| 487 posts found | |
|---|---|
|
12/02/09 1:17:58 PM#421
Originally posted by ktanner3 I don't think that is debatable, either. I doubt the devs care, when they have put in things like: Auction House Captains 'owning' more than one ship. Customizable appearance (fancy paint jobs) to ships. 'Buying' upgrades for your ship. Not sure about the Klingons, but none of those features fits in Star Fleet. "" Voice acting isn't an RPG element....it's just a production value." - grumpymel2 |
|
|
12/02/09 1:36:53 PM#422
Originally posted by MMO_Doubter I don't think that is debatable, either. I doubt the devs care, when they have put in things like: Auction House Captains 'owning' more than one ship. Customizable appearance (fancy paint jobs) to ships. 'Buying' upgrades for your ship. Not sure about the Klingons, but none of those features fits in Star Fleet. So, to be more precise (since I think we can all agree no group or race EVER in Star Trek has used anything like an HT system) that the question is more "does this violate the feel of Star Trek too much for you?" Some of us say "yes" and others say "no." |
|
|
12/02/09 1:37:44 PM#423
Originally posted by MMO_Doubter I don't think that is debatable, either. I doubt the devs care, when they have put in things like: Auction House Captains 'owning' more than one ship. Customizable appearance (fancy paint jobs) to ships. 'Buying' upgrades for your ship. Not sure about the Klingons, but none of those features fits in Star Fleet.
Hmmm...An Auction House is lore appropriate to a degree. Though it was never directly mentioned in the shows or movies (at least I don't believe it ever was), I'd say it is one of those implied things. Starfleet has mentioned trading with people. Whether Cryptic calls it an Auction House or The Federation Tradecenter...it makes no difference. Aside from that, you're right. The game itself doesn't hold to the true Star Trek image, but then again this is something everyone has known for a long while. The fact that every player will be commanding ships is just...bleh, weird. But in order to make a true Star Trek MMO, there would have to have a pretty large and loyal player base...hell, the game would just be far too complicated (but fun!). Thus fans of Star Trek will have to set aside their hopes and dreams to play STO. Think of it this way...the universe in which STO takes place could be some sick, twisted alternate reality. Where everything that Cryptic is including in the game makes perfect sense. >.< /sigh I'll be trying the game durin OB, to see exactly what they've done and how the game plays. I maybe able to convince myself that it's OK to have every player commanding and "owning" a ship. But...I don't know...>.< 
|
|
|
12/02/09 3:19:33 PM#424
Originally posted by Drachasor So, to be more precise (since I think we can all agree no group or race EVER in Star Trek has used anything like an HT system) that the question is more "does this violate the feel of Star Trek too much for you?" Some of us say "yes" and others say "no."
More like some of us say yes and others say "It's Star Trek, therefore it will be good!" :P |
|
|
12/02/09 3:21:15 PM#425
Originally posted by KrisConway
Hmmm...An Auction House is lore appropriate to a degree. Though it was never directly mentioned in the shows or movies (at least I don't believe it ever was), I'd say it is one of those implied things. Starfleet has mentioned trading with people. Whether Cryptic calls it an Auction House or The Federation Tradecenter...it makes no difference. Aside from that, you're right. The game itself doesn't hold to the true Star Trek image, but then again this is something everyone has known for a long while. The fact that every player will be commanding ships is just...bleh, weird. But in order to make a true Star Trek MMO, there would have to have a pretty large and loyal player base...hell, the game would just be far too complicated (but fun!). Thus fans of Star Trek will have to set aside their hopes and dreams to play STO. Think of it this way...the universe in which STO takes place could be some sick, twisted alternate reality. Where everything that Cryptic is including in the game makes perfect sense. >.< /sigh I'll be trying the game durin OB, to see exactly what they've done and how the game plays. I maybe able to convince myself that it's OK to have every player commanding and "owning" a ship. But...I don't know...>.<
I still believe Perpetual's concept could have been made to work, it would have just required a higher degree of hard work and creative thinking. It's sad, really. Ten years of MMOs, I hoped for something original this time personally (I think those of us who saw the Perpetual concept did), and we get more of the same nonsense. |
|
|
12/02/09 3:57:51 PM#426
Originally posted by Tycalibur 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.
Actually no. This is where many people have a problem, but it's because they're not really listening to what he is saying in the video. He does not say there are three space combat roles, he says "there's 3 basic types of ships" you can get in STO. If you notice in the 2nd video (part 2 of the tactics), Zinc actually says that while your ship defines something, it's really everything else in your ship that defines the role you play in combat. They never actually say which, if any, roles you have to play in the game. At best, it simply describes the fact that you CAN tank/dps/support. This is one of the issues people are not understanding. There's also a difference between being "good for" something, and being pigeon-holed into that role. They do not say the cruiser is for tanking, they say it's good for tanking. That is a difference indicating that other ships can be used for tanking too. As far as exploration and diplomacy, perhaps they're not ready to fully reveal the systems yet so that other games can't steal them? Perhaps they're not fully developed in beta yet? Perhaps they don't go into the exploration/diplomacy in that video because the video is called "starship tactics". I'm quite sure there will be exploration and diplomacy in the game in some form or another. "Because it's easier to nitpick something than to be constructive." -roach5000 |
|
|
12/02/09 4:06:36 PM#427
Originally posted by ktanner3
I apologize if this comes off sounding snippy, but I would actually like to see some game mechanic proof that cruisers are pigeonholed as tanks and science ships are pigeonholed as healers, etc. If you notice in the videos, the escort is fighting the same number of ships as the cruisers. I don't see how you can really tell who's taking or giving heavy damage. All I see the science ship do is a random ability graphic, which other ships may have access too, not that we know what it does anyways. "Because it's easier to nitpick something than to be constructive." -roach5000 |
|
|
12/02/09 4:25:44 PM#428
Originally posted by Blurr
I apologize if this comes off sounding snippy, but I would actually like to see some game mechanic proof that cruisers are pigeonholed as tanks and science ships are pigeonholed as healers, etc. If you notice in the videos, the escort is fighting the same number of ships as the cruisers. I don't see how you can really tell who's taking or giving heavy damage. All I see the science ship do is a random ability graphic, which other ships may have access too, not that we know what it does anyways. Let's put it this way: The devs in the video specifically state what the strengths and weaknesses of each class of ship are. Based on that knowledge, I doubt many players will be using an escort to take on multiple ships by itself since it is specifically stated that they are weak on defense and strong on damage. I also doubt many players will be trying to use a science vessel to take on multiple ships. Maybe or maybe not. I've seen some games where the heal class WAS able to take on multiple players and that usually means the heal class becoming the FOTM until the dev team nerfs them. I certainly hope that isn't the case here, because science vessels are not meant to last in dog fights by themselves. Cruisers on the other hand ARE suppose to last in long fights and that is how they will most likely be used here. But I don't think a cruiser would want to be in a 5 to 1 fight without at least the science vessel there to fix is ship. However you want to interpret that is up to you, but to be honest I think it becomes a strawman argument based on all the facts we see and hear in those videos. I personally have no problem with the setup but I know others do. To each his own. But let's at least admit that we have elemants of the Holy trinity type(or whatever people want to call it) in the game.
MMOs played:SWG,NGE,Warhammer, World of Warcraft, Star Trek Online,Eve, Star Wars the Old Republic. |
|
|
12/02/09 4:26:15 PM#429
Originally posted by Blurr I apologize if this comes off sounding snippy, but I would actually like to see some game mechanic proof that cruisers are pigeonholed as tanks and science ships are pigeonholed as healers, etc. If you notice in the videos, the escort is fighting the same number of ships as the cruisers. I don't see how you can really tell who's taking or giving heavy damage. All I see the science ship do is a random ability graphic, which other ships may have access too, not that we know what it does anyways. So he mispoke. He meant Cruisers are the best at tanking, Escorts are the best at DPS, and Science Vessels are the best at support. Yeah, a given ship might not be pigeon-holed into a particular role, the degree to which that exists is a bit unclear and also fairly irrelevent. The central point is that HT roles definitely exist in the game and they are the only group mechanic that has actually been established to exist. More than that, Cryptic has a fair bit of talk about group mechanics (though not nearly as detailed as one would like, I admit) and all specifics are consistently in HT terms. Does it really matter if an Escort can be configured to be the Tank? I don't think so. The point is that tanking, dps, and support are the established roles group in the game and no others have been given. Well, I will say it matters some if Cruisers are the best at tanking Escorts are the best at DPS, and Science Vessels are the best at support. People will probably gravitate towards using them for what they are best at generally speaking (there will be people who are exceptions to this). Now, I suppose you could say the Devs are just using HT terms because people are familiar with them and that the game isn't HT at all. Why then are the Devs using these terms? It doesn't make sense to use terms with established definitions and meanings (tanks always have some method to ensure they suffer the effects of attacks instead of allies) when they don't apply. So I think it is certain either HT is in the game or the Devs are idiots regarding terminology. I tend not to think the latter. Anyhow, Blurr, can you agree that HT is in the game in a general sense? Can you also agree that no other group combat roles have been discussed? |
|
|
12/02/09 4:35:55 PM#430
Marrok, I first want to say while I disagree with some of the things you put in that post, I don't have any problems with you feeling that way. The problem I have with some of the posters in this thread is they are so adamant that HT is 100% in place, despite having no proof, despite contradicting themselves in seperate posts, despite the fact that they're taking quotes and reading in to them to make this assumption. If you want to assume HT is in place, that's up to you, but these people are saying they have proof when they don't, and then they are using this "proof" to bash the game and say how horrible cryptic/STO is, and spread misinformation about the game. People like you, who essentially say "I have no proof of this being the case, but I am still worried about it" have every right to voice their concerns, and frankly Cryptic should hear these concerns and address them (beyond the quote which the haters like to dismiss). You are right that I have to use the same information you have, even if I was in the beta and cannot talk about it. If I was in the beta, I'm sure this would be a very frustrating thread for me and I'd be wishing every day that the NDA dropped so I could tell you how it really works. I played EQ for a long time myself, so I know where you're coming from. Everyone assumes that if there's a HT system in place, then they will have to min/max in order to be competitive, and that's what they're worried about. That's a perfectly valid concern. I would like to point out a particular, but very important, fact though. We have never heard anything regarding an "aggro" system of any kind. If there is no "aggro" system in (ie no taunts or anything like that), then does the HT system not simply fall away? Perhaps, like some games and possibly even real life combat if you want to think about it, the enemies determine who they're attacking by whoever's closest or doing the most damage or something combination thereof? Also, everyone seems to get down on the HT system, but for sake of argument lets say there is one hypothetically. Could it not be possible that Cryptic makes it so that it works, and feels, right? It only can't be done until someone does it. As far as the whole "3d" argument, I would take a look at the shows. Only on very rare occasions does any ship ever become inverted with respect to the other ships around it. Always the enterprise and the romulans face off in pretty much exact orientation match. Sure it would be nice, but perhaps having everything upside down half the time would make things look weird. Perhaps between the shows and EVE, the most successful space mmo out there atm, the developers took the queue and kept it similar. As far as diplomacy and exploration go, the devs have detailed exploration a little bit. They have also said there will be some form of diplomacy in the game. Since these are features not really done in MMOs to date (or not done well), they might just be keeping their systems under wraps in order to get a better edge on the competition. For all you know, there could be plenty of quests and such in the game already (and they have hinted at it) which require no combat whatsoever. Perhaps the reason the devs are touting the combat system so much, is because as you said they're really quite proud of it. It seems they've created a real fun combat system from all reports, and it's possible they know a combat system is really important to the majority of mmo gamers so they're trying to speak to that crowd. As Dana said in his recent article, he believes it to be very tight and well done, a really strong part of the game. I think it would only make sense to focus on that. In the end, the reality is that unless you've actually had a chance to try out the game, you don't really know for sure how the systems work once you're using them. You can't say for certain that there's a HT system and therefore the game/company must be bad. Those are the people who seem to just be looking to bash the game rather than actually discuss their concerns and try to find out what's really going on. "Because it's easier to nitpick something than to be constructive." -roach5000 |
|
|
12/02/09 4:44:23 PM#431
Originally posted by Tycalibur
|
|
|
12/02/09 4:53:39 PM#432
Originally posted by Drachasor
Devs use terminology people understand because it helps them get a better sense of what they're trying to describe. This would be a good way to describe the difference between a Cruiser and an Escort for someone who doesn't really know what those are. How about this, let's do a hypothetical situation. Assume for a minute that you know for a fact there's no actual "tanking" system in the game as you traditionally know the word. (Again, hypothetical) Let's say there's no taunts and say there's no aggro system, rather like EVE. Now, EVE players use the term "tanking" all the time. How would you look at the game if when the dev said "it's good for tanking", that he meant "tanking" in the sense of the word that EVE players use it? I still don't agree that we've seen any hard evidence that HT is in the game. I see where you can draw the conclusion and assume that HT is in, that's perfectly valid. What my problem mainly is, is that some people are touting this as fact when it's still only an assumed conclusion, and then saying how bad the game must therefore be. As far as I'm concerned, no group combat roles have really been discussed, HT or otherwise. If you want to point to the quote from the Dev Chat, I would say that if people are playing roles, it sounds to me like they have built a role for themselves because that's what's familiar to them, not because they need to. It sounds to me like the system has a lot more depth, and these players are setting themselves into these roles simply because they don't know the full extent of how the system works. "Because it's easier to nitpick something than to be constructive." -roach5000 |
|
|
12/02/09 5:07:56 PM#433
Originally posted by Blurr
Now, I have not played Eve, but from what understand "tanking" is used to describe armor and shields which are used to soak damage. It isn't used to describe a combat role (except in extremely specialized circumstances). I'd also say using terminology like this is still confusing, but even more confusing when you say "ships of this type are great at tanking." Yeah, MMO players ARE familiar with the word, but they are familiar with that implying many things. Some sort of mechanism so the tank takes the damage enemies deal (usually taunting) as well as the much greater ability to take damage compared to non-tanks. In any case, Eve doesn't have just 3 combat roles (like STO apparently does) and the roles are not easily divided into "damage", "support" and "tanking." -- again from what I understand and from what other people have told me about the game (the closest thing to tanking I've seen in that game was a situation with just two ships and the tank was also the damage dealer and was tanking because it was the only ship generating any kind of threat). From what you say the Devs are using these terms because they are familiar to people, but you seem to be claiming they are using them in very unfamiliar ways. That doesn't help people get a better sense of what the Devs are describing, that gives them a false impression of how things work. Saying you have tanks, dps, and support roles in the game when you don't actually mean what other people mean why they say "tank", "dps", or "support" just makes everything confusing AT BEST and at worst it makes people think you have a product that is nothing like what you actually have. These words have LOADS of baggage with them and one should not use them lightly just because they are at best vaguely related to what you really want to talk about. Using one innappropriately would be a bad idea, using all 3 inappropriately and not having any other roles mentioned when you don't actually have an HT system would be so incrediably stupid that I have trouble believing the Devs are that stupid. Somehow you think using 3 HT terms as your only group combat roles you discuss doesn't make people think the game is HT, but this ENTIRE thread is a huge argument against your thinking -- clearly it DOES make people think it is an HT system. Like I said, either the videos and information released has been very poorly thought out or there is an HT system in the game. A middle ground does exist where things were somewhat poorly thought out and the system is HT + other stuff (things would be poorly thought out here because they don't discuss other options). |
|
|
12/02/09 5:18:10 PM#434
You know what, I think we've been looking at this the wrong way. ktanner managed to point it out to us as well. The fact of the matter is that until the NDA drops, nobody can definitively say that the HT system exists or does not exist, as we know it, in the game. For whatever reason, the devs haven't been very clear on saying whether they use them or not, or rather, not as clear as I'm sure we'd all like. I think we have to all admit that we can't be 100% sure unless we've had our hands on the game, and at this point if we have, we can't talk about it. So lets change the discussion. The more important discussion would be that, assuming an HT system like WoW uses, would it be good or bad for STO? If the game has a combat system like EVE uses, would that be good or bad for STO? Which one would be better? Perhaps we should also let this thread die, because I think we can all agree it's gone beyond the point that the OP was trying to make, and it's clear you don't have to play each ship in a specific role. "Because it's easier to nitpick something than to be constructive." -roach5000 |
|
|
12/02/09 5:20:40 PM#435
Originally posted by Blurr
Actually no. This is where many people have a problem, but it's because they're not really listening to what he is saying in the video. He does not say there are three space combat roles, he says "there's 3 basic types of ships" you can get in STO. If you notice in the 2nd video (part 2 of the tactics), Zinc actually says that while your ship defines something, it's really everything else in your ship that defines the role you play in combat. They never actually say which, if any, roles you have to play in the game. At best, it simply describes the fact that you CAN tank/dps/support. This is one of the issues people are not understanding. There's also a difference between being "good for" something, and being pigeon-holed into that role. They do not say the cruiser is for tanking, they say it's good for tanking. That is a difference indicating that other ships can be used for tanking too. As far as exploration and diplomacy, perhaps they're not ready to fully reveal the systems yet so that other games can't steal them? Perhaps they're not fully developed in beta yet? Perhaps they don't go into the exploration/diplomacy in that video because the video is called "starship tactics". I'm quite sure there will be exploration and diplomacy in the game in some form or another.
I'm sorry, but I simply do not agree with your interpretation of what the developer was saying in this video. He very specifically stated that certain ships are good for tanking/dps/support. It may or may not pidgeon hole the ships into those roles, but I have a pretty good feeling that it will. He specifically stated the cruisers could take a lot of hits. He specifically stated the ships like the Prometheus could not take as much damage. Not gear. Not ships equipped with this or that. The specific ship types. The other thing he very flagrantly stated was the HT system. If they had exploration and diplomacy worth reporting, I'd throw them out there. My guess is they don't have anything to show us yet.
|
|
|
12/02/09 6:15:08 PM#436
Here's my take on all of this: While I'm certainly no advocate of the "holy trinity" system, or narrowly contrived player interdependence in general, I don't begrudge those who ARE enthusiasts of the "trinity" the OPTION of pursuing that playstyle. In other words, so long as STO supports equally viable (and enjoyable) alternatives to a rigid "holy trinity" group dynamic, then I'll be satisfied. It's neither my place, nor my interest to be a playstyle nazi. Given Cryptic's track record with City of Heroes and Champions Online, I'm cautiously optimistic this won't be an issue. That said, if Champions Online (and to a lesser degree, City of Heroes) is any indication of STO's direction, then concern over the "holy trinity" might be premature, if not moot altogether. Opinions may vary, but it's been my experience (in Champions) that player characters are divided into two broad categories: ubiquitously self-sufficient, or hopelessly ineffective. Pardon the (slight) exaggeration, but essentially it breaks down to either being capable of soloing (intended) group content, or not being able to solo (intended) solo content. There's very little (if any) middle ground (in Champions—City of Heroes has a bit more variety between those two extremes). If this proves true for STO as well, then bickering over the presence of a "holy trinity" group dynamic is rather silly. |
|
|
12/02/09 9:36:22 PM#437
I think the Devs have been pretty clear. Certainly not as clear as we'd all like, but everyone is pretty dang sure they are saying there's an HT system except for you (heck, even people I've been arguing with forever on other things in this thread). Anyhow, it's either HT or the Devs have been incompetent at presenting the combat system, either deliberately or as a result of age combined with drink.
Battles in Star Trek have been more like Eve than they have EVER been like HT. Yeah, occasionally the Enterprise or some other ship protects something defenseless or almost dead, but those are rare exceptions and none of them are protecting a DPS ship while it kills things. In fact, while there are ships that do DPS, there are no ships that DPS in Star Trek and aren't also very tough, hard to hit, or both (the Defiant is an example of something with relatively tough shields and a lot of agility that corresponds to its higher firepower). Yeah, you can justify it with some magic excuse because it is science fiction, but the fact is that HT doesn't fit the shows or movies. That said, Eve has in-combat healing and that doesn't fit in Star Trek. There are emergency repairs, but that's not the same thing as in-combat healing (restoring some systems temporarily or with jury-rigging is not the same thing as magically restoring them to full functionality). Otherwise though, from what I understand, Eve's system would do a pretty good job with some changes (getting rid of carriers perhaps, though I guess there is room for some debate there). |
|
|
12/02/09 11:17:59 PM#438
|
|
|
Yamota
 Elite Member
Joined: 10/05/03
Money in politics is the root of all political evil. It is corruption at it's worst. |
12/03/09 3:42:13 AM#439
Originally posted by Raltar I agree. The more I read about the game the less I want to play it. Cryptic has shown, with their previous games, and now STO that they completely lack the ability to have any degree of innovativity. Cruiser = tank, Science Vessel = Healer/debuffer/buffer, Escort = DPS? ROFL! I would like to see the escort ship that in the Star Trek IP outdamages a Klingon Neg'Whar Cruiser. Ridicilous and so will this game be. Escorts are FAST and AGILE and with some firepower. But cruisers are large, cumbersome and usually with ALOT of firepower. Damn Cryptic completely screwing up the Star Trek IP! |
|
cpauls
 Novice Member
Joined: 8/26/05
"Manhood is patience. Mastery is nine times patience" -Ogion the Silent |
12/03/09 8:06:11 AM#440
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ukJ6NW0Bxp4 Escort vs Negh'Var . . . . . Your Trek Fu is weak, old man.... Just kidding! I kid!! I am a kidder... |
