Originally posted by Blurr

A: Both quotes were supposedly said by developers, I know mine definately was. There's no reason to think they're not both true. I have provided evidence of where my quote came from and it's there for anyone who wants to check it's validity.

B: You must admit you could be totally wrong, seeing as you haven't played the game, and all you're going by is what you assume.

C: EVE is a perfect example that while a specific ship has bonuses to make it the best in one role

D: I do assure you that it is quite possible to make an MMO which doesn't require you to become a sheep and copy everyone else.

E: You say players will go for the more powerful option, but what if the more powerful option is to be a hybrid?

A: One thing you keep forgetting (actually I think you are ignoring it because its easier to insult me when you pretend I'm the bad guy) is that I've told you multiple times now I actually HOPE you are right and I am wrong. If that video turns out to be crap or is somehow less accurate than the other quotes from developers, nobody will be more happy about that than I am. Thus far I've seen no sign that is the case. It looks like it was made by the developers and then released to various gaming sites to hype the game. If you can prove otherwise, please do.

B: If I must admit I could be totally wrong (which I remind you again, I've done several times now even though you ignored it) because I haven't played then game, then YOU must also admit the same thing (which you have not done).

C: EvE has so many ship types I can't even count them all, and then they are devided up between four playable races which each have different advantages and disadvantages. Then you have to figure in the high-end hybrid ships that combine elements from multiple different races. Its next to impossible to even guess how many different "types" of Ships EvE has and thats assuming you can even find a way to devide all the ships into types in a way that everyone could agree on. Compare that to STO... which has three ship types. Somehow they just don't compare well, do they?

D: Yes, I also believe it is quite possible to make an MMO like that. I don't currently have any reason to believe Cryptic has done that. It would be a very new concept for them.

E: And what if it isn't?

Originally posted by ktanner3

I see this as much an issue as having jedi in TOR (believe it or not, there are some complaining about that on the forums). It's staying true to the IP which is what every game based off a popular IP should do. I can't see how anyone can have an issue with this unless they never watched an episode or movie of Star Trek or just like complaining for the sake of complaining. Ships are built to perform certain tasks. That has always been how and why ships are built and I'm glad that part isn't being changed just because some folks have burnt themselves out on MMORPGS .

Indeed, if there's no differences between cruisers and science and escort ships, what's the point of having different ship classes?

People need to not get worked up over ship classes actually doing what their names suggest. We also don't even know to what extent it will affect us yet.

Raltar, I'm sorry but I'm inclined to not believe you simply because your post history makes me think you are simply hating on cryptic and STO.

I don't need to prove/disprove the validity of the video quote because it doesn't affect my position. Whether it's true or not, the dev chat quote still stands. If true, then it simply complements the dev quote. In fact, my point was they can easily both be true. Is that not something you can accept?

I don't need to admit I'm wrong, either, because my point is that the developers say there is more to the game than just Tank/Heal/DPS. This is true, they have said that in plain language. Your point is something you assumed because of the way a quote was worded.

Just because EVE has more ship types than STO, it doesn't mean STO players are less likely to use their ship outside a predefined mindset. In fact, the number of ship types in each game comparitively has very little to do with the point we're discussing here. The point is that while a ship may get a bonus to one role, it is often used for multiple roles or in ways not necessarily in line with the bonus.

Your point on D simply seems like more Cryptic bashing, good job there.

Once again you also ignore the developer quote, and make a flimsy argument. Perhaps we could discuss the actual quote in question? The developers have said that there is much more in depth team makeup to be had than just tank/healer/dps. It's a simple fact.

Originally posted by Blurr

A: Raltar, I'm sorry but I'm inclined to not believe you simply because your post history makes me think you are simply hating on cryptic and STO.

B: In fact, my point was they can easily both be true. Is that not something you can accept?

C: I don't need to admit I'm wrong, either, because my point is that the developers say...

D: Perhaps we could discuss the actual quote in question?

A: I've made over 800 posts on this forum. You are saying you have read all of them? You know very little of my post history. You know very little about me. For example you don't know that I played City of Heroes for over a year and a half. I don't "hate" Cryptic nor am I trying to "bash" them (when I'm bashing something, you WILL know it). I like Cryptic, to a degree. I like some of their work. But above all else I've had a lot of experience with their work and I know what they are capable of. They are very good at some things, like character customization. And almost totally incapable of of some other things, like PvP. They make a very specific kind of game with a limited appeal and a broad target audience. By itself there isn't anything wrong with that. Trying to hate Cryptic is like trying to hate Tetris. I just happen to think STO deserves a little more than Tetris.

B: No, I can't accept that. Both quotes cannot be true. Its like saying 1+1 and 1+5 both equal six. That simply is not possible. One quote directly states that ship types will define player role. The other says they do not. Both cannot be true. Only one can be true or neither can be true. But both cannot be true.

C: Ah, but here is the great flaw and hypocrisy of your arguement!

We each have an opposing point of view. Both points of view cannot be true. We each have a quote from the developer backing up our point of view. This means we both have an identical type and quantity of evidence to back up our point of view. We both have an equal chance of being correct or incorrect.

Yet you throw the discussion off topic by saying: "You must admit you could be totally wrong, seeing as you haven't played the game"

But you haven't played the game either! We both have equal evidence... and yet you claim I must be wrong because of a fault we both share. Yet even though you possess this fault as much as I do, you still will not admit you might be wrong as well.

If you can't be wrong even though you haven't played the game, then apparently I can't be wrong for that reason either. You can't have your cake and eat it too. You must pick one or the other. Either the fact that neither of us has played the game gives us both a chance to be wrong or it is not relevant.

D: Every time I try to discuss the quote, you ignore what was said, talk about something off-topic (like EvE or WWII) and then refuse to acknowledge the fact that the developers made a direct connection between specific ship types and specific roles in the game. Since you always deflect the conversation away from the quote every time I actually talk about the quote I don't really see why I should bother. Its much easier to poke holes in the rest of your logic anyway, due to none of it making any sense.

---

Originally posted by Drachasor

---

Originally posted by madeux

This actually makes more sense than the standard melee combat in an mmo... It's rather simplified, but it is sort of how naval combat works. 

---

 
No it isn't.  Navies have specialized ships, but they aren't specialized into "tank", "dps", and "buff/debuff" ships.  That's idiotic and wouldn't work in a Navy battle because no one would fire on the tanks.  After all, why the heck would you ever focus your attacks on a ship with high defenses and bad attacks?  That's stupid.  The heaviest armored ships in Naval History were Battleships, and they were also the biggest damage dealers.  Because they dealt the most damage they were big targets, hence they needed heavy armor to defend themselves.  So the "tanks" were also the "dps" and hence the whole "Holy Trinity" system just falls apart quite rapidly.
Generally various Navy ships have been made to fill various mission roles.  That might be speed, stealth, firepower, range, or the like, and they were given as much armor as practical to fulfill that role -- that said, modern ships generally have less armor than older ones, because modern weapons are so ridiculously effective it doesn't make much of a difference (generally the strategy is to avoid getting fired upon and strike from a long distance using missiles, planes, and the like).
In any case, the idea that this is "sort of how naval combat works" is not true at all.  It's "sort of" how fantasy combat works (with all the strengths and weaknesses ridiculously exaggerated).  It's not remotely how naval combat works.  It's not remotely how real life combat works either (for that matter).  One should not confuse "specialization" with tank-dps-caster/healer/debuff/buffer/whatever.  There are lots of ways to have specialized roles, just because most MMOs copy EQ and WoW doesn't mean that's the only way or even the best way; it just means a bunch of companies choose to copy two MMOs that were very successful during their day (WoW's day is still here of course, probably in part because everyone tries to copy it too much and innovate too little).
Heck, you want a better system?  They could have roughly copied Battlemech mechanics and tossed on shields.  That would have better emulated Starship combat and specialized roles (such as distance, weapon types, etc).  It's isn't hard to do, but they certainly didn't do it.

---

Thank you!

A few people before have disagreed with the ridiculous naval comparison, but they did not have the capacity to speak in an intelligent manner. You explain how naval combat works in actual fact, and, actually, how much works in the Star Trek universe. The idea that there would be tanks and dps as separate entities is utterly scanny. The only reason to attack something other than the dps is to take out some form of support (distortions or interference of some kind).

But again, thank you for explaining in detail and with coherence why this mechanic in the game, and the very comparison with actual naval combat, could not be more wrong and unpleasant for a Star Trek game.

I am beginning to think most people on this forum just look for any reason humanly possible to hate the game before it is even launched.

I think the next argument will be complaints on the shade of green of Romulan blood, or the sharp corners of the retail box being a hazard and therefor Cryptic hates people...

Originally posted by DanaDark

I am beginning to think most people on this forum just look for any reason humanly possible to hate the game before it is even launched.

I think the next argument will be complaints on the shade of green of Romulan blood, or the sharp corners of the retail box being a hazard and therefor Cryptic hates people...

Being worried the combat system isn't going to be fun is a legitimate concern.  I'm tired of the Tank-Healer-DPS system, and I'm not going to play another game that forces you to use that for major group content.
 

Then don't play. No real sense acting as a three year old and whinning to the world about it.

As well, another example of a person complaining about the "Holy Trinity" without offering an alternative. The "Holy Trinity" problem is not a developer issue, it is the issue of a player unable to be creative enough to break free from it.

Originally posted by DanaDark

Then don't play. No real sense acting as a three year old and whinning to the world about it.

As well, another example of a person complaining about the "Holy Trinity" without offering an alternative. The "Holy Trinity" problem is not a developer issue, it is the issue of a player unable to be creative enough to break free from it.

I HAVE offered an alternative.  Someone quoted me about on THIS PAGE (though I had a more elaborate post elsewhere in this thread).  Also, I'm perfectly entitled to my opinion and if that means I want to vent my disappointment about the game in an appropriate thread then I'm perfectly entitled to do that too.  No one is making you read this thread after all.  In short, your proposal for self-censorship is rejected!
 

Btw, is most definitely IS a developer issue.  They make the combat mechanics.  In real life the "Holy Trinity" doesn't work, for example, because real life doesn't have people that can magically hold the aggro of others AND withstand constant attacks, nor do we have people that can magically heal people from near death to complete health in moments, nor would damage dealers that can be taken out in one blow be a successful real life tactic.  These things are only possible when a combat system is designed around them; they are only possible when the specialties the game supports are the tank, healer, dps ones.  A player problem?  Don't be ridiculous.  Mechanics matter.

There's also no sound in space. You propose they disable audio while in space?

They've detailed the ability to configure your ship with equiptment and player skills, therefor you can, and most likely will, greatly customize how your ship engages in combat. If you choose to actively persue the Holy Trinity, thats on you, not them, they simply described that those rolls will be available. The did not however, say you MUST have all three in a group or everlasting DOOM shall reign upon your hard drive.

In fact, from their videos and interviews, they had detailed the ability of each different type to perform well enough on its own as well as in groups. So, you are overreacting. Again, this boils down to YOUR lack of creativity, not their failure.

Originally posted by DanaDark

There's also no sound in space. You propose they disable audio while in space?

While no sound in space would be realistic (and I'd like to see another space game handle it that way), Trek does have sound in space, so it fits the IP.

They've detailed the ability to configure your ship with equiptment and player skills, therefor you can, and most likely will, greatly customize how your ship engages in combat. If you choose to actively persue the Holy Trinity, thats on you, not them, they simply described that those rolls will be available. The did not however, say you MUST have all three in a group or everlasting DOOM shall reign upon your hard drive.

You don't have to use the trinity in any game - as long as you are fine with handling content beneath the level that gives worthwhile rewards (like you can solo much lower dungeons in WoW). It just won't be worth doing.

In fact, from their videos and interviews, they had detailed the ability of each different type to perform well enough on its own as well as in groups. So, you are overreacting. Again, this boils down to YOUR lack of creativity, not their failure.

This boils down to you practicing spin control to improve sales of the game.

Trek doesn't have tanks OR ranged healing. It's not appropriate to the IP. Take the Trek names and graphics out of the game, and most of my objections go away.

Watch the show once in a while, and see how battles are fought. Cover plays a huge role in Trek combat.

Originally posted by DanaDark

There's also no sound in space. You propose they disable audio while in space?

They've detailed the ability to configure your ship with equiptment and player skills, therefor you can, and most likely will, greatly customize how your ship engages in combat. If you choose to actively persue the Holy Trinity, thats on you, not them, they simply described that those rolls will be available. The did not however, say you MUST have all three in a group or everlasting DOOM shall reign upon your hard drive.

In fact, from their videos and interviews, they had detailed the ability of each different type to perform well enough on its own as well as in groups. So, you are overreacting. Again, this boils down to YOUR lack of creativity, not their failure.

One could say the exact same thing about WoW (except, perhaps, for Holy Paladins).  That doesn't mean you can escape the Holy Trinity there either.  The fact that Cryptic hasn't detailed any other way to handle group combat, and seems to kinda think something is going to magically appear out of their system which seems designed to support the Holy Trinity, gives me plenty of skepticism about their off-hand remark or two that you can play high-end group content any other way -- especially when all of their other remarks are supporting the use of the Holy Trinity.  Now maybe they'll surprise me, but it sure isn't looking that way given their past games on the market and what they've said so far.
 

Btw, your use of hyperbole to try to bolster your arguments isn't working so well.  Saying things like they should disable audio in space makes it sound you like really don't understand the issue at hand here.  The Holy Trinity is not reasonable artistic license.

The OP likes classless game designs.

Fine.

It' s a preference.

However,you DO sound silly when you start bashing designes you don't like ,because most of the players do like it and it make sense to them.

Classes offer diversity and encourage grouping.

Imagine how ultra boring EVE would be if it didn't have so many different classes of specialized ships.

There is nothing wrong with the class system as a design.

If it's going to be entertaining and interesting depends on the ways it's implemented and we can't comment on that until we try the game.

Raltar, I think your previous posts, even in this thread alone, say all that need to to be said.

Both quotes can be true, it's actually quite easy because the dev chat quote directly deals with the video quote. The problem is you are reading into the video quote what you want to hear. I've said this a number of times but you ignore it so you can keep making your argument.

Resourceful captains will be able to make use of the fact that each ship type has a bonus to the traditional roles AND while people naturally gravitate to these roles, once they get familiar with the way they can load out their ship, they discover that there is much more in-depth team makeup to be had.

It's right there in plain english. I apologize if english isn't your first language, but the quotes really aren't all that hard to understand.

Since they were both said by the developers, logically it makes the most sense if they are both true. Twisting the meaning of one to contradict the other makes it look like you're trying to bash the game. Once again I'm not trying to say the game is a specific way, as you are. You say that the developer said X so the game MUST be like Y. I am saying the developers didn't say the game was like Y, they said A and B. I am not wrong because I am simply pointing out that you're twisting the words of the developers to mean what you want it to mean. You do it every time you make your argument.

When I talk about EVE and other things, it's because I'm trying to continue the discussion in the thread. I am allowed to respond to other people in the thread, despite you wanting to have your own little flame war.

Lets take a look at the real issue here.

Issue: New video says that Cruisers can be used as Tanks, Science as Support, and Escorts as DPS.

Solution: Developer quote (below) says that yes while people can play this way, once they realize how to get full use out of their equipment/officers, they realize there is much more than just these simple roles.

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.

Issue resolved.

http://www.massively.com/2009/11/20/star-trek-online-ship-tactics-part-2/

Round 2?

Originally posted by Zeroxin

http://www.massively.com/2009/11/20/star-trek-online-ship-tactics-part-2/

Round 2?

Haha, yeah. One of the things I take away from that article is that Power Management will definately play a signifigant role. It sounds to me like if you want to DPS you can just put all power to weaopns, or if you're getting hit and want to absorb damage, you just pump power to shields.

Perhaps that makes the idea of cruiser-tank, escort-dps obsolete. Maybe taking a ship with bonuses to damage over bonuses to defense is just a personal preference. Perhaps whoever's taking the most damage at the time simply becomes "the tank" and puts power to shields until he can get away. For all we know, the enemies could just target whoever's doing the most damage to them at the time, and people take turns being tanks. Maybe then the only difference in choice of ship is you pick cruiser if you want a longer tank turn, haha. Maybe a cruiser with all power to weapons does enough damage to be signifigant.

STO certainly wouldn't be the first game to do it that way.

Originally posted by Blurr

Resourceful captains will be able to make use of the fact that each ship type has a bonus to the traditional roles AND while people naturally gravitate to these roles, once they get familiar with the way they can load out their ship, they discover that there is much more in-depth team makeup to be had.

Really?  Like what?  All we have from you (and the Devs) is, essentially, that "players are going to find out that there is more!"   Neither you, nor the Devs, propose what this "more" is.  Honestly, it sounds like it might just be wishful thinking on the part of the Devs, since unless the combat is designed with these other systems in mind, then it could easily be unbalanced.  I think if the Devs actually had a clear idea of how non-traditional combat would work in their game, then they'd be talking about it, rather than have just one vague statement in one interview.  If they even sketched out another way people might work together in combat besides the traditional method, I'd find it a lot more believable.
 

Here's how I think things are going to go down.  Everyone will use ships for their intended roles.  You'll probably have one Tank, one or two science vessels, and the rest will be escorts.  People will use their science officers to provide a bit of flexibility (so you can have a tank with a debuff power, for instance), but this won't change the basic role.  You're still going to want the higher base stats for each role and the higher number of mods for each role that the specialized ships provide (higher officer seats will probably help to).  In short, it won't be much different from a game like WoW, where you have tanks who can debuff and buff if you want, but a given tank spec is still a tank.  The more I've thought about it, the more I think Cruisers won't have taunt mechanics, instead they'll be able to "extend" their shields around all ships in their group (or just all friendly ships) so that they take all damage that is fired out and they are the only ship that needs healer -- though I might be wrong here and maybe they will get taunts.

Why do I think this?  If you could get a Cruiser (which has extra power) to do nearly as much damage as an Escort, then no one would ever use an Escort (why bother, the Cruiser is tougher, generally cooler, and has more going for it!).  Frankly, the fact the Escorts will have more special weapon attacks and special escort-only weapons that do extra damage as well as innate damage bonuses and more damage upgrade mod slots will probably ensure it is the best DPS ship by a good margin -- if not, then why bother even having that as a separate ship class?  If you didn't need Science Vessels for Healing, then why bother with science vessels at all?  Just make more Cruisers which have more shields, do more damage, and can protect other ships!

Let's say you try going in without a tanking ship, then you'll probably need more healers.  But 2 healers and 3 DPS are going to do less damage than just having a traditional group.  If 2 tanks and 3 DPS can work -- giving one tank a rest to regen shields, then that's going to be better than the HT and HT setups are going to fall by the wayside.  I haven't seen one other factor that determines what kind of job you could build a ship towards in ALL of their releases besides the traditional roles.  I haven't seen you propose one.  I haven't seen the Devs propose one.  I haven't seen anyone said how they'd intend to balance this with regards to the HT which they definitely do have (and balance would be a major issue).

Overall, I don't see where this other method of playing combat is going to come from in a game where the Devs have chosen to split up ship types into Holy Trinity Groupings, where classes are split up into Holy Trinity Groupings, etc.  I don't think they've given any thought to designing another way to play the game, and if they have I'd love to hear what it is going to be and how they are balancing it.  That said, I'll check out the game in Open Beta, but I sure don't have my hopes up.

Originally posted by Blurr

Originally posted by Zeroxin

http://www.massively.com/2009/11/20/star-trek-online-ship-tactics-part-2/

Round 2?

 

Haha, yeah. One of the things I take away from that article is that Power Management will definately play a signifigant role. It sounds to me like if you want to DPS you can just put all power to weaopns, or if you're getting hit and want to absorb damage, you just pump power to shields.

Perhaps that makes the idea of cruiser-tank, escort-dps obsolete. Maybe taking a ship with bonuses to damage over bonuses to defense is just a personal preference. Perhaps whoever's taking the most damage at the time simply becomes "the tank" and puts power to shields until he can get away. For all we know, the enemies could just target whoever's doing the most damage to them at the time, and people take turns being tanks. Maybe then the only difference in choice of ship is you pick cruiser if you want a longer tank turn, haha. Maybe a cruiser with all power to weapons does enough damage to be signifigant.

STO certainly wouldn't be the first game to do it that way.

They've said Cruisers shield other ships.  Like I've said, I suspect healing/tanking is an issue of the deflector dish (right dish lets you shield friendlies, another dish lets you heal friendlies).  Might be wrong there, but it doesn't matter so much.
 

They've said that Science Vessels do less damage.  They certainly have fewer weapon slots and less power than Cruisers.  I'm not seeing how you could make one into a ship capable of dealing good damage.

If a Cruiser with all power to the weapons is as good as a Escort...why bother with an escort, since the Cruiser is tougher?  A fleet of Cruisers and one healer are then going to be able to last a LOT longer than 1 tank, 1 healer, and 3 escorts.  (Unless the better power, better shields, more damage reducing mod slots, more engineering personal, and more crew somehow don't matter at all...at which point do any of these modifications make a different at ALL?)  If the ship you choose doesn't really matter, then why split ships up into different Holy Trinity roles like that?  Why bother having different officer allotments, if it doesn't really matter?  Why bother having different mod slot allotments if it doesn't really matter?  That said, I repeat that the Science Vessels doesn't seem capable of dealing good damage (or tank as well as cruisers for that matter).

Anyhow, I actually addressed a lot of this in my post above.

Well, this is sort of how I believe they'll implement it...

Cruisers: Tank. Sure, but will be rather slow, a larger vessel that can extend it's shields around other ships or even erect shields around others. Will be able to pack a punch when needed, but will be meant more as a foundation for a fleet.

Escort: DPS. I'd hardly rank the Defiant, as an example, as vessel capable of taking much damage, or as a vessel ready to explore strange new worlds. In fact, I'd classify it as pretty much a weapons platform with engines. And pretty darn good on making thing go boom. These ships should be faster and have an easier time flanking the cruisers. This can be a good thing as it'd require a fleet to have more than just 1 cruiser to take damage... avoiding the issue where in many MMO guilds, there is only 1 or 2 tanks among 30+ players.

Science: Support. This is Sci-Fi... support can be a lot. Power transfer to boost a ships power to shields, weapons, engines, etc. Engineering teams, shield scramblers, engine disablers... sure they won't be able to take many hits or dish out damage... but being able to disable the enemy ship completely perhaps, will be a MAJOR advantage. Heck, I could imagine scenarios where a science ship could really take on more than the rest.

Ship Make Up: Blush and eyeliner. This is what can reeally make things rather nice. Since the game is built on a skill system involving the player, equiptment, and crew, I'd imagine it possible to create a rather sturdy science vessel, or a cruiser with weak shields but a tyrannical punch. The discussion up to this point has focused almost exclusively on the "Holy Trinity", which is wrong, the real discussion should be on just how far this customization allows us to go.
 

The more customization the better. And that is why I think they started with a basic Holy Trinity pattern. Have something basic down as a foundation, and then let players customize their gaming experience to kingdom come.