[quote][i]Originally posted by Raltar[/i] [b][quote][i]Originally posted by Blurr[/i] K I'm gonna pick on your points about EVE. Don't mean to be nitpicky but EVE is actually a pretty good comparison because it's probably the closest thing we've got now to what STO will be like, as far as space combat anyways. [/quote] Blurr, as I told that other guy, comparing STO to EvE is like comparing Pong to Doom. STO has THREE ship types. EvE has probably more than FIFTY and thats assuming you devide the ships in EvE up into groups based on what skills are required to fly them. Its like comparing Pong and Doom. They may both have "projectiles" of a sort, but it doesn't make them the same kind of game. STO and EvE both take place in outer space and thats where any logical comparison between these two these two games would end.[/b][/quote]

Dude, STO has ALOT more than just 3 classes of ships:

Light Cruisers
Miranda  Class
Centaur  Class
Soyuz Class
 

 Science Vessel

Nova Class
Aurora Class
Quasar Class
 

 Escort

Saber Class
Rapier Class
Ushaan Class
 

 Cruiser

Constitution Class
Excalibur Class
Vesper Class
 

 Research Science Vessel

Olympic Class
Hope Class
Horizon Class
 

Heavy Escort

Akira Class
Zephyr Class
Norway (Oslo re-fit) Class

 Heavy Cruiser

Constellation Class
Stargazer Class
Dakota Class
 

 Long Range Science Vessel

Intrepid Class
Cochrane Class
Discovery Class
 

 Tactical Escort

Defiant Class
Vigilant Class
GallantClass
 

 Exploration Cruiser

Galaxy Class
Celestial Class
Envoy Class
 

 Deep Space Science Vessel

Luna Class
Sol Class
Polaris Class
 

 Fleet Escort

Prometheus Class
Phoenix Class
Cerberus Class
 

 Battle Cruiser

Sovereign Class
Noble Class
Majestic Class
 

Originally posted by Vespers Dude, STO has ALOT more than just 3 classes of ships:

Did you watch the video they put out where they said there were 3 basic classes of ships so strait from the devs that's what there is... You yourself even supported it with your big long list of ships... They're all variants of cruiser, science or escort. I'm not at all following the discussion but watch the video and look at your list.

Vespers,

We are talking about the three major TYPES of of ships, not each individual "class" of ship. The three types of ships we are talking about are Curisers/Engineering, Science and Escorts/Tactical.

I'm pretty sure we have all seen the list of non-functional links on the STO site to the various types of ships they haven't bothered to post descriptions for yet.

Originally posted by Raltar

Originally posted by Zeroxin

DUUUUUDE don't make me list you ship classes and roles and requirements for flying each ship in Eve, i'll do you a favour and let you go do your research. www.battleclinic.com seriously don't talk unless you know what you're talking about.

Zeroxin,

First off, the only way you could devide the ships in EvE up into "types" would be if you devided them up into the types of skills required to use them. Even then, there are still probably 10 times as many "types" of ships in EvE as there are in STO. So again, very little in common between those two games. Its like comapring Pong to Doom. They both have "projectiles" of a sort but it doesn't mean they have anything in common.

And your other post was just as much non-sense as the one quoted above. Just because you found a logistics ship in EvE doesn't mean that game has anything in common with STO. I've played both Guild Wars and EvE for YEARS and I can tell you for a fact you don't have the slightest clue what you are talking about.

But hey, if you do want to bring Guild Wars into this, anwser this for me: Do people choose builds in Guild Wars because they want to play as that perticular build, or do they choose builds based on what is most effecitve?

You and I both know the anwser to that. People will always build their characters, no matter what the game, in the manner which will result in the most effective strategy. So if the STO developers design their game in a way so that Cruisers make the best tanks, guess what ship all the players who want to play as tanks will fly in? This is a no-brainer people.

Dude you contradict yourself way more than a politician with amnesia, I wasn't even saying they had anything in common I was explaining to you that the developers were just trying to simplify the strategies in STO by saying they have a similar correlation to what we know as healers tanks and DPS as the other developers of Guild Wars and Eve onine would have explained the strategies they have for those games. And to prove to you that I play eve you can search for my character he's called Ceist Mashal, he's also famous for staying afk in wormhole space (just google the name). What you have done with your above post is totally ignore my points only to focus on what's in your head or what you think I'm saying and seeing as it is what you've been doing for the whole thread I don't see you stopping anytime soon....heheheh.

And I didnt FIND a logistics ship (seriously who is this guy?) their is a category for logistics ships and its there in your face is says LOGISTICS, there is a category for high dps ships -  Heavy Assault Cruisers (HACs), Heavy Assault Frigates, there is a category for speed ships, there is a category for ECM ships Electronic Attack Frigates, Interdictors there is category for high tanking ships Battleships, but just because they are not given the label of TANK DPS AND HEALERS doesn't mean they are not that or they are not there or they cannot fill those roles or they can't fit something else to change their role.

Seriously dude I really don't know where you get this stuff you keep spouting out.

Originally posted by Zeroxin

Originally posted by Raltar

Originally posted by Zeroxin

DUUUUUDE don't make me list you ship classes and roles and requirements for flying each ship in Eve, i'll do you a favour and let you go do your research. www.battleclinic.com seriously don't talk unless you know what you're talking about.

Zeroxin,

First off, the only way you could devide the ships in EvE up into "types" would be if you devided them up into the types of skills required to use them. Even then, there are still probably 10 times as many "types" of ships in EvE as there are in STO. So again, very little in common between those two games. Its like comapring Pong to Doom. They both have "projectiles" of a sort but it doesn't mean they have anything in common.

And your other post was just as much non-sense as the one quoted above. Just because you found a logistics ship in EvE doesn't mean that game has anything in common with STO. I've played both Guild Wars and EvE for YEARS and I can tell you for a fact you don't have the slightest clue what you are talking about.

But hey, if you do want to bring Guild Wars into this, anwser this for me: Do people choose builds in Guild Wars because they want to play as that perticular build, or do they choose builds based on what is most effecitve?

You and I both know the anwser to that. People will always build their characters, no matter what the game, in the manner which will result in the most effective strategy. So if the STO developers design their game in a way so that Cruisers make the best tanks, guess what ship all the players who want to play as tanks will fly in? This is a no-brainer people.

 

Dude you contradict yourself way more than a politician with amnesia, I wasn't even saying they had anything in common I was explaining to you that the developers were just trying to simplify the strategies in STO by saying they have a similar correlation to what we know as healers tanks and DPS as the other developers of Guild Wars and Eve onine would have explained the strategies they have for those games. And to prove to you that I play eve you can search for my character he's called Ceist Mashal, he's also famous for staying afk in wormhole space (just google the name). What you have done with your above post is totally ignore my points only to focus on what's in your head or what you think I'm saying and seeing as it is what you've been doing for the whole thread I don't see you stopping anytime soon....heheheh.

And I didnt FIND a logistics ship (seriously who is this guy?) their is a category for logistics ships and its there in your face is says LOGISTICS, there is a category for high dps ships -  Heavy Assault Cruisers (HACs), Heavy Assault Frigates, there is a category for speed ships, there is a category for ECM ships Electronic Attack Frigates, Interdictors there is category for high tanking ships Battleships, but just because they are not given the label of TANK DPS AND HEALERS doesn't mean they are not that or they are not there or they cannot fill those roles or they can't fit something else to change their role.

Seriously dude I really don't know where you get this stuff you keep spouting out.

http://www.startrekonline.com/ship_overview
 

It's best if you actually understand what is going on in the game.

The Official Site for STO only has 3 ship classes.  It has Science Vessels as EXPLICITLY being able to repair other ships (so the worst has come to pass, imho).  STO combat is going to be little more than WoW in space.

Oh, and for people thinking you can modify things to make it how you want, that doesn't seem to be as good as you might hope.  Escorts have damage bonuses and special "cannon" weapons that are high damage which only they can equip (e.g. escorts pack a bunch of damage bonuses innately).  Doesn't look like ship modification systems will do much to help here, since apparently they only give small, passive bonuses.

Also, don't get confused by ship tiers, which are clearly supposed to be a like gaining levels.  As you get up there you can get a better ship..  http://www.startrekonline.com/ship_overview/tiers so there in fact are not a bunch of different ship types.  Just various power levels of the 3 ship types.

Hmm, actually, things might be worse than I thought.  Right now it looks like Cruisers protect allies by extending shields.  Assuming this is remotely realistic, that is going to heavily hamper the maneuverability of escorts, since you'll have to stay close to the cruisers.  I assume they are going to end up giving cruisers some sort of ridiculous taunt ability.

Zeroxin, It seems like you are now just on a hostile rant about EvE, peppered with various insults. If you want to rant about EvE, okay. I'm not going to stop you. But this is the STO forum and this is a thread about ship types in STO and what their roles will be in STO. If you want to fight someone over what ship types in EvE are for and what they do then I suggest you go to the EvE forum for that.

Originally posted by Vespers

[quote][i]Originally posted by Raltar[/i] [b][quote][i]Originally posted by Blurr[/i] K I'm gonna pick on your points about EVE. Don't mean to be nitpicky but EVE is actually a pretty good comparison because it's probably the closest thing we've got now to what STO will be like, as far as space combat anyways. [/quote] Blurr, as I told that other guy, comparing STO to EvE is like comparing Pong to Doom. STO has THREE ship types. EvE has probably more than FIFTY and thats assuming you devide the ships in EvE up into groups based on what skills are required to fly them. Its like comparing Pong and Doom. They may both have "projectiles" of a sort, but it doesn't make them the same kind of game. STO and EvE both take place in outer space and thats where any logical comparison between these two these two games would end.[/b][/quote]

 

Dude, STO has ALOT more than just 3 classes of ships:

Light Cruisers
Miranda  Class
Centaur  Class
Soyuz Class
 

 Science Vessel

Nova Class
Aurora Class
Quasar Class
 

 Escort

Saber Class
Rapier Class
Ushaan Class
 

 Cruiser

Constitution Class
Excalibur Class
Vesper Class
 

 Research Science Vessel

Olympic Class
Hope Class
Horizon Class
 

Heavy Escort

Akira Class
Zephyr Class
Norway (Oslo re-fit) Class

 

 Heavy Cruiser

Constellation Class
Stargazer Class
Dakota Class
 

 Long Range Science Vessel

Intrepid Class
Cochrane Class
Discovery Class
 

 Tactical Escort

Defiant Class
Vigilant Class
GallantClass
 

 Exploration Cruiser

Galaxy Class
Celestial Class
Envoy Class
 

 Deep Space Science Vessel

Luna Class
Sol Class
Polaris Class
 

 Fleet Escort

Prometheus Class
Phoenix Class
Cerberus Class
 

 Battle Cruiser

Sovereign Class
Noble Class
Majestic Class
 

  Theres 3 choices per rank up cruiser, science and escort and thats what your looking at except you just removed the ranks like captain and admiral the latest video states the cruiser is a tank, escort is dps and the science is support

Originally posted by Raltar

Zeroxin, It seems like you are now just on a hostile rant about EvE, peppered with various insults. If you want to rant about EvE, okay. I'm not going to stop you. But this is the STO forum and this is a thread about ship types in STO and what their roles will be in STO. If you want to fight someone over what ship types in EvE are for and what they do then I suggest you go to the EvE forum for that.

You seriously should consider politics.

@ Drachasor;

Thanks for clearing that up, we'll see what happens in-game.

I haven't bothered to read the entire post, but since it was mentioned, Naval Combat in WWII certainly reflected different classes of ships...but they do NOT even remotely resemble the Tank, Healer, DPS  dynamic that STO is pushing. I'm all for STO having different classes of ships...but those classes should make at least a MINIMAL amount of sense for the subject they are dealing with. Given that my degree happens to be in history and WWII was my main area of study (though not as much on the naval side). I'll try to provide something remotely resembling a class breakdown for them:

Screens/Pickets:  This role was mostly filled by Destroyers. They were NOT tanks in any sense of the word. They were reasonably small ships which were reasonably fast and manuverable.  Their job was to be stationed at the periphery of a fleet or task force and act as a sort of early warning system. They were supposed to prevent subs or smaller craft from slipping past and engaging the main body of the fleet at close range.  They were particularly well suited, equiped and trained for Anti Submarine Warfare. They had some air defenses and could add to the overall Flak defense of a task force....normaly for air defence they would take up a diamond shape pattern around a capital ship to aid in air defense.

They had light armor and light guns (5 inch guns were common). Many did carry Torpedoes which could be quite deadly to capital ships if they got into effective range of the weapon.  This generaly happaned in poor spotting/radar detection conditions.

If spotted at range capital ships would blow them out of the water long before they could get into effective engagement range.

They also saw significant duty as escorts for cargo vessels in hostile waters.

The USN Mahan and Fletcher class are typical examples.

Capital Ships: These were Large extremely expensive vessels that packed extremely powerfull long range guns and heavy armor. As such, they generaly surrendered speed for this. Their job was to engage and kill other surface vessels at range. They also provided heavy fire support for coastal ground operations and amphibious landings.  They were particularly vulnerable to air and submarine attacks.  Properly these should be broken down into many different sub-classes each with thier own particular emphasis (Light Cruiser, Heavy Cruiser, Battle Cruiser, Pocket Battleship, Battleship, etc) but for the sake of sumplicity they could be lumped together in one general class.

The German Bismark Class Battleships, USN Iowa Class Battleships and Royal Navy Admiral Class Battle-Cruisers would be examples.

Aircraft Carriers: These of course were the big technical innovation of WWII. Mobile air-fields, they could launch waves of planes capable of engaging and destroying ships hundereds of miles away. They were also, of course, used to provide defensive air cover for freindly fleet. They had excellent air-defense between thier local CAP and native flak armaments. However if they got into effective range of an enemy capital ships guns or a submarine slipped past their escort screen. They were dead.

The USN Essex Class and IJN Soryu Class were historical examples.

Submarines: Hunter-Killers, thier job was to use stealth to get in optimal torpedo range of surface vessels (the bigger and slower the better) and sink them with torpedoes and the escape undetected. Thier nemisis was the destroyer who's job it was to detect them with sonar and then engage and kill them with depth charges. Also destroyers could be easly sunk by the strike of a tropedo... thier size, speed and manueverability made that much more of a challange then most other ships.

Historical Examples would be the German Type VII U-boat and the IJN Type B1 Submarine

Torpedo Boats:  These were extremely small, fast and manuverable craft with shallow draft. They were equiped with Torpedos and were meant to overwhelm an enemy forces screens with pure numbers and get in quickly and launch thier Torpedoes at enemy capital ships. They were particulary adept at operating in consctricted waters.

The USN  PT boats and German E-boats were historical examples.

Support Vessels:  There were a whole host of other vessels that were neccesary to support naval operations. These ranged from oilers to  minsweepers, hospital ships, etc.  Though essential in the logistical/strategic sense such vessels had NO ROLE in direct combat with other vessels. In fact, thier goal was to avoid engagements at all costs.

Thank you for that post, GrumpyMel2.  I said similar earlier, but your post was much clearer, I think.

I think STO could have borrowed from these concepts to have an interesting combat system.  Long range, but slow ships; Short Range ships that are fast and have a good attack;  Stealthy ships that are fairly weak if attacked, but great at attacking; and probably a couple others.  Carriers generally haven't been around in Star Trek, but given some of the DS9 stuff and the time jump, they certainly could have added them.  Compared to WW2 they would naturally have to boost up the effectiveness of Destroyers and some other ships if they wanted players to play them (or find some other reason to make them fun and exciting to play), but all of that is doable.  Sadly they went with a WoW...in.....Spaaaaaace model.

Edit:  They could have even let the Feds have Cloaking ships.  Since the Romulan Empire is basically destroyed AND the Feds are at war with the Klingons because they were protecting the Romulans it is perfectly reasonable to let the Fed-Romulan treaty forbidding fed cloaking to lapse, enabling all playable races to have cloaking ships.  Hence that could have been one of the ship types for tactical combat.  Oh well.

While I think they used a poor choice of words to describe the ship roles, they did use one's that everybody can identify with which will come in handy when selling it to investors / customers. 

I'd have to say that the roles they talked about would apply more to the STOCK versions of those ships, not any fact that 'you pick X ship and you're pigoenholed into X role'. 

Go back to the various TV series, ST - the Enterprise was a Heavy Cruiser but had lots of science labs on it for the exploration part of it's mission, same for the ST:TNG version.  ST:V - yes it was classed as a science vessal but it's job was to patrol the badlands and hunt the Marqui.  For that a science vessal was probably a good choice.  From the books about the Dominion War - lot's of ships had their science labs removed / deactivated and were 'converted' to 'warships'.

Nothing says that you can't take your escort class ship and beef up the shields to provide more 'tanking' ability.  Would probably be a good investment for the player that plays to totally solo it.

I will say that I don't like the abilities they described for a science vessal since all that says to me is they went too deep into the tank / DPS / healer roles.  They must have seen something in all that episode watching they said they did, then I ever caught.

Originally posted by Nebless

While I think they used a poor choice of words to describe the ship roles, they did use one's that everybody can identify with which will come in handy when selling it to investors / customers. 

I'd have to say that the roles they talked about would apply more to the STOCK versions of those ships, not any fact that 'you pick X ship and you're pigoenholed into X role'. 

Go back to the various TV series, ST - the Enterprise was a Heavy Cruiser but had lots of science labs on it for the exploration part of it's mission, same for the ST:TNG version.  ST:V - yes it was classed as a science vessal but it's job was to patrol the badlands and hunt the Marqui.  For that a science vessal was probably a good choice.  From the books about the Dominion War - lot's of ships had their science labs removed / deactivated and were 'converted' to 'warships'.

Nothing says that you can't take your escort class ship and beef up the shields to provide more 'tanking' ability.  Would probably be a good investment for the player that plays to totally solo it.

I will say that I don't like the abilities they described for a science vessal since all that says to me is they went too deep into the tank / DPS / healer roles.  They must have seen something in all that episode watching they said they did, then I ever caught.

Like every other Cryptic Game, they have made a Tank-Healer-DPS system for combat.  As far as I can tell, it isn't that they described those roles poorly it is those ARE the roles.  People saying otherwise need to actually read the info that's been posted on the STO website.
 

Escort ships have innate damage bonuses and can equip "cannons" which do more damage than other weapons.  They also have extra room for stuff that helps with damage (tactical systems).  This is a DPS, make no mistake.  Another ship type fitted to do DPS will not be able to reach the DPS of an Escort fitted to DPS.

Cruisers have extra engineering room (better repair in combat), the strongest shields, the ability to shield other vessels.  I assume they'll also be getting something to attract enemy attention (otherwise there is no reason for enemies to target a ship that does less damage than the Escorts).  E.g. they are tanks just like tanks in any other MMO.  It isn't bad word choice; it is just facts.

Science vessels can repair and heal other ships.  They have special debuff/buff effects.  In short, they are Healers/Casters from traditional MMOs.  They have more room for science modules than other ship types (meaning their debuffing will be more effective than any other ship class since it'll have more passive bonuses).

This is NOT how combat in Star Trek works.  All it is is making a ranged attack MMO with traditional mechanics and making it IN SPACE.

Yeah, you can try to make your Escort into a "tank", but it isn't going to have the large innate benefits a Cruiser will have, it won't have the extra module space a cruiser will have that reduces damage.  In short, it will be a crappy tank.  People in groups will NOT want this as a tank, as it will do a crappy role.  The same as in WoW before Paladins and Druids got a boost to be good tanks, or how someone in WoW with split talents isn't wanted for a specialized role.  Yeah, you might technically be able to modify it any way you want, but the number of times in Holy Trinity MMOs were you can find a non-Holy Trinity combat strategy are very, very, very small in number.  It's illogical to expect that STO will be one of the very few MMOs that allow an alternative combat methodology (and certainly the game won't be designed around it).  Now a hybrid build might be great if you only ever plan on soloing, but end-game stuff typically never works out well for such builds.

Yaaaaa, guess I should have typed that first sentence as 'hoped' although you're right that they went with a typical tank / DPS / Healer concept.  Guess original thinking was too much to ask for.

The thing that alot of you guys seem to fail to understand which is so problematic about this system is NOT that Crpytic is choosing to put ships into different classes/roles. That's totaly ok...I would expect that. It's ALSO NOT about whether they'll pidgeon hole you into fulfilling that particular role or not.....that's entirely beside the point.

The problem is that the PARTICULAR roles/classes that Cryptic picked make no sense for the context. The dynamic of how those classes would work makes no sense for the context. Tank/Healer/DPS roles don't fit for a NAVAL combat system. They don't even fit for a modern style ground combat system either...but that's another point. Those roles FIT passibly for a Fantasy Swords & Sorcery Combat System or a Super-Hero Combat System.... but really make no sense for SHIP vs SHIP combat in a Star Trek game.

If you look back to my previous post and look at the different roles that ships took.... for COMBAT ships (not talking logistics here)... there is no TANK/HEALER/DPS dynamic going on. The way those roles break down is based on the TYPE of DAMAGE that they deal, the manner in which they deliver that damage,  the defenses they have against different TYPES of DAMAGE and manners of delivering them. There are other factors too....but if you want to simplfy it....that's really what it breaks down to. NOTE that most SHIP vs SHIP combat games use that same sort of dynamic. If you look at Starfleet Battles for example....that's exactly the sort of dynamic they model as well.

It makes SENSE for the context it's used in.

For example (looking at WWII Naval Again)....

Destroyers:

 Defensively - Use speed, manuverability, small target profile and sonar for defenses. Thus they are good at defending at types of attacks which those defenses are effective for.  For instance they are geat at defending against torpedo attacks (particulary by submarines). Thier air-defenses are average, they have some flak guns (point defense weapons) but not alot...however thier size and speed make them more difficult targets. Thier light armor however is entirely ineffective to large caliber naval guns...of the type capital ships would employ at range.

Offensively - They have a good supply of depth charges, and the speed and manuverabilty to use them. They also have good Sonar capability to detect underwater objects. They have torpedoes which can deal a great deal of damage but only if they can close to short range. Thier naval guns are anemic by comparison and can't do much damage to armored targets.

Battleships:

Defensively - Use Heavy Armor and strong construction for defense. They are good at defending against attacks that those defenses are effective for....such as naval gunnery. However they have large target profiles and are slow to manuver. They are vulnerable to the types of attacks that prove effective against such targets. For instance they are extremely vulnerable to torpedo and air attacks.

Offensively - They have amazingly powerfull long range naval guns. They can reach out and smash surface vessels at long range. They aren't well equiped for Anti-Submarine warfare. Their Sonar and Depth Charge launchers (if they have them) aren't particularly impressive.

In a group dynmaic, destroyers would try to screen battleships from air and torpedo attack by engaging submarines and planes before they could reach the battleship.  Battleships would use thier long-range guns to force other surface vessels to engage them rather then the lightly armored destroyers escorting them.

THAT sort of dynamic would work for a SHIP vs SHIP combat game. Note the conspicious absence on TANK/HEALER/DPS roles there.

Originally posted by Label_This

They've completely missed the fact that ST ships can be retrofitted for different roles. Did they do any research into ST lore at all?

They've missed nothing, they simply do not care about what we think.

Think about this, in the second half of the video they talk about launching shuttles at enemy ships. Escort ships are small, fast, lightly-crewed ships with heavy weaponry like the defiant. Do you think they will be effective with boarding parties? I doubt they'll even be able to use them. In fact, i'd say the most likely candidate to do well with boarding parties is the cruiser class ships. They have a bigger crew, bigger ships, and more likely the ability to launch shuttles. What's that? A "tank" ship doing well with a damage/disable attack? Perish the thought! Just like an aircraft carrier can launch attack planes or troop carrying aircraft or sub-hunting aircraft. Multi-role warfare for each vessel.

My problem with this is every ship that can launch boarding party shuttles, those 'troops' are going to be NPCs.

It's all automated nonsense.  I personally think it would be much cooler to have everyone ON a ship, working together, even in a fight (though the entire game being based on war alone is incredibly insipid)...meaning every single person on a boarding shuttle, or in the engine room, or on the bridge, is represented by a live player.

Cryptic's idea of what most Star Trek fans were wanting is completely wrong.  We are being force fed another typical MMO clone.

Well, considering the way some of the people in this thread not only ignore counterpoints, but belabour the same points after they've been refuted, I'm half convinced there is some definate trolling going on in here. But let's put that to the side for the moment.

Things people need to realize:

- The phrase used in the video does NOT say "cruiser has to tank, escort has to dps, science has to heal".
- You have no hard facts on how much/little bonus the ship type gives over another ship. It may be a big advantage, but it may be a small advantage.
- Perhaps being Tactical captain in a Cruiser makes you more like a hybrid, good damage/defenses but not best at either.
- You have no hard facts on how much of a difference your Career makes compared to your Ship. It may be enough that your career determines your role no matter what ship you're in.
- Tanks can work because maybe dps/science ships are too maneuverable and harder to hit, or are being protected in some way by the tank, etc. Perhaps taking out the enemy group's tank cripples them more than you'd think. You won't have any hard facts on this either until you play the beta.
- Any of this stuff could also be changed because it is still beta.

And some more dev chat quotes for those people who were too busy bashing cryptic/sto to actually research:

Bizzaro_Daeke: <]AoA[Vmann|work> In play testing, have players gravitated to the trinity of MMO roles (healer/tank/DPS), and if so, any plans on how to break up the old and tired group formula for STO ship combat?

CripticZinc:Yes and no. Some people gravitate to those roles beacuse they're MMO players. It's a vocabulary that they know and is familiar. That being said - once people realize in what directions and limits they can customize their load-outs, what Bridge Officers they activate - they end up seeing that there's far more depth and team makeup to be had.

<@Bizarro_Rekhan> <exracon> Is it possible to level up all 3 trees enough that you will be able to pilot all 3 types equally well?

<@Cryptic_geko> Yes exracon. its on open skill system. but it will take you a while.
 

<@Bizarro_Rekhan> <muttw7> Will there be any reason other than personal preference to use small ships in end-game content and will there be incentive for a wide variety of ships in a fleet/task force/group for combat operations? For example, if I want to use the BoP will that be viable or will it hurt my group if I use it instead of the Negh'var in my hangar? I know you've said that tier and combat effectiveness isn't entirely dependent on size, but where is the line?

<@CrypticZinc> Yes!

<@CrypticZinc> We want to encourage fleets in the end game to be made up of many different configurations of ships.

<@Cryptic_geko> Yes, a player's Vor'cha ship is not necessarily better than another player's Bird of Prey. Toe-to-toe, a Vor'cha would pound a Bird of Prey. But a BoP is fast, hard to hit, and a master of cloaking in combat. BoPs can do cloaking runs, which balances the playing field very well.
 

Just a few things for you guys to think about. These were all easily gotten at http://www.startrekonline.com/dev_chats  . It really helps to do some research and know how the game mechanics work before claiming that the game is being ruined.

Blurr,

We are all well aware that the devs have said you can configure your ship in different ways and that they have denied that specific ships apply to specific roles.

But if thats true, then why does the video totally contradict that statement by telling us that the most effecitve players will be the ones who use ships for the roles they were designed for? It goes on to directly say that Cruisers are tanks, Science ships are support and Escorts are DPS.

The video contradicts what the developers have said elsewhere. Who should I believe?

Oh, and here is another one. In a different thread a guy just posted a link to an interview where one of the developers said this:

"One night you could use a Defiant class ship for a quick space battle, and the next night, you could change to a Science class ship – the healer – to support your guild. You can really change what role you play on the fly."

He directly tells us the Science ship is the healer and you would use it to support your guild. Clearly a defined role for the Science ships.

Apparently the video isn't the only contradiction.

After watching the video, it seems like they really have a dumbed down system in comparison to to EVE. This will no doubt suit people coming from fantasy MMOs to try their game, but it just looks pretty pathetic with very little of depth.

Going to wait for open beta to see whether this one is worth subscribing to.

Originally posted by Raltar

Blurr,

We are all well aware that the devs have said you can configure your ship in different ways and that they have denied that specific ships apply to specific roles.

But if thats true, then why does the video totally contradict that statement by telling us that the most effecitve players will be the ones who use ships for the roles they were designed for? It goes on to directly say that Cruisers are tanks, Science ships are support and Escorts are DPS.

The video contradicts what the developers have said elsewhere. Who should I believe?

 

Oh, and here is another one. In a different thread a guy just posted a link to an interview where one of the developers said this:

"One night you could use a Defiant class ship for a quick space battle, and the next night, you could change to a Science class ship – the healer – to support your guild. You can really change what role you play on the fly."

He directly tells us the Science ship is the healer and you would use it to support your guild. Clearly a defined role for the Science ships.

Apparently the video isn't the only contradiction.

Because once again you are conveniently missing the point and assuming black-and-white values in order to continue hating on the game.

Let me make this simple for you. Chances are you've probably played enough of WoW to know what a paladin is. In that game the paladin can be a tank or a healer or a dps, depending on how it's set up. If I were to talk about a guild run, perhaps I would use the paladin as a healer, then I would talk about him as the healer. We already know the science ship isn't just a healer, because it can be a disabler, buffer, or what have you. We also know that other ships can heal as well. He was just using a specific example of a loadout to make the point that you can change what role you play on the fly. You are taking a specific anecdote of the way a ship CAN be used, and assuming that that's the way it MUST be used.

Surely you see where you're wrong in doing that, right? We already know that science captains will be able to heal too. We know that any ship with a science bridge officer could have the ability to heal. We know that a science ship could have no healing ability whatsoever but still be very strong as a science ship. While it is defined as a POSSIBLE role, it is not the ONLY role.

This really shouldn't be that hard to grasp. Please also go re-read the points I mentioned about how we actually have no hard facts on just how much of a bonus/detriment your ship type will be compared to your career choices, bridge officer choices, gear choices, power settings choices, and so on.