Originally posted by Tycalibur

Originally posted by hanshotfirst

You lost me.

How has STO been misadvertised and misrepresented?

Or perhaps more importantly, how are you defining "role playing"? Is combat mutually exclusive to roleplaying? Can you provide some examples of MMORPGs that deliver the form(s) of roleplaying you're speaking of?

What, specifically, would STO have to incorporate to meet your standard as a 'true' RPG?

 

To answer your question.  Why don't you instead tell me how roleplaying is done in the Star Trek universe when everyone is confined to his or her own ship, the ground game is highly undercooked, and there will be little room for social interaction due to a gaming environment conducive to shooting other ships with your ship? 

How do you roleplay in that?

That's supposed to be an answer? Okay, I'll follow your lead and answer a question with more questions...

How do you roleplay in EVE Online?

Are you just as critical of that game? By your definition, is EVE Online not a 'true' MMORPG?

Unlike STO (which is still a work-in-progress beta), EVE has been around for more than six years, and its "ground game" is not merely "undercooked" but completely absent.

Its environment is also (quite) conducive to shooting other ships with your ship. Some might even argue moreso, given its open/free-for-all PvP design. Heck, CCP even promotes hosted tournaments that consist of nothing but ship-to-ship combat.

Furthermore, in regard to being confined to his or her own ship, EVE Online doesn't (currently) support anything resembling a conventional avatar paradigm, other than a static portrait of your character.

So is calling EVE Online an "MMORPG" inaccurate at this point as well?

Originally posted by hanshotfirst

Originally posted by Tycalibur

Originally posted by hanshotfirst

You lost me.

How has STO been misadvertised and misrepresented?

Or perhaps more importantly, how are you defining "role playing"? Is combat mutually exclusive to roleplaying? Can you provide some examples of MMORPGs that deliver the form(s) of roleplaying you're speaking of?

What, specifically, would STO have to incorporate to meet your standard as a 'true' RPG?

 

To answer your question.  Why don't you instead tell me how roleplaying is done in the Star Trek universe when everyone is confined to his or her own ship, the ground game is highly undercooked, and there will be little room for social interaction due to a gaming environment conducive to shooting other ships with your ship? 

How do you roleplay in that?

 

That's supposed to be an answer? Okay, I'll follow your lead and answer a question with more questions...

How do you roleplay in EVE Online?

Are you just as critical of that game? By your definition, is EVE Online not a 'true' MMORPG?

Unlike STO (which is still a work-in-progress beta), EVE has been around for more than six years, and its "ground game" is not merely "undercooked" but completely absent.

Its environment is also (quite) conducive to shooting other ships with your ship. Some might even argue moreso, given its open/free-for-all PvP design. Heck, CCP even promotes hosted tournaments that consist of nothing but ship-to-ship combat.

Furthermore, in regard to being confined to his or her own ship, EVE Online doesn't (currently) support anything resembling a conventional avatar paradigm, other than a static portrait of your character.

So is calling EVE Online an "MMORPG" inaccurate at this point as well?

Good attempt, and I applaud the effort, but the ground game being absent in EvE Online is exactly why EvE Online isn't more successful than it is.  It has its hardcore fan base, but that's it.  Star Trek fans expect a ground game.  Yes, you are confined in your ship in EvE Online, that's how it works there.  That's not how it works in the Star Trek universe.  People aren't confined by themselves on one single ship unless it's a shuttlecraft.

And just for the record, the fans of EvE Online have been screaming for a ground game for years.  And they will get it sooner or later.

Originally posted by Tycalibur

Many people that have argued against me seem to think that I (or anyone else that thinks this game is not going to be good) am just going to hate what Cryptic is doing no matter what, and that is where they are failing miserably at understanding my position... 

It might help if you actually spelled out just what the heck your "position" is, rather than clouding the issue with scorn, hyperbole, populist mumbo jumbo and DOOM predictions.

Originally posted by Tycalibur

Good attempt, and I applaud the effort, but the ground game being absent in EvE Online is exactly why EvE Online isn't more successful than it is.  It has its hardcore fan base, but that's it.  Star Trek fans expect a ground game.  Yes, you are confined in your ship in EvE Online, that's how it works there.  That's not how it works in the Star Trek universe.  People aren't confined by themselves on one single ship unless it's a shuttlecraft.

And just for the record, the fans of EvE Online have been screaming for a ground game for years.  And they will get it sooner or later.

You failed to address, much less answer, the question:

Is EVE Online not a 'true' MMORPG?

Originally posted by hanshotfirst

Originally posted by Tycalibur

Good attempt, and I applaud the effort, but the ground game being absent in EvE Online is exactly why EvE Online isn't more successful than it is.  It has its hardcore fan base, but that's it.  Star Trek fans expect a ground game.  Yes, you are confined in your ship in EvE Online, that's how it works there.  That's not how it works in the Star Trek universe.  People aren't confined by themselves on one single ship unless it's a shuttlecraft.

And just for the record, the fans of EvE Online have been screaming for a ground game for years.  And they will get it sooner or later.

You failed to address, much less answer, the question:

Is EVE Online not a 'true' MMORPG?

EvE Online is not an MMORPG in the strictest sense of the term.  It is, like STO, very limited in scope.

My position is this.  I will play the beta.  I will not pay for it if I am not overwhelmingly impressed with it.

The other part of my position I have already made clear in my longer post.  STO could have been better, more broad and more encompassing than it already is.

Scorn?  Please.  Nothing I say in dissent, no matter how much I try to sugar coat it, will be ample enough for you.  Like ktanner, you're tuning out what I'm saying.

And to answer a question you asked above that I missed answering, yes, I am that critical of EvE Online, or was when I actually had a paid account.  I am that way with any MMORPG.  I have been ever since the SWG NGE.  

Originally posted by Blurr

Star Trek Online: Hands-On Preview 

Finally, someone who knows what they're talking about, has played the game, and can actually talk about it.

From the article (with bold to emphasize important parts):
"The most complete and balanced of these systems is easily the ship combat stage. This is a slower, more tactical game that has more in common with Pirates of the Burning Sea ship combat than the average MMO."

"Player ships come in three classes: Science, Escort and Cruiser. Each has their own advantages and disadvantages. Escorts are faster, Cruisers more combat oriented and Science more systems oriented. Beyond that, players customize their ships in a few ways." (No mention of Tank/DPS/Healer here)

"Devices are consumable items that give a boost to specific area, Consoles are devices plugged into the ships – they suggested thinking of them like the classic RPG “rings” that provide persistent buffs – and weapons can be subbed in and out to customize the role you want to play. Players can also play with their engines and shields."

"Ships do far more damage when they can fire two phaser banks at once, which usually means you want to shoot from the side, and while it is possible to move the energy to different shields to compensate for where incoming fire is hitting, turning about and making sure they never zero in on one section of your shields is also very effective."

"Velocity is determined in the UI. Players can run at full impulse or slow right down to really hammer on a target. It’s all in the tactics."

"Like the show, a typical battle is mostly phasers until the shields come down. Then, the players swoop in and fire off a round of photons through the holes in the shields to really take out the enemy."

"Bridge Officers also play a big role in space combat... Once plugged in, you then have access to their special abilities. For example, a tactical officer might give you some kind of special attack. These are the closest thing to the traditional MMO hotbar."

"Each one gets up to four active “Captain Powers,” one per rank, plus one passive one. These are earned essentially each 10 levels." (Your captain's Career, while important, doesn't account for all or likely even the majority of your abilities) 

"The entire space-combat game seemed to be nailed down pretty well and was easily the strongest part of the game. It’s got a pace that is a bit slower than the average game, but there is so much to be aware of and manage that it felt right. Is it a dog-fight? Of course not, but Star Trek combat has never been about that."

This article, I feel, basically reinforces all the things I've been saying about prejudging the game. This guy has actually played it, and listen to what he says about it. The article only mentions healing/tanking/dps when talking about the career specializations of the captain itself, and these are only in effect when they are on ground missions.

See? You have nothing to worry about. There's no mention of the holy trinity in space combat. Everything is reportly tight and working well. Lets go onto the next topic that someone wants to bash the game about, and let this behemoth of a thread die.

This article really isn't proof of anything other then the fact that Dana liked the space combat portion of the game. All due respect to Dana but what he likes I might find to be a steaming pile of doo doo.

It was a little light on details. Although I'm glad to see that the type of damage that photons do is different then the type of damage that phasers do and that weapon and shield arcs sound like they make some difference.

The article really hasn't done anything to dispell my concerns about the combat system...or some of the things that I've heard said about it.

I'll grant that the proof is in the pudding..... as in, the way to really tell how it shakes out is to get ones hands on it and see first hand. However, absent the ability to do that all we can do is conjecture off the information we have gotten about it.

I do know that the ONLY way I'll get to do that is if they offer a free trial. I don't buy games sight unseen anymore.... even ones that I think might be good..... and this one has WAY too many decisions that I felt were just plain stupid (though others seem to like).

As far as the possible tactical utility of being able to reverse course by pitching up/down past 90 degrees. The ability to move away from an enemy  (or turn towards one) without exposing side shield facings would seem to be one obvious example of potential use...no?

 Edit: It's upto the developer to post details of their systems (combat and otherwise) in order to give consumers enough information to decide whether it's worth buying or not. So far most of what I've seen coming out of Cryptic is "pretty explosions".... unless they are actualy willing to provide more information I'm going to assume that's the main attraction of thier combat system.

The onus is on a Developer to advertise in clear and concise details the features of thier product if they want educated/discriminating consumers to give that product a try. So far there is nothing in what they've put out that makes me consider wanting to give it a try..... quite the reverse in fact.

Originally posted by GrumpyMel2

Originally posted by Blurr

Star Trek Online: Hands-On Preview 

Finally, someone who knows what they're talking about, has played the game, and can actually talk about it.

From the article (with bold to emphasize important parts):
"The most complete and balanced of these systems is easily the ship combat stage. This is a slower, more tactical game that has more in common with Pirates of the Burning Sea ship combat than the average MMO."

"Player ships come in three classes: Science, Escort and Cruiser. Each has their own advantages and disadvantages. Escorts are faster, Cruisers more combat oriented and Science more systems oriented. Beyond that, players customize their ships in a few ways." (No mention of Tank/DPS/Healer here)

"Devices are consumable items that give a boost to specific area, Consoles are devices plugged into the ships – they suggested thinking of them like the classic RPG “rings” that provide persistent buffs – and weapons can be subbed in and out to customize the role you want to play. Players can also play with their engines and shields."

"Ships do far more damage when they can fire two phaser banks at once, which usually means you want to shoot from the side, and while it is possible to move the energy to different shields to compensate for where incoming fire is hitting, turning about and making sure they never zero in on one section of your shields is also very effective."

"Velocity is determined in the UI. Players can run at full impulse or slow right down to really hammer on a target. It’s all in the tactics."

"Like the show, a typical battle is mostly phasers until the shields come down. Then, the players swoop in and fire off a round of photons through the holes in the shields to really take out the enemy."

"Bridge Officers also play a big role in space combat... Once plugged in, you then have access to their special abilities. For example, a tactical officer might give you some kind of special attack. These are the closest thing to the traditional MMO hotbar."

"Each one gets up to four active “Captain Powers,” one per rank, plus one passive one. These are earned essentially each 10 levels." (Your captain's Career, while important, doesn't account for all or likely even the majority of your abilities) 

"The entire space-combat game seemed to be nailed down pretty well and was easily the strongest part of the game. It’s got a pace that is a bit slower than the average game, but there is so much to be aware of and manage that it felt right. Is it a dog-fight? Of course not, but Star Trek combat has never been about that."

This article, I feel, basically reinforces all the things I've been saying about prejudging the game. This guy has actually played it, and listen to what he says about it. The article only mentions healing/tanking/dps when talking about the career specializations of the captain itself, and these are only in effect when they are on ground missions.

See? You have nothing to worry about. There's no mention of the holy trinity in space combat. Everything is reportly tight and working well. Lets go onto the next topic that someone wants to bash the game about, and let this behemoth of a thread die.

 

This article really isn't proof of anything other then the fact that Dana liked the space combat portion of the game. All due respect to Dana but what he likes I might find to be a steaming pile of doo doo.

It was a little light on details. Although I'm glad to see that the type of damage that photons do is different then the type of damage that phasers do and that weapon and shield arcs sound like they make some difference.

The article really hasn't done anything to dispell my concerns about the combat system...or some of the things that I've heard said about it.

I'll grant that the proof is in the pudding..... as in, the way to really tell how it shakes out is to get ones hands on it and see first hand. However, absent the ability to do that all we can do is conjecture off the information we have gotten about it.

I do know that the ONLY way I'll get to do that is if they offer a free trial. I don't buy games sight unseen anymore.... even ones that I think might be good..... and this one has WAY too many decisions that I felt were just plain stupid (though others seem to like).

As far as the possible tactical utility of being able to reverse course by pitching up/down past 90 degrees. The ability to move away from an enemy  (or turn towards one) without exposing side shield facings would seem to be one obvious example of potential use...no?

 

 

 

 

Open beta is in January.  Sign up for an account on their website and register to play the beta.  It's free.

Originally posted by GrumpyMel2

As far as the possible tactical utility of being able to reverse course by pitching up/down past 90 degrees. The ability to move away from an enemy  (or turn towards one) without exposing side shield facings would seem to be one obvious example of potential use...no? 

With 6 shield facings (current plus top and bottom), this would add a lot of interesting dynamics to movement if you could tilt and pitch without limit (beyond the speed you can do that at).

Anyhow, like I said a bit earlier, this thread is about group combat, from which we have zero third-party reviews or videos (and really no significant footage from Cryptic).  All we have are some comments from cryptic in interviews and statements on their website.  Based on that, it seems to be an HT system since those are the only combat roles they go over and they've repeatedly talked about them.

Originally posted by Drachasor

With 6 shield facings (current plus top and bottom), this would add a lot of interesting dynamics to movement if you could tilt and pitch without limit (beyond the speed you can do that at).

Anyhow, like I said a bit earlier, this thread is about group combat, from which we have zero third-party reviews or videos (and really no significant footage from Cryptic).  All we have are some comments from cryptic in interviews and statements on their website.  Based on that, it seems to be an HT system since those are the only combat roles they go over and they've repeatedly talked about them.

Except that the comments don't really outline an HT system, that's just what you're reading into them, despite there being contradictory information. I like how when they directly say there's more to the game than any HT system, you say that comment is old and therefore invalid, yet I'm sure if there was an old interview that reinforced your point, it would be "promises kept". Not to mention all the people who go on about other things they said earlier in the development cycle.

I would also like you to respond to hanshotfirst's post above, as I think he made some valid points. For instance, where exactly did they outline this shield extension tanking that you go on about? etc...

Originally posted by Blurr

Originally posted by Drachasor

With 6 shield facings (current plus top and bottom), this would add a lot of interesting dynamics to movement if you could tilt and pitch without limit (beyond the speed you can do that at).

Anyhow, like I said a bit earlier, this thread is about group combat, from which we have zero third-party reviews or videos (and really no significant footage from Cryptic).  All we have are some comments from cryptic in interviews and statements on their website.  Based on that, it seems to be an HT system since those are the only combat roles they go over and they've repeatedly talked about them.

 

Except that the comments don't really outline an HT system, that's just what you're reading into them, despite there being contradictory information. I like how when they directly say there's more to the game than any HT system, you say that comment is old and therefore invalid, yet I'm sure if there was an old interview that reinforced your point, it would be "promises kept". Not to mention all the people who go on about other things they said earlier in the development cycle.

I would also like you to respond to hanshotfirst's post above, as I think he made some valid points. For instance, where exactly did they outline this shield extension tanking that you go on about? etc...

Yeah, one vague statement they said months and months ago that doesn't line up with anything they've said recently is clearly just as a valid as their more recent interviews, the videos they've made, and their website.  All of which say there are THREE space combat roles, one is DPS, one is Tanking, and one is Support (and that one does healing).
 

Things early in the development cycle on ANY MMO shouldn't be counted on if they are suddenly not mentioned again.  Ideas and concepts get dropped and die unknown deaths all the times during development cycles.  Since the only contradictory statement is old and all the other information lines up and agrees with each other, it seems the thing to do is ignore the contradictory statement whose idea has never been followed up on.  The alternative is that the videos and other group combat details they've put out have been done in a very incompetent manner -- that's could be, I suppose.

Like I've said before, I have han blocked.  I don't see what he posts.  His extraordinary vulgar comment regarding me was the last I wanted to hear from him.  Anyhow...

"In combat, the Excalibur's Class VIII warp core is large enough to allow it to transfer power to damaged ships or extend its shields to protect an ally without impacting its own defenses or systems."

I was pretty sure they mentioned it elsewhere, but that's where they go over it for the weakest cruiser (with a justification that seems to apply to any Cruiser).  Can't find the other mention though.

Originally posted by Drachasor

Yeah, one vague statement they said months and months ago that doesn't line up with anything they've said recently is clearly just as a valid as their more recent interviews, the videos they've made, and their website.  All of which say there are THREE space combat roles, one is DPS, one is Tanking, and one is Support (and that one does healing).
 

Things early in the development cycle on ANY MMO shouldn't be counted on if they are suddenly not mentioned again.  Ideas and concepts get dropped and die unknown deaths all the times during development cycles.  Since the only contradictory statement is old and all the other information lines up and agrees with each other, it seems the thing to do is ignore the contradictory statement whose idea has never been followed up on.  The alternative is that the videos and other group combat details they've put out have been done in a very incompetent manner -- that's could be, I suppose.

Like I've said before, I have han blocked.  I don't see what he posts.  His extraordinary vulgar comment regarding me was the last I wanted to hear from him.  Anyhow...

"In combat, the Excalibur's Class VIII warp core is large enough to allow it to transfer power to damaged ships or extend its shields to protect an ally without impacting its own defenses or systems."

I was pretty sure they mentioned it elsewhere, but that's where they go over it for the weakest cruiser (with a justification that seems to apply to any Cruiser).  Can't find the other mention though.

Really? Where do they actually say "there are THREE space combat roles, one is dps, one is tanking, and one is Support (and that one does healing)."? I've read just about everything and I haven't seen them come anywhere close to this supposed outline.

I suppose you're assuming that since the quote is old, they must have changed the way their combat system works. This seems highly unlikely considering they never mentioned it. Also the other information only lines up and agrees with itself in your mind, because it's what you're reading into it. Despite the fact that there's contradictory comments in the exact same videos you pull some of your quotes from.

I'll give you the just of what han mentioned: You say "Anyhow, they have said stuff about group dynamics." and then you say "I've read no reviews nor seen any videos that actually even remotely address group combat dynamics.", which is it then? He also points out that your talking about how shield transfers work isn't accurate and is more likely a bad guess. He also asks where you got your shield extension quote, lets look at that shall we?

The shield extension "quote" is actually from what is, essentially, a fluff piece about a specific ship. They specify in that article what weapons/defenses it has, despite the fact that we know for certain that you can change those. They show a picture of the Excalibur but we know you can change that too.  Also, they say that it can beam repair crews over to other ships, but that would be a healing mechanic, would it not? As well they say that it can boost tractor beams to grapple ships, but that would be a deflector dish operation, that would potentially be more suited to a science ship, would it not? They also suggest it's a generalized type of ship with the quote "However, the Excalibur's versatility allows it to perform well in tough situations that specialized ships may not be prepared to handle." So it excels in areas where specialized (aka HT?) ships aren't prepared to handle. That actually makes a pretty good argument there. Not to mention the fact that it starts off the article with "...the Excalibur is the first of a group of new, state-of-the-art cruisers intended to fill a variety of roles for Starfleet.". And to top it all off...

That article was posted on or about May 29th, 2009. This makes it actually older than the quote you dismiss as being too old (which  was said on July 13th, 2009, approximately two months later). In addition, it also meshes with your argument that if it's that old, and it hasn't been talked about, it must not exist anymore right? You can't have it both ways, to claim a developer's direct response is too old and therefore invalid, yet use a fluff piece that is even older to prove your position.

Perhaps you really need to rethink your position? It seems to me that you are soo adamant in this system being in place despite not having any concrete evidence, it almost seems like you're trying to find ways to bash the game. I've said this before but you should really consider what I'm saying here. So far everyone who's played it and is allowed to talk about it is quite happy with space combat. I really don't get why you're so fixated on prejudging the game and bashing it. Can you not take people at their word and reserve judgement until you have a hands-on experience?

Originally posted by Blurr

Originally posted by Drachasor

Yeah, one vague statement they said months and months ago that doesn't line up with anything they've said recently is clearly just as a valid as their more recent interviews, the videos they've made, and their website.  All of which say there are THREE space combat roles, one is DPS, one is Tanking, and one is Support (and that one does healing).
 

Things early in the development cycle on ANY MMO shouldn't be counted on if they are suddenly not mentioned again.  Ideas and concepts get dropped and die unknown deaths all the times during development cycles.  Since the only contradictory statement is old and all the other information lines up and agrees with each other, it seems the thing to do is ignore the contradictory statement whose idea has never been followed up on.  The alternative is that the videos and other group combat details they've put out have been done in a very incompetent manner -- that's could be, I suppose.

Like I've said before, I have han blocked.  I don't see what he posts.  His extraordinary vulgar comment regarding me was the last I wanted to hear from him.  Anyhow...

"In combat, the Excalibur's Class VIII warp core is large enough to allow it to transfer power to damaged ships or extend its shields to protect an ally without impacting its own defenses or systems."

I was pretty sure they mentioned it elsewhere, but that's where they go over it for the weakest cruiser (with a justification that seems to apply to any Cruiser).  Can't find the other mention though.

 

Really? Where do they actually say "there are THREE space combat roles, one is dps, one is tanking, and one is Support (and that one does healing)."? I've read just about everything and I haven't seen them come anywhere close to this supposed outline.

The combat videos and elsewhere.  Maybe you need to watch them again?  The go over the combat roles and there are three of them, they are dps, tanking, and support.

I suppose you're assuming that since the quote is old, they must have changed the way their combat system works. This seems highly unlikely considering they never mentioned it. Also the other information only lines up and agrees with itself in your mind, because it's what you're reading into it. Despite the fact that there's contradictory comments in the exact same videos you pull some of your quotes from.

Since the quote is old and they have nothing that indicates the thought in that quote went anywhere, I dismiss it.  The combat videos don't go over group dynamics beyond the classic HT setup.  Now, you may say "there is more", but my response is "they don't show or indicate that at all in their combat videos."  The purpose of those videos is to push their combat system, if it wasn't HT then they'd do something besides ONLY talk about HT roles.  They do not.  Now again, perhaps they are just woefully bad at putting together these videos, and if that's the case I could very well be wrong.  You can't honestly tell me that their combat videos give the impression the group dynamic isn't HT, can you?

I'll give you the just of what han mentioned: You say "Anyhow, they have said stuff about group dynamics." and then you say "I've read no reviews nor seen any videos that actually even remotely address group combat dynamics.", which is it then? He also points out that your talking about how shield transfers work isn't accurate and is more likely a bad guess. He also asks where you got your shield extension quote, lets look at that shall we?

I already covered this.  "They" is Cryptic, the context of the videos comment was on 3rd party videos going over the gameplay (reviews are also automatically third party).  The statements are not at all contradictory.  Maybe the shield transfer thing is a bad guess, but then wouldn't a Cruiser be better at healing than a Science Vessel?  Maybe there are built-in bonuses that modify this, but healing IS a support function (I assume we agree there at least), so the Science Vessel should have an advantage there according to what has been said.  I just said how I'd thought it would work based on that.  There are other ways to go about it.  Again, it was a self-admitted guess when I said it.  Not sure I see the point in getting bent out of shape over it.

The shield extension "quote" is actually from what is, essentially, a fluff piece about a specific ship. They specify in that article what weapons/defenses it has, despite the fact that we know for certain that you can change those. They show a picture of the Excalibur but we know you can change that too.  Also, they say that it can beam repair crews over to other ships, but that would be a healing mechanic, would it not? As well they say that it can boost tractor beams to grapple ships, but that would be a deflector dish operation, that would potentially be more suited to a science ship, would it not? They also suggest it's a generalized type of ship with the quote "However, the Excalibur's versatility allows it to perform well in tough situations that specialized ships may not be prepared to handle." So it excels in areas where specialized (aka HT?) ships aren't prepared to handle. That actually makes a pretty good argument there. Not to mention the fact that it starts off the article with "...the Excalibur is the first of a group of new, state-of-the-art cruisers intended to fill a variety of roles for Starfleet.". And to top it all off...

That "fluff" does go over combat mechanics though, and yeah, some of them go over the mechanics of the ship's default configuration (I assume the shield extending ability is part of that).  Possible this is an officer ability though, someone on the STO forums put together a list of abilities from there and "extend shields" was an ability there (you can do a google search with "extend shields" and "sto" and get it easy).  That said, I was pretty sure it was mentioned somewhere else, and I'll look for that.

Anyhow, did they make tractor beams part of the deflector dish now?  That's not how they are in ANY of the shows.  Sounds odd if they did.  Anyhow, holding a target in place is a "tank" thing, yes?  Don't see how it is more appropriate to a science ship given that.

Beyond that, don't you think it strange you say a specific statement like how the ship can extend its shields to protect an ally is FLUFF, then something vague with zero specifics you think is some great line about how the entire game works?  Lots of ways you can satisfy a vague quote like that.  Lore-wise the specialized ships are smaller, so they can't handle big jobs as well.  Anyhow, that statement comes right AFTER it is said it has less firepower than an Escort AND less science-stuff than a science vessel.  If anything that whole paragraph generally supports my thesis.

That article was posted on or about May 29th, 2009. This makes it actually older than the quote you dismiss as being too old (which  was said on July 13th, 2009, approximately two months later). In addition, it also meshes with your argument that if it's that old, and it hasn't been talked about, it must not exist anymore right? You can't have it both ways, to claim a developer's direct response is too old and therefore invalid, yet use a fluff piece that is even older to prove your position.

Old and not consistent with how they are talking about things.  Extending Shields is a tank job and doing tank stuff is still in the game and they are still talking about it.  Anyhow, I was pretty sure I read it elsewhere, so I'll try and track that down.

Perhaps you really need to rethink your position? It seems to me that you are soo adamant in this system being in place despite not having any concrete evidence, it almost seems like you're trying to find ways to bash the game. I've said this before but you should really consider what I'm saying here. So far everyone who's played it and is allowed to talk about it is quite happy with space combat. I really don't get why you're so fixated on prejudging the game and bashing it. Can you not take people at their word and reserve judgement until you have a hands-on experience?

Point me to ONE PERSON who has talked about group combat.  So far Cryptic is the ONLY entity that has talked about it.  They've REPEATEDLY used HT terminology all over the place when describing combat.  Pretending they haven't doesn't change this.  Not being able to admit the combat videos don't go over this or the website doesn't go over this, etc, etc doesn't change the fact that they have.  All my information is consistent with what I've said, there exists a SINGLE cryptic quote that disagrees with what I've said that is not further detailed, mentioned, or in any way followed up ANYWHERE in ANYTHING they've released.  Yeah, maybe it ISN'T HT, but if so then they've done a lousy job putting their information up on it.

---

Originally posted by Tycalibur
EvE Online is not an MMORPG in the strictest sense of the term.  It is, like STO, very limited in scope.

---

---

Originally posted by Tycalibur
My position is this.  I will play the beta.  I will not pay for it if I am not overwhelmingly impressed with it.

---

---

Originally posted by Tycalibur
The other part of my position I have already made clear in my longer post.  STO could have been better, more broad and more encompassing than it already is.

---

---

Originally posted by Tycalibur
Scorn?  Please.  Nothing I say in dissent, no matter how much I try to sugar coat it, will be ample enough for you.  Like ktanner, you're tuning out what I'm saying.

---

Originally posted by Drachasor

Originally posted by Blurr

Really? Where do they actually say "there are THREE space combat roles, one is dps, one is tanking, and one is Support (and that one does healing)."? I've read just about everything and I haven't seen them come anywhere close to this supposed outline.

The combat videos and elsewhere.  Maybe you need to watch them again?  The go over the combat roles and there are three of them, they are dps, tanking, and support.  No it's time for you to give quotes and outline where they actually said there are only three roles and these are the three specific roles. So far they have only used those words as a way to describe the advantages of the ships, not gameplay.

I suppose you're assuming that since the quote is old, they must have changed the way their combat system works. This seems highly unlikely considering they never mentioned it. Also the other information only lines up and agrees with itself in your mind, because it's what you're reading into it. Despite the fact that there's contradictory comments in the exact same videos you pull some of your quotes from.

Since the quote is old and they have nothing that indicates the thought in that quote went anywhere, I dismiss it.  So, because they haven't had to repeatedly answer the question, you assume they've changed their answer? The combat videos don't go over group dynamics beyond the classic HT setup.  Now, you may say "there is more", but my response is "they don't show or indicate that at all in their combat videos."  The purpose of those videos is to push their combat system, if it wasn't HT then they'd do something besides ONLY talk about HT roles.  They do not.  Now again, perhaps they are just woefully bad at putting together these videos, and if that's the case I could very well be wrong.  You can't honestly tell me that their combat videos give the impression the group dynamic isn't HT, can you? Except they don't actually talk about HT roles, they simply use those words to describe the advantages of the ships. Once again you are waffling between saying they do outline group combat to support your theory, and then that they don't describe it at all.

I'll give you the just of what han mentioned: You say "Anyhow, they have said stuff about group dynamics." and then you say "I've read no reviews nor seen any videos that actually even remotely address group combat dynamics.", which is it then? He also points out that your talking about how shield transfers work isn't accurate and is more likely a bad guess. He also asks where you got your shield extension quote, lets look at that shall we?

I already covered this.  "They" is Cryptic, the context of the videos comment was on 3rd party videos going over the gameplay (reviews are also automatically third party).  The statements are not at all contradictory.  Maybe the shield transfer thing is a bad guess, but then wouldn't a Cruiser be better at healing than a Science Vessel?  Maybe there are built-in bonuses that modify this, but healing IS a support function (I assume we agree there at least), so the Science Vessel should have an advantage there according to what has been said.  I just said how I'd thought it would work based on that.  There are other ways to go about it.  Again, it was a self-admitted guess when I said it.  Not sure I see the point in getting bent out of shape over it. I think the point is that like the rest of your argument, you really are just guessing, and seeing as you haven't played the game, you don't actually have any knowledge of whether you're just making more bad guesses.

The shield extension "quote" is actually from what is, essentially, a fluff piece about a specific ship. They specify in that article what weapons/defenses it has, despite the fact that we know for certain that you can change those. They show a picture of the Excalibur but we know you can change that too.  Also, they say that it can beam repair crews over to other ships, but that would be a healing mechanic, would it not? As well they say that it can boost tractor beams to grapple ships, but that would be a deflector dish operation, that would potentially be more suited to a science ship, would it not? They also suggest it's a generalized type of ship with the quote "However, the Excalibur's versatility allows it to perform well in tough situations that specialized ships may not be prepared to handle." So it excels in areas where specialized (aka HT?) ships aren't prepared to handle. That actually makes a pretty good argument there. Not to mention the fact that it starts off the article with "...the Excalibur is the first of a group of new, state-of-the-art cruisers intended to fill a variety of roles for Starfleet.". And to top it all off...

That "fluff" does go over combat mechanics though, and yeah, some of them go over the mechanics of the ship's default configuration (I assume the shield extending ability is part of that).  Possible this is an officer ability though, someone on the STO forums put together a list of abilities from there and "extend shields" was an ability there (you can do a google search with "extend shields" and "sto" and get it easy).  That said, I was pretty sure it was mentioned somewhere else, and I'll look for that. I did a google search actually, and you know what I found? More people that haven't played the game specifically speculating on what they'd LIKE to see. Not what is. This is what you're doing. You want the game to be a certain way so you can continue bashing it.

Anyhow, did they make tractor beams part of the deflector dish now?  That's not how they are in ANY of the shows.  Sounds odd if they did.  Anyhow, holding a target in place is a "tank" thing, yes?  Don't see how it is more appropriate to a science ship given that.

Beyond that, don't you think it strange you say a specific statement like how the ship can extend its shields to protect an ally is FLUFF, then something vague with zero specifics you think is some great line about how the entire game works?  Lots of ways you can satisfy a vague quote like that.  Lore-wise the specialized ships are smaller, so they can't handle big jobs as well.  Anyhow, that statement comes right AFTER it is said it has less firepower than an Escort AND less science-stuff than a science vessel.  If anything that whole paragraph generally supports my thesis.

The problem you don't seem to see here is that it's a fluff piece. Fluff is another word for a small story piece intended to flesh out the background of a particular part of the game. Essentially everything in that article amounts to just a story, not actual gameplay mechanics.  You also ignore many of the holes in the article that are counter to your theory. The ship being used for a variety of roles, etc, etc. It's pretty clear what you do here is you see all this evidence against you and then try to pick out one part, completely changing your stance in logic if necessary, and try to refute that without really answering the question, then assume that you've refuted the whole piece. You need to defend every point I made above, not just pick and choose which you think you can wrap your warped logic around. The fact is that the article contradicts what you're trying to say about the game, if you're taking it as being how the gameplay works. You should know better than to expect gameplay mechanics to be properly outlined in a story piece.

That article was posted on or about May 29th, 2009. This makes it actually older than the quote you dismiss as being too old (which  was said on July 13th, 2009, approximately two months later). In addition, it also meshes with your argument that if it's that old, and it hasn't been talked about, it must not exist anymore right? You can't have it both ways, to claim a developer's direct response is too old and therefore invalid, yet use a fluff piece that is even older to prove your position.

Old and not consistent with how they are talking about things.  Extending Shields is a tank job and doing tank stuff is still in the game and they are still talking about it.  Anyhow, I was pretty sure I read it elsewhere, so I'll try and track that down. Except they're not still talking about people doing tank jobs and extending shields. Once again you ignore your own logic, and avoid any direct discrepencies. As I mentioned before, if something is older and you think supports your theory, you assume it's set in stone, while something that disproves your theory, you assume it's old and has been changed. How can anyone expect to believe you when you are clearly just changing your stance to suit your needs?

Perhaps you really need to rethink your position? It seems to me that you are soo adamant in this system being in place despite not having any concrete evidence, it almost seems like you're trying to find ways to bash the game. I've said this before but you should really consider what I'm saying here. So far everyone who's played it and is allowed to talk about it is quite happy with space combat. I really don't get why you're so fixated on prejudging the game and bashing it. Can you not take people at their word and reserve judgement until you have a hands-on experience?

Point me to ONE PERSON who has talked about group combat.  So far Cryptic is the ONLY entity that has talked about it.  They've REPEATEDLY used HT terminology all over the place when describing combat.  Pretending they haven't doesn't change this.  Not being able to admit the combat videos don't go over this or the website doesn't go over this, etc, etc doesn't change the fact that they have.  All my information is consistent with what I've said, there exists a SINGLE cryptic quote that disagrees with what I've said that is not further detailed, mentioned, or in any way followed up ANYWHERE in ANYTHING they've released.  Yeah, maybe it ISN'T HT, but if so then they've done a lousy job putting their information up on it. Except that once again, you yourself have said they haven't talked about group combat at times. Not only that, you attempt to dismiss the one point that DIRECTLY answers the issue at hand, and try to attack it with vague generalities about "they said the word tank, therefore it must be a HT system". This is flawed logic. You even admit you could be wrong here, yet you use that opportunity to bash the game. It's pretty clear to me you're so blinded by your hate for this game/company that you'll do anything to bash it.

 

Originally posted by hanshotfirst

 

---

Originally posted by Tycalibur
EvE Online is not an MMORPG in the strictest sense of the term.  It is, like STO, very limited in scope.

---

Would you concede it might just be your opinion is very limited in scope?

 

 

---

Originally posted by Tycalibur
My position is this.  I will play the beta.  I will not pay for it if I am not overwhelmingly impressed with it.

---

And? What are you expecting here, Smart Shopper of the Year award?

 

 

---

Originally posted by Tycalibur
The other part of my position I have already made clear in my longer post.  STO could have been better, more broad and more encompassing than it already is.

---

What game, past, present or future, couldn't be better, more broad and more encompassing?

 

 

---

Originally posted by Tycalibur
Scorn?  Please.  Nothing I say in dissent, no matter how much I try to sugar coat it, will be ample enough for you.  Like ktanner, you're tuning out what I'm saying.

---

What are we tuning out? You don't see a distinction between expressing concerns or even outright distaste for something, and claiming it's been misadvertised and misrepresented?
 

 

1.  HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. 

2.  If you want to give it to me, sure.

3.  I can think of tons of MMOs that have already beat the pants off STO in concept and design, which is really sad.

4.  There is no we here, just you.  You are focused on one thing that I said about STO.  My concerns about this game are vast, although STO *IS* misadvertised and misrepresented.  I have already explained why.  You were being reasonable at first.  Now you are not.  If you need that spelled out for you, I cannot help you with that.

It is possible to express concerns about the fact that I feel something IS being incorrectly portrayed in the form of this game, who in the hell said there had to be a distinction?

Originally posted by Blurr

 

Really? Where do they actually say "there are THREE space combat roles, one is dps, one is tanking, and one is Support (and that one does healing)."? I've read just about everything and I haven't seen them come anywhere close to this supposed outline.

Um, hello?  The video (on the official site and on youtube) with a developer, explaining the ship combat?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4HBjpR0XzUE

I like how he says you get to experience exploration and diplomacy, then goes on to say...absolutely nothing about either.

Originally posted by Tycalibur
...

Based on the games I've played online, it could be better.  And Cryptic has made it clear they aren't going to put any more development into that before release.  As far as I am concerned, the game is unfinished.

About the only 'roleplaying' you're going to see, or feel in this upcoming experience is "LTB FORWARD PHASERS 35,000,000 CREDITS PST" in a public trade channel. 

I just feel this game is extremely limited in that regard, and I feel this is at the heart of what most of the dissenters are concerned about.

...
I just think that Cryptic has gone about developing this game all wrong. 

...
They're banking on one aspect of a game rather than many to carry them into the first year.  Players want more than that.  Potential players have indicated as such.

...

It's Star Trek.  It could have been so much grander, so much larger, so much more fun.e. 

...
I just don't feel it when I look at the screenshots, videos or listen to one of the developers babble on about combat.  I don't feel the Star Trek experience, the immersion or the anticipation of the game at all. 

This post has not too much with the thread's topic imo, but it sums up quite nicely my own worries.

@Blurr:
You accuse people of bashing the game time and again when they merely vopice their concerns and different views/interpretations of what info they were given.
So YOU see no evidence of HT.
Therefore, you seem to conclude that everyone else that does - from the Info we're given - deduct that there is indeed a HT system (despite that ONE Statement) in place must be wrong.
And from that you further assume that anyone that - despite you so vehemently pointing out that we cannot KNOW there is HT in place - keep on talking about HT and their worries are merely out to bash the game.
Well, let me tell you: that is NOT the case.

I, for example, am worried about "HT" in STO as well.
I have played EQ for about 8years and am quite used to the HT concept.
I see EVERY indication in the dev's statements/interviews that STO will have similar mechanics.
Now, you are right: i do not KNOW that for a fact. Nor do i KNOW exactly HOW that will work.
I have in one post (different thread i think) tried to paint how i FEAR it would work and what the (feared) result would be if i were right ("min/maxing" issue).
If i am right or not, i could tell during open beta at the soonest, provided i'd be allowed in and could then talk about it.
On the other hand, i think that YOU do not know for certain either that HT is NOT in place.
You just (or so i think, unless you are in beta and cannot talk about it) look at the same info i do and conclude differently because you put more emphasis on some (or rather: one) statement than i do and for the rest you simply do not "extrapolate" the info we're given - at least not in the same way i do.
That might be because we have different past experiences, or it might be that you are simply quite naive and BELIEVE the Dev's when they disclaim "HT".
Or it might be that i simply have over the time become too "burnt" by broken Dev' promises to actually BELIEVE them anymore.

The only thing i can say is my OPINION.
And in my OPINION the Info we are given STONGLY suggests we have HT in place in STO.
This OPINION is reinforced by the Dev's themselves using words like "tank/DPS/Support" (remember i said once that wrding IS important - you do not use "tank" to describe an aspect of your product unless you have such a function implemented too).
It is further reinfioced by the 3general ship types, the 3PC careers (basic kits).
Heck, one source even spoke about 3different "aspects" of those 3"kits" which sounded pretty much like Shadowknight, Warrior, Rogue to me in the tactical case for example.
And the fact that you can refit your ship, but that it offers a "basic" supply of certain types of stations more than others does - to me - reinforce that the 3ship types are indeed designed to take certain roles within the game.

Sure, it's also said that the ship type does - per se - not define the role you have in combat.
And that might even be true, especially for solo content.
And we have not heard much if anything about group or raidcontent, so the extrapolating into those areas is just guesswork, yes.
A Cleric in EQ *can* tank certain mobs, because of his heals and even better if he has raidgear in group content.
So a statement like "the class in EQ does not define the role you play" would - according to your line of argument be true as well, would it not?

Well, in EQ a Cleric is a Healer, remains a healer and will always be a healer. At least primarily.
NO guild would want a Cleric for a tanking role.
And i cannot halp but think it will be very similar in STO:
If you are looking for a "tank" you won't be taking a guy flying around in a Support or Escort vessel, no matter his configuration (IF there is a Galaxy-flying PC available that has NOT "misgeared" his ship into all-science or whatever).

No i am NOT out to bash STO, but what *i* see (and conclude from what i see) does not make "ST" for me either.
It does perhaps make "MMOG" for me, but not necessarily an "MMORPG".
I have yet to see those "RPG" features, perhaps i did not look hard enough, could be.
But i truly have yet to read an interview or somesuch where the Dev's emphasize or even just MENTION how the players will communicate with each other, HOW teaming up for those "away missions" works, what benefit - if any - it has to team up in the first place, etc.

The Dev's seem very proud about their combat system and - to ME - that seems to be the reason why they keep pointing at it.
All that is ever discussed in reviews and interviews, really, is that combat system.
As if "combat" were all you'll be doing.
(And truth be told, there ARE games out there that *do* have "true" 3Dfighting like i'd expect from a space-game but no, EVE is not among them obviously)
Perhaps the conclusion that there is next to no content BESIDES combat is NOT too far-fetched?
I mean, surely if they were equally proud of other aspects we'd have heard about that by now too?

Maybe i am much too demanding, but to ME there should be more in a game than combat.
Sure, EQ for example is combat all the time too and yes the primary source of XP in EQ is combat, but they also have loads of (more or less involved) quests that do NOT (necessarily) involve fighting.
It is - among other things like a well-defined lore - that make for an "immersion factor", at least in my case.

So far i am missing ANY hint of something like that in STO.
I am missing references to Economy.
(In the shows, the Enterprise had to transport Meds and stuff to colonies, to it IS in the lore as such; or in ENT the pilot's parents ran a trading vessel, so trading IS in the ST universe - not to mention the Ferenghi who make it an art to take advantage of people in trades).
And since MMORPGs *ARE* about grouping and social interaction to me, i am missing references/interviews about grouping and such too.

So, as Ty has said in the above quote:
STO could be so much more...

Sadly it LOOKS - at least to me - as if they've taken a fantasy combat system into space and call it good.

Originally posted by Blurr

Originally posted by Drachasor

With 6 shield facings (current plus top and bottom), this would add a lot of interesting dynamics to movement if you could tilt and pitch without limit (beyond the speed you can do that at).

Anyhow, like I said a bit earlier, this thread is about group combat, from which we have zero third-party reviews or videos (and really no significant footage from Cryptic).  All we have are some comments from cryptic in interviews and statements on their website.  Based on that, it seems to be an HT system since those are the only combat roles they go over and they've repeatedly talked about them.

 

Except that the comments don't really outline an HT system, that's just what you're reading into them, despite there being contradictory information. I like how when they directly say there's more to the game than any HT system, you say that comment is old and therefore invalid, yet I'm sure if there was an old interview that reinforced your point, it would be "promises kept". Not to mention all the people who go on about other things they said earlier in the development cycle.

I would also like you to respond to hanshotfirst's post above, as I think he made some valid points. For instance, where exactly did they outline this shield extension tanking that you go on about? etc...

Blurr,

In the quote that you are refering to about whether the game had a HT system Zinc answer was literaly   "YES and NO".  He went on to expound that YES players WERE gravitating toward the HT system in play-testing but there was more depth to the system if you actualy started peeling away some of the layers (without bothering to expound much on what that depth actually was).

To my reading that quote is a CONFIRMATION rather then refutation that the game is based of a HT system. There may, indeed, be more depth to it then that (or for those of us who are a bit cynical in how we parse Dev-speak it may equate to there not being much more to it then that but they want to make it sound like there is so you will buy the product).... but at it's basic core it's an HT system. That's what I got from reading Zinc's answer.

Originally posted by GrumpyMel2

Originally posted by Blurr

Originally posted by Drachasor

With 6 shield facings (current plus top and bottom), this would add a lot of interesting dynamics to movement if you could tilt and pitch without limit (beyond the speed you can do that at).

Anyhow, like I said a bit earlier, this thread is about group combat, from which we have zero third-party reviews or videos (and really no significant footage from Cryptic).  All we have are some comments from cryptic in interviews and statements on their website.  Based on that, it seems to be an HT system since those are the only combat roles they go over and they've repeatedly talked about them.

 

Except that the comments don't really outline an HT system, that's just what you're reading into them, despite there being contradictory information. I like how when they directly say there's more to the game than any HT system, you say that comment is old and therefore invalid, yet I'm sure if there was an old interview that reinforced your point, it would be "promises kept". Not to mention all the people who go on about other things they said earlier in the development cycle.

I would also like you to respond to hanshotfirst's post above, as I think he made some valid points. For instance, where exactly did they outline this shield extension tanking that you go on about? etc...

Blurr,

In the quote that you are refering to about whether the game had a HT system Zinc answer was literaly   "YES and NO".  He went on to expound that YES players WERE gravitating toward the HT system in play-testing but there was more depth to the system if you actualy started peeling away some of the layers (without bothering to expound much on what that depth actually was).

To my reading that quote is a CONFIRMATION rather then refutation that the game is based of a HT system. There may, indeed, be more depth to it then that (or for those of us who are a bit cynical in how we parse Dev-speak it may equate to there not being much more to it then that but they want to make it sound like there is so you will buy the product).... but at it's basic core it's an HT system. That's what I got from reading Zinc's answer. 

Ahh, good point.  Blurr, you should at least be able to admit then that an HT system is in place.  You may contend there are more options than HT, but clearly the Devs have said HT is there even in your beloved quote.
 

Beyond that, I'd ask you what those other options are, but I believe the only response you can give is that you have no idea, because the Devs have only used HT terms to describe specifics about group combat.

Originally posted by GrumpyMel2

Originally posted by Blurr

Originally posted by Drachasor

With 6 shield facings (current plus top and bottom), this would add a lot of interesting dynamics to movement if you could tilt and pitch without limit (beyond the speed you can do that at).

Anyhow, like I said a bit earlier, this thread is about group combat, from which we have zero third-party reviews or videos (and really no significant footage from Cryptic).  All we have are some comments from cryptic in interviews and statements on their website.  Based on that, it seems to be an HT system since those are the only combat roles they go over and they've repeatedly talked about them.

 

Except that the comments don't really outline an HT system, that's just what you're reading into them, despite there being contradictory information. I like how when they directly say there's more to the game than any HT system, you say that comment is old and therefore invalid, yet I'm sure if there was an old interview that reinforced your point, it would be "promises kept". Not to mention all the people who go on about other things they said earlier in the development cycle.

I would also like you to respond to hanshotfirst's post above, as I think he made some valid points. For instance, where exactly did they outline this shield extension tanking that you go on about? etc...

Blurr,

In the quote that you are refering to about whether the game had a HT system Zinc answer was literaly   "YES and NO".  He went on to expound that YES players WERE gravitating toward the HT system in play-testing but there was more depth to the system if you actualy started peeling away some of the layers (without bothering to expound much on what that depth actually was).

To my reading that quote is a CONFIRMATION rather then refutation that the game is based of a HT system. There may, indeed, be more depth to it then that (or for those of us who are a bit cynical in how we parse Dev-speak it may equate to there not being much more to it then that but they want to make it sound like there is so you will buy the product).... but at it's basic core it's an HT system. That's what I got from reading Zinc's answer.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The core of the setup is HT. I don't see the need to argue over that point since it is obvious that at its core the cruisers will tank,the science ships will "heal" and the Escort will provide DPS. I think it is insane to debate that point since the tactics videos  clearly show Cruisers taking heavy damage while fighting multiple ships, Science vessels providing repairs to friendly ships and Escorts dealing heavy damage while being very weak in defense. I don't think that point is debatable anymore

What is debatable is whether or not it will look and feel right in the context of the Star Trek universe.