Originally posted by Blurr

Originally posted by ktanner3

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

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

 

 

I apologize if this comes off sounding snippy, but I would actually like to see some game mechanic proof that cruisers are pigeonholed as tanks and science ships are pigeonholed as healers, etc.

If you notice in the videos, the escort is fighting the same number of ships as the cruisers. I don't see how you can really tell who's taking or giving heavy damage. All I see the science ship do is a random ability graphic, which other ships may have access too, not that we know what it does anyways.

Let's put it this way:

The devs in the video specifically state what the strengths and weaknesses of each class of ship are. Based on that knowledge, I doubt many players will be using an escort to take on multiple ships by itself since it is specifically stated that they are weak on defense and strong on damage. I also doubt many players will be trying to use a science vessel to take on multiple ships. Maybe or maybe not. I've seen some games where the heal class WAS able to take on multiple players and that usually means the heal class becoming the FOTM until the dev team nerfs them. I certainly hope that isn't the case here, because science vessels are not meant to last in dog fights by themselves. Cruisers on the other hand ARE suppose to last in long fights and that is how they will most likely be used here. But I don't think a cruiser would want to be in a 5 to 1 fight without at least the science vessel there to fix is ship. However you want to interpret that is up to you, but to be honest I think it becomes a strawman argument based on all the facts we see and hear in those videos.

I personally have no problem with the setup but I know others do. To each his own. But let's at least admit that we have elemants of the Holy trinity type(or whatever people want to call it) in the game.

Originally posted by Drachasor

3.  I don't think there is anything wrong with bringing up fighting in real life.  Ideally the game should feel realistic after all.

I think a game ceases to feel realistic when someone can throw lightning bolts,wield a lightsaber or cast spells. ;)

Originally posted by GrumpyMel2

Originally posted by Blurr

Originally posted by Drachasor

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

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

 

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

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

Blurr,

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

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

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

Originally posted by zaylin

Originally posted by huskiblu

Originally posted by Tycalibur

"I want to be part of the game when it starts up. Yup, I am a fanboi who preordered because it is Star Trek."

*sigh*

 

I don't think there is anything wrong for wanting to play the game only because it's Star Trek.  Yeah, Cryptic knows they will make bank off me.  And?  I will enjoy it regardless, cause it's a Star Trek MMO.  And ya know, the more videos I see, the more impressed I am.  The ship battles are impressive, and I have heard nothing but good things about it.  Ground combat does resemble Champions Online, so, I hope it moves away from that so I don't feel it's that.  But, yeah, *sigh* all ya want.  Ill be living it up and loving it.

Im on the band wagon :). No game can be perfect. As long as they do a good job of representing the Star Trek Uni it will be fun. To much nit picking, and IF it does NOT have this or that it will suck hoopLa.

So true.I can nitpick every Star Trek movie or game if I wanted to and say that they suck because of this or that. Starfleet Command is my favorite example of this. The game was based off of a board game called Starfleet Battles and it broke canon left and right. The game had a HUGE following and I don't think it was all non-trekkers playing it.

Originally posted by MMO_Doubter

Originally posted by ktanner3

Enterprise screwed many things up IMO EG:Vulcans who lied,

Well, Spock lied plenty of times. I guess he doesn't count because he was half-Human?

Archer escaping Rura Penthe,contact between humans and ferengi...The fourth season was the best one because they finally got someone to run the show who respected the series, but by then it was too late. And don't get me started on that abortion of a finale called "These are the Voyages"

I agree that the fourth season was the best, and I was sorry to see the show end. The 'Dallas' style ending wasn't very satisfying, yeah.

It's very ironic of you to point to someone running the show who respected the series, because it's pretty damned clear that Cryptic doesn't.

To each his own. I don't see how they are disrespecting the series in any way. Maybe after I've actually played the game I will be able to find what you are talking about.I seem to recall the Starfleet Command series being very popular, yet I don't remember many complaints about federation ships firing missiles,races that didn't exist, or the many other things that violated trek canon with those games. They were fun to play and many trek fans seemed to enjoy them for many years along with Starfleet Battles, which the games were based on. 

Originally posted by urbanmech

Originally posted by ktanner3

I highly doubt you will be able to solo the entire game.

 

Why not, they did it with Champions Online.

 

Champions Online was released on September 1,2009. Are you saying that you have already solo'd the entire the game in three months?

Originally posted by Brenelael

Originally posted by Tycalibur

Originally posted by ktanner3

Cryptic never said this was going to be a ship simulator. That was Perpetual, who quickly realized that they didn't have the resources to make that type of game and was backpedaling on that statement before they folded. Cryptic was up front about what this game was going to be. Like it or not, at least you know what it is and can't claim to being duped when you buy it

PS: Anyone saying this will be an EVE clone is as misguided and off the mark as those that claim this is a WOW clone.

 

I want detailed information on when Perpetual 'realized' this.  Source material, please.

I'm sure a ship hub could be difficult, but I am quite sure the direction they were going with it there could have been ways around it.  Necessity is the mother of invention...and just flatly stating that 'Perpetual's idea wasn't going to work' sounds like a cop-out to me...a cop out designed to directly support the notion that Cryptic 'has the right idea', and 'has had the right idea all along', which they have NOT, not necessarily.

Having played almost a dozen MMORPGs in the last decade, I can say with surety that there were ways that Perpetual's game model would have worked, even if they themselves hadn't been the ones to do it.  Even if, say, someone else took it over and tried to keep running with the same ball.

I do not believe this black and white notion you are putting forth that Cryptic has absolutely the right idea, and Perpetual (or anyone, including me, that believes that a ship hub is a good idea) had the wrong idea.  I am not that way.  Nor are a lot of the doubters, believe it or not.  There are a lot of people here that I believe would compromise ideas if Cryptic and its supporters were not so one sided and so sh***y with their attitudes.  But whatever, you're just here to discredit them and push your own agenda, with no room for compromise.

If I didn't know better I'd swear you were a Cryptic developer, or at least knew one or more of them.

 

Glen Dahlgren, The original lead game designer for PE's STO absolutely had the right idea and PE's version of STO would have been great if they had of stuck to Glen's vision. The problems started when they made Darren Stinnett the Exec. Producer for STO. He started hacking apart Glen's STO almost on the first day he was there. It got so bad that Glen actually quit and left PE with the lead Art director (Because Stinnett was hacking his stuff to pieces as well) about 4 months after Stinnett was made the EP. Glen's vision of STO was the one that had hub ships, people as crew on hub ships, multi-pc crewed smaller ships and various other details that made us all originally fall in love with STO back in 2004/2005. This is the version that most people remember when the think back to PE's version because all of those beautiful screen shots we saw back in the beginning came from the original art director under Glen's lead.

 

The trouble basically all started when Glen left and made it so Stinnett had total control over the project. Then the problems really ramped up when God's and Heroes folded as this started the downward spiral the eventually ended with PE going bankrupt and getting sued by several of their investors and their PR firm for breach of contracts. It was during this time that we saw the most drastic cuts to the design of STO until it didn't even resemble the game that Glen Dahlgren originally set out to create.

 

By the time PE folded their STO was a steaming pile of crap that would have never made it in the MMO marketplace if it ever had of released. PE originally had a grand vision for STO under Glen's lead design but PE with a lot of help from Stinnett buried it and we are all VERY fortunate that they did. Cryptic's version may be far from perfect but it's 100 times better that what PE would have eventually released under Stinnett's craptastic lead.

 

Bren

 

(Edited to add link to old interview with Glen Dahlgren from early 2005)

Glad to see I'm not the only one who doesn't have selective memory.

PS: Not that it really matters, because I believe most people here have decent reading comprehension, but I never said Cryptic's idea was better than Perpetuals. I would have played either one. Some folks around here really need to take a chill pill and stop taking everything so personal. We're talking about a fictional game, not a cure for cancer.
 

Originally posted by Xondar123

Originally posted by ktanner3

Originally posted by Xondar123

Originally posted by MMO_Doubter

No different than grouping in any other MMO.

These arguments are strawmen from those who want a solo game.

 

Yeah, I love how fanbois of this game set up straw men for every criticism of this game. They have no real arguments, so they resort to this crap (see: "People Wanting STO to Fail" thread on the STO forums where every critic of the game hates it and wants to see it destroyed.)

 

To quote Kirk:

"Relax cupcake, it was a joke."

 

I don't recall Kirk ever saying something so inane.

Star Trek 2009
 

It was the scene in the bar when Kirk tried picking up Uhura

Originally posted by huskiblu

Originally posted by Torak

Well that's what I'm talking about. The idiots who pre-order having no clue about the quality of the game because they either have the fanboi blinders on or just have marshmellows for brains. (and a few who are genuinely new to MMOs)

MMO's are notorious for poor launches but as long as people keep buying 800k - 1 mil boxes at launch (and then dropping off) nothing will change.

The only message you can send is with your wallet so if you fork out the cash before you even know or buy it before reviews are out...it just perpetuates the ugly cycle. Look at AION right now, already trying to patch the game with massive revamps and content additions and changes.

Only a gullible fool would pre-order any MMO or think the launch is going to a solid representation of the game.

 

The irony about your statement is the ones they will devote the resources too (balance and combat) are going to be the first ones to bail on the game and start the virtual hate crusade against the game. Before the first 30 days are up this forum will be filled with an endless stream of hate post...just like every other MMO to launch in the last 6 years.

This is how the game ends, not after the launch but before.

 

I want to be part of the game when it starts up.  Yup, I am a fanboi who preordered because it is Star Trek.  The same will go with the Star Wars fans, DC Comic fans, etc.  So what?  Yeah, it's not going to be a wonderful game at first, I played enough MMO's to know that.  But I want to be on the ground floor of the game, so five years later I have my epic starship with mini shuttlecraft pets and a title of "Borg Killer".

That plan will work so long as Cryptic doesn't do what many developers do and nerf skills and equipment with every patch. Then you'll be changing your ship and templates on an almost monthly basis, even five years from now.
 

Originally posted by Sovrath

Originally posted by ktanner3

Originally posted by GetViolated

Originally posted by dhayes68

Not positive but I think the game is geared to be solo friendly. Extremely solo friendly. Solo friendly ennough that people are complaining it sounds like a standalone game.

 

sounds good to me i'll probably be buying this

 

Just a quick question. I understand wanting to play a game that is solo friendly (I can't stand forced grouping), but the ENTIRE game solo? No grouping up for anything? That sort of defeats the purpose of playing online doesn't it?

 

I don't think so at all.

There are many ways to be social other tha grouping. This is a common misconception among players. I can be very social in online games but not do much grouping and still get my money's worth.

I see your point and that is perfectly valid. A lot of folks enjoy talking over the chat channels while doing whatever it is they are doing. I myself prefer to solo a lot just because I usually don't have the time to see who is available for a mission that they may or may not have already done. I just think in this game it would a lot of fun to take part in a massive battle with Klingons or a Borg Cube while coordinating your attacks with other captains.
 

Originally posted by GetViolated

Originally posted by dhayes68

Not positive but I think the game is geared to be solo friendly. Extremely solo friendly. Solo friendly ennough that people are complaining it sounds like a standalone game.

 

sounds good to me i'll probably be buying this

Just a quick question. I understand wanting to play a game that is solo friendly (I can't stand forced grouping), but the ENTIRE game solo? No grouping up for anything? That sort of defeats the purpose of playing online doesn't it?

I highly doubt you will be able to solo the entire game.

Originally posted by Xondar123

Originally posted by DoomsDay01

Originally posted by MMO_Doubter

Originally posted by Xondar123

It was ended after 7 seasons the same way TNG was, it had a final episode that wrapped up the story lines and everything. "Cancelled" implies a forced ending outside of the planning of the series creators, i.e. what happened to TOS and Enterprise after three and four seasons respectively. A series is not considered to be cancelled if it is ended by the creators purposely.

DS9 ended, it was not cancelled.

Ended is cancelled. For what ever reason.

'Enterprise' had a concluding episode, as well.

 

I have to agree with this statement. Even if they have ending episodes to wrap stuff up, they are still canceled shows. Look at Stargate and Stargate Atlantis. Stargate sg1 was on for 10 seasons where as atlantis made 5 seasons. They even got atlantis all the way to earth but the show was still canceled. And for what? Stargate Universe? I have to say that I am still on the fence on that show. Its like Lost but in space.

 

As for me not liking STO, I fully plan on playing it. I dont have the same requirements for MMO's than I do for tv shows. So who knows, I may actually love STO. Only time will tell.

 

The very example you just cited was a show that was ended by the creators ( Stargate SG-1) and a show that was cancelled (Stargate Atlantis.) How can you agree with the statement when the example you gave proves it wrong?

How's this...
 

Both Star Trek and Enterprise are the only Star Trek shows to be canceled before the creators wanted them to be. Does that satisfy everyone?

Originally posted by Xondar123

Originally posted by MMO_Doubter

No different than grouping in any other MMO.

These arguments are strawmen from those who want a solo game.

 

Yeah, I love how fanbois of this game set up straw men for every criticism of this game. They have no real arguments, so they resort to this crap (see: "People Wanting STO to Fail" thread on the STO forums where every critic of the game hates it and wants to see it destroyed.)

To quote Kirk:

"Relax cupcake, it was a joke."

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 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.

Originally posted by Revthought

Originally posted by ktanner3

1.) Huh? You've lost me with that statement. The Klingon Empire is seperate from the Federation in both the series and the coming game.
 

2.) That doesn't change the fact that he was there and mutes the point you were making. As to the episode in question I'll have to watch it sometime because it must have been in the third season which I mostly skipped because the show had become so horrible.

 

1.) You are confusing yourself then. I responded to Xiotan, who had said that the Klingons eventually join the Federation. This was "true" according to the two Enterprise episodes I linked.

 

*I* argued that it wasn't necessarily the case that the Klingons would join the Federation--pointing out that it was merely one possible time line.

 

You came along and asked if the Klingons weren't supposed to be in the federation, how do you explain Worf. The implication of this statement was that Worf shows that the Kligons were supposed to be in Starfleet. I was just pointing out the distinction between a Klingon in Starfleet and the entire Klingon empire in the UFP; However, since you recognize that they're separate and have always been, I really am failing to see what your point is, or WHAT we're even discussing.

2.) Doesn't change the fact who was where? And what point was I trying to make that was muted? You've really REALLY confused me. :P

LOL. Obviously we both agree that the Klingon Empire and the Federation are seperate. A klingon could join starfleet if he/she wanted to but it would be highly unlikely since they are a warrior race. You are correct in that it was probably an alternate timeline, just like the events we saw in "All Good Things" was a different time line that we now know didn't happen.(Date died, Riker and Troi got married etc.)

Enterprise screwed many things up IMO EG:Vulcans who lied, Archer escaping Rura Penthe,contact between humans and ferengi...The fourth season was the best one because they finally got someone to run the show who respected the series, but by then it was too late. And don't get me started on that abortion of a finale called "These are the Voyages"

Originally posted by Darth_Osor

Originally posted by Cpt_Picard

I'm certain boarding will happen during missions, however from what I have seen STO will play very much like POTBS. Potbs has boarding, the boarding battle is usually not on the model of ship that you are boarding (Usually just a base model that scales with size).

 

 

There might be SPECIFIC missions involving boarding enemy ships, but normal boarding actions involve sending AI controlled shuttles with AI controlled marines to board a ship and damage subsystems.  No beaming over and capturing the enemy ship unless it is a dedicated mission objective.

Precisely. Not sure how effective sending those shuttles over would be. I know that using skill points in security helps preventing your ship from being affected by those landing parties, but I'm curious if you will be able to target those shuttles and shoot them down.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cqB55bJsYcI&feature=related

 ..or at least what the experience would be.

Originally posted by Revthought

Oh, and one more thing:

 

1.)Worf is a Klingon in Starfleet, but that isn't the same as the Klingon Empire being part of the United Federation of Planets.

 

2.)I'm going to get really geeky here, but just to clarify, Worf's Klingon family was killed at Khitomer. Worf ends up rescued by the Federation and is raised by human foster parents on Earth. THAT is how Worf ends up in Starfleet. Even then if you are familiar with TNG, which I assume you are, you know that it was a big deal that there was a single Klingon in Starfleet.

 

-R

1.) Huh? You've lost me with that statement. The Klingon Empire is seperate from the Federation in both the series and the coming game.
 

2.) That doesn't change the fact that he was there and mutes the point you were making. As to the episode in question I'll have to watch it sometime because it must have been in the third season which I mostly skipped because the show had become so horrible.