Originally posted by Blurr

Originally posted by Drachasor

If the combat is very tactical and involves movement, then I do think you'd see it.  But the ships aren't moving much at all (particularly relative to each other -- movement doesn't mean much if relative positions don't change).  I find that a bit strange.
 

How maneuverable do I think ships in Star Trek are?  Enough so that even a Galaxy Class ships has meaningful evasive maneuvers.  That's how it is in the shows and movies anyhow.  I guess you disagree with this.

I concede it is hard to tell from 5-10 second clips.  Like I said though, that doesn't make me feel better about it.  Why'd they only assemble clips that short if the combat is really tactical and interesting?  Either the combat isn't what they are claiming it is or they are too incompetent to put together a proper combat video.

 

Again like I said, the ships looked like they were moving pretty well to me.  Perhaps even though you complain about things not being realistic enough in other areas, now you're complaining about them being too realistic. A galaxy class starship's "evasive maneuvers" are quite different from a fighter jet's evasive maneuvers. Have you ever played a naval combat game? Or watched a naval combat movie? Watch the movies and shows of star trek again and compare them to the videos again. They don't just take a battleship and do barrel rolls or stuff like that. You also probably weren't looking that closely otherwise you'd see the ranges changing pretty quickly, closing kilometers in seconds. When they're not doing that, they're obviously circling the other ship for a better tactical position. Honestly if the ships don't look like they're "really moving in relation to eachother" then you're clearly just exaggerating.

As anyone with a bit of media knowledge will tell you, very likely the reason they put those short clips in is so they could show the combat, but focus on the "ooh" "ahh" parts of all the different things they're talking about. If you want an actual combat trailer, go check on youtube. Those are actually pretty tactical and movement is quite smooth and fluid.

But of course, I won't be surprised if you've simply ignored this stuff. It's been my experience from your recent posts that you're really just looking for any chance to bash the game that you can get. Enough so to be grasping at straws and making weak arguments about how they put together a video that wasn't exactly to your liking the way you would have directed it. Sorry if they're not coming to you for advice on how to design/run/promote their game, I'm sure you have much better qualifications at this sorta thing than they do.

Blurr,

Please tell me that you WEREN'T telling Drachasor that he was being unrealistic by expecting a SPACE vehicle to have pitch/roll controls and to be able to pitch up above 90 degrees and perform loops?  These are SPACE vehicles we are talking about not submarines or battleships.  They are moving through a VACUME with little or no gravity and little or no friction to affect them....they are NOT moving through earth's oceans.

No one is saying that the PACING of the combat needs to be like a Jet Fighter sim....that is an entirely unrelated and seperate issue.  However one would expect that a SPACE vehicle should be able to pitch/roll through a full 360 arc... albeit if even slowly (relative to other objects).  There would be no logical reason why that should not be possible.....other then the fact that Cryptics game engine probably can't handle it.

Originally posted by Morrok

Originally posted by hanshotfirst

Rest assured the game is 3D, and fully supports movement/combat along the Z axis. For better or worse, they've merely simplified shield facing to four sections only (port, starboard, bow & aft) instead of six (port, starboard, bow, aft, ventral and dorsal).

That said, "up" and "down" are constants. Though you'll be able to dive below or ascend above your opponent's bow, you cannot maintain a rotation along the X or Y axis more than about 70°. In other words, you will not be doing barrel rolls, Immelmanns, or loop de loops in your Sovereign. This isn't an Anakin Skywalker simulator.

Ok.
So not 2D, but not (truly) 3D either.
I'll have to wait and see how it plays, if for example there is a "ceiling" similar to BF2 where you can pass through an invisible "barrier" beyond which you effectively leave the battlefield..

The reference to SW is a bit inappropriate imo.
I do not want "SW" either (i think i was pretty straight-forward on that issue in previous posts), but "true 3D" is nothing that is exclusively tied to SW, or anything setting SW apart from anything else or even just a "feature" of SW - instead it is (or at least should be) the norm when talking about a space game (at least when there are claims it's 3D).

"up" and "down" being constants...
Well, i would ofc have no issue with the travel between starsystems taking place in a "trimmed" state, but during combat doing a roll or pulling up until you present your back shields to the enemy should indeed be possible imo.
And again, this has nothing to do with SW or any other game, simply with general "logic" when talking about "space" or "air" environments.

Still, thanks for the clarification.
Now, if you could also perhaps address the above examples i have made (kind of bad i know since i used a) turnbased and b) a hexboard to set the scene)...
Because there is still the issue with the "tank","DPS","Support" ideas and "buffs" and how they do so NOT fit my personal idea of Sci-Fi and Space-games.

Haven't played the BETA, but saw some footage.  Didn't look all that impressive (all single player content and it all looked very trivial, so perhaps it wasn't the best stuff).  Anyhow, the map doesn't seem to indicate a Z axis at all.  Movement does seem to indicate height, but I'm not entirely sure if there is height or not, could be an optical illusion with a flat plan and a camera at an angle relative to the plan (then you'd have to "climb" to go in a certain direction).  In any case, the game didn't look like the Z axis played much of a role, which all arcs being very 2 dimensional (including weapons) it would encourage you to think fairly 2 dimensionally).  You'd get very odd gameplay if someone was well above someone else in such a system in any case.  I don't know, maybe the player was just really bad, but it did seem peculiar that whenever ships were close together they were essentially on the same plane (that's not going to happen by accident).

Btw, I could swear I read a Dev comment that the combat was 2D...I'll go look it up later.

Originally posted by Drachasor

I've watched Star Trek.  TNG had evasive maneuvers for the Enterprise and they worked (of course, I suppose it doesn't help that STO combat represent 2 dimensional thinking).  Maybe your opinion is colored by all these other combat videos you have watched.  I looked at the official combat videos yet again, but I did look at them specifically for combat movement twice and I didn't see much.  There is some closing of distance, but that's really it.  What I said before was a bit of an exaggeration, but even so that doesn't mean there is tactical depth -- I do not think it was a tremendous exaggeration.  Also, there really isn't much incentive IN the combat system to have significant movement.  You want to shoot the weakened shield and that's about it.  They could have made it better than this (as I have stated before and gave an example how).
 

The circling bit is exactly my point, btw.  It seems like both ships circle (with a bit of closing in), so their relative positions don't change that much.  This even applies in group situations.  Looks pretty dry to me, overall.  I'm loading some combat videos at the moment btw.  Saw about 5 minutes or so of ground combat.  That looked mighty unimpressive so far.  Space combat is loading, I'll see what I think after I see that (seen a little against a Borg cube, that wasn't impressive so far, internet connection is slow, so I'll post later).  Despite what you think, I do test my opinion and reevaluate.  I've also defended some of what the game as done, such as everyone being a captain.

Anyhow, if I was going to make snarky comments about you, I'd probably say something about how you seem intent on supporting everything the game does the way it does it and when people object you say they have to be wrong even when at best neither party can be certain of being right.  Well, I am sure I could do worse than that, but I don't really find it that productive, so I try to avoid it (occasionally I have lapsed when I've been under a lot of stress).

Yes, I will fully admit to defending a game from people bashing it when they haven't played it and are simply making assumptions in order to bash the game. I admit to debating people who prejudge the game and then troll the game/company based on their preconcieved notions.

Yes, it does seem like the ships circle for the 5 or so seconds that we see of a fight which may have lasted ten times that long or longer. Is it right to assume that's all combat is? Of course not. Do we ignore the part where the guy is dropping mines and luring the enemy into them? Do we ignore the parts where ships are turning to broadside or to present stronger shield quadrants to the enemy? Do we ignore the torpedo spread that one ship fired, so as to do an area attack rather than hit a single ship (even though there was only one there)? Do we ignore the apparent Galaxy-class starship shown with saucer separation? (Bet you missed that one, around 2:45ish in one of the starship tactics videos, 9-o'clock position) These are all nuances that I picked up just from watching one or two videos, and it's not to mention the stuff we haven't even SEEN yet.  Watch Star Trek Blitzkrieg , I didn't see any evasive maneuvers in there that look like they couldn't be done in STO. Anything beyond an escort or light cruiser clearly moves about the same speed that the similar ships do on the tactics videos. You also have to remember perspectives, a ship that's circling with you might not look like it's moving very fast from your point of view, but perhaps a 3rd party might see two ships moving relatively fast. Of course they're not fighter planes, but some people think they should be. Also, did we actually see anyone in the videos using any type of "evasive maneuvers" skill/power? I don't think we did, and I would find it hard to believe that those type of actions were left up to the player to dodge.

As for the whole "only 3 classes, only 3 ships, only 3 modifications" firstly you're wrong in that there are many types of modifications. Additionally the devs have said that likely most people will want to cross-train their skills, even if they intend to get all of their chosen career's skills. They've also said that the ship type doesn't matter that much as far as how you really perform in combat. I could go on, but I'd hope you'd get the point by now.

As far as there being no friction or gravity in space (and arguments could be made on those points, but lets not split hairs), how about we look at the source, Star Trek? How come every time they show the enterprise encountering another ship, they're both oriented on the same vertical plane? How come we can accept that in Star Trek, but not Star Trek Online? That was something that I always questioned in the series, but I was willing to put aside my questions because it made the show look better. Perhaps that's the same reasoning here. It's pretty evident you can go under/over people and be on different planes than them, does it really matter if you can't do a loop? How often did they do a loop in the series? How much does a loop actually do for you if orientation doesn't matter?

Sadly, most of the bashing and misinformation in threads like these seem to come from individuals who have prejudged the game despite having not played it, seen it in action, nor really been told in any much depth how it works. I suppose it's the right of the internet though for everyone to give their opinion and hate on something without being able to prove they know what they're talking about. I mean, sure you're giving them bad press based on your assumptions, but it's only their livelihoods you're messing with. I mean, I'm sure you wouldn't care if someone was going around saying bad things about you, despite having never met you, right?

Originally posted by Blurr

As for the whole "only 3 classes, only 3 ships, only 3 modifications" firstly you're wrong in that there are many types of modifications. Additionally the devs have said that likely most people will want to cross-train their skills, even if they intend to get all of their chosen career's skills. They've also said that the ship type doesn't matter that much as far as how you really perform in combat. I could go on, but I'd hope you'd get the point by now.

When you hear the Devs talk, they talk about 3 general classifications of mods from what I've seen (engineering, tactical, and science just like with people and ships).
 

Anyhow, I think you are completely missing the point.  WoW has classes just like this.  Druids and Paladins can be tanks, healers, or dps.  You can even mix up which ones you get.  Even if you get all your main stuff you can still take some secondary talents.  That doesn't magically mean if you play with these classes you can avoid the HT system, because if you don't specialize heavily then you hurt the group.  Yeah, you can pick up cross-role stuff now and then, but the best people are heavily specialized.  Guess what, they haven't talked about how mixing roles such as using a Science vessel to tank is a good idea, they've said that they want it to be "viable", well the cruiser is going to be exceptional and that matters if the content is challenging at all.  Anyhow, your argument does nothing to show that the system isn't HT.  It has all the hallmarks of HT systems like WoW.  Just like WoW you get lots of possible ways to configure your character's talents and equipment (as well as what abilities you commonly use).  Just like WoW there is no reason to think you can't make crappy decisions that cause your setup to suck in challenging group content.
 

Anyhow, they've said your ship matters.  It is just that the weight of everything else in the game probably matters more than the ship itself, that doesn't mean the ship type doesn't matter, it doesn't even mean it isn't the single most important decision (e.g. the it has the plurality of decision-making weight), all it means is that ship type doesn't completely blow everything else out of the water in terms of importance (e.g. it doesn't have the majority of decision-making weight).  They've said the role the ship has depends on the systems in the combat vids.  So yeah, you get a healy reflector, then you heal.  They've said gear and crew determines how it plays.  They didn't say that ship type is something that doesn't matter much.  They didn't say that if you choose to use a Escort for healing you'll be a top-rank healer; they've said they aim to make that viable and that what equipment you put on that Escort determines what role it has -- they never said it was a good idea to make escorts into healers, and in fact they've said wise captains WON'T do that.

Originally posted by Blurr

Yes, it does seem like the ships circle for the 5 or so seconds that we see of a fight which may have lasted ten times that long or longer. Is it right to assume that's all combat is? Of course not.

It's their job to make the combat interesting.  It isn't my job to make assumptions about all the cool stuff they must have not put in their video.

Do we ignore the part where the guy is dropping mines and luring the enemy into them?

I must have missed that.  That isn't bad, though there's nothing terribly special about that either, imho.  (WoW does the same thing, honestly with Hunters).

Do we ignore the parts where ships are turning to broadside or to present stronger shield quadrants to the enemy? Do we ignore the torpedo spread that one ship fired, so as to do an area attack rather than hit a single ship (even though there was only one there)? Do we ignore the apparent Galaxy-class starship shown with saucer separation? (Bet you missed that one, around 2:45ish in one of the starship tactics videos, 9-o'clock position) These are all nuances that I picked up just from watching one or two videos, and it's not to mention the stuff we haven't even SEEN yet.

I'm not saying there aren't tactical stuff, I am saying it isn't all that good.  There's a difference.  Am I really supposed to be impressed by multi-target attacks?  Come on.  Most of the new tactics seem to boil down to just circling the other ship, which isn't all that special.  Btw, they Devs already stated there is no player-controlled separation of the saucer section on Galaxy ships, as controlling the two ships was too big of an issue.  So that's probably something they got rid of or an NPC-controlled ship doing it.  There is little incentive in the system for a great deal of movement beyond that circling btw, because the other shields will always be stronger than the one you were firing at initially.

Watch Star Trek Blitzkrieg , I didn't see any evasive maneuvers in there that look like they couldn't be done in STO. Anything beyond an escort or light cruiser clearly moves about the same speed that the similar ships do on the tactics videos.

Loops and such are done all the time on the shows especially with the Defiant.  Impossible in STO which doesn't seem to have a 3D map (Devs said it wouln't...game looks like it might be a 2D map at an angle to make it seem more 3D -- though if it does have a 3D map, then the mini-map for it is useless).  In any case, you can't do flips or anything like that.  That really limits the ways you can turn around.  The 2D nature of shield arcs also is rather artificial (and another indication that the game doesn't have 3D space).  A 3D space would have been a lot more tactically interesting (especially for group formations), but apparently they can't manage this.

You also have to remember perspectives, a ship that's circling with you might not look like it's moving very fast from your point of view, but perhaps a 3rd party might see two ships moving relatively fast.

That's NOT how relative movement works (this is the whole reason I went with colors here actually).  Let's say you got two ships circling each other.  From a particular outside perspective, their velocity at a given moment is +50 and -50 (in the X-axis, let's say).  That means from the perspective on the ships, the other ship has a velocity of 100.  The outside perspective is not going to make them seem to be rotating around each other faster...that's physically impossible unless the outsider is essentially spinning in the opposite direction as those two ships.

Of course they're not fighter planes, but some people think they should be. Also, did we actually see anyone in the videos using any type of "evasive maneuvers" skill/power? I don't think we did, and I would find it hard to believe that those type of actions were left up to the player to dodge.

Would have been more interesting if such things DID play a role in combat.  As the game is "evasion maneuvers" if it exists is just going to be a buff on your ship, not actual movement that evasive.  That's pretty lame.

....

Sadly, most of the bashing and misinformation in threads like these seem to come from individuals who have prejudged the game despite having not played it, seen it in action, nor really been told in any much depth how it works. I suppose it's the right of the internet though for everyone to give their opinion and hate on something without being able to prove they know what they're talking about. I mean, sure you're giving them bad press based on your assumptions, but it's only their livelihoods you're messing with. I mean, I'm sure you wouldn't care if someone was going around saying bad things about you, despite having never met you, right?

It's not my fault when the Devs repeatedly talk about the HT aspects you pretend they are saying something else.  Anyhow, what kind of argument is that?  I shouldn't say I see the game as being HT based on what the Devs have said because those poor Devs who will apparently get fired if I say bad things didn't bother to put together a better game?  Perhaps the most ridiculous thing about that argument is you are basically saying you should only EVER say good things about games, because if you say something bad (at least about any new game) then the poor people who made it might starve.  It doesn't matter if the words are true or false!  Frankly, they've provided more than ample evidence that this is just another HT game, unlike City of Heroes and the like they don't have 4+ roles, they only have 3 here and they repeatedly talk about those 3 roles and ONLY those 3 roles.  There's mountains of statements by them on this sort of thing, and you've got what, one statement from months ago that says there are things besides the HT system?  You have NOTHING recent, because saying that Paladins can go down multiple talent specs in WoW and equip gear for dps, tanking, or healing (or a combination) is not saying it isn't an HT system, it is saying you have the freedom to make bad choices.  They even imply there are bad choices several times by talking about how they aim to have some of those choices (and these are choices for ROLES in combat, btw) be "viable" (which doesn't mean really good) and that wise captains will use ships for their established role.

Yeah, I don't have any proof according to you.  You get one statement that is months old and have to twist anything new they say to try to bolster your argument, but it just doesn't fir the facts.  I've got a bunch of statements, two combat videos THEY MADE, interviews that are recent, games that work similarly, and they are ALL pointed towards an HT combat system.

Oh, and you haven't met me, but you say bad stuff about me (imply I'm a troll and want the devs dead and such).  I don't seem to care.  In fact, I generally don't even view those comments as worth responding to.

Hmm, responding to long posts on this thing is always annoying in one way or another  I shall try colors.
 

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.

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 is the usual response from those that have actually played it . The majority say that the ground combat could use more work, but the space combat is dead on accurate. I'll take their judgements any day(good or bad) over someone who has a predisposed disposition towards the game and bases their arguments off parsing segments of video or articles.

I've read no reviews nor seen any videos that actually even remotely address group combat dynamics.  The Hands-on-Preview is no different.  If you read a review of WoW that doesn't go over grouping at all, then it won't talk about the Holy Trinity either, because if you are soloing that sort of thing just doesn't come up at all (if it is in depth it will talk about the best soloing builds, but that's clearly not the sort of thing a preview is likely to cover and it doesn't here).  The ONLY information I've seen regarding grouping (and I suspect that you guys have seen as well), is what has been said in interviews and in the combat videos, and the only roles they have discussed for grouping in those things are the three HT roles.  No discussion of any other roles or dynamics (save one quote that is one or two sentences long, gives no specifics and is many months old).

Now, maybe I'm wrong, but I'm not the one putting out videos and interviews where when I talk about group dynamics, Holy Trinity roles are the only ones gone over.  I'm not the one who made 3 different classes for captains and crew, and 3 different ship types and those line up directly with HT roles.  It's not like I blindly jumped to this conclusion, I only come to it AFTER watching the first combat video.  Looking at their website and interviews only confirms it.  Maybe they can't put things together properly, but I think that's far more discourteous than going with the fact they know what they are doing with those videos and combat is HT.  I happen to loathe HT and it would be enough for me to not play this game.  You guys seem different, but I find it quite ironic that nonetheless despite the only info on group dynamics (and there's a decent bit) supports HT, you still seem to intensely disagree with this view.  It's not like you can point to parts of the video that show there are roles that AREN'T HT roles.  It is not like you can point to parts of the website that show there are roles that AREN'T HT roles.  Besides the one quote, of course, and that one is old.  There are videos, interviews, and website material all pointing to the HT nature of GROUP COMBAT.  Half the time Blur defends this idea of non-HT combat with evidence that picking a particular ship doesn't necessarily lock you into a particular HT role -- but they are clearly saying in such quotes that your HT role is chosen by equipment and crew, not that those roles don't exist.

Now, maybe single player combat in space is all that and a bag of chips.  I haven't been all that impressed (the dimension issue kinda sucks, honestly, and it doesn't look like the map goes over Z-axis coordinates at all, and that's a big minus -- hands on preview does indicate it is 3D with limited mobility though), but sure, let's say I'm wrong -- it does seem better than I thought.  It still doesn't say anything about what group dynamics are like.  There are plenty of games with exciting solo gameplay, but where group gameplay is boring or classic HT.  Though, I usually master tactics pretty quick if it isn't deep in games, and I'm not sure the tactics are that deep in STO.  Doesn't sound like it atm -- and from the videos I've seen, and I've seen full gameplay ones in beta, seems like something that would be a LOT of fun at first, but would wear thin after a couple dozen hours (again, I'm perfectly willing to be wrong here, but I stand firm on my stance regarding group dynamics).

Anyhow, this thread isn't about the single-player combat experience.  It's about group dynamics.  We should make sure we focus on that.

Originally posted by ktanner3

 

This is the usual response from those that have actually played it . The majority say that the ground combat could use more work, but the space combat is dead on accurate. I'll take their judgements any day(good or bad) over someone who has a predisposed disposition towards the game and bases their arguments off parsing segments of video or articles.

Those who have actually played are under NDA, are they not? Aside from 'press' people whose job it is to advertise the game.

Originally posted by Morrok

Ok.
So not 2D, but not (truly) 3D either.

It's as 3D as EVE Online (you can't do barrel rolls or Immelmanns there either).

To be honest, I was disappointed at first by this as well. But when you think about it, if there were any sort of tactical advantage to doing something like a loop de loop, people would be doing loop de loops *all* the time, and it would kinda be silly (like "bunny hopping" in fps games).

Originally posted by MMO_Doubter

Originally posted by ktanner3

 

This is the usual response from those that have actually played it . The majority say that the ground combat could use more work, but the space combat is dead on accurate. I'll take their judgements any day(good or bad) over someone who has a predisposed disposition towards the game and bases their arguments off parsing segments of video or articles.

Those who have actually played are under NDA, are they not? Aside from 'press' people whose job it is to advertise the game.

Sure, everyone who's played the game is saying they enjoy it, but some of them aren't supposed to be talking about it, so lets listen to the people who haven't played it and are bashing the game without knowing what they're talking about.

Originally posted by Drachasor

I've read no reviews nor seen any videos that actually even remotely address group combat dynamics. 

So how, with the information given so far, would you say group combat dynamics actually work? We have no evidence of any tanking mechanic beyond defending yourself, no real "healing" mechanics beyond perhaps transfering shield energy (which isn't really a heal considering shields regerate on their own), just dps.

Given the information that we already have, how can you still be so dead-set on there being a HT system? Beyond saying that ships have advantages in specific areas, they really haven't said anything at all. As far as I can see, these assumptions you're making are based on smoke and nothing concrete.

Perhaps you could outline how this HT system works for us? Considering you say we haven't been given any information on group dynamics, how are you so sure that this is how the system works?

Also, I find it funny that the only quote we have directly relating to the topic, you dismiss because it's "old", lol. I'm sure it has nothing to do with the fact that it's counter to your position.

So please do endear us with your insights on how the HT system in STO works, because I, for one, haven't seen any evidence of there being one despite how adamant you are that that's how the game works. (Despite you having never played it)

If creative or original thought had gone into the process to begin with, we should not have the HT system at all.

But alas, all Cryptic seems to be able to do is draw pretty ships and tack other combat systems onto it.

Originally posted by Blurr

Originally posted by Drachasor

I've read no reviews nor seen any videos that actually even remotely address group combat dynamics. 

 

So how, with the information given so far, would you say group combat dynamics actually work? We have no evidence of any tanking mechanic beyond defending yourself, no real "healing" mechanics beyond perhaps transfering shield energy (which isn't really a heal considering shields regerate on their own), just dps.

Given the information that we already have, how can you still be so dead-set on there being a HT system? Beyond saying that ships have advantages in specific areas, they really haven't said anything at all. As far as I can see, these assumptions you're making are based on smoke and nothing concrete.

Perhaps you could outline how this HT system works for us? Considering you say we haven't been given any information on group dynamics, how are you so sure that this is how the system works?

Also, I find it funny that the only quote we have directly relating to the topic, you dismiss because it's "old", lol. I'm sure it has nothing to do with the fact that it's counter to your position.

So please do endear us with your insights on how the HT system in STO works, because I, for one, haven't seen any evidence of there being one despite how adamant you are that that's how the game works. (Despite you having never played it)

That's funny, because I've actually posted on this and you commented on my post.  Sure it was like a week ago, but I thought you would remember that (not sure if it was in this thread or not).  Anyhow, they have said stuff about group dynamics.
 

They've said Cruisers, at zero penalty, can extend their shield around friendly ships.  Much like how they decided to have healing on the ground done at a distance because being close wasn't fun, I imagine this extension works at a silly distance (and of course, it has none of the weaknesses present in the shows for extending ships).  This is probably an aspect of the standard Cruiser deflector dish.

Repowering friendly shields probably doesn't sap power from your own shields, but instead uses auxiliary power (which Science Vessels have extra of and is probably used for buffs and debuffs as well).  If it used your shield power, then Cruisers would be the best healers since they have the best shields, so I think this is unlikely.

So you'll have your cruiser cover friendlies with its shields, so no matter who is fired on, the Cruiser's shields take the damage (no need for a taunt then).  Then the Science vessel will heal the cruiser as it takes damage.  Escorts will dps.  This would allow the cruiser to dump most of its power into the shields and the escorts to dump most of their power into weapons.

I dismiss you one quote because it is old and vague.  Old stuff changes changes all the time in MMOs and I figure they'd be talking about it if it was significantly different.  There's tons of stuff that support HT and one old, vague quote against a mountain of stuff in the other direction does not impress me.  Note the basic tank and healing abilities are a standard part of these ships, not something you have to work to get.  (Naturally you could configure other ships to do this, but that's besides the point).  I assume there is a 3rd type of deflector that helps out DPS or something as well.

Blurr's post:

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.

==================================================

I was going to dissect this one point by point, but I won't bother.

Game reviewers by and large are not as hardcore as the playing audience is going to be, and therefore are not going to divulge details because they won't take the time to notice.  All new MMOs have that 'fresh' feel you have to get past anyway before you can tell how well they'll hold up.  Or, if the reviewer is knowledgeable, he'll be gagged by either an NDA, terms of the interview or both, and can't say anything.  MMO_Doubter was quite right, it's their job to help the gaming company plug the game.  Shamelessly.

The problem I really have with this game at this point isn't the fact that it is combat...it's the fact that it was misadvertised and misrepresented.  I see nothing remotely role playing about it.  And don't tell me the players come up with their own roleplaying ideas, that's a nasty cop out and a very 'WoW' mindset to have.  Roleplaying takes on many forms in an MMO, and I simply do not see how you're going to do that when you're fighting all the time.  My point is, the "RPG" in calling Star Trek Online an "MMORPG" is probably inaccurate at this point. 

Originally posted by Blurr

Originally posted by MMO_Doubter

Originally posted by ktanner3

 

This is the usual response from those that have actually played it . The majority say that the ground combat could use more work, but the space combat is dead on accurate. I'll take their judgements any day(good or bad) over someone who has a predisposed disposition towards the game and bases their arguments off parsing segments of video or articles.

Those who have actually played are under NDA, are they not? Aside from 'press' people whose job it is to advertise the game.

 

Sure, everyone who's played the game is saying they enjoy it, but some of them aren't supposed to be talking about it, so lets listen to the people who haven't played it and are bashing the game without knowing what they're talking about.

If he had actually went to the article you posted he would see that it was someone from MMORPG.COM that played it.They are not under NDA.  But if that isn't enough for him he can read posts from people who have played it at recent events. Some of those people have actually posted here about the experience, but as usual the naysayers just ignored them.

---

Originally posted by Drachasor

Anyhow, they have said stuff about group dynamics.

---

Yet...

---

Originally posted by Drachasor

I've read no reviews nor seen any videos that actually even remotely address group combat dynamics.

---

So which is it?

---

Originally posted by Drachasor

They've said Cruisers, at zero penalty, can extend their shield around friendly ships.

---

Where have they said this? Can you cite your source?

---

Originally posted by Drachasor

Repowering friendly shields probably doesn't sap power from your own shields, but instead uses auxiliary power (which Science Vessels have extra of and is probably used for buffs and debuffs as well).

---

Wrong. Absolutely wrong.

Not only is this grossly inaccurate (aka: fiction), but it demonstrates a complete (willful?) ignorance of what they actually have told us.

Originally posted by ktanner3

Originally posted by Blurr

Originally posted by MMO_Doubter

Originally posted by ktanner3

 

This is the usual response from those that have actually played it . The majority say that the ground combat could use more work, but the space combat is dead on accurate. I'll take their judgements any day(good or bad) over someone who has a predisposed disposition towards the game and bases their arguments off parsing segments of video or articles.

Those who have actually played are under NDA, are they not? Aside from 'press' people whose job it is to advertise the game.

 

Sure, everyone who's played the game is saying they enjoy it, but some of them aren't supposed to be talking about it, so lets listen to the people who haven't played it and are bashing the game without knowing what they're talking about.

 

If he had actually went to the article you posted he would see that it was someone from MMORPG.COM that played it.They are not under NDA.  But if that isn't enough for him he can read posts from people who have played it at recent events. Some of those people have actually posted here about the experience, but as usual the naysayers just ignored them.

Coming from someone that ignores everyone that doesn't agree with him, that's an extraordinary statement! 

Originally posted by Tycalibur

The problem I really have with this game at this point isn't the fact that it is combat...it's the fact that it was misadvertised and misrepresented.  I see nothing remotely role playing about it.  And don't tell me the players come up with their own roleplaying ideas, that's a nasty cop out and a very 'WoW' mindset to have.  Roleplaying takes on many forms in an MMO, and I simply do not see how you're going to do that when you're fighting all the time.  My point is, the "RPG" in calling Star Trek Online an "MMORPG" is probably inaccurate at this point. 

 

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?

Originally posted by hanshotfirst

Originally posted by Tycalibur

The problem I really have with this game at this point isn't the fact that it is combat...it's the fact that it was misadvertised and misrepresented.  I see nothing remotely role playing about it.  And don't tell me the players come up with their own roleplaying ideas, that's a nasty cop out and a very 'WoW' mindset to have.  Roleplaying takes on many forms in an MMO, and I simply do not see how you're going to do that when you're fighting all the time.  My point is, the "RPG" in calling Star Trek Online an "MMORPG" is probably inaccurate at this point. 

 

 

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?

I will concede that to some degree, roleplaying is what you make of it, but based on experience with almost a dozen other MMORPGs, I see nothing conducive to roleplaying at all, be it by quest, content or environment, with a limited combat system strictly geared for war. 

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.

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.  Or that I want Perpetual's vision of the game, also not true.  I don't want that, either.  I just think that Cryptic has gone about developing this game all wrong. 

Let's just assume that the current combat system is fun in this game.  The roleplaying content, the quest content, the ground game and other aspects of the game should have been put first, even if Cryptic has plans (which I doubt) to implement them in the game later.  They've gone about this 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.

What MMORPG experience do you have?  I can tell you flat out, everyone burns out on combat in a game, and looks for other things to do, things outside of combat.  I know I will want more things to do than plod around on some planet surface, or upgrade my ship.

I have never said Perpetual had all the answers.  Maybe their system would have worked better, maybe not.  None of us will ever know that. 

I am saying, if this is all Cryptic is basically going to hand to us, then they have a very obtuse vision for what a Star Trek game could be, or maybe even should be.  I'm saying Cryptic has even fewer answers, and we are being given a very limited game for a genre we love, and if combat is all we're ever going to do in this game, then I can guaranTEE you that inside of six months, the only people that will be left in the game are those who like to engage in nothing but combat, which is going to be a very limited audience.

If I am wrong, I will admit that I'm wrong when the game comes out.  But I am starting to see just as many dissenters on their forums as I am here.

It's Star Trek.  It could have been so much grander, so much larger, so much more fun.  Instead it's a limited shoot-em-up that's being advertised as a Massively Multiplayer Online Roleplaying Game. 

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.  I feel like I'm looking at an online version of Bridge Commander.