Decision to go Skill-based - Thank you.

[macallen]

Been awhile since I've posted, not really much to say yet with no game out and nothing but conjecture, but I keep up and I just wanted to say "Thank you" to the devs for this decision, yet another in a long line of what I feel to be good decisions for the direction of the game.

SWG (originally, at release) had something similar and, IMHO, captured something that no other MMO has ever been able to do, prior to or since, and that is to create an MMO that people who don't want to blow people up can also enjoy. It was possible to play SWG for years and never even OWN a weapon, much less use it, and still be able to enjoy the game and play an important role in it. Layers upon layers of trades and professions that supported each other in different ways.

ST is not about fighting. There were several episodes where not a shot was fired. Not everyone in Star Fleet likes shooting people. Something that Eve added recently that I'd like to see something similiar in STO is the exploration/discovery line of activities...boldly going and all that. The more content the game has outside of the combat activities, the richer it will be and the broader the audience will be that enjoys it.

Questions, regarding the skill-based system -
Are the points spread out among the crew, or just for you? I was under the impression that, in addition to increasing my own skills, I also had to increase the skills of my crew. Do they get seperate points, or do I get a pool of points to divide up among the crew?

Will various hulls, ship equipment, and mission types only be available to certain skills? For example, if I choose not to spend any points on my crew and take the shortest possible path to admiral, will I be a wimpy admiral with an Ensign crew, flying a tiny ship because my crew does not have the skills to fly something suitable for my rank? If I choose to not take a single point in the Diplomacy tree, will I never see First Contact or Diplomatic missions? If I choose to not focus on TransWarp technology for my engineer, will I never be offered a Sovereign (which hypothetically uses a TransWarp)? Will Vigilant class ships require a certain level in Fleet Tactics?

If not, then please consider the questions as suggestions, as I'd love to see that level of complexity and adaptability in the content.

Thanks for all the hard work and I'm looking forward to the beta with great interest.

[Peregrine_Falcon]

Hello and welcome back to the STO forums!
Will various hulls, ship equipment, and mission types only be available to certain skills?Yes. In a recent interview one of the devs (Craig I believe) said that the skills that you develop will determine the ships that you can fly. You might also find this thread very interesting: Everything we know about STO (http://forums.startrekonline.com/showthread.php?t=14535)

ST is not about fighting. There were several episodes where not a shot was fired.Please don't make me break out my standard response on this subject.

[Varrangian]

Hello and welcome back to the STO forums!
Yes. In a recent interview one of the devs (Craig I believe) said that the skills that you develop will determine the ships that you can fly. You might also find this thread very interesting: Everything we know about STO (http://forums.startrekonline.com/showthread.php?t=14535)

Please don't make me break out my standard response on this subject.

Peregrine - I think there is some truth to what you are saying, but also some confusion.

There is one true skill tree in the game, and that is the ship trees. Some of your skills govern your ability to captain certain types of vessels. You start off in a light cruiser based on the Miranda class, but from there your decisions will affect what ships become available to you. For instance, the tier 1 Escort is based on the Saber class. In order to fly the tier 2 Escort, you’ll need to have spent points to learn how to fly the Saber. You can put points you want into Science, Cruiser or Escort, but you can’t fly a tier 4 Cruiser just because you can fly a tier 4 Escort. You’ll need to learn how to pilot the previous Cruisers first. But you can fly every ship in the game on one character, if you invest the points.

From the recent ask Cryptic (http://www.startrekonline.com/node/397)

Maybe I'm reading your post incorrectly, but from the above the only "limitation" will be the points we choose to spend in the ship tree.

[Zepath]

This entire skills vs level thing is all humorous to me ... grind for level, or grind for skills ... you're still grinding, you're still throttled.

It has never mattered to me if a game is level based or skill based ... it doesn't matter if you take a car or a bus ... what matter his how much fun you have during the trip.

[1MGSIX]

This entire skills vs level thing is all humorous to me ... grind for level, or grind for skills ... you're still grinding, you're still throttled.



Skills verses levels has nothing to do with wether or not you grind them. It's about diversity between toons.

[WinterPark1701]

Personaly that was one of the things which I really liked about early SWG was that they did use a skill system not a level system

[macallen]

I read the "everything we know" thread, my question is a bit deeper than it provided.

In the recent article they talked about "short cutting" to Admiral and, once there, being half-developed. My question is, is it possible to "short cut" to Sovereign? What do I mean by that?

It is my assumption and hope that the skill system (which was recently announced formally, so I've not read everything possible about it) works something like this:

I get skills points. Those skill points can be spent on me and/or my crew. If I spend them on myself, I can rank up and be uber, but my crew is relatively unskilled. This is a bad thing if I want to use a Sovereign (I'm using the Sov as an example, insert any big/awesome/uber ship there if you desire), because to get into a Sov, not only do *I* have to have the command skills, but my Engineer needs Lt Cmdr skills, my Helmsman needs Lt Cmndr skills, etc. Just because I'm high enough rank to sit in the chair doesn't mean my crew is skilled enough to fly the thing or fight in it.

I understand the "I must have the skill to fly it" but I am hoping there's more. In SWG, the skill system made it IMHO the best MMO ever made, from a mechanics stand point. There *WAS* no grinding in SWG, for any reason (I'm talking pre-Jedi, first release SWG). Everything you did you did for a reason, and everything you did advanced you in your skills and career. You could shape your career however you wished, and everything you did was of value at the time you did it. The pieces you crafted at tier 1 to earn skills are used in tier 2 to make something that's used in tier 3 which can in turn be sold or used.

I do not want it to be possible for someone to go 100% linear and be in a Sov by Wednesday after a Monday launch (ChO's lvl cap is 40, we had lvl 40's within 3 days of the headstart, before the game launched, I was almost one of them). Going skill-based means (typically) that every skill means something and has a purpose, and none of them should be skipped.

Someone who goes bare-bones linear should run several problems:
1. They're in a ship they can't handle effectively because their crew is a group of GI Dunno 'tards.
2. Their ship breaks down all the time because they barely have the skills to fly it, much less maintain it.
3. They get no mission variation because they have no skills other than those absolutely necessary to get in the ship they want. They didn't take Diplomacy, or Political Science, they can't be sent to negotiate a peace treaty or deliver an Ambassador. They can't be sent anywhere that's even remotely social because they're a thug at best.

I mean, what missions do you give the guy who's crew only knows how to fly the ship straight and fire 1 gun? Being "the youngest Admiral in Starfleet" is of no use if you're also the stupidest.

Rank should mean nothing, quite literally. In Starfleet canon, rank is a curse, a pain in the behind, something that most of the best people try to avoid at all costs. Kirk taking his promotion was a bad idea. Picard *NEVER* wanted to be promoted. Janeway was promoted because she was an idiot and needed to be gotten out of the way. Rank is a representation of how long you've been kicking around and how much responsibility you have, not how cool you are. Chief O'Brian was enlisted and still awesome.

This is by no means a "omg STO will fail if this isn't in it!!!" This is closer to "I'd *REALLY* like this lvl of detail to be in the game and allow me to explore STO forever." I've been doing MMO's for a long time (ChO is my 35th) and I'm really looking for STO to be "home" for me.

[fractaleye]

group of GI Dunno 'tards.

I lol'd at this; good imagery :)

Kirk taking his promotion was a bad idea. Picard *NEVER* wanted to be promoted. Janeway was promoted because she was an idiot and needed to be gotten out of the way.

:( Have at ye, sir! I shall defend Janeway's honor! (I know people don't like Voyager and Janeway, but I hardly think Janeway was an idiot (IMO). I agree with the other two sentences about Kirk and Picard, though. Neither one really wanted to advance in rank.)

This is by no means a "omg STO will fail if this isn't in it!!!" This is closer to "I'd *REALLY* like this lvl of detail to be in the game and allow me to explore STO forever." I've been doing MMO's for a long time (ChO is my 35th) and I'm really looking for STO to be "home" for me.

I can totally see the concerns you have. I must admit, I'm a little leary about Admiral being in the game; however, I agree with you about the rank != cool comment. Unless there is some really special things unlocked by Admiral, I hope not to achieve that rank till later on in the game.

Overall, I like your post and your concerns (except the Janeway bit, but to each his own lol). I truly hope they make the ships and ranks 'hard' to get, but not too hard. I, too, hope to leave New Eden and make STO 'home'.

[macallen]

I don't mind Admiral's in the game. My best friend and I had a FASA Trek RPG running for YEARS and one of the funnest campaigns we had involved 3 admirals (lower deck, 1 star) who were admins. Best RP sessions ever.

That said, Admirals do not fly out in fleets and shoot things. Admirals sit at desks and plan. If the Kirk movies did nothing else they set that tone. However, I don't care, honestly.

This isn't WoW, where Admiral's will have Epic l33t gear and be all shiny. An Admiral's uniform looks more or less like mine, with a different rank pin. I would *MUCH* rather be that REALLY experienced Lt Cmdr who's gone on every type of mission and is the "go to" guy for tough situations, where he uses his small cruiser to do the mission because that's what he wants and needs.

Roddenberry's trek was anti-status. No one was rich. No one was a noble. No one was l33t. In fact, when someone noble or arrogant showed up on the show, he was *ALWAYS* the villain! :D

I know I'm in the minority, I know the fanbois will descend upon my thread and destroy it (one of the reasons I left the forums in the first place). I just wanted to put my thoughts on the board in the hopes the devs see them and understand...not all of us want to be in the Triangle, PvP ganking each other. Many of us want to boldly go.

I want to be flying along and, because I put skill points in science: anomalies (vs ranking up uper fast and being an idiot admiral in a sov I can't fly), my science officer detects something and I go explore it. And it turns out to be a tachyon tunnel to some other system that we've never seen. And I get to make First Contact, and maybe earn some kind of Diplomatic medal/recognition....or flub it up, shoot first, and cause an incident and get a reprimand on my record.

I really want STO to be living. Not a "race to max lvl then what the hell do we do?" kinda MMO.

[fractaleye]

MacAllen, very good post imo. I can tell you're passionate about Star Trek, and I hope you play it and get to do what you envision in your post. I glad they have said that if you don't want to PvP you 'won't see it'. (Might be old news, but still good news to me).

I think it will boil down to the content writing and the feel of 'the grind' I personally like that no one will have to PvP if they don't want. Also, I'm glad PvP does help advance your character. If they can provide great content RP wise (and, heck, there is tons of material to jump off of plus their content team), and allow for a decent PvP system, I'd be (extremely) happy.

Is it Klingons in the PR cycle next/now? or PvP? I can't remember, but I think we won't hear much about the Genesis system/exploration on the tail end before open beta/launch.I just hope that's me being pessimistic, though. I'm pretty curious as to how deep the exploration will be most of all.

I'm loving the new Akira pic and path/skill/whatever info. Again, great post and sorry if I've misinterpreted it; hope to see you out there.

[macallen]

Not to talk over much about SWG, but pieces of it are great examples of what I want.

I'm not anti-PvP. Heck, PvP should be a HUGE part of this game. I won't do a lot of it, but that's OK, I'm not a gun owner but feel the right to own guns is important...I don't have to personally like it to understand it's necessity. The angst between the Federation, the Klingons, and the Romulans is as much a part of Trek as anything else.

Let me be clearer on what I don't want:

I don't want 90% of the missions we go on to require combat, PvE or PvP. The Reliant was a research vessel. Enterprise was an exploration vessel. Yesterday's Enterprise made the difference VERY clear to us. In fact, it should be possible for someone to advance through the ranks NEVER fighting.

Picture a delver-class ship, a science research ship (the Grissom in STIII, which was not very good at ship-to-ship combat at all). It's my ship, I love my little ship, and I love exploring. I enjoy finding worm holes, anomalies, life forms, etc. That's what I enjoy, and I should be able to do just that, and be happy, and advance through the ranks. However, the Kirks of the world should not be forced to play like I do.

That's what made SWG so well done. If I wanted to be an armorsmith, I could do just that. I didn't even have to mine my resources, because someone out there really enjoyed that, so they did it and I bought from them. I made great armor, and the guys that loved beating on each other came to me because mine was the best. They did combat, I didn't, and we *BOTH* loved the game we were playing.

I know it's not possible to make everyone happy, but it's possible to come close, and it's not that hard. SWG was almost there, then made a really bad decision, then made several more trying to fix that first one.

I love Trek. Always have. I have all the original FASA RPG stuff, wrote scripts and programs to make ships and characters for our games. I have all the new stuff as well. I'm a huge ST RP geek, and I love MMO's. STO is the intersection of the 2 things I enjoy most in my entertainment.

My passion for this project is going to very likely annoy Cryptic more than a little :P

[fractaleye]

I agree, MacAllen. That's the prime reason I've stuck with Eve for so long. I know, Eve is all pvp, so it's like wha...? I like it because that what it set out to be, so it's great imo. I like the fact that my alt in Eve can do almost every science and industry job in the sandbox (once you take the PvP out of the equation lol). Sounds like SWG is/was the same (having many play styles in the game I mean).

I used to play D&D years ago, but never any Star Trek ones (mainly just regular D&D back in the late 80s). I think I became a Star Trek fan when I was about 7 maybe. So, I agree with you and hope there's plenty of non-combat content. I'll probably be looking for more combat than not, but that's just my feelings atm. Once we know more about the exploration content, it may very well change.

[macallen]

Honestly, if Eve did not have forced PvP, if CCP did not encourage corruption, exploiting and cheating, and if there were avatars, I'd still be playing Eve. The game is extraordinary in it's scope and what it's accomplished. The problem is that CCP are d-bags and love d-bag players. There's nothing wrong with that, unless you're not a d-bag.

I've played Eve for several months at a stretch, several times. Each time I'd find some niche I was enjoying, be puttering along, then someone would walk up to me in high-sec space while I was in my unarmed miner, say "I'm going to gank you now", and gank me. Concord would show up but they killed me before Concord got there, then their friends would loot my wreck and go sit in a station for 15 min while they mocked me in the public channel. In Eve, if you betray your corporation, rob them blind, disassemble their alliance and destroy 100's of players enjoyment...you're front page news, you're lauded as a hero, and are a celebrity in the game.

The people that love the game love it fanatically, and those that don't, well, they don't belong in it anyway. CCP has masterfully created a game they want to play and attracted people with like tastes.

I'm hoping STO has the same success, but with a different playerbase, one that includes me :P

[fractaleye]

No doubt. I guess I'm one of the fanatical ones (2 years, up till about a month ago, pretty much straight). It is misleading that they bill it as an MMORPG themselves really, because it's MMOPvP set in space imo. The sandbox is great, but even the high security space has land mines in it. I honestly don't know if I will ever stop playing it, except if they shut the servers down lol. It's my 1st MMO (I've played BBS door games, MUDs, etc, but have only played Eve and 2 weeks of Guild Wars back when it first came out)

You're right about CCP making a game they wanted to play and found a niche. They certainly have done good over the years, and if Walking in Stations (or whatever they're calling it now; I'll probably be playing STO lol) comes out, along with Dust 514 I think they have a pretty good plan. Not to mention WoD.

I love Eve's dark side (well, there's not really a light side to speak of lol), and I've been on the receiving end of some serious beatdowns hehe. (I fail pretty hard at the pew pew, but it's great fun imo) The encouragement of all the evil strengthens my resolve when I play.

That said, I'm going to have to start toning back some of the Eve-learned paranoia, because STO is what I really wanted when I stared playing Eve tbh. I have the feeling that STO will grab me like Eve did. I'm glad they're not going harsh with it; wouldn't seem right to me.

[Zepath]

Skills verses levels has nothing to do with wether or not you grind them. It's about diversity between toons.

Look at his post again ... where he's talking about skills, he's talking about Advancement. Clearly.

Now, whether you grind by killing 1000 mobs, or your grind by exploring a 1000 planets (or whatever) ... you are still required to get "there" from "here" by executing a series of actions, that requires sitting at your PC in the game, for X amount of time.

That's grinding ... so I stand by my statement.

:)

[macallen]

Look at his post again ... where he's talking about skills, he's talking about Advancement. Clearly.

Now, whether you grind by killing 1000 mobs, or your grind by exploring a 1000 planets (or whatever) ... you are still required to get "there" from "here" by executing a series of actions, that requires sitting at your PC in the game, for X amount of time.

That's grinding ... so I stand by my statement.

:)

No desire to change your perspective, everyone plays for their own reasons. However, to me it sounds like the game you're describing assumes B is the destination and there's nothing worthwhile at A.

What I'm describing is more like you can be an accountant or a soldier or a doctor, but you don't have to grind through accountant to get to soldier to get to doctor. A is a worthwhile place to be. So is B. So is C for that matter. Level-based systems imply a tiered system, with a bottom and a top.

Too many approach MMO's like a race that they have to win. Well-designed MMO's have no "win". That's one of the biggest things that WoW's done to the MMO market, IMHO. It's great that they added 10 million players to the customer base, but those 10 million people are used to leveling fast and the game not starting until the end. That's where the vast majority of Blizz's dev effort went to, getting you to 80 so they didn't have to make low lvl content no one would do more than once.

What if there is no "end"? What if you start off in STO able to do anything and everything you wanted to do? You have a ship, and a crew, and can do missions. Now, if you want to do Diplomacy missions, you'll need to work on your Diplomacy skills (all theory of course, I have no data, just wishing). You don't have to raise Diplomacy, you don't have to do Diplomacy missions. You want to explore and find anomalies? No problem, work on that tree of skills. If not, don't.

In theory, you can min/max, get to your Sov, head to the Neutral Zone, beat on Klingon players who did the same thing, get bored, complain on the forums that there is no end-game content in a game that has no end-game, wail about, gnash your teeth, threaten to leave if the end-game content isn't added, claim gloom and doom, all while still paying Cryptic, then leave.

Meanwhile, I'm puttering along doing science missions and overwhelmed at how much content there is :) That's what I want from the game. I want all the "racer" players to fly to Admiral/Sov's, or at least try to, get mad and leave to go play something else. I want all the guys who expect to be Admiral the first week to be horribly frustrated that they can't, be annoyed at all the content they "have to grind out", and leave.

Oh, they'll make all kinds of noise on the forums, they always do. The "celebrity" players who try to be "first", then brag and boast. Some 'tard will be in a Sov week 2 and flying around, but we all know that he can't actually shoot anything with it, and anyone with any skill in a ship 3 classes down could 1-shot him because he doesn't have tier 3 ship shield ops, but hey, he's got his Sov and he's so cool :)

[macallen]

Look at his post again ... where he's talking about skills, he's talking about Advancement. Clearly.

Oh, wanted to clarify on this one, because you're wrong. Clearly :)

In SWG, there was an Architect skill tree. 4 rows of boxes, each with 4 boxes. Each box allowed you to make something different. Not better, just different. You didn't have to go through the Architect tree at all. And going through the Architect tree didn't make you a better Scout, or Dr, or Entertainer. It wasn't "Advancement", it was skill development.

Development is different than Advancement. Advancement implies forward progress. With Development, I can stay a Lt and just be a BETTER Lt. I don't NEED to be a Lt Cmdr to do the things I want to do. I only need to be a Lt Cmdr if I want to fly a bigger ship...but why would I need a bigger ship? Starfleet has 100's of ships, and the vast majority of them are Light Cruisers or smaller. I don't want to fly a battleship, they're boring :)

I'm sincerely hoping Cryptic reads through this (and other threads) and realizes that Star Trek isn't "linear". Picard was a Capt for what, 8 years? Longer than that, he wasn't just promoted for the series. Riker was a Commander for that same time. Advancement and Promotion are not required, not integral, and in no way should STO be based upon them, IMHO.

It's about Development :)

[fractaleye]

I'm thinking in terms of Final Fantasy X's skill grid idea, in mainly the way you spent spheres (skill points) to unlock skills, but you could move around almost anywhere hypothetically.

http://www.ffinsider.net/final-fantasy-10/sphereb.php

(Obviously not as finite as that, but that's the perspective I get from the info so far as far as skills and learning. I see the ranks as levels 1-5, but those levels are so populated, that by the time people get to 'level 4' or Captain, it will have taken some time and effort to be fully fleshed out.)

I also believe that STO will have 'grinding'. I've heard some good (also some bad) things about Cryptic's abilities to mask it pretty effectively, so I'm hopeful.

Eve's grinding of isk gets old after awhile, even though I'm at the point now I could probably make some good money with little effort. Or even not worry about money, produce a ton of cruisers and fittings, and pew pew whenever I want. I just have gotten blah to it since I've joined these forums, really.

*checks e-mail address*

[Peregrine_Falcon]

Ok I have a few things that I want to respond to.

1) Admirals, especially in a time of war, do not just all sit behind desks. Who do you think is out there in charge of all of those Battlegroups and Task Forces and Fleets? Admirals. And they do it from the Flag Deck aboard the Flag Ship. (perhaps you'd like to Google those terms)

2) Rank should not mean nothing. Rank is a measure of competence, experience and knowledge. The larger ships with more guns have higher ranking commanding officers. Big armored ships are expensive and cost a nation a lot of resources if they have to be replaced. Also, if misused they can do a lot of damage. So these bigger ships are always given to the most senior and highest ranked commanders.

3) Your 'concerns' about the grind have already been addressed by Jack Emmert. In the vegas video he already said they're going to make a game that's fun and not grindy.

4) Week 2 nothing! Some tard will definitely PL his way into a Sov by day 2! But what do you care? It doesn't adversely affect you if he's an idiot. Quit worrying about stuff that won't affect you. People are stupid. You can't pass laws to change that, and you can't patch the game to fix it. People are what they are.

5) It sounds to me like you want STO to have a lot of sandbox elements and dynamic content. I really doubt anyone disagrees.

[macallen]

1) Commodores command battle groups, Admirals command Fleets, and Fleet Command isn't done from the Helm, it's done from a command center. Granted, we have no Commodores but reality, fiction, and canon all support my position. Kirk was piloting a desk, not a starship, as an Admiral. Admirals are "in the field", but not "in the thick of it". However, this isn't necessarily realistic for an MMO, so I understand.

2) Agreed. Rank is not a measure of how many rats you've killed, or how quickly you killed them. Rank is a measure of time and responsibility, not skill (except in administration). People in the military (all militaries) are promoted when a need arises and a person shows command potential. They're not promoted because they do great things, most of the time. In fact, people who do great things tend to STAY at their rank, because the military needs people doing great things. This is especially true of officers, if not enlisted. It is not physically possible to join the Navy and get Admiral in less than x years, even during a time of war. No matter how awesome you are, now matter how many enemies you kill. You'll have so many medals you lean to the left, but you won't be an admiral. It's unrealistic to be any other way.

3) I didn't have concerns about the grind, the angry guy in the beret did. If I get my way, there'll be no grind because there'll be no advancement. There'll be development, in lots of directions, and grinding development is pointless and frustrating.

4) It effects game balance in several aspects of play. If the 'status quo' for PvP is to grind to a Sov, then I can't do PvP unless I do the same, or I can't compete. If enough people grind out a Sov, the content needs to be adjusted to match that reality, and suddenly I'm in my Grissom being torn to pieces because the mission generator is tossing heavy cruisers at me, assuming I'm just like everyone else. If enough people get to the top fast enough and are unhappy about it, they'll storm the forums with noise, flooding it with negativity. I've seen MMO's get killed by less. I'd much rather have them storm the forums frustrated that they CAN'T grind out a Sov then have them be "done" in a week, filling the wiki with templates on how they "beat the game", every sheeple follows them and STO becomes something other than what they envisioned.

If an MMO dev gets the feeling from their customer base that they're not going the right direction, their PAYING customer base, they have no choice but to make adjustments. That's the American way...he who screams the loudest wins. Enough paying customers can make a dev change the game.

[Zepath]

I'm thinking in terms of Final Fantasy X's skill grid idea, in mainly the way you spent spheres (skill points) to unlock skills, but you could move around almost anywhere hypothetically.

http://www.ffinsider.net/final-fantasy-10/sphereb.php

(Obviously not as finite as that, but that's the perspective I get from the info so far as far as skills and learning. I see the ranks as levels 1-5, but those levels are so populated, that by the time people get to 'level 4' or Captain, it will have taken some time and effort to be fully fleshed out.)

I also believe that STO will have 'grinding'. I've heard some good (also some bad) things about Cryptic's abilities to mask it pretty effectively, so I'm hopeful.

Eve's grinding of isk gets old after awhile, even though I'm at the point now I could probably make some good money with little effort. Or even not worry about money, produce a ton of cruisers and fittings, and pew pew whenever I want. I just have gotten blah to it since I've joined these forums, really.

*checks e-mail address*

Ok, my last comment on this ...

You have to do missions, to progress through the skill tree. The difference between this and experience leveling is only semantics.

You have to attain a certain rank to accquire access to the next level ship ... the difference between that and leveling to accquire better gear is semantics.

A HUGE portion of your game play is built around your BO's, who cannot be your rank or higher, so if you want them to get better, YOU have to advance.

Now you can take any MMO out there and putt around the areas at level one for years, and not level. What's the difference between that and what you're talking about here? I submit, nothing.

So again, he is talking about advancement. Skill based advancement, and level based advancement still require "grinding" by the definition of how it is applied to any MMO.

I personally like grinding ... I enjoy just going out sometimes and killing 5000 mobs, because I've had a bad day, want to blow off steam, and be mind numbed for a bit. That doesn't negate that its still grinding.

You might enjoy exploration, and do 1000 new planets a week ... that doesn't negate that its grinding.

[macallen]

Ok, my last comment on this ...

Why do I not believe you? :P

You have to do missions, to progress through the skill tree. The difference between this and experience leveling is only semantics.

And? This is just like life. I have to go to class to learn. I have to go to work to get a paycheck and promotions. Using a general enough description, everything is a grind so discussing it is rather moot, yes?

You have to attain a certain rank to accquire access to the next level ship ... the difference between that and leveling to accquire better gear is semantics.

But why do you need the next lvl of ship? In normal MMO's, it's clearly defined that the next "lvl" of gear is "better". In ST, "better" is less clear. Is a Sov "better" than a Galaxy? "Better" in what sense? If I *LIKE* doing deep science research, then the Grissom *IS* better for me than a Sov. If I want to be the best explorer out there, then I might never even *SEE* a Sov, much less fly one.

A HUGE portion of your game play is built around your BO's, who cannot be your rank or higher, so if you want them to get better, YOU have to advance.

But they have to advance as well, don't they?

Now you can take any MMO out there and putt around the areas at level one for years, and not level. What's the difference between that and what you're talking about here? I submit, nothing.

I reject your submission. If you go into WoW and stay in Elwyn forest, eventually you will run out of things to do, because the game isn't designed to support you at lvl 1 forever. Hanging around at lvl 1, chatting with friends turns the MMO into IRC and you're no longer playing the game, you're just doing whatever you want.

I submit to you that it's possible (because I've seen and played it in an MMO) to have the purpose of the MMO not be advancement but development. I don't have to go "up" because there is no "up". If you want to be the best PvP'r out there, then yes, you very likely want to go "up" a bit, because fire power tends to correlate to size. But if I want to be the best explorer, then content should be there to allow me to do just that without me having to climb the ladder to Admiral to do it.

This isn't Wow. It isn't a race to 60, erm 70, can I have 80, how about 85?. The game content doesn't start at 80, it starts at the beginning. It's not in a line, it's in a circle, and we start at the center of it. We can rush to the edge, but that still leaves 359 degrees of other edges to explore.

So again, he is talking about advancement. Skill based advancement, and level based advancement still require "grinding" by the definition of how it is applied to any MMO.

I disagree. Grinding brings with it the implication that everything between A and B is nothing more than something to get me to B. I'm killing rats so I can kill snakes so I can kill bears...so I can kill dragons. Grinding is a repetitive task of no value to achieve a goal. That's not what I'm asking for.

And here's the difference between what you're saying and what I'm saying. I want it to be possible for me to play a week, hard, in STO....and not advance. At all. I want to do missions, and explore, and find new stuff, and talk to people, and play STO....and not advance. At the end of the week, I'm a Lt with the same skills.

Allow me to jump in and guess what you might ask..."Then what is the &*%($% purpose for playing it?!?!" What is the "purpose" for watching the ST TV show? At the end of the show, am I "advancing"? Am I a higher level for watching a movie? No, I am ENTERTAINED. I log into STO to see what Cryptic has offered me in the universe I love.

I want there to be value in playing the game that doesn't include "advancement". All Cryptic needs to do is create a robust enough engine and the game will play itself. I know it's possible, Eve does it.

There is no "grind" in Eve. Right now, this moment, typing in this forum, my character in Eve is "advancing", and I'm doing nothing. I could log in and kill a million people, and I'd not advance any faster. My sales on the market are going off, my skills are training, without me there. The only reason I log in is to PLAY THE GAME. No matter what I do, I can not "grind" to max lvl, because there isn't one, there's only more skills. Meanwhile, people who log in brand new can be effective in massive fleet ops of they chose to be, or jump in and start mining and instantly make money....they are effective, useful, and enjoying themselves day 1, because there is no (and can be no) grind. Time is the only limiter, and there's very little we can do to change that.

The US military is very similar. Time in grade is the #1 limiter for promotions. I don't care how awesome a 2nd Lt you are, it's very unlikely you'll make 1st Lt much faster than anyone else. Even if you work 24 hours a day. ST canon is the same. I'd like STO to also be that way.

It can be done. It has been done.

I personally like grinding ... I enjoy just going out sometimes and killing 5000 mobs, because I've had a bad day, want to blow off steam, and be mind numbed for a bit. That doesn't negate that its still grinding.

You should be allowed to go kill 5000 Klingons without the rest of us being required to do the same just to advance. You should get to do it because you enjoy it.

You might enjoy exploration, and do 1000 new planets a week ... that doesn't negate that its grinding.

It does if there's no "advancement" in it. Kirk explored a new planet a week, and 20 years later was still a Capt. He never piloted an Excelsior class ship, he was always in a Cruiser.

[Zoberraz]

This was so far an interesting thread for me. McAllen, you're a fairly eloquent writer.

I've two things on my mind for this:

First, I'd admit I sort of approve of the 'advancement' scheme Cryptic unveiled - that a bit like Dungeons and Dragons Online, when you complete a mission, you are rewarded with an element that allows you to advance. If I'm a starship captain and that I explore around some systems doing point-of-interest missions... as these various experiences accumulate my character and crew will become more seasoned, less green, and better able to cope with certain situations. That skill points end up being handed out doesn't feel like something that would be inappropriate.

Second, I feel a bit bad for Cryptic Studios. If I was put in charge, or in a position to contribute to making a Star Trek game - part of the effort would revolve around me making a game I feel I would like playing. There's also a certain artistic flair in the goal of wanting to provide a particular experience to the intended audience.

For example, I'm a Dungeon Master. I host game sessions for D&D players. I do want to have them entertained and meet their wishes... but there's still some virtuoso-portion of myself whom wishes to deliver a particular experience with certain focuses. It's understandable - I mean, I'm the one investing hours over hours of preparation to captivate the imaginations of other peope so they have fun... so I feel I'm entitled to them having fun my way too.

I think that applies to Cryptic Studios too. Regardless of opinions, well-meaning suggestions and all I'm stuck feeling bad for them because they've essentially given very limited information and we end up judging a game upon very little basis - we've never played it so we can't really tell... and yet we're still so judgmental. I understand the other side of the coin is that many of us 'care', but you see the problem.

[Korrific]

You might enjoy exploration, and do 1000 new planets a week ... that doesn't negate that its grinding.
Yes, it does. It's not a grind if you enjoy it.

Otherwise, just about every structured recreational activity I can think of would be grinding.

[macallen]

First, I'd admit I sort of approve of the 'advancement' scheme Cryptic unveiled - that a bit like Dungeons and Dragons Online, when you complete a mission, you are rewarded with an element that allows you to advance. If I'm a starship captain and that I explore around some systems doing point-of-interest missions... as these various experiences accumulate my character and crew will become more seasoned, less green, and better able to cope with certain situations. That skill points end up being handed out doesn't feel like something that would be inappropriate.

I would like it if the development was a bit controlled, but can understand if that's not what they intend on doing. What do I mean by "controlled"?

I'm off doing exploring, I do an exploration mission, I get skill points...and spend them on my Heavy Phaser Ops skills. Now, I didn't use my Hvy Phasers once on this mission, so logically they should not be improving as a result of this exploration mission. However, the counter argument is that, while I was spending the time on exploration, my crew was in the simulators, training on Hvy Phasers, so it can go either way. In SWG, we advanced on a thing by doing it. In Eve, we advanced on a thing no matter what we did, including nothing. I'd kind of like something in between those, where what we do has some bearing on what we learn.

Also, I'd like to see the ability to requisition training programs to learn new skills, and those training programs only give the introductions...in the end, LBD (learn by doing) is the best school :)

Second, I feel a bit bad for Cryptic Studios. If I was put in charge, or in a position to contribute to making a Star Trek game - part of the effort would revolve around me making a game I feel I would like playing. There's also a certain artistic flair in the goal of wanting to provide a particular experience to the intended audience.

I only feel bad for Cryptic if they didn't know what they were getting into, and that's not possible. All you needed to do was read Perpetuals forums to know the nightmare they were diving into. It is not possible to make a Trek product that everyone will like, because we all love Trek for different reasons, and we love it a *LOT*. That makes us a pack of raving lunatics most of the time, myself chief among them :)

No, Jack's a big boy, he knew the pain he was biting off. STO has massive potential to suck. Statistically (among both MMO's and Trek computer offerings), the odds are against it not sucking egregiously. But it also has the potential to be the greatest mmo ever. The lore is there, there are few IP's with a richer back story and scope. That's why I'm here.

For example, I'm a Dungeon Master. I host game sessions for D&D players. I do want to have them entertained and meet their wishes... but there's still some virtuoso-portion of myself whom wishes to deliver a particular experience with certain focuses. It's understandable - I mean, I'm the one investing hours over hours of preparation to captivate the imaginations of other peope so they have fun... so I feel I'm entitled to them having fun my way too.

Of course. You don't want them happy, you want them entertained. And sometimes that means having them sit on the edge of their seat, tense and frustrated. If they're mad at the content, that means they're engaged :)

That's also the fundamental difference between PnP and MMO's...there's a wall between the GM's and the players. The GM has to run his "dungeon" with no real feedback from the players, just trying to guess what they will do, and trying to react to as many possible options as possible. Try that some time, running a game with no players, trying to imagine what every possible player would do. No fun :)

I think that applies to Cryptic Studios too. Regardless of opinions, well-meaning suggestions and all I'm stuck feeling bad for them because they've essentially given very limited information and we end up judging a game upon very little basis - we've never played it so we can't really tell... and yet we're still so judgmental. I understand the other side of the coin is that many of us 'care', but you see the problem.

The only option available to them is the one CCP took. I don't like Eve. It's 85% of the game I wanted to play, and that last 15% makes me hate the game with a passion for being so close. But I can not help but respect and admire how successful the game is at being what THEY wanted to make and THEY wanted to play. In the end, that's all Jack can do. Listen to us, really listen to the ones that sound like people that play like they do, and tune out the ones that don't, and in the end, make a game that they want to play.

That was something that always bothered me about the EQ guys when I was working with them...they played other games. As corrupt as it sounds, the CCP scandals where devs were playing and cheating carried with them an interesting undertone...they love their game so much that they play it too.

I may not agree with the game they make, and I'll vote with my dollar and go play The Old Republic, but that in no way invalidates what they need to do...make the game they want to play. Don't listen to the VC's, don't follow the money, make a fun game and it will be profitable.

[Zepath]

I don't like Eve. It's 85% of the game I wanted to play, and that last 15% makes me hate the game with a passion for being so close.


You and so many others. If it weren't for 1 thing in that game design (and I seriously mean just one), I'd still be playing it and not even following this game.

[macallen]

You and so many others. If it weren't for 1 thing in that game design (and I seriously mean just one), I'd still be playing it and not even following this game.

I thought you were done with my thread? Ha! I lured you back!

You just can't quit me, can you?

[Zepath]

I thought you were done with my thread? Ha! I lured you back!

You just can't quit me, can you?

I didn't say I was done with the thread? I said I was done commenting on your position. We aren't going to convince each other different, so there was no point in continuing to debate it.

[Peregrine_Falcon]

1) Commodores command battle groups, Admirals command Fleets, and Fleet Command...Basically correct. But just because players can become admirals doesn't necessarily mean they'll be a full admiral. They could be Rear Admirals or Vice Admirals. In fact the progression within rank 5 (Admiral) from Rear Admiral to Vice Admiral to Admiral could provide a form of 'end game content.'

2) Rank is a measure of time and responsibility, not skill (except in administration). People in the military (all militaries) are promoted when a need arises and a person shows command potential.Actually it is. In the US military both officers and enlisted have to take and pass skill tests in order to be approved for a promotion. You are correct about senority though. You have to have a certain time in rank before you're eligible to take the tests and apply for a promotion to the next higher rank. Although it is common for members who receive a high level medal to also be promoted up a rank. And in a time of war you could have someone quickly promoted from say ensign to commander or even captain, but simple luck says that a human being that isn't the star of his own TV show is highly unlikely to survive that many incidents that would require the brass to give him that many battlefield promotions.

3) I didn't have concerns about the grind, the angry guy in the beret did. I wasn't replying directly to you, but to the issues in this thread in general.

4) If the 'status quo' for PvP is to grind to a Sov, then I can't do PvP unless I do the same, or I can't compete. The PvPers always max out their characters for PvP. This happens in every game. It will happen in STO too. Cryptic may include some form of 'level playing field' like they do in City of Heroes. In CoH everyone that enters a PvP zone becomes the same level. Cryptic may be able to do something like that by limiting skill use for everyone in a PvP zone. We just don't know yet, but if they don't then I guess that you'll just have to grind to that Sov and get your uber elite gear before you can PvP. Just like everyone else does in every other game in existence that has PvP.

[Zepath]

[FONT="Verdana"]
Actually it is. In the US military both officers and enlisted have to take and pass skill tests in order to be approved for a promotion. You are correct about senority though. You have to have a certain time in rank before you're eligible to take the tests and apply for a promotion to the next higher rank. Although it is common for members who receive a high level medal to also be promoted up a rank. And in a time of war you could have someone quickly promoted from say ensign to commander or even captain, but simple luck says that a human being that isn't the star of his own TV show is highly unlikely to survive that many incidents that would require the brass to give him that many battlefield promotions.


As an aside and add-on to your statement ...

In the United States, and we aren't alone in this regard, every command position and every rank of every branch of the Military is set by the Congress. From the exact number of Admirals / Generals (of every star count) down to the exact number of privates / seaman.

Every branch of the Military is charged with setting its own requirements for each rank, but with Congressional over-sight.

Additionally, every branch of the U.S. Military has minimum requirements for "time in grade" (how long they must be at a given rank) before you are qualified to be promoted (it can be waived under special circimstances). And that is on top of the competency tests, knowledge tests, and review panels.

Also, every branch of the U.S. Military has maximum time-in-grade before you must either progress to the next rank, or leave the military.

There is actually, an assumed and seldom discussed "code of honor" in the Military, that says if you are at the peak of your career, and cannot or will not be moving any further, you respectfully get out of the way and allow others the opportunity.

[macallen]

As an aside and add-on to your statement ...

In the United States, and we aren't alone in this regard, every command position and every rank of every branch of the Military is set by the Congress. From the exact number of Admirals / Generals (of every star count) down to the exact number of privates / seaman.

Every branch of the Military is charged with setting its own requirements for each rank, but with Congressional over-sight.

Additionally, every branch of the U.S. Military has minimum requirements for "time in grade" (how long they must be at a given rank) before you are qualified to be promoted (it can be waived under special circimstances). And that is on top of the competency tests, knowledge tests, and review panels.

Also, every branch of the U.S. Military has maximum time-in-grade before you must either progress to the next rank, or leave the military.

This is precisely what I was saying. In the US and British (maybe others, but I don't know them) and in Starfleet, established both in the video canon and the RP stuff, the military ranking and rating is done precisely as outlined above, with very few exceptions.

There is a minimum amount of time you will be in a grade before you will even be considered for a promotion. Once that time has passed, whether or not you're promoted is based upon several factors:
1. How many open positions there are in the new rank.
2. Your performance in general and specifically in the area the promotion will be placed. For example, if you're a great Lt in the motor pool, you may not get promoted to Capt if the Capt position that's open is in Air Cav.
3. Your attitude and the state of your reviews.

There are people in the military who never get promoted, they do their job every day because the military has needs for people at every level. Joining the army and starting off as a private in no way means you're starting the "grind" to General :) In fact, the vast majority of people who join the army will never see a rank above Capt, and that's ok :)

[Varrangian]

This is precisely what I was saying. In the US and British (maybe others, but I don't know them) and in Starfleet, established both in the video canon and the RP stuff, the military ranking and rating is done precisely as outlined above, with very few exceptions.

There is a minimum amount of time you will be in a grade before you will even be considered for a promotion. Once that time has passed, whether or not you're promoted is based upon several factors:
1. How many open positions there are in the new rank.
2. Your performance in general and specifically in the area the promotion will be placed. For example, if you're a great Lt in the motor pool, you may not get promoted to Capt if the Capt position that's open is in Air Cav.
3. Your attitude and the state of your reviews.

There are people in the military who never get promoted, they do their job every day because the military has needs for people at every level. Joining the army and starting off as a private in no way means you're starting the "grind" to General :) In fact, the vast majority of people who join the army will never see a rank above Capt, and that's ok :)

Two things - from a game stand point there is an equivalent to time in rank, it is the skill point requirement for promotions. This makes much more sense than a "time" sink because of the way MMO's work.

The other issue. My understanding and I admit I'm not in the military, but I am friend with a number of people who are is that if you are passed over twice for a promotion it is time to seek another career. The military does not have the time or money to waste on Officers who are not promotable. This is especially true of the ranks below General/Flag officers, and some what true for Field/Senior officers.

You mention people who will never see a rank above Captain. I'm guessing/hoping you are referring to the Navy rank of Captain and not the Army. But if you are referring to the Army since you use General as an example before this, I've been told that in the Army an Officer who never makes it to Captain is not invited to remain in the Army. Captain is the rank at which you begin attending Career courses.

Now maybe I'm incorrect and I've misunderstood all the things my military friends have told me about their careers as officers, but I doubt that I could misunderstand all of them.

For reference:

General officer is equal to Flag officers in the Navy (i.e. 0-7 and above) these are the Admiral ranks.
Field officers is equal to Senior officer (i.e. O-4 through 0-6) this is where Captain falls.

[Zepath]

Pretty much Varrangian ... I have a friend who is a Major in the Army right now, and is 16 months from his retirement. He started in the Army Reserves, ended up full time Reserves, and then was transferred to the Regular Army.

He was passed over three times now, for Lt. Colonel. The first time, he didn't even apply because he has a sweet set up. The second time he just applied as a matter of course to keep his superiors happy ... then when he did actually try, he didn't make the cut and the Army sent him his walking papers ... but his discharge date would be 4 months before his 30 years.

So he had to do some fancy scrambling and call in some serious favors from superiors he'd served with to get himself transferred to a Command Staff position.

He had to agree to stay 9 months past his 30 year mark ... with the understanding he would absolutely leave the Army at the end of that period.

My Father had 27 years in the Navy and was a Master Chief, but left the Navy because of the pressure he was getting to go before the boards for Command Master Chief ... and he just flat didn't want the job.

[macallen]

Two things - from a game stand point there is an equivalent to time in rank, it is the skill point requirement for promotions. This makes much more sense than a "time" sink because of the way MMO's work.

But there is no "way MMO's work", that's my point. There's "the way a lot of MMO's do things", but MMO's work how they are developed.

For example, in Eve, you start a skill training and it takes time, days, weeks, some take months. There's nothing you can do to rush/short cut it. If you start Eve right now, you will be the better part of a year getting into a Titan, even if a corporation twinks you to death. Time is a HARD limiter. Oh, you can shave a small % off the top, but Eve is a hugely successful MMO that uses time, real live time, as the limiter for advancement.

So it can be done.

The other issue. My understanding and I admit I'm not in the military, but I am friend with a number of people who are is that if you are passed over twice for a promotion it is time to seek another career. The military does not have the time or money to waste on Officers who are not promotable. This is especially true of the ranks below General/Flag officers, and some what true for Field/Senior officers.

Yes, if you are passed over. If your minimum time in grade has passed, openings have appeared, and you've not been offered, then yes you might consider opting out. That is only true in the ranks below O5, however, due to the normal churn of people putting in their 2 and leaving. In the Navy, once you get to Capt, you may never be promoted again, and that's not a bad thing. Ensigns, Lt's, Cmdrs come and go, ut command Capts are forever. A friend of my father's was a Navy Capt for 15 years.

Now, the downside to that is, if flag officers see your potential, offer you a promotion and you turn it down, THAT can have a negative impact on your career. But the military needs capable people in the middle.

You mention people who will never see a rank above Captain. I'm guessing/hoping you are referring to the Navy rank of Captain and not the Army. But if you are referring to the Army since you use General as an example before this, I've been told that in the Army an Officer who never makes it to Captain is not invited to remain in the Army. Captain is the rank at which you begin attending Career courses.

Yes, sorry, was talking Army :) And yes, you are correct, Capt is the "pivot" rank in the Army, just like Lt Cmdr is in the Navy. It's the rank where people who are only in for a little while don't go over the hill and only the career soldiers get beyond. It's also the ranks with the longest minimum time in rank, because there are so few of them, and so few openings.

In StarFleet terms, if you're offered a Lt Cmdr position, it's because they consider you Capt material.

Now maybe I'm incorrect and I've misunderstood all the things my military friends have told me about their careers as officers, but I doubt that I could misunderstand all of them.

For reference:

General officer is equal to Flag officers in the Navy (i.e. 0-7 and above) these are the Admiral ranks.
Field officers is equal to Senior officer (i.e. O-4 through 0-6) this is where Captain falls.

Oh you're correct. Capt in the Navy is the same as Colonel in the Army. It's the last non-flag rank and the workhorse of the military. Getting beyond that rank, as I have been told by friends of my parents on both sides, is 90% political, 10% ability. It took ability to get there, but the flag ranks are political positions as much as they are military.

[Varrangian]

Pretty much Varrangian ... I have a friend who is a Major in the Army right now, and is 16 months from his retirement. He started in the Army Reserves, ended up full time Reserves, and then was transferred to the Regular Army.

He was passed over three times now, for Lt. Colonel. The first time, he didn't even apply because he has a sweet set up. The second time he just applied as a matter of course to keep his superiors happy ... then when he did actually try, he didn't make the cut and the Army sent him his walking papers ... but his discharge date would be 4 months before his 30 years.

So he had to do some fancy scrambling and call in some serious favors from superiors he'd served with to get himself transferred to a Command Staff position.

He had to agree to stay 9 months past his 30 year mark ... with the understanding he would absolutely leave the Army at the end of that period.

My Father had 27 years in the Navy and was a Master Chief, but left the Navy because of the pressure he was getting to go before the boards for Command Master Chief ... and he just flat didn't want the job.

Glad to see the understanding I have is shared. It is easy not being a part of the military to misinterpret things or equate them to civilian life, but my understanding was always that the pressure for career military personnel was to keep moving upwards. It obviously becomes more difficult, but I think that is the point.

Now Starfleet on the other hand, seems a little less pressuring look at Riker and his continual refusal to take a command of his own. That being said though even Trek mentioned several times that he was putting his career in danger.

[macallen]

Pretty much Varrangian ... I have a friend who is a Major in the Army right now, and is 16 months from his retirement. He started in the Army Reserves, ended up full time Reserves, and then was transferred to the Regular Army.

He was passed over three times now, for Lt. Colonel. The first time, he didn't even apply because he has a sweet set up. The second time he just applied as a matter of course to keep his superiors happy ... then when he did actually try, he didn't make the cut and the Army sent him his walking papers ... but his discharge date would be 4 months before his 30 years.

So he had to do some fancy scrambling and call in some serious favors from superiors he'd served with to get himself transferred to a Command Staff position.

He had to agree to stay 9 months past his 30 year mark ... with the understanding he would absolutely leave the Army at the end of that period.

My Father had 27 years in the Navy and was a Master Chief, but left the Navy because of the pressure he was getting to go before the boards for Command Master Chief ... and he just flat didn't want the job.

My best friend was in a similar situation, where they wanted him promoted and he didn't want the job, so he didn't opt for another tour and went reserve, and he received his promotion in the mail, 3 months after he retired :)

Your dad was a Master Chief? That's awesome! Was he a diver? And I'm sure he didn't want the Cmd job, I'm told that's the most unappreciated position in the military :P

[Nindran]

I hate say this but you might be want the game to be to much like hard canon. This game is soft cannon they ability make little more fun. Star Fleet isn't military or anything like that it. Admiral isn't seen by cryptic a desk duty job or anything like that. Admiral is seen for as rank someone that has exp. That seen the wonder of the galaxies learn from ever he or she has done and gain wisdom and skills point from all mission they accomplished have you notice that in star trek show all the admiral where old men or past they prime that because they exp ever thing as low rank officer. With each rank come a new ship to command and more bridge officer not sit behind desk and not have do test. Yes some captain didn't want get premote but admiral not rank in same sense as it is in star trek. You problem have guilds that have admiral skilled char that are low ranks in the fleet still.

[macallen]

Now Starfleet on the other hand, seems a little less pressuring look at Riker and his continual refusal to take a command of his own. That being said though even Trek mentioned several times that he was putting his career in danger.

That's true of the real military too. It means he's more about himself than the service. Starfleet needs capable captains! It is dishonourable to sit in a sweet spot, under one of the most decorated captains in starfleet, and not take a promotion to allow another first to benefit from Picard's experience. That's the whole purpose of the first officer position, it is the fast track to ship command, always has been.

Picard being a capt the entire series and beyond wasn't even remotely unusual. Riker being a Cmdr and not having his own command? Bad. Really bad. Heck, I'm pretty sure everyone on board was promoted at least once but him. That's a stagnant career.

[macallen]

I hate say this but you might be want the game to be to much like hard canon. This game is soft cannon they ability make little more fun. Star Fleet isn't military or anything like that it. Admiral isn't seen by cryptic a desk duty job or anything like that. Admiral is seen for as rank someone that has exp. That seen the wonder of the galaxies learn from ever he or she has done and gain wisdom and skills point from all mission they accomplished have you notice that in star trek show all the admiral where old men or past they prime that because they exp ever thing as low rank officer. With each rank come a new ship to command and more bridge officer not sit behind desk and not have do test. Yes some captain didn't want get premote but admiral not rank in same sense as it is in star trek. You problem have guilds that have admiral skilled char that are low ranks in the fleet still.

Oh, I understand, and what I'm asking for isn't actually as rough as what we're discussing here. But what I don't want is Cryptic's expectation to be that every player advance through the ranks and all be in the biggest ships, because that's what the game is about, big ships!!! I do not want the end state to be "Everyone is an Admiral, everyone is in a HUGE ship!" That's just like WoW, where everyone is either 80, or on their way to 80.

In Eve, not everyone is a Titan pilot. Heck, there are maybe 20 Titan pilots in the game. Why? Because it's a pain in the behind, and not everyone wants the hassle. Oh, it's huge, and can destroy fleets, but not everyone wants to do that.

What I want is for STO to not be yet another linear progression grindfest MMO. Eve and original SWG paved the way, proved it's doable, and were successful at it (original SWG had 450k customers and was rising before Sony murdered it).

I want it to be viable for me to be a Lt Cmdr, captain (lower case C) of my small ship, and be one of the best explorers in the game. I don't want to feel like, unless I'm an Admiral in a Sov, I can't experience what the game has to offer.

[Varrangian]

But there is no "way MMO's work", that's my point. There's "the way a lot of MMO's do things", but MMO's work how they are developed.

For example, in Eve, you start a skill training and it takes time, days, weeks, some take months. There's nothing you can do to rush/short cut it. If you start Eve right now, you will be the better part of a year getting into a Titan, even if a corporation twinks you to death. Time is a HARD limiter. Oh, you can shave a small % off the top, but Eve is a hugely successful MMO that uses time, real live time, as the limiter for advancement.

So it can be done.



Yes, but as you'll see a lot on this forum. Eve style progression is not for everyone. Many people hate it. Most people here seem to not want a time investment style progression. I think that is one area where the forums are actually indicative of the greater gaming community.


Yes, if you are passed over. If your minimum time in grade has passed, openings have appeared, and you've not been offered, then yes you might consider opting out. That is only true in the ranks below O5, however, due to the normal churn of people putting in their 2 and leaving. In the Navy, once you get to Capt, you may never be promoted again, and that's not a bad thing. Ensigns, Lt's, Cmdrs come and go, ut command Capts are forever. A friend of my father's was a Navy Capt for 15 years.

Now, the downside to that is, if flag officers see your potential, offer you a promotion and you turn it down, THAT can have a negative impact on your career. But the military needs capable people in the middle.

I'm not denying that the military needs people in all the ranks. What I am saying is two fold. The first point is that, careers end because of turning down or not being offered promotions. Since that can't happen in this game - it wouldn't make sense to have a Trek game where you suddenly were shuffled off to civilian life because of the politics of promotion - we have to agree that promotion are not going to be exactly like the real world.

And second at the risk of calling in my forum detractors this game is not going to simulate every aspect of the rank structure. It is going to take the premise and try to create something "fun" from that.


Yes, sorry, was talking Army :) And yes, you are correct, Capt is the "pivot" rank in the Army, just like Lt Cmdr is in the Navy. It's the rank where people who are only in for a little while don't go over the hill and only the career soldiers get beyond. It's also the ranks with the longest minimum time in rank, because there are so few of them, and so few openings.

In StarFleet terms, if you're offered a Lt Cmdr position, it's because they consider you Capt material.

Again I think the issue at hand here is that this is a game, we are not going to have our characters do 4-8 years in Starfleet and then walk because of the politics of promotion. That doesn't make a good game for the audience they are trying to attract.

Oh you're correct. Capt in the Navy is the same as Colonel in the Army. It's the last non-flag rank and the workhorse of the military. Getting beyond that rank, as I have been told by friends of my parents on both sides, is 90% political, 10% ability. It took ability to get there, but the flag ranks are political positions as much as they are military.

There is one final note I want to make that related to the above point. Yes the movement from O-6 to O-7 is one that few people do, but keep in mind that we are talking about Starfleet and the Klingon Empire there must be hundreds of trillions of citizens in both of these "empires" so surely a couple hundred thousand Admiral is not really statistically speaking that out of the ordinary.

[Varrangian]

Oh, I understand, and what I'm asking for isn't actually as rough as what we're discussing here. But what I don't want is Cryptic's expectation to be that every player advance through the ranks and all be in the biggest ships, because that's what the game is about, big ships!!! I do not want the end state to be "Everyone is an Admiral, everyone is in a HUGE ship!" That's just like WoW, where everyone is either 80, or on their way to 80.

In Eve, not everyone is a Titan pilot. Heck, there are maybe 20 Titan pilots in the game. Why? Because it's a pain in the behind, and not everyone wants the hassle. Oh, it's huge, and can destroy fleets, but not everyone wants to do that.

What I want is for STO to not be yet another linear progression grindfest MMO. Eve and original SWG paved the way, proved it's doable, and were successful at it (original SWG had 450k customers and was rising before Sony murdered it).

I want it to be viable for me to be a Lt Cmdr, captain (lower case C) of my small ship, and be one of the best explorers in the game. I don't want to feel like, unless I'm an Admiral in a Sov, I can't experience what the game has to offer.

The game is not about "big ships" they've said on several occasions that the game will not be about one or two uber ships. Yes you want to get higher tier ships, but the differences between tier 3 and tier 4 ships are far more nuanced from everything they've said.

I've already spoken to the rank structure, so I will not comment here about that.

[macallen]

Yes, but as you'll see a lot on this forum. Eve style progression is not for everyone. Many people hate it. Most people here seem to not want a time investment style progression. I think that is one area where the forums are actually indicative of the greater gaming community.

< 15% of an MMO's population read/post on forums, so even if every single poster here said that, it wouldn't be "most". And I'd wager that not even most of the people on this forum feel that way, if the game is structured correctly.

I'm not denying that the military needs people in all the ranks. What I am saying is two fold. The first point is that, careers end because of turning down or not being offered promotions. Since that can't happen in this game - it wouldn't make sense to have a Trek game where you suddenly were shuffled off to civilian life because of the politics of promotion - we have to agree that promotion are not going to be exactly like the real world.

Riker's didn't :) Of course they can't happen like real life, but they also shouldn't happen like a standard MMO. I log in and pound out Lt to Admiral in a day should not be possible, the mechanics of the game should not allow it. There's got to be a middle where a fixed amount of time must pass before you can be promoted no matter how much you play.

How can that work? Simple, don't make rank progression a limiter to content (see below).

And second at the risk of calling in my forum detractors this game is not going to simulate every aspect of the rank structure. It is going to take the premise and try to create something "fun" from that.

I hope not, that would be really tedious :)

Again I think the issue at hand here is that this is a game, we are not going to have our characters do 4-8 years in Starfleet and then walk because of the politics of promotion. That doesn't make a good game for the audience they are trying to attract.

Why not? Maybe not real years, but virtual ones. Why have the Lt rank in the game if everyone blows past it in an hour? Of what value is it? What purpose does it serve? Layered content would allow each rank to be useful and enjoyable.

There is one final note I want to make that related to the above point. Yes the movement from O-6 to O-7 is one that few people do, but keep in mind that we are talking about Starfleet and the Klingon Empire there must be hundreds of trillions of citizens in both of these "empires" so surely a couple hundred thousand Admiral is not really statistically speaking that out of the ordinary.

It doesn't take 100,000's of Admirals to manage millions of people.

My suggestion: I hate asking for something without offering a solution, it's my corporate background. How can Cryptic give me what I'm asking for?

They've said that the skill trees are like an updsidedown pyramid, where the higher you go, the more specific your skills are. The key is to make the "more advanced" skills relative to the role that each rank serves. I'll use Diplomacy as an example (because I like it and hope it's in the game).

Each cadet is given the basics of diplomacy, even if it's only to talk to their crew respectfully or if they ever meet an ambassador. Lt's are not given First Contact missions. So the Diplomacy skills available at the Lt lvl are basic. They get to escort, perhaps delivery a Fed ambassador somewhere...nothing terribly complex. However, Lt's are put in command of small science teams, and Lt's are often dept chiefs for engineering, so the science and engineering trees for Lt are a bit more robust and filled out, as those are skills Lt's use and need for those types of missions.

You get up to Cmdr, the Diplomacy tree is much more filled out because Cmdrs have had the training they need and will see more complex Dipl missions, but Cmdrs are rarely actual engineers as much as they are the bosses of engineers, so they'll have trees more focused on getting engineers to work and advanced theory vs actually fixing problems. More Admin, more theory, less maintenance...LaForge did not run diagnosstics, he had people to run them. Instead, he modeled how to turn a tachyon pulse into a shield modulation device that ...MacGuyver stuff :)

The tactics tree is another good example. Lts have basic tactics, because they're in charge of their own, smaller ship. The higher you go, the fuller this tree will be. The science tree will be upside down comparatively. A capt will have a good background in science...because he got it as a Lt. A great example is Picard in his alternative science future...same guy, same time, but only an Lt, because that's as high as he needed to be to be the expert on what he knew.

If I want to fly a sov and do fleet tactics, I'll push to admiral. If I want to be an explorer, lt cmdr will be high enough for me. Oh, I may eventually see Admiral. I'll be offered promotions based upon the number of skill points I've invested, but I'll still have a *LOT* more skills I want to pick up in the Lt bracket before I get promoted.

Round non-linear content, where every playstyle finds something they like.

[Varrangian]

MacAllen I believe we fundamentally disagree on what makes a fun game, so I'm going to agree to disagree with you and leave it there. I'm sure I'll see you around other topics though.

Now I do hope that whatever Cryptic does give us manages to make us both happy. It is a tough challenge to try to please so many people, but I think they are doing their best.

[macallen]

MacAllen I believe we fundamentally disagree on what makes a fun game, so I'm going to agree to disagree with you and leave it there. I'm sure I'll see you around other topics though.

Now I do hope that whatever Cryptic does give us manages to make us both happy. It is a tough challenge to try to please so many people, but I think they are doing their best.

Absolutely, on all counts. It would not be the first time I've come to an MMO forum with passion and high hopes, had them crushed into nothingness, and I moved on to the next MMO.

In the end, here's what I'm hoping: Cryptic makes something new. Not like Wow, not like other MMO's. "Other" MMO's are closing servers, consolidating, or just plain going offline. All of the assumptions Cryptic and NCSoft spouted back when they fundamentally changed CoH during it's development were wrong. A game doesn't have to have levels, or loot, or anything to be successful. It just needs to be well done and true to it's "vision".

I also hope that Cryptic has realistic expectations about the definition of "success". STO will not have millions of subscribers. It will not topple Wow. Wow is like Miley Cyrus...no one knows why the heck she's so successful, it's a mystery, and in the end no one will topple Miley but Miley herself.

If STO pulls in 300k consistent subscribers, that's a hugely successful US release. If they're targeting millions of users, they're going to be horribly disappointed. Eve doesn't have millions and they're very happy with what they have. Given all the people that almost like Eve (there are a lot of us), if Cryptic made Eve with ST content and controlled PvP, they'd not only pull in a lot of almost-Eve players, they'd pull a lot of folks out of Eve itself.

[fractaleye]

Ok, my last comment on this ...

You have to do missions, to progress through the skill tree. The difference between this and experience leveling is only semantics.

You have to attain a certain rank to accquire access to the next level ship ... the difference between that and leveling to accquire better gear is semantics.

A HUGE portion of your game play is built around your BO's, who cannot be your rank or higher, so if you want them to get better, YOU have to advance.

Now you can take any MMO out there and putt around the areas at level one for years, and not level. What's the difference between that and what you're talking about here? I submit, nothing.

So again, he is talking about advancement. Skill based advancement, and level based advancement still require "grinding" by the definition of how it is applied to any MMO.

I personally like grinding ... I enjoy just going out sometimes and killing 5000 mobs, because I've had a bad day, want to blow off steam, and be mind numbed for a bit. That doesn't negate that its still grinding.

You might enjoy exploration, and do 1000 new planets a week ... that doesn't negate that its grinding.

Okay. I see what you are saying. I don't particulary see how I didn't say prety much the same thing, though. I was merely using the FF X reference as an partial analogy to how the skills are available to you. I know STO will have 'grinding', hence why I said I hope Cryptic can hide it well. I don't mind the grind, either. I'm just happy that in STO I can grind for my skill advancement, verses Eve's system of set and forget.

[Peregrine_Falcon]

It would not be the first time I've come to an MMO forum with passion and high hopes, had them crushed into nothingness, and I moved on to the next MMO.
If this has happened to you several times then perhaps your expectations are unrealistic. Maybe if you lower your expectations just a bit, and loosened up with the mental restrictions, well maybe then you'll find that games are fun. Even if every last detail isn't done the way you would do it.