Bah, I am no fan of brand names and make my judgements based on facts at hand, and quite simply, there are noot enough facts at hand to make a proper judgement of the game.

Simply because I try to remind you that you cannot make such a determinate judgement at this time, does not, in any way, mean I proclaim it has a major success.

And creativity has EVERYTHING to do with customization in a game. No creativity on your part means no customization for you.

However, none of you seem to be able too logically reason, so it would seem trying to convince you that the end is not near is a futile effort. I can say I am glad I can count on the fact there won't be people such as yourselves in the game though, it'd make for one depressing time.

Originally posted by DanaDark

Might add that the interviews are with game developers... whom are not always the best at conveying ideas and such. I doubt that what they say is in it is the ONLY thing that is in it.

Cryptic is trying to sell a product.  If there were more content than they were letting on, why wouldn't they just tell the audience?  They stand to make more money that way if there is more content available.

Developer interviews are not about advertising, it is about inqueries. Selling a product is the marketing teams deal, not the developers. Business. And judging that they haven't gone bankrupt so far, they seem to know what they are doing... I don't see your game developing company floating around anywhere...

Originally posted by DanaDark

Developer interviews are not about advertising, it is about inqueries. Selling a product is the marketing teams deal, not the developers. Business. And judging that they haven't gone bankrupt so far, they seem to know what they are doing... I don't see your game developing company floating around anywhere...

You really should stop making up these assumptions.  Mine are based on experience, having played more than half a dozen MMOs in the last 10 years.

Interviews are nothing more than opportunities for the developers to plug the product.  If all this magical 'hidden content' is there in the game and they just haven't told us about it yet so close to launch, I ask you again, what would they stand to gain by not telling their audience?

The answer is simple, and common sense.  It isn't there. 

As I said, they are DEVELOPERS not MARKETING SLAVES.

People had questions, they answered some questions. People wanted a few extra details on combat, customization, etc, so they gave some.

Would you prefer they just released the entire source code?

Developer =/= Public Relations Agent, Marketing Team, CEO... etc.

If you cannot make that distinction, then there is no way to convince you otherwise for you obviously live in a different reality than the rest of humanity.

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.

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. All over reading into one quote while ignoring other quotes that prove their fears unfounded. But of course, it seems to me that some of these people have got it into their heads that they are going to hate the game, and are therefore using every chance they can (indeed, to the point of twisting the developers words) in order to bash the game. These people conveniently ignore reason and proof.

You guys are going so far deep into the minutia of things that you have no proof of. You twist the words of the developers to say that everyone has to be tank/dps/support, and therefore the game must work like this and therefore it's awful. You assume that shields are going to be used this way and power management will be used this way and this person doesn't need to move at all. No proof to back up any of that other than "Well, that just has to be the way it works". Sorry, no.

That's the problem with the arguments by these posts. They are trying to pull the argument down into details that they claim must be true, but they can't even prove themselves. It's a common tactic of people trying to attack something they don't actually have hard evidence on. "Well I assume this, so that is this way, and therefore the game is awful." 

I could go through every one of these argumentative posts and pick them apart piece by piece, but frankly it's evident that they're going to bash the game anyways. When the issue is taken to the root, they ignore that.

I just wish that the NDA was down, because I'm sure some beta players would love to get in here and prove you wrong. Alas, we'll just have to wait.

It's quite simple. Once again, the root of the issue, as directly answered by the developers.

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.

Plain english. If you are having trouble comprehending this, then you should perhaps look at what is colouring your view of the game. The developers directly answered this already, months ago. Trying to claim otherwise makes it look like you have an agenda against the game.

Simply because it was mentioned AFTER the engagement, does not mean one cannot do it DURING. And science ships will have a crew, so no matter what, more engineering crew will result in more repairs.

Direct hull damage should have to be repaired at a starbase. I have not seen any information saying that a ship can repair another ships hull... Then again, specially designed ships should be allowed to repair other ships if that's what they were built for, a sort of portable repair station, but would only make sense in a non-combat area.

As for the anti-matter spread, that was a low damage tactic, caused almost nothing but an annoyance. A full volley of torpedoes would definately always do way more damage than a simple anti-matter spread... or else you'd see way more saucers in battles! Yet, this minor annoyance caught the attention of the Borg and drew fire away from a ship doing more damage. Now place that ability on a heavily armored vessel and viola, a "tank".

Is this exactly how it WILL work? I dunno. I am offering theories that could possibly coincide with the current game, to counter those theories others present depicting a more more docile and boring mechanic.

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.

As far as "healing" goes, there's also regenerative hull plating, borg technology, I'm sure they can direct a polaron stream to help strengthen the affected areas. They could polarize the ally's hull for them, giving it a temporary boost in strength. Perhaps they shoot a beam of charged borg nanoprobes which can assist in repairs. They do have access to borg technology now, at least partially, and borg can heal themselves, it's not hard to think the technology could be adapted over range.

Originally posted by DanaDark

As I said, they are DEVELOPERS not MARKETING SLAVES.

People had questions, they answered some questions. People wanted a few extra details on combat, customization, etc, so they gave some.

Would you prefer they just released the entire source code?

Developer =/= Public Relations Agent, Marketing Team, CEO... etc.

If you cannot make that distinction, then there is no way to convince you otherwise for you obviously live in a different reality than the rest of humanity.

Once again, you are completely dodging my point.

And you are extremely incorrect about a developer's position when they agree to do an interview for an online game.  They do have responsibility.  The marketing people may tell them what to say and what not to say, but you make it sound as if they can just say what they want.  And that DOES make them public relations people when they agree to an interview, even if the role is limited to that interview.

With an online game, using a genre with a popularity magnitude of Star Trek, developers still have to be careful of what they say.  This lesson goes all the way back to the beginning of online gaming, hell, even further with high profile game titles.

Your posts have done nothing but blither on about finding the 'positives' in this game. I have clearly stated my position, and why I feel this game is going to be a complete waste, and not what the fans want.  I have stated why.  I also asked you a question, which you have ignored answering twice.  You really need to learn the art of conversation.

I said nothing about releasing the source code, don't be foolish.  And I don't see YOU marketing an online game of your own, either, save that insipid sort of arguing for someone less intelligent.

I don't like the idea of this game.  So do many Star Trek fans.  I have stated why.  And I will continue to state why.  If you don't like it, then that is essentially your problem.

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. All over reading into one quote while ignoring other quotes that prove their fears unfounded. But of course, it seems to me that some of these people have got it into their heads that they are going to hate the game, and are therefore using every chance they can (indeed, to the point of twisting the developers words) in order to bash the game. These people conveniently ignore reason and proof.

You guys are going so far deep into the minutia of things that you have no proof of. You twist the words of the developers to say that everyone has to be tank/dps/support, and therefore the game must work like this and therefore it's awful. You assume that shields are going to be used this way and power management will be used this way and this person doesn't need to move at all. No proof to back up any of that other than "Well, that just has to be the way it works". Sorry, no.

That's the problem with the arguments by these posts. They are trying to pull the argument down into details that they claim must be true, but they can't even prove themselves. It's a common tactic of people trying to attack something they don't actually have hard evidence on. "Well I assume this, so that is this way, and therefore the game is awful." 

I could go through every one of these argumentative posts and pick them apart piece by piece, but frankly it's evident that they're going to bash the game anyways. When the issue is taken to the root, they ignore that.

I just wish that the NDA was down, because I'm sure some beta players would love to get in here and prove you wrong. Alas, we'll just have to wait.

It's quite simple. Once again, the root of the issue, as directly answered by the developers.

---

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.

---

 

Plain english. If you are having trouble comprehending this, then you should perhaps look at what is colouring your view of the game. The developers directly answered this already, months ago. Trying to claim otherwise makes it look like you have an agenda against the game.

Is this the same Blurr from SWG Beta and Live?

Originally posted by Tycalibur 

Once again, you are completely dodging my point.

And you are extremely incorrect about a developer's position when they agree to do an interview for an online game.  They do have responsibility.  The marketing people may tell them what to say and what not to say, but you make it sound as if they can just say what they want.  And that DOES make them public relations people when they agree to an interview, even if the role is limited to that interview.

With an online game, using a genre with a popularity magnitude of Star Trek, developers still have to be careful of what they say.  This lesson goes all the way back to the beginning of online gaming, hell, even further with high profile game titles.

Your posts have done nothing but blither on about finding the 'positives' in this game. I have clearly stated my position, and why I feel this game is going to be a complete waste, and not what the fans want.  I have stated why.  I also asked you a question, which you have ignored answering twice.  You really need to learn the art of conversation.

I said nothing about releasing the source code, don't be foolish.  And I don't see YOU marketing an online game of your own, either, save that insipid sort of arguing for someone less intelligent.

I don't like the idea of this game.  So do many Star Trek fans.  I have stated why.  And I will continue to state why.  If you don't like it, then that is essentially your problem.

 

If I am incorrect on the position of developer, please show me where it says in Cryptic Game Developer's employment contract obligating them to also market the game. If you cannot produce this, please stop making stuff up.

I mention nothing about "finding positives" rather, I mention the fact that while you read something and gravitate immediate;y to negatives using speculation, I use the same speculation to produce a positive, which means your ideals on how it IS, is quite frankly wrong.

You do not like the "idea" of the game. So? Do you also post at EVERY other MMO you dislike the idea behind and tell them all why? If not, then your argument is greatly flawed.

And ofcourse I do not market my own company for I do not have one, and therefor do not make unrealistic and unreasonable, not to mention completely irrational, demands of others.

Generally, all i ask of others is some basis of logic and reasoning, which you seem to lack.

As for a question you asked twice now, I hadn't noticed I missed it, will go back and look so I may answer it. Just getting on so many topics here gets a little hard to keep them all on track he he.

"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. All over reading into one quote while ignoring other quotes that prove their fears unfounded. But of course, it seems to me that some of these people have got it into their heads that they are going to hate the game, and are therefore using every chance they can (indeed, to the point of twisting the developers words) in order to bash the game. These people conveniently ignore reason and proof."

Reason and proof of WHAT?  I'm not talking about some small thing here when I make my posts.  We're not talking about whether or not the photon torpedo banks on the Galaxy class ships look accurate.  We're not talking about whether or not phaser types are correct (which a Cryptic developer HAS).  I'm not talking about details in the painting.  I'm talking about something much larger, iconic and even bigger than even the broadstrokes.  I'm talking about the canvas.  Another company had a great, exciting idea for a Trek game, for whatever reasons beyond our control, was pulled from that project, Cryptic takes it over and assumes that we'll like a different canvas.

If this were something small, I wouldn't bother making my voice heard about it.  Most fans wouldn't.  But it's hardly small.  It's very acute and obtuse in its vision.  Star Trek is bigger than fighting, and unless you're in actuality a developer with Cryptic incognito, even you have to agree with that.

As for the developer comment you quoted (after bashing people for quoting developers, I won't point out the hypocrisy here), I couldn't care less about being able to CUSTOMIZE A SHIP.  I am tired of stating this, over and over, in post after post.  I've done this before in SWG.  It's not that exciting, even if the scope of it is broader.  It's still all war-centric and centered on the fighting aspects of the game, who has the bigger badder car on the block.

"Plain english. If you are having trouble comprehending this, then you should perhaps look at what is colouring your view of the game. The developers directly answered this already, months ago. Trying to claim otherwise makes it look like you have an agenda against the game."

I have been playing Star Trek games for years, and have been waiting for this game.  What is 'colouring' my view of the game is the fact that Cryptic is releasing an obtuse online enhanced version of Bridge Commander.  As far as I am concerned, this is not a Massively Multiplayer Online Roleplaying Game, nor will it be as long as its primary premise and focus is on war, leveling, gear rewards and rank.

I will play the beta.  If my mind is changed, I will come back to this community and admit that I was wrong.  Gladly.  I always admit when I'm wrong.  But it will be the first time I have been wrong about any MMO, and I have played many.

---

Originally posted by Raltar

---

Originally posted by madeux

 It's rather simplified, but it is sort of how naval combat works. 

---

 
Yeah... I guess I just totally forgot about all those Science ships they had back in WWII that ran around using their deflector dish to repair the other ships...
Oh wait...

---

Oh wait they didn't have phasers and starships in WW2. Neither did they have jamming, cloaking, etc... technology in WW2. What is your point again other then to compare apples to oranges?

Oh, why not tell the audiance... sorry, i took that as a rhetorical question.

Why should they? They have absolutely no contractual nor legal obligation too do so. Not every game has detailed every single detail about every aspect of the game. usually a brief description, avoiding too much detail, is best. A basic summary of things. Full fledged details, when given, are usually always subject to change, especially before release.

Conversely, several things they havent said WONT be in the game. So, if you have A, B, and C, and they say A WILL be iin game and C WILL NOT, you cannot logically make ANY assumption or conclusion regarding B.

And believe it or not, there are some things they've said WILL be in game that I dislike, and some things they said WILL NOT be in the game that I wish was. But I didn't come expecting this to be the fruition of all my dreams and desires rolled up into one MMO and IP.

And I am indeed equally annoyed with the super fanbois as I am the doomsayers. Just EVERYONE here seems to be a doomsayer so I have to bring a few extra flowers and all.

Originally posted by DanaDark
 

If I am incorrect on the position of developer, please show me where it says in Cryptic Game Developer's employment contract obligating them to also market the game. If you cannot produce this, please stop making stuff up.

I mention nothing about "finding positives" rather, I mention the fact that while you read something and gravitate immediate;y to negatives using speculation, I use the same speculation to produce a positive, which means your ideals on how it IS, is quite frankly wrong.

You do not like the "idea" of the game. So? Do you also post at EVERY other MMO you dislike the idea behind and tell them all why? If not, then your argument is greatly flawed.

And ofcourse I do not market my own company for I do not have one, and therefor do not make unrealistic and unreasonable, not to mention completely irrational, demands of others.

Generally, all i ask of others is some basis of logic and reasoning, which you seem to lack.

As for a question you asked twice now, I hadn't noticed I missed it, will go back and look so I may answer it. Just getting on so many topics here gets a little hard to keep them all on track he he.

Please show me where in Cryptic's Game Developer employment contract where it says they AREN'T responsible for what they say in an interview, as a marketer would be. 

I have posted plenty of threads on many websites about MMOs I haven't liked, both before and after they go live.  And this question is highly irrelevant. 

Exactly.  You don't have your own MMO company.  So it's just as unfair to accuse my opinion of being without merit just because I don't have one myself.

"As for a question you asked twice now, I hadn't noticed I missed it, will go back and look so I may answer it. Just getting on so many topics here gets a little hard to keep them all on track he he."

I'll believe that when I see it.

Originally posted by Raltar

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" BE ABLE TO 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 BE ABLE TO do it this way.

Ah raltar, a special post just for you. Firstly I did respond to your post saying I don't need to admit I could be wrong about gameplay, because I'm not claiming the gameplay is anything more than the devs have already said it is. I'm saying what the devs said is true because the devs said it. Pretty simple stuff.

Lets take a look at your twisting of words though. I notice how funny it is that you claim I twisted words (I didn't) and diminished my credibility, after which you directly go and do the exact thing you're accusing me of. See, I've highlighted above the important parts that you're conveniently ignoring. This is the part that shoots down your entire argument, which you ignore at every opportunity.

I apologize if english isn't your first language, but here's a quick english lesson for you. The important phrase in the sentence is "will also be able to".  "will also be" is a split infinitive, which since it's star trek, is perfectly fine. The important part of that is they're using the future tense of "be", aka "will be". The future tense of "be" is actually modifying the next part which is "able to". The key word here is "able", which is an adjective. It means you have the capability or option to, but does not imply that you must or is forcing you to. Able is not Forced. You are using the phrase by highlighting the "will" and implying that it means you are forced to. This is wrong.

Originally posted by Cerion

Is this the same Blurr from SWG Beta and Live?

No, I only played SWG briefly under a different name.

Tycalibur I understand where you're coming from, I definately see your point.

The point I'm trying to make is that the developers have said that while people initially gravitate to the roles of tank/healer/dps, once they find out how to effectively set up their ships and officers and such, they see there is much more depth to be had in the team make up.

If you're worried about STO being more than just combat, they have said a number of times that there will be exploration in the game, and they are looking at putting diplomacy in as well (I don't know whether they've finally decided yes or no on diplomacy).