Originally posted by DanaDark

Game Developer =/= Marketer, therefore, the burden of proof is on you that they are one and the same in job description, not mine to prove they are not as their job descriptions are entirely different.

I don't know any of these developers from a can of paint, and neither do you.

But I do know based on my own experienced with MMOs and their associated communities that developers are generally under orders from a higher power, unless that high power is a senior developer, and even he or she is usually under orders.

There are things they can say in an interview and things they can't.  But if the interview is to let the upcoming playerbase know what's going to be happening in an upcoming game, then they are ADVERTISING the game in some small form, even their job title doesn't indicate as such.

If you have a RL job, I sincerely hope that you don't cop this attitude with your own employer.  The "I am not a <insert job title here>, so that's not my job, therefore I won't do it", because that is not how the real world works.  And everyone here knows that.  Cross-training and multitasking is found in just about any job, in any walk of life.  Saying 'that's not my job' generally gets you disciplined or terminated from said job, depending on your attitude.

I've seen developer after developer plug game features, game enhancements and game changes as not just a form of public notification, but a form of advertising.  Happens all the time on video game shows during interviews.  Plugging IS advertising, there is a major gray area of public relations that developers do that essentially is impossible to pin down to one job title.

I know you want to win this argument with your one sided point of view, and 'logic', but it's not how reality works.

Originally posted by Drachasor

Originally posted by hanshotfirst

Lemme see if I got this straight...

All this hubbub is over the OP's concern that Cryptic, developer of City of Heroes and Champions Online — two of arguably the easiest and most solo/casual-friendly MMOs in existence — is going to turn STO into a forced-grouping, "holy-trinity" obsessed game?

Are you freaking serious? This isn't Square Enix for goodness sakes. Calm down, Glen Beck. The sky isn't falling.

No, the concern is first that the Holy Trinity system is completely idiotic for Star Trek.  The second concern is that this definitely seems forced for challenging group content.  Yeah, if things AREN'T a challenge then you don't have to use it (same with any Holy Trinity game), but that stuff ISN'T A CHALLENGE.  Both of those points are pretty important.
 

No one is saying they are going to force people to group anymore than WoW or CoH forces that.  We're talking about the favored group dynamic and how that will play out in the significant group content.

You're overreacting and splitting hairs. Lemme break it down for you...

1. Science Vessels: their specialization is in buffs/debuffs. They're more maneuverable (agile) than Cruisers, but less maneuverable than Escorts.

2. Escorts: their forte is in armament and maneuverability. They can equip cannons (which the other two ship classes can't), and are significantly more agile. They handle like a sports car.

3. Cruisers: biggest of them all. Has more slots for weapons, upgrades, etc. but flies like a brick... and it's built like one; capable of taking considerably more punishment than either of the other ship classes.

That's it. That's where the similarities to the fantasy-style "holy trinity" begins and ends. Success is NOT dependent on a rigid mechanic of having a pre-built team of X Cruisers, Y Escorts and Z Science Vessels. Furthermore, how they play in group or solo content is entirely up to you. You can either focus on emphasizing your ship's strengths, or try to minimize its weaknesses and fill a more "generalist" role. That's where customization (not only of the ship itself, but also your character and crew) comes into play.

In other words, there's plenty of room for crossover/hybrids (both in ships AND team roles). Mind you, you'll probably never be able to match the nimbleness of an Escort with a Cruiser, but you certainly *can* make a Cruiser a whole heck of a lot more maneuverable than one built expressly for the purpose of "tanking".

So in short, I reiterate, take a deep breath and calm down. This isn't EverQuest in space.

Originally posted by hanshotfirst

Originally posted by Drachasor

Originally posted by hanshotfirst

Lemme see if I got this straight...

All this hubbub is over the OP's concern that Cryptic, developer of City of Heroes and Champions Online — two of arguably the easiest and most solo/casual-friendly MMOs in existence — is going to turn STO into a forced-grouping, "holy-trinity" obsessed game?

Are you freaking serious? This isn't Square Enix for goodness sakes. Calm down, Glen Beck. The sky isn't falling.

No, the concern is first that the Holy Trinity system is completely idiotic for Star Trek.  The second concern is that this definitely seems forced for challenging group content.  Yeah, if things AREN'T a challenge then you don't have to use it (same with any Holy Trinity game), but that stuff ISN'T A CHALLENGE.  Both of those points are pretty important.
 

No one is saying they are going to force people to group anymore than WoW or CoH forces that.  We're talking about the favored group dynamic and how that will play out in the significant group content.

 

You're overreacting and splitting hairs. Lemme break it down for you...

1. Science Vessels: their specialization is in buffs/debuffs. They're more maneuverable (agile) than Cruisers, but less maneuverable than Escorts.

2. Escorts: their forte is in armament and maneuverability. They can equip cannons (which the other two ship classes can't), and are significantly more agile. They handle like a sports car.

3. Cruisers: biggest of them all. Has more slots for weapons, upgrades, etc. but flies like a brick... and it's built like one; capable of taking considerably more punishment than either of the other ship classes.

That's it. That's where the similarities to the fantasy-style "holy trinity" begins and ends. Success is NOT dependent on a rigid mechanic of having a pre-built team of X Cruisers, Y Escorts and Z Science Vessels. Furthermore, how they play in group or solo content is entirely up to you. You can either focus on emphasizing your ship's strengths, or try to minimize its weaknesses and fill a more "generalist" role. That's where customization (not only of the ship itself, but also your character and crew) comes into play.

In other words, there's plenty of room for crossover/hybrids (both in ships AND team roles). Mind you, you'll probably never be able to match the nimbleness of an Escort with a Cruiser, but you certainly *can* make a Cruiser a whole heck of a lot more maneuverable than one built expressly for the purpose of "tanking".

So in short, I reiterate, take a deep breath and calm down. This isn't EverQuest in space.

 

Did you somehow miss the Devs specifically stating the role of each ship class (yes, in terms of tanking, dps, support/healing)?  You also seem unfamiliar with the fact that Science Vessels ALL have the ability to heal other ships (including recharging shields).  Also, Cruisers can protect other ships with their shields (with no penalty).  There really is every indication this is WoW in space with some differences, but relatively minor ones.
 

Originally posted by Drachasor

If they are going to do STO (and they are), then they probably went about most reasonable way possible.  It isn't right for the genre, and it is gameplay I am not interested in, but they probably did about as good a job with it as one could expect.
 

Right now I am somewhat certain that they won't have taunts and instead Cruisers extend their shields to cover all allies (so their shields take all damage).  "Somewhat certain" = "my strong suspicion."  I might be wrong here, but given how they want to simplify stuff (ranged heals in ground combat because it is easier), I think what I said is what we'll see (e.g. shield extension is not limited to one ship at a time and can be maintained indefinitely).  No taunting that way.  Tanks ARE useful in pvp that way too.

Like I said though, I'm sick and tired of the HT system.  Since it is so wrong for Trek I thought they'd go with something more innovative.  Not going to play another game with HT...too immersion-breaking for me.

You make some good points here. I'd actually not thought about using the shield extensions as a part of pvp, which strikes me as a pretty good idea. I'm glad that while you're worried about the potential of a HT system, you're not determined to pre-judge the game before you play it, as some are.

If it helps any, try checking out the Ship Tactics Part 1 video. The quote the OP is so up in arms about is actually a callback to the previous video. They do comment about ships being good for each specific role, but they don't actually say you need to be tank/healer/dps. In addition they do a pretty good job of pointing out the variety of ways two people can differentiate their ships even if they have the same class of ship.

In addition, it also includes this gem of a quote, from Craig Zinkievich aka "Zinc" or CrypticZinc, Executive Producer of the game.
"So your configuration of your ship defines something, but it's really the equipment -- the weapons, the deflector dish, the impulse engines, the consoles that you equip on your ship, as well as the bridge officers who is activated at that time -- that really defines how you play in combat."

Just curious, but where did they say things like all science vessels can heal other ships, or that there's some sort of heal beam? I didn't see where they talked about cruisers extending shields (with no penalties?) or anything quite like that either. If someone could provide a link that would be super.

Also raltar, your post was pure jokes, I couldn't stop laughing! The part where you continue to use the word "will" even though I've shown you that it's wrong by it's grammar, and then go on to twist the words again into "facts" lol. The part where you still continue not to realize that your quote was actually just a callback to the Part 1 video. I loved the part where you put a link to the dev chats section and act like it's not real, and that the dev chat doesn't exist, haha. (Right here fyi)

I actually laughed out loud when you called Zinc (aka Craig Zinkievich, Exec Producer of STO) a random developer. Then you go into how he's just trying to do spin control and make him seem all shifty like he's hiding something. Haha that's a good one. I noticed you cut out part of his quote in order to ignore the fact that he said people take those roles because it's what they're used to, too. That was a nice touch. Then you go grasping at straws in order to make your hate for the game valid. It's funny how much obviously fake spin control you put into this, it was comedy gold. You should be commended on it.

Reading your post was like watching one of those videos where the guy is clearly lying but he's trying to backpedal and grasp at straws in order to make himself look good. One of the funniest things I've read in a long time, good stuff.

Originally posted by Blurr

Originally posted by Drachasor

If they are going to do STO (and they are), then they probably went about most reasonable way possible.  It isn't right for the genre, and it is gameplay I am not interested in, but they probably did about as good a job with it as one could expect.
 

Right now I am somewhat certain that they won't have taunts and instead Cruisers extend their shields to cover all allies (so their shields take all damage).  "Somewhat certain" = "my strong suspicion."  I might be wrong here, but given how they want to simplify stuff (ranged heals in ground combat because it is easier), I think what I said is what we'll see (e.g. shield extension is not limited to one ship at a time and can be maintained indefinitely).  No taunting that way.  Tanks ARE useful in pvp that way too.

Like I said though, I'm sick and tired of the HT system.  Since it is so wrong for Trek I thought they'd go with something more innovative.  Not going to play another game with HT...too immersion-breaking for me.

 

You make some good points here. I'd actually not thought about using the shield extensions as a part of pvp, which strikes me as a pretty good idea. I'm glad that while you're worried about the potential of a HT system, you're not determined to pre-judge the game before you play it, as some are.

If it helps any, try checking out the Ship Tactics Part 1 video. The quote the OP is so up in arms about is actually a callback to the previous video. They do comment about ships being good for each specific role, but they don't actually say you need to be tank/healer/dps. In addition they do a pretty good job of pointing out the variety of ways two people can differentiate their ships even if they have the same class of ship.

In addition, it also includes this gem of a quote, from Craig Zinkievich aka "Zinc" or CrypticZinc, Executive Producer of the game.
"So your configuration of your ship defines something, but it's really the equipment -- the weapons, the deflector dish, the impulse engines, the consoles that you equip on your ship, as well as the bridge officers who is activated at that time -- that really defines how you play in combat."

 

Underlined for emphasis. It also depends on what path you choose for your captain. Is he going to specialize in engineering, tactical or security? Combine that with the equipment you choose,as well as the type and build for your ship then you really do have a very large selection of builds to choose from.

My only concern is running into the same problem that plaqued SWG: The FOTM template. You know that there will be the powergamers that will be trying to find that overpowering combination that will inevitably lead to its dominace in PVP and then the monthly nerfs. Hopefully Cryptic is better able to handle this than SOE was.
 

Originally posted by ktanner3

Underlined for emphasis. It also depends on what path you choose for your captain. Is he going to specialize in engineering, tactical or security? Combine that with the equipment you choose,as well as the type and build for your ship then you really do have a very large selection of builds to choose from.

My only concern is running into the same problem that plaqued SWG: The FOTM template. You know that there will be the powergamers that will be trying to find that overpowering combination that will inevitably lead to its dominace in PVP and then the monthly nerfs. Hopefully Cryptic is better able to handle this than SOE was.
 

Yes I can see where the FOTM crowd could get into this, however with such a wide variety of customization, I don't think it'll be too bad. Sure you'll have some powergamers who think only one way is the best way, but I think once people start developing counter-builds to the flavour of the month, they'll start to see the light. If it's FOTM then everyone knows what you're packing, if you've come up with the build yourself, you may have quite a surprise waiting for someone.

Originally posted by Blurr

Just curious, but where did they say things like all science vessels can heal other ships, or that there's some sort of heal beam? I didn't see where they talked about cruisers extending shields (with no penalties?) or anything quite like that either. If someone could provide a link that would be super.

From their official website, part of their ship overview (most of this post is a link, btw):

Escort Ships

These heavily-armed warships are built with the firepower to defend the Federation. Escort vessels are armed to the teeth, fast and maneuverable, which makes them a hard target to hit when they’re moving evasively.

They are ill equipped to deal with advanced science or engineering tasks. Their lack of adequate medical facilities will hinder their ability to maintain their crew's health. Fortunately, they are so well armed and armored that their crew's health is seldom threatened.

Primary Role: Heavy damage ship, boasting incredible firepower for its size.
Special: Bonus to damage, speed and maneuverability; can load cannons; bonus to weapon power; extra forward weapon slot.

Science Ships

Although Science ships lack the massive firepower of other classes, their technology grants them distinct advantages in combat. Their advanced deflector and sensors can easily identify and exploit weaknesses in enemy ships and target their subsystems, or even detect cloaked ships. Their deflectors can also be used to aid and repair ally ships, as well as control the pace of battle.

These abilities allow them to provide superior fleet support, yet they are more than capable to complete missions on their own.

Primary Role: Fleet support, ally aid, battle control. Specializes in buffs, debuffs and control.
Special: Advanced shields, innate subsystem targeting, innate cloak detection; bonus to Auxiliary power.

Cruiser Ships

Cruisers are generally the largest ships in Starfleet. Their size grants them access to advanced warp cores, which allows them to distribute a large amount of power across their subsystems; a large crew complement, which improves a ship’s repair rate, engineering bay, boarding party effectiveness, and so on; and a large inventory, which makes them great for long distance missions.

Cruisers have a large warp core and crew complement. Their abundant resources allow them to adapt well to most situations and get damaged systems back online quickly. Cruisers can also support other ships with their massive power supply and crew.

Out of combat, these ships' massive cargo holds and crew make them invaluable when it comes to transporting cargo or colonists, and re-supplying planets, space stations or other ships.

Primary Role: Lots of power; large crew complement provides quick repairs and boarding party tactics.
Special: Large Warp Core (power bonus); large cargo space (inventory); bonus to power in all systems; more weapon slots than Science vessels or Escorts.
 

The bit on Science Ships makes me think the Deflector Dish will go a long way towards deciding your combat role.  There seems to clearly be a Healing Dish (so to speak).  Since the others have to compete (so everyone doesn't grab one for healing), that means there is probably one for tanking and one for DPS.  I think this is most probably anyhow (I might be wrong).

Most of the "details" we debate here is possibilities given the current data we have with the game.

Some simply refuse to imagine fun possibilities. Some, like me, try to focus on all the fun possibilities. Mostly because I try to offer a different view to the Doomsayers, in hopers of turning them into "Maybe-Doom-Maybe-Not-Sayers".

I can imagine quite a bit of fun and interesting scenarios based on the current data available, but I can also see the potential for big blunders if not done right.

So basically, the Doomsayers are right, and people like me are right given both of our hypothesis'. We both have a fairly equal chance of being right, and so really we are discussing things that really, truly, have no merit or value... other than our own entertainment at this time.

As more information is released, NDA is lifted, Open Beta comes, and eventually, release, we'll be more accurately able to reflect the real State of The Game.

Most of these Doomsayers, while mood destroying, actually want similar, if not the same, things as me. They are just more demanding and forceful. They are the people I'd prefer to play a game with (provided they liked it lol).

Originally posted by Blurr

The part where you continue to use the word "will" even though I've shown you that it's wrong by it's grammar
 

The part where you still continue not to realize that your quote was actually just a callback to the Part 1 video.

Yeah, I noticed how after I made this post which you didn't have a reply for, you suddenly had to backtrack to a post I made several pages before that in order to nitpick over grammar. I like how you left out half of the quote in order to say the same thing you have said a dozen times: Just because people "will be able" to recognize the ships are designed for specific roles doesn't mean they will. Because people are obviously even stupider than the developers are giving them credit for and won't figure out something that the devs directly said to their faces?

Making it a "callback" clearly makes it wrong in your opinion I guess? You know, because if something is said twice it clearly isn't true...

---

Originally posted by DanaDark
Some simply refuse to imagine fun possibilities. Some, like me, try to focus on all the fun possibilities. Mostly because I try to offer a different view to the Doomsayers, in hopers of turning them into "Maybe-Doom-Maybe-Not-Sayers". I can imagine quite a bit of fun and interesting scenarios based on the current data available, but I can also see the potential for big blunders if not done right.

---

The problem is your argument is the same sort of thing one could say about WoW. Ooo, I can play a Paladin and grab some Holy, Protection, and Retribution talents and then do a bit of healing, be able to take some damage, and deal decent damage. I can grab a mix of gear to help that out too! Problem is, that just doesn't work. You end up rather sucking at everything (you'll be ok soloing though or with non-serious stuff).  So when I see another game coming along that has some talk of customizability and then repeatedly talks about how it has the traditional Trinity, I am not inclined to think it is breaking that combat mold for group combat.

Again, considering they'd have to put a lot of effort towards balancing combat if it really was beyond the HT system and they aren't talking about how it is beyond that (last and only quote on that topic was months ago), I find it rather ridiculous to think they are doing anything but what was done in CO and CoH.

---

Originally posted by DanaDark  So basically, the Doomsayers are right, and people like me are right given both of our hypothesis'. We both have a fairly equal chance of being right, and so really we are discussing things that really, truly, have no merit or value... other than our own entertainment at this time.

---

That's not how probability works (3:28 or so is what you want).

Originally posted by DanaDark

So basically, the Doomsayers are right, and people like me are right given both of our hypothesis'. We both have a fairly equal chance of being right, and so really we are discussing things that really, truly, have no merit or value... other than our own entertainment at this time.

You know thats funny... I said something EXACTLY like that WAYYYYYY back on page 13 of this thread. My point was that both people defending the game and people who are "doomsayers" (a really inaccurate title for us, but we can discuss that another day) are using the same evidence to support our opinons, since neither of us have played the game, and thus we must both have equal chances to be right or wrong about our assumptions.

You know what I was told? That I was a troll and that I was obviously wrong because I didn't blindly believe everything the developers say. Go figure.

It depends on how much personal player skill is involved in the game. It is surprising what can be achieved when you have a solid game core, with the flexibility to allow players to influence combat directly, instead of relying on designed skills.

Just sticking my head in and finding it amazing that the OP and others are ridiculing an environment where ships have roles and are alternately better or designed for some roles over others.

Amazing if in real-life that military ships or vehicles were specifically designed to be more appropriate for various functions -- ohh, wait. 

Originally posted by Drafell

It depends on how much personal player skill is involved in the game. It is surprising what can be achieved when you have a solid game core, with the flexibility to allow players to influence combat directly, instead of relying on designed skills.

STO has designed skills.  That's pretty obvious when you look at any of their videos or other data.  Bit more customizable in what skills you can have, but they are all designed.
 

Originally posted by Cik_Asalin

Just sticking my head in and finding it amazing that the OP and others are ridiculing an environment where ships have roles and are alternately better or designed for some roles over others.

 

Amazing if in real-life that military ships or vehicles were specifically designed to be more appropriate for various functions -- ohh, wait. 

You should actually read some of the thread.  I don't have a problem with ships having roles.  I have a problem with the ridiculous roles they picked.  Magic Healing Ships and such are silly and not right for Star Trek.
 

Originally posted by Raltar

Yeah, I noticed how after I made this post which you didn't have a reply for, you suddenly had to backtrack to a post I made several pages before that in order to nitpick over grammar. I like how you left out half of the quote in order to say the same thing you have said a dozen times: Just because people "will be able" to recognize the ships are designed for specific roles doesn't mean they will. Because people are obviously even stupider than the developers are giving them credit for and won't figure out something that the devs directly said to their faces?

Making it a "callback" clearly makes it wrong in your opinion I guess? You know, because if something is said twice it clearly isn't true...

Nah man, I ignored that post cause it didn't make sense. You're grasping at straws here and haven't made sense for a long time. There's plenty of evidence against you. It's okay man, just let it go.

Originally posted by Drachasor

STO has designed skills.  That's pretty obvious when you look at any of their videos or other data.  Bit more customizable in what skills you can have, but they are all designed.
 

Actually between the flexibility people have in putting their own build together and the tactical way space combat works (it looks like it's actually similar to naval games if you've played them), there could be quite a bit of room for player skill to enter into the equation.

Originally posted by Drachasor

Originally posted by Cik_Asalin

Just sticking my head in and finding it amazing that the OP and others are ridiculing an environment where ships have roles and are alternately better or designed for some roles over others.

 

Amazing if in real-life that military ships or vehicles were specifically designed to be more appropriate for various functions -- ohh, wait. 

You should actually read some of the thread.  I don't have a problem with ships having roles.  I have a problem with the ridiculous roles they picked.  Magic Healing Ships and such are silly and not right for Star Trek.
 

I read the comments...again, the fact remains that I find it ridiculous that you find it ridiculous that a non-ridiculous role for a ship is ridiculous.  Good thing those ridiculous roles are nothing akin to what a role might be in combat. . . .ohhh, wait again.

Originally posted by Blurr

Originally posted by Drachasor

STO has designed skills.  That's pretty obvious when you look at any of their videos or other data.  Bit more customizable in what skills you can have, but they are all designed.
 

 

Actually between the flexibility people have in putting their own build together and the tactical way space combat works (it looks like it's actually similar to naval games if you've played them), there could be quite a bit of room for player skill to enter into the equation.

There's customization in who does what debuff and the like.  That's not THAT fantastic, honestly, if your same basic job is the same (all that changes is every 10-20 seconds when you press "5" it does X instead of Y).
 

And the combat tactics don't look that impressive from the videos.  Ship rotation seems to be pretty much canceled out by ship movement.  Didn't look that exciting.