labor of workers who have no capital of their own. (Please note that I'm not saying you are making such an argument; I'm pointing out similarities between the two assertions.)

Not to push the similarity too closely, but I think your argument here fails for the same reason that Marxian economics fails: in neither case are individuals unable to obtain and employ their own capital. In the case of Star Trek Online, everyone will have their own ship; anyone who'd rather be the boss of others (or just themselves) is free to do so at any time. If they choose to play a non-leadership role on someone else's ship for a while, it's because they freely choose to do so out of a perception that they'll get something out of it that they otherwise can't obtain.

The notion that anyone in a leadership role must be "using" other people to advance their interests "on the backs of others," while popular in certain academic circles, is not how most people regard cooperative effort. So what if some profit more than others as long as everyone profits more than they otherwise would have done? For that matter, on what basis do you assume that a ship's captain would profit more (however "profit" is defined in grouped play in STO) than people enjoying role-specific content?

Furthermore, if one person leading a player group always means they're exploiting the others, what does that say about groups of ships in Star Trek Online? Wouldn't that be exploitation, too, in which case how is it any better than player crews? What does it say about groups in other MMORPGs in which one person provides direction to others? If you're right, and leading a group always means economic abuse that no one could possibly want, then why is it so popular in existing games?

Or could it be that there's no exploitation at all when gamers voluntarily join a group of other characters and serve the group by fulfilling specific gameplay roles? I think the popularity of this form of play is a very good argument that there is no such exploitation occuring.

So as long as players on one ship are free to leave the group at any time, "ownership" of a ship appears to be completely irrelevant, and the exploitation argument can't hold up. People will serve as crew on someone else's ship because they enjoy doing so -- because it's fun.

This on top of the fact that these ships would have to be balanced with the rest of the game, and they'd have to provide exciting and stimulating game play for everyone.

Sure, I know that some of you want everyone else to believe that players are going to be satisfied with watching a dial or a meter and/or playing what are essentially mini-games whilst one person gets to have the excitement of seeing and experiencing the real game, but I'm not buying it, and I don't think many other people are either.

Again, I would suggest that there is no difference here between Star Trek Online and other MMORPGs with respect to role-based functions in grouped play. Other games assign players into functionally-specific roles that ask and expect them to limit their behaviors -- why is it OK for them but not for Star Trek Online?

If you're the healer for a group going into a dungeon, you're going to be expected to heal -- not tank, not throw damage, not pull, but heal. You are essentially playing a healing mini-game, watching the "meter" of someone else's health, while some other person leads the group and directs to some extent who does what when.

There seem to be a lot of people who find that quite satisfying in other MMORPGs, not to mention people who specifically enjoy tanking, or doing DPS, or pulling mobs, or directing the activity of groups. Apparently other game developers are quite effective at creating enjoyable gameplay around specific role-based activities for characters in groups.

So how is letting characters do Science and Engineering and Tactical and Command gameplay on one ship any different as a matter of multiplayer game design?

What's the problem with having these as some instanced content where people that want to do it just group up, go into the instance and have at it? That would be much easier for Cryptic to do, and make much more sense in a cost/benefit context. Why this need to try and force Cryptic into wasting all that dev time and energy implementing these things into the open game world?

To paraphrase Kinjiru, if a developer is going to pay to create such a feature, it would be foolish to restrict the opportunities of players to experience that feature unless absolutely necessary... and a case has not yet been made that restricting player crews to a holodeck or similar instancing is absolutely necessary. Why this need to try and force Cryptic into restricting an enjoyable feature into a holodeck ghetto when there's no benefit in doing so?

I'm not a complete hardliner here. If the only way to let people who wanted to play together on one ship do so was to accept its being instanced in some way, I'd agree to that. But I think the burden of proof is on anyone who believes that this feature must be segregated from the common world to provide something like objective facts and reasoning to support that claim.

...

So the question remains open to everyone:

Allowing groups of characters with specific role-based activities is possible and even desirable in other MMORPGs. So what makes grouping of characters in one ship with specific role-based activities (as opposed to groups of ships) either too hard to implement or not appropriate to implement in Star Trek Online?

--Flatfingers

[Flatfingers]

A single ship - say, a Negh'var, or a Sovereign - operated by FIVE people, must necessarily outperform the same class of ship, with the same resources invested in improving it, that is operated by only ONE person.

Back in 1975, Fred Brooks published a book called The Mythical Man-Month (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mythical_Man-Month).

One of the points he made -- which experienced managers long knew -- was that the "human wave" approach to project management doesn't work. Adding people to a task doesn't necessarily make that task go any faster, because the more people you add, the more coordination of effort is required to see any productivity gains.

I would gently suggest to you that the same effect would probably apply to player-crewed ships. It's highly unlikely that a ship operated by five players must necessarily be five times more effective than a ship with only one player aboard.

More effective to some degree? Possibly. But possibly not -- one person with a crew of NPCs (i.e., computer programs who can act instantaneously) might actually be more effective than five people who need to think about what they're going to do and discuss it among themselves first.

--Flatfingers

[_Pax_]

Hypothetical question here, but what if Cryptic balanced things so that the five player ship was equal to a single player ship of the same type/loadout? If they guaranteed that the two would be an even match in PvP?
Physically impossible, because the advantage comes from OUTSIDE the program - the advantage comes from having FIVE minds tracking data, and responding to it.

Most people can only handle so many flows of information ... especially if they with to watch for emergent trends in a stream of otherwise unremarkable data points. Once you add more brains, more sets of eyes, to the task ... you begin exponentially increasing the ability of the gestalt to observe, process, and react to those emergent trends.

In STO terms: if you have someone whose SOLE duty is to operate a starship's Helm, then s/he can ignore everything else - they don't have to watch for the enemy's downed shield to come into arc of the port-side guns, they don't have to keep track of the exact optimal range at which to launch those torpedoes, they don't have to manage the distribution of damage-control teams, etc, etc. S/he can focus exclusively on piloting the ship - avoiding collisions, accounting for gravity wells, and so forth.

Meanwhile, the guy at Tactical is focussing ONLY on which weapons to fire, and at what optimal range. He doesn't have to worry about ANYthing else - including "try not to run straight into that big asteroid over there". His sole awareness of the asteroid would be, in fact, "he's about to go where I can't shoot him" and/or "he should come back into LOS in another two seconds".

The Engineer doesn't care about what's going on OUTSIDE, at all. She's just optimising the distribution of power and repair assets, to keep propulsion, weapons, sensors, and shieldign operating as close to 110% as possible.

And yes, you have the Captain - who doesn't have to actually CONTROL anything, he is instead acting in a sort of "oversight" capacity - guiding the overall strategy. Maybe he tells Tactical to shift all power to the port shields and weapons, and tells the Helm to go hard to starboard (so that the ship "cuts the corner" while their enemy rounds that asteroid - putting the enemy off the port side of the ship). He might warn engineering to expect damage on that port side, as well, while in the asteroid's shadow.

...

A single player, though? Has to do it ALL. Has to recognise the tactical opportunity to hit the enemy with an alpha-strike from behind reinforced shields ... has to manually shift power to the port shields and weapons in preparation for that ... has to manually pilot the ship on that hard-to-starboard turn. Has to manually pull the trigger, too. All that, and manage the damage control teams' efforts.

The four-player ship has four times as many pairs of hands and eyes, four times as many living brains, with which to address the needs of these tasks.

The single player ship doesn't. He has to spread his attention between all four tasks/roles ... AND, in the shifting-of-gears, some more attention is lost too. So each job, instead of getting 25% of his attention, maybe only gets 23%.

[_Pax_]

Back in 1975, Fred Brooks published a book called The Mythical Man-Month (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mythical_Man-Month).

One of the points he made -- which experienced managers long knew -- was that the "human wave" approach to project management doesn't work. Adding people to a task doesn't necessarily make that task go any faster, because the more people you add, the more coordination of effort is required to see any productivity gains.
On the small scale we're talking about, Mr. Brooks' points don't really apply. The ship's Captain has, as his JOB, "coordinate hte others". Even if you don't gain 100% efficiency from each person - five people running a ship (or four, as in my prior example) will be more efficient than one.

Which is why modern American jet fighters have a crew of two, by the way: one guy to "fight the ship" (the Pilot), and one guy to run all the electronics gear (the REO, or Radio & Electronics Officer). To a certain point, "more people" are better one.

I would gently suggest to you that the same effect would probably apply to player-crewed ships. It's highly unlikely that a ship operated by five players must necessarily be five times more effective than a ship with only one player aboard.
It need only be 50% more effective, for there to be IMO a problem. And I suspect the difference would be more like 200%, perhaps a bit more.

More effective to some degree? Possibly. But possibly not -- one person with a crew of NPCs (i.e., computer programs who can act instantaneously) might actually be more effective than five people who need to think about what they're going to do and discuss it among themselves first.
You put too much trust into AIs written by an MMO development house. I've yet to see an AI that can behave intuitively, for example ...

[Flatfingers]

On the small scale we're talking about, Mr. Brooks' points don't really apply. The ship's Captain has, as his JOB, "coordinate hte others". Even if you don't gain 100% efficiency from each person - five people running a ship (or four, as in my prior example) will be more efficient than one.

My experience has been that communication/coordination effects start to kick in around four people, but I'd agree that that's not a hard number -- it's affected by the environment. Four people in different parts of the country will need more coordination than four people sitting in the same cubicle.

Which is why modern American jet fighters have a crew of two, by the way: one guy to "fight the ship" (the Pilot), and one guy to run all the electronics gear (the REO, or Radio & Electronics Officer). To a certain point, "more people" are better one.

Hey, that's why I was careful to say "Adding people to a task doesn't necessarily make that task go any faster." ;) Sometimes it does help.

But note two things: first, not all modern fighter aircraft need a driver and a "guy in back." The Raptor does pretty well as a single-seater, for example. Sometimes even two is one too many.

And second, if you throw even more people on board, as for JSTARS, you'll soon discover that you need to add yet another person (an onboard Sensor Management Officer) to coordinate their work or risk results that could be unhealthy for the good guys.

You're right that, in certain circumstances, and up to a point, more people can be better than one. But beyond that point -- and it's often reached in the single digits -- getting the job done right gets slower.

It need only be 50% more effective, for there to be IMO a problem. And I suspect the difference would be more like 200%, perhaps a bit more.

I can work with that since now we're talking suspicions rather than definite assertions. At that point I can have my own suspicions, which are just as valid as anyone else's. :)

--Flatfingers

[Hagon]

Side notes first.



I think Kinjiru has established his bona fides. If I were you, I'd have the good grace to acknowledge that your assumption of ignorance on his part was not only mistaken but unnecessarily rude. But that's your call.

As for Kinjiru being an "e-bully"... huh? Are we talking about the same Kinjiru who is consistently positive and friendly and open to other people's viewpoints? :confused: You must have him confused with someone else....I worked on every MMO that's ever been released.

There I established my bona fides. :rolleyes:


I would say that no one has "total" control over my character if I can choose to exit a group at any time. For that matter, there's no reason for me to play -- and no reason for a ship's captain to want me there -- if I'm not free to make some gameplay choices on my own. So I don't think the charge that the ship owner is in "total control" over all other players holds up.

Again, I would suggest that there is no difference here between Star Trek Online and other MMORPGs with respect to role-based functions in grouped play. Other games assign players into functionally-specific roles that ask and expect them to limit their behaviors -- why is it OK for them but not for Star Trek Online?

If you're the healer for a group going into a dungeon, you're going to be expected to heal -- not tank, not throw damage, not pull, but heal. You are essentially playing a healing mini-game, watching the "meter" of someone else's health, while some other person leads the group and directs to some extent who does what when.I'm not going to respond to the other silly gobbilty gook put there for someone to read themselves, but I'll respond to this first part.

The ship owner would be in total control of the players aboard their ship because the ship captain would be the only one that would be seeing the game, and it would be their ship. It's not like regular group play where I can save myself by getting away or by other means, or influence decisions made within the group, or even take over if things are going too far south. The list goes on. It's being aboard someone else's ship and thus we all know what will be expected by the vast majority of players that would have one of these ships and be taking on crew. Just how are you going to leave the crew anyway? Jump out an airlock and hitch a ride back to wherever?

This is the scenario for mst people if this ever came to pass.

Tell goes out in global the Joe Schmo is taking on crew for X. X,X, and X missions.
People respond to tell because they want to get those missions done.
They get invited to the crew, get aboard, set off, and half way to the destination they start to get an uneasy feeling because Joe Schmo is starting to show signs of ego mania.
They get to X position, and the missions start, and not only does Joe Schmo's ego mania show itself to be full blown, but it becomes clear the person hasn't a clue what they're doing.
Person that joined crew is stuck on this ship until the bitter end. Even if some mechanism is in place for the person to bail, they know that there's only a relatively few players that have one of these ships, and they're intimidated by the fact that they figure since ol' Joe is clearly such a tool, and there's so many other tools with these ships, if they leave in the middle Scmo'll do all he can to try and make sure they never get invited aboard another ship.
So the person is stuck aboard the good ship Miserable for heaven knows how long.

Again, I would suggest that there is no difference here between Star Trek Online and other MMORPGs with respect to role-based functions in grouped play. Other games assign players into functionally-specific roles that ask and expect them to limit their behaviors -- why is it OK for them but not for Star Trek Online?

If you're the healer for a group going into a dungeon, you're going to be expected to heal -- not tank, not throw damage, not pull, but heal. You are essentially playing a healing mini-game, watching the "meter" of someone else's health, while some other person leads the group and directs to some extent who does what when.

There seem to be a lot of people who find that quite satisfying in other MMORPGs, not to mention people who specifically enjoy tanking, or doing DPS, or pulling mobs, or directing the activity of groups. Apparently other game developers are quite effective at creating enjoyable gameplay around specific role-based activities for characters in groups.

So how is letting characters do Science and Engineering and Tactical and Command gameplay on one ship any different as a matter of multiplayer game design?The difference is if I go in a dungeon as a healer or tank, I still get to see the entire experience the same as everyone else. I'm not stuck in a box with a peep hole and told to cast heals, or blindfolded with two pin holes to look out of and told to stand in front of the boss mobs and get hit.


To paraphrase Kinjiru, if a developer is going to pay to create such a feature, it would be foolish to restrict the opportunities of players to experience that feature unless absolutely necessary... and a case has not yet been made that restricting player crews to a holodeck or similar instancing is absolutely necessary.In an instance, they can cheaply create specific content for the PC crewed ship and balance the experience on a relatively small scale. As opposed to having to re-balance an entire game to make a square peg fit into a round hole.

[Hagon]

I can work with that since now we're talking suspicions rather than definite assertions. At that point I can have my own suspicions, which are just as valid as anyone else's. :)

--FlatfingersExcept that _Pax_'s suspicions are based in common sense. Not clouded by an agenda that he can't help but push no matter what.

[_Pax_]

My experience has been that communication/coordination effects start to kick in around four people, but I'd agree that that's not a hard number -- it's affected by the environment. Four people in different parts of the country will need more coordination than four people sitting in the same cubicle.
Even so - even if we posit a non-complete gain in efficiency/effect. Lt's say the first person is rated at 1.00 value ... and each subsequent person loses 0.20 value (eventually resulting in a net LOSS of value).
1 person: 1.00
2 people: 1.80 (1.00 + 0.80)
3 people: 2.40 (1.00 + 0.80 + 0.60)
4 people: 2.80 (1.00 + 0.80 + 0.60 + 0.40)
5 people: 3.00 (1.00 + 0.80 + 0.60 + 0.40 + 0.20)
...

3 people is still better than 1 person, and 5 people is still better than 3. We don't get back down to 1.00 value, until ten people are trying to coordinate their efforts.

[Ayradyss]

So the question remains open to everyone:

Allowing groups of characters with specific role-based activities is possible and even desirable in other MMORPGs. So what makes grouping of characters in one ship with specific role-based activities (as opposed to groups of ships) either too hard to implement or not appropriate to implement in Star Trek Online?

--Flatfingers

Against my own better judgement, I'll venture to step foot into this topic, at least briefly. I haven't read the entire thread, but I read a whole lot of the old thread of threads (that used to be sticky but looks to be gone now?) and all that. I may not post a lot, but I've lurked a long while now. But to the question at hand, as you've asked, and I've quoted, above.

A big part of the problem with your question (and the key to WHY it's different, and difficult to make work in STO, all wrapped up in one, IMO) is that you're comparing apples and oranges, as they say. How so? We need to look at this in terms of the 'actors.' For the purpose of this post/discussion, I use the term 'actor' to refer to an entity representing one of the core participants in a battle or conflict. Each actor can take action upon other actors, and in turn be acted upon by other actors. It's given that we're discussing -shipboard- conflict mechanics, as we're talking about ship's crew -- obviously the land-based mechanics for away parties are already more conventional and work as you've described in other MMORPGs.

Those definitions stated, the actors in any ship-to-ship conflicts are the ships themselves, NOT the crewmembers.

I set that sentence apart on it's own, bolded and italicized it for a reason. That is the true key, the crux of the whole matter, IMO. That's your apples to oranges. That's WHY things WON'T work the same way. In your 'grouping of characters with specific role-based activities' in any other MMOG, each of these characters is, individually, an actor. In STO ship-based conflict, the SHIP is the actor -- the characters, taken individually, are NOT actors at all. If they are all running one ship, then you have 5 people all trying to control ONE actor. Each actor can take action upon other actors, and in turn be acted upon by other actors. Remember our definition of actors, and when you look at a ship-to-ship battle, it should be fairly clear that the ships are the actors. In a typical 'grouping of characters with specific role-based activities,' each ACTOR has a role. That's what makes them . . . well, active. One player = one actor, so it all works out that everyone can do things, play a role, and interact in a satisfying manner. Now if these 5 players are all controlling ONE actor, that no longer holds. Actors affect actors. You've only got one actor actually ABLE to affect other actors -- the ship. You can create a system where SHIPS can all have specialized roles and can work together, because SHIPS are actors.

In essence, being something less than an actor in such a situation is a role that has never been 'fit' into any game I can think of. (Though there's probably something out there -- I hardly claim to know all games.) Playing 1/5 of an actor in some fun and meaningful way is not at all the same. What can a single character in a more 'conventional' game do? What kind of scope do they have? That is the scope of a single actor. In a ship-to-ship conflict, each ship is defined and limited by the scope of a single actor. You can't really get around that -- that's your perspective, that's how it has to be balanced. Given that, once you break down that scope into multiple parts . . . well, there's just no way to really take 1/5 of 1 and make it equal to 1. It's fairly simple mathematics.

If you're still having a hard time grasping how my perspective applies, then try applying your own analogy in reverse: You suggest a parallel between group members in a conventional MMOG and on a ship's crew. How would multiple players control a single character in a conventional MMOG? Honestly. Think about it. That's what you're proposing. Think about that and come up with a way to make 5 people control one mage or warrior or cleric, and give them all interesting things to do. Let me know how it works. My own challenge to you.

[cmhDK]

I'm not sure how to interpret what I've read on the website, and was wondering if anyone could shed any light on the subject with info they know, or any ideas that they have concerning the topic.

It states you can go on away missions with your friends, but suggests you are the only 'real' person on your ship, with yourself being a Captain. Does this mean you cannot have a crew of 'real people', of friends from the real world, with a proper ranking system (like a CMO, head of Security and XO, etc)?

if enough players want it and if cryptic can figure out how to make each station fun, then they will add it later, but it'll not be in the game at launch

source (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SgRFLfLChMA)

[Tribbler]

Ohhh Gooody!!!!

(Dons on the Flame Resistant Armor +10,000 moral)

Look guys, if at all possible, Cryptic will try the 5 man real person scenario to man ships and this is how I think it will go.

After there are 100,000 subscribers or however many subscribers their goal is, they will start thinking about it and start working it out.

Then they will let every captain be able to make a specialist such as Science Officer, Engineer, Security Officer, Trader etc. in a Patch, Update, or expansion.

You will first need to get the subscribers up there to make this work due to the vastness of space, so it is important to get subscription numbers up.

Then later, they will have resources to work with along with developer dollars so that they can make new quests for real 5 player single ship scenarios.

Don't know how this could work in PVP but I would say they will figure it out if they hit their subscription number goal. Right now, they have more important things to figure out.

Don't fret or get upset. Just look forward to the opputunities, be friendly to assist the devs in getting subscription numbers up, and the possibilities could be endless.

After all this is TREK!.

[OddjobXL]

Let me quickly address some points:

This game is going to be designed so that one person can handle a whole ship. That's the incoming dataload. The game is designed so that one person can handle energy management, plotting firing solutions, triggering special skills or whathave you. That's the outgoing dataflow.

If and when multiplayer ships are introduced there won't be enough complexity to keep everyone engaged. Nobody will have an advantage at this basic level but they will have plenty of thumb twiddling to do even if the basic tasks are distributed between multiple players.

Remember, stately pace is the byword (byphrase?) for ship-to-ship combat. Having more twitches per second isn't going to be all that handy.

So a great deal of effort is going to be placed on introducing a layer of complexity simply so that folks have something to do. My concept holds grouping each major function into a console, like you'd expect from Bridge Commander (or, well, Star Trek as a whole actually), with the exception of the Captain (the human CPU) and the Science Stations (which would serve as general sensor operator positions with access to non critical functions like crafting or the ship's library - mainly for passengers who want to be part of the experience but might not want to be in the middle of it or are still just learning).

The real drama in a multiplayer ship isn't happening outside it's what's happening on the bridge. The stuff outside, even the player ship's behavior and status which is technically outside the bridge, is just a stimulus. The communication, whether voice or text, between positions as they try to react to it as a group is what's interesting.

The very key to this dynamic is the blind bridge. Locked view. Nobody can see outside. Only what's up on the main viewer is visible. All other information about threats, hazards, ship's status and all the rest needs to be relayed only to those consoles equipped to handle the right kind of information. Much of what everyone will be doing will be focusing on something important and relaying updates. The captain takes that information from his crew, whom he is utterly dependent on, and issues orders. There should most certainly be a Starfleet Academy (or Klingon Academy) tutorial explaining how to understand bearing and movement so verbal instructions along these lines make sense.

When something is of particular interest perhaps it can be put up on the main viewer. There could even be a "training wheels" mode that would display a battlemap on the main viewer showing relative ship positions and the overall tactical situation. However, that should come at a price like half experience or something along those lines. The real magic would be learning to understand how things really work and the dynamics as the players pull it together and learn to work as a team.

For those who haven't played games like B-17 Flying Fortress: The Mighty 8th, or the Silent Hunter sub sims, or even Panzer Elite let me tell you that being stuck in a confined space with a heavy sense of uncertainty about what, exactly, is going on outside is a huge thrill or, at times, source of dread. What you can't see or don't know about is always going to be more exciting than the seen and the known. There's more room for self-doubt, wondering, and just overall tension that's hard to recreate in any other way.

The second point I'd like to address is the nature of the actors and the stage.

I'd say there can be more than one stage and more than one kind of actor. The ships and the battlefield, yes, but also the bridge and the officers. In a multiplayer ship the latter is actually more important. Look at any battle in Star Trek and you don't see a great deal of context for the fighting but, primarily, the actors on the bridge working to solve the tactical situation cooperatively.

That's the nubbins of space combat in Star Trek and what makes it conceptually, aesthetically, different than space combat in any other setting.

[LordDave]

Because this thread looks like it's going to go the way of the ill fated "PC and NPC bridge crew" thread, I'll chime in.

Oddjob is right about complexity issues. It's too simple because it HAS to be simple. See, to make PC crews, one must FIRST have NPC crews and solo player ships. This is what Cryptic is doing FIRST. Craig and Jack have stated that yes, they could make something fun... Eventually. They do not have the time to put in functional interiors and Craig will not put in interiors unless they are fun and serve a purpose. All that takes time, time they DO NOT HAVE. Once the game is released, THEN they can look towards expanding.

Now, to quell the issues of balance:
A group is 5 people on one ship is worse then one person on one ship with everything else the same.
A Team of 5 people on one ship is better then one person on one ship with everything else the same.

So what is a group?
People who don't generally know one another.
What is a team?
People who have practiced together, worked together, and know how each other reacts.

This difference between group and team relates to anything. For STO specifically, let's take tactical and helm.
A single player will fly the ship and fire their weapons. They can plan for what shield facing to hit, how to align their weapons, which arcs aren't ready to fire and which are, ect... the lag that would normally be associated with communicating intent from captain to helm and tactical is removed as is any chance of misunderstanding.
A team, however, won't have this issue because each will know how to react in any given situation and how the others will react. But teams are better at everything anyway so balance issues are a moot point. A team of 5 ships will out perform a group of 5 ships even if everything is identical.


Now we come to control.
People don't like it when they have no visible control over their character, which is often associated with movement. To make tactical fun, you'd have to find a way to make pressing left and right mouse buttons as well as diverting shield power fun. Seriously that's all tactical does. Picks the target, plays with shield power, and presses left or right mouse button. (phasers or torpedoes) Compared to the stimulation of doing helm, phasers, and power management, it's nothing.
Simply put, the experience of a group ship for each person MUST MATCH the stimulation and experience of soloing. Doing all that is like making several other games and that takes time. Time the development team does not have. What is their deadline? March of 2010. Do you honestly think they could do both the solo ship and the whole ship interiors, which must have the following:


Bridge configurations
Helm experience
Tactical experience
Science expereince
Engineering experience
Medical expereince
Captain's ready room
Captain's quarters
random objects such as kick nacks, vases, souveniers, ect...
working food replicators
transporter room
Engineering with functional consoles, crafting station, system configuration, ship customization settings, ect....
sickbay with medical mini-games, experiments, crafting, ect...
shuttle bay with useable shuttles
crew wandering around the ship doing random things
a way to get players back to their ships without seemingly magically teleporting them across the sector


That's a WHOLE lot of stuff to do.

[Kinjiru]

Even so - ...

...snip...

...3 people is still better than 1 person, and 5 people is still better than 3. We don't get back down to 1.00 value, until ten people are trying to coordinate their efforts.

So, according to yours (and Hagon's) logic, (five players will be more efficient than one) then a fully crewed POB ship in SWG must have been better than a single player ship?

I think we all know what happens there, and it ends with a YT going *boom*. And it'll happen faster with a decent pilot in a JSF or an Oppressor. And that's with a full crew, Pilot, Co, Gunner1, gunner2 and 2 Damage Control guys waiting to fix something.

If you think running power transfers from your shields to weapons and realigning the sensor dish before firing torps boring, then you would have been bored to tears running Damage Control on a POB in SWG.

If a system is designed to balance five players in a single ship against one player in a matching ship, where is the prolem? And I'm still not convinced that five players will be automatically more coordinated and work in concert better than the single player. Perhaps after they train together for a long time... then maybe they can achieve the kind of efficiency needed to outperform one person who can see something and instantly react.

And why the insistence that the captain (group leader) does nothing but bark orders? I've mentioned several ideas, including an override capability so as to fill in if/where needed, in the eventual event that Spork goes to the bathroom or Redshirt2 needs a snack.

Also, I don't personally have any problems with one of my gunners saying "leetH4X I got HEEm!!!!!!1111one" either, because I simply don't join groups that contain players who speak that way. And you don't/wouldn't have to either.

All of that aside, why don't we all try to figure out constructive ways it would work, fitting into that our specific needs?

In other words, if balancing 5 players in a single ship is a concern to you, let's try to find suggestions for Cryptic to look at (EDIT: need to add here: *After Launch*) that might work.

[Kinjiru]

Do you honestly think they could do both the solo ship and the whole ship interiors, which must have the following:


Bridge configurations
Helm experience
Tactical experience
Science expereince
Engineering experience
Medical expereince
Captain's ready room
Captain's quarters
random objects such as kick nacks, vases, souveniers, ect...
working food replicators
transporter room
Engineering with functional consoles, crafting station, system configuration, ship customization settings, ect....
sickbay with medical mini-games, experiments, crafting, ect...
shuttle bay with useable shuttles
crew wandering around the ship doing random things
a way to get players back to their ships without seemingly magically teleporting them across the sector


That's a WHOLE lot of stuff to do.

Just a chime in here Dave, I have to run, but why do we need all of those interior rooms to have a five person bridge crew? Why not give them the same 3rd person UI view (with movable camera, hopefully) that the captain gets?

[LordDave]

Just a chime in here Dave, I have to run, but why do we need all of those interior rooms to have a five person bridge crew? Why not give them the same 3rd person UI view (with movable camera, hopefully) that the captain gets?

That list is the "This is what interiors should be". Craig seems to be the type of person who doesn't do things piece by piece. If they put in player crews, they're going to put in EVERYTHING, all at once.

[Kinjiru]

That list is the "This is what interiors should be". Craig seems to be the type of person who doesn't do things piece by piece. If they put in player crews, they're going to put in EVERYTHING, all at once.

I'd love to be a fly on the wall at Cryptic sometimes. :) (Sometimes? heck, I'd pay to be there. :) )

I know that anything he does, he wants to do right, and I'd like both features, along with a Romulan and Neutral faction. I'm really curious to see their list of post launch priorities, what does the team see as the most important followup feature?

Of course, to answer that, we'd have to have a list of the features that will be in for sure, which I think is probably still a bit fluid at this point, and most likely will be so at least until a solid beta build is tested. I've personally seen Dev teams decide at the eleventh hour that "x" feature just isn't possible in the time that they have available, so they have to adjust accordingly.

[Flatfingers]

Novel time again! (This subject has a way of producing that effect. :))

I'm not going to respond to the other silly gobbilty gook put there for someone to read themselves, but I'll respond to this first part.

/shrug

You're the one making the claim that anyone leading a group of player crew would do so only "on the backs of others," as though having people on their ship automatically turns ship owners into whip-wielding, capitalist-pig overlords.

If I'd said something like that, I'd probably be trying to handwave it away, too.

On second thought, no, I wouldn't.

The ship owner would be in total control of the players aboard their ship because the ship captain would be the only one that would be seeing the game, and it would be their ship. It's not like regular group play where I can save myself by getting away or by other means, or influence decisions made within the group, or even take over if things are going too far south.

OK, thanks for trying to clearly spell out your objections. Let's consider each of the four of them in turn.

1. Can't see all the action.

The difference is if I go in a dungeon as a healer or tank, I still get to see the entire experience the same as everyone else. I'm not stuck in a box with a peep hole and told to cast heals, or blindfolded with two pin holes to look out of and told to stand in front of the boss mobs and get hit.

First, I think you're glossing over the point that filling a role in a group means focusing at least some of your attention on just the actions unique to that role. If you're (for example) healing, you'd better be concentrating on watching the "dials and meters" of the health of your groupmates or you're not going to be asked to rejoin the group when the TPW happens. I see no functional difference here between grouping to run one dungeon and grouping to crew one ship -- filling a role means "seeing" mostly your tasks within the overall action.

Second, if I'm on a bridge grouped with other player characters, there's no reason to think I wouldn't be able to see my groupmates (and what they do) just fine -- better, in fact, than seeing them only as images on a graphic overlaying the exterior view of my ship (assuming such images of one's group members are available at all). Being able to interact with other characters as avatars on a ship's bridge is sort of a key aspect of the player crew experience; there'd be no point in implementing the roles of a player crew feature as mere "peepholes" into a single ship system.

In fact, I'd say that staring at nothing but the hull of my ship for hours at a time sounds a lot more "peepholish" than being able to see and interact with other people represented as characters on a bridge as they play their parts in group action...

...just like we can see them in groups in other games.

On balance, I don't think this is a strong response to the question of what makes player crew groups worse than groups in other MMORPGs.

2. Can't leave the group.

Just how are you going to leave the crew anyway? Jump out an airlock and hitch a ride back to wherever?

I would imagine that I would select the "Leave Group" option, which would put me in my own ship or at the nearest starbase.

Why does that seem too complicated to you?

3. Can't influence decisions made within the group.

Again, how is this necessarily any worse as part of a player group on one ship than as part of a player group in a dungeon?

4. Can't take over if the engagement starts going badly.

Here I think you may possibly have a good point.

One difference between player crew organization by roles in Star Trek Online and how group roles are implemented in other games is that in STO, it appears that there'll be a "Command" role. It's very likely that this role will be filled in a player crew group by the ship owner... so what happens if the ship owner gets knocked out of the action somehow? Can another player take over the group leadership function (perhaps allowing an NPC to take over what they had been doing)?

I think player groups in other games still have this problem, too, but I could agree that it's a little easier for them if there's no class or skills specific to group leadership -- in that case, someone can informally step up and try to save the day by giving direction in place of the fallen leader.

I would, however, ask what happens in games where there are specific classes and skills for leading groups of characters. I think Lord of the Rings Online is such a game -- so how would a player crew feature in STO be any worse in the "taking over when things go south" category than LotRO when a Captain character goes down? How does the "ship owner = group leader" element factor into that?

It's a good question. This might indeed be one small area where the player crew experience is a little worse off than grouping in other games.

Now, to the example you suggested of what the player crew experience might be like:

They get invited to the crew, get aboard, set off, and half way to the destination they start to get an uneasy feeling because Joe Schmo is starting to show signs of ego mania.

Actually, I agree with you that there will be some people like this. But again: how is that any different from what happens in pick-up groups in other games? It happens all the time that people join a group only to discover that the person leading it turns into a petty tyrant when the action starts -- so what makes a player crew setting likely to be any worse in that respect?

For that matter, how will it be any different from fleet leaders or people leading pick-up groups of ships in STO?

Given that people will be able to leave player crew groups, there's no reason to think a player crew grouping feature would have any more or less trouble in this area than groups already have in other games.

Even if some mechanism is in place for the person to bail, they know that there's only a relatively few players that have one of these ships, and they're intimidated by the fact that they figure since ol' Joe is clearly such a tool, and there's so many other tools with these ships, if they leave in the middle Scmo'll do all he can to try and make sure they never get invited aboard another ship.

Finally, here I think we have the heart of your objection. You want to claim that there won't be many people interested in the player crew experience.

You might be right. I suppose a player crew feature could be designed so badly that only a few diehards would want anything to do with it.

On the other hand, you don't actually know that this will be the case -- Cryptic could actually do a great job implementing player crews -- so you might also be wrong that a player crew feature will be unpopular. (I tend to assume that Cryptic would do a good job, but that's me.)

So this becomes one of those "agree to disagree" things. I don't know that a player crew feature will be very popular, and I won't claim that it will be. I think the consistent appearance of people popping up in this forum to ask about it gives us some reason to believe it might be popular with a meaningful minority of players, but I don't know that for sure.

However, you don't know that it will be very unpopular. If simply stating a belief as though it were a fact isn't right for me to do, it's not right for you, either.

Which leaves us free to discuss what some enjoyable mechanics of a player crew feature might be, without having to worry about the popularity of such a feature overall (since neither of us is in a position to say anything definitive about it).

Where's the harm in having an exchange of ideas like that?

In an instance, they can cheaply create specific content for the PC crewed ship and balance the experience on a relatively small scale. As opposed to having to re-balance an entire game to make a square peg fit into a round hole.

I agree with your assumption that there'd be some balancing necessary.

I don't agree with your assumption that such balancing wouldn't be worth doing. :)

--Flatfingers

[Flatfingers]

Now, to address the viewpoints expressed by Ayradyss and LordDave.

First, to Ayradyss, please note that the tone of your last paragraph is unnecessary. I don't mind at all if people disagree with my perspectives and suggestions; I'm here to listen and learn as well as to offer my own thoughts. You'll find that I don't take disagreement personally as long as it's expressed in a friendly way.

To your point, I believe this quote sums it up (please let me know if you feel I'm missing something important):

In your 'grouping of characters with specific role-based activities' in any other MMOG, each of these characters is, individually, an actor. In STO ship-based conflict, the SHIP is the actor -- the characters, taken individually, are NOT actors at all.

First off, I understood your proposed definition of "actor" right away, thanks. ;)

Secondly, and to the point, I agree that players running the functions of ships in Star Trek Online will act through their ships... but I do not agree that this means they do not act at all.

I would say that a player whose character is doing Science-y things is definitely "acting" -- he's clearly engaging in gameplay -- even if that activity gets expressed in the gameworld through the agency of a ship, or if a tool (like a weapon or a bridge console) is required to enable that action.

Consider a player character who fires a rifle in a MMORPG. Is that player an actor? After all, the player isn't directly producing an effect in the gameworld; the effect only comes out of the rifle itself. By your definition as stated so far, in which "acting" requires a direct effect by one entity upon another, that character is not an actor. But I think most would agree that that's nonsensical; the player is having fun acting even though the effects in the gameworld are produced only through the agency of the item used.

Next, consider the stated feature for Star Trek Online that players will be able to group in their individual ships. By your definition, the players controlling these ships are not "actors" since they cannot directly affect each other; only their ships qualify as actors. So wouldn't that mean that the group-of-individually-controlled-ships feature Cryptic has announced for STO also fails your test of being worthy of implementation as groups of characters in other games are, since the individual players in these ships must be -- as you put it -- "something less than an actor?"

Finally, there's the element of one-to-one action versus many-to-one action that your definition of "actor" seems to contain. When I'm part of a group in a dungeon, going up against a boss, I may never do a single thing which directly affects that boss (maybe I'm healing group members)... but as a member of the group of many characters, my group certainly does directly affect that boss. The fact that my character is acting in concert with other characters, that our overall effects are produced through the group as a whole, does not in any way cause me to feel like I'm not an "actor" with a meaningful and entertaining role to play in the gameworld.

For these reasons, I suggest that the means by which action is expressed, and the number of characters acting together as a group, are irrelevant to whether players perceive their characters as "actors."

Whether I'm playing a scalpel-wielding medic in a group in a dungeon or a tricorder-wielding engineer in a player crew on a ship, I'm acting -- through my character, my character's tools, and the unique group of characters of which my character is a part -- within the gameworld. The fact that my actions, along with those of the characters of my fellow players, are channeled through one ship doesn't alter one whit the fact that I'm doing gameplay things inside the gameworld. That's as true for characters grouped on a bridge working together as it is for characters grouped in a dungeon working together.

So, in summary, while I find the notion of "acting" interesting, and I'm open to further discussion of that perspective -- I might have missed some important aspect of that argument -- at this point I have to say it doesn't appear to be a relevant factor in the question I've posed: how are the problems of implementing a player crew group in STO any different or harder than the problems of implementing grouping in other games?

Time the development team does not have. What is their deadline? March of 2010. Do you honestly think they could do both the solo ship and the whole ship interiors, which must have the following:


Bridge configurations
Helm experience
Tactical experience
Science expereince
Engineering experience
Medical expereince
Captain's ready room
Captain's quarters
random objects such as kick nacks, vases, souveniers, ect...
working food replicators
transporter room
Engineering with functional consoles, crafting station, system configuration, ship customization settings, ect....
sickbay with medical mini-games, experiments, crafting, ect...
shuttle bay with useable shuttles
crew wandering around the ship doing random things
a way to get players back to their ships without seemingly magically teleporting them across the sector


That's a WHOLE lot of stuff to do.

Yes, it is. Happily, it's reasonable to suspect that the majority of them are things that the developers of Star Trek Online are already implementing. :)

There will be starbases, after all, where we've been told that player characters will be able to use systems (presumably related to their departmental specialties) for active gameplay. There'll be locations filled with objects, NPCs wandering around doing things, and so on.

So the right question is: what are the unique challenges of making player ships one more place where these features are implemented? More specifically, how much additional effort is required to take all those existing bits of content and make them work on player ships to enable a player crew experience?

That's a fair question. I'd like to think that those who would enjoy discussing it in a constructive way would be allowed to do so by their fellow forum members, even those who choose to believe this feature cannot or should not be implemented.

--Flatfingers

[_Pax_]

So, according to yours (and Hagon's) logic, (five players will be more efficient than one) then a fully crewed POB ship in SWG must have been better than a single player ship?
Yes, if that single-player ship otherwise had exactly the same armaments, acceleration, turn radius, shielding, armor, structural durability, etc, etc.

IOW, if the two vehicles were identical other than how many people were independantly manning appropriate stations.

I think we all know what happens there, and it ends with a YT going *boom*. And it'll happen faster with a decent pilot in a JSF or an Oppressor. And that's with a full crew, Pilot, Co, Gunner1, gunner2 and 2 Damage Control guys waiting to fix something.
.... yeah, a Stock Light Freighter against a Space Superiority Fighter, whose performance envelope is necessarily better than the YT-1300's. That's a fair match. :rolleyes:

If a system is designed to balance five players in a single ship against one player in a matching ship, where is the prolem?
No such system can ever exist; my position is that such is a physical impossibility. You might as well posit that Ducks will spontaneously begin laying iPods instead of eggs. The chance of either event happening, is about the same.

All of that aside, why don't we all try to figure out constructive ways it would work, fitting into that our specific needs?
Because, again, I don't think it CAN be done. I think any resources expended towards the attempt are wasted. There's no sense throwing good money after bad.

In other words, if balancing 5 players in a single ship is a concern to you, let's try to find suggestions for Cryptic to look at (EDIT: need to add here: *After Launch*) that might work.
Well here's my suggestion: "don't waste your time; spend it on something more likely to succeed BEFORE the heat-death of the universe." :rolleyes:

[JeanLucKirk]

I'd love to be a fly on the wall at Cryptic sometimes. :) (Sometimes? heck, I'd pay to be there. :) )

I know that anything he does, he wants to do right, and I'd like both features, along with a Romulan and Neutral faction. I'm really curious to see their list of post launch priorities, what does the team see as the most important followup feature?

Of course, to answer that, we'd have to have a list of the features that will be in for sure, which I think is probably still a bit fluid at this point, and most likely will be so at least until a solid beta build is tested. I've personally seen Dev teams decide at the eleventh hour that "x" feature just isn't possible in the time that they have available, so they have to adjust accordingly.

'Romulan and neutral'. Just fixing that there for you. Good man.

[cmhDK]

Yes, if that single-player ship otherwise had exactly the same armaments, acceleration, turn radius, shielding, armor, structural durability, etc, etc.

IOW, if the two vehicles were identical other than how many people were independantly manning appropriate stations.


.... yeah, a Stock Light Freighter against a Space Superiority Fighter, whose performance envelope is necessarily better than the YT-1300's. That's a fair match. :rolleyes:


No such system can ever exist; my position is that such is a physical impossibility. You might as well posit that Ducks will spontaneously begin laying iPods instead of eggs. The chance of either event happening, is about the same.


Because, again, I don't think it CAN be done. I think any resources expended towards the attempt are wasted. There's no sense throwing good money after bad.


Well here's my suggestion: "don't waste your time; spend it on something more likely to succeed BEFORE the heat-death of the universe." :rolleyes:

I can't make PHP work together with Flash (website programing), that doesn't mean it can't be done
you can't see how some things can be done, that doesn't mean it can't be done

I can guaranty you that if someone can think of it, it can be done, all that is required is the knowledge of how to make it

[Kinjiru]

Yes, if that single-player ship otherwise had exactly the same armaments, acceleration, turn radius, shielding, armor, structural durability, etc, etc.

IOW, if the two vehicles were identical other than how many people were independantly manning appropriate stations

It's a bit of a stretch, but if you look at the comparison, you could get a good engine in that YT and outrun any fighter in overall speed. You couldn't out turn a fighter unless you drop speed to about 27 - 30% of max. The POBs capacitor and weapons automatically have much higher capability than anything on a fighter. Missiles/Torpedoes depend on the style of fighter, but most of the POBs had 2 launcher slots (except the VT40, which had three, like an Oppressor), fighters varied from none - 3.

So the fighter retains superiority in maneuverability, and possibly launchers.
The POB (even a YT, but I wouldn't count the Y8, those were hogs) gets superiority in weapons, energy available, the ability to repair (via damage control crew), better shields, better armor...

And yet, it was very rare to see a POB ship (unescorted) win a one on one fight versus any of the high mid level to ace/master ships.

Now, if you were to see two VT40 Decimators, one with a full crew, one with one person, of course the one person Deci would get smacked, because that one person Deci wouldn't be set up so that the captain could perform all of those functions. A ship in STO will already be set up to do just that.

.... yeah, a Stock Light Freighter against a Space Superiority Fighter, whose performance envelope is necessarily better than the YT-1300's. That's a fair match. :rolleyes:

Come on, the only difference between the YT1300, a Nova Courier and VT49 Decimator was the number of launchers, the Deci had 3, the other two only had 2, they could all handle the heavier components, and they all had the same handling characteristics. (The VT49 was a purpose built warship.)

If JTL had been done correctly, only a lucky fighter could have beaten one in one on one combat. It wasn't, but that's a moot point now.

No such system can ever exist; my position is that such is a physical impossibility. You might as well posit that Ducks will spontaneously begin laying iPods instead of eggs. The chance of either event happening, is about the same.

I've seen so many things done that couldn't be done. Do we really want to start comparing impossible achievements that were achieved?

Because, again, I don't think it CAN be done. I think any resources expended towards the attempt are wasted. There's no sense throwing good money after bad.

We're not throwing money around Pax, were throwing ideas around. (At least I'm not throwing money around.)

Well here's my suggestion: "don't waste your time; spend it on something more likely to succeed BEFORE the heat-death of the universe." :rolleyes:

Tell that to Wilbur and Orville Wright or Bill Gates and Steve Jobs. (Damn, I did it anyway.) :)

[dyvimtorm]

I'm not really following this thread, I just have to commend flatfingers on the most amazing text wall capacity of anyone I've seen. :p

j/k luv ya flat, but man can you make copy ;)

[Galv]

It's a bit of a stretch, but if you look at the comparison, you could get a good engine in that YT and outrun any fighter in overall speed. You couldn't out turn a fighter unless you drop speed to about 27 - 30% of max. The POBs capacitor and weapons automatically have much higher capability than anything on a fighter. Missiles/Torpedoes depend on the style of fighter, but most of the POBs had 2 launcher slots (except the VT40, which had three, like an Oppressor), fighters varied from none - 3.

So the fighter retains superiority in maneuverability, and possibly launchers.
The POB (even a YT, but I wouldn't count the Y8, those were hogs) gets superiority in weapons, energy available, the ability to repair (via damage control crew), better shields, better armor...

And yet, it was very rare to see a POB ship (unescorted) win a one on one fight versus any of the high mid level to ace/master ships.

Now, if you were to see two VT40 Decimators, one with a full crew, one with one person, of course the one person Deci would get smacked, because that one person Deci wouldn't be set up so that the captain could perform all of those functions. A ship in STO will already be set up to do just that.



Come on, the only difference between the YT1300, a Nova Courier and VT49 Decimator was the number of launchers, the Deci had 3, the other two only had 2, they could all handle the heavier components, and they all had the same handling characteristics. (The VT49 was a purpose built warship.)

If JTL had been done correctly, only a lucky fighter could have beaten one in one on one combat. It wasn't, but that's a moot point now.



I've seen so many things done that couldn't be done. Do we really want to start comparing impossible achievements that were achieved?



We're not throwing money around Pax, were throwing ideas around. (At least I'm not throwing money around.)



Tell that to Wilbur and Orville Wright or Bill Gates and Steve Jobs. (Damn, I did it anyway.) :)

Got say here that the only reason the pobs weren't effictive in pvp combat was becuase they were totally unbalanced against fighters with reversed enginnered parts, a fighter with good reversed blasters could take out a pobs shield with a few shots. It wasn't balanced so the crewed ships didn't seem that good, in STO it's abit different it will take alot of balancing out. A good crew of friends/fleet/guild who play alot together would gain an advantage over a single player ship.

Anyway SWG is bad comparison for crews as STO space combat is going to be a bit more than pressing shieldshunt3.

[Kinjiru]

Got say here that the only reason the pobs weren't effictive in pvp combat was becuase they were totally unbalanced against fighters with reversed enginnered parts, a fighter with good reversed blasters could take out a pobs shield with a few shots. It wasn't balanced so the crewed ships didn't seem that good, in STO it's abit different it will take alot of balancing out. A good crew of friends/fleet/guild who play alot together would gain an advantage over a single player ship.

Anyway SWG is bad comparison for crews as STO space combat is going to be a bit more than pressing shieldshunt3.

Interesting, I hadn't even thought of re-engineered components. That would tip it even farther in favor of a fighter winning the engagement, as you said above.

I wasn't really using them as a direct comparison, but more of an example of how having more people on a crew doesn't mean an automatic win. :)

[LordDave]

Yes, it is. Happily, it's reasonable to suspect that the majority of them are things that the developers of Star Trek Online are already implementing. :)

There will be starbases, after all, where we've been told that player characters will be able to use systems (presumably related to their departmental specialties) for active gameplay. There'll be locations filled with objects, NPCs wandering around doing things, and so on.

So the right question is: what are the unique challenges of making player ships one more place where these features are implemented? More specifically, how much additional effort is required to take all those existing bits of content and make them work on player ships to enable a player crew experience?

That's a fair question. I'd like to think that those who would enjoy discussing it in a constructive way would be allowed to do so by their fellow forum members, even those who choose to believe this feature cannot or should not be implemented.

--Flatfingers

Nope.
There aren't any systems you can actively use except for specific missions and possibly crafting.
But the extra effort is more along the lines of expanding existing gameplay elements to add new elements that both serve a gameplay function and are fun to do. Now, I'm no expert on game development, but Jack has stated that it's like making 6 games (one per department). I'm gonna trust that estimate since he's an expert on the subject.
I say let them finish the main content without having to worry about the 6 extra games. They can add them later.

[_Pax_]

It's a bit of a stretch, but if you look at the comparison, you could get a good engine in that YT and outrun any fighter in overall speed. You couldn't out turn a fighter unless you drop speed to about 27 - 30% of max. The POBs capacitor and weapons automatically have much higher capability than anything on a fighter. Missiles/Torpedoes depend on the style of fighter, but most of the POBs had 2 launcher slots (except the VT40, which had three, like an Oppressor), fighters varied from none - 3.
Exactly why I objected. The two would not be evenly comparable in all details aside from the crews, so, the results from such a comparison are automatically suspect. IMO, to the point of uselessness.

The reason, I suspect, that you didn't see that POB win one on one fights? They weren't designed for it - as you say, they'd have to give up the speed issue to be able to out-turn the Fighter, OR, give up maneuverability to outrun them.

And when fighting a space-superiority craft, you need to be fast AND maneuverable, at the same time. Otherwise, all the guns in the universe are probably useless, because you won't line them up often enough to matter. (Witness: the Death Star. BOTH of them.)


If JTL had been done correctly, only a lucky fighter could have beaten one in one on one combat. It wasn't, but that's a moot point now.
... except you have discounted the Fighter's edge: superior maneuverability. Streak in, fire, and turn away - hopefully managing to out-pace the bigger ship's ability to traverse it's own guns onto your fighter.


I've seen so many things done that couldn't be done. Do we really want to start comparing impossible achievements that were achieved?
Yet, some things remain impossible.

Want an example? Fine: get yourself to the moon, and back. On foot. As in, walk there.

We're not throwing money around Pax, were throwing ideas around. (At least I'm not throwing money around.)
By following the ideas/suggestions in this thread, Cryptic would be.

Tell that to Wilbur and Orville Wright or Bill Gates and Steve Jobs. (Damn, I did it anyway.) :)
They weren't trying the impossible. They were trying the unprecedented. There's a difference. As I said, some things just are impossible.

Here's another one: spontaneously grow wings, and fly without mechanical aid.

Some more:
Breathe ordinary seawater without mechanical or chemical aid, continuously, for twenty-four contiguous hours - without dieing.

Build a room-temperature Fusion reactor with a net energy out:in ratio of 2:1 or better, in your garage or back yard, using only the parts available at a Radio Shack or equivalent. The device and results must be fully replicable by independent efforts.

Prove, incontrovertibly, that the Earth is flat, and is the literal center of the universe (that is to say, that the sun, stars, planets, and all the galaxies in the heavens orbit US, and we are absolutely stationary). Bonus points if you can prove that said flat earth rests upon the backs, or other body parts, of one or more fantastically-oversized animals.

Bring a dead man back to life and perfect health, at least fiftty years after he died due specifically to injuries resulting from violence ... in his original body, not a clone, and with all memories perfectly intact.

[Galv]

Interesting, I hadn't even thought of re-engineered components. That would tip it even farther in favor of a fighter winning the engagement, as you said above.

I wasn't really using them as a direct comparison, but more of an example of how having more people on a crew doesn't mean an automatic win. :)

Yea i know, but then there isn't anything to compare it too.

[cmhDK]

Exactly why I objected. The two would not be evenly comparable in all details aside from the crews, so, the results from such a comparison are automatically suspect. IMO, to the point of uselessness.

The reason, I suspect, that you didn't see that POB win one on one fights? They weren't designed for it - as you say, they'd have to give up the speed issue to be able to out-turn the Fighter, OR, give up maneuverability to outrun them.

And when fighting a space-superiority craft, you need to be fast AND maneuverable, at the same time. Otherwise, all the guns in the universe are probably useless, because you won't line them up often enough to matter. (Witness: the Death Star. BOTH of them.)



... except you have discounted the Fighter's edge: superior maneuverability. Streak in, fire, and turn away - hopefully managing to out-pace the bigger ship's ability to traverse it's own guns onto your fighter.



Yet, some things remain impossible.

Want an example? Fine: get yourself to the moon, and back. On foot. As in, walk there.


By following the ideas/suggestions in this thread, Cryptic would be.


They weren't trying the impossible. They were trying the unprecedented. There's a difference. As I said, some things just are impossible.

Here's another one: spontaneously grow wings, and fly without mechanical aid.

Some more:
Breathe ordinary seawater without mechanical or chemical aid, continuously, for twenty-four contiguous hours - without dieing.

Build a room-temperature Fusion reactor with a net energy out:in ratio of 2:1 or better, in your garage or back yard, using only the parts available at a Radio Shack or equivalent. The device and results must be fully replicable by independent efforts.

Prove, incontrovertibly, that the Earth is flat, and is the literal center of the universe (that is to say, that the sun, stars, planets, and all the galaxies in the heavens orbit US, and we are absolutely stationary). Bonus points if you can prove that said flat earth rests upon the backs, or other body parts, of one or more fantastically-oversized animals.

Bring a dead man back to life and perfect health, at least fiftty years after he died due specifically to injuries resulting from violence ... in his original body, not a clone, and with all memories perfectly intact.

things are made possible with the use of technology
what you're saying is fankly ridiculus... like playing STO on a computer that's not turned on
that's you making things imposible

with the right technology we can do all those things, but if you insist on taking away the things that can make it posible then of course it's imposible

[Flatfingers]

I'm not really following this thread, I just have to commend flatfingers on the most amazing text wall capacity of anyone I've seen. :p

j/k luv ya flat, but man can you make copy ;)

/blush

I hope people understand that I'm not trying to bury them (or my positions on things) under a mountain of text. The only reason I write reams of stuff on some subject is because I'm interested in exploring it, and talking about an idea -- looking at it from different perspectives, considering alternative viewpoints, addressing objections -- is how ideas get explored.

I do try to keep things short (imagine if I didn't!), but every now and then a subject comes along where I feel like I might be able to contribute something useful to the discussion by giving that idea a real workout, or at least a solid explication of my own understanding of it. Once I've done that, I tend to let it go; there's no value in back-and-forth exchanges that never go anywhere.

But yeah... up to that point, I can occasionally get "motivated." :D

I really do appreciate the effort of anyone who actually reads all the way through one of my novels and gives fair consideration to the ideas therein.

OK, back to the actual topic now. :)

--Flatfingers

[Kinjiru]

Pax, Hagon,

I'm going to concede that nothing I can think of is going to change your minds.

I still disagree with you guys, but I'm disappointed that there is the total and utter objection to the discussion that is present here (and was in the past as well.).

I do have to ask though, even if we're spinning wheels here, even if Cryptic decides that it can never happen, what's the harm in discussing it? :confused:

I'll still keep offering my suggestions to Cryptic, and this and some other issues will still be brought up, and I will still probably comment on them. But... if they ever send a response to my resume, then we'll see what's impossible!!!!!!! Muhahhaha! :D

/poke

[Galv]

Pax, Hagon,

I'm going to concede that nothing I can think of is going to change your minds.

I still disagree with you guys, but I'm disappointed that there is the total and utter objection to the discussion that is present here (and was in the past as well.).

I do have to ask though, even if we're spinning wheels here, even if Cryptic decides that it can never happen, what's the harm in discussing it? :confused:

I'll still keep offering my suggestions to Cryptic, and this and some other issues will still be brought up, and I will still probably comment on them. But... if they ever send a response to my resume, then we'll see what's impossible!!!!!!! Muhahhaha! :D

/poke

You should discuss it, you don't have to respond. I think that if Cryptic can do it they will add it.

[Spoe]

Nope, no player crews at launch as of now. It has been a heated topic on the forums over the year.

This is one of the red flags I have for this game. I don't know a lot about programming or game design, but surely there must be a way to allow other players to be on one ship. I realize the idea is to have the player be the captain, and that's good, but I feel it would contribute to the social aspect of the game to allow more than one person on a giant starship.

If the desire is to keep the one-player-one-ship thing, at least make it an option for others to come on board and possibly run some aspect of the ship related to their profession.

no automatic pvp in the neutral zone, Ferengi are part of the federation, one human per ship--I don't know fellas; it's looking a little shady to me.

[zeena07]

Well, putting the crewmember aspect of the OP aside, what about meeting up with real people in starbases?

Is THIS possible?

[Galv]

This is one of the red flags I have for this game. I don't know a lot about programming or game design, but surely there must be a way to allow other players to be on one ship. I realize the idea is to have the player be the captain, and that's good, but I feel it would contribute to the social aspect of the game to allow more than one person on a giant starship.

If the desire is to keep the one-player-one-ship thing, at least make it an option for others to come on board and possibly run some aspect of the ship related to their profession.

no automatic pvp in the neutral zone, Ferengi are part of the federation, one human per ship--I don't know fellas; it's looking a little shady to me.

Ferengi are part of the Federation!!! i didn't know that is it in one of the paths?

[_Pax_]

things are made possible with the use of technology
There is no conceivable technology that would let you WALK straight up (relative to earth), WALK through near-absolute vacuum for eight light-seconds' distance to the moon, WALK down the lesser gravity well there, and then reverse the entire process. None.

with the right technology we can do all those things, but if you insist on taking away the things that can make it posible then of course it's imposible
You go on believing that ... we'll see how that works out for you.

The rest of the human race - the sane part - will accept that there isn't always a solution, there isn't always a way to do something ... and sometimes, there NEVER WILL BE, either. :rolleyes:




I still disagree with you guys, but I'm disappointed that there is the total and utter objection to the discussion that is present here (and was in the past as well.).

I do have to ask though, even if we're spinning wheels here, even if Cryptic decides that it can never happen, what's the harm in discussing it? :confused:
I never said "don't discuss it". In fact, I was (nonspecifically) invited to discuss why I thought player-crews were unworkable or undesirable. I've simply honestly expressed my own opinion on the matter.

...

Should I have not discussed anything? And would that be, because I'm not in agreement ...? Does mere dissent beget the loss of any right to discuss the topic, at all? :rolleyes:

[zeena07]

There is no conceivable technology that would let you WALK straight up (relative to earth), WALK through near-absolute vacuum for eight light-seconds' distance to the moon, WALK down the lesser gravity well there, and then reverse the entire process. None.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QpdCi5XpCsE

pretty close, no?

[Kinjiru]

I never said "don't discuss it". In fact, I was (nonspecifically) invited to discuss why I thought player-crews were unworkable or undesirable. I've simply honestly expressed my own opinion on the matter.

...

Should I have not discussed anything? And would that be, because I'm not in agreement ...? Does mere dissent beget the loss of any right to discuss the topic, at all? :rolleyes:

I think there's a significant difference between a discussion (or debate) and a flat out refusal to consider any ideas that it (anything) might work.

Feel free to say that it might not work, or that it would be difficult, but saying that something is impossible or stating that any further debate would be useless isn't a discussion, it's a denial.

[Spoe]

Ferengi are part of the Federation!!! i didn't know that is it in one of the paths?

Well, according to the post, everything we know about sto, or whatever it's called (it's similar to that), the ferengi will be a playable federation race.

I think they are getting this from the final episode of DS9--Rom becomes the Grand Nagus; there are lots of domestic reforms going on his homeworld, etc. It seems that last episode kind of killed the traditional Ferengi mindset, which is sad because now all they'll be is just another Earth really. nothing special. No more Rules of Acquisition, etc.

I know. it's depressing.

[Kinjiru]

Well, according to the post, everything we know about sto, or whatever it's called (it's similar to that), the ferengi will be a playable federation race.

I think they are getting this from the final episode of DS9--Rom becomes the Grand Nagus; there are lots of domestic reforms going on his homeworld, etc. It seems that last episode kind of killed the traditional Ferengi mindset, which is sad because now all they'll be is just another Earth really. nothing special. No more Rules of Acquisition, etc.

I know. it's depressing.

That's a tad misleading, since with the race creator, you can play any race and be in Starfleet. :)

I've been personally lobbying for a neutral faction to follow along with the Romulans after the game launches. I think the Ferengi would be perfect for something like that. I could also see the Orion Syndicate being involved as well.

Whether Cryptic would do it that way is another matter entirely. :)

[cmhDK]

There is no conceivable technology that would let you WALK straight up (relative to earth), WALK through near-absolute vacuum for eight light-seconds' distance to the moon, WALK down the lesser gravity well there, and then reverse the entire process. None.

again, if you think it can't be done, it can't be done


You go on believing that ... we'll see how that works out for you.

The rest of the human race - the sane part - will accept that there isn't always a solution, there isn't always a way to do something ... and sometimes, there NEVER WILL BE, either. :rolleyes:

you must be used to giving up
and there's no need for personal insults

[_Pax_]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QpdCi5XpCsE

pretty close, no?
No, not really.

[_Pax_]

you must be used to giving up
No, I'm used to being pragmatic.

[DarkOrion69]

I could see multi-player ships working for a PvE (and sometimes PvP) RP player like myself. If you stick me in Sick Bay, I will probably chatter to people in game until the casualties start pouring in. Maybe there will be a little mini-game to fix up the crew or at least pass the time until the commander manages to inevitably mutilate another hard working crewman :)

[DarkOrion69]

Irony and sillyness. It's kind of hard to ne e-bullied when you have an ignore function there JeanLucKirk, so why don't you use it?

I wonder how many times you have had to suggest people use the ignore button Hagon? Prolly many more times than you have had a girl say 'Yes' when you asked her out...

Try not being a hypocrite by criticizing E-bullies when you are one my friend. Of course since I am being such a meany-head here, maybe you could use that beloved ignore button on me...that would protect your fragile ego from me :)

[DarkOrion69]

Well, according to the post, everything we know about sto, or whatever it's called (it's similar to that), the ferengi will be a playable federation race.

I think they are getting this from the final episode of DS9--Rom becomes the Grand Nagus; there are lots of domestic reforms going on his homeworld, etc. It seems that last episode kind of killed the traditional Ferengi mindset, which is sad because now all they'll be is just another Earth really. nothing special. No more Rules of Acquisition, etc.

I know. it's depressing.

The Ferengi would still have a (religous? conservative?) section of their population that would honor the Rules of Acquisition despite Federation membership. But it is still in question as to whether Ferengenar is an Ally or a Member of the Federation. There is a wide gulf between working together and being a member of another society. Just because Canada is an ally of the US doesn't mean they are part of our country right?

[zeena07]

I wonder how many times you have had to suggest people use the ignore button Hagon? Prolly many more times than you have had a girl say 'Yes' when you asked her out...

Try not being a hypocrite by criticizing E-bullies when you are one my friend. Of course since I am being such a meany-head here, maybe you could use that beloved ignore button on me...that would protect your fragile ego from me :)You can always recognise an e-bully by his flagrant use of personal attacks.. :rolleyes:

[_Pax_]

You can always recognise an e-bully by his flagrant use of personal attacks.. :rolleyes:

Then again, not everyone who refuses to coddle oversensitives is necessarily a bully, of any sort. :rolleyes: Which is not to say I agree with whatsisface; I'm just pointing out that "being ungentle" does not an e-bully make.

[Galv]

You can always recognise an e-bully by his flagrant use of personal attacks.. :rolleyes:

With what we know about RL bullies and their reasons for doing it, makes you wonder how low a ebully must feel when he has to us the interent to make up for any short comings.

[Posidon]

It seems to me that no one quite understands the need for player crews. It is all about roll playing. Yes, one person is the captain, and he/she gives the orders, but it's the crew that makes it happen. If you wish to chart the stars yourself, then you do not need a player crew. Even if you wish to have nothing but an external view of your ship, so be it. You play the way you want. But introducing a tactical play system would be more beneficial in aiding you during combat. Having several people play bridge crews would allow for faster reaction times, and better performance from your ship. So there is another advantage to this. Not saying that a single player is automatically at a disadvantage, rather that the player crew does have the ability to react faster.

I, for one, will most problebly be a single player. But that doesn't mean I have to be part of a bridge crew, nor does it mean I have to use the view screen as my main visual approach to playing the game. But again, the view screen can do much more than your eyes can watching your ship from a 3rd person view. It is all in how you run your ship with working terminals and bridge crews.

I say bridge crews because there is little to no need for other crew members to be active all the time. When I say bridge crew, I will sumise for you those positions in basic function.

-The Captain Chair: This is simple enough. The captain has an over view of tactical and sets the ships status. He / she also gives the main commands, like "fire" or "engage" engines, ect.

-The First Officers Chair: This position is simply a second alter command with the captain. The Commanders post will display the same as the captain chair, with the exception of the drag and drop orders the captain will have. Instead, the Commander will relay status and damage of ship systems to the captain.

-Ops: Basically, Ops is a combination of sciences and ship status. Ops has also the control of main computer functions as well as communications and the routing of power to ships systems (although engineering has much greater control over this).

-Navigation: Simply the pilot of the ship. He / she sets course and speed of the ship. During combat, the helm also displays the same tactical scene as the captains chair, both seeing the same course settings the captain has given.

-Tactical: This position displays the full tactical view, including tactics that can be superimposed over the ships course to allow for movement overlapping and course corrections on the fly with the helm. Tactical also deals with weapons and the deployment. Tactical also deals with internal ship security systems, and security teams.

-Engineering: This position deals with the power distribution and damage control. Engineering also deals with power transfers and systems repairs.

-Life/Sciences: This position deals with medical teams and the allocation throught the ship, as well as life support systems and living conditions (i.e. internal inertial dammeners, that maintain gravity, ect.)

There you have it. Seven primary posts, and many of them can be combined through 1 post if you wish. Those are the main posts, but not all of them are needed on the bridge. Engineering can be set up through the Ops, or Tactical while Life Sciences can be set up through Ops, Tactical, or the Commanders Chair. Even the Commanders chair could be set up through Ops or Tactical, or the Command Chair. You could basically run 4 position with everything routed to them. Even 3 really. It depends on how much you want to control.

You can also control nothing other than where you want to go, raise your shields and firing your weapons. This level of detail would be for thoughs who wish to roll play, and / or get as much out of there ship as they can. This would not be implemented anytime soon. You have to create this in steps and release a piece at a time. It will take time, but in the end, a truly immersive game play never been done before. Truly, a star trek game with the feel of what star trek was all about.

[zeena07]

With what we know about RL bullies and their reasons for doing it, makes you wonder how low a ebully must feel when he has to us the interent to make up for any short comings.Of which I have many. :D

I suppose it's up to you to point them out? :confused:

[zeena07]

-The Captain Chair: This is simple enough. The captain has an over view of tactical and sets the ships status. He / she also gives the main commands, like "fire" or "engage" engines, ect.

-The First Officers Chair: This position is simply a second alter command with the captain. The Commanders post will display the same as the captain chair, with the exception of the drag and drop orders the captain will have. Instead, the Commander will relay status and damage of ship systems to the captain.

-Ops: Basically, Ops is a combination of sciences and ship status. Ops has also the control of main computer functions as well as communications and the routing of power to ships systems (although engineering has much greater control over this).

-Navigation: Simply the pilot of the ship. He / she sets course and speed of the ship. During combat, the helm also displays the same tactical scene as the captains chair, both seeing the same course settings the captain has given.

-Tactical: This position displays the full tactical view, including tactics that can be superimposed over the ships course to allow for movement overlapping and course corrections on the fly with the helm. Tactical also deals with weapons and the deployment. Tactical also deals with internal ship security systems, and security teams.

-Engineering: This position deals with the power distribution and damage control. Engineering also deals with power transfers and systems repairs.

-Life/Sciences: This position deals with medical teams and the allocation throught the ship, as well as life support systems and living conditions (i.e. internal inertial dammeners, that maintain gravity, ect.)
I like that, and I believe these would constitute a full 'crew' ;)

[Posidon]

I like that, and I believe these would constitute a full 'crew' ;)

Correct. You, would also have to have your share of AI red shirts though..................................:D

[Galv]

Of which I have many. :D

I suppose it's up to you to point them out? :confused:

Well i was only adding to your post not reffering to you as one.

[ComradeWolfie]

IHaving several people play bridge crews would allow for faster reaction times, and better performance from your ship.

Wrong. How long does it take for a single person to raise shields and charge weapons? Miliseconds to make the dicision, and seconds for the player to move the mouse/hit the hotkey.

Player crews?

Ops reports enemy ships closing to captain

Captain orders shields up and weapons charged

Tactical carries out this order

This requires more time - each player has to respond to visual stimuls and take an appropriate action, three seperate people. three times the chance someone ****s up, three times as longer to take an action, player crews would become choice targets for single player gankers (slower reaction times/killing several other players).

player crews could be included, and the whiny RP'ers want them, and wont shut up about it. But I would never choose such a pointless nerf.

[moessner]

a good EXS would be if any one has played E and B when you group up with other there stats for there ships showed up in the corner and you could fly in formation and do missions with each other and what one killed everone got the registered kill. i bet STO will be alot like this the planet side misions will probly be alot diffrent becouse u can take your away team with you. so if you and friend are going planet side and mission say you should have 5 players you will take the 2 captians and then each will have a few away team members to fill roles.

[moessner]

You can always recognise an e-bully by his flagrant use of personal attacks.. :rolleyes:


LOLROF.......

[_Pax_]

Ops reports enemy ships closing to captain
And, per SOP - that's "Standard operating Procedures" - the Tactical officer immediately initiates a Yellow Alert, which brings the ship's shields online at full strength. If the ships are already identified as ENEMY ships, you see, the ship must be operating in a combat zone ... and will be hair-triggered for that Yellow Alert. If they're not there ALREADY, anyway ... in which case, the Tactical officer will advance to red alert, immediately and without immediate orders.

Again, because of SOP ... which basically means "conditional orders, given long ahead of time".

[zeena07]

Well i was only adding to your post not reffering to you as one.Oh-hehe

My bad! :o

[Posidon]

Wrong. How long does it take for a single person to raise shields and charge weapons? Miliseconds to make the dicision, and seconds for the player to move the mouse/hit the hotkey.

Player crews?

Ops reports enemy ships closing to captain

Captain orders shields up and weapons charged

Tactical carries out this order

This requires more time - each player has to respond to visual stimuls and take an appropriate action, three seperate people. three times the chance someone ****s up, three times as longer to take an action, player crews would become choice targets for single player gankers (slower reaction times/killing several other players).

player crews could be included, and the whiny RP'ers want them, and wont shut up about it. But I would never choose such a pointless nerf.

Sorry to say, but NO, your wrong on this because the AI crew has stats, and they will activate the shields as fast as there "states" allow them to. So, even your AI does have a handy cap. That would also be unfair to other players as well, or at least unbalance the game. Your not thinking outside the box here. All major crew personnel will have states. That has already been suggested. Ship movement is slower pending more movement strategy, as well as decision making during combat. Your AI's will have stats, while some AI may react faster than others, there will still be a lag or delay before those shields go up.

[LordDave]

There is no conceivable technology that would let you WALK straight up (relative to earth), WALK through near-absolute vacuum for eight light-seconds' distance to the moon, WALK down the lesser gravity well there, and then reverse the entire process. None.

Artificial gravity field generated through your shoes.
First you need to negate the effect of outside gravity on yourself. If the graviton exists, then you simply block it from you.
Next you generate an artificial gravity field at the soles of your feet. Your body would accept that as "down", depending on where your foot was aligned and when you moved it up, the field naturally moved with it, allowing you to take a step. However the field itself would have to switch between legs based on how your stepping. (ie. your stationary leg would have to stay on while your moving leg would turn the field off until it stopped) This would ensure that the field would lock itself into the local space and keep you from moving unnaturally. Take a space suit with you and viola, walking in space. :p

Wrong. How long does it take for a single person to raise shields and charge weapons? Miliseconds to make the dicision, and seconds for the player to move the mouse/hit the hotkey.

Player crews?

Ops reports enemy ships closing to captain

Captain orders shields up and weapons charged

Tactical carries out this order

This requires more time - each player has to respond to visual stimuls and take an appropriate action, three seperate people. three times the chance someone ****s up, three times as longer to take an action, player crews would become choice targets for single player gankers (slower reaction times/killing several other players).

player crews could be included, and the whiny RP'ers want them, and wont shut up about it. But I would never choose such a pointless nerf.
Wolfie's right.
If your piloting a ship in an asteroid field, let's say chasing a ship, you can go either left or right. The hemlsman won't know what phaser arcs would be best so his decision will be based on what he feels is the best navigational one. Tactical knows what phaser arcs are best, where to hit the enemy ship, ect... so his decision as to left or right would be made on that.
A single player, however, uses both to decide and ultimately makes a better decision. But that's because flying and firing are left and right hand operations. Steer with one hand, fire with the other. If both required the use of two hands, then you'd have a problem.

[LordDave]

Sorry to say, but NO, your wrong on this because the AI crew has stats, and they will activate the shields as fast as there "states" allow them to. So, even your AI does have a handy cap. That would also be unfair to other players as well, or at least unbalance the game. Your not thinking outside the box here. All major crew personnel will have states. That has already been suggested. Ship movement is slower pending more movement strategy, as well as decision making during combat. Your AI's will have stats, while some AI may react faster than others, there will still be a lag or delay before those shields go up.

uuuhhhh.... huh?
They never said that the AI would have reaction stats for ship commands.
Especially since the player is actually controlling it.

The exception will be ground, which is going to have aiming skill stats and such.

[Posidon]

And, per SOP - that's "Standard operating Procedures" - the Tactical officer immediately initiates a Yellow Alert, which brings the ship's shields online at full strength. If the ships are already identified as ENEMY ships, you see, the ship must be operating in a combat zone ... and will be hair-triggered for that Yellow Alert. If they're not there ALREADY, anyway ... in which case, the Tactical officer will advance to red alert, immediately and without immediate orders.

Again, because of SOP ... which basically means "conditional orders, given long ahead of time".

Not quite true. There are SOP's for this situation, but only under combat conditions. Normally, there will be unknown ships approaching. Do you go to red alert on the approach of an unknown ship? I think not. There is time between, that command given, the tactical officer and his / her stats for reaction, computer procedures, and tactical experience to activate the panel and activate the shields. This could take anywhere from 3 to 8 seconds depending on the level and stats of your tactical officer. AI are scripted operational elements to your ship. Player crews will still have a slight delay, but no the less, would be a bit faster over all.

I have developed this sort of thing for many years now, and was to be implemented into a game before. To make this work, takes an enormous amount of thought and application tests to make sure this works properly. None here have given this as much thought as I have. That is a fact!

[Posidon]

uuuhhhh.... huh?
They never said that the AI would have reaction stats for ship commands.
Especially since the player is actually controlling it.

The exception will be ground, which is going to have aiming skill stats and such.

Read the previous post my friend.

[Kinjiru]

Read the previous post my friend.

Wait a sec, what does that have to do with whether AI bridge crewman will have reaction time stats to carry out your orders or not?

I don't know (none of us do yet, except for those that have actually designed and played those systems - the Devs in a a playtest...), but I suspect that ship movement, raising shields, power transfers, weapon firing, basically anything directly controlled by the player, will be instant.

Secondary functions such as repairs, speed of or reliability of scans, shield modulation, component "tweaks", et cetera, will probably be based on either bridge crew or ship's crew stats.

Just speculation, but that just seems to make sense. I don't think that they would build in a (possibly) heavily frustrating wait time to basic functions, it would get old, really quickly.

Unless I'm reading your statement wrong?

[Posidon]

Wait a sec, what does that have to do with whether AI bridge crewman will have reaction time stats to carry out your orders or not?

I don't know (none of us do yet, except for those that have actually designed and played those systems - the Devs in a a playtest...), but I suspect that ship movement, raising shields, power transfers, weapon firing, basically anything directly controlled by the player, will be instant.

Secondary functions such as repairs, speed of or reliability of scans, shield modulation, component "tweaks", et cetera, will probably be based on either bridge crew or ship's crew stats.

Just speculation, but that just seems to make sense. I don't think that they would build in a (possibly) heavily frustrating wait time to basic functions, it would get old, really quickly.

Unless I'm reading your statement wrong?

Ok, take a look at any one of the ST episodes where there are either going into combat, or just readying the shield. Watch as the command is given, and the tactical officer (or whoever is in control of the shields) activates the computer console. Once activated, the shield generators come on line and the shields are then, FINALLY, up. It is a process, as it should be. Instantanious this and that is not realistic. It would take time to activate. This is a nominal adjustment, as for the cloaked ships that must first decloak before raising there shields. For a Federation ship to raise it's shields and lock weapons is almost the same amount of time. Watch "Yesterdays Enterprise" (then ending combat). That is much to do with how this systems will function. From Captain, to officer to terminal, to operation will take a small amount of time (a few seconds, and that's with a seasoned crew!).

[Zaydrache]

Oh god I was so glad when I didn't see the massive player crew tread anymore and now it is back.

As to time to raise shields as long as the ship didn't get the jump on the other a federation ship should be at Yellow Alert far before entering firing range of an unknown ship. Weapons systems should be the only system that would need a response and that order would just be Red Alert. From that one order all weapon systems should be activated. From that time on weapon recharge and firing arcs need to be monitored but not what weapon systems themselves are activated.

At this point this topic has been talked to death. At launch player crews are highly unlikely. Later on down the road it is possible but why talk it to death right now. Why are we still beating a dead horse on this. Yes it would be cool. Yes it would be mind numbingly difficult to pull off and pull off well. The issues have been said time and again (Make it fun for everyone, lag, people dropping mid battle, having to kick under performers, and a host of others). Solutions have been said to many of these but there are always holes. For right now wouldn't being happy we are getting a game that looks as if we will finally get a fun Star Trek game that gives a little bit of everything and lets us feel important.

I know this won't help and this thread will likely become as massive as the last but I can hope.

[Posidon]

Oh god I was so glad when I didn't see the massive player crew tread anymore and now it is back.

As to time to raise shields as long as the ship didn't get the jump on the other a federation ship should be at Yellow Alert far before entering firing range of an unknown ship. Weapons systems should be the only system that would need a response and that order would just be Red Alert. From that one order all weapon systems should be activated. From that time on weapon recharge and firing arcs need to be monitored but not what weapon systems themselves are activated.

At this point this topic has been talked to death. At launch player crews are highly unlikely. Later on down the road it is possible but why talk it to death right now. Why are we still beating a dead horse on this. Yes it would be cool. Yes it would be mind numbingly difficult to pull off and pull off well. The issues have been said time and again (Make it fun for everyone, lag, people dropping mid battle, having to kick under performers, and a host of others). Solutions have been said to many of these but there are always holes. For right now wouldn't being happy we are getting a game that looks as if we will finally get a fun Star Trek game that gives a little bit of everything and lets us feel important.

I know this won't help and this thread will likely become as massive as the last but I can hope.

For the most part, you are right. Raising the shields was an example. Most likely, you will be at yellow alert. Most likely, your shields would be already raised. Most likely, we will not get player crews at launch. But this subject is a hot one. I ma very civil. I do not mind other participating in this discussio9n as long as it is civil. If you do not like the topic, then do not post in it. There are many topics I will not post in because, either the posters have reached a point of abusive behaivor, or the topic does not interest me, or I would rather not comment on the subject. The choice is yours.

[LordDave]

Ok, take a look at any one of the ST episodes where there are either going into combat, or just readying the shield. Watch as the command is given, and the tactical officer (or whoever is in control of the shields) activates the computer console. Once activated, the shield generators come on line and the shields are then, FINALLY, up. It is a process, as it should be. Instantanious this and that is not realistic. It would take time to activate. This is a nominal adjustment, as for the cloaked ships that must first decloak before raising there shields. For a Federation ship to raise it's shields and lock weapons is almost the same amount of time. Watch "Yesterdays Enterprise" (then ending combat). That is much to do with how this systems will function. From Captain, to officer to terminal, to operation will take a small amount of time (a few seconds, and that's with a seasoned crew!).

Still not understanding your point.
Yes there is a lag time between the order "raise shields" and the actual shields being fully up. But that's game mechanics and is the same if you have a human or AI doing it. Allow me to demonstrate.

Solo player A is flying along when he see's an enemy player ship. He presses the 'R' key on his keyboard that puts him into Red Alert. Shields and Weapons go up and online in 3 seconds.

Player B is running his ship with Players C, D, and E. (helm, tactical, engineering). They spot Player A's ship. Player B presses 'R' for Red Alert and the shields and weapons go up and online in 3 seconds.

There isn't going to be a "this officer takes x seconds to start performing an order" variable. Imagine lag commands with helm.

"Level 1 helmsman takes 4 seconds after you press your directional key to move the ship in that direction"
That's a game killer right there.

[zeena07]

None here have given this as much thought as I have. That is a fact!
It's not TIME spent trailing after a particular line of thought that matters, but rather, PRODUCTIVE thought ;)

[Posidon]

Still not understanding your point.
Yes there is a lag time between the order "raise shields" and the actual shields being fully up. But that's game mechanics and is the same if you have a human or AI doing it. Allow me to demonstrate.

Solo player A is flying along when he see's an enemy player ship. He presses the 'R' key on his keyboard that puts him into Red Alert. Shields and Weapons go up and online in 3 seconds.

Player B is running his ship with Players C, D, and E. (helm, tactical, engineering). They spot Player A's ship. Player B presses 'R' for Red Alert and the shields and weapons go up and online in 3 seconds.

There isn't going to be a "this officer takes x seconds to start performing an order" variable. Imagine lag commands with helm.

"Level 1 helmsman takes 4 seconds after you press your directional key to move the ship in that direction"
That's a game killer right there.

Sorry Dave. Guess everyone should have instant shields and weapons on the press of a button. When leveling, I guess this kind of level up for bridge crew is a bad idea to some of you. I think otherwise. It also follows canon, and seems very stable in it's conception. It is very stable and fits the progressive nature of leveling with your crew. However, I should have known that everyone has a veteran status crew to begin with already. Your right, I should have known that..................:rolleyes:

[LordDave]

Sorry Dave. Guess everyone should have instant shields and weapons on the press of a button. When leveling, I guess this kind of level up for bridge crew is a bad idea to some of you. I think otherwise. It also follows canon, and seems very stable in it's conception. It is very stable and fits the progressive nature of leveling with your crew. However, I should have known that everyone has a veteran status crew to begin with already. Your right, I should have known that..................:rolleyes:

Ok, just so I understand your point:
Crew member skill level should determine how long it takes them to carry out an order?
How far are you going with it?

Power distribution? 5 seconds from the time you move that slider to the time it starts transferring power?
Helm? 5 seconds from button press before your ship starts moving forward?
weapons? 5 seconds from button press before the phasers fire?

Make no mistake, even an untrained hologram("Message in a bottle") can fire a torpedo with a single button press. The ONLY delay was finding the button. Something even an ensign should know.

Also:
Name 1 game where they had delayed reaction based on AI skills.

[Kinjiru]

Ok, take a look at any one of the ST episodes where there are either going into combat, or just readying the shield. Watch as the command is given, and the tactical officer (or whoever is in control of the shields) activates the computer console. Once activated, the shield generators come on line and the shields are then, FINALLY, up. It is a process, as it should be. Instantanious this and that is not realistic. It would take time to activate. This is a nominal adjustment, as for the cloaked ships that must first decloak before raising there shields. For a Federation ship to raise it's shields and lock weapons is almost the same amount of time. Watch "Yesterdays Enterprise" (then ending combat). That is much to do with how this systems will function. From Captain, to officer to terminal, to operation will take a small amount of time (a few seconds, and that's with a seasoned crew!).

But we weren't talking about the lag time between an order given by a person to a person on a series/movie, we're talking about a game mechanic. Make no mistake, there will be things that are done in concession to the fact that STO is a game, and meant to entertain. Anything that's frustrating, annoying or just a pain the ass will be kept down to a minimum so that running a ship can be as much fun as possible.

[Kinjiru]

Sorry Dave. Guess everyone should have instant shields and weapons on the press of a button. When leveling, I guess this kind of level up for bridge crew is a bad idea to some of you. I think otherwise. It also follows canon, and seems very stable in it's conception. It is very stable and fits the progressive nature of leveling with your crew. However, I should have known that everyone has a veteran status crew to begin with already. Your right, I should have known that..................:rolleyes:

I think I covered it in my response above, but to clarify, it sounds as you're expecting more of a simulator than a game, which Craig has specifically said that STO will not be.

Whether that's to the good or bad is moot, it's not what we're getting. If you want a specific feature to be more realistic, I'd suggest that you open a thread up for discussion, but know that Cryptic's out to design a game that will be accessible to as many people as possible. A simulator (Which I would probably play) would attract a much smaller, but possibly more avid player base, restricting their subscription numbers drastically.

[Posidon]

Ok, just so I understand your point:
Crew member skill level should determine how long it takes them to carry out an order?
How far are you going with it?

Power distribution? 5 seconds from the time you move that slider to the time it starts transferring power?
Helm? 5 seconds from button press before your ship starts moving forward?
weapons? 5 seconds from button press before the phasers fire?

Make no mistake, even an untrained hologram("Message in a bottle") can fire a torpedo with a single button press. The ONLY delay was finding the button. Something even an ensign should know.

Also:
Name 1 game where they had delayed reaction based on AI skills.

It would be the difference between 3 second activation times and say 5 or 6 second activation times, but the whole discussion is mute. Since this games objective is to be WoW in space, there would be no need for this kind of crew reactions and game play (mechanics). I am sorry I ever brought this up.

[Posidon]

I think I covered it in my response above, but to clarify, it sounds as you're expecting more of a simulator than a game, which Craig has specifically said that STO will not be.

Whether that's to the good or bad is moot, it's not what we're getting. If you want a specific feature to be more realistic, I'd suggest that you open a thread up for discussion, but know that Cryptic's out to design a game that will be accessible to as many people as possible. A simulator (Which I would probably play) would attract a much smaller, but possibly more avid player base, restricting their subscription numbers drastically.

Your right. This is not a Star trek simulation, but WoW in space. There is too much work to be done for this to be implemented. Craig, being the one that sets the tone, has stated this will be a fun game. That equals WoW in space.

I do not believe I would play STO based on this simply being a "go here, kill X and return to startbase" kind of game mechanic. Too boring, bland, un-canon, 2 dimensional type of game mechanics for me to poor out my hard earned cash for. Even this episodic content they are describing, sounds limited in it's functionality within the current understanding of the game mechanics. If I am playing Star Trek, I want to experience what Star Trek was. WoW in space is not experiencing Star Trek IMHO. It's blowing things up and getting money for it. I did not like WoW, and I am sure that STO will be much like WoW. Easy game play, with "ok" graphics, along with custom colors does not make for a good game IMO.

Take a HARD look at Star Trek Excalibur. Nomal mapped starships of awesome recreation! Interactive bridge terminals (and those bridge models look spectacular). It might be a while, but STE has my attention now, BIG TIME! I never was here to flame or cause discontent, but I am disappointed with the level of detail STO has to offer thus far. Since this will be a game 10 year olds can play (not picking on the younger players out there mind you) I want something more challenging and in depth into the Star Trek Universe than this. I may play STO in the future, and I may drop in from time to time, but for now, I leave you all in peace.

[LordDave]

It would be the difference between 3 second activation times and say 5 or 6 second activation times, but the whole discussion is mute. Since this games objective is to be WoW in space, there would be no need for this kind of crew reactions and game play (mechanics). I am sorry I ever brought this up.

I doubt it really matters. For fixing things, yes. For pressing a button? No.
It doesn't take an expert to press a button. And raising shields is most likely just a button or two. I'm sure there isn't any kind of complex procedure to activate the shields or weapons, so even in a simulator, shields would raise the exact same speed for the same ship.

Unless you think a green ensign is incapable of pressing a button at a rapid speed.

-just read the Excaliber site.

They're putting in simple console interfaces much like BC. Not even CLOSE to the level of detail you want.
Yes it looks prettier. They're going for a different style. But all models are pre-made (no customization), no customization of ships, and even though they have interiors, it'll be of limited function. (much like how Bridge Commander has interiors)
I think you'll be dissapointed with Excalibur in the gameplay mechanics as well. :p

[Kinjiru]

Your right. This is not a Star trek simulation, but WoW in space. There is too much work to be done for this to be implemented. Craig, being the one that sets the tone, has stated this will be a fun game. That equals WoW in space.

I think you're purposefully picking an extreme for shock value here. Since when does a game have to be World of Warcraft to be considered fun? Why can a game not be both fun and engaging while keeping frustration to a minimum?

There has been no indication that they are attempting to emulate WoW in any way, aside from making an accessible game that can reach many audiences. -- That's not a WoW exclusive thing, that's just good marketing sense.

I do not believe I would play STO based on this simply being a "go here, kill X and return to startbase" kind of game mechanic. Too boring, bland, un-canon, 2 dimensional type of game mechanics for me to poor out my hard earned cash for. Even this episodic content they are describing, sounds limited in it's functionality within the current understanding of the game mechanics. If I am playing Star Trek, I want to experience what Star Trek was. WoW in space is not experiencing Star Trek IMHO. It's blowing things up and getting money for it. I did not like WoW, and I am sure that STO will be much like WoW. Easy game play, with "ok" graphics, along with custom colors does not make for a good game IMO.

Read my signature line (Seriously). There are some things that I think Cryptic are dead on about, there are others that I'm not happy about but will adapt to and there are things that I think that they are doing flat out wrong, but I will withhold judgment until I've actually had a chance to speak with a modicum of authority on the subject. Which none of us will have until we play the game. The only people who can speak with any authority are the very people who are building the game as we speak and are playtesting it on a regular basis.

Take a HARD look at Star Trek Excalibur. Nomal mapped starships of awesome recreation! Interactive bridge terminals (and those bridge models look spectacular). It might be a while, but STE has my attention now, BIG TIME! I never was here to flame or cause discontent, but I am disappointed with the level of detail STO has to offer thus far. Since this will be a game 10 year olds can play (not picking on the younger players out there mind you) I want something more challenging and in depth into the Star Trek Universe than this. I may play STO in the future, and I may drop in from time to time, but for now, I leave you all in peace.

How can you be displeased with the level of detail? We don't have many solid details yet and anything that we've seen is subject to change based on many factors that will be revealed throughout the alpha and beta process right through to live and after.

We simply don't know the information that you are prejudging the game on.

[ehobbs4004]

We simply don't know the information that you are prejudging the game on.

That's the story in a nutshell. Well said!

:D

[zeena07]

Mabey this will help?

http://www.gamespot.com/pc/rpg/startrekonline/news.html?sid=6209583&tag=topslot%3Bthumb%3B4&page=1

Apparently, there will be a bit more to creating a new character than just choosing starting clothes and how big your character's eyebrows will be. All-new characters will be able to choose from an array of low-ranking starter ships to command and will choose a bridge officer and crew. Your bridge officer will be a computer-controlled character--not unlike a "pet" in other massively multiplayer games--and will, like your character, gain experience levels and new items over the course of your career.

When you decide to beam down, it will always be in an away team of five characters--yourself and any combination of up to four computer-controlled crew members and/or up to four other player characters. Depending on the mission, you may wish to vary your away-team composition to include officers with different specialties, such as field medicine, tactical operations, or engineering (though there's no word yet on whether computer-controlled crew members will all wear red shirts).

[zim88]

Don't take my following comments as digs at any other posts or groups just my opinion and that of others like me thank you.

A Star Trek MMO should be about cooperation/ teamwork. anyone who is a real fan of the show can tell you that ground missions (away missions) is only half of the show, the rest is about working together on a ship working towards the completion of the mission at hand. I agree that there should be the availability to play by yourself (even though IMO if you don't want to play with other don't play a MMO) However Star Trek deserves more than a generic MMO clone. No offense to the younger Star Trek fans but most Star Trek fans including myself are in the generation above or more and i believe that we want a more realistic Star Trek experience, we want a game that gives us a chance to experience the Star Trek universe as it should be. A Star Trek MMO should be for the fans not for revenue raising from the masses, there are plenty of other enjoyable MMO's out there for that.

[_Pax_]

Thread necromancy is bad, mm'kay?

[ad.manderson]

This thread is too old to be revived.

/Closed.

Dio