Originally posted by Abrahmm

Originally posted by Hagonbok

Originally posted by Ghimpi

Player crewed ships worked for 2 decades now in Mu* based games.

Yes, and we all know how popular they were. /sarcasmoff

 

Fact is, every game that has tried to introduce too much "sandbox" has been a major fail. Even UO started to change from being too "sanboxish" eventually. SWG was a major fail of epic proportions, and the list goes on. The games today that are sandbox, like A Tale in the Desert for instance, sit with miniscule populations even though they're very well crafted games.

 

You're actually daring Cryptic to make a game that will fail within a year.

Unfortunately for your "Facts", they are wrong. Completely wrong. Lets take WoW out of this comparison as it is an by far an exception.  Lets compare some of the pay to play games shall we?

UO: Slightly less popular than EQ but still very popular until EA ruined it.

SWG: Had over 300k stable subscribers until SOE ruined it.

Eve Online: Has over 250k subscribers and continues to grow to this day.

Now lets look at some of those "thriving" non-sandbox games:

WAR: Population dropped well under said sandbox games.

AoC: Population dwindling, although fans claim it is on the rise again

LotR: What, 100k subscribers tops? 

In fact, while you like to claim that every sandbox game was an "Epic failure", the only non-sandbox pay to play games that are more successful than the few sandboxes created are WoW, the Lineages, and the original EQ. Currently an incredibly niche sandbox game holds the number 3 spot for most subscribed, and that is Eve. I love sandboxes and don't really care for Eve. Now just imagine if there was a good sandbox out that actually appealed to all of the sandbox fans. I'm guessing it would give the lineages a run for their money.

<Applauds>

Even with this great discussion, there's really no need for PC Crews to equal a massive sandbox.  Missions, trade and etc could still be extremely structured and story ridden, but the in-ship activities could be sandbox-like.

Originally posted by Abrahmm

Originally posted by Hagonbok

Originally posted by Ghimpi

Player crewed ships worked for 2 decades now in Mu* based games.

Yes, and we all know how popular they were. /sarcasmoff

 

Fact is, every game that has tried to introduce too much "sandbox" has been a major fail. Even UO started to change from being too "sanboxish" eventually. SWG was a major fail of epic proportions, and the list goes on. The games today that are sandbox, like A Tale in the Desert for instance, sit with miniscule populations even though they're very well crafted games.

 

You're actually daring Cryptic to make a game that will fail within a year.

Unfortunately for your "Facts", they are wrong. Completely wrong. Lets take WoW out of this comparison as it is an by far an exception.  Lets compare some of the pay to play games shall we?

UO: Slightly less popular than EQ but still very popular until EA ruined it.

SWG: Had over 300k stable subscribers until SOE ruined it.

Eve Online: Has over 250k subscribers and continues to grow to this day.

Now lets look at some of those "thriving" non-sandbox games:

WAR: Population dropped well under said sandbox games.

AoC: Population dwindling, although fans claim it is on the rise again

LotR: What, 100k subscribers tops? 

In fact, while you like to claim that every sandbox game was an "Epic failure", the only non-sandbox pay to play games that are more successful than the few sandboxes created are WoW, the Lineages, and the original EQ. Currently an incredibly niche sandbox game holds the number 3 spot for most subscribed, and that is Eve. I love sandboxes and don't really care for Eve. Now just imagine if there was a good sandbox out that actually appealed to all of the sandbox fans. I'm guessing it would give the lineages a run for their money.

Actually no, I'm not wrong. I just don't do as you have and regurgitate the revised history of some of these games, but instead stick to the reality of what was.

UO, initially popular but quickly was losing it's popularity due to it's lack of focus and harsh rule sets. Devs began to move away from both.

SWG was a dismal failure at release. It sold 800k to 1 million boxes and could only retain 250K after the first month, down to 200K after the second month, and was losing 10K subscribers a month thereafter. Reasons cited for people not liking the game - lack of focused game play, too many convoluted and useless career paths, terrible combat mechanics, mind numbing grind, and th couldn't play what most people that play a Star Wars game want to play (Jedi).

EvE - fudges it's numbers by including free subscribers and dormant subscriptions. actual number probably more around 150K (if that) and this after all these years. Population has more to do with friends getting other friends to play with them than people actually liking the game all that much. Has had probably well over a couple million people try the game out but turn their stomachs ... err... I mean their noses up at it.

After an initial drop, WAR has a pop of @ 350K , but is now growing again.

AoC had many problems at launch and had an initial drop as well, but it's population is now growing again too.

LOTRO - Actually @ 300K subscribers and has held that number for quite awhile.

and you can't take WoW out of the comparison, sorry. It isn't an exception. It proves the rule. It is by far the most popular MMO in the world and it's popularity has a great deal to do with it's focused game play.

Then there are the other games with focused game play and @million + subscriptions like L, L2, and FFXI.

I know people think they sound like they have gaming cred calling for sandbox, but really it just shows they haven't a clue what most people like.

     I've read alot of good responses here and wanted to pipe up and slide in my 2 cents as well.. 

     I do agree that going with a big crew requirement is just opens up too many potential problems..  I'm a casual player because I have so many other duties in life that distract me at any given time.. Im a parent of a teenager, coach for a softball team, active in golf leagues with the other guys, husband to a wonderful wife, etc etc etc.. So my time to get on and play are.. well..  whenever life lets me.. I don't have alot of time waste doing a "LFG" type of thing to get on a ship..   HOWEVER, this is an idea I was hoping for, to add to those I've read already..

     Have 90% of the game content soloable with single man controlled ships.. As one progresses into the game OR desires to hook up with a player crew, they can opt to do a 5 man ship missions (This is similar to most other mmo's out there that instance missions (aka dungeons))  I think it would be great that people get used to running a single man ship for lets say 15 levels, then have the option to join in on 5man player ship missions (instanced).. As they progress further and further, maybe have an option to open up 10man player ship missions (again instanced like mini raids).. or have 2-10 man ship missions (instanced big raid)..

    Also, there could be an advanced option to have limited 5 and 10 man ship missions in neutral zones, or enemy teritories.. Naturally going into enemy territory will flag you PvP.. But I would like to see PvP be an option in this game, whereby most of the content still focuses on PvE.. I do love the idea of doing a 10 man ship mission into Klingon territory to rescure a captured Federation diplomat from Rura Pente..

What confuses me is the idea that having PC Crews goes against soloing the game.  We're talking about a teaming mechanic, not a mandatory way to play the game.  I think you should be able team up, if you choose at level 1, and that you should have the option to be on someone's ship as you do it.  It has nothing to do with requiring players to be on a teamship, and I think, even for raids, that its a bad idea, a really bad gate for content.  If soloers can't play teamship content and teamships can't play soloer content it makes both, especially teamships, less attractive.

A less intrusive mechanic would be to allow players to team by joining another player's ship, as opposed to having only the option to fly their ships in a squadron.

Again, there's this perception that having PC Crews means having a group will be required and that solo will not be an option, but not only is it a bad assumption, I really don't understand where it comes from.

Originally posted by Hype

Originally posted by ktanner3

Originally posted by Cola

Ensign Ricky Logs in.

Ensign Ricky dosnt have a player crew because everyone is a captain and has some magical crew.

Ensign Ricky can not walk around his ship.

Ensign Ricky can not decorate his ship to his personal touch because there are no interiors.

Ensign Ricky realizes he is paying 14.95 a month for a space shooter.

Ensign Ricky hits /cancel

 

 

 

Here's what the game is like when folks like you get your way...

Ensign Ricky Logs in

Ensign Ricky can't play because the captain and first officer is over at Quark's gambling

Ensign Ricky is tired of listening to the Lt. at OPS talking about his personal life. He'd REALLY prefer exploring the Galaxy.

Ensign Ricky can't do anything but sit on the bridge, listen to a LT's social life and admire the scenery

Ensign Ricky realizes he is paying 14.95 for a space sim

Ensign Ricky hits/cancel

 

Here's what the game looks like when people give up myopic thinking and propaganda:

Ensign Ricky Logs in

Ensign Ricky flies around in his runabout with his 2 NPC Cadets to his hearts content, taking missions, exploring the galaxy and levelling up.

Ensign Ricky meets Cpt. Bill at Deep Space 8. 

Ensign Ricky and Cpt. Bill form a crew and Ricky leaves his Runabout at DS8. Ensign Ricky is a Tactical Class so he takes the tactical station.

Ensign Ricky and Cpt. Bill go blow some stuff up that Ricky has never seen before.

Cpt. Bill goes linkdead.  Ensign Ricky is on a ship that he can't do anything on.

Ensign Ricky's runabout arrives 45 seconds later. Ensign Ricky

Ensign Ricky realizes that he's paying $15 for an MMO that's both fun and not EQ in space.

Ensign Ricky can't shut his mouth about how awesome and different the game is and recruits five people.

 

It's really very simple.  PC Crews = teaming, not a replacement for solo play.

My hope is that later on they allow guilds to build starbases and ships which are manned by players. Completely optional. Those that like dealing with other people can do so and those like me who doesn't have the time for egos can enjoy the game.  Problem solved.

Originally posted by Hype

What confuses me is the idea that having PC Crews goes against soloing the game.  We're talking about a teaming mechanic, not a mandatory way to play the game.  I think you should be able team up, if you choose at level 1, and that you should have the option to be on someone's ship as you do it.  It has nothing to do with requiring players to be on a teamship, and I think, even for raids, that its a bad idea, a really bad gate for content.  If soloers can't play teamship content and teamships can't play soloer content it makes both, especially teamships, less attractive.

A less intrusive mechanic would be to allow players to team by joining another player's ship, as opposed to having only the option to fly their ships in a squadron.

Again, there's this perception that having PC Crews means having a group will be required and that solo will not be an option, but not only is it a bad assumption, I really don't understand where it comes from.

Probably the biggest reason the perception is out there is because enough people actually know how these games work, instead of just throwing things out there and crossing fingers.

They can't be just thrown in the mix without any thought behind the effects they might have. If they are included, that means either having to re- balance the entire game so that they aren't overpowered in comparison, or (and what would most likely happen what with the cost of doing that as seen in game after game in situations that are even remotely similar) they are just added and are overpowered thus making them the primary way people feel they have to play the game to be competitive.

Best to have them just be possible in specific instanced episodes where they don't ruin the rest of the game.

Originally posted by Hagonbok

Probably the biggest reason the perception is out there is because enough people actually know how these games work, instead of just throwing things out there and crossing fingers.

 

They can't be just thrown in the mix without any thought behind the effects they might have. If they are included, that means either having to re- balance the entire game so that they aren't overpowered in comparison, or (and what would most likely happen what with the cost of doing that as seen in game after game in situations that are even remotely similar) they are just added and are overpowered thus making them the primary way people feel they have to play the game to be competitive.

 

Best to have them just be possible in specific instanced episodes where they don't ruin the rest of the game.

When have you ever been someone who knew how these things actually work, Hagon?  I boggle with gobsmacked amazement!  You constantly make claims that are quickly disproven by people with actual knowledge and facts to back it up.  If you're trying to help STO, somehow, the best thing you can do is walk away.  Do the game, which I support too, and yourself a very big favor.

No, no rebalancing has to be done if multiplayer ships are an option.  Singleplayer ships will always be more effective.  Five people in five different starships will always be able to do more than five people on one starship bridge.  This is called basic math.  I'd look into it.

What multiplayer ships offer is a fun option for people who want it but not as an uber-edge in combat.  Even in SWG where singleplayer snubs are, theoretically, not as rugged as PoB freighters and gunships they still, given equal numbers of players in the snubs and crewing one PoB, will always win and win easily. 

But that's PvP.  If it's PvP you're obsessing about I wouldn't.  Only a fraction will be coming to STO for that.  The numbers in the only poll I've seen heavily weight to PvE (and Federation PvE alone) for that matter by huge margins.  PvPers will continue to have more flexible, from their point of view, content in Eve Online anyhow.  All the major innovations in STO, procedurally generated missions and competitive PvE in the Neutral Zone, are PvE innovations.  

Cryptic knows the market.

Multiplayer ships will have the same capabilities as singleplayer ships and will use the same content.   What rebalancing will have to be done, exactly?

Now, that doesn't mean a multiplayer approach won't take work to pull off but, I suspect, much of that work is already being done as they design the singleplayer, with NPC crew, experience.  They say they're not doing anything to shut the door on multiplayer ships and if that's true, which I assume it is, they're putting hooks in for later development as they go.  You can't retroactively design this.  It has to be in place - now - for later development.

I know you don't like that the developers have said there will be interiors, when they figure out how to make it functional not just decorative, or that they aren't closing the door on multiplayer ships in the future.

But Cryptic has said precisely these things.

Take it up with them.

Originally posted by OddjobXL

Originally posted by Hagonbok

Probably the biggest reason the perception is out there is because enough people actually know how these games work, instead of just throwing things out there and crossing fingers.

 

They can't be just thrown in the mix without any thought behind the effects they might have. If they are included, that means either having to re- balance the entire game so that they aren't overpowered in comparison, or (and what would most likely happen what with the cost of doing that as seen in game after game in situations that are even remotely similar) they are just added and are overpowered thus making them the primary way people feel they have to play the game to be competitive.

 

Best to have them just be possible in specific instanced episodes where they don't ruin the rest of the game.

 

When have you ever been someone who knew how these things actually work, Hagon?  I boggle with gobsmacked amazement!  You constantly make claims that are quickly disproven by people with actual knowledge and facts to back it up.  If you're trying to help STO, somehow, the best thing you can do is walk away.  Do the game, which I support too, and yourself a very big favor.

No, no rebalancing has to be done if multiplayer ships are an option.  Singleplayer ships will always be more effective.  Five people in five different starships will always be able to do more than five people on one starship bridge.  This is called basic math.  I'd look into it.

What multiplayer ships offer is a fun option for people who want it but not as an uber-edge in combat.  Even in SWG where singleplayer snubs are, theoretically, not as rugged as PoB freighters and gunships they still, given equal numbers of players in the snubs and crewing one PoB, will always win and win easily. 

But that's PvP.  If it's PvP you're obsessing about I wouldn't.  Only a fraction will be coming to STO for that.  The numbers in the only poll I've seen heavily weight to PvE (and Federation PvE alone) for that matter by huge margins.  PvPers will continue to have more flexible, from their point of view, content in Eve Online anyhow.  All the major innovations in STO, procedurally generated missions and competitive PvE in the Neutral Zone, are PvE innovations.  

Cryptic knows the market.

Multiplayer ships will have the same capabilities as singleplayer ships and will use the same content.   What rebalancing will have to be done, exactly?

Now, that doesn't mean a multiplayer approach won't take work to pull off but, I suspect, much of that work is already being done as they design the singleplayer, with NPC crew, experience.  They say they're not doing anything to shut the door on multiplayer ships and if that's true, which I assume it is, they're putting hooks in for later development as they go.  You can't retroactively design this.  It has to be in place - now - for later development.

I know you don't like that the developers have said there will be interiors, when they figure out how to make it functional not just decorative, or that they aren't closing the door on multiplayer ships in the future.

But Cryptic has said precisely these things.

Take it up with them.

I have no issues with them adding them in later IF they can, but as I said, I don't think they're going to be able to as a general feature. Only in instanced episodes.

As for the rest of your wild theories, you really are desperate aren't you? You just go on the attack without having a clue what you're going on about. It's actually amusing.  Well it would be if it wasn't more just a little bit sad.

A dynamic for satisfying both types of players is simple.

Ships below a certain class can be solo piloted.

Ships above a certain class size require a crew. Crew positions can be filled either by other players or by npc.  Bonuses to piloting/weapons/etc for number of players in crew. NPC skills dependent on captain's lvl/skill.

A player logs out, the position is automatically filled by an npc.

See, this whole argument about whether its do-able or not is pointless, of course its do-able. It could be done well, and in ways that satisfy both types of player.

The real argument and the cause of the nerdrage is that a Star Trek mmorpg without meaningful ship interior environments and player crews, removes a significant and important part of what Star Trek is all about for a lot of people. It denies an opportunity for fun that a lot of players could have made for themselves in those environments and as player crews.

Originally posted by Hagonbok

Originally posted by Abrahmm

Originally posted by Hagonbok

Originally posted by Ghimpi

Player crewed ships worked for 2 decades now in Mu* based games.

Yes, and we all know how popular they were. /sarcasmoff

 

Fact is, every game that has tried to introduce too much "sandbox" has been a major fail. Even UO started to change from being too "sanboxish" eventually. SWG was a major fail of epic proportions, and the list goes on. The games today that are sandbox, like A Tale in the Desert for instance, sit with miniscule populations even though they're very well crafted games.

 

You're actually daring Cryptic to make a game that will fail within a year.

Unfortunately for your "Facts", they are wrong. Completely wrong. Lets take WoW out of this comparison as it is an by far an exception.  Lets compare some of the pay to play games shall we?

UO: Slightly less popular than EQ but still very popular until EA ruined it.

SWG: Had over 300k stable subscribers until SOE ruined it.

Eve Online: Has over 250k subscribers and continues to grow to this day.

Now lets look at some of those "thriving" non-sandbox games:

WAR: Population dropped well under said sandbox games.

AoC: Population dwindling, although fans claim it is on the rise again

LotR: What, 100k subscribers tops? 

In fact, while you like to claim that every sandbox game was an "Epic failure", the only non-sandbox pay to play games that are more successful than the few sandboxes created are WoW, the Lineages, and the original EQ. Currently an incredibly niche sandbox game holds the number 3 spot for most subscribed, and that is Eve. I love sandboxes and don't really care for Eve. Now just imagine if there was a good sandbox out that actually appealed to all of the sandbox fans. I'm guessing it would give the lineages a run for their money.

Actually no, I'm not wrong. I just don't do as you have and regurgitate the revised history of some of these games, but instead stick to the reality of what was.

UO, initially popular but quickly was losing it's popularity due to it's lack of focus and harsh rule sets. Devs began to move away from both.

SWG was a dismal failure at release. It sold 800k to 1 million boxes and could only retain 250K after the first month, down to 200K after the second month, and was losing 10K subscribers a month thereafter. Reasons cited for people not liking the game - lack of focused game play, too many convoluted and useless career paths, terrible combat mechanics, mind numbing grind, and th couldn't play what most people that play a Star Wars game want to play (Jedi).

EvE - fudges it's numbers by including free subscribers and dormant subscriptions. actual number probably more around 150K (if that) and this after all these years. Population has more to do with friends getting other friends to play with them than people actually liking the game all that much. Has had probably well over a couple million people try the game out but turn their stomachs ... err... I mean their noses up at it.

After an initial drop, WAR has a pop of @ 350K , but is now growing again.

AoC had many problems at launch and had an initial drop as well, but it's population is now growing again too.

LOTRO - Actually @ 300K subscribers and has held that number for quite awhile.

and you can't take WoW out of the comparison, sorry. It isn't an exception. It proves the rule. It is by far the most popular MMO in the world and it's popularity has a great deal to do with it's focused game play.

Then there are the other games with focused game play and @million + subscriptions like L, L2, and FFXI.

I know people think they sound like they have gaming cred calling for sandbox, but really it just shows they haven't a clue what most people like.

 

Actualy I think your both wrong, people like BOTH types of games. Some people like only SANDBOX games, some people like only highly Story driven "theme-park"  games. Some people like both types. Also interesting to note that ALOT of players do sandbox type stuff in Story Centric games. Rp-ing thier own storylines that they make up with freinds and guild-mates and using the game environment as a backdrop for it....it's NOT mutualy exclusive. As long as the game engine has some provision for it,

I am currently doing exactly that with my Guild in LOTRO (argueably labeled on of the most prominent example of "Theme Park" type games)...and it's going very well. I've also done something similar in WOW in the past.

Note that I think there is plenty of room for BOTH types of games... they both have plenty of fans. I think the relative success of the different MMO's mentioned have very little to do with the Sandbox/Theme Park factor and have more to do with unrelated issues.

UO - Was very popular in it's day, although I didn't like it much. It lost popularity as it started to look dated against some of the newer offerings..... and yes they did a bad job of policing the environment.

SWG - Never played it....although I've heard it had a very loyal core following. The biggest complaints I heard about the game was that they drasticaly changed the nature of the game in mid-stream and didn't do a very good job of interfacing with the player community when they did it. Nothing can muck up your business like serving a customer steak and then switching it to chicken in mid-meal ....and not understanding when the customer complains.

EVE - Never played it....but I understand it has a substantial and very loyal core audience.

Vanguard - Failed not due to being sandbox....but by being  bug-laden, performance killing, steaming pile from a purely technical standpoint at launch. I've heard they've made alot of improvements..... but these days it's really hard to recover from a launch like that.

WAR - No desire to play it. The biggest billing on it  is that it is pretty much PvP centric.... so it's success or failure is going to be driven primarly on the PvP features it offers.

AOC - Have not tried it do to reports of bugginess and steep performance requirements. Not sure if that's true.... but those kind of reports are going to steer plenty of potential customers away.

LOTRO - My favorate MMO to date. I'd say the 300K sub numbers seems accurate....and I still see new players every day...especialy since MOM. It's often labeled as THE "Theme Park" game....but really, there is plenty of opportunity to do sand-box stuff if you want. It's popularity (IMO).....

1) It's Middle Earth.....many players (including alot of non-gamers) flock to it SIMPLY because of that setting.

2) Solid game mechanics and incredibly polished release and content updates.

3) Even though it's "Theme Park", the stories, quests, and story arcs are EXTREMELY well thought out and well written. A "Theme Park" type game can even appeal to alot of people that are more drawn to sandbox environments (like me)....if the story it is telling is very compelling and very high quality....if it's just mediocre... then it'll fall flat for that audience. That's the real risk for Theme Park style games....you've got to have very talented writers...not just good programers, game designers and level writers.

Originally posted by Hagonbok

Originally posted by Hype

What confuses me is the idea that having PC Crews goes against soloing the game.  We're talking about a teaming mechanic, not a mandatory way to play the game.  I think you should be able team up, if you choose at level 1, and that you should have the option to be on someone's ship as you do it.  It has nothing to do with requiring players to be on a teamship, and I think, even for raids, that its a bad idea, a really bad gate for content.  If soloers can't play teamship content and teamships can't play soloer content it makes both, especially teamships, less attractive.

A less intrusive mechanic would be to allow players to team by joining another player's ship, as opposed to having only the option to fly their ships in a squadron.

Again, there's this perception that having PC Crews means having a group will be required and that solo will not be an option, but not only is it a bad assumption, I really don't understand where it comes from.

Probably the biggest reason the perception is out there is because enough people actually know how these games work, instead of just throwing things out there and crossing fingers.

 

They can't be just thrown in the mix without any thought behind the effects they might have. If they are included, that means either having to re- balance the entire game so that they aren't overpowered in comparison, or (and what would most likely happen what with the cost of doing that as seen in game after game in situations that are even remotely similar) they are just added and are overpowered thus making them the primary way people feel they have to play the game to be competitive.

 

Best to have them just be possible in specific instanced episodes where they don't ruin the rest of the game.

There's so many things wrong with this post it boggles my mind.  I have not clue how to respond to this level of myopia.  I'll just list the top three things you're wrong on.

1) People in general, don't know what the heck they're talking about, much less how MMO's 'work.'  If they're right, its because of social programming, not by some mass insight.

2) Most proponents of PC Crews I've spoken with have a well detailed plan on how it could have been done, one that involves no finger crossing.

3) Who is talking about adding things in now?

The one thing you are right about, is that teamed instances are the best that they can do in regards to this at this point.  It's one of the reasons that I can't get excited about the game, regardless of how good it may or may not be.  This is just Star Trek Galaxies to me.  Great game, a lot of people love it, but the central part of the mythos, in this case, the teamwork between a group of intelligent self-motivated crew members, is lost.  It's just like having a Star Wars game without Jedi to me.  Fun, maybe... a great game, why not? But its hard to enjoy your beloved IP without your favorite part of it.

Which is why I loved the idea of this thread.  A chance to show how I would have done it, and have it examined by intelligent folk for ways to be improved.  Somehow, though, this thread is still filled with single minded lobbyists who have already determined what the opposing argument is, so even when someone explains a plan and addresses concerns, you've already decided that all of the 'opposition' "doesn't know how these games work" and is just "crossing fingers" and continue with the same statements over and over as though your concerns are eternal.

You're blind, and it's really annoying for you to come on and say things without taking into account what's going on around you.

Originally posted by Hype

 

There's so many things wrong with this post it boggles my mind.  I have not clue how to respond to this level of myopia.  I'll just list the top three things you're wrong on.

1) People in general, don't know what the heck they're talking about, much less how MMO's 'work.'  If they're right, its because of social programming, not by some mass insight.

2) Most proponents of PC Crews I've spoken with have a well detailed plan on how it could have been done, one that involves no finger crossing.

3) Who is talking about adding things in now?

The one thing you are right about, is that teamed instances are the best that they can do in regards to this at this point.  It's one of the reasons that I can't get excited about the game, regardless of how good it may or may not be.  This is just Star Trek Galaxies to me.  Great game, a lot of people love it, but the central part of the mythos, in this case, the teamwork between a group of intelligent self-motivated crew members, is lost.  It's just like having a Star Wars game without Jedi to me.  Fun, maybe... a great game, why not? But its hard to enjoy your beloved IP without your favorite part of it.

Which is why I loved the idea of this thread.  A chance to show how I would have done it, and have it examined by intelligent folk for ways to be improved.  Somehow, though, this thread is still filled with single minded lobbyists who have already determined what the opposing argument is, so even when someone explains a plan and addresses concerns, you've already decided that all of the 'opposition' "doesn't know how these games work" and is just "crossing fingers" and continue with the same statements over and over as though your concerns are eternal.

You're blind, and it's really annoying for you to come on and say things without taking into account what's going on around you.

 

Why not just cop to the fact that what's annoying to you is that the typical tactic used by "RPers" and "sandboxers" of browbeating the opposing viewpoint until it goes away isn't working in this case. Just admit that what's bothering you is that the very few can't merrily go about their business of clouding the issues, stating utter fallacies as facts, and pretending their position isn't one that is held by only the tiniest fraction of this , or any other, MMO's potential market.

The "solutions" posted here, as have been posted at the STO forums in the past, are all either totally unrealistic or non-viable, or are solutions that would mean spending inordinate amounts of time and money to cater to a few hundred people (maybe), and of those most would only enjoy the feature for a couple of weeks before becoming extremely bored with it.

Not to mention that every single nuance of grouping and teamwork will be available in STO, both on the ground and in space, as it is being described by the devs right now, but this gets "conveniently" overlooked or ignored.

All the tongue wagging in the world won't change the facts.

This feature wouldn't be very popular at all as shown in SWG . - Fact

Thus this feature isn't desired by a substantial amount of it's potential market. - Fact

Thus this feature would be a total waste of development time and money. - Fact

Thus it's an unproductive discussion - Fact

The speculation is that these types of discussions are continuing simply because some have decided that either Cryptic will bow to them, or be subject to this very very small minority attempting to undermine the game simply because Cryptic didn't specifically cater to them. Which would just be plain pathetic and petty childishness.

Why should players who want to play solo, while playing an MMO, be as effective as a group of players playing an MMO as a group? That just makes no sense at all (to me in all honesty playing an MMO solo is pointless too, there are just sooo many better single player games if thats your thing).

Of course there should always be choice but any game not offering players who perfer group play the opportunity to do so is going to fail, especially with ST. If they try to compete with what WoW has done in this respect (a single player MMO) they are going to lose like so many of the other new releases.

Whats wrong with just having single player ships, dual ships, trios, all the way up to say a six man crew. They should be different ships, simple really and easier to balance. Giving the opportunity to single man say a constitution class ship (from the pov of a ST fan) is fkin blasphemous, not to mention unessasary.

Imo they are looking at this from the wrong standpoint, it seems like some leap of gameplay when in reality is isn't. Nearly every game out there has a cptn, medic, engineer, security etc they just call them diferent names and display them differently but gameplay wise (which is all that matters) they are the same. Tbh it really wounl't be that difficult to to actually make that gameplay for those classes a hell of a lot more enjoyable as there is currently little standard to hinder creativity.

Honestly it is ST I will buy no matter what but without proper balancing from single to multi-crewed ship it is highly unlikely it will keep any decent pop, especially seeing as they have put a lot of fans off from what they have said they are already not putting in.

Originally posted by mrw0lf

Why should players who want to play solo, while playing an MMO, be as effective as a group of players playing an MMO as a group? That just makes no sense at all (to me in all honesty playing an MMO solo is pointless too, there are just sooo many better single player games if thats your thing).

Of course there should always be choice but any game not offering players who perfer group play the opportunity to do so is going to fail, especially with ST. If they try to compete with what WoW has done in this respect (a single player MMO) they are going to lose like so many of the other new releases.

Whats wrong with just having single player ships, dual ships, trios, all the way up to say a six man crew. They should be different ships, simple really and easier to balance. Giving the opportunity to single man say a constitution class ship (from the pov of a ST fan) is fkin blasphemous, not to mention unessasary.

Imo they are looking at this from the wrong standpoint, it seems like some leap of gameplay when in reality is isn't. Nearly every game out there has a cptn, medic, engineer, security etc they just call them diferent names and display them differently but gameplay wise (which is all that matters) they are the same. Tbh it really wounl't be that difficult to to actually make that gameplay for those classes a hell of a lot more enjoyable as there is currently little standard to hinder creativity.

Honestly it is ST I will buy no matter what but without proper balancing from single to multi-crewed ship it is highly unlikely it will keep any decent pop, especially seeing as they have put a lot of fans off from what they have said they are already not putting in.

The issue isn't solo vs group game play at all. Well except for some trying to twist it into being that. The game is going to have more than ample opportunities to group.

The issue is people trying to force one way of grouping on everyone else, and an extremely boring and game ruining way at that, while trying to pass it off as "an option" that could be offered in open world game play.

Originally posted by Hagonbok

The issue isn't solo vs group game play at all. Well except for some trying to twist it into being that. The game is going to have more than ample opportunities to group.

 

The issue is people trying to force one way of grouping on everyone else, and an extremely boring and game ruining way at that, while trying to pass it off as "an option" that could be offered in open world game play.

 

 

The issue here is actually player crews!

You can try to make those who want them sound as dishonest as you, by claiming they are trying to "force" one way of grouping on others or say they are "trying to pass it off as "an option"" the fact is this thread is for people to talk about how they'd do player crews if it was up to them and just because almost everyone who wants it, is saying make it optional doesn't mean they are trying to force anything. Stop twisting peoples words because you disagree, also you've stated your opinion on this over 10 times so move on already.

Almost laughable that you try to say it doesn't mean they are trying to force anything, when you're one of the ones that wants to force it.

From your first post in this thread....

"First point that was important, is to make it optional but beneficial to have PC crews"

Ok, except everyone knows that if it's "beneficial" most players eventually feel it's required, thus they eventually  feel FORCED into playing that way. You know that already though don't  you?

By the way, haven't you posted more than once in this thread?
 

Originally posted by Hagonbok

Almost laughable that you try to say it doesn't mean they are trying to force anything, when you're one of the ones that wants to force it.

From your first post in this thread....

"First point that was important, is to make it optional but beneficial to have PC crews"

Ok, except everyone knows that if it's "beneficial" most players eventually feel it's required, thus they eventually  feel FORCED into playing that way. You know that already though don't  you?

By the way, haven't you posted more than once in this thread?
 

 

 

Whats laughable is how weak all of your posts are. Your either very silly and/or deceptive. In case your silly, look up the definition of "forced", there is a big difference between encouraging and forcing!

If your deceptive I suppose saying people are encouraging others to group together in a hypothetical player crew situation isn't misleading enough of you is it.

Lastly yes I have posted more than once, what is your point? I suppose its because I told you to move on but the difference is I'm still not stating my same opinion like you did by calling it boring yet again which is why I asked you to move on.

Originally posted by Hagonbok

Why not just cop to the fact that what's annoying to you is that the typical tactic used by "RPers" and "sandboxers" of browbeating the opposing viewpoint until it goes away isn't working in this case. Just admit that what's bothering you is that the very few can't merrily go about their business of clouding the issues, stating utter fallacies as facts, and pretending their position isn't one that is held by only the tiniest fraction of this , or any other, MMO's potential market.

The "solutions" posted here, as have been posted at the STO forums in the past, are all either totally unrealistic or non-viable, or are solutions that would mean spending inordinate amounts of time and money to cater to a few hundred people (maybe), and of those most would only enjoy the feature for a couple of weeks before becoming extremely bored with it.

Not to mention that every single nuance of grouping and teamwork will be available in STO, both on the ground and in space, as it is being described by the devs right now, but this gets "conveniently" overlooked or ignored.

All the tongue wagging in the world won't change the facts.

This feature wouldn't be very popular at all as shown in SWG . - Fact

Thus this feature isn't desired by a substantial amount of it's potential market. - Fact

Thus this feature would be a total waste of development time and money. - Fact

Thus it's an unproductive discussion - Fact

 

The speculation is that these types of discussions are continuing simply because some have decided that either Cryptic will bow to them, or be subject to this very very small minority attempting to undermine the game simply because Cryptic didn't specifically cater to them. Which would just be plain pathetic and petty childishness.

 

Here again, your "argument" has nothing to do with the issue, but simply contains Ad Hominem (at the person) the most famous of fallacies.  You give no reason why the solutions are non-viable, no examples of brow beating.  Your best statement is that it spends time and money.

"Every single nuance of grouping" precludes the fact that new nuances of grouping can be created, and would be created in a PC Crew situation.  Nothing overlooked or ignored, simply stated, PC Crew folk aren't asking for grouping dynamics we've seen before.  Including ones that we've seen before is irrelevent.  Just because your statement is irrelevant doesn't mean it was overlooked or ignored.

So, as I address your unsubstantiated statements that are somehow not tongue wagging, but when I point out your ridiculousness in detail, then I'm tongue wagging, lets address the few words in your post that are supposedly facts as opposed to fallacious accusations in lieu of discussing issues.

Feature Popularity

The Fact is that SWG's ship crew system was not very popular.  The assumptions involved are that PC Crews in a Star Trek game would be just as imbalanced and unfun.  These are not things you can prove, but you believe them to be true, and so you think that you have a fact, even though you do not.

Desirability by Target Audience

The fact is that this feature isn't desired by a substantial amount of board posters.  You're assuming, even though you can't prove this, that these observational ratios carry on over to the target market at large.  Again, a fact plus an assumption is not a fact, it's an assumption.

Total Waste of Development Money

I assume this "fact" is based on the "facts" above. If so, its obviously not a fact at all.

An Unproductive Discussion

Did you learn the difference between "facts" and "opinions" in high school or not? The value of a discussion is completely subjective. 

If you have actual references for your facts. If you can point out what issues I'm 'clouding' and why your take on the issues is more relevant than mine, if you can point out my fallacies and name them, if you have some reference about how tiny the fraction of the target audience is that would enjoy a new form of grouping dynamic, then fine.  As is, there's not even enough actual argument in your post for me to make counterpoints.  All you have is accusations about those who like PC Crews and what they don't understand or how they are brow beating you, and then some assumptions that you believe in strongly enough to call facts.  You feel so strongly that its an unproductive discussion, yet you join it, hypocritically proving that you are obviously getting something out of these "pointless" discussions. Your post is ridiculous.

The only thing that you've stated so far that's worth anything is that STO cannot have a game-wide PC Crew system, because it's already been worked up as a traditional MMO as far as grouping and guilds are concerned.  We agree on that.  The fact that a PC Crew game can be done if designed that way is... well... I've given a plan of action for one, if you see something wrong with it, point it out. If not, maybe you need to check your "facts."

Originally posted by Hagonbok

Almost laughable that you try to say it doesn't mean they are trying to force anything, when you're one of the ones that wants to force it.

From your first post in this thread....

"First point that was important, is to make it optional but beneficial to have PC crews"

Ok, except everyone knows that if it's "beneficial" most players eventually feel it's required, thus they eventually  feel FORCED into playing that way. You know that already though don't  you?

By the way, haven't you posted more than once in this thread?

PC Crews is just a new form of grouping.  It should be balanced like grouping in any other MMO.  A multi-person group should be more effective, but is automatically more risky, than soloing the game.  Just like with ANY. Other. MMO.

If you consider that force, fine, but I know plenty people who solo in games where it is beneficial to group, because while beneficial, grouping comes with the risks of working with people.

In addition, I don't know anyone who is against ship grouping in a PC Crew scenario.  What exactly are you saying is forced, again?

Originally posted by Hype

Here again, your "argument" has nothing to do with the issue, but simply contains Ad Hominem (at the person) the most famous of fallacies.  You give no reason why the solutions are non-viable, no examples of brow beating.  Your best statement is that it spends time and money.

Without getting into a silly dissection of your fallacies, your post simply oozes the typical rhetoric we always seem to see from your ilk. It comes from a position of "Let's cross our fingers and give it a whirl even though every single piece of evidence points toward it not being viable".

It also stems from the same old "I want it, and since I'm so smart and wonderful, enough others must as well." mind set.

It's been done, and it wasn't popular. At all. In fact it was considered unpopular, with only a very very few using the feature. Not to mention that for the last few years the most definable and concrete trend in this genre has been that players of MMOs want to choose when and how they group with others instead of it being shoved down their throats.

There is also no way to implement these multiplayer ships without them having an intrinsic advantage over the single player ships. Meaning most fleets will strive to be stacked with these ships, and since fleets will be the primary movers in the game, as guilds are in any game, most players will be forced onto them. Players that are even slightly competitive anyway.

I know the pie in the sky thinkers believe that because this is a Star Trek mmo that things will be different, but they won't be, and this is more and more being shown in how the make up of the fans following the game is changing as more and more people become aware of it.  As it has almost always been in every MMO that's been announced in the last 7 to 8 years, the initial fan population is heavily slanted toward the RP / immersionist/  cannon side of things, but as the game draws closer to release the population steadily shifts, and the game ends up primarily populated by mmo enthusiasts that don't give that much of a hoot about those things.  That this is a Star Trek related game isn't going to change that, and these people will be playing with all the same motivations, and desires for stimulating and exciting game play, as they do in any other MMO. They will be competitive, and a large portion will be very interested in PvP. Especially when so much of the game is revolving around a faction vs faction conflict that involves both "competitive PvE" and PvP.

The game will also have the same proportion of RP enthusiasts as other mmos, which is a small proportion. Considering that that demographic is the one this feature would mostly cater to, it's yet further evidence of it being an extremely "niche oriented " feature.

The other aspect of the whole issue is the apparent belief held by some that Cryptic has been making these calls using the "throw the dart at the list while wearing a blindfold" method of decision making.

I guess it's your, and other's, right to be that naive and think they haven't done their market research and homework, but frankly I'm not naive enough to think that when there's tens of millions of dollars on the line that they haven't assured themselves that they aren't alienating too big a chunk of their market.

If they rely on "noise" on random forums like this one to influence their decision making, then this game is in more trouble than even you Negative Neds can imagine.