Originally posted by DanaDark

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

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

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

Originally posted by Blurr

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

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

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

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

I think Karahandras' statement was actually aimed at the OP. The OP is pretty much saying that we shouldn't complain about the game because... well, thats not really clear. But he pretty much thinks we should ignore all the possible faults the game may or may not have and buy it anyway, just for the hell of it.

Originally posted by huskiblu

1.  Everyone is complaining that there won't be exploration like Voyager or TNG.  Well, I don't hear any complaints it's not going to be like DS9, right?  DS9 was mostly about war and the fighting. 

2.  Same engine as Champions Online right?  And...?  Who cares!  Half Life and Team Fortress share the same engine.  I don't like Half Life, but love TF.  Just because the engine is tied to a poor MMO doesn't mean this will be poor. 

3.  So what, Champions Online was shallow.  I played it, enjoyed it, and quit.  Disappointed, yes, but it doesn't mean Star Trek will be like this.  If you refuse to play games made by the same company that were bad, then no one would be touching EA games.  They surely have more bad than good.  So that reasoning makes little sense.

4.  Two years to develop = suckage.  No, not true.  How long was Daikatana in development and sucked?  How long as Duke Nukem been in development?  Time means nothing, it's what work is put into the game.  It will also take time to grow beyond that.  WoW sucked day one, and for awhile after that.  But now, it's a near perfect MMO.

1. DS9 was not "about war" at all. There was ONE war in the show, yes. But there were something like five seasons to the show before that war even started? The show also contained diplomacy, political intrigue, espionage, history, drama and many other elements which I personally found much more interesting than the explosions. Cryptic apparently skipped the episodes which didn't have explosions.

2. Half-Life and TF both share the same engine and both are very similar games. They both are FPS games with similar game mechanics. One just happens to be multiplayer with classes. Is there anything wrong with using an engine from one game to make another? No. But both games need to be pretty similar in style for it to work properly. You can't very easily expect to take an engine designed for a simplistic super hero game and adapt it to a complex space travel game. The original Champions Engine was never designed for the type of game STO should be and as a result of that STO will be limited to being the type of game that the Champions engine can create.

3. Actually I WON'T buy any products from EA just because of all the crap they have pulled on gamers down through the years. I think its a policy everyone should have. This "oh sure their last game was bad but we can't hold it aginst them attitude" is the reason why crappy developers/publishers like EA are able to stay in business. Until gamers start holding companies accountable for their actions they will continue to walk all over us and expect us to smile while they wipe their shoes on our faces.

4. Woah... are you for real? Daikatana was crap not because of how long it was in developemt but because its creator was a drug addicted womanizer who was more interested in acting like a rock star than in developing a game. And a Duke Nukem Forever joke? What is this, 2003? Neither of those games was an MMO. Short development time means limited content when it comes to an MMO. Expect about a month worth of PvE stuff to do in the game before you hit max level and then all thats left is half-assed PvP (Cryptic has never gotten PvP right) and waiting for the next update.

And you think WoW is a "near-perferct" MMO? Yeah... thats going to be a great way to start off your presence on this forum...

QUOTE vs QUOTE

For some time now, two differing opinions have been at odds in this thread, each with a quote to back them up. But has there ever been one close examination of each quote side by side? No. That changes now.

Quote #1: "The Movie Quote" (A.K.A. "Ship types define player roles!")

"Resourceful Captains will also be able to recognize and utilize the different classes of starships. Cruisers as tanks, science vessles as support and escorts for lighting strikes."

Source: IGN Tactics Video #2, Approx 30 seconds into the video.

Lets break this quote down the CORRECT way, shall we?

First it says: "Resourceful Captains will also be able to recognize and utilize the different classes of starships." It doesn't say any of the things one perticular person has claimed that it says. It doesn't say that resourceful captains have the option to do it this way or that resourceful captains might choose to do it this way. Nor does any part of the quote suggest that there are alternate options. It directly says "Resourceful Captains will" attach specific roles to specific ships. Nothing about the statement suggests that there is a choice involved here. No where does this phrase use the word "can" as one person has claimed. It directly says resourceful captains WILL do it this way.

Secondly it says: "Cruisers as tanks, science vessles as support and escorts for lighting strikes." Nothing about this part of the quote suggests that there are alternate options available. It directly and without question assigns each ship type to a specific role. There are no hints given about how great or how large the possible advantages and disadvantages are that these ships will have in these roles. But it makes it clear in an undeniable way exactly which ships have been designed with which roles in mind. There is NO way to ignore this.

So its a FACT that specific ships have been designed by the developers with specific roles in mind. Its also a FACT that they believe resourceful captains WILL use these ships for these roles.

Quote #2: The Dev Chat Quote (A.K.A. "The developers already deined this!")

"Bizzaro_Daeke: <]AoA[Vmann|work> In play testing, have players gravitated to the trinity of MMO roles (healer/tank/DPS), and if so, any plans on how to break up the old and tired group formula for STO ship combat?

CripticZinc:Yes and no. Some people gravitate to those roles beacuse they're MMO players. It's a vocabulary that they know and is familiar. That being said - once people realize in what directions and limits they can customize their load-outs, what Bridge Officers they activate - they end up seeing that there's far more depth and team makeup to be had."

Source: Supposedly a dev chat (http://www.startrekonline.com/dev_chats, this is the only link the advocate of this quote provided).

Lets break this quote down as well. The more I look at it the more vague its meaning becomes and the more I realize it isn't relevant to the discussion at hand (which is: "will ship types define player roles?").

First, an unknown user asks a question of a random Cryptic Developer named "Zinc" in the chat room. The question asks have "players gravitated to the trinity of MMO roles (healer/tank/DPS)" and asks it in a way which makes it clear to "Zinc" this would be a negative outcome in the opinion of the person asking the question.

Zinc, seeing he needs to squash this obvious question to the quality of his combat system, instantly looks for a way to either deflect or deny the question. He begins with deflection: "Yes and No." A vague reply which suggests players are in fact sticking to the trinity of Tank, DPS and healer. But he also gives himself that "no" as a clever way to transition into his denial of this fact.

Then he is on to his denial: "once people realize in what directions and limits they can customize their load-outs, what Bridge Officers they activate - they end up seeing that there's far more depth and team makeup to be had." Zinc admits that players are sticking to the Tank, DPS and Healer roles, yet he leaves himself this clever way out of that trap by suggesting that "once people realize" there are other options they will eventually try them. But this part of his statement is vague. He only says that "once people realize" there are other options they will try them, but he doesn't directly confirm that anyone has realized this or that they have discovered any of this "depth" he makes refrence to. He doen't even attempt to explain the depth or offer any insight into what gameplay elements might make up this depth he speaks of. In fact, after this statement he moved on to the next question without saying anything further.

It also worth pointing out this quote is actually completely off-topic. The original question at hand was if Ship Types will define player roles in the game. This question makes no mention of ship types nor does it suggest how extreme the effect of a given ship type may be on your role. This "depth" Zinc talks about may very well exist, but there is no evidence suggesting that it will be sufficient to alter the effect that your ship type will have on your role.

Summary:

The first quote directly and without question assigns each ship type to a specific role. It does this in a well designed movie obviously intended to promote the game to a large body of people. This would seem to be information the developers want people to know.

The second quote is both an admission that players are sticking to the three big roles and a hastily typed denial of this suggesting that players will eventually discover some unknown "depth" to lead them away from those roles. It was also typed in a defensive fashion to fend off a negative and unexpected question asked in a chat room.

Which quote is superior? Clearly the first one. It is well defined, part of a well prepared movie and not offered as a defense aginst a negative question. Thus it seems the more accurate and trustworthy source of information.

Originally posted by Blurr

It's quite funny. The way some people get so worked up by hearing one quote, then reading into it how they assume the game is going to be, developing all these ways that the game therefore has to be, going so far as to create scenarios how the game must therefore work and basically designing the whole game themselves.

Its actually quite funny how I keep catching you in situations where you are a pot calling a kettle black.

We both have a quote from the developers. We both believe our quote to be true. We both believe our quote supports our opinion.

Yet YOU are the only one hurling insults, insisting that anyone who relies on a quote is only making assumptions and has some kind of bias.

But you are doing the exact same thing, making assumptions about the game all based off of one vague little quote from a dev chat. You scream and clamour that everyone else is wrong because they are making assumptions and blowing things out of preportion... but if that is the case then you must also admit you too must be wrong as well.

Originally posted by DanaDark

A: Ranged healing isn't magic. Shields require power, they go down usually because of drained power as they absord hits. A power transfer, which is a ranged tactic, can replenish the shields. Power transfers are seen in Star trek episodes between ships.

B: Engineering and Medical teams are also ranged as they depart the ship and head to other ships by shuttle or transport. Star Trek Nemesis had such teams mentioned  after the final engagement.

C: Tanking is seen in Star Trek as the Enterprise, in several episodes, has extended its sheilds around other vessels al also has drawn fire using substantially less effective weaponry (Saucer section using an antimatter spread on a cube while the Star Drive section fires phasers and torpedoes... yet the cube puts its attention on the nearly defenseless saucer).

A: Boosting the shields of another ship by transferring power is one thing... but restoring the condition of their hull with a beam from a deflector? That can't be explained away nor is there any refrence in Star Trek to defend it.

B: Two problems here. First, sending repair crews would be an engineering skill, not a science skill, so why are science ships the healing ships? Secondly, as you pointed out yourself, repair crews would do their jobs AFTER a battle, not in the middle of it. A science ship isn't going to show up in the middle of a fight and say "woah, wait a second Mr.Klingon, I gotta beam some guys over to this ship to repair their hull. Come back in about three hours and we can fight some more."

C: Thats a tactic used to draw attention which makes SNESE. Of course you are going to attack the ship which is causing the most damage to you because they are the biggest threat. But thats not the way "tanking" works in MMOs. Usually the tank is the guy doing the least amount of damage but is being attacked because he uses some kind of "taunt" power that makes all the bad guys go after him while ignoring the mages and rogues who are doing most of the real damage. So traditional MMO style "tanking" still does not make sense in the context of Star Trek.

Originally posted by DanaDark

Most MMOs have a free trial... how exactly is that "Buy and Try"?

Most MMOs, inculding those made by Cryptic, do NOT offer a free trial during the first six months or so after the game is released. During this peroid they are trying to get as much good press as they can in the hope of pressuring people into wanting to play the game so badly that they can't want for the free trial and slap down their $50 right away. This is where the developer hopes to quickly earn enough cash to pay off their investors who put up the money to have the game developed.

Its only later, once the hype machine has died off and people already have a pretty solid idea of what the game offers that the developer beings offering free trials.

Originally posted by Blurr

Lets take a look at the real issue here.

Issue: New video says that Cruisers "can" be used as Tanks, Science as Support, and Escorts as DPS.

Issue resolved.

Twisting the quote around and repeating it in an incorrect fashion doesn't allow you to pretend the issue has been resolved. That kind of behavior really hurts your credibility.

This is the REAL quote:

"Resourceful Captains will also be able to recognize and utilize the different classes of starships. Cruisers as tanks, science vessles as support and escorts for lighting strikes."

Lets break this quote down the CORRECT way, shall we?

First it says: "Resourceful Captains will also be able to recognize and utilize the different classes of starships." It doesn't say any of the things Blurr claims it says. It doesn't say that resourceful captains have the option to do it this way or that resourceful captains might choose to do it this way. Nor does any part of the quote suggest that there are alternate options. It directly says "Resourceful Captains will" attach specific roles to specific ships. Nothing about the statements suggests that there is a choice involved here. No where does this phrase use the word "can" as Blurr claims. It directly says resourceful captains WILL do it this way.

Secondly it says: "Cruisers as tanks, science vessles as support and escorts for lighting strikes." Nothing about this part of the quote suggests that there are alternate options available. It directly and without question assigns each ship type to a specific role. There are no hints given about how great or how large the possible advantages and disadvantages are that these ships will have in these roles. But it makes it clear in an undeniable way exactly which ships have been designed with which roles in mind. There is NO way to ignore this.

So its a FACT that specific ships have been designed by the developers with specific roles in mind. Its also a FACT that they believe resourceful captains WILL use these ships for these roles.

(And Blurr, I notice you didn't even TRY to reply to my point about your hypocrisy in claiming I might be wrong because I didn't play the game when you weren't willing to admit you might be wrong for the same reason. Nor have I seen you attempt to mount any kind of defense aginst Drachasor's point that Tanking doesn't make sense in the Star Trek universe.)

(I also notice that our new "friend" DanaDark pretty much agreed with me in post #140 where he goes into great detail explaining how Cruisers will tank, Escorts will DPS and Science ships will support.)

Originally posted by Blurr

A: Raltar, I'm sorry but I'm inclined to not believe you simply because your post history makes me think you are simply hating on cryptic and STO.

B: In fact, my point was they can easily both be true. Is that not something you can accept?

C: I don't need to admit I'm wrong, either, because my point is that the developers say...

D: Perhaps we could discuss the actual quote in question?

A: I've made over 800 posts on this forum. You are saying you have read all of them? You know very little of my post history. You know very little about me. For example you don't know that I played City of Heroes for over a year and a half. I don't "hate" Cryptic nor am I trying to "bash" them (when I'm bashing something, you WILL know it). I like Cryptic, to a degree. I like some of their work. But above all else I've had a lot of experience with their work and I know what they are capable of. They are very good at some things, like character customization. And almost totally incapable of of some other things, like PvP. They make a very specific kind of game with a limited appeal and a broad target audience. By itself there isn't anything wrong with that. Trying to hate Cryptic is like trying to hate Tetris. I just happen to think STO deserves a little more than Tetris.

B: No, I can't accept that. Both quotes cannot be true. Its like saying 1+1 and 1+5 both equal six. That simply is not possible. One quote directly states that ship types will define player role. The other says they do not. Both cannot be true. Only one can be true or neither can be true. But both cannot be true.

C: Ah, but here is the great flaw and hypocrisy of your arguement!

We each have an opposing point of view. Both points of view cannot be true. We each have a quote from the developer backing up our point of view. This means we both have an identical type and quantity of evidence to back up our point of view. We both have an equal chance of being correct or incorrect.

Yet you throw the discussion off topic by saying: "You must admit you could be totally wrong, seeing as you haven't played the game"

But you haven't played the game either! We both have equal evidence... and yet you claim I must be wrong because of a fault we both share. Yet even though you possess this fault as much as I do, you still will not admit you might be wrong as well.

If you can't be wrong even though you haven't played the game, then apparently I can't be wrong for that reason either. You can't have your cake and eat it too. You must pick one or the other. Either the fact that neither of us has played the game gives us both a chance to be wrong or it is not relevant.

D: Every time I try to discuss the quote, you ignore what was said, talk about something off-topic (like EvE or WWII) and then refuse to acknowledge the fact that the developers made a direct connection between specific ship types and specific roles in the game. Since you always deflect the conversation away from the quote every time I actually talk about the quote I don't really see why I should bother. Its much easier to poke holes in the rest of your logic anyway, due to none of it making any sense.

Originally posted by Blurr

A: Both quotes were supposedly said by developers, I know mine definately was. There's no reason to think they're not both true. I have provided evidence of where my quote came from and it's there for anyone who wants to check it's validity.

B: You must admit you could be totally wrong, seeing as you haven't played the game, and all you're going by is what you assume.

C: EVE is a perfect example that while a specific ship has bonuses to make it the best in one role

D: I do assure you that it is quite possible to make an MMO which doesn't require you to become a sheep and copy everyone else.

E: You say players will go for the more powerful option, but what if the more powerful option is to be a hybrid?

A: One thing you keep forgetting (actually I think you are ignoring it because its easier to insult me when you pretend I'm the bad guy) is that I've told you multiple times now I actually HOPE you are right and I am wrong. If that video turns out to be crap or is somehow less accurate than the other quotes from developers, nobody will be more happy about that than I am. Thus far I've seen no sign that is the case. It looks like it was made by the developers and then released to various gaming sites to hype the game. If you can prove otherwise, please do.

B: If I must admit I could be totally wrong (which I remind you again, I've done several times now even though you ignored it) because I haven't played then game, then YOU must also admit the same thing (which you have not done).

C: EvE has so many ship types I can't even count them all, and then they are devided up between four playable races which each have different advantages and disadvantages. Then you have to figure in the high-end hybrid ships that combine elements from multiple different races. Its next to impossible to even guess how many different "types" of Ships EvE has and thats assuming you can even find a way to devide all the ships into types in a way that everyone could agree on. Compare that to STO... which has three ship types. Somehow they just don't compare well, do they?

D: Yes, I also believe it is quite possible to make an MMO like that. I don't currently have any reason to believe Cryptic has done that. It would be a very new concept for them.

E: And what if it isn't?

No one is asking for uniform knitting.

But they have already shown us so many combat videos it is becoming rather pointless to continue down that road. You can only watch a Miranda class ship blow up the same three Klingons so many times before there is nothing new to be learned about the game that way.

People would LOVE to see some examples of how the crafting works, how the character creation process works, how bridge officers work, how inventory will work, how the economy will work, how their greatly hyped "genesis" system will work... in other words how every other possible aspect of the game will work aside from the combat.

And yet all we get is more explosions. Can you blame people for assuming that is all the game has to offer?

Blurr, all you did there was splice two quotes together with the parts of each quote that you agreed with while cutting out the parts which didn't suit your point of view. I'll bet I could find a quote from Bush and a quote from Obama and then splice them together the same way to create a semi-valid reason why we should send the Navy Seals to invade the Chinese Moon Base. It would have about the same amount of evidence to back it up as your arguement did.

The fact of the matter is, the movie quote directly makes connections between specific ship types and specific roles in the game. There is no way to skit around this. It is a fact that they connected specific ships to specific roles. WHY would they do that unless they meant for those ships to occupy those roles?

Is it POSSIBLE that you could use a ship for a role it wasn't designed for? Yes.

Would that ship be as effective in that alternate role as it would be in the role it was originally designed for? The comments from the developers lead me to believe it would not.

Will players willingly play ships in roles they weren't designed for when they could be much more powerful and effective by sticking to the roles which have been established by the developers? All of my MMO experiences tells me that, NO, they will never do that. Players will always go for the most powerful option.

In the end, players will do whatever makes their ship/character most powerful. Cryptic has already told us that to qualify as a "resourceful" captain you will need to use Cruisers as tanks, Science Ships for support and Escorts for DPS. The players will take that information and then do everything in their power to max out their effectiveness in those three roles. Anyone who denies that this is the way MMO players operate is either lying or has never played an MMO before.

The whole "release now patch later" attitude of developers is one of the main reasons games aren't as good these days as they used to be. And its one of the big reasons so many MMOs fail at launch. I'm sure someone at Funcom said "Yeah, we know Age of Conan isn't ready for release yet, but lets just release it now and finish it later!" Look how that worked out for Age of Conan.

The fact of the matter is, if your game isn't up to standard when it is released, it probably never will be. All your customers will get fed up with your crap and leave. Even if you "fix" the game later the majority will not be willing to give you a second chance.

Of course, MMO developers these days probably don't even care if you quit the game after launch. As long as they got $50 dollars out of you (or even $70+ for the pointless CE version) for the boxed copy of the game they probably couldn't care less if you continue to pay subscription fees after that. Thats why companies like Cryptic release their games with one or two months of content at most. They don't even expect you to be around any longer than that, so why waste their time creating more content?

Originally posted by Tycalibur

...the way this game's combat and reward system is set up, that the game would make more sense if it was an online car racing game?

Maybe they could obtain the rights to Auto Assault and make a sequel?

Yeah, most of that seems to be the case so far.

This game is very much a case of going to the same place CRYPTIC has been alteast twice before...

Originally posted by Blurr

A: Well at this point I'm finally convinced Raltar is just trolling. 

B: I did like the part where he acted like he was too cool for WoW, yet here we are having an argument about Star Trek Online. Oh sweet irony, I lol'd. 

C: but there's actually precedents for how one ship can heal another in star trek. Extending shields to another ship, beaming over repair crews, transfering power to another ship.

D: Also you keep assuming that this game is following the path of City of Heroes, except that in City of Villains they changed up the role dynamic a bit.

E: "ship types in this game will play a very large part in determining your role in the game" This is another assumption you've made, no dev actually ever said that.

F: Ask Cryptic Dev Chat 30th of June 2009: In space - your Captain provides most of the buffs, and your BOfficers provide most of the "powers". Considering that BOfficers provide most of the "powers", it would stand that the bridge officers are going to be responsible for your healing powers. It would also stand that the most likely to have a healing power would be a Science officer.

G: Perhaps some of you who are having trouble with this might actually consider that Bridge Officers could have as much, if not more, effect on what your role is compared to your ship.

H: Raltar also you take that quote out of context every time. It is a tip, not a rule. They have not said "Cruisers must tank, science must heal, escorts must dps".

I: Consider this though, when you're firing your photon torpedo, do you want to fire it at the escort ship which is highly maneuverable and might not get hit?

J: Have you tried Champions Online, the latest game from Cryptic? In that game, they have "roles" as a sort of "stance" that you go into. 90% of the time though, people can just stay in the "balanced" role rather than the dps or tank or healer roles.

K: DevChat 14/07/09

A: Funny, I'm not the one insulting people.

B: I had to make it clear I was too cool for WoW since you were attempting to insult me by suggesting that I would play WoW. You pretty much forced the whole WoW conversation on us and now you think you can continue to insult me because I don't want to play your silly grind fest with cartoon graphics? Are you SURE I'm the troll here?

C: Extending your shields can protect another ship from damage but it can't "heal" it. Transferring power was very rarely done and also did exactly what it said it did: gave extra power. It didn't "heal" either. Sending repair crews over is the only way one ship could ever "heal" another ship in Star Trek and that was NEVER done during a battle. Repair crews would repair another ship outside of a battle, sure. But never during a battle.

D: They changed the roles in City of villians? PLEASE. Controller = Dominator. Defender = Corrupter. ect. The only class from the Hero side which didn't receive a clone on the Villian site was the Blaster and they decided to leave that one out because they needed the space to add in the Mastermind. That was it. Mastermind was the only class that was truly different.  

E: You keep saying things the devs never said either. Suggesting that Science officers will have a healing power when you would have no way of knowing that. Lets examine that next...

F: See, here you took something the devs said, that bridge officers would have powers, and then used it to make a logical assumption which you actually don't have the evidence to prove: that Science Officers would have a healing power. Your dev chat can't prove that, but you explained how your assumption made sense to you by walking us through your thought process. There is nothing wrong with that. And yet every time myself or Drachasor try to walk you through our thought process you rear up and scream at us that "OMG THE DEVS NEVER SAID THAT YOU ARE SO WRONG WHY DO YOU TAKE  EVERYTHING OUT OF CONTEXT!?!" Its a pot calling the kettle black, man. If you aren't going to let us make some logical assumptions then why the hell should we let you do it? Guess what, the devs never said science officers would have a healing power. YOU MUST BE WRONG I GUESS!

G: Uh oh! The devs never said that! You must be taking everything out of context again! Seriously though, you have no evidence for that. They have said bridge officers will provide "powers" for you to use. But to me that sounds like Guild Wars. A Warrior in Guild Wars can take Assassin as his secondary class and then use nothing but assassin skills in his build, but that doesn't change the fact he is still a Warrior primary which gives him some advantages and disadvantages which will dictate his strategy, such as his AL 80 armor. Right now we have no way of knowing if ship type or bridge officer skills will be more important. But considering the devs have told us that "resourceful" captains will use Cruisers as tanks, science ships as support and Escorts as DPS, I think its a fairly safe assumption that those ship types will have a major impact on which tactics will be most effective for each player.

H: I never said it was a rule. This is you flipping out again and refusing to let us walk you though the logical thought process in play here. I've said multiple times now I believe it will be POSSIBLE for a player to TRY to turn a Science ship into a tank or an Escort in to a healer. But the comments from the developers lead me to believe that it will be less effective than using those ships for the role they were intended for. The devs directly told us that in order to be a "resourceful" captain you will have to use Cruisers as tanks, Science as support and Escorts for DPS. This doesn't mean you can't choose to try something else, but apparently you wouldn't qualify as a "resourceful" captain if you did that. I believe its their way of telling us that those ship types will heavily effect which strategy will be most effecitve with each type, to the point where choosing to break away from the type you were designed for would leave you with a seriously gimped ship.

I: Maybe I don't WANT to fire my photon torpedo! Maybe I'll use my phasers first to disable his engines so he doesn't move around so quickly. Then I'll hit him with a torpedo. Give me an example of a time in Star Trek where they were fighting mutliple ships and said, "you know what, I can't hit that guy over there so I guess I'll ignore him while I attack this other ship over here that I can hit but can't do any damage to because hes a tank!" This is probably a siatuation where if they can't hit one ship and can't hurt another, they most likely would have had the good sense to get the hell out of there. Plus, tanking in MMOs only works aginst NPC enemies for exactly this reason. In PvP nobody is going to waste their time attacking the big, slow moving, heavily armored guy that can't be killed. They are going to attack the poorly armored wizard in the back who keeps chucking those annoying fireballs at them. "Tanking" is a cheap trick used to deal with NPCs who are dumb but too powerful to deal with any other way.

J: So you are saying that Cryptic designed a feature in their game which didn't work the way they planned and the players ened up ignoring it because it was useless? I don't think this is helping your case, Jack.

K: Yes, we have all seen your dev chat where they claim some players won't just use the big three roles. But we have also all seen my movie where they directly tell us that "resourceful" players will use the big three roles. Explain this for me: Why does the dev chat contradict what the movie said?

Seeking out new life and new civilizations... to kill them!

Standard Cryptic game design. Why do I suddenly have the feeling that someday STO will be used as an example to congress of why video games make kids violent?

Yeah, I noticed that too.

Diplomacy is boring now? Its almost like these guys are asking this question just to do Cryptic a favor and make diplomacy sound boring so that Cryptic can blow it off. When in reality they should be asking why Cryptic isn't taking something as central to Star Trek as diplomacy seriously.

Originally posted by Blurr

A: Chances are you've probably played enough of WoW to know what a paladin is.

B: We already know the science ship isn't just a healer, because it can be a disabler, buffer, or what have you.

C: He was just using a specific example of a loadout to make the point that you can change what role you play on the fly. You are taking a specific anecdote of the way a ship CAN be used, and assuming that that's the way it MUST be used.

D: We already know that science captains will be able to heal too. We know that any ship with a science bridge officer could have the ability to heal. We know that a science ship could have no healing ability whatsoever but still be very strong as a science ship.

E: we actually have no hard facts on just how much of a bonus/detriment your ship type will be

A: I have never played WoW. Well... "never" is a strong word. One night I was drinking with a friend of mine and he had WoW running on his computer for some reason. I played long enough to get him killed by a wolf or something. Then I went back to drinking. Thats sums up my WoW experience. I see the poster above me already dealt with your Paladin rant though.

B: All of those things fall under the category of a support ship. A weak ship with minimal defense which will have to hide behind a tank in order to surivie. So pretty much its the same as either a controller or defender from City of Heroes. Sure one controller might be a buffer and one might be a debuffer but both of them are still hiding behind a tank at the end of the day.

C: Funny, he didn't say anything which made me think it was an example. He went out of his way to say that a science ship is the healer of the game and that you would use it to support your guild. Combine that with what the movie said, plus what is said about the different ships types on the website and I'm sure you can see where its all starting to paint a picture that ship types in this game will play a very large part in determining your role in the game.

D: Actually, we don't know any of that. You are telling me that healing will be a skill used by science bridge officers? Care to show me where that is refrenced on the website? The only way you could possibly know this for sure is if you are in the beta. And even then if you told me that would be a violation of the NDA. So yeah... WE don't know any of this, do we?

E: Yeah, we really don't have any hard facts about how minor or how extreme the stats of your ship type are or how they will effect your play style. So why do you keep assuimg that we DO have those hard facts by constantly telling us how the ships will and will not work? All we have to go on at this point are what the developers say about the game. You have pointed out a few quotes and so have I. But at the end of the day I still think this quote from the video says it all:

"Resourceful Captains will also be able to recognize and utilize the different classes of starships. Cruisers as tanks, science vessles as support and escorts for lighting strikes."

Now by saying that, they are telling us which ships will be MOST EFFECITVE at what. Does that mean you can't turn a science ship into a tank or an escort into a healer? NO. But according to Cryptic themselves you wouldn't be a resourceful captain if you did that. Its their way of telling us the power gamers who eventually take over every game will do it this way and anyone who tries to do anything different or unique will end up with a weaker character/ship as a result. That is always the way these simplistic MMOs go.