Onboard Ship Interface

[LockeFP]

How will it work? Will it be a 3rd person perspective, such as is shown throughout the trailers? I, personally, would prefer to have the ability to be on the bridge of my ship, such as in Bridge Commander. It would give me a better sense of what is happening with the situation at hand. A 3rd person perspective would be nice, just as is available in BC, but with the same elements as the bridge function. That way, I can evaluate which stations I need to pay the most attention to, not by some form of drop down menu, but by where they are on my bridge. A simple "point and click" function would suffice. I look at a certain bridge element (tactical, science, helm, etc) and a brief menu pops up. I could select something general from that menu, but if I needed to look at something specific, I could do so by clicking instead of hovering. I think that having the option to scan through a bridge in a critical situation would be a boon to those that know the layout of a starship. And for those that don't, the learning curve would be fairly easy. There is already a part of the game engine dedicated to moving through ships, stations and planets. Why not implement that as part of the normal ship operations. It would make the experience seem more realistic for those of us that have been part of the action before, and allow new users to get a little more acquainted with the real idea of how Star Trek really works.

[LordDave]

Nope, no bridge function at launch.
Combat is very difficult from the bridge anyway. Especially since you, the player, will be controlling everything.

There is talk and semi-plans to implement a full ship interior with working everything. However, that's on a list of "things to do when the game launches". If we REALLY want it still after the game launches, then it'll be bumped up to the top.

[Tamgros]

It's a 3rd person view. The devs said they tried the combat from the bridge but it just didnt' work because you didn't get the whole sense of the battle.

I'm really excited about this. It's a pretty good indication that positioning, movement, and things of that nature are really important :)

EDIT: here's a quote from the IGN Voom Chat:
"Q: Can we actually explore inside our ship? I heard that the actual view of ship combat is outside the ship, can we actually control the ship from inside the bridge?

A: We are basically system space, controlling your ship happens in a third person view point. So you are flying your ship from outside of your ship, you control it as an avatar in 3D space in third person. We wanted to make sure that space combat was positional, that it was very important that you knew what was going on behind you, on your sides, that you were moving and that you had a good clear view of the situation around you. So we tried it a couple of times from the bridge but it just really didn't work, you really needed to get outside of your ship and see what was going on."
http://vault.ign.com/View.php?view=editorials.detail&id=249

[LockeFP]

Well, of COURSE you're going to need to see outside of your ship to get a good idea of the battlefield, but I would think that sitting on the bridge, with the stations available as they would be normally would put a sense of realism into the game. Yes, it would limit your perception of the whole if you were limited to the bridge view, but even BC didn't do that: it gave you the ability to sit outside your ship and scan around to see what was going on.

[relisys]

well if you think about it, we always had a 50/50 side of battle like in the tv shows, like 1 half was on the bridge and the other half was viewing fly by shots, so it makes sense to have 3rd person view :D

[Awarkle]

I think it would only ever work from the bridge is if you had player characters relaying information to each other through voice coms or chat macros of some description.

However i could see that getting incredibly complex very quickly especically with more than one target.

I think a third person view would be fine IF the UI was done so it looked like the bridge of the ship :D

[perfect_nosferatu]

I think it would only ever work from the bridge is if you had player characters relaying information to each other through voice coms or chat macros of some description.

However i could see that getting incredibly complex very quickly especically with more than one target.

I think a third person view would be fine IF the UI was done so it looked like the bridge of the ship :D

Perhaps it will be afirst person view, if and when Cryptic decide to implement Multiplayer Bridges. I, for one, hope that feature is not included, but I do hope there will be a chance to explore the interior of your ship, perhaps by getting a "stand up" command, that allows you to leave your captain's chair and have a wander!!

We shall just have to wait and see!

[dmckey]

No bridge function at launch? Total fail. I hope they add it to v1.0.1 then because whats the point to having a starship if you don't have a captains chair.

[cmhDK]

Nope, no bridge function at launch.
Combat is very difficult from the bridge anyway. Especially since you, the player, will be controlling everything.

There is talk and semi-plans to implement a full ship interior with working everything. However, that's on a list of "things to do when the game launches". If we REALLY want it still after the game launches, then it'll be bumped up to the top.

from the game point you're right, but I don't think any captain of any movies or tv shows ever had that abillitiy ;)

fighting from the inside of the ship will be too much work and not fun for everyone
but once they find a way to make all the stations fun it'll be fun to play from the bridge
if there's some sort of team-speak in the game or if we use another team-speak program won't make much difference, but it'll be fun as hell
meaning chat won't work so good if you have friends controling parts of your ship

[DOUBLESHOCK]

Well, of COURSE you're going to need to see outside of your ship to get a good idea of the battlefield, but I would think that sitting on the bridge, with the stations available as they would be normally would put a sense of realism into the game. Yes, it would limit your perception of the whole if you were limited to the bridge view, but even BC didn't do that: it gave you the ability to sit outside your ship and scan around to see what was going on.

Agreed. It would be nice to look out from inside your ship.

[LordDave]

Well, of COURSE you're going to need to see outside of your ship to get a good idea of the battlefield, but I would think that sitting on the bridge, with the stations available as they would be normally would put a sense of realism into the game. Yes, it would limit your perception of the whole if you were limited to the bridge view, but even BC didn't do that: it gave you the ability to sit outside your ship and scan around to see what was going on.
The stations gotta do something first. And to do that you need to plan how to divide up the single user interface into a multi-menu interface.

No bridge function at launch? Total fail. I hope they add it to v1.0.1 then because whats the point to having a starship if you don't have a captains chair.

It's on "The List" and if it's still the hot button issue once the game launches, it'll be at the top of the list. This isn't a decision the development team went into lightly. 3 days of debates on if they should have it or not.

[cmhDK]

The stations gotta do something first. And to do that you need to plan how to divide up the single user interface into a multi-menu interface.

actually, that's the easy part
first of all, they disable all your abilities, then your friends select the station they want to be at, the game gives your friends the abilities that comes with that station and gives you the rest

in other words, the game looks at what you and your ship can do, and hands out those abilities out to your friends

the devs can make whatever UI for this too, so they could even make it look like your avatar is pushing the right buttons at the station, you could even have to use your mouse and click on the UI

but all that would for me require some sort of team-speak
and it wouldn't hurt at all if all the players were experienced players wich is a big flaw

[JoJimGregory]

It seems we're really talking about two topics here. One is the ability of the Captain to control his ship from a bridge view, and the other is the ability of a Captain + player crew to do the same. What follows is only a discussion of a single player Captain controlling the ship from a bridge view, and only in certain circumstances.

I believe they are far enough down the line with the "tall ships" style of ship to ship combat that viewing the action from outside of your ship during combat will be almost essential at launch. If they placed a 3D tactical display on the bridge to give you that spatial and positional awareness to be able to fight effectively it would need to be big enough to discern all the ships from the comfort of your home or office computer chair, which probably means recreating the 3D outside space on the main view screen. If they're going to do that, why not just pop outside the ship and view the combat from that perspective, which is, by the way, very cinematic and true to the television and movie episodes.

However, that said, I still advocate having a bridge with main view screen for non-combat interactions. When traveling, I don't want to see the sector map pop up and cover my computer screen. I also don't want to watch my ship, represented by some tiny ship icon or blip, blinking it's way across the sector map. I would much rather see the sector map viewed on the bridge's main view screen for immersion's sake. From there, I select my destination, close the map on the main view screen, which now shows my forward view from the bridge, and then warp out, seeing the stars streaking towards my main view screen as I travel.

The ability to be "inside" the ship while traveling is an important immersion factor. I would even go so far as to say paramount to the whole Star Trek Experience. It adds a bit of mystery to our adventures as we watch those stars streaking towards us, not knowing what we might find when we drop out of warp. It gives us the ability to hail our fellow ship captains and see them appear on their own bridge via the main view screen. It allows us to hail planetary diplomats and regents and carry on discussions from our Captain's command chair. It lets us communicate with an Admiral at Star Fleet Command with it's iconic, communication ending logo. It enables view screen to view screen communications with opposing faction players and NPCs. It sets the groundwork for future, post-launch, persistent ship interiors, a cornerstone from which to build should they determine enough fans still desire as much.

Players should have the option of viewing their travels from the bridge, or from outside the ship, in both cases with stars streaking towards the view screen, or streaking past the ship from outside, and in both cases creating the iconic and cinematic points of view that have endeared us to Star Trek for over 40 years.

Whatever you do, don't force us to watch our travels on some galactic map of the sector. Such a contrived meta travel map will completely snap us out of the Star Trek Experience.

[dmckey]

Players should have the option of viewing their travels from the bridge, or from outside the ship, in both cases with stars streaking towards the view screen, or streaking past the ship from outside, and in both cases creating the iconic and cinematic points of view that have endeared us to Star Trek for over 40 years.

I totally agree with you.

[LordDave]

actually, that's the easy part
first of all, they disable all your abilities, then your friends select the station they want to be at, the game gives your friends the abilities that comes with that station and gives you the rest

in other words, the game looks at what you and your ship can do, and hands out those abilities out to your friends

the devs can make whatever UI for this too, so they could even make it look like your avatar is pushing the right buttons at the station, you could even have to use your mouse and click on the UI

but all that would for me require some sort of team-speak
and it wouldn't hurt at all if all the players were experienced players wich is a big flaw
Easier said then done. Do you have your Engineer captain friend who doesn't have any Chief Engineer skills (because that's what a chief engineer is for) use your chief engineers specials or you simply don't have them?
How do you make assigning repair crew for an hour fun?

Again, the game is built around a single person running a ship. You have to add a level of complexity to it for other people to be active. Possible? Yes. But it's time consuming and they don't have the time.



It seems we're really talking about two topics here. One is the ability of the Captain to control his ship from a bridge view, and the other is the ability of a Captain + player crew to do the same. What follows is only a discussion of a single player Captain controlling the ship from a bridge view, and only in certain circumstances.

I believe they are far enough down the line with the "tall ships" style of ship to ship combat that viewing the action from outside of your ship during combat will be almost essential at launch. If they placed a 3D tactical display on the bridge to give you that spatial and positional awareness to be able to fight effectively it would need to be big enough to discern all the ships from the comfort of your home or office computer chair, which probably means recreating the 3D outside space on the main view screen. If they're going to do that, why not just pop outside the ship and view the combat from that perspective, which is, by the way, very cinematic and true to the television and movie episodes.

However, that said, I still advocate having a bridge with main view screen for non-combat interactions. When traveling, I don't want to see the sector map pop up and cover my computer screen. I also don't want to watch my ship, represented by some tiny ship icon or blip, blinking it's way across the sector map. I would much rather see the sector map viewed on the bridge's main view screen for immersion's sake. From there, I select my destination, close the map on the main view screen, which now shows my forward view from the bridge, and then warp out, seeing the stars streaking towards my main view screen as I travel.

The ability to be "inside" the ship while traveling is an important immersion factor. I would even go so far as to say paramount to the whole Star Trek Experience. It adds a bit of mystery to our adventures as we watch those stars streaking towards us, not knowing what we might find when we drop out of warp. It gives us the ability to hail our fellow ship captains and see them appear on their own bridge via the main view screen. It allows us to hail planetary diplomats and regents and carry on discussions from our Captain's command chair. It lets us communicate with an Admiral at Star Fleet Command with it's iconic, communication ending logo. It enables view screen to view screen communications with opposing faction players and NPCs. It sets the groundwork for future, post-launch, persistent ship interiors, a cornerstone from which to build should they determine enough fans still desire as much.

Players should have the option of viewing their travels from the bridge, or from outside the ship, in both cases with stars streaking towards the view screen, or streaking past the ship from outside, and in both cases creating the iconic and cinematic points of view that have endeared us to Star Trek for over 40 years.

Whatever you do, don't force us to watch our travels on some galactic map of the sector. Such a contrived meta travel map will completely snap us out of the Star Trek Experience.

I agree that I'd like to see stars shoot by, but I understand why they're doing what they're doing.
When you travel, you've got everyone on their stations watching the space around the ship: looking at a map essentially. Since it would be VERY annoying to have your NPC crew constantly say "System on sensors.... asteroid on sensors... nebula on sensors... ship on sensors... ship on sensors... ship on sensors..." you need a way to not miss things. And any trip that your familiar with will most likely be too short for you to really do anything. And eye candy alone will only satisfy you a few times.
Craig isn't going to settle for a "foundation". He wants it done completely. So when it comes, trust that you'll be able to watch hydrogen atoms shoot by (those streaks aren't stars) on your way to Sickbay to talk with the doctor and do some experiments.

[Flatfingers]

Just to add something to the mix...

I support having a third-person view of our personal ship. Both Perpetual and Cryptic decided that this external view is the most effective for tactical combat, and they may be right about that.

On the other hand, I expect there'll be people coming to Star Trek Online who'll want to focus on exploration gameplay, on playing with the cool systems of a starship, and on roleplaying. Whether because it feels like Star Trek or simply because it's what they naturally enjoy, there'll be people playing STO who prefer to try to resolve problems through diplomacy rather than through combat.

If STO is designed so that it's possible for players to spend most of their game time in space doing non-violent things, then they don't need a full-time external view optimized for combat.

If on the other hand space gameplay in Star Trek Online has been designed around combat, with a few optional non-violent features thrown in for those who want a brief break from destruction, then a full-time ship exterior view is appropriate as a gameplay interface mechanic... but will such a design "feel" like the Star Trek universe?

We've been round and round on the "player ship interiors" and "player bridge crew" aspects of this question of first-person versus third-person perspectives, so I'm not getting into those again here.

All I'm pointing out is that a perspective that works well for combat-focused gameplay isn't as useful for non-combat gameplay. To me, that raises the question: will there be enough non-violent gameplay possible in space for the lack of a first-person perspective to matter?

--Flatfingers

[cmhDK]

Easier said then done. Do you have your Engineer captain friend who doesn't have any Chief Engineer skills (because that's what a chief engineer is for) use your chief engineers specials or you simply don't have them?
How do you make assigning repair crew for an hour fun?

Again, the game is built around a single person running a ship. You have to add a level of complexity to it for other people to be active. Possible? Yes. But it's time consuming and they don't have the time.

no it's not that complicated, you have basic functions that everyone can do (remember it's a game) and then if you have specials then you can do some special stuff
the repair it's done by bridge-crew so that's not a problem at all, the ships will auto-regen with or without player crew

people make this more complecated then it has to be

[JoJimGregory]

Craig isn't going to settle for a "foundation". He wants it done completely. So when it comes, trust that you'll be able to watch hydrogen atoms shoot by (those streaks aren't stars) on your way to Sickbay to talk with the doctor and do some experiments.

That may be true, but I believe it might be a design error to launch any Star Trek game without the iconic "from the bridge" point-of-view as seen in most every TV episode (excepting DS9) and movie.

The problem in any new MMO is that if a developer makes a core design error that is considered a gross omission at launch by a significant population of players, those players may not stick around for the promised fix several months later. Cryptic's Vision(tm) of what a Star Trek game should look like at launch has to be pretty much spot on in the largest number of players' minds, or there's a significant risk of disappointment and unfulfilled expectations.

But it's not really what we think, or even what Craig thinks that matters. What matters is what those future players will think. Cryptic should probably do some blind testing soon and see just how many players -- testers who have never played an MMO before, and know nothing about this game, yet are familiar with Star Trek from television and movies -- ask the question...

"How do I get to the bridge?"

[LordDave]

no it's not that complicated, you have basic functions that everyone can do (remember it's a game) and then if you have specials then you can do some special stuff
the repair it's done by bridge-crew so that's not a problem at all, the ships will auto-regen with or without player crew

people make this more complecated then it has to be

Your missing my point. It HAS to be complex. Would you really play a part of the game if all it was is pressing one or two buttons at the right time for an hour? The stimulation of a single person flying the ship alone has to be the same as the simulation for each station.

[LordDave]

But it's not really what we think, or even what Craig thinks that matters. What matters is what those future players will think. Cryptic should probably do some blind testing soon and see just how many players -- testers who have never played an MMO before, and know nothing about this game, yet are familiar with Star Trek from television and movies -- ask the question...

"How do I get to the bridge?"


Also known as play testing.

[JoJimGregory]

Also known as play testing.

With all due respect, no sir. Blind testing is not the same as play testing or beta testing. Blind testing is where you get testers that are totally unaware of how a given game to be tested is designed, but in the case of a well known license may have certain expectations based upon their own general pop culture knowledge. It's like grabbing complete strangers off a street corner, paying them a few bucks and plunking them down in front of a computer to play the game for a few hours, then recording their reactions and comments from which reports for submission and review can be prepared. Usually, developers will hire someone from outside the company to specifically run the blind tests and prepare those reports for the development team to ensure no taint seeps in from company personnel.

[cmhDK]

Your missing my point. It HAS to be complex. Would you really play a part of the game if all it was is pressing one or two buttons at the right time for an hour? The stimulation of a single person flying the ship alone has to be the same as the simulation for each station.

I'm sorry but I really don't see why it has to be complex... to make sure most players can't figure it out? or to make sure there will be loads of bugs?

the more simple the better no matter what
if you really feel that way then I'm sure you won't like the game, they aren't making a game for hardcore gamers, they are making a game for anyone who wants to play, that means "as simple as posible"

the game will be much like WoW, CoH, LotRO and so on, you will have an avatar you can control, and you will have a bar with "powers" that you can use your number keys to execute

[Azurian]

Dave's right. How to keep everyone occupied for long durations is easier said than done. A player who controlled every aspect of his ship, now is just controling one aspect of a group-ship, seems limiting.

However, if done right, group-ships being more effective than a single player-ship in combat.

[LordDave]

With all due respect, no sir. Blind testing is not the same as play testing or beta testing. Blind testing is where you get testers that are totally unaware of how a given game to be tested is designed, but in the case of a well known license may have certain expectations based upon their own general pop culture knowledge. It's like grabbing complete strangers off a street corner, paying them a few bucks and plunking them down in front of a computer to play the game for a few hours, then recording their reactions and comments from which reports for submission and review can be prepared. Usually, developers will hire someone from outside the company to specifically run the blind tests and prepare those reports for the development team to ensure no taint seeps in from company personnel.

Wouldn't people who have no interest in the project be inclined to not care anyway? It's better to grab your target audience, test it that way, and see.
Also, since it's an MMO, most of it can be changed if the main population doesn't like it. Which is what open Beta tells us.

[LordDave]

I'm sorry but I really don't see why it has to be complex... to make sure most players can't figure it out? or to make sure there will be loads of bugs?

the more simple the better no matter what
if you really feel that way then I'm sure you won't like the game, they aren't making a game for hardcore gamers, they are making a game for anyone who wants to play, that means "as simple as posible"

the game will be much like WoW, CoH, LotRO and so on, you will have an avatar you can control, and you will have a bar with "powers" that you can use your number keys to execute

No, you need it more complex to give people something to do.
You know how boring grinding is?
Imagine doing that, except with less buttons.

Or even better, Bridge Commander. Play that from only one station. Let's say Brax (engineer) station. Do it for an hour.
That is what it would be without increased complexity. And complexity for the group players (stations) not the solo player.

[JoJimGregory]

Wouldn't people who have no interest in the project be inclined to not care anyway? It's better to grab your target audience, test it that way, and see.
Also, since it's an MMO, most of it can be changed if the main population doesn't like it. Which is what open Beta tells us.

Blind testing is not instead of play testing or beta testing, but in addition to them. There are some things that beta testers can relay, and there are some things they can't. For example, all beta testers have registered on the message board and presumably have their own ideas of what they believe they want in the game, so they're biased insofar as blind testing goes, and that tells us nothing about the expanded audience of potential new players that the game may draw in. World of Warcraft has drawn in millions of first time MMO players because the developers pretty much "stuck the landing" in the launch product, except for early instability issues, so it just grew and grew.

There are always a series of questions that are asked of blind testers beforehand to establish whether or not they would make a good and unbiased blind tester. Obviously, if they hate playing computer games, they would not make a good blind tester. And if they say, "Yes, I know about Star Trek, it's a stupid show", they also would not make a good blind tester since they already have a negative opinion of the license.

[LordDave]

Blind testing is not instead of play testing or beta testing, but in addition to them. There are some things that beta testers can relay, and there are some things they can't. For example, all beta testers have registered on the message board and presumably have their own ideas of what they believe they want in the game, so they're biased insofar as blind testing goes, and that tells us nothing about the expanded audience of potential new players that the game may draw in. World of Warcraft has drawn in millions of first time MMO players because the developers pretty much "stuck the landing" in the launch product, except for early instability issues, so it just grew and grew.

There are always a series of questions that are asked of blind testers beforehand to establish whether or not they would make a good and unbiased blind tester. Obviously, if they hate playing computer games, they would not make a good blind tester. And if they say, "Yes, I know about Star Trek, it's a stupid show", they also would not make a good blind tester since they already have a negative opinion of the license.


Perhaps. However if you want to draw people in, you can't limit yourself to trek fans. You must use non-trek fans. Which would remove the whole issue since they would either hate it or like it and they would state why. All this is normally done anyway.

[JoJimGregory]

Perhaps. However if you want to draw people in, you can't limit yourself to trek fans. You must use non-trek fans. Which would remove the whole issue since they would either hate it or like it and they would state why. All this is normally done anyway.

Absolutely. I never meant to suggest that blind testing was a new idea or anything. In fact, in one of the games that was developed a few years ago, they introduced the community to the person they had hired to handle their blind testing in one of their "Meet The Developers" homepage articles. She was a sociologist if I recall correctly, and I believe they were primarily focused on testing the User Interface.

[LordDave]

Absolutely. I never meant to suggest that blind testing was a new idea or anything. In fact, in one of the games that was developed a few years ago, they introduced the community to the person they had hired to handle their blind testing in one of their "Meet The Developers" homepage articles. She was a sociologist if I recall correctly, and I believe they were primarily focused on testing the User Interface.

Then we agree.
I'm sure they'll do it.

[cmhDK]

No, you need it more complex to give people something to do.
You know how boring grinding is?
Imagine doing that, except with less buttons.

Or even better, Bridge Commander. Play that from only one station. Let's say Brax (engineer) station. Do it for an hour.
That is what it would be without increased complexity. And complexity for the group players (stations) not the solo player.

simple doesn't mean doing the same all the time, if you get bored then you could go to another station perhaps
not everyone will like playing on someone elses bridge, but there are people who will, it won't get forced opon players

and they won't make all stations... everyone will have something to do, but if you choose tactical, then you know you won't have much to do unless there's a fight
it'll be all about the feeling of being on a Star Trek bridge

and when I say simple, I don't mean one button to push, I mean that it won't take hours to learn how to do things, wich means more people will e able to enjoy it

if you don't like being at one station then don't do it
you can't make players able to be on the bridge together and have them all comtrol ever part of the ship, that would be chaos, you choose a station and control that part of the ship

[LordDave]

simple doesn't mean doing the same all the time, if you get bored then you could go to another station perhaps
not everyone will like playing on someone elses bridge, but there are people who will, it won't get forced opon players

and they won't make all stations... everyone will have something to do, but if you choose tactical, then you know you won't have much to do unless there's a fight
it'll be all about the feeling of being on a Star Trek bridge

and when I say simple, I don't mean one button to push, I mean that it won't take hours to learn how to do things, wich means more people will e able to enjoy it

if you don't like being at one station then don't do it
you can't make players able to be on the bridge together and have them all comtrol ever part of the ship, that would be chaos, you choose a station and control that part of the ship

So what about buffs and specials? Do you just give your Tactical Captain friend the Chief Engineer's buff when he goes to the Engineering station?

Look, I'm not debating with you because I don't want player crews. I run an RP and WANT them. I spent many posts in the early days figuring out how to make it work. Look at the very old "100 billion captains" thread. I think I'm the #1 poster.
I'm just saying that it'll take time. Time they don't have at the moment. Time they'll have once the game ships and they can start looking at the list of things to do which is probably...

1. Fix bugs.
2. Fix Balance issues.
3. Add in what people want.

Option 3 is up in the air, but right now Player Crews is there. It could be shifted down once the game launches as Craig has said, but we won't know until it launches.

[Velociraptor]

Last I heard everyone was a captain. Period. As much as I love player controlled officer positions you will admit there's numerous problems with it and in the end it wasn't an option. As far as the internal environment goes, I'm not buying this game until I have a fully interactive internal environment. Seriously that's the only reason I wanted this game, not for combat, or communication, or landing on planets, I just wanted to be in the dotted black of space and run around my ship for 12 consecutive hours. I know this romantic view will quickly be killed off by pure boredom, but I was put in a real depression with the news that in between systems wouldn't be traversable, only warp "gateways" for people to zap through instantly. I was really hoping for a fallout 3 design of huge interesting expanses frought with danger with the option to "appear" at your desired location without having to walk (or impulse drive as the case may be) the whole way there.

Come on Cryptic, will you do a Fallout 3 design!? Pretty pretty please!? I know it sounds like a weird system to have optional empty in between but I like to go out on my own, not a planet or starship in sight and work on my engines or discipline my crew or whatever. I play WOW from time to time, and sometimes I'm in the cluttered cities and I love it, and sometimes I'm out in the wilderness alone and I REALLY LOVE IT.

[LordDave]

Last I heard everyone was a captain. Period. As much as I love player controlled officer positions you will admit there's numerous problems with it and in the end it wasn't an option. As far as the internal environment goes, I'm not buying this game until I have a fully interactive internal environment. Seriously that's the only reason I wanted this game, not for combat, or communication, or landing on planets, I just wanted to be in the dotted black of space and run around my ship for 12 consecutive hours. I know this romantic view will quickly be killed off by pure boredom, but I was put in a real depression with the news that in between systems wouldn't be traversable, only warp "gateways" for people to zap through instantly. I was really hoping for a fallout 3 design of huge interesting expanses frought with danger with the option to "appear" at your desired location without having to walk (or impulse drive as the case may be) the whole way there.

Come on Cryptic, will you do a Fallout 3 design!? Pretty pretty please!? I know it sounds like a weird system to have optional empty in between but I like to go out on my own, not a planet or starship in sight and work on my engines or discipline my crew or whatever. I play WOW from time to time, and sometimes I'm in the cluttered cities and I love it, and sometimes I'm out in the wilderness alone and I REALLY LOVE IT.

Gotta correct you on a few things.
First off, the "wasn't an option" is wrong. They spent 3 days debating on how to make the game. In the end, it was decided that they couldn't do both player crews and single player ships due to time constraints, not ability. And since most people want to play the captain they went that route first. Player crews are on the list, along with the Romulan and Dominion Factions. However, Craig is waiting until the game launches and he get's player feedback before he decides on what to do next.

As for the warp gates: Those are between sectors, not systems. When traveling at warp, you'll be given a top down semi-3D view of your surroundings. Kinda like an astrometrics map. It'll point out different things around you like nebula or systems. Now planetary systems are mostly instanced so once you drop out of warp into them, your alone (unless your with friends). But out in sector space, anything is possible. Go to the frontiers and Klingons could ambush you. Or maybe you'll slip into a temporal anomoly and be thrown backwards in time. Or you'll pick up a distress call that turns into an ambush. Or.....

You get the idea. Point is, you won't teleport, so to speak, from system to system.
The way I imagine it, it'll be like CoH/V transit system. It'll bring you to a section of the city, but once there you gotta walk.

[cmhDK]

So what about buffs and specials? Do you just give your Tactical Captain friend the Chief Engineer's buff when he goes to the Engineering station?

Look, I'm not debating with you because I don't want player crews. I run an RP and WANT them. I spent many posts in the early days figuring out how to make it work. Look at the very old "100 billion captains" thread. I think I'm the #1 poster.
I'm just saying that it'll take time. Time they don't have at the moment. Time they'll have once the game ships and they can start looking at the list of things to do which is probably...

1. Fix bugs.
2. Fix Balance issues.
3. Add in what people want.

Option 3 is up in the air, but right now Player Crews is there. It could be shifted down once the game launches as Craig has said, but we won't know until it launches.

player crew and buffs have been talked about in another thread and is easy enough, if you're skill level for that station is high enough you can do some stuff, for example hack the targeting computer of the enemy or boost your shields or anything else that can be done, that can be made into a mini-game
something to make up for the loss of more ships vs player-crew (but that's just my opinion)

and I'm not saying they should add it before launch either, yes it takes time and right now they should focus on getting it ready enough for launch.. they can always add stuff later

I'm just saying it's simple to make, the hardest part would imo be to make the mini-games fun
it may not be simple to programe it all, but it's easy to get ideas on how to make it work, how to make it worth it and how to make it simple for the players (yes, without making it into a "push the number 4 key as fast as you can" kind of thing)

I'm not saying you're against it, should have made myself more clear, sorry
when I said "if you don't want to be on another players crew-list then don't" I didn't mean you specificly, I just ment players in general

I've been thinking about creating a thread about how to make it work, to give the devs ideas they could work with, but came to the conclusion that there would be too many non-serious post to work

[LordDave]

player crew and buffs have been talked about in another thread and is easy enough, if you're skill level for that station is high enough you can do some stuff, for example hack the targeting computer of the enemy or boost your shields or anything else that can be done, that can be made into a mini-game
something to make up for the loss of more ships vs player-crew (but that's just my opinion)

and I'm not saying they should add it before launch either, yes it takes time and right now they should focus on getting it ready enough for launch.. they can always add stuff later

I'm just saying it's simple to make, the hardest part would imo be to make the mini-games fun
it may not be simple to programe it all, but it's easy to get ideas on how to make it work, how to make it worth it and how to make it simple for the players (yes, without making it into a "push the number 4 key as fast as you can" kind of thing)

I'm not saying you're against it, should have made myself more clear, sorry
when I said "if you don't want to be on another players crew-list then don't" I didn't mean you specificly, I just ment players in general

I've been thinking about creating a thread about how to make it work, to give the devs ideas they could work with, but came to the conclusion that there would be too many non-serious post to work

There are two theads already: (well, two main ones)
The 100 billion captain's thread (old)
and the PC and NPC crew thread (official thread because of the issue. Locked due to flaming some 300 pages later)

[cmhDK]

There are two theads already: (well, two main ones)
The 100 billion captain's thread (old)
and the PC and NPC crew thread (official thread because of the issue. Locked due to flaming some 300 pages later)

well, you told me about the old one, and I knew about the "new" one, didn't know it was locked though
but it helped me come to the conclusion that such a thread wouldn't work

[LordDave]

well, you told me about the old one, and I knew about the "new" one, didn't know it was locked though
but it helped me come to the conclusion that such a thread wouldn't work

It's not so much that it wouldn't work, it's more along the lines that we've heard it all before and we know that the developers spent 3 days debating the issue as well.
It's a wonderful idea, most people want it, and the development team is all for it. So I suspect we'll see it eventually.

[Lazzarus1981]

It is not important to have the 3rd view, I could also manage a fight just from inside the ship, from the bridge. The only thing I would need is a 3 dimensional RADAR or something like that, and I would always know what is behind me or in front of me or what ever. So there is no need of a 3rd person view if surroundings and battle is the only reason.

I think they have not enough time to develop bridges of every ship, because that would need more time to release the game and I thinkt thats the only reason why we don't have bridges at the release!

Edit: I just see one problem now. Because Bridges will not be at the lauch. Most of us will learn to play without a bridge, and when we got the bridge, I don't think that we are going to play with it, because thats the way people are and always will be. Only few will change their behaviours and play with the bridge. I hope you get my point. I assume everyone will try it out, but at the end I think most of us will play further in the 3rd view.

[The-Raver]

It's a 3rd person view. The devs said they tried the combat from the bridge but it just didnt' work because you didn't get the whole sense of the battle.

I'm really excited about this. It's a pretty good indication that positioning, movement, and things of that nature are really important :)

EDIT: here's a quote from the IGN Voom Chat:
"Q: Can we actually explore inside our ship? I heard that the actual view of ship combat is outside the ship, can we actually control the ship from inside the bridge?

A: We are basically system space, controlling your ship happens in a third person view point. So you are flying your ship from outside of your ship, you control it as an avatar in 3D space in third person. We wanted to make sure that space combat was positional, that it was very important that you knew what was going on behind you, on your sides, that you were moving and that you had a good clear view of the situation around you. So we tried it a couple of times from the bridge but it just really didn't work, you really needed to get outside of your ship and see what was going on."
http://vault.ign.com/View.php?view=editorials.detail&id=249

I would be much happier with bridge control. I would feel more part of the in-game universe and more like I was in a tv episode or a film.

To me I think the third person view from outside of the ship is a bit of a cop out.

The idea of not knowing whats going on is lame.

What do ships have viewers and sensors for?

Could Captain Kirk not fly his ship from inside the bridge, or did Sulu have a viewer displaying a 3rd person outside view so he could fly the Enterprise?

What ever the devs think, if it is possible to fly the ship from the bridge, then it should be an option. It sounds like they have already done the work and tried it out, so it shouldnt be a problem.

If not can a Dev confirm or deny if we going to be able to walk around our ships. or not?

If not I dont think it will feel much like Star Trek. Just like SWG did not feel like Star Wars.

Maybe I am over reacting but it could possibly affect my decision to play this game.

I dont want to put myself through another SWG style experience of a well loved universe.

[Devren]

In many ways this seems to me like the old debate between Starfleet Command vs Bridge Commander. All in all I have to agree with previous members that it is not such a bad thing. Just add a more in-depth player interface, such as in SFC1 or SFC2 rather than SFC3 and it should be a lot of fun.

In regards to crew members you can take a Silent Hunter 3 or 4 approach in regards to leveling them up and keeping a good overview. Even though a Bridge Commander version would sound like fun, I don't see how you could keep servers from falling apart with that much massive information at the beginning of a MMO.

Now in regards to those WarpGates I'm getting a really weird feeling of something that is reminding me of Eve Online or perhaps even Stargate, lol. Now considering how big this MMO might be in terms of map size (has there been any official confirmation yet?!?) I guess it's the best idea they could come up with, though I myself would have probably preferred a couple of Wormholes and short Transwarp-capabilities for your ship.

[LordDave]

It is not important to have the 3rd view, I could also manage a fight just from inside the ship, from the bridge. The only thing I would need is a 3 dimensional RADAR or something like that, and I would always know what is behind me or in front of me or what ever. So there is no need of a 3rd person view if surroundings and battle is the only reason.

I think they have not enough time to develop bridges of every ship, because that would need more time to release the game and I thinkt thats the only reason why we don't have bridges at the release!

Edit: I just see one problem now. Because Bridges will not be at the lauch. Most of us will learn to play without a bridge, and when we got the bridge, I don't think that we are going to play with it, because thats the way people are and always will be. Only few will change their behaviours and play with the bridge. I hope you get my point. I assume everyone will try it out, but at the end I think most of us will play further in the 3rd view.
It's not an issue if your dogfighting, but it is if you have to figure out which direction the enemy ship is facing (for hitting specific shield arcs) and which phaser arcs of your ship are facing the enemy, it is. Radar can only tell you so much without being too cluttered to be effective.


I would be much happier with bridge control. I would feel more part of the in-game universe and more like I was in a tv episode or a film.

To me I think the third person view from outside of the ship is a bit of a cop out.

The idea of not knowing whats going on is lame.

What do ships have viewers and sensors for?

Could Captain Kirk not fly his ship from inside the bridge, or did Sulu have a viewer displaying a 3rd person outside view so he could fly the Enterprise?

What ever the devs think, if it is possible to fly the ship from the bridge, then it should be an option. It sounds like they have already done the work and tried it out, so it shouldnt be a problem.

If not can a Dev confirm or deny if we going to be able to walk around our ships. or not?

If not I dont think it will feel much like Star Trek. Just like SWG did not feel like Star Wars.

Maybe I am over reacting but it could possibly affect my decision to play this game.

I dont want to put myself through another SWG style experience of a well loved universe.

Sensors? Yes.
But think of it this way:
Worf had a whole station dedicated to just tactical information. Heck, he could probably have setup a full 3D "outside view" of the ship if he wanted too.
However, it's more likely that his station was primarily text based and semi-static image based.

And yes, they did try it and found it was not fun. Combat was far too difficult to do from a strictly bridge position.

If not can a Dev confirm or deny if we going to be able to walk around our ships. or not?
Ok, I'm going to give you a face palm because that question? Answered, in a quote, WITH SOURCE, right above yours. (ie. it was the last post before you posted).
............................................______ __
....................................,.-‘”...................``~.,
.............................,.-”...................................“-.,
.........................,/...............................................”:,
.....................,?........................... ...........................\,
.................../.................................................. .........,}
................./.................................................. ....,:`^`..}
.............../.................................................. .,:”........./
..............?.....__............................ .............:`.........../
............./__.(.....“~-,_..............................,:`........../
.........../(_....”~,_........“~,_....................,:`..... ..._/
..........{.._$;_......”=,_.......“-,_.......,.-~-,},.~”;/....}
...........((.....*~_.......”=-._......“;,,./`..../”............../
...,,,___.\`~,......“~.,....................`..... }............../
............(....`=-,,.......`........................(......;_,,-”
............/.`~,......`-...............................\....../\
.............\`~.*-,.....................................|,./.....\,__
,,_..........}.>-._\...................................|........... ...`=~-,
.....`=~-,_\_......`\,.................................\
...................`=~-,,.\,...............................\
................................`:,,.............. .............`\..............__
.....................................`=-,...................,%`>--==``
........................................_\........ ..._,-%.......`\
...................................,<`.._|_,-&``................`\