Making It So: Designing Star Trek Online

[AlexTaldren]

The following is a large write-up of how I think STO should be designed. Feel free to comment on any particular part or all of it if you have the time. To read the original article, go here (http://alextaldren.wordpress.com/2008/07/29/making-it-so-designing-star-trek-online/).

__________________________________________________ ___________________________________

Cryptic Studios has finally launched the official Star Trek Online website since the game’s last developer, Perpetual Entertainment, went bye-bye. And, with the launch, fans are getting a small taste of what the game will offer.

You Are the Captain: Command your own starship as a Federation Captain or a Klingon Warrior. Outfit it with the systems that you need to make your mark in the galaxy. Customize your ship as you see fit. Recruit, train and mold your crew into an elite force for exploration and combat.

Sure, it’s a rather vague statement, but most “game features” are at first. Here’s my problem with it… what if I don’t want to be a Captain?

“Damnit Jim! I Want to be a Doctor, not the Captain!”
Unlike other IPs, Star Trek is one of the few that has really great role-playing potential. Let me explain.

MMOs tend to suffer from “everyone is the hero” syndrome. In single-player games, being the ultimate fighter and badass hero isn’t a problem because you’re the only one. But, when a massively multiplayer game puts everyone in the shoes of the ultimate hero, a lot of problems arise. Not everyone can be the best or the hero!

Star Trek, which has a lot of chat-based and forum-based RPGs run by small online communities, doesn’t suffer from this “everyone is the hero” syndrome. Fans of the series aren’t all craving the Captain’s chair. And, because it doesn’t, the game has a lot of room for cooperative play.

Some people don’t want to command a starship. I know, it’s hard to imagine… people not wanting to be the Captain of everything, but it’s true. Instead, some people might rather be the quirky or compassionate Chief Medical Officer. Maybe they want to be a security officer, helmsman, or even the ship’s cook!

The point is this: if you have an IP that doesn’t already suffer from “everyone is the hero” syndrome, don’t inject it with the disease! Cryptic should take advantage of this fact.

Player-Manned Starships and Puzzle Pirates
According to the official website, Cryptic plans to give players the ability to do missions inside the hulls of starships.

Surface, Shipboard and Deep Space Adventures: Command your vessel in thrilling space battles, or beam down to planets with your away team for face-to-face confrontations. Missions will take you and your friends into space, planet-side and even inside starships!

Well, duh! You better be able to! But, in reality, a majority of time should be spent on board your vessel. This isn’t EvE Online, it’s Star Trek Online. If players are forced to captain their own ships and look at them from the 3rd person, then all Cryptic has managed to do is take the old Starfleet Command games and make them into MMOs.

The Puzzle Pirates Analogy
It isn’t like putting a lot of players on one ship and having them work together is a new idea. Puzzle Pirates, a very simplistic 2D game, has already managed to prove that cooperative play is easy to manage. For those who aren’t familiar with Puzzle Pirates, let me explain.

You’re a pirate and control only yourself. You can join guilds (crews) or play solo. When you play solo, you can choose to either join an NPC crew for missions or a player crew. When you join a player crew, you’re transported to that vessel, which is actually owned by another player. Then, before the mission begins, you choose which part of the ship you’ll control. Anything from the helm, to the cannon, to the sails, to the bilge pump are controllable. Then, when a ship battle commences, you’re given a specific puzzle you have to complete. The puzzles vary depending on the part of the ship you’re controlling and they can range from anything like tetris to something Snood-like.

Then, once the ship-to-ship combat has ended, with one ship disabled, the victorious vessel boards the disabled ship and melee combat breaks out. Now, Puzzle Pirates handles the melee combat like a cooperative puzzle, but only because it can’t do much more.

Now, imagine a similar setup with Star Trek Online. Let’s break down how it would work for each part.

Guilds in STO
Guilds would be the equivalent of starship crews. The Captain is the guild leader, he/she has his First Officer, and then you have the Chief of each department. Each player is given living quarters on their guild’s starship. And, if Cryptic isn’t too lazy, each living quarters could be uniquely placed, rather than having one instanced room everyone enters and exits.

So, when a player logs into STO, he/she will spawn in their living quarters. From there, they can walk around the inside of their guild’s ship, check the mess hall, go to the bridge, or even go to the Holodeck with a friend.

The the ship is docked at a Starbase or on a planet, the ability to leave the ship and walk around on the space station or on a planet would also be available. Guilds could then recruit other players on those stations and planets to join their crew.

When guilds get larger, they would have the ability to upgrade their starships or just buy completely new ones with more room. While guilds would be confined to only one ship, the ability to form fleets among guilds would be there. You could have long-term fleets (alliances) or temporary ones. Temporary ones would be like two guilds joining together to complete a single mission. The long-term fleets would form to help manage large-scale PvP between Federation and Klingon players.

But Not Everyone Is Online At the Same Time!
Of course, not everyone from your guild could be online at the same time, all of the time. So, how do you do missions if your Captain isn’t there to acquire them? Or, how do you navigate the ship in combat if your helmsman is offline?

While a large portion of your guild’s crew would be players, every crew would also have NPC crew members. These crew members could be given randomly generated names and could be “purchased” by the Captain or senior officers when on planets or space stations. When no players are online to man a specific post, these NPCs take over. Conversely, when players are available to man these posts, those same NPCs could be seen walking the interior of the ship.

Because having NPCs would be a disadvantage in PvP, it would make sense to restrict their use to PvE missions. This way, if only a small number of guild members are online, they can still do larger, ship-based missions.

[AlexTaldren]

Combat Mechanics: Ship vs. Ship, Boarding Raids, and Away Team Missions
Red Alert! Ship Combat Should Be Collaborative
Space battles in Star Trek aren’t just a matter of firing tons of torpedoes. They are managed by crew members working together as one. The combat is less about ferocity and more about cooperation. Spamming a photon torpedo hotkey after targeting an enemy ship would do a great injustice to the potential depth there is to explore.

Ship vs. Ship combat would be an impressive display of cooperation for a ship’s crew. During ship-to-ship conflict in space, think of it looking something like Star Trek Legacy or Starfleet Command. Everyone has a view of the battle from an exterior, 3rd person view of their ship. However, each player is assigned a specific task or duty during the combat. One person may be responsible for managing the shields, another could be responsible for keeping the engines online. Each player would have a part to play in the combat.

How these roles and tasks are completed is another story. STO could use some form of puzzle-type mechanic to manage these things. Or, it could be more direct. For example, when managing shields, players could be given a visible control planel that sits at the bottom of the screen. The control panel may have options for diverting shield power, changing frequencies, etc. Then, while the fact that each player is managing a certain part of the combat, there is even more cooperative play to be had.

Here’s a scenario: let’s say your ship’s shields are failing, but there isn’t anymore power for the shields to use. The person responsible for the shields could submit a request to the captain to divert power to shields. If the Captain approves the request, the engineering player responsible for power management would complete a task (could be a puzzle or something more direct) that would transfer that power.

Meanwhile, a helmsman, for example, would have more real-time control over the ship’s movements. Pressing certain keys to make it turn, speed up, slow down, etc. However, to increase depth, a system could be in place to execute advanced maneuvers, which would require a short puzzle or key combination to be completed.

Ship Disabled, Boarding Party Time
Once a battle is won, the victorious ship has the choice to either send a boarding party or destroy the ship entirely. While destroying the ship is the safest option, sending over a boarding party and being successful would yield a large number of rewards and benefits, making it enticing. However, just because you were victorious in ship vs. ship combat doesn’t mean you’ll be as successful during the raid.

This stage of the combat plays out more like an FPS than anything else. I would expect combat to feel and look something like Star Trek Voyager: Elite Force II, but without the ultra fast-paced jumping action that resembles game like Quaker and Unreal Tournament.

The attacking crew would get transported to a couple different areas on board the enemy’s ship. There would be a number of objectives that would need to be captured before victory is complete. On top of that, those NPC crew members the enemy purchased would be fighting too. However, because of the difficulty with AI in MMOs, they’d probably be placed in defensive positions around the objectives, instead of being able to free roam.

A time limit would be placed on the boarding party. The attackers would have a certain amount of time to capture all the necessary objectives while the defenders must defend those objectives. However, to keep the battle from being just a one-way street of attack/defend, there should be a number of things the defenders can do to hinder the attackers’ progress. For example, the defenders should be able to close and seal different doors and halt turbo lifts, etc. This is where a player’s skill set comes in handy. If a player is proficient in systems operations, he/she could seal doors or disable turbolifts.

On the other hand, the attackers could have someone with similar proficiency. If the attackers are able to get this person to one of the desginated control consoles, he/she could open sealed doors or reactivate turbo lifts. Essentially, the fight becomes something resembling a tug-of-war rather than a linear attack/defend scenario.

The three objectives could be Main Engineering, Main Security, and The Bridge. And, when one is captured, players from the attacking team are able to spawn in that location via teleporter. Also, to prevent an “all or nothing” reward system based on total victory or total defeat, when an attacking crew captures an objective, they are given a reward. This makes it so the attackers can still walk away with rewards even if they don’t manage to capture all three objectives within the time limit.

If the attackers are repelled, then the defending ship escapes the conflict and is automatically warped to the closest friendly station or planet with whatever losses it has suffered. However, if the attackers are successful, they gain a large number of rewards while the defenders lose all their NPC crewmates and suffer large ship damage penalties.

Seven To Beam Down - Glad I’m Not The Ensign
Away team missions should provide the bulk of PvE content in the game. It allows smaller groups of players to explore new worlds, encounter strange beings, and complete missions. To avoid the linear story-telling problem that occurs in all MMOs, STO should create a large variety of away mission types. These missions should be available at planets and space stations, but the main advantage is that aren’t necessary. Captains could choose which ones to accept and which ones to avoid. Perhaps a guild is tired of doing space escort missions and would rather do some planetary diplomatic mission. These are decisions that should be available to the players rather than being decided for them by the developers.

Anyways, away missions would play similar to the boarding party. They would be beamed down to a specific area of a planet and have to make there way to an objective, which could be a strange anomaly, a small town, an enemy encampment, etc.

Once completed, the players taking part in the mission would be given individual rewards and then the starship (guild) would receive additional rewards.

Too Many People Online - Other Stuff To Do?
One problem here is how to manage having a lot of your guild on at once. Do you cap away missions to a max number, and if so, what are the rest of the players supposed to do while it’s underway. Well, this is the beauty of Star Trek–there is soo much to do on the ship! While a group of 12 are on an away mission, the rest of the players could be services certain systems, decorating their living quarters, hanging out in the mess hall, managing the bridge, or playing on the holodecks.

Here’s a scenario: Your guild is going to do an away mission at 7 p.m., but you don’t get home until 7:30 p.m.. The away mission is estimated to last about 2 hours, but you want to level up some of your skills in the meantime. Well, the ship can’t leave to take you somewhere else because it has to stay in orbit. So, while that is going on, grab a group of crewmates and take a shuttle to the surface for some training. Or, find another crewmate to play a game on the holodeck or a board game in the mess hall.

PvP Combat in STO
RvR Mechanics
While PvE content should be available almost anywhere, PvP should be confined to specific areas, which can work! Because STO will feature the Federation and Klingon Empire, provide a region of space in between the two faction’s home space. Then, divide this area into smaller areas that are capturable objectives such as planets and space stations. On each end of this contestable space could be a main station or planet for each faction. The goal of each faction could be to push the enemy back and eventually capture their main base.

Rewards could be given to all the players and ships (guilds) based on a faction’s status in this area. The more objectives they’ve captured, the more rewards they receive.

If one faction manages to capture the other’s main base, which shouldn’t be something that happens often, they are then tasked with defending it, which equally as difficult.

Arena-Style Setup for Same-Faction and Cross-Faction Compeition
Large-scale RvR may not be something everyone is interested in so alternatives are always good. Now, imagine that there is a small area of space where both factions are held to extreme rules of neutrality. This would be a relatively small area consisting of maybe one planet and an orbiting space station. It is in this area that ships from both factions can meet, hang out, and compete against one another.

Players could challenge others to ship vs. ship combat, simulate boarding party raids, on-planet conflicts, and even things as simple as holodeck sports or mess hall board games!

Smaller rewards would be available for these competitions since the risk is far less than standard conflicts.

[AlexTaldren]

Don’t Forget the Solo-Player!
So guilds aren’t your thing? Don’t have enough friends to really man an entire ship? And yet, you still want to be a part of a crew and do the things you love.

Community-Operated Starships
Maybe guild politics aren’t what you’re up for or maybe you just don’t have the time. Maybe you don’t want to be a Captain and don’t know anyone who is. Or, maybe you want to be a Captain but don’t want to go through the hassle of creating and running a guild!

Community-operated starships are like revolving doors. They are owned by players who are Captains but not guild affiliated. When docked at planets or stations, players who want to join one of these starships can bring up a list of available ones at a computer terminal. Then, they can request to join the crew. If the Captain accepts, they are teleported on board and ready to do their part. When they log off after playing, the player is automatically transported to the last space station or planet they were at.

This system is also very similar to Puzzle Pirates. And, to help avoid bad situations, the Captain should have the authority and ability to remove a player from his/her ship no matter what, where, or when.

Guild-Operated Ships With Public Openings
Similar to a free-lance/mercenary system, guilds should be able to “open” their starship to non-guilded players if they so choose. While this would give that non-guilded member access to the guild’s starship, the highest ranking officers of the guild could restrict that player’s access to certain things. This would help reduce rampant sabotage while not necessarily eliminating it. If you take the risk of bringing a temporary crewman on board, there should be consequences if trust has been misplaced.

Personel Records: Player Reputation and Profiling
STO is an online game, and like any online game, it is difficult to judge how trustworthy and skillfull other players may be. While this system would be much larger in terms of functionality, it would play a very big role when deciding on who to accept into your crew.

For example, let’s say you’re recruiting crewman for your newly acquired starship. As the Captain, you don’t want to bring aboard just anyone, right? Of course not! So, you go to a computer terminal (maybe on a space station or in the Captain’s ready room) and you bring up a list of available players who wish to join a crew. As the Captain, you determine what types of crewman you need, whether you need more security, engineers, command officers, medical staff, etc. You can sort the players by a variety of categories and then select to see their Personnel Record.

In this record is where you’ll find a listing of the player’s character’s name, age, birth date, and all the personal information the player provided when creating the character. Then, you’ll be able to see what the player’s skill sets are and how advanced each one is. You can check to see how their combat proficiency is and all the sub skills that fall underneath it, their recreational proficiency and all the sub skills underneath that, etc.

These Personnel Records should be detailed and and include things like player reputation, a system designed to keep track of a player’s likability and habits. For example, if a non-guilded player joins a group of other non-guilded members for a simple away mission, at the end of that away mission each player can rate the other players’ performances, behavior, and skill. As a player completes more and more missions with others, his/her’s average ratings will change. In the end, what is achieved is a system that lets other players know whether they should bring someone aboard their vessel temporarily or permanently. And, outside of guild-related matters, it lets other players know whether they should watch their back or not.

Handling Character Classes and Skills
Say “NO” To Preset Character Classes
A player shouldn’t be able to create a character and pick the “Captain” class right out of the gate. MMOs are about climbing ladders, achieving new things, and setting goals. Therefore, rather than pick a character class, players should all start off the same, as Recruits to their respective faction.

Starfleet and Klingon Academy: Character Progression
Almost everyone over at the STO official forums agrees that players should start at the Academy. I agree with them on this one considering how big a role these training facilities play in the series. However, rather than make the Academy experience a simple and underwhelming tutorial for the game, why not spice it up a little?

Make the Academy a long-term progression equivalent to a decent number of hours play time. Make it feel like graduating was an accomplishment. Here’s how I envision it working:

When a player starts at the Academy he/she chooses one particular area of focus such as:


Command - Allows the player to become a Captain
Navigation - Allows the player to become a pilot
Medicine - Allows the player to become a doctor/medic
Weapons and Combat - Allows the player to become a security officer/soldier
Engineering - Allows the player to become an engineer, hacker, technical specialist
Politics - Allows the player to become a counselor/diplomat
Recreational Management - Allows the player to become a Morale Officer
Once an area is chosen, the player is tasked with completing a number of simulations/missions based on that area. And, rather than complete them all solo, he/she has the option to team up with other players to complete these Academy missions.

And, to help familiarize the player with large-scale ship cooperative combat and play, the final exam for graduation could be a simulated ship vs. ship encounter that requires all the recruits to work together on one ship.

Once graduated, players earn the starter rank of Ensign and have the ability to join crews. However, rather than limit a player to only one area of focus, he/she can unlock additional ones by going back to the Academy. A limit would be placed on the number of focuses one player can obtain through the Academy to keep new players from being obsolete compared to veterans.

[AlexTaldren]

Leveling Skills
Skill levels, rather than being based on character levels (which wouldn’t exist anyway) are based on frequent and successful use. Players earn experience points towards specific sub skills when they use them, so the more they successfully use those skills, the better they become.

Here’s a rough progression example for the Command focus:
A player starts at the Academy and chooses Command as his focus. He starts as a Recruit with Command Level 1. As he completes his Academy missions and training simulations he levels up his Command Level until it reaches its peak for a recruit. Then, after he passes his final exam/mission, he is promoted to the rank of Ensign and his Command Level is 1 again. From there, he earns experience to his Command Level for each successful missions he is a part of and for each Command task he completes successfully. As his proficiency increases, he eventually reaches the level to earn his own starship and is automatically promoted to the rank of Captain. However, as Captain, he can continue to increase his Command Level more and more as he is successful.

Here’s a rough progression example for the Weapons and Combat focus:
A player starts at the Academy and chooses Weapons and Combat as his focus. He starts as a Recruit with Weapons and Combat Level 1. As he completes his Academy missions he levels up. Once he finishes his final mission, he graduates and becomes an Ensign Security Officer. From there, the more he practices with different weapons, from a ship’s weapons systems to a standard phase rifle, he levels up those specific skills. This means that one player might be a Security Officer who is better at close-quarters combat involving phasers and rifle, while another may be better than handling a ship’s weapons. And, while both players could work to be balanced among all the sub skills for Weapons and Combat, it allows them to customize their character in a number of ways, letting them define their role.

Also, while all players will be able to use a variety of tools without having to graduate from the Academy first, their efficiency is much lower and they don’t have access to many advanced features. For example, all players have the ability to participate in combat with phase rifles and phasers, but only those who graduated from the Academy with that focus get access to a larger variety of weapons depending on their skill level.

Earning Ranks and Getting Promoted
Earning ranks is completely separate from skill progression with the exception of the Command focus. A player could have amazing levels for a specific focus and still be just an ensign. Players should have the option to turn down promotions if they wish. And, while Captains will be the ones primarily promoting their crewmen, even free-lance/solo players will have the ability to earn higher ranks via the Personnel Records system.

Like I said before, after major battles and missions, high-ranking Command players have the ability to submit ratings for their crewman, even non-guilded crewman! So, if a crewman does a good job, a Command officer has the ability to give them a high rating. Each time a player is given a high rating, he/she earns experience points toward the next rank. Once the cap has been hit, instead of automatically receiving a promotion, the next Command officer to give you a rating has the option to offer a promotion. And, from that point on, other players who look at your Personnel Record can see when you were promoted and by whom.

I’d Rather Stay In Dry Dock!
Options, options, options. Players should always have them available. And in this case, maybe I’ve defined ship mechanics so much that i completely forgot about the player! What if you don’t want to serve aboard a ship? Perhaps you’d rather help command a space station!

Unfortunately, the game wouldn’t be much fun for space station crewman that weren’t in contested regions of space like the one I defined earlier for RvR combat. Being a security officer on a station that is full of NPCs and same-faction crewman probably wouldn’t be all that fun. However, if players had the ability to serve on the space stations that sit in contested space, the experience would be far more rewarding.

Most of the mechanics here would be almost identical to starships. Space stations could be disabled, boarded, and captured by the enemy factions. And, while players from ships could teleport themselves to a space station to provide reinforcements, chances are most of the defending would be left to the station crew… especially considering that space combat isn’t just going to stop because there is a battle on the station.

Unlike ships, however, space stations are limited in number, so having players manage them is tricky. A system would need to be in place to manage player activity for starters. Imagine if the Commander of a space station was inactive for more than 2 weeks and there was no way to have him/her removed.

While inactive players on ships can be easily managed because of the guild environment, a community-run space station requires an inactivity and voting system.

Here’s a scenario:

The Chief Medical Officer onboard a space station has been inactive for over a week and a half. At 2 weeks, the system notifies the highest ranking active player serving on the space station (in most cases this would be the Commander), and initiates a vote among all “senior” players onboard. Senior crewman are those with a certain rank or position. These players then vote whether to remove that player from their position, freeing it up for the Commander to offer a promotion.

It is important to note that just because a player chooses to primarily serve aboard a space station doesn’t mean he/she couldn’t join a ship-based crew for a mission or for PvP.

In-Game Message Board System
To provide further guild-management tools AND to help give community-run ships and space stations a more accessible venue for discussion and cooperation, STO should have in-game message board system. These would be similar to most “mailing systems” found in other MMOs, but with a few differences. For example, while on a specific space station, players should be able to access that station’s message board. And, the only way to see that message board is to be on that station.

Take the scenario about the inactive Chief Medical Officer into account. If he/she knew they were going to be inactive for a few weeks, they could leave a message saying they are on vacation. This way, all station personnel would know they were only on vacation and not permanently inactive.

Communication System
Communication is key, especially in an environment where not every player is part of a guild with Ventrilo or Teamspeak. This is why STO should have a VOIP system designed around locations. For example, if two players are on the same space station, they should be able to bring up a list of all the other players within communication range (meaning all the players also on that space station or on a ship docked at the station). Then, they can select to open a VOIP channel with just that player. The idea is to reduce the amount of typing that is required, even for non-guilded players.

Around Tables and Other Social VOIP
While general, person-to-person VOIP options are nice, it seems a little bizzare that be the only option, especially if players are in the same room of a ship or station. For this reason, locational VOIP should be present for each room. The second a player walks onto the bridge of a ship, he enters a VOIP channel for the bridge, allowing him to hear and communicate with everyone else there with one simple keystroke.

Furthermore, for larger rooms that may have a lot of people inside like Mess Halls, players should be able to join smaller VOIP channels. One way to do this would be to make each sitting area a VOIP channel. If you’re sitting at a table for two people and someone else sits down across from you, both of you are in a VOIP channel nobody else can join. Meanwhile, larger groups could sit at larger tables and enjoy each other’s company.

If someone sits down at a table and is annoying the others at the table, the highest ranking crewman at the table acts as the moderator and can dismiss that player from the table. If the highest ranking crewman is the one being annoying, the other players can sit at a different table or call a vote to dismiss the officer.

And, one of the best parts about this social system is that players can rate their interactions with each other at social areas like tables and holodecks, further contributing toward character progression and depth.

Conclusion
Star Trek Online has a great deal of potential to really bust out of the standard mold most MMOs fall plague to. The only question that remains is whether Cryptic Studios has the vision and determination to even attempt it. Not only would such an attempt breathe fresh air into an otherwise underwhelming genre of video games, but it would also thrust the game into the unknown, boldy going where no MMO has gone before.

Thanks for reading.

[0wl]

Great read thank you!

And i have to agree that is grows very tiresome to always be the grand hero or in this case captain please let me make that choice myself or lets all start at the bottom in some way?!

[Kinneas]

Amazing, Mr. Taldren.

What a pleasure to have you among us.

[USS_Paragon]

Interesting thoughts, thanks!

[IanD967]

Interesting thoughts, thanks!

exactly my thoughts aswell haha :D

[chrisdanger]

Alex, an excellent read and one that goes along my train of thought when it comes to ST.

[Wodahs]

You have some great ideas and have obviously have put a lot of thought into this as well.

I do have a problem with a large part of what you are proposing in that it basically makes every ship an instance, a lot of players don't have the time or the inclination to wait for an hour while the captain gets the ship manned up. I know I don't, ya I got you can use NPCs to fill the blank spots, but it still sounds like you will need a fair amount of human crew. A large part of the players in an MMO are casual players, far less play in well organized guilds.

So for me I think ships do need to be able to be single manned. That said... I would love to have the option of creating and flying on fully manned ships. But that would need to be an option or an instance type of thing, not the main mode of play for the game.

It's also going to be a nightmare when your guild has 10 captains, 5 helms men, 16 weapons officers etc.

This is going to be tough one for the Devs, I don't see anyway they can realistically make everyone happy. Hopefully they can come up with some ideas that bridge the two styles of play.

As far as doing puzzles to complete your task... sorry but YUK! I absolutely hate that idea, it would totally kill the RP aspect of the game for me.

I also think that some people don't realize just how boring some of these positions would be.

[timoor@mac.com]

I got here via an article on the LA Times this morning. Alex addresses my primary concern about the structure of the game and quality of play. I would suggest formalization of Starfleet even further, graduating as an officer and promotion to higher ranks and disciplines, i.e. Science Officer, based on merit and time in rank (Stardate measure). When eligible for promotion you can apply to Starfleet for new rank/assignment. This would be the case for new players applying to Starfleet Acadamy for service to the Federation, not necessarily for other civ's such as the Klingons or, obviously, the Borg, where enrollments might be more extemporaneous, scrappy - based on a different set of values and moral codes.

Any StarTrek game should support the principles of the Creator, Gene Roddenbery, peaceful exploration and resolution of conflicts, the Prime Directive, etc. However, that doesn't mean that force isn't sometimes necessary !

A couple of areas that I see for fun formalization and development:
o The Stardate Calendar
o The Universal Translator (terrestrial languages as a paradigm for the extra-terrestrial problem, national teams)
o The Planet Vulcan and other members of the Federation (and other alliances)
o honorary roles for real astronauts if they can be induced to join (inluding Right Stuff heroes - Russian and US)

Physics and navigation should play an important role, for instance if an orbiting ship takes damage to its engines, it might crash (spectacularly) into the planet below or burn in the atmosphere - if there is one.

There are plenty of anciliary roles for assigment to new players, volunteers or other developed characters/institutons. Special Ambassadors, Scientists, war councils, etc. These could be integrated into the primary cultures/conflicts during online play as requirements, rules and roles as they develop in real time play.

[Commander_Daedelus]

Amazing simply amazing, great read

[DawnSkye]

I agree with 90% of what you just said but there are a few flaws..

Ranking system.

Working your way up in rank is a great idea but what happens when they first release the game and there are no captains. how would you rank up to captain if there's no one to promote you.

Crew.

Who's going to take over when you kick people off your ship or if they leave? A ship wont go far wothout it's helmsman so what about when someone leaves you are forced to go to the nearest space station to replace the lost crew member or instead of setting course to the nearest space station maybe the captain or first officer could either re-arange the crew or an npc takes over untill you replace the lost crew member.

Relations between factions.

If you help your allies, neutral or even factions your at war with your reputation will increase but if some of your captains attack neutral or ally factions your relations decrease but if you punish the captain that attacked your ally or neutral faction then your relation decreases but not as much. I'm not talking about the relations of a player towards another faction i'm talking about your whole factions relations towards another faction.

Declaring war and peace.

I dont know about you but fighting the same faction over and over sounds kinda boring so maybe the higest ranking players in the game could vote on who to TRY make peace with and who to go to war with, so say you get sick of those klingon dogs and want to go to war with them, so you open communications with the high ranking members and setup a vote. If not enough high ranking members vost then the vota fail and you have to retry a real day or 2 later and set a limit on how much times the community can try and declare war or peace. If you want to make peace with someone then you have to go through the same voting system as declaring war BUT the side your trying to make peace with HAS to want peace too and if they dont then the war goes on.

PVP.

The first pvp system you mentioned sounds really good but i'd like to add something to it. If you attacked an ally or neutral faction then either you shouid be severely punished or are forced out of your current faction and are declared a pirate untill you make amends.

I chucked in some of my own ideas so any constructive feedback is welcome.

[RandomRedshirt]

This information right here, is spot on.

While my vision (see my signature) laid out some of this information in a basic format, you have gone to the detail of explaining all your thoughts, and I loved it. A fantastic read.

I would nominate this post for a sticky for Cryptic to read on a daily basis.

[AlexTaldren]

Thanks for the comments and suggestions everyone. I really appreciate and welcome the discussion.


I do have a problem with a large part of what you are proposing in that it basically makes every ship an instance, a lot of players don't have the time or the inclination to wait for an hour while the captain gets the ship manned up. I know I don't, ya I got you can use NPCs to fill the blank spots, but it still sounds like you will need a fair amount of human crew. A large part of the players in an MMO are casual players, far less play in well organized guilds.

So for me I think ships do need to be able to be single manned. That said... I would love to have the option of creating and flying on fully manned ships. But that would need to be an option or an instance type of thing, not the main mode of play for the game.

It's also going to be a nightmare when your guild has 10 captains, 5 helms men, 16 weapons officers etc.

As far as doing puzzles to complete your task... sorry but YUK! I absolutely hate that idea, it would totally kill the RP aspect of the game for me.

I also think that some people don't realize just how boring some of these positions would be.

NPC crewman take over empty spots and allow you to navigate around. As the Captain, you'd still have the ability to navigate without a helmsman.

Yes, ship interiors would be "instanced," but with today's technology there really is no other way to do it. That's why during battle, people can switch between controlling their character aboard the ship or watching their starship in 3rd person mode as they complete their tasks. Also, if your ship is in a battle and Red Alert status is called, when you switch back to walking around your ship. say during that battle, the interior alert lights should be flashing, etc.

I outlined ideas to incorporate casual players who aren't part of guilds and don't have the time to run one themselves. Go check it out again and let me know if you still think it is flawed.

As far as the puzzles are concerned, I really wasn't sure how this would work. I know how Puzzle Pirates does it and I feel like a Star Trek equivalent might work in most cases. The thing is, even if only a select few are really engaged in the ship vs. ship battle, once you're either boarding or being boarded, everyone is fully involved.

I agree with 90% of what you just said but there are a few flaws..

Ranking system.

Working your way up in rank is a great idea but what happens when they first release the game and there are no captains. how would you rank up to captain if there's no one to promote you.

At first, and maybe for the whole game, complete NPC crews should be available to join for solo, PvE missions. This would mean that there is already an NPC Captain and as you gain experience during those missions, you eventually achieve that rank automatically through skill.

Either that or make it simple, the first X many Commanders to achieve a certain skill are automatically granted the rank of Captain and given a ship.



Crew.

Who's going to take over when you kick people off your ship or if they leave? A ship wont go far wothout it's helmsman so what about when someone leaves you are forced to go to the nearest space station to replace the lost crew member or instead of setting course to the nearest space station maybe the captain or first officer could either re-arange the crew or an npc takes over untill you replace the lost crew member.

I outlined that NPC crewman were acquireable while docked. This way, especially if you are an unguilded Captain, getting "stuck" in space isn't possible. But, instead of those NPCs directly controlling the ship, it allows you, the Captain, to get around.

IRelations between factions.

If you help your allies, neutral or even factions your at war with your reputation will increase but if some of your captains attack neutral or ally factions your relations decrease but if you punish the captain that attacked your ally or neutral faction then your relation decreases but not as much. I'm not talking about the relations of a player towards another faction i'm talking about your whole factions relations towards another faction.

Right now I'm just thinking in terms of Federation and Klingon since that is all that is planned by Cryptic. If additional factions are added later then I agree that players should have a system of faction diplomacy. It would probably be something similar to the Personnel Record I proposed but for an entire faction.

If a Federation Captain attacks another Federation Captain, the defender can rate the other Captain/Ship/Guiild negatively, affecting the attacker's reputation among others.

Declaring war and peace.

I dont know about you but fighting the same faction over and over sounds kinda boring so maybe the higest ranking players in the game could vote on who to TRY make peace with and who to go to war with, so say you get sick of those klingon dogs and want to go to war with them, so you open communications with the high ranking members and setup a vote. If not enough high ranking members vost then the vota fail and you have to retry a real day or 2 later and set a limit on how much times the community can try and declare war or peace. If you want to make peace with someone then you have to go through the same voting system as declaring war BUT the side your trying to make peace with HAS to want peace too and if they dont then the war goes on.

I agree that fighting one faction over and over sounds boring. Unfortunately, I was working in the scope of Federation vs. Klingon. However, with a intricate diplomatic system of ratings, etc., most of my original ideas can still work. There can still be contested space that all the factions are fighting for; it doesn't have to be a linear area. Imagine, a large circular region that is contestable with faction bases around the edges. Then something like a Deep Space station in the very middle that all factions are fighting to capture and hold.

IPVP.

The first pvp system you mentioned sounds really good but i'd like to add something to it. If you attacked an ally or neutral faction then either you shouid be severely punished or are forced out of your current faction and are declared a pirate untill you make amends.

I chucked in some of my own ideas so any constructive feedback is welcome.

I like this idea as well. If your reputation as a Captain/Guild dips low enough, you should be automatically flagged as a "rogue" vessel/player/guild. Then, you have the option of attacking and raiding for greater profits and rewards while, on the down side, you'll likely be hunted by almost everyone.

Anyway, great feedback so far. I really appreciate the insight.

[Wodahs]

Thanks for the comments and suggestions everyone. I really appreciate and welcome the discussion.

Your ideas fit well with what a number of other people have said they would like to see. When I read your post I felt it was much better thought out and well reasoned than any other similar post I had read and felt it was the best starting point for a good discussion. I too fully appreciate and welcome the discussion.

The hard core fan base alone while fairly large is probably not enough to make this game a success, it needs to have a broader appeal. The devs will have their work cut out for them on this one. Not only will they need to keep the fan base happy, but they will also need to create a game that will appeal to those of us that don't speak Klingon :D. That is going to be tough! (I was just kidding on the Klingon thing I don’t think that all hard core fans speak Klingon OK.)

Your concepts sound great, my concern is that I'm not sure how much fun they would be for the average player in the long run. What I'd like to see is what could be done to take your ideas and incorporate them into the game in a way that would also be fun for the rest of us. I want the best of both worlds.:)

NPC crewman take over empty spots and allow you to navigate around. As the Captain, you'd still have the ability to navigate without a helmsman.

I fully understood that, you would have to be sure to have an NPC to cover each post before you left port, that way you don't get in a lurch when your helms mans mother sends him to bed. I see that as workable.

My point was what do you do when you have 6 people in your guild who all want to play helmsman all at the same time. The side games you mentioned while cool sound to me like they would get boring after a while. Most of the time I think people are going to want to be playing their class rather than off decorating their room. Training etc. seems to me like it would get tedious quickly.

Yes, ship interiors would be "instanced," but with today's technology there really is no other way to do it. That's why during battle, people can switch between controlling their character aboard the ship or watching their starship in 3rd person mode as they complete their tasks. Also, if your ship is in a battle and Red Alert status is called, when you switch back to walking around your ship. say during that battle, the interior alert lights should be flashing, etc..

I totally agree that with today’s technology they would have to be instanced, and I also liked the rest of what you had to say here. My problem is that I have already spent way too much of my life sitting around Ironforge spamming we need a (fill in class) for (fill in instance)

If that's the main method of playing the game it won't appeal to me and I won't want to play it.

I outlined ideas to incorporate casual players who aren't part of guilds and don't have the time to run one themselves. Go check it out again and let me know if you still think it is flawed.

Yep I read them, and frankly they left me feeling some what left out of the game.

As far as the puzzles are concerned, I really wasn't sure how this would work. I know how Puzzle Pirates does it and I feel like a Star Trek equivalent might work in most cases. The thing is, even if only a select few are really engaged in the ship vs. ship battle, once you're either boarding or being boarded, everyone is fully involved.

I'm not sure how that would work either, but if I have to play Tetris to launch a torpedo I'm going to scream. Don’t worry I’m not going to continue to harp on that you were just trying to give an example, I get that.

The problem here is that you have a large number of players off doing side games 90% of the time, while a handful of players get to have all the fun. That sounds boring to me. I get that then I get to have a few minutes of fun, but then I have to go back to doing something boring. That just doesn’t work well for me.

…

That said, I do see your ideas as having merit. I know that what you are suggesting would appeal to quite a few players.

However, I think everyone should have the option of having their own ship and of being in charge of it. I don't think they should be required to have to go off and find a crew in order to play. I just don’t see a way to make that work for me.

For instance I have flown as the rear gunner in plenty of combat missions, and I do enjoy doing that however, I wouldn't want to play the whole game that way.

What I would love to see is to have your idea for guild and community ships as an optional way of playing the game. Now that to me actually does sound like fun. I can play solo when I want and still have an important role in the game. Or I can group with other players and play that way when I want. Best of both worlds in my opinion.

[Falin]

interesting read, some things i disagree on, but they're minorin the grand scheme.

[AlexTaldren]

@Wodahs

I understand your concerns and, to be honest, I don't have answers for all the issue that may arise from my ideas. In fact, I wrote the entire thing within a span of about 3 hours, so it's very rough and probably not detailed enough.

However, let me respond to your comment about controlling an entire ship.

Recently, MMOs have tried to make everyone "the hero." They make you believe that you are something special, extraordinary. The only problem with this is that once you start looking around, you notice that everyone else is "the hero," too, making you... not the hero.

The solution, as I see it, is for STO to wipe its hands clean of this misconception. Instead, it should focus on the player's ability to be an important part of the greater whole, a cog in the machine, etc. Now, I 'm not a "Trekkie" by any definition of the word. I can barely speak English let alone a fictional language like Klingon. I didn't even start really liking Star Trek until Voyager aired. So let it be known that my ideas aren't the strange and wild-minded fantasies of a guy who tips his pizza guy in platinum.

When I think of how a Star Trek MMO should work, I think about some of the dreams I've had before. Sometimes, after watching an episode of Voyager, I'd go to sleep that night and dream about being a crewman aboard a starship, walking around its hallways, using its holodeck, and talking to other crewmen. That is what I think of when I think of a Star Trek MMO.

Let's face it, a Star Trek MMO can really only rely on its core fanbase. If Cryptic attempts to design STO for a more casual audience and doesn't revolutionize casual MMO gaming, those casual players will just float back to other MMOs that provide a more polished and casual experience, games like upcoming Warhammer Online and the next WoW expansion. At the end of the day, those casual players who aren't excited enough about Star Trek, won't stick around to play it casually if there are better casual games around.

I'm not saying screw casual gameplay and only the hardcore should be kept in mind. On the contrary, I don't consider myself hardcore as a MMO gamer or Star Trek fan, and I think my system would still be fun.

I will admit managing a ship's systems during combat may not be the greatest thing ever. Perhaps a way to remedy this situation is to give both ships the ability to transport attack parties onto the other vessel during ship-to-ship combat, if the enemies shields go down momentarily that is. This way, while some players are managing their ship's movement, shields, and weapons, other could be defending those key objectives I described or transporting over to attempt capturing their enemy's.

[BLZBUB49]

Alex!
A thoroughly engrossing article, and one I must say that Cryptic should have posted up on every deptartment heads cork board for guidance!
While pretty much all of what you have written is 'honey on my toast', I was a little worried over one tiny, wee bit of substance in the "Earning Ranks and Getting Promoted" paragraph; to whit:

Like I said before, after major battles and missions, high-ranking Command players have the ability to submit ratings for their crewman, even non-guilded crewman! So, if a crewman does a good job, a Command officer has the ability to give them a high rating. Each time a player is given a high rating, he/she earns experience points toward the next rank. Once the cap has been hit, instead of automatically receiving a promotion, the next Command officer to give you a rating has the option to offer a promotion. And, from that point on, other players who look at your Personnel Record can see when you were promoted and by whom.

My worry here is that, although it shouldn't possibly happen in Star Fleet, the onus in this idea is on the command officer to promote the character. Is this not putting a lot of trust into that command officer to act faithfully to the tenets of Star Fleet protocol, and grant the rank promotion to the player?
Perhaps the in-game Devs ( or admins/mods) should be tracking the ratings of the players. At least during the first few months from launch, until these devs/admins/mods can decide whom to add from the player base to help take over these duties.
The 'trackers' could grant the promotions for the first few months and ensure an equitable player base of higher ranked players from the start of the game, and these promotions would also help to eliminate the load on the NPC command crew that are starting the game out herding all the Ensigns around the quadrant.

Other than this small iota of critisism, I have left 98% enthusiasm for your thoughts in "Making It So: Designing Star Trek Online."

[Falin]

BZLBUB! welcome abord :)

I agree, allowing players to hand out ranks is going to lead to trouble. hat i porposed is that ranks be awarded based on performances. basically as you do core missions for "Starfleet" you would get Rank points, do the mission well, you get positive points, do te mission opposite standards (aka you go to a diplomatic mission and use brute force to make then agree to you side), yu get negitive points. once you garner enough points for a rank, you will be promoted to it, but if you get negitive points and they take you below that threshold, you'll get demoted. get to negitive X ammount you'll be thrown out of starfleet and made a civie rogue player.

this should calm a lot of player worries about "to many captains" and players giving "favor" ranks while denying good players ranks as well.

[Wodahs]

I actually totally get your dream, I've had very similar ones. Your explanation was very detailed and pretty well thought out. I took it as the start of an idea and a discussion of ideas I didn't take it as a bible on how it has to be done. BTW, that was dang good writing for just three hours. I also think that the mode of play you are proposing would be a blast and I would love for that to be in the game. I would however prefer to have other options as well.

Recently, MMOs have tried to make everyone "the hero." They make you believe that you are something special, extraordinary. The only problem with this is that once you start looking around, you notice that everyone else is "the hero," too, making you... not the hero.

The solution, as I see it, is for STO to wipe its hands clean of this misconception. Instead, it should focus on the player's ability to be an important part of the greater whole, a cog in the machine, etc..

Here I disagree with you a bit, most people spend their days being cogs in the machine. When they come to play on line they want to be something more than that. I think the idea on being a cog in the machine has a somewhat limited appeal. I'm picking on you a bit with that last line, it's not really a fair rebuttal to your point, I actually do get the concept that being part of a well oiled team that is getting the job done can be a blast. I'm just not sure how well that concept will work in an MMO, I'm afraid that between problems with executing the concept, the behavior of other players and the I want to be a hero mentality that you mentioned, it may have too limited of an appeal to be viable as the main concept for an MMO.

I have watched and enjoyed Star Trek since I was a kid, but I wouldn't describe myself as a "Trekkie" either. But I do want this to do well. And your right this game needs to stand out and be different from other MMOs if it is going to be a success.

Hopefully I'm not just raining on your parade here, that was not my intent. If I am, just shoot me a private and I will gladly knock it off. Your idea deserves to be aired just as much as mine or anyone else’s. I actually was looking for ways to help make your dream a reality while still making this game playable for people like me.

So I guess the question I have is... would my suggestion of allowing both styles of play be so objectionable as to ruin your concept of the game for you?

[Flatfingers]

My worry here is that, although it shouldn't possibly happen in Star Fleet, the onus in this idea is on the command officer to promote the character. Is this not putting a lot of trust into that command officer to act faithfully to the tenets of Star Fleet protocol, and grant the rank promotion to the player?

Hello again, BLZBUB!

As I recall, when we discussed this question of performance ratings back on STOnet (and it's a feature I once proposed myself), one of the suggestions we came up with to minimize the potential problem of abuse was that ratings go both ways -- senior officers rate the junior officers, and each junior also rates the senior officer in charge of their development, or away team, or whatever form their official interaction takes.

Perfect? No. But knowing that your progress depend in part on the persons whose progress you're affecting would, I think, cut back somewhat on sticking it to people just to be a jerk.

The biggest problem with this scheme is obviously people giving each other perfect ratings just to game the system. Which is why I also suggested that performance ratings should be only a part (and not the largest part) of a character's performance assessment -- the game itself, as a perfectly impartial judge, needs to supply most of a character's performance rating.

That's really not so different from how it's done now. If you think about it, XP is basically a kind of performance rating: it's the system recognizing that you successfully completed a mission.

All we're really considering here is Trek-ifying that somewhat, such that instead of "experience points" magically inflating some magic number, your reward for success or your penalty (most likely just a lack of a reward) for failure is provided by an NPC officer appears at an after-action review. It's the same thing as magic XP, just a different (and, IMO, better for this game) presentation.

Combined with two-way player assessments, I think this approach could be an effective and distinctive feature of a Star Trek MMORPG.

Am I expecting the developers to provide any content this interesting?

No, not really. It's just fun to think about design questions like the excellent ones that AlexTaldren raised in this thread.

--Flatfingers

[jayce]

I agree with 90% - 95% of what the OP has stated. This thread, no doubt, deserves a sticky with developer followups to most, if not all, points when necessary throughout the course of development. Throw in a 3D based space enviorment and you will have STAR TREK ONLINE.

[MillerEP]

I think you have some really great ideas, I just tend to disagree with three key things.

1) It should not be a twitch based combat system, like Quake or Unreal Tournament. Why not have it be similar to running a modern MMORPG raid dungeon? You come across static or patrol NPC mobs, with the intention of capturing key parts of the ship. During PvP, maybe have the mobs controllable by the opposing fleet/guild, or just plain have a pvp system similar to Age of Conan's seiege defense, where a guild leader/fleet forms raid groups and uses thier own tactics and strategies and group make-ups to try to defend against the attacking force. I think the Age of Conan system would work perfectly here. Also, the combat system is similar to SWG or Tabula Rasa.

2) Everything shouldn't revolve around puzzle games. Granted puzzle games are skill based, so he with the greatest skills wins, but it seems to seriously lack depth. When my sole mission in life is to sit there for 2 hours every single day playing some form of soduko, tetris, guitar hero, or spades than I'm going to want to put a phaser to my head quickly. I agree that we need some form of group interaction onboard ships, but with puzzle systems than not only is there not much room for improvement (i.e. if I'm awesome at tetris and that's what it takes to properly work the engineering section, than I can immediately go from level 1 recruit to manning the game's best ship, the only difference would be going from a 4x6 grid square to a 14x20 grid square, so what's my incentive to ever level up normally?) They need to work out a complex system similar to Star Trek: Legacy and EvE Online mixed so that way an Engineer can balance and juggle all aspects of shields and power distribution in real time (maybe with permission sets based around how much the captain is willing to part with?). This way it adds depth to engineering, and the better the engineer is at balancing everything out the better off the entire ship is, maybe have it micro managed to the smallest degree, so with experience comes wisdom, and have it like ship buffs/debuffs/HoTs/and DoTs. This way the captain can still be in control, "Ok engineering do your thing, I'm going to need a damage buff" and the engineer will know what he needs to control and divert from in order to get the right buffs, if he is competent than that's one less worry the captain will have.

3) Promotions shouldn't be based around the good ole boy network. I think promotions should be built around merit, quests completed, pvp victories, etc, like every other game. Just to say that I like him, so I'll insta promote him up to captain, or hey let me insta promote my alt up so I can control two ships will get out of control quick.


Ok now the comments/suggestions:

I really think you're on to some great concepts, like the RvR in contested space, with controlling key spaceports, planets, and spacelabs. Maybe these can give huge faction based rewards, such as spawn points or buffs.

I also think you're on to something about the fleet system, but I think that a fleet shouldn't all be confined to one ship. In a system like that favortism will occur, so maybe have a guild leader with an internal rank structure have the ability to control multiple ships? Imagine you as a Fleet leader commanding your fleet's capital ship, you have your group formed (your key personnel), you assign your roomate (who's in the guild) as raid group leader 2, he hand picks his crew from the guildies (this can be based around who's the best at what they do, who's available, or even plain who has the biggest ship), and then you assign raid leader 3..and so on, (although there must be a cap, it's insane to have a 100 ship fleet vs a 3 ship fleet.


My two cents...thoughts, comments?

[Admiral_Patrick]

Holy crap that was indepth. From what I've heard, that version would fly with most everyone, but there are a few people out there who would really just want a 3rd person view of the ship. I don't understand it, but they are out there.

I hope whatever Cryptic gives un on the 10th is that informative. Great job and reading that made me tired so I'm going to sleep. Goodnight!

[AlexTaldren]

Hello again, BLZBUB!

As I recall, when we discussed this question of performance ratings back on STOnet (and it's a feature I once proposed myself), one of the suggestions we came up with to minimize the potential problem of abuse was that ratings go both ways -- senior officers rate the junior officers, and each junior also rates the senior officer in charge of their development, or away team, or whatever form their official interaction takes.

Perfect? No. But knowing that your progress depend in part on the persons whose progress you're affecting would, I think, cut back somewhat on sticking it to people just to be a jerk.

The biggest problem with this scheme is obviously people giving each other perfect ratings just to game the system. Which is why I also suggested that performance ratings should be only a part (and not the largest part) of a character's performance assessment -- the game itself, as a perfectly impartial judge, needs to supply most of a character's performance rating.

That's really not so different from how it's done now. If you think about it, XP is basically a kind of performance rating: it's the system recognizing that you successfully completed a mission.

All we're really considering here is Trek-ifying that somewhat, such that instead of "experience points" magically inflating some magic number, your reward for success or your penalty (most likely just a lack of a reward) for failure is provided by an NPC officer appears at an after-action review. It's the same thing as magic XP, just a different (and, IMO, better for this game) presentation.

Combined with two-way player assessments, I think this approach could be an effective and distinctive feature of a Star Trek MMORPG.

Am I expecting the developers to provide any content this interesting?

No, not really. It's just fun to think about design questions like the excellent ones that AlexTaldren raised in this thread.

--Flatfingers

Exactly. The main argument against players being a part of the promotion process is that some will play favorites in guilds while community-ship Captains may give poorer ratings at times. While many of you who have concerns over this system are correct, there is one reason why this system should be preferred.

It's realistic. If you're trying to model a game around a series that is full of politics, then you're obviously going to want to mirror that to some extent. Think about it. In the series, senior officers were always playing favorites, passing others up for promotions, etc. The idea that you, as a player, could be neglected by a superior despite your excellent performance is just another immersive factor.

Picture this: You're scoring extremely high during missions and achieving efficieny ratings that are nearly top-notch. Moreover, you've capped your highest available experience in a particular field and are awaiting a promotion. Unfortunately, the senior officer of the ship you're currently servering on has decided to pass you up and promote others. What are your options? Well, you can leave that crew and join another crew or attempt to find a way to get that promotion by staying aboard and working harder.

The point is, if designed right, the player would always have available options, no matter how "unfair" other players may be.

I think you have some really great ideas, I just tend to disagree with three key things.

1) It should not be a twitch based combat system, like Quake or Unreal Tournament. Why not have it be similar to running a modern MMORPG raid dungeon? You come across static or patrol NPC mobs, with the intention of capturing key parts of the ship. During PvP, maybe have the mobs controllable by the opposing fleet/guild, or just plain have a pvp system similar to Age of Conan's seiege defense, where a guild leader/fleet forms raid groups and uses thier own tactics and strategies and group make-ups to try to defend against the attacking force. I think the Age of Conan system would work perfectly here. Also, the combat system is similar to SWG or Tabula Rasa.

When I said Quake and Unreal Tournment, all I meant was an FPS with hitboxes and twitch-based combat. When fighting against NPC ships and boarding them, you would have enemy AI to fight, but I don't think it should resemble anything like a MMORPG Raid. Raids are typically boring. The AI just stands and waits for you to pull one of them. I don't know about you, but when I picture a battle aboard a starship... I don't picture the raiders walking up a hallway, stopping, seeing the guards at the next intersection, shooting one with the phaser, and then attacking the rest as they aimlessly run toward you.

Tabula Rasa's combat system may be the best bet, but then we get into the issue of stastic-based combat. Suddenly, the player has less control over what he is doing and instead, is more defined by his skills, armor, and weapons. Personally, I think if you manage to nail an enemy in the head with phase rifle, he should go down, regardless of how many HP he has.

Ship-based combat would obviously be different because things are based on levels and percentages. However, the second we start reverting back to pen-and-paper style combat that is based on rolling dice, handling random chances, and factoring in armor ratings, weapon ratings, and character levels, the players are pushed aside and skill plays a lesser role.

Everything shouldn't revolve around puzzle games. Granted puzzle games are skill based, so he with the greatest skills wins, but it seems to seriously lack depth. When my sole mission in life is to sit there for 2 hours every single day playing some form of soduko, tetris, guitar hero, or spades than I'm going to want to put a phaser to my head quickly. I agree that we need some form of group interaction onboard ships, but with puzzle systems than not only is there not much room for improvement (i.e. if I'm awesome at tetris and that's what it takes to properly work the engineering section, than I can immediately go from level 1 recruit to manning the game's best ship, the only difference would be going from a 4x6 grid square to a 14x20 grid square, so what's my incentive to ever level up normally?) They need to work out a complex system similar to Star Trek: Legacy and EvE Online mixed so that way an Engineer can balance and juggle all aspects of shields and power distribution in real time (maybe with permission sets based around how much the captain is willing to part with?). This way it adds depth to engineering, and the better the engineer is at balancing everything out the better off the entire ship is, maybe have it micro managed to the smallest degree, so with experience comes wisdom, and have it like ship buffs/debuffs/HoTs/and DoTs. This way the captain can still be in control, "Ok engineering do your thing, I'm going to need a damage buff" and the engineer will know what he needs to control and divert from in order to get the right buffs, if he is competent than that's one less worry the captain will have.

I agree. Like I've said, the puzzle game thing was just a random thought I had based on its successful use in Puzzle Pirates. Personally, I'd love to see a more involved form of managing ship systems. I think that maybe just having standard Star Trek consoles available to access during battle may be a lot more interesting. Especially if those same consoles were destroyable by invading boarding parties.

Promotions shouldn't be based around the good ole boy network. I think promotions should be built around merit, quests completed, pvp victories, etc, like every other game. Just to say that I like him, so I'll insta promote him up to captain, or hey let me insta promote my alt up so I can control two ships will get out of control quick.

My position on this remains the same. I don't want an automated promotion system because I'm not a fan of the game dictating things to the players. Instead, it is my belief that an MMO should be a working and manageable world, where the players are the ultimate decision makers. In this case, the players have the ability to award promotions, request demotions, etc.

Flatfingers mentioned a great way to keep checks and balances on abusive players through a two-way rating system. This way, senior officers aren't immune to being given poor ratings. Furthermore, player ratings would only be a part of a character's overall Personnel Record. This way, other players could tell if another player was on the receiving end of some unfairness.

It's really about the politics and drama. MMOs should allow the players to control what happens instead of it being the other way around. If the developers gives the players the tools they need to ensure fairness, while not restricting them from behaving poorly (like going "rogue" or giving bad ratings), then the players can enact justice on each other when necessary, rather than having to /complain to a GM or submit a ticket for abuse.

It's like the watchmaker theory of creationism. Rather than the developers constantly having to step in to fix problems, the players should have all they need to fix those problems themselves. This allows the developers to build the world, set the ground rules, provide the tools, and say, "All right, now live, fight, be fair, be unfair, create chaos, establish order, do what you need to do."

Again, I'd like to thank everyone for their thoughts, comments, and criticisms. There are a ton of great ideas floating around out here and I'm very glad to be a part of it.

[Kinneas]

I know 'Puzzle Pirates' was just an example.

What about star ships that are more SIMCity/tower-esque? Too hard...or is it along the same lines?
-

You were behind one of the greatest Star Trek combat games of all time...SFC.

I now you said that "all you would be doing is a SFC MMO"..but what about that kind of combat in addition to or worked into your ideas?

Not to throw out the baby with the bath water. Few Star Trek combat games since have ever managed to re-reach that level of excellence.

What from SFC should not be entirely thrown out and considered for STO? Anything?

[STOZone]

I absolutely love the "sandbox" approach you're advocating, as I feel it could most closely represent the type of game that could please the most players, while still maintaining gameplay mechanics that produce fun, engaging gameplay.

I'd love to see some responses from TPTB on your ideas.

[AlexTaldren]

I know 'Puzzle Pirates' was just an example.

What about star ships that are more SIMCity/tower-esque? Too hard...or is it along the same lines?
-

You were behind one of the greatest Star Trek combat games of all time...SFC.

I now you said that "all you would be doing is a SFC MMO"..but what about that kind of combat in addition to or worked into your ideas?

Not to throw out the baby with the bath water. Few Star Trek combat games since have ever managed to re-reach that level of excellence.

What from SFC should not be entirely thrown out and considered for STO? Anything?

There's no denying that SFC was a successful game. However, it did have one major focus: ship combat and mechanics. It made ship control deeper and more complex, which has been a criticism of more modern titles like Star Trek: Legacy, which many fans regarded as a water-downed and over-simplified version of SFC.

The parts of SFC that made it successful should definitely be the foundation for handling combat, and the way I envision space combat in STO is very similar. The problem is that STO is attempting to incorporate much more of the ST universe, or at least it should. Space combat is just one of the many facets a Star Trek MMO should have. Things like diplomacy, exploration, and away missions will require much more experimental thought to pull off.

Nevertheless, when I briefly outlined how I think space combat should work in STO, I may have skimped on the details. Let's run through a quick scenario of an engagement to give everyone a better idea.

Your ship has left port and is heading for the next planet in contested space. Suddenly, you pick up an enemy ship on sensors. Players on board your ship have the ability to switch between two modes of play: Character-Control, which lets them walk around the interior and access different consoles, and Combat-Control, which gives them a view very similar to SFC.

Now, in SFC, there were tabs that let the player switch between the different systems. What I imagine in STO is that each console on the bridge of the ship operates a different one of these tabs. Meaning, if you're at the helm and access that console, you will be presented with a view of the ship like you had in SFC. However, on the left side of that view would be all the helm controls and only the helm controls. The Captain, for example, would get access to a summary console that allows him/her to issue orders and view status of all systems. Think of the Captain's console as being an RTS-style of play.

If the player at the helm goes AFK, the Captain as the ability to automatically replace that player with another crewmember or take over the helm himself, but I digress.

When I see ship combat in STO I cerntainly think of SFC. However, rather than just one person controlling all the ship's systems, I see a small group of players, each in control of a different system. And, while some systems may not seem as "exciting" as others, they should each be given a lot of different styles and functions so to that players can see their contributions are worthwhile.

[Kinneas]

I feel that the above is how this MMO came about. Folks playing SFC who said.."Man. I just wish I could be in control of the shields or engineering, etc."

Initially in the first years of the community 80% just wanted to be the engineer.

[Falin]

I
Initially in the first years of the community 80% just wanted to be the engineer.


I just want to be a Tholian :D

[Coconut202]

Thanks :):)

[Flatfingers]

player ratings would only be a part of a character's overall Personnel Record. This way, other players could tell if another player was on the receiving end of some unfairness.

That actually goes to an additional feature that a partially player-based performance rating system might have, which is that the aggregate of an officer's ratings of other players should be information that players can see about each other.

If I'm playing a Starfleet officer, it would be helpful to be able to pull up the personnel database and see something like this:

Lt. Leeroy Jenkins
History of Performance Ratings Given To Other Officers:
12%: Outstanding
79%: Superior
7%: Acceptable
2%: Poor
0%: Unsatisfactory

If I see that Lt. Jenkins tends to give all Outstandings, I'll know that he's an Achiever whose goal is to "beat" the game as quickly as possible. If I see from his records that he tends to give mostly Unsatisfactory ratings, I'll know that he's a jerk and I will not serve on any ship with him.

And if he tends to give mostly Superiors with a smattering of Outstandings and Acceptables? That's someone who's clearly trying to do a good job of honestly evaluating the performance of others. I'll fly with someone like that any day.

Note also that this system only shows ratings of other officers in the aggregate -- the names of the officers who have been rated and the ratings that Lt. Jenkins gave them are not shown. It might be appropriate for a player Admiral or your commanding officer (if the game is structured to have those) to see that information, but otherwise it should be private between the two characters directly concerned with the performance assessment.

One other thing: it should be acknowledged that this player-assessment system is starting to look a bit complicated. That's true. But that's what happens when you design systems to manage the interaction of human beings with each other in a relatively anonymous game environment. When it comes to making a system that can cope with the bizarre and just plain mean stuff that people will try to do to each other (often with the excuse that "it's just a game"), "simple" is always desirable but rarely possible.

Finally, while this "let players see another player's aggregated assessment results" feature is mostly about improving gameplay (by enhancing the checks and balances of a player interaction system), it's also got Star Trek overtones in that promotion and performance assessment were addressed many times, especially in the TNG+ era shows. Given that this is an important part of the world of Starfleet characters, it's not unreasonable to highlight it with some features in a Star Trek Online.

...

To that last point, it's worth noting in all of the comments in this thread -- and, in particular, in many of the specific things that AlexTaldren has been saying -- that deciding what makes for a good feature for this Star Trek Online game thing depends on more than one factor.

There's actually a pretty long list of constraints, including complexity and technical feasibility, but it's particularly important to note these two:


must be fun gameplay
must maximize the value of some distinctive feature of the Star Trek license

I get the feeling that a lot of folks coming to this forum are only thinking about one of these requirements. Some seem to want to assess every suggestion based on their opinion of its pure gameplay quality, while others ignore completely how well something might work as gameplay and judge it solely on whether it copies something once seen in a Star Trek episode.

I would gently suggest that both of these approaches are too narrow, and won't make Star Trek Online as good as it could be. Suggestions need to be evaluated on both counts -- is it likely to be fun, and does it fully exploit some valuable aspect of the license?

If it's not likely to be fun for most of the gamers who try STO, then it doesn't matter how faithful a rendition of Star Trek lore it is. Star Trek Online isn't a movie or a book, it's a game. But at the same time, if a suggested feature doesn't do anything to help players immerse themselves in the Star Trek universe, then it doesn't matter how clever a pure gameplay feature it is. Cryptic presumably paid good money for the license to make an online Star Trek game; every feature needs to extract value from that license.

What's notable about AlexTaldren's design proposal (as well as Random Redshirt's (http://forums.startrekonline.com/showthread.php?t=3749)) is that so many of the features in it are clearly intended to satisfy both of these requirements -- fun gameplay that exploits a distinctive element of the Star Trek license. I suspect that if there's a reason for the very positive response that this proposal has received (and, IMO, deserves), this respect shown to the needs of both gameplay and Star Trek fidelity is at the heart of it.

Nicely done!

--Flatfingers

[Flatfingers]

Players on board your ship have the ability to switch between two modes of play: Character-Control, which lets them walk around the interior and access different consoles, and Combat-Control, which gives them a view very similar to SFC.

This is how I'd like to see it work as well, but I'd like to add that there's no reason why both of these views couldn't be available simultaneously to every player on that ship.

On your (the player's) physical computer monitor, you'd have three possible views that you could bring up when your ship goes into combat mode:

Visual: 3rd-person external ship view with character-appropriate controls overlaid
Schematic: Console view showing highly detailed information of the type appropriate for the character's role
Merged: 3rd-person in one sub-window, reduced tactical in another sub-window, possibly other windows as well

Visual view would be the cinematic option -- it's where the pretty explosions would happen. Players who prefer this visceral approach to combat should be able to select the display of nicely rendered 3D models and fill their screen with it. The controls they need to accomplish the actions that are appropriate for their character would be GUI elements overlaid on that "external camera" display. For example, Helm's overlay would be ship movement controls; Engineering's overlay would be ship system status data and damage control team movements; and so on.

Schematic view would provide a stylized image of the ship and its systems (maybe something like an MSD (http://www.memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Master_systems_display)), and all possible forms of information and control related to the character's role. If you're a Tactical character, for example, you'd see a diagram of the ship and surrounding space, including the aggressor ships, with readouts on all tactically relevant data, and surrounding that would be the controls for weapons and defensive systems. A Science character's Schematic view, by contrast, might focus more on controls for the ship's sensors and on working with the ship's computer to integrate sensor data into useful information for the Tactical officer.

And Merged view, as noted, would put the pretty visuals in one subwindow and the schematic in another subwindow so that you can enjoy both kinds of play experience.

(Note: Each of these views would probably also need to include an area showing the interior of your ship's bridge, including your fellow bridge officers. That crew-focused representation is an important part of the Star Trek experience.)

And as a final nice-to-have, I'd hope that players could set an option somewhere to specify which kind of display mode is entered automatically (with character acknowledgement) when ship combat mode is entered.

In short, I don't know of any reason why people would think that only console view or only 3rd-personal external view is necessary. Done right, both kinds of combat data representation could be made available to players. if you're in it for the adrenaline rush, maximize the 3rd-person screen. If you're there for the Star Trek "working as a team of officers" experience, maximize the schematic data view. Or have both, albeit not as large or as detailed.

Easy for me to say, since I don't have to pay the programmers and artists to do both, but still. :p

--Flatfingers

[Kinneas]

Both Mr. Taldren and Random Redshirt get my blood pumping. In a good way.

Trust is really important these days and I trust them.

I'd like to say I have played every Trek game made...but I haven't. I have played them as far back as dumb terminal teletype machines (punch card era. : yawn : ).

While I do not know Mr. Taldren, I do understand his contribution to Trek games and how I felt playing Taldren Star Trek games for the first time. It was historic. Milestones in Trek gaming. ( Don't forget the inspiration: Star Fleet Battles )

Since then, IMO it has been developing the other aspects of Trek gaming that could one day come together for a MMO. It is combining the Best of the Best ("of the best, sir!")

The time is now.

I believe he does understand what folks in the community have wanted beyond SFC and what a good majority of long-term players may want. I have to trust him.

Just as I would automatically trust Lawrence Holland if he showed up here and told us what he believes folks wanted after Bridge Commander.

I'm guessing they both would say similar things.
---
I have spent some time talking with Random Redshirt and he feels like a kindred spirit in Trek...I get the honor or spending almost a whole week with him in Las Vegas soon.

[AlexTaldren]

This is how I'd like to see it work as well, but I'd like to add that there's no reason why both of these views couldn't be available simultaneously to every player on that ship.

On your (the player's) physical computer monitor, you'd have three possible views that you could bring up when your ship goes into combat mode:

Visual: 3rd-person external ship view with character-appropriate controls overlaid
Schematic: Console view showing highly detailed information of the type appropriate for the character's role
Merged: 3rd-person in one sub-window, reduced tactical in another sub-window, possibly other windows as well

Visual view would be the cinematic option -- it's where the pretty explosions would happen. Players who prefer this visceral approach to combat should be able to select the display of nicely rendered 3D models and fill their screen with it. The controls they need to accomplish the actions that are appropriate for their character would be GUI elements overlaid on that "external camera" display. For example, Helm's overlay would be ship movement controls; Engineering's overlay would be ship system status data and damage control team movements; and so on.

Schematic view would provide a stylized image of the ship and its systems (maybe something like an MSD (http://www.memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Master_systems_display)), and all possible forms of information and control related to the character's role. If you're a Tactical character, for example, you'd see a diagram of the ship and surrounding space, including the aggressor ships, with readouts on all tactically relevant data, and surrounding that would be the controls for weapons and defensive systems. A Science character's Schematic view, by contrast, might focus more on controls for the ship's sensors and on working with the ship's computer to integrate sensor data into useful information for the Tactical officer.

And Merged view, as noted, would put the pretty visuals in one subwindow and the schematic in another subwindow so that you can enjoy both kinds of play experience.

(Note: Each of these views would probably also need to include an area showing the interior of your ship's bridge, including your fellow bridge officers. That crew-focused representation is an important part of the Star Trek experience.)

And as a final nice-to-have, I'd hope that players could set an option somewhere to specify which kind of display mode is entered automatically (with character acknowledgement) when ship combat mode is entered.

In short, I don't know of any reason why people would think that only console view or only 3rd-personal external view is necessary. Done right, both kinds of combat data representation could be made available to players. if you're in it for the adrenaline rush, maximize the 3rd-person screen. If you're there for the Star Trek "working as a team of officers" experience, maximize the schematic data view. Or have both, albeit not as large or as detailed.

Easy for me to say, since I don't have to pay the programmers and artists to do both, but still. :p

--Flatfingers

Ah, I agree with you. That's why I said I envisioned something similar to that of SFC, with the console on the left side of the cinematic screen. To force a player to be able to only see one view at a time would go against my entire belief of giving options for styles of gameplay.

In fact, in most cases, players will have to keep both views up at once in order to do their best. A helmsman certainly can't execute complicated flight patterns if he/she doesn't have any idea where his/her ship is relative to the enemy.

Addressing Player Ratings for Un-Guilded Players

Some have brought up the issue of players who aren't guilded getting the shaft because other Captains won't bother giving them ratings and, therefore, that player can't progress.

I just want to reiterate that the rating system has more to do with character depth and promotions than it does will skill levels. Remember, a player could have maxed out skills levels for their area of focus and STILL be an Ensign. Why? Well, maybe they don't want a higher rank and turn down Promotion offers.

On the flip side, after any mission, the highest ranking Command officer available should be required to rate each player involved in the mission. While, at the same time, each player is required to rate the highest ranking Commander.

Savage 2: A Tortured Soul, which is a rather unknown game that combines FPS, RPG, and RTS genres into one, has a rating system as well. At the end of each match, players can give Karma points to other players and write comments about that player. Furthermore, before progressing, they must rate their commander out of 5 stars.

I know there are some people saying, "But people could just rate each other 5 stars every single time and progress faster that way!" Well, not exactly. Progression in terms of rank is based on a lot more than player-to-player ratings.

Players should have to meet several different requirements before even being eligible for "promotion." This way a Captain couldn't take an Ensign straight through the ranks to Commander status in a matter of hours. Things like Total Successful Missions, Efficieny, Skill Levels, Player Rating, Successful Mission to Failed Mission Ratios, etc. are some of the examples of these categories, and the player would have to meet certain levels of each before being able to be offered a promotion.

[TheMasterpiece]

Some of it sounds good, some is bad though. You shouldnt have to buy crewman. A ship has a captain, officers, and crewmen. Thats what makes it up. Crewmen should come with the ship. And puzzles? no way, i swear if a see a puzzle in this game when i should be in combat im gonna quit.

I do really like having manned ships by people. My biggest excitement about this game is still starting off as an ensign and manning a position on a starship having my own responsabilities to take care of.

Finally, id rather see more space base content than on planets. Planets can be involved but id like most of it to take place in or around ships, starbases, shipyards and whatnot.

[AlexTaldren]

Some of it sounds good, some is bad though. You shouldnt have to buy crewman. A ship has a captain, officers, and crewmen. Thats what makes it up. Crewmen should come with the ship. And puzzles? no way, i swear if a see a puzzle in this game when i should be in combat im gonna quit.

I do really like having manned ships by people. My biggest excitement about this game is still starting off as an ensign and manning a position on a starship having my own responsabilities to take care of.

Finally, id rather see more space base content than on planets. Planets can be involved but id like most of it to take place in or around ships, starbases, shipyards and whatnot.

NPC crewman shouldn't be an endless and valueless comodity. The main idea is that you'd fill your crew with REAL crewman, and they wouldn't cost anything to bring aboard. However, rather than cost some form of currency, which really doesn't work (at least for the Federation), Prestige points would be a nice substitute. So, as a Captain you gain Prestige that you can later use to upgrade your ship, bring aboard NPC crewman, perform repairs, etc.

More space content than planet content is a must. Obviously, there isn't enough time nor resources to fully develop the surface of every planet in the MMO, so it would be much more advantageous to concentrate on the space aspect. Especially when you consider ways to incorporate things like science exploration, which shouldn't be neglected. Combat isn't always the focus, so exploratory missions to "randomly" generated areas of space with "random" enemy/pirate encounters and strange phenomena is a must.

[Hyperion2206]

Have a look at this:

http://atwell.stgu.com/?p=profession

This was done by LT. CDR. Atwell and I think this is how it should be done!

[Kinneas]

Atwell's work. : Le swoon :

[Falin]

twell was a great artist, but his concept is ll wrong, there shouldn't be any "paths" players should ge point and spread them wherever they want in skills, the more the spend down one tree, the ebtetr they are at it. or maybe they want to be a jack of all trades, well they spend point across the board and become equal at all, but never great.

as the player progresses they could either take a pagefrom Eve's book and have to player just train skills over time, or they could give points as rewards for missions an have the player apply the points.

both ways work, the game has to be a free forn, open Skill based system, otherwise it just won't work and payers will become min-max zombies.

[RandomRedshirt]

twell was a great artist, but his concept is ll wrong, there shouldn't be any "paths" players should ge point and spread them wherever they want in skills, the more the spend down one tree, the ebtetr they are at it. or maybe they want to be a jack of all trades, well they spend point across the board and become equal at all, but never great.

as the player progresses they could either take a pagefrom Eve's book and have to player just train skills over time, or they could give points as rewards for missions an have the player apply the points.

both ways work, the game has to be a free forn, open Skill based system, otherwise it just won't work and payers will become min-max zombies.

What you describe is similar to the point system that was used in "Fable" of which I am a great fan, however the difference for Fable is that the scales tilted based on how you played.

For example, if you tended towards more Melee oriented combat, you got a substantially increased amount of melee points. Granted, you still got the magic points too, but they weren't as high.

I'd like to see that in STO. If you tend to be Medical, then the points you get would fall more along the lines of the medical skills tree, but you would also get points for any phaser combat or diplomatic skills you used, etc.

[Falin]

well i'd say let th points be generic, but only allow certain higher skills in the path to open up if you tend to do more than somethings.

like if you've taken slots mostly as a tactical officer, maybe there's a high level skill that let's you get a bonus for aiming 2 phasers of a ship simultaniously, but you couldn't get it unless you've don'e a lot of tactical applications.

or maybe, if you've pumped most of your points into medical, you'll unlock the higher medical skills, but once you've unlocked one set of higher skills, you can never unlock a different paths top skills. these skills would the the "legendary" skills.

[Dext]

Vary good but you have a lot of time on your hands

[Elfender]

The hard core fan base alone while fairly large is probably not enough to make this game a success, it needs to have a broader appeal. The devs will have their work cut out for them on this one. Not only will they need to keep the fan base happy, but they will also need to create a game that will appeal to those of us that don't speak Klingon :D. That is going to be tough! (I was just kidding on the Klingon thing I don’t think that all hard core fans speak Klingon OK.)

Your concepts sound great, my concern is that I'm not sure how much fun they would be for the average player in the long run. What I'd like to see is what could be done to take your ideas and incorporate them into the game in a way that would also be fun for the rest of us. I want the best of both worlds.:)

let me first state, i am a trek geek... watch the series whenever ot comes on (if im not doing somthing else) i've played every game (lame as some of them were **Cough** Legacy **Cough**), and i'm pretty much set to bounce in my chair excitedly when a new movie/game is announced.

That being said, i think the hard core gamers and Trek fans are whats gonna make this game last, lets face it, you've got a franchise which boasts a LARGE fanbase (as large or larger than Star Wars) that want a True trek world. most have stated if you want to command a starship online everytime you log on without having to earn it, play one of the simulators. We know it wont be easy to build a world like we want it, but trek fan will pay for it, and thier some of the most loyal and devoted fans in the world. We Also know this, like any other game, is supposed to draw a profit, but think on it like this: Suppose they try, like the billions (a slight exageration i know:rolleyes:) of other MMO's that have risen and fallen, to cater to the "casual" gamer...now suppose they fail (which has happend to many promising games)...now not only do they have a dissapointed fan base (some or even most of which might still play anyway dependin on how good they did make it.) but they've lost much of thier casual player base too, sending this game to MMO Heaven (see: WoW, who repeatedy has shown a inclanation to cater to the hard core raiding/PvPing playe.) so, in case you didnt catch that, most everyone i've read on this foums (though admitedly not all) do not want a space sim, been here done that.

Now im a casual player, i dont always have the time to devote to raiding or constant PvP in WoW to get the best gear, but when i want to PvP, im routinely stomped by those who do, so i'm in favor of a coperatively operated ship that rely's on a crews skill, ingenuity and tenacity (ala star trek cannon) rather than the everyones the cowboy hero variety of game, if i want that, ill play WoW or Warhamer, or Tabula Rasa, or CoH/CoV, or Conan etc etc.

as for ranks and achievements, i would also not like a grind-fest (Killin mobs, grinding quests) so i am looking for a wide variety of other ways to fullfil the "leveling system" and a large variety of missions rather than the 5 classic templates (talk to, deliver, kill, find, collect.) how thie is to be accomplished, i wish i could help there, but i've not spent a good deal of time actually thinkingon it (as i do have a semblace of a life....sometimes) but then, to be blunt, im also not paid to think of these life changing ideas placed within these hallowed e-cooridoors of though. :p

i think i've ranted enough... ^_^

[ivniciix]

An interesting and well thought out presentation which I have only a few objections to.

1) I think that guilds are too important in this proposal. While I agree with most all the basic mechanics, I think limiting ship "ownership" to guilds is too limiting. I nfact, I think access to ships should be a function of "rank" gained through completing missions.

2) I'm of the opinion that any ship should be operable by no more than 5-6 players. I strongly agree with the division of labor concept wherein players can specialize in certain skill trees and be Science, Tactical, Engineering, Medical, etc. officers. My concern with the OP's structure is that player roles would become to narrow to be much fun. I'd rather see players given some number of NPC's to command who would carry out their orders. These would potentially be lost/injured during a battle thus requiring a re-allocation of the remaining ones.

3) I think "puzzles" belong in pve missions which are designed as the source for acquring and improving a players skills and should not be a feature of pvp combat. However and as an example, an engineering officer who needs to fix a damaged power conduit during a battle might well have to do it by taking parts from somewhere else, rerouting power, assigning some of his npc's to accomplish these tasks and still be monitoring for additional damage that requires his attention. I don't consider this to be a "puzzle" since it would not be a unique and new set of tasks but rather the stringing together of skills and procedures he'd learned/done/practiced previously in pve missions.

All in all, this post, along with RandomRedshirt's (http://forums.startrekonline.com/showthread.php?t=3749) goes a long way towards defining the ST:O game most people would love to play...in droves.

[AlexTaldren]

An interesting and well thought out presentation which I have only a few objections to.

1) I think that guilds are too important in this proposal. While I agree with most all the basic mechanics, I think limiting ship "ownership" to guilds is too limiting. I nfact, I think access to ships should be a function of "rank" gained through completing missions.

If you go back and read my original thread you'll notice that I made absolutely NO mention of guild-only ship ownership. In fact, there is an entire section about the un-guilded players owning starships.

2) I'm of the opinion that any ship should be operable by no more than 5-6 players. I strongly agree with the division of labor concept wherein players can specialize in certain skill trees and be Science, Tactical, Engineering, Medical, etc. officers. My concern with the OP's structure is that player roles would become to narrow to be much fun. I'd rather see players given some number of NPC's to command who would carry out their orders. These would potentially be lost/injured during a battle thus requiring a re-allocation of the remaining ones.

I definitely didn't definet his too rigidly when I wrote originally. However, since then I've been more inclined to take a look at this. I'm thinking of needing enough players to man the main consoles on the bridge and one player to man a console in engineering. However, while a select few are handling combat, the rest of the crew would need something to do, depending on how many there are. Therefore, in combat situations, it may make sense create random events. For example, during combat, random explosions could occur that damange certain systems and consoles on different decks. Then, the players who aren't managing a combat console would be tasked with repairing consoles, or sealing hull breaches, etc.

For medical crewman, NPC crewman could randomly file into Sick Bay with varying types of injuries. Then the medical crewman would have to treat their wounds. It would be difficult to have a way for human players to be injured prior to boarding raids, but if boarding raids occurred during ship-to-ship combat then it could be a possibility.

3) I think "puzzles" belong in pve missions which are designed as the source for acquring and improving a players skills and should not be a feature of pvp combat. However and as an example, an engineering officer who needs to fix a damaged power conduit during a battle might well have to do it by taking parts from somewhere else, rerouting power, assigning some of his npc's to accomplish these tasks and still be monitoring for additional damage that requires his attention. I don't consider this to be a "puzzle" since it would not be a unique and new set of tasks but rather the stringing together of skills and procedures he'd learned/done/practiced previously in pve missions.

All in all, this post, along with RandomRedshirt's (http://forums.startrekonline.com/showthread.php?t=3749) goes a long way towards defining the ST:O game most people would love to play...in droves.

I agree with the assessment for "puzzles." To be able to just click a button and complete an action, while certainly doable, doesn't strike me as requiring much skill. However, if some form of step could be added in certain cases, I think it would make the result seem more worthwhile, especially if skill progression is involved.

I'm glad you enjoyed the ideas.

[ivniciix]

If you go back and read my original thread you'll notice that I made absolutely NO mention of guild-only ship ownership. In fact, there is an entire section about the un-guilded players owning starships.

OK. I stand corrected after rereading the solo player section. My remaining quibble would be about "ownership" and this is limited to Alliance Fleet/Miltary ships. I'm inclinded towards something like the approach RandomRedShirt outlines where players simply unlock access to a great variety of ships as they gain rank - of which there are only a few and widely seperated in the time they take to earn. Ranks are not the same as skill levels.

The reason I like this approach is simply that "ownership" of something like the Enterprise is beyond the capacity of anything or one short of a Sovereign State. So why make ships personal possesions but rather allow players access to any ship suitable to their rank. This would not have to mean that your Defiant class ship went back into some user pool when you could command something larger, just that you now had access to both ships.

I suppose part of why this approach also works for me is that I see players and their skill sets as being the primary enhancement to any ship and not modified gear you have retrofitted to it. The skill to build and install such a retrofit should be placed in ( and most importantly, EARNED BY) the player who can then make that modification to any ship he's one that can support it.

[AlexTaldren]

OK. I stand corrected after rereading the solo player section. My remaining quibble would be about "ownership" and this is limited to Alliance Fleet/Miltary ships. I'm inclinded towards something like the approach RandomRedShirt outlines where players simply unlock access to a great variety of ships as they gain rank - of which there are only a few and widely seperated in the time they take to earn. Ranks are not the same as skill levels.

The reason I like this approach is simply that "ownership" of something like the Enterprise is beyond the capacity of anything or one short of a Sovereign State. So why make ships personal possesions but rather allow players access to any ship suitable to their rank. This would not have to mean that your Defiant class ship went back into some user pool when you could command something larger, just that you now had access to both ships.

I suppose part of why this approach also works for me is that I see players and their skill sets as being the primary enhancement to any ship and not modified gear you have retrofitted to it. The skill to build and install such a retrofit should be placed in ( and most importantly, EARNED BY) the player who can then make that modification to any ship he's one that can support it.

I see your point, but I must disagree. To me, the starship practically becomes a character. They always have in the series and the characters certainly build a type of relationship with the ships they serve aboard. A Star Trek MMO should really give a player that same sense of feeling.

If you could just switch from one type of ship to the next, it defeats the purpose of Captains selecting their favorites, not to mention making combat less exciting. Here's an example:

Federation Captains are using a variety of ships at the moment to do missions, etc. Suddenly, there is a starbase under attack in the contested region of space. All the Federation Captains quickly port at the nearest starbase and just select the largest, most heavily armed starship. All of a sudden you have 100+ Captains all flying the exact same ship to fight in PvP.

Obtaining, serving aboard, and owning a starship should be more like selecting a player class. Once you select the type you want (if you're a Captain) you should stick with it. If you want to switch to a different ship, there should be a process involving Prestige points, making it so you can't just switch on a moment's notice.

Players should feel attached to the ships they own and serve on--otherwise, those ships become nothing more than 3D models in a virtual space.

[Elfender]

actually, not sure Alex if you've made this point, but i dont think Captain should be a selected class. Historicaly captains have been raised from many different branches of starfleet from security to engineering (even medical, though Beverly was only captain in one episode :P). i think giving everyon the chance to work thier way up to captain would be the best wa to do that.

I do agree that everyone who gets command of a ship should stick to the ship until thier promoted to a lager class, as this also its a historical presidence off of not nly trek, but realistic Navl tradition. Being up to jump to any ship your "command rating" allows would turn an MMO into a geneic multiplayer space sim.

[AlexTaldren]

actually, not sure Alex if you've made this point, but i dont think Captain should be a selected class. Historicaly captains have been raised from many different branches of starfleet from security to engineering (even medical, though Beverly was only captain in one episode :P). i think giving everyon the chance to work thier way up to captain would be the best wa to do that.

I do agree that everyone who gets command of a ship should stick to the ship until thier promoted to a lager class, as this also its a historical presidence off of not nly trek, but realistic Navl tradition. Being up to jump to any ship your "command rating" allows would turn an MMO into a geneic multiplayer space sim.

You make an excellent point Elfender. However, this would mean taking a closer look at exactly how players obtain the rank of Captain. And, I think it would make sense to still leave one of the Academy areas as "Command" since there are red shirts that aren't Captains.

The idea of having a Starfleet Command, whether it's player controlled or AI controlled, would probably be the best solution for determining whether someone becomes a Captain.

Good thoughts, Elf.

[Squingleberg]

This is the game I hope STO will be! Well thought out Alex!

Maybe if you reach a high rank in a class that isn't command you can have the option of becoming Captain of a specialized ship, like high ranking Medical Officers can get access to special Medical Ships, the same with the other classes.

[Kudos17]

Wouldnt a possition like Chief Engineer be considered a command possition? Even if they don't wear the red. They may only command a crew of engineers, but command expereince is still command experience. Basically, command doesnt just mean Starship command, you could be in command of a squad of specialized combat marines, or command of a science team.

You may be given command of an away team by your captain, and that experience would lend to your command expereince. Once you have enough command xp, then you may be offered a ship/promotion of your own.

All in all though Alex, you have some really great ideas:D

[Squingleberg]

Wouldnt a possition like Chief Engineer be considered a command possition? Even if they don't wear the red. They may only command a crew of engineers, but command expereince is still command experience. Basically, command doesnt just mean Starship command, you could be in command of a squad of specialized combat marines, or command of a science team.

You may be given command of an away team by your captain, and that experience would lend to your command expereince. Once you have enough command xp, then you may be offered a ship/promotion of your own.

All in all though Alex, you have some really great ideas:D
Thats a good point Kudos. There should be other ways to get Command Points (other than Starfleet Acadamy) that would make higher ranks availble. For instance, maybe players can choose to take a group of NPC players on an away mission to gain more command points.

Also, I just remembered...

One problem here is how to manage having a lot of your guild on at once. Do you cap away missions to a max number, and if so, what are the rest of the players supposed to do while it’s underway. Well, this is the beauty of Star Trek–there is soo much to do on the ship! While a group of 12 are on an away mission, the rest of the players could be services certain systems, decorating their living quarters, hanging out in the mess hall, managing the bridge, or playing on the holodecks.

There could also be many different away missions on a single planet, so you have multiple away teams doing different missions (or the same ones but in a different location).

[AlexTaldren]

Also, I just remembered...

There could also be many different away missions on a single planet, so you have multiple away teams doing different missions (or the same ones but in a different location).

My thoughts exactly. Due to technology restraints, away missions will probably be instanced, meaning that teleporting down to one will create an instance. Therefore, it would be reasonable to think more than one could be going on at once.

Some planets could also have open areas, where all players are in the same instance interacting with each other. An example of this would be the Academy.

[Squingleberg]

It makes sense. I really hope this is how Cryptic will handle this game. That damn count down timer on the web site is driving me crazy, it doesn't count down fast enough

[eycel]

good stuff..I think its to indepth in parts tho, there might be some parts that more then having to explain stuff to the extream that your going into, such as like seperate ranks? and when u explained boarding other ships, couldnt u just leave it to pvp?

[Djin]

Interesting, but too bad you're not making the game...

And if Cryptic is releasing a movie of game play in the next week, they pretty much have the game in stone...

[CdrWolfe]

Excellant, excellant thread, has been a joy to read. If only the game is half as good as this i'am sure it will be a success.

Regards Wolfe

[WastedYouth]

I really hope the game will be like what Alex wrote.

[AlexTaldren]

good stuff..I think its to indepth in parts tho, there might be some parts that more then having to explain stuff to the extream that your going into, such as like seperate ranks? and when u explained boarding other ships, couldnt u just leave it to pvp?

Well, it isn't perfect, I'll admit. Sitting down and hammering something like that out in 2 hours' time is bound to be sketchy. However, explaining the boarding of ships as just "PvP Goes Here," seemed a little too...vague. It was important that I outlined specific ideas that I had so people could comment properly. If I just said, "PvP," then people would be more inclined to go, "Well, duh!"

My original ideas aren't perfect. And, the best part about outlining them is that a lot of other people have had the chance to comment and criticize. I've already read a number of suggestions and ideas that can replace some of my own--they are that good.

I really think that this gaming community has a ton of fresh ideas. The more Cryptic pay attention, the more successful they will be at releasing a fun and interesting game.

[marshalleck]

I really think that this gaming community has a ton of fresh ideas. The more Cryptic pay attention, the more successful they will be at releasing a fun and interesting game.

This is the key really; understanding the demographic a Star Trek MMO attracts. Excellent ideas and posts by the way, really outstanding.

[James009]

Very excellent ideas! You seem to appreciate the general consensious of STO and what it could be. I like your reference to Puzzle Pirates... in the way the the crew needs to work together but I'm certain no one wants to play STO Pirates. However, I'm not certain how your "Command profession" would work... I liked the origional plan of having to work up a department (ex. Science) and earn your way into the "Command profession"... but maybe I just misunderstood.

Anyways, I'm adding this to my list.

[AlexTaldren]

Well, it would seem that a lot of the community's idea are rendered moot at this point. Now that the gameplay trailer has been released, it is clear that Cryptic already had a vision for STO well before they brought in the community. What will this mean for STO and the community in the long run? Right now it's too early to tell, but I've always been a firm believer that when a developer listens to the community (not just the biggest talkers or complainers) they tend to be more successful.

Regardless, it seems like many of the ideas we've come up with for STO won't be gracing a Star Trek game in a long time... at least not within the next 7+ years.

[Djin]

Well, it would seem that a lot of the community's idea are rendered moot at this point. Now that the gameplay trailer has been released, it is clear that Cryptic already had a vision for STO well before they brought in the community. What will this mean for STO and the community in the long run? Right now it's too early to tell, but I've always been a firm believer that when a developer listens to the community (not just the biggest talkers or complainers) they tend to be more successful.

Regardless, it seems like many of the ideas we've come up with for STO won't be gracing a Star Trek game in a long time... at least not within the next 7+ years.

Which ideas are those?

I must say that Cryptic did do one hell of a time hyping the game up and saying there's a lot of good things in the game.

Seriously, what else do you need?

[Sam_Buddy]

I agree with the sentiment of the original poster about the revealed mechanics of the game and where he wishes to see changes. It seems to me that Cryptic is hanging on too tightly with the idea of "we must do something different!" in their next MMO game. After release, the game may be awesome and thousands of us will have to eat crow, but on the other hand, how may fans want to take gambles with their favorite IP? If the game ends up not fun will we be stuck with the product on the market for years like SW: Galaxies?

Many fans are speaking out in these forums and asking Cryptic to not go down the road they are leading the game right now. I cast my vote with them.

[tzapu]

Verry good post, wish I could somehow send the devs a mail about it :D

[Smavis]

i wonder if they know how many really smart people they will let down if they screw this up?

if the game turns out any different from how you've described there will be some gnar trekkie uproar

thanks for clarifying the idea that many of us share