Player crewed ships worked for 2 decades now in Mu* based games.
Yes, and we all know how popular they were. /sarcasmoff
Fact is, every game that has tried to introduce too much "sandbox" has been a major fail. Even UO started to change from being too "sanboxish" eventually. SWG was a major fail of epic proportions, and the list goes on. The games today that are sandbox, like A Tale in the Desert for instance, sit with miniscule populations even though they're very well crafted games.
You're actually daring Cryptic to make a game that will fail within a year.
Actually alot of people play SWG ONLY for the space expansion JTL.
Yes, and by an extremely overwhelming large margin those that do prefer solo ships. Funny that eh?
Where are your stats? lets see some......thats right, you can not confirm that.
Now, there is a option for single pilot craft, two pilot craft and multi crews. You dont NEED a multiple crew to pilot a multi crew ship. You can fly it solo if you want.
Again.......
Go ahaead and spin it
Anyone that's ever logged into SWG since JTL can see it for themselves plain as the nose on their face. You know it too. If you actually have played the game that is.
was there at launch and through all the horrible changes.
Player crewed ships worked for 2 decades now in Mu* based games.
Yes, and we all know how popular they were. /sarcasmoff
The MU* population proportion to the size of the internet back then show those games were insanely popular. I'm guessing when those games came out you were still in diapers though and wouldn't have known.
Uhhh ya, because I don't prefer insanely boring gameplay I must be young. Ok. I'd let you know how old I actually am, which I'd bet is older than you, and some here do know, but you're little cheap shots aren't worth me giving them more credence than I already have.
Those games comparative popularity steadily decreased as the internet grew. They're mostly history now except for the little niches here and there. Accept that. That's how the world works. We move on.
Player crewed ships worked for 2 decades now in Mu* based games.
Yes, and we all know how popular they were. /sarcasmoff
The MU* population proportion to the size of the internet back then show those games were insanely popular. I'm guessing when those games came out you were still in diapers though and wouldn't have known.
Uhhh ya, because I don't prefer insanely boring gameplay I must be young. Ok. I'd let you know how old I actually am, which I'd bet is older than you, and some here do know, but you're little cheap shots aren't worth me giving them more credence than I already have.
Those games comparative popularity steadily decreased as the internet grew. They're mostly history now except for the little niches here and there. Accept that. That's how the world works. We move on.
its obvious that you want a single player game with a few online elements
Player crewed ships worked for 2 decades now in Mu* based games.
Yes, and we all know how popular they were. /sarcasmoff
Fact is, every game that has tried to introduce too much "sandbox" has been a major fail. Even UO started to change from being too "sanboxish" eventually. SWG was a major fail of epic proportions, and the list goes on. The games today that are sandbox, like A Tale in the Desert for instance, sit with miniscule populations even though they're very well crafted games.
You're actually daring Cryptic to make a game that will fail within a year.
Actually alot of people play SWG ONLY for the space expansion JTL.
Yes, and by an extremely overwhelming large margin those that do prefer solo ships. Funny that eh?
Where are your stats? lets see some......thats right, you can not confirm that.
Now, there is a option for single pilot craft, two pilot craft and multi crews. You dont NEED a multiple crew to pilot a multi crew ship. You can fly it solo if you want.
Again.......
Go ahaead and spin it
Anyone that's ever logged into SWG since JTL can see it for themselves plain as the nose on their face. You know it too. If you actually have played the game that is.
was there at launch and through all the horrible changes.
next......
Yet you question that solo ships are undeniably massively more popular than multiplayer ships?
Ya ......right...... you've been there since launch... OK bub, sure you were.
Player crewed ships worked for 2 decades now in Mu* based games.
Yes, and we all know how popular they were. /sarcasmoff
Fact is, every game that has tried to introduce too much "sandbox" has been a major fail. Even UO started to change from being too "sanboxish" eventually. SWG was a major fail of epic proportions, and the list goes on. The games today that are sandbox, like A Tale in the Desert for instance, sit with miniscule populations even though they're very well crafted games.
You're actually daring Cryptic to make a game that will fail within a year.
Actually alot of people play SWG ONLY for the space expansion JTL.
Yes, and by an extremely overwhelming large margin those that do prefer solo ships. Funny that eh?
Where are your stats? lets see some......thats right, you can not confirm that.
Now, there is a option for single pilot craft, two pilot craft and multi crews. You dont NEED a multiple crew to pilot a multi crew ship. You can fly it solo if you want.
Again.......
Go ahaead and spin it
Anyone that's ever logged into SWG since JTL can see it for themselves plain as the nose on their face. You know it too. If you actually have played the game that is.
was there at launch and through all the horrible changes.
next......
Yet you question that solo ships are undeniably massively more popular than multiplayer ships?
Ya ......right...... you've been there since launch... OK bub, sure you were.
Player crewed ships worked for 2 decades now in Mu* based games.
Yes, and we all know how popular they were. /sarcasmoff
The MU* population proportion to the size of the internet back then show those games were insanely popular. I'm guessing when those games came out you were still in diapers though and wouldn't have known.
Uhhh ya, because I don't prefer insanely boring gameplay I must be young. Ok. I'd let you know how old I actually am, which I'd bet is older than you, and some here do know, but you're little cheap shots aren't worth me giving them more credence than I already have.
Those games comparative popularity steadily decreased as the internet grew. They're mostly history now except for the little niches here and there. Accept that. That's how the world works. We move on.
its obvious that you want a single player game with a few online elements
Because I don't want to bored out of my tree stuck on someone else's ship? Or have people being driven away from the game because they are? What does player crews have to do with player interaction and the game encouraging multi player activity? Nothing is what. Everything that encourages player interaction that is in every other mmo out there will be in STO.
Everything, and then some.
You're, and a few other's, arguments simply do not stand up under the lights. They're slinky little snipes at the game using misinformation and/or just plain lack of information. It's all smoke and mirrors with no substance.
I would have guild run ships with housing for each crewmen have bridge stations that could be run by ai or human. have away shuttles or exploring ships at starbases. You could take leave or be assigned orders from Starfleet.
They are some good non pvp examples. The point is for pvp and non pvp aspects of the gameplay alike its extremely restricting, less immersive and less interactive with other PC's. I like the way grumpymel2 summed it up
Originally posted by Grumpymel2
So instead of....
"Scotty.... get the Shields back online!"
"Sulu.... keep up evasive manuvers to we get those shields up!"
"Spock.....figure out what kind of entity we are dealing with and why it's attacking!"
"Bones.... Whats going on down there on the Planet? You've run across a Klingon Landing Party? See if you can negotiate with them to find out if they know what's going on in this system."
....And all the interactions and teamwork the above would entail. We have....
Player presses repair shields hotbar key
Player wiggles joystick.
Player presses sensor hotbar key
Player clicks "Beam Down to Planet 239" button, followed by his 5 pet NPC's.
Done..... and MAYBE if your lucky some scrippted/canned NPC feedback.
No thanks!
LOL i have to agree with Grumpymel2 as well.....
Its not something I would want to do either but i think my earlier post example would at least give the player crew crowd a bone. I think it could be done without sucking down a ton of pre-launch development time and money. I also think it could easily be added in at a later date (in that form as opposed to making it a core game mechanic). It would also be less of a financial burden if it is a bust. I don't see why Cryptic would do player crews at all. With that said, as much hate as I see on this site for Cryptic and the people that point out Cryptic's sound reasons for no PC crews i am begining to wonder if throwing them a bone might not be so bad even if its just to quiet them down a bit....... Not that it would work for long....
Player crewed ships worked for 2 decades now in Mu* based games.
Yes, and we all know how popular they were. /sarcasmoff
The MU* population proportion to the size of the internet back then show those games were insanely popular. I'm guessing when those games came out you were still in diapers though and wouldn't have known.
Uhhh ya, because I don't prefer insanely boring gameplay I must be young. Ok. I'd let you know how old I actually am, which I'd bet is older than you, and some here do know, but you're little cheap shots aren't worth me giving them more credence than I already have.
Those games comparative popularity steadily decreased as the internet grew. They're mostly history now except for the little niches here and there. Accept that. That's how the world works. We move on.
its obvious that you want a single player game with a few online elements
Because I don't want to bored out of my tree stuck on someone else's ship? Or have people being driven away from the game because they are? What does player crews have to do with player interaction and the game encouraging multi player activity? Nothing is what. Everything that encourages player interaction that is in every other mmo out there will be in STO.
Everything, and then some.
You're, and a few other's, arguments simply do not stand up under the lights. They're slinky little snipes at the game using misinformation and/or just plain lack of information. It's all smoke and mirrors with no substance.
Its already been explained how and almost everyone is saying "optional" choices for PC's but you ignore such things and proceed with your tired defense of a game that doesn't seem as though it'll be anything special. The ironic thing is you accuse others of the exact thing you yourself do while they are not.
Sirs, canwe be given the option of having our teeth pulled with no freezing or gas? Please?
How funny.
Whats funny is thats the best response you could come up with. As I said, when I first read and responded to you, when I thought you may actually be reasonable, if its not fun for you, thats your opinion, we know it but your opinion means no more than anyone else's.
Here are some of the issues with player run crews:
Time
The idea of guilds is nice, but guilds do not always play 100% of the time together. With a guild being in charge, how are you going to make sure that the Nurse Ratchet's of the game actually can play whenever the heck they want to? Forced grouping sucks.
Yes this is an mmo, but there are times when workshifts change, life changes and the only time a person can get a chance to play is between let's say 3:15am and 4:15am. You can not expect a game to have a healthy community if people HAVE to wait around to get accepted to some jackholes crew
Star Trek is a MILITARY organization
Yes, their primary mission is exploration and they have full science vessels etc but its a military organization In order to have effective bridge crews, ship crews, there is a great amount of training
If you think its that easy, join the Navy of your respective countries and find out exactly how hard a job it is
Yes it is a TV Show however it is written to replicate the above points
You are not going to get the skill and attention of players found in the tv shows and in actual navies. People have family, friends, tv, phone, IM, etc etc etc, all of which serves as a distraction to playing. I know I do not want to have to sit through whatever bs because Joe's frickin kid needs to have its diaper changed right now lol.
Logistics Logistics Logistics
In order to make it worthwhile for someone to play nurse rand, 3rd Bosun's Mate Smitty, or Janitorial serviceman Adams they would have to create enough content to satisfy all of those people. Sure the helmsman, Captain and science officer have lots to do but everyone else gets to sit with their thumbs up their asses in a $15 (or w/e monthly fee they come up with) a month chat room. A ship like the Enterprise E had well over a thousand people on board, if we narrowed it down to 100, or even 50, hell 10, they have to create 10 full games and tie them all in together.
Doesn't seem wise to presume ignorance on the opponent's part. Most people I used to talk with about PC Crews understood these concerns and addressed them, and others. Most of them come from them come from a misunderstanding of what is needed for Player Crews. Simulation, for instance, is not needed.
1) Time
Answer: Player crews are optional. You still have your own ship and your own NPC crew that you run around with. When you team with someone, you have the option of teaming ships, or joining their crew temporarily, or on a long term basis (guild). At any time you can call your ship and vamoose.
2) Military Organization
Answer: The same training is needed to play a Starship captain, as is needed to play a Starship helmsman as is needed to play a human paladin. Players do not have to be as skilled as their characters. They just need a UI. Organization and command develops naturally, as it always has in MMOs.
If your concern is about how the game takes into account the chain of command, the answer is simple. All you need is a skill tree called 'Command' with various levels and flavours of three basic buffs: A) Give Target more powerful version of their own action. Give target one time use of action they haven't unlocked yet C) Give target pet commands for minor XP. Just that easily you have a 'captain' giving 'orders' but every player is actually free to do as they please. If the Helmsman is actually the one with the most skill, and is telling the Captain player what buffs to lay out, who cares?
3) Logistics
Answer: Construct the games in your MMO to be the specialties of each department. The truth is that every MMO has 5-10 subgames in it. There's a game for combat. A separate game for crafting. A separate game for resource gathering. A separate game for travel. A separate game for whatever else you want to add in as a system, whether it be guilds, raids, stores or what have you. Make sure that each of 5 departments is one of these games and you not only will have constantly engaged players, but less downtime than other MMOs for all players.
4) Perception
Issue: Rarely brought up due to lack of perspective, the bottom line is that MANY people will assume that PC Crews = Simulationist approach. This need not be so, but it is the perception.
Answer: Market the game as "2 ways to play" either galavanting through galaxy in your own ship with your NPC crew. Even though they're the same game, there are people who believe that they cannot possibly be.
With no further ado, a short version of how I would do it.
I) The Classes
Command. Engineering. Science. Tactical. Helm. These are the classes you pick at the beginning of the game, and each adds to the tail end of your initial tutorial. Each is fun in its own right. Many players may choose to be multiclass and switch back and forth, skillpoints permitting.
II) The Games of STX
Command/NPCs
Players not only command and collect NPCs like pets, getting more as they level up their command skills, they also can train them and specialize them for certain purposes. This also includes limited PC interactivity in the form of the afformentioned buffs. In short, the Command class is a pet/buff class that can 'equip' other players and equips self with high quality NPCs. Specialties include Diplomacy for unowned NPCs, Counseling for owned NPCs, Orders for PCs and Training for owned NPCs. All players have this at some level, and all increase some aspect of it as they increase rank, especially since in this version, NPCs are the 'currency' that is traded between players.
Engineering/Ship Upgrading
Players need to upgrade their ships, both with long term as well as plentiful short term upgrades. This means the Engineer is constantly moving about the ship, strategically from clicky to clicky configuring and reconfiguring stripped down 'systems' that grow more complicated with each higher level class of ship. They are, essentially a Buff/Crafting Class. Upgrading the ship is just a natural part of the game, but the system is deep enough for someone to specialize in it if they desire. Specialties line up with different aspects of upgrading your ship.
Science/Crafting
Players craft all manner of status effects with the pseudoscience found in the show. Science Officers collect 'science' in the form of datapads, specimens and sensor data and use it to craft a number of desired effects. With effects having counter effects, this means that finding an effect to disable an enemy ship or keep klingons from growing rabid can resemble a fast paced crafting 'puzzle' game. The essentially play a Crafting/Mage-like Support Class. Specialties include effect types, including 'human effects' for Medical officers. The robust state system provides flavour and exploration for all players and missions, of course.
Tactical/Combat
Players fight whenever they want. Whether diving into a contested zone, arranging any battle through the holodeck or taking a high risk mission, players fight. But Tactical class fights best, they are the DPS/tank class, whether it comes to queueing up the Starship's attacks, or accessing a greater number of ground combat moves, including melee, the Tactical class are the go to guys, providing the greatest threat, and thusly, often taking the most heat. Specialties include Ship weapons, Shields, Ground Phasers and Melee. Out of combat in a shared ship scenario the Tactical reloads all the weapon systems and is in danger of having nothing to do. This can be addressed with holodeck or other shipboard "downtime" activities or command duties, such as training NPCs.
Helm/Travel
Players have to position their ships in combat, and no one does that like the helmsman. With access to special manuevers as they level up, as well as dramatic free flight and constant need to take into account ships position and movements, the helmsman is, essentially a tank/anti-downtime class, who's main goal is to reduce the amount of damage taken by everyone, but can dramatically decrease the amount of time spent traveling from one place to another. Out of combat in a shared ship scenario the Helmsman optimizes the course, but is in danger of having nothing to do. This can be addressed with holodeck or other shipboard "downtime" activities or command duties such as equipping NPCs.
Summary:
So there you have it. Your economy, crafting, combat, travel and customization all delivered as different departments, even though they are all systems you'll be designing anyway. They were going to be gameplay anyway, and now, they're quintessential trek.
III) Rethinking Hubs
What starships are, essentially, are portable hubs. From them, you can get missions, you can buy most things, level up/train up/equip. In order to bump players into each other, you'll need the common meeting places, space stations where many ships come together for social fun, trading crew members and the like, as well as missions that purposefully bring players into the same space casually. Instead of a space with traffic for players to casually meet in, have an algorithm built into the mission system. So, in short, ships act as hubs for higher level players, lower level players have hubs at starports and all players come to starports and colonies to trade NPCs, and players are naturally driven together by the interconnectedness of the mission systems.
IV) Linkdead scenarios
We all know how difficult LD situations can be. If it happens to someone on your ship, its essentially the same thing as them choosing to leave on their own station. An NPC from one of the peripheral stations comes in and sits down.
For the case where the owner of a ship goes LD, his last orders stand, which involve finishing the mission. The Captain would not be there to approve any changes to his ship that he has not set permissions for, so once the current mission is over, or in case of free flight, immediately, the ship just sits there. Cannot be engaged, cannot go anywhere, cannot be abused, and players' own ships are automatically summoned. Life goes on for those who don't want to wait for the Cpt to return, just like when you're doing a mission on Pinnacle and your Healer LDs. Once the last PC leaves, the ship disappears until the Cpt logs back on.
V) Fun Factor
By making each of these departments deeper, we make our currency/item system deeper, giving even solo players levels of depth in customizing their crew that was not available before. Instead of getting four tactical guys to go with them on their away mission, they can get melee guys, if they so choose and lay hands on the oppostion to their mission.
For the teamer, it provides versatility... if my ship/equipment is not up to snuff for the mission, I can hop on with someone else and still adventure with them. It also provides an inherent sidekick system, so that no one has to level up to their buddies to play with them. Any one can, essentially, play with anyone.
VI) Ship Interiors
Keep it simple, and simply use it as a hub, or a player city. Bridge as the ship's central location. Personal Quarters (that travel wholly with you from ship to ship) for storage and decoration and display of trophies, Engineering and tubes for Engineering gameplay, Science Bays for crafting, Comm terminals for mission generation, and holodeck for instant missions and casual PvP. "Ten" Forward as a lounge with whatever little RPG-minigames there may be to have (3D Chess, Poker). Bigger classes of ships have all of these. Starting classes of ship have none but Bridge.
VII) Note on Other Factions
In theory, the Federation is the 'mario' or well rounded default character, and other races are more specialized. The Klingon Faction for instance, might be heavier on Combat than Science, and the skill trees would reflect that. The Romulan faction may deal more in politicing and have more robust pet class features, but perhaps less engineering feats.
VIII) Conclusion
So there's no doubt that optional PC Crews would be challenging, but the challenge is to get beyond some assumptions we make as game designers. It is, in short, a perfect opportunity to change the way that we look at MMOs, balance, classes, economy, acheivement and teaming. Those who love teaming get to team meaningfully, and those who dislike teaming can earn everything that another player has to offer them.
Ensign Ricky Logs in. Ensign Ricky dosnt have a player crew because everyone is a captain and has some magical crew. Ensign Ricky can not walk around his ship. Ensign Ricky can not decorate his ship to his personal touch because there are no interiors. Ensign Ricky realizes he is paying 14.95 a month for a space shooter. Ensign Ricky hits /cancel
Here's what the game is like when folks like you get your way...
Ensign Ricky Logs in
Ensign Ricky can't play because the captain and first officer is over at Quark's gambling
Ensign Ricky is tired of listening to the Lt. at OPS talking about his personal life. He'd REALLY prefer exploring the Galaxy.
Ensign Ricky can't do anything but sit on the bridge, listen to a LT's social life and admire the scenery
Ensign Ricky realizes he is paying 14.95 for a space sim
Ensign Ricky hits/cancel
Then Ensign Ricky can become a captain of his own ship and recruit a crew.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
Ensign Ricky Logs in. Ensign Ricky dosnt have a player crew because everyone is a captain and has some magical crew. Ensign Ricky can not walk around his ship. Ensign Ricky can not decorate his ship to his personal touch because there are no interiors. Ensign Ricky realizes he is paying 14.95 a month for a space shooter. Ensign Ricky hits /cancel
Here's what the game is like when folks like you get your way...
Ensign Ricky Logs in
Ensign Ricky can't play because the captain and first officer is over at Quark's gambling
Ensign Ricky is tired of listening to the Lt. at OPS talking about his personal life. He'd REALLY prefer exploring the Galaxy.
Ensign Ricky can't do anything but sit on the bridge, listen to a LT's social life and admire the scenery
Ensign Ricky realizes he is paying 14.95 for a space sim
Ensign Ricky hits/cancel
Here's what the game looks like when people give up myopic thinking and propaganda:
Ensign Ricky Logs in
Ensign Ricky flies around in his runabout with his 2 NPC Cadets to his hearts content, taking missions, exploring the galaxy and levelling up.
Ensign Ricky meets Cpt. Bill at Deep Space 8.
Ensign Ricky and Cpt. Bill form a crew and Ricky leaves his Runabout at DS8. Ensign Ricky is a Tactical Class so he takes the tactical station.
Ensign Ricky and Cpt. Bill go blow some stuff up that Ricky has never seen before.
Cpt. Bill goes linkdead. Ensign Ricky is on a ship that he can't do anything on.
Player crewed ships worked for 2 decades now in Mu* based games.
Yes, and we all know how popular they were. /sarcasmoff
Fact is, every game that has tried to introduce too much "sandbox" has been a major fail. Even UO started to change from being too "sanboxish" eventually. SWG was a major fail of epic proportions, and the list goes on. The games today that are sandbox, like A Tale in the Desert for instance, sit with miniscule populations even though they're very well crafted games.
You're actually daring Cryptic to make a game that will fail within a year.
Unfortunately for your "Facts", they are wrong. Completely wrong. Lets take WoW out of this comparison as it is an by far an exception. Lets compare some of the pay to play games shall we?
UO: Slightly less popular than EQ but still very popular until EA ruined it.
SWG: Had over 300k stable subscribers until SOE ruined it.
Eve Online: Has over 250k subscribers and continues to grow to this day.
Now lets look at some of those "thriving" non-sandbox games:
WAR: Population dropped well under said sandbox games.
AoC: Population dwindling, although fans claim it is on the rise again
LotR: What, 100k subscribers tops?
In fact, while you like to claim that every sandbox game was an "Epic failure", the only non-sandbox pay to play games that are more successful than the few sandboxes created are WoW, the Lineages, and the original EQ. Currently an incredibly niche sandbox game holds the number 3 spot for most subscribed, and that is Eve. I love sandboxes and don't really care for Eve. Now just imagine if there was a good sandbox out that actually appealed to all of the sandbox fans. I'm guessing it would give the lineages a run for their money.
Tried: LotR, CoH, AoC, WAR, Jumpgate Classic Played: SWG, Guild Wars, WoW Playing: Eve Online, Counter-strike Loved: Star Wars Galaxies Waiting for: Earthrise, Guild Wars 2, anything sandbox.
Player crewed ships worked for 2 decades now in Mu* based games.
Yes, and we all know how popular they were. /sarcasmoff
Fact is, every game that has tried to introduce too much "sandbox" has been a major fail. Even UO started to change from being too "sanboxish" eventually. SWG was a major fail of epic proportions, and the list goes on. The games today that are sandbox, like A Tale in the Desert for instance, sit with miniscule populations even though they're very well crafted games.
You're actually daring Cryptic to make a game that will fail within a year.
Unfortunately for your "Facts", they are wrong. Completely wrong. Lets take WoW out of this comparison as it is an by far an exception. Lets compare some of the pay to play games shall we?
UO: Slightly less popular than EQ but still very popular until EA ruined it.
SWG: Had over 300k stable subscribers until SOE ruined it.
Eve Online: Has over 250k subscribers and continues to grow to this day.
Now lets look at some of those "thriving" non-sandbox games:
WAR: Population dropped well under said sandbox games.
AoC: Population dwindling, although fans claim it is on the rise again
LotR: What, 100k subscribers tops?
In fact, while you like to claim that every sandbox game was an "Epic failure", the only non-sandbox pay to play games that are more successful than the few sandboxes created are WoW, the Lineages, and the original EQ. Currently an incredibly niche sandbox game holds the number 3 spot for most subscribed, and that is Eve. I love sandboxes and don't really care for Eve. Now just imagine if there was a good sandbox out that actually appealed to all of the sandbox fans. I'm guessing it would give the lineages a run for their money.
<Applauds>
Even with this great discussion, there's really no need for PC Crews to equal a massive sandbox. Missions, trade and etc could still be extremely structured and story ridden, but the in-ship activities could be sandbox-like.
Player crewed ships worked for 2 decades now in Mu* based games.
Yes, and we all know how popular they were. /sarcasmoff
Fact is, every game that has tried to introduce too much "sandbox" has been a major fail. Even UO started to change from being too "sanboxish" eventually. SWG was a major fail of epic proportions, and the list goes on. The games today that are sandbox, like A Tale in the Desert for instance, sit with miniscule populations even though they're very well crafted games.
You're actually daring Cryptic to make a game that will fail within a year.
Unfortunately for your "Facts", they are wrong. Completely wrong. Lets take WoW out of this comparison as it is an by far an exception. Lets compare some of the pay to play games shall we?
UO: Slightly less popular than EQ but still very popular until EA ruined it.
SWG: Had over 300k stable subscribers until SOE ruined it.
Eve Online: Has over 250k subscribers and continues to grow to this day.
Now lets look at some of those "thriving" non-sandbox games:
WAR: Population dropped well under said sandbox games.
AoC: Population dwindling, although fans claim it is on the rise again
LotR: What, 100k subscribers tops?
In fact, while you like to claim that every sandbox game was an "Epic failure", the only non-sandbox pay to play games that are more successful than the few sandboxes created are WoW, the Lineages, and the original EQ. Currently an incredibly niche sandbox game holds the number 3 spot for most subscribed, and that is Eve. I love sandboxes and don't really care for Eve. Now just imagine if there was a good sandbox out that actually appealed to all of the sandbox fans. I'm guessing it would give the lineages a run for their money.
Actually no, I'm not wrong. I just don't do as you have and regurgitate the revised history of some of these games, but instead stick to the reality of what was.
UO, initially popular but quickly was losing it's popularity due to it's lack of focus and harsh rule sets. Devs began to move away from both.
SWG was a dismal failure at release. It sold 800k to 1 million boxes and could only retain 250K after the first month, down to 200K after the second month, and was losing 10K subscribers a month thereafter. Reasons cited for people not liking the game - lack of focused game play, too many convoluted and useless career paths, terrible combat mechanics, mind numbing grind, and th couldn't play what most people that play a Star Wars game want to play (Jedi).
EvE - fudges it's numbers by including free subscribers and dormant subscriptions. actual number probably more around 150K (if that) and this after all these years. Population has more to do with friends getting other friends to play with them than people actually liking the game all that much. Has had probably well over a couple million people try the game out but turn their stomachs ... err... I mean their noses up at it.
After an initial drop, WAR has a pop of @ 350K , but is now growing again.
AoC had many problems at launch and had an initial drop as well, but it's population is now growing again too.
LOTRO - Actually @ 300K subscribers and has held that number for quite awhile.
and you can't take WoW out of the comparison, sorry. It isn't an exception. It proves the rule. It is by far the most popular MMO in the world and it's popularity has a great deal to do with it's focused game play.
Then there are the other games with focused game play and @million + subscriptions like L, L2, and FFXI.
I know people think they sound like they have gaming cred calling for sandbox, but really it just shows they haven't a clue what most people like.
I've read alot of good responses here and wanted to pipe up and slide in my 2 cents as well..
I do agree that going with a big crew requirement is just opens up too many potential problems.. I'm a casual player because I have so many other duties in life that distract me at any given time.. Im a parent of a teenager, coach for a softball team, active in golf leagues with the other guys, husband to a wonderful wife, etc etc etc.. So my time to get on and play are.. well.. whenever life lets me.. I don't have alot of time waste doing a "LFG" type of thing to get on a ship.. HOWEVER, this is an idea I was hoping for, to add to those I've read already..
Have 90% of the game content soloable with single man controlled ships.. As one progresses into the game OR desires to hook up with a player crew, they can opt to do a 5 man ship missions (This is similar to most other mmo's out there that instance missions (aka dungeons)) I think it would be great that people get used to running a single man ship for lets say 15 levels, then have the option to join in on 5man player ship missions (instanced).. As they progress further and further, maybe have an option to open up 10man player ship missions (again instanced like mini raids).. or have 2-10 man ship missions (instanced big raid)..
Also, there could be an advanced option to have limited 5 and 10 man ship missions in neutral zones, or enemy teritories.. Naturally going into enemy territory will flag you PvP.. But I would like to see PvP be an option in this game, whereby most of the content still focuses on PvE.. I do love the idea of doing a 10 man ship mission into Klingon territory to rescure a captured Federation diplomat from Rura Pente..
What confuses me is the idea that having PC Crews goes against soloing the game. We're talking about a teaming mechanic, not a mandatory way to play the game. I think you should be able team up, if you choose at level 1, and that you should have the option to be on someone's ship as you do it. It has nothing to do with requiring players to be on a teamship, and I think, even for raids, that its a bad idea, a really bad gate for content. If soloers can't play teamship content and teamships can't play soloer content it makes both, especially teamships, less attractive.
A less intrusive mechanic would be to allow players to team by joining another player's ship, as opposed to having only the option to fly their ships in a squadron.
Again, there's this perception that having PC Crews means having a group will be required and that solo will not be an option, but not only is it a bad assumption, I really don't understand where it comes from.
Ensign Ricky Logs in. Ensign Ricky dosnt have a player crew because everyone is a captain and has some magical crew. Ensign Ricky can not walk around his ship. Ensign Ricky can not decorate his ship to his personal touch because there are no interiors. Ensign Ricky realizes he is paying 14.95 a month for a space shooter. Ensign Ricky hits /cancel
Here's what the game is like when folks like you get your way...
Ensign Ricky Logs in
Ensign Ricky can't play because the captain and first officer is over at Quark's gambling
Ensign Ricky is tired of listening to the Lt. at OPS talking about his personal life. He'd REALLY prefer exploring the Galaxy.
Ensign Ricky can't do anything but sit on the bridge, listen to a LT's social life and admire the scenery
Ensign Ricky realizes he is paying 14.95 for a space sim
Ensign Ricky hits/cancel
Here's what the game looks like when people give up myopic thinking and propaganda:
Ensign Ricky Logs in
Ensign Ricky flies around in his runabout with his 2 NPC Cadets to his hearts content, taking missions, exploring the galaxy and levelling up.
Ensign Ricky meets Cpt. Bill at Deep Space 8.
Ensign Ricky and Cpt. Bill form a crew and Ricky leaves his Runabout at DS8. Ensign Ricky is a Tactical Class so he takes the tactical station.
Ensign Ricky and Cpt. Bill go blow some stuff up that Ricky has never seen before.
Cpt. Bill goes linkdead. Ensign Ricky is on a ship that he can't do anything on.
Ensign Ricky realizes that he's paying $15 for an MMO that's both fun and not EQ in space.
Ensign Ricky can't shut his mouth about how awesome and different the game is and recruits five people.
It's really very simple. PC Crews = teaming, not a replacement for solo play.
My hope is that later on they allow guilds to build starbases and ships which are manned by players. Completely optional. Those that like dealing with other people can do so and those like me who doesn't have the time for egos can enjoy the game. Problem solved.
What confuses me is the idea that having PC Crews goes against soloing the game. We're talking about a teaming mechanic, not a mandatory way to play the game. I think you should be able team up, if you choose at level 1, and that you should have the option to be on someone's ship as you do it. It has nothing to do with requiring players to be on a teamship, and I think, even for raids, that its a bad idea, a really bad gate for content. If soloers can't play teamship content and teamships can't play soloer content it makes both, especially teamships, less attractive. A less intrusive mechanic would be to allow players to team by joining another player's ship, as opposed to having only the option to fly their ships in a squadron. Again, there's this perception that having PC Crews means having a group will be required and that solo will not be an option, but not only is it a bad assumption, I really don't understand where it comes from.
Probably the biggest reason the perception is out there is because enough people actually know how these games work, instead of just throwing things out there and crossing fingers.
They can't be just thrown in the mix without any thought behind the effects they might have. If they are included, that means either having to re- balance the entire game so that they aren't overpowered in comparison, or (and what would most likely happen what with the cost of doing that as seen in game after game in situations that are even remotely similar) they are just added and are overpowered thus making them the primary way people feel they have to play the game to be competitive.
Best to have them just be possible in specific instanced episodes where they don't ruin the rest of the game.
Probably the biggest reason the perception is out there is because enough people actually know how these games work, instead of just throwing things out there and crossing fingers.
They can't be just thrown in the mix without any thought behind the effects they might have. If they are included, that means either having to re- balance the entire game so that they aren't overpowered in comparison, or (and what would most likely happen what with the cost of doing that as seen in game after game in situations that are even remotely similar) they are just added and are overpowered thus making them the primary way people feel they have to play the game to be competitive.
Best to have them just be possible in specific instanced episodes where they don't ruin the rest of the game.
When have you ever been someone who knew how these things actually work, Hagon? I boggle with gobsmacked amazement! You constantly make claims that are quickly disproven by people with actual knowledge and facts to back it up. If you're trying to help STO, somehow, the best thing you can do is walk away. Do the game, which I support too, and yourself a very big favor.
No, no rebalancing has to be done if multiplayer ships are an option. Singleplayer ships will always be more effective. Five people in five different starships will always be able to do more than five people on one starship bridge. This is called basic math. I'd look into it.
What multiplayer ships offer is a fun option for people who want it but not as an uber-edge in combat. Even in SWG where singleplayer snubs are, theoretically, not as rugged as PoB freighters and gunships they still, given equal numbers of players in the snubs and crewing one PoB, will always win and win easily.
But that's PvP. If it's PvP you're obsessing about I wouldn't. Only a fraction will be coming to STO for that. The numbers in the only poll I've seen heavily weight to PvE (and Federation PvE alone) for that matter by huge margins. PvPers will continue to have more flexible, from their point of view, content in Eve Online anyhow. All the major innovations in STO, procedurally generated missions and competitive PvE in the Neutral Zone, are PvE innovations.
Cryptic knows the market.
Multiplayer ships will have the same capabilities as singleplayer ships and will use the same content. What rebalancing will have to be done, exactly?
Now, that doesn't mean a multiplayer approach won't take work to pull off but, I suspect, much of that work is already being done as they design the singleplayer, with NPC crew, experience. They say they're not doing anything to shut the door on multiplayer ships and if that's true, which I assume it is, they're putting hooks in for later development as they go. You can't retroactively design this. It has to be in place - now - for later development.
I know you don't like that the developers have said there will be interiors, when they figure out how to make it functional not just decorative, or that they aren't closing the door on multiplayer ships in the future.
Probably the biggest reason the perception is out there is because enough people actually know how these games work, instead of just throwing things out there and crossing fingers.
They can't be just thrown in the mix without any thought behind the effects they might have. If they are included, that means either having to re- balance the entire game so that they aren't overpowered in comparison, or (and what would most likely happen what with the cost of doing that as seen in game after game in situations that are even remotely similar) they are just added and are overpowered thus making them the primary way people feel they have to play the game to be competitive.
Best to have them just be possible in specific instanced episodes where they don't ruin the rest of the game.
When have you ever been someone who knew how these things actually work, Hagon? I boggle with gobsmacked amazement! You constantly make claims that are quickly disproven by people with actual knowledge and facts to back it up. If you're trying to help STO, somehow, the best thing you can do is walk away. Do the game, which I support too, and yourself a very big favor.
No, no rebalancing has to be done if multiplayer ships are an option. Singleplayer ships will always be more effective. Five people in five different starships will always be able to do more than five people on one starship bridge. This is called basic math. I'd look into it.
What multiplayer ships offer is a fun option for people who want it but not as an uber-edge in combat. Even in SWG where singleplayer snubs are, theoretically, not as rugged as PoB freighters and gunships they still, given equal numbers of players in the snubs and crewing one PoB, will always win and win easily.
But that's PvP. If it's PvP you're obsessing about I wouldn't. Only a fraction will be coming to STO for that. The numbers in the only poll I've seen heavily weight to PvE (and Federation PvE alone) for that matter by huge margins. PvPers will continue to have more flexible, from their point of view, content in Eve Online anyhow. All the major innovations in STO, procedurally generated missions and competitive PvE in the Neutral Zone, are PvE innovations.
Cryptic knows the market.
Multiplayer ships will have the same capabilities as singleplayer ships and will use the same content. What rebalancing will have to be done, exactly?
Now, that doesn't mean a multiplayer approach won't take work to pull off but, I suspect, much of that work is already being done as they design the singleplayer, with NPC crew, experience. They say they're not doing anything to shut the door on multiplayer ships and if that's true, which I assume it is, they're putting hooks in for later development as they go. You can't retroactively design this. It has to be in place - now - for later development.
I know you don't like that the developers have said there will be interiors, when they figure out how to make it functional not just decorative, or that they aren't closing the door on multiplayer ships in the future.
But Cryptic has said precisely these things.
Take it up with them.
I have no issues with them adding them in later IF they can, but as I said, I don't think they're going to be able to as a general feature. Only in instanced episodes.
As for the rest of your wild theories, you really are desperate aren't you? You just go on the attack without having a clue what you're going on about. It's actually amusing. Well it would be if it wasn't more just a little bit sad.
A dynamic for satisfying both types of players is simple.
Ships below a certain class can be solo piloted.
Ships above a certain class size require a crew. Crew positions can be filled either by other players or by npc. Bonuses to piloting/weapons/etc for number of players in crew. NPC skills dependent on captain's lvl/skill.
A player logs out, the position is automatically filled by an npc.
See, this whole argument about whether its do-able or not is pointless, of course its do-able. It could be done well, and in ways that satisfy both types of player.
The real argument and the cause of the nerdrage is that a Star Trek mmorpg without meaningful ship interior environments and player crews, removes a significant and important part of what Star Trek is all about for a lot of people. It denies an opportunity for fun that a lot of players could have made for themselves in those environments and as player crews.
Player crewed ships worked for 2 decades now in Mu* based games.
Yes, and we all know how popular they were. /sarcasmoff
Fact is, every game that has tried to introduce too much "sandbox" has been a major fail. Even UO started to change from being too "sanboxish" eventually. SWG was a major fail of epic proportions, and the list goes on. The games today that are sandbox, like A Tale in the Desert for instance, sit with miniscule populations even though they're very well crafted games.
You're actually daring Cryptic to make a game that will fail within a year.
Unfortunately for your "Facts", they are wrong. Completely wrong. Lets take WoW out of this comparison as it is an by far an exception. Lets compare some of the pay to play games shall we?
UO: Slightly less popular than EQ but still very popular until EA ruined it.
SWG: Had over 300k stable subscribers until SOE ruined it.
Eve Online: Has over 250k subscribers and continues to grow to this day.
Now lets look at some of those "thriving" non-sandbox games:
WAR: Population dropped well under said sandbox games.
AoC: Population dwindling, although fans claim it is on the rise again
LotR: What, 100k subscribers tops?
In fact, while you like to claim that every sandbox game was an "Epic failure", the only non-sandbox pay to play games that are more successful than the few sandboxes created are WoW, the Lineages, and the original EQ. Currently an incredibly niche sandbox game holds the number 3 spot for most subscribed, and that is Eve. I love sandboxes and don't really care for Eve. Now just imagine if there was a good sandbox out that actually appealed to all of the sandbox fans. I'm guessing it would give the lineages a run for their money.
Actually no, I'm not wrong. I just don't do as you have and regurgitate the revised history of some of these games, but instead stick to the reality of what was.
UO, initially popular but quickly was losing it's popularity due to it's lack of focus and harsh rule sets. Devs began to move away from both.
SWG was a dismal failure at release. It sold 800k to 1 million boxes and could only retain 250K after the first month, down to 200K after the second month, and was losing 10K subscribers a month thereafter. Reasons cited for people not liking the game - lack of focused game play, too many convoluted and useless career paths, terrible combat mechanics, mind numbing grind, and th couldn't play what most people that play a Star Wars game want to play (Jedi).
EvE - fudges it's numbers by including free subscribers and dormant subscriptions. actual number probably more around 150K (if that) and this after all these years. Population has more to do with friends getting other friends to play with them than people actually liking the game all that much. Has had probably well over a couple million people try the game out but turn their stomachs ... err... I mean their noses up at it.
After an initial drop, WAR has a pop of @ 350K , but is now growing again.
AoC had many problems at launch and had an initial drop as well, but it's population is now growing again too.
LOTRO - Actually @ 300K subscribers and has held that number for quite awhile.
and you can't take WoW out of the comparison, sorry. It isn't an exception. It proves the rule. It is by far the most popular MMO in the world and it's popularity has a great deal to do with it's focused game play.
Then there are the other games with focused game play and @million + subscriptions like L, L2, and FFXI.
I know people think they sound like they have gaming cred calling for sandbox, but really it just shows they haven't a clue what most people like.
Actualy I think your both wrong, people like BOTH types of games. Some people like only SANDBOX games, some people like only highly Story driven "theme-park" games. Some people like both types. Also interesting to note that ALOT of players do sandbox type stuff in Story Centric games. Rp-ing thier own storylines that they make up with freinds and guild-mates and using the game environment as a backdrop for it....it's NOT mutualy exclusive. As long as the game engine has some provision for it,
I am currently doing exactly that with my Guild in LOTRO (argueably labeled on of the most prominent example of "Theme Park" type games)...and it's going very well. I've also done something similar in WOW in the past.
Note that I think there is plenty of room for BOTH types of games... they both have plenty of fans. I think the relative success of the different MMO's mentioned have very little to do with the Sandbox/Theme Park factor and have more to do with unrelated issues.
UO - Was very popular in it's day, although I didn't like it much. It lost popularity as it started to look dated against some of the newer offerings..... and yes they did a bad job of policing the environment.
SWG - Never played it....although I've heard it had a very loyal core following. The biggest complaints I heard about the game was that they drasticaly changed the nature of the game in mid-stream and didn't do a very good job of interfacing with the player community when they did it. Nothing can muck up your business like serving a customer steak and then switching it to chicken in mid-meal ....and not understanding when the customer complains.
EVE - Never played it....but I understand it has a substantial and very loyal core audience.
Vanguard - Failed not due to being sandbox....but by being bug-laden, performance killing, steaming pile from a purely technical standpoint at launch. I've heard they've made alot of improvements..... but these days it's really hard to recover from a launch like that.
WAR - No desire to play it. The biggest billing on it is that it is pretty much PvP centric.... so it's success or failure is going to be driven primarly on the PvP features it offers.
AOC - Have not tried it do to reports of bugginess and steep performance requirements. Not sure if that's true.... but those kind of reports are going to steer plenty of potential customers away.
LOTRO - My favorate MMO to date. I'd say the 300K sub numbers seems accurate....and I still see new players every day...especialy since MOM. It's often labeled as THE "Theme Park" game....but really, there is plenty of opportunity to do sand-box stuff if you want. It's popularity (IMO).....
1) It's Middle Earth.....many players (including alot of non-gamers) flock to it SIMPLY because of that setting.
2) Solid game mechanics and incredibly polished release and content updates.
3) Even though it's "Theme Park", the stories, quests, and story arcs are EXTREMELY well thought out and well written. A "Theme Park" type game can even appeal to alot of people that are more drawn to sandbox environments (like me)....if the story it is telling is very compelling and very high quality....if it's just mediocre... then it'll fall flat for that audience. That's the real risk for Theme Park style games....you've got to have very talented writers...not just good programers, game designers and level writers.
What confuses me is the idea that having PC Crews goes against soloing the game. We're talking about a teaming mechanic, not a mandatory way to play the game. I think you should be able team up, if you choose at level 1, and that you should have the option to be on someone's ship as you do it. It has nothing to do with requiring players to be on a teamship, and I think, even for raids, that its a bad idea, a really bad gate for content. If soloers can't play teamship content and teamships can't play soloer content it makes both, especially teamships, less attractive. A less intrusive mechanic would be to allow players to team by joining another player's ship, as opposed to having only the option to fly their ships in a squadron. Again, there's this perception that having PC Crews means having a group will be required and that solo will not be an option, but not only is it a bad assumption, I really don't understand where it comes from.
Probably the biggest reason the perception is out there is because enough people actually know how these games work, instead of just throwing things out there and crossing fingers.
They can't be just thrown in the mix without any thought behind the effects they might have. If they are included, that means either having to re- balance the entire game so that they aren't overpowered in comparison, or (and what would most likely happen what with the cost of doing that as seen in game after game in situations that are even remotely similar) they are just added and are overpowered thus making them the primary way people feel they have to play the game to be competitive.
Best to have them just be possible in specific instanced episodes where they don't ruin the rest of the game.
There's so many things wrong with this post it boggles my mind. I have not clue how to respond to this level of myopia. I'll just list the top three things you're wrong on.
1) People in general, don't know what the heck they're talking about, much less how MMO's 'work.' If they're right, its because of social programming, not by some mass insight.
2) Most proponents of PC Crews I've spoken with have a well detailed plan on how it could have been done, one that involves no finger crossing.
3) Who is talking about adding things in now?
The one thing you are right about, is that teamed instances are the best that they can do in regards to this at this point. It's one of the reasons that I can't get excited about the game, regardless of how good it may or may not be. This is just Star Trek Galaxies to me. Great game, a lot of people love it, but the central part of the mythos, in this case, the teamwork between a group of intelligent self-motivated crew members, is lost. It's just like having a Star Wars game without Jedi to me. Fun, maybe... a great game, why not? But its hard to enjoy your beloved IP without your favorite part of it.
Which is why I loved the idea of this thread. A chance to show how I would have done it, and have it examined by intelligent folk for ways to be improved. Somehow, though, this thread is still filled with single minded lobbyists who have already determined what the opposing argument is, so even when someone explains a plan and addresses concerns, you've already decided that all of the 'opposition' "doesn't know how these games work" and is just "crossing fingers" and continue with the same statements over and over as though your concerns are eternal.
You're blind, and it's really annoying for you to come on and say things without taking into account what's going on around you.
Comments
Yes, and we all know how popular they were. /sarcasmoff
Fact is, every game that has tried to introduce too much "sandbox" has been a major fail. Even UO started to change from being too "sanboxish" eventually. SWG was a major fail of epic proportions, and the list goes on. The games today that are sandbox, like A Tale in the Desert for instance, sit with miniscule populations even though they're very well crafted games.
You're actually daring Cryptic to make a game that will fail within a year.
Actually alot of people play SWG ONLY for the space expansion JTL.
Yes, and by an extremely overwhelming large margin those that do prefer solo ships. Funny that eh?
Where are your stats? lets see some......thats right, you can not confirm that.
Now, there is a option for single pilot craft, two pilot craft and multi crews. You dont NEED a multiple crew to pilot a multi crew ship. You can fly it solo if you want.
Again.......
Go ahaead and spin it
Anyone that's ever logged into SWG since JTL can see it for themselves plain as the nose on their face. You know it too. If you actually have played the game that is.
was there at launch and through all the horrible changes.
next......
Yes, and we all know how popular they were. /sarcasmoff
The MU* population proportion to the size of the internet back then show those games were insanely popular. I'm guessing when those games came out you were still in diapers though and wouldn't have known.
Uhhh ya, because I don't prefer insanely boring gameplay I must be young. Ok. I'd let you know how old I actually am, which I'd bet is older than you, and some here do know, but you're little cheap shots aren't worth me giving them more credence than I already have.
Those games comparative popularity steadily decreased as the internet grew. They're mostly history now except for the little niches here and there. Accept that. That's how the world works. We move on.
Yes, and we all know how popular they were. /sarcasmoff
The MU* population proportion to the size of the internet back then show those games were insanely popular. I'm guessing when those games came out you were still in diapers though and wouldn't have known.
Uhhh ya, because I don't prefer insanely boring gameplay I must be young. Ok. I'd let you know how old I actually am, which I'd bet is older than you, and some here do know, but you're little cheap shots aren't worth me giving them more credence than I already have.
Those games comparative popularity steadily decreased as the internet grew. They're mostly history now except for the little niches here and there. Accept that. That's how the world works. We move on.
its obvious that you want a single player game with a few online elements
Yes, and we all know how popular they were. /sarcasmoff
Fact is, every game that has tried to introduce too much "sandbox" has been a major fail. Even UO started to change from being too "sanboxish" eventually. SWG was a major fail of epic proportions, and the list goes on. The games today that are sandbox, like A Tale in the Desert for instance, sit with miniscule populations even though they're very well crafted games.
You're actually daring Cryptic to make a game that will fail within a year.
Actually alot of people play SWG ONLY for the space expansion JTL.
Yes, and by an extremely overwhelming large margin those that do prefer solo ships. Funny that eh?
Where are your stats? lets see some......thats right, you can not confirm that.
Now, there is a option for single pilot craft, two pilot craft and multi crews. You dont NEED a multiple crew to pilot a multi crew ship. You can fly it solo if you want.
Again.......
Go ahaead and spin it
Anyone that's ever logged into SWG since JTL can see it for themselves plain as the nose on their face. You know it too. If you actually have played the game that is.
was there at launch and through all the horrible changes.
next......
Yet you question that solo ships are undeniably massively more popular than multiplayer ships?
Ya ......right...... you've been there since launch... OK bub, sure you were.
Yes, and we all know how popular they were. /sarcasmoff
Fact is, every game that has tried to introduce too much "sandbox" has been a major fail. Even UO started to change from being too "sanboxish" eventually. SWG was a major fail of epic proportions, and the list goes on. The games today that are sandbox, like A Tale in the Desert for instance, sit with miniscule populations even though they're very well crafted games.
You're actually daring Cryptic to make a game that will fail within a year.
Actually alot of people play SWG ONLY for the space expansion JTL.
Yes, and by an extremely overwhelming large margin those that do prefer solo ships. Funny that eh?
Where are your stats? lets see some......thats right, you can not confirm that.
Now, there is a option for single pilot craft, two pilot craft and multi crews. You dont NEED a multiple crew to pilot a multi crew ship. You can fly it solo if you want.
Again.......
Go ahaead and spin it
Anyone that's ever logged into SWG since JTL can see it for themselves plain as the nose on their face. You know it too. If you actually have played the game that is.
was there at launch and through all the horrible changes.
next......
Yet you question that solo ships are undeniably massively more popular than multiplayer ships?
Ya ......right...... you've been there since launch... OK bub, sure you were.
bub?
is that your cute lil name for me now?
ha ha
how sweet
Yes, and we all know how popular they were. /sarcasmoff
The MU* population proportion to the size of the internet back then show those games were insanely popular. I'm guessing when those games came out you were still in diapers though and wouldn't have known.
Uhhh ya, because I don't prefer insanely boring gameplay I must be young. Ok. I'd let you know how old I actually am, which I'd bet is older than you, and some here do know, but you're little cheap shots aren't worth me giving them more credence than I already have.
Those games comparative popularity steadily decreased as the internet grew. They're mostly history now except for the little niches here and there. Accept that. That's how the world works. We move on.
its obvious that you want a single player game with a few online elements
Because I don't want to bored out of my tree stuck on someone else's ship? Or have people being driven away from the game because they are? What does player crews have to do with player interaction and the game encouraging multi player activity? Nothing is what. Everything that encourages player interaction that is in every other mmo out there will be in STO.
Everything, and then some.
You're, and a few other's, arguments simply do not stand up under the lights. They're slinky little snipes at the game using misinformation and/or just plain lack of information. It's all smoke and mirrors with no substance.
They are some good non pvp examples. The point is for pvp and non pvp aspects of the gameplay alike its extremely restricting, less immersive and less interactive with other PC's. I like the way grumpymel2 summed it up
LOL i have to agree with Grumpymel2 as well.....
Its not something I would want to do either but i think my earlier post example would at least give the player crew crowd a bone. I think it could be done without sucking down a ton of pre-launch development time and money. I also think it could easily be added in at a later date (in that form as opposed to making it a core game mechanic). It would also be less of a financial burden if it is a bust. I don't see why Cryptic would do player crews at all. With that said, as much hate as I see on this site for Cryptic and the people that point out Cryptic's sound reasons for no PC crews i am begining to wonder if throwing them a bone might not be so bad even if its just to quiet them down a bit....... Not that it would work for long....
Yes, and we all know how popular they were. /sarcasmoff
The MU* population proportion to the size of the internet back then show those games were insanely popular. I'm guessing when those games came out you were still in diapers though and wouldn't have known.
Uhhh ya, because I don't prefer insanely boring gameplay I must be young. Ok. I'd let you know how old I actually am, which I'd bet is older than you, and some here do know, but you're little cheap shots aren't worth me giving them more credence than I already have.
Those games comparative popularity steadily decreased as the internet grew. They're mostly history now except for the little niches here and there. Accept that. That's how the world works. We move on.
its obvious that you want a single player game with a few online elements
Because I don't want to bored out of my tree stuck on someone else's ship? Or have people being driven away from the game because they are? What does player crews have to do with player interaction and the game encouraging multi player activity? Nothing is what. Everything that encourages player interaction that is in every other mmo out there will be in STO.
Everything, and then some.
You're, and a few other's, arguments simply do not stand up under the lights. They're slinky little snipes at the game using misinformation and/or just plain lack of information. It's all smoke and mirrors with no substance.
Its already been explained how and almost everyone is saying "optional" choices for PC's but you ignore such things and proceed with your tired defense of a game that doesn't seem as though it'll be anything special. The ironic thing is you accuse others of the exact thing you yourself do while they are not.
Sirs, canwe be given the option of having our teeth pulled with no freezing or gas? Please?
How funny.
Whats funny is thats the best response you could come up with. As I said, when I first read and responded to you, when I thought you may actually be reasonable, if its not fun for you, thats your opinion, we know it but your opinion means no more than anyone else's.
Doesn't seem wise to presume ignorance on the opponent's part. Most people I used to talk with about PC Crews understood these concerns and addressed them, and others. Most of them come from them come from a misunderstanding of what is needed for Player Crews. Simulation, for instance, is not needed.
1) Time
Answer: Player crews are optional. You still have your own ship and your own NPC crew that you run around with. When you team with someone, you have the option of teaming ships, or joining their crew temporarily, or on a long term basis (guild). At any time you can call your ship and vamoose.
2) Military Organization
Answer: The same training is needed to play a Starship captain, as is needed to play a Starship helmsman as is needed to play a human paladin. Players do not have to be as skilled as their characters. They just need a UI. Organization and command develops naturally, as it always has in MMOs.
If your concern is about how the game takes into account the chain of command, the answer is simple. All you need is a skill tree called 'Command' with various levels and flavours of three basic buffs: A) Give Target more powerful version of their own action.
Give target one time use of action they haven't unlocked yet C) Give target pet commands for minor XP. Just that easily you have a 'captain' giving 'orders' but every player is actually free to do as they please. If the Helmsman is actually the one with the most skill, and is telling the Captain player what buffs to lay out, who cares?
3) Logistics
Answer: Construct the games in your MMO to be the specialties of each department. The truth is that every MMO has 5-10 subgames in it. There's a game for combat. A separate game for crafting. A separate game for resource gathering. A separate game for travel. A separate game for whatever else you want to add in as a system, whether it be guilds, raids, stores or what have you. Make sure that each of 5 departments is one of these games and you not only will have constantly engaged players, but less downtime than other MMOs for all players.
4) Perception
Issue: Rarely brought up due to lack of perspective, the bottom line is that MANY people will assume that PC Crews = Simulationist approach. This need not be so, but it is the perception.
Answer: Market the game as "2 ways to play" either galavanting through galaxy in your own ship with your NPC crew. Even though they're the same game, there are people who believe that they cannot possibly be.
With no further ado, a short version of how I would do it.
I) The Classes
Command. Engineering. Science. Tactical. Helm. These are the classes you pick at the beginning of the game, and each adds to the tail end of your initial tutorial. Each is fun in its own right. Many players may choose to be multiclass and switch back and forth, skillpoints permitting.
II) The Games of STX
Command/NPCs
Players not only command and collect NPCs like pets, getting more as they level up their command skills, they also can train them and specialize them for certain purposes. This also includes limited PC interactivity in the form of the afformentioned buffs. In short, the Command class is a pet/buff class that can 'equip' other players and equips self with high quality NPCs. Specialties include Diplomacy for unowned NPCs, Counseling for owned NPCs, Orders for PCs and Training for owned NPCs. All players have this at some level, and all increase some aspect of it as they increase rank, especially since in this version, NPCs are the 'currency' that is traded between players.
Engineering/Ship Upgrading
Players need to upgrade their ships, both with long term as well as plentiful short term upgrades. This means the Engineer is constantly moving about the ship, strategically from clicky to clicky configuring and reconfiguring stripped down 'systems' that grow more complicated with each higher level class of ship. They are, essentially a Buff/Crafting Class. Upgrading the ship is just a natural part of the game, but the system is deep enough for someone to specialize in it if they desire. Specialties line up with different aspects of upgrading your ship.
Science/Crafting
Players craft all manner of status effects with the pseudoscience found in the show. Science Officers collect 'science' in the form of datapads, specimens and sensor data and use it to craft a number of desired effects. With effects having counter effects, this means that finding an effect to disable an enemy ship or keep klingons from growing rabid can resemble a fast paced crafting 'puzzle' game. The essentially play a Crafting/Mage-like Support Class. Specialties include effect types, including 'human effects' for Medical officers. The robust state system provides flavour and exploration for all players and missions, of course.
Tactical/Combat
Players fight whenever they want. Whether diving into a contested zone, arranging any battle through the holodeck or taking a high risk mission, players fight. But Tactical class fights best, they are the DPS/tank class, whether it comes to queueing up the Starship's attacks, or accessing a greater number of ground combat moves, including melee, the Tactical class are the go to guys, providing the greatest threat, and thusly, often taking the most heat. Specialties include Ship weapons, Shields, Ground Phasers and Melee. Out of combat in a shared ship scenario the Tactical reloads all the weapon systems and is in danger of having nothing to do. This can be addressed with holodeck or other shipboard "downtime" activities or command duties, such as training NPCs.
Helm/Travel
Players have to position their ships in combat, and no one does that like the helmsman. With access to special manuevers as they level up, as well as dramatic free flight and constant need to take into account ships position and movements, the helmsman is, essentially a tank/anti-downtime class, who's main goal is to reduce the amount of damage taken by everyone, but can dramatically decrease the amount of time spent traveling from one place to another. Out of combat in a shared ship scenario the Helmsman optimizes the course, but is in danger of having nothing to do. This can be addressed with holodeck or other shipboard "downtime" activities or command duties such as equipping NPCs.
Summary:
So there you have it. Your economy, crafting, combat, travel and customization all delivered as different departments, even though they are all systems you'll be designing anyway. They were going to be gameplay anyway, and now, they're quintessential trek.
III) Rethinking Hubs
What starships are, essentially, are portable hubs. From them, you can get missions, you can buy most things, level up/train up/equip. In order to bump players into each other, you'll need the common meeting places, space stations where many ships come together for social fun, trading crew members and the like, as well as missions that purposefully bring players into the same space casually. Instead of a space with traffic for players to casually meet in, have an algorithm built into the mission system. So, in short, ships act as hubs for higher level players, lower level players have hubs at starports and all players come to starports and colonies to trade NPCs, and players are naturally driven together by the interconnectedness of the mission systems.
IV) Linkdead scenarios
We all know how difficult LD situations can be. If it happens to someone on your ship, its essentially the same thing as them choosing to leave on their own station. An NPC from one of the peripheral stations comes in and sits down.
For the case where the owner of a ship goes LD, his last orders stand, which involve finishing the mission. The Captain would not be there to approve any changes to his ship that he has not set permissions for, so once the current mission is over, or in case of free flight, immediately, the ship just sits there. Cannot be engaged, cannot go anywhere, cannot be abused, and players' own ships are automatically summoned. Life goes on for those who don't want to wait for the Cpt to return, just like when you're doing a mission on Pinnacle and your Healer LDs. Once the last PC leaves, the ship disappears until the Cpt logs back on.
V) Fun Factor
By making each of these departments deeper, we make our currency/item system deeper, giving even solo players levels of depth in customizing their crew that was not available before. Instead of getting four tactical guys to go with them on their away mission, they can get melee guys, if they so choose and lay hands on the oppostion to their mission.
For the teamer, it provides versatility... if my ship/equipment is not up to snuff for the mission, I can hop on with someone else and still adventure with them. It also provides an inherent sidekick system, so that no one has to level up to their buddies to play with them. Any one can, essentially, play with anyone.
VI) Ship Interiors
Keep it simple, and simply use it as a hub, or a player city. Bridge as the ship's central location. Personal Quarters (that travel wholly with you from ship to ship) for storage and decoration and display of trophies, Engineering and tubes for Engineering gameplay, Science Bays for crafting, Comm terminals for mission generation, and holodeck for instant missions and casual PvP. "Ten" Forward as a lounge with whatever little RPG-minigames there may be to have (3D Chess, Poker). Bigger classes of ships have all of these. Starting classes of ship have none but Bridge.
VII) Note on Other Factions
In theory, the Federation is the 'mario' or well rounded default character, and other races are more specialized. The Klingon Faction for instance, might be heavier on Combat than Science, and the skill trees would reflect that. The Romulan faction may deal more in politicing and have more robust pet class features, but perhaps less engineering feats.
VIII) Conclusion
So there's no doubt that optional PC Crews would be challenging, but the challenge is to get beyond some assumptions we make as game designers. It is, in short, a perfect opportunity to change the way that we look at MMOs, balance, classes, economy, acheivement and teaming. Those who love teaming get to team meaningfully, and those who dislike teaming can earn everything that another player has to offer them.
The Illusion of Choice
Here's what the game is like when folks like you get your way...
Ensign Ricky Logs in
Ensign Ricky can't play because the captain and first officer is over at Quark's gambling
Ensign Ricky is tired of listening to the Lt. at OPS talking about his personal life. He'd REALLY prefer exploring the Galaxy.
Ensign Ricky can't do anything but sit on the bridge, listen to a LT's social life and admire the scenery
Ensign Ricky realizes he is paying 14.95 for a space sim
Ensign Ricky hits/cancel
Then Ensign Ricky can become a captain of his own ship and recruit a crew.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
Here's what the game is like when folks like you get your way...
Ensign Ricky Logs in
Ensign Ricky can't play because the captain and first officer is over at Quark's gambling
Ensign Ricky is tired of listening to the Lt. at OPS talking about his personal life. He'd REALLY prefer exploring the Galaxy.
Ensign Ricky can't do anything but sit on the bridge, listen to a LT's social life and admire the scenery
Ensign Ricky realizes he is paying 14.95 for a space sim
Ensign Ricky hits/cancel
Here's what the game looks like when people give up myopic thinking and propaganda:
Ensign Ricky Logs in
Ensign Ricky flies around in his runabout with his 2 NPC Cadets to his hearts content, taking missions, exploring the galaxy and levelling up.
Ensign Ricky meets Cpt. Bill at Deep Space 8.
Ensign Ricky and Cpt. Bill form a crew and Ricky leaves his Runabout at DS8. Ensign Ricky is a Tactical Class so he takes the tactical station.
Ensign Ricky and Cpt. Bill go blow some stuff up that Ricky has never seen before.
Cpt. Bill goes linkdead. Ensign Ricky is on a ship that he can't do anything on.
Ensign Ricky's runabout arrives 45 seconds later. Ensign Ricky
Ensign Ricky realizes that he's paying $15 for an MMO that's both fun and not EQ in space.
Ensign Ricky can't shut his mouth about how awesome and different the game is and recruits five people.
It's really very simple. PC Crews = teaming, not a replacement for solo play.
The Illusion of Choice
Yes, and we all know how popular they were. /sarcasmoff
Fact is, every game that has tried to introduce too much "sandbox" has been a major fail. Even UO started to change from being too "sanboxish" eventually. SWG was a major fail of epic proportions, and the list goes on. The games today that are sandbox, like A Tale in the Desert for instance, sit with miniscule populations even though they're very well crafted games.
You're actually daring Cryptic to make a game that will fail within a year.
Unfortunately for your "Facts", they are wrong. Completely wrong. Lets take WoW out of this comparison as it is an by far an exception. Lets compare some of the pay to play games shall we?
UO: Slightly less popular than EQ but still very popular until EA ruined it.
SWG: Had over 300k stable subscribers until SOE ruined it.
Eve Online: Has over 250k subscribers and continues to grow to this day.
Now lets look at some of those "thriving" non-sandbox games:
WAR: Population dropped well under said sandbox games.
AoC: Population dwindling, although fans claim it is on the rise again
LotR: What, 100k subscribers tops?
In fact, while you like to claim that every sandbox game was an "Epic failure", the only non-sandbox pay to play games that are more successful than the few sandboxes created are WoW, the Lineages, and the original EQ. Currently an incredibly niche sandbox game holds the number 3 spot for most subscribed, and that is Eve. I love sandboxes and don't really care for Eve. Now just imagine if there was a good sandbox out that actually appealed to all of the sandbox fans. I'm guessing it would give the lineages a run for their money.
Tried: LotR, CoH, AoC, WAR, Jumpgate Classic
Played: SWG, Guild Wars, WoW
Playing: Eve Online, Counter-strike
Loved: Star Wars Galaxies
Waiting for: Earthrise, Guild Wars 2, anything sandbox.
Yes, and we all know how popular they were. /sarcasmoff
Fact is, every game that has tried to introduce too much "sandbox" has been a major fail. Even UO started to change from being too "sanboxish" eventually. SWG was a major fail of epic proportions, and the list goes on. The games today that are sandbox, like A Tale in the Desert for instance, sit with miniscule populations even though they're very well crafted games.
You're actually daring Cryptic to make a game that will fail within a year.
Unfortunately for your "Facts", they are wrong. Completely wrong. Lets take WoW out of this comparison as it is an by far an exception. Lets compare some of the pay to play games shall we?
UO: Slightly less popular than EQ but still very popular until EA ruined it.
SWG: Had over 300k stable subscribers until SOE ruined it.
Eve Online: Has over 250k subscribers and continues to grow to this day.
Now lets look at some of those "thriving" non-sandbox games:
WAR: Population dropped well under said sandbox games.
AoC: Population dwindling, although fans claim it is on the rise again
LotR: What, 100k subscribers tops?
In fact, while you like to claim that every sandbox game was an "Epic failure", the only non-sandbox pay to play games that are more successful than the few sandboxes created are WoW, the Lineages, and the original EQ. Currently an incredibly niche sandbox game holds the number 3 spot for most subscribed, and that is Eve. I love sandboxes and don't really care for Eve. Now just imagine if there was a good sandbox out that actually appealed to all of the sandbox fans. I'm guessing it would give the lineages a run for their money.
<Applauds>
Even with this great discussion, there's really no need for PC Crews to equal a massive sandbox. Missions, trade and etc could still be extremely structured and story ridden, but the in-ship activities could be sandbox-like.
The Illusion of Choice
Yes, and we all know how popular they were. /sarcasmoff
Fact is, every game that has tried to introduce too much "sandbox" has been a major fail. Even UO started to change from being too "sanboxish" eventually. SWG was a major fail of epic proportions, and the list goes on. The games today that are sandbox, like A Tale in the Desert for instance, sit with miniscule populations even though they're very well crafted games.
You're actually daring Cryptic to make a game that will fail within a year.
Unfortunately for your "Facts", they are wrong. Completely wrong. Lets take WoW out of this comparison as it is an by far an exception. Lets compare some of the pay to play games shall we?
UO: Slightly less popular than EQ but still very popular until EA ruined it.
SWG: Had over 300k stable subscribers until SOE ruined it.
Eve Online: Has over 250k subscribers and continues to grow to this day.
Now lets look at some of those "thriving" non-sandbox games:
WAR: Population dropped well under said sandbox games.
AoC: Population dwindling, although fans claim it is on the rise again
LotR: What, 100k subscribers tops?
In fact, while you like to claim that every sandbox game was an "Epic failure", the only non-sandbox pay to play games that are more successful than the few sandboxes created are WoW, the Lineages, and the original EQ. Currently an incredibly niche sandbox game holds the number 3 spot for most subscribed, and that is Eve. I love sandboxes and don't really care for Eve. Now just imagine if there was a good sandbox out that actually appealed to all of the sandbox fans. I'm guessing it would give the lineages a run for their money.
Actually no, I'm not wrong. I just don't do as you have and regurgitate the revised history of some of these games, but instead stick to the reality of what was.
UO, initially popular but quickly was losing it's popularity due to it's lack of focus and harsh rule sets. Devs began to move away from both.
SWG was a dismal failure at release. It sold 800k to 1 million boxes and could only retain 250K after the first month, down to 200K after the second month, and was losing 10K subscribers a month thereafter. Reasons cited for people not liking the game - lack of focused game play, too many convoluted and useless career paths, terrible combat mechanics, mind numbing grind, and th couldn't play what most people that play a Star Wars game want to play (Jedi).
EvE - fudges it's numbers by including free subscribers and dormant subscriptions. actual number probably more around 150K (if that) and this after all these years. Population has more to do with friends getting other friends to play with them than people actually liking the game all that much. Has had probably well over a couple million people try the game out but turn their stomachs ... err... I mean their noses up at it.
After an initial drop, WAR has a pop of @ 350K , but is now growing again.
AoC had many problems at launch and had an initial drop as well, but it's population is now growing again too.
LOTRO - Actually @ 300K subscribers and has held that number for quite awhile.
and you can't take WoW out of the comparison, sorry. It isn't an exception. It proves the rule. It is by far the most popular MMO in the world and it's popularity has a great deal to do with it's focused game play.
Then there are the other games with focused game play and @million + subscriptions like L, L2, and FFXI.
I know people think they sound like they have gaming cred calling for sandbox, but really it just shows they haven't a clue what most people like.
I've read alot of good responses here and wanted to pipe up and slide in my 2 cents as well..
I do agree that going with a big crew requirement is just opens up too many potential problems.. I'm a casual player because I have so many other duties in life that distract me at any given time.. Im a parent of a teenager, coach for a softball team, active in golf leagues with the other guys, husband to a wonderful wife, etc etc etc.. So my time to get on and play are.. well.. whenever life lets me.. I don't have alot of time waste doing a "LFG" type of thing to get on a ship.. HOWEVER, this is an idea I was hoping for, to add to those I've read already..
Have 90% of the game content soloable with single man controlled ships.. As one progresses into the game OR desires to hook up with a player crew, they can opt to do a 5 man ship missions (This is similar to most other mmo's out there that instance missions (aka dungeons)) I think it would be great that people get used to running a single man ship for lets say 15 levels, then have the option to join in on 5man player ship missions (instanced).. As they progress further and further, maybe have an option to open up 10man player ship missions (again instanced like mini raids).. or have 2-10 man ship missions (instanced big raid)..
Also, there could be an advanced option to have limited 5 and 10 man ship missions in neutral zones, or enemy teritories.. Naturally going into enemy territory will flag you PvP.. But I would like to see PvP be an option in this game, whereby most of the content still focuses on PvE.. I do love the idea of doing a 10 man ship mission into Klingon territory to rescure a captured Federation diplomat from Rura Pente..
What confuses me is the idea that having PC Crews goes against soloing the game. We're talking about a teaming mechanic, not a mandatory way to play the game. I think you should be able team up, if you choose at level 1, and that you should have the option to be on someone's ship as you do it. It has nothing to do with requiring players to be on a teamship, and I think, even for raids, that its a bad idea, a really bad gate for content. If soloers can't play teamship content and teamships can't play soloer content it makes both, especially teamships, less attractive.
A less intrusive mechanic would be to allow players to team by joining another player's ship, as opposed to having only the option to fly their ships in a squadron.
Again, there's this perception that having PC Crews means having a group will be required and that solo will not be an option, but not only is it a bad assumption, I really don't understand where it comes from.
The Illusion of Choice
Here's what the game is like when folks like you get your way...
Ensign Ricky Logs in
Ensign Ricky can't play because the captain and first officer is over at Quark's gambling
Ensign Ricky is tired of listening to the Lt. at OPS talking about his personal life. He'd REALLY prefer exploring the Galaxy.
Ensign Ricky can't do anything but sit on the bridge, listen to a LT's social life and admire the scenery
Ensign Ricky realizes he is paying 14.95 for a space sim
Ensign Ricky hits/cancel
Here's what the game looks like when people give up myopic thinking and propaganda:
Ensign Ricky Logs in
Ensign Ricky flies around in his runabout with his 2 NPC Cadets to his hearts content, taking missions, exploring the galaxy and levelling up.
Ensign Ricky meets Cpt. Bill at Deep Space 8.
Ensign Ricky and Cpt. Bill form a crew and Ricky leaves his Runabout at DS8. Ensign Ricky is a Tactical Class so he takes the tactical station.
Ensign Ricky and Cpt. Bill go blow some stuff up that Ricky has never seen before.
Cpt. Bill goes linkdead. Ensign Ricky is on a ship that he can't do anything on.
Ensign Ricky's runabout arrives 45 seconds later. Ensign Ricky
Ensign Ricky realizes that he's paying $15 for an MMO that's both fun and not EQ in space.
Ensign Ricky can't shut his mouth about how awesome and different the game is and recruits five people.
It's really very simple. PC Crews = teaming, not a replacement for solo play.
My hope is that later on they allow guilds to build starbases and ships which are manned by players. Completely optional. Those that like dealing with other people can do so and those like me who doesn't have the time for egos can enjoy the game. Problem solved.
Currently Playing: World of Warcraft
Probably the biggest reason the perception is out there is because enough people actually know how these games work, instead of just throwing things out there and crossing fingers.
They can't be just thrown in the mix without any thought behind the effects they might have. If they are included, that means either having to re- balance the entire game so that they aren't overpowered in comparison, or (and what would most likely happen what with the cost of doing that as seen in game after game in situations that are even remotely similar) they are just added and are overpowered thus making them the primary way people feel they have to play the game to be competitive.
Best to have them just be possible in specific instanced episodes where they don't ruin the rest of the game.
Probably the biggest reason the perception is out there is because enough people actually know how these games work, instead of just throwing things out there and crossing fingers.
They can't be just thrown in the mix without any thought behind the effects they might have. If they are included, that means either having to re- balance the entire game so that they aren't overpowered in comparison, or (and what would most likely happen what with the cost of doing that as seen in game after game in situations that are even remotely similar) they are just added and are overpowered thus making them the primary way people feel they have to play the game to be competitive.
Best to have them just be possible in specific instanced episodes where they don't ruin the rest of the game.
When have you ever been someone who knew how these things actually work, Hagon? I boggle with gobsmacked amazement! You constantly make claims that are quickly disproven by people with actual knowledge and facts to back it up. If you're trying to help STO, somehow, the best thing you can do is walk away. Do the game, which I support too, and yourself a very big favor.
No, no rebalancing has to be done if multiplayer ships are an option. Singleplayer ships will always be more effective. Five people in five different starships will always be able to do more than five people on one starship bridge. This is called basic math. I'd look into it.
What multiplayer ships offer is a fun option for people who want it but not as an uber-edge in combat. Even in SWG where singleplayer snubs are, theoretically, not as rugged as PoB freighters and gunships they still, given equal numbers of players in the snubs and crewing one PoB, will always win and win easily.
But that's PvP. If it's PvP you're obsessing about I wouldn't. Only a fraction will be coming to STO for that. The numbers in the only poll I've seen heavily weight to PvE (and Federation PvE alone) for that matter by huge margins. PvPers will continue to have more flexible, from their point of view, content in Eve Online anyhow. All the major innovations in STO, procedurally generated missions and competitive PvE in the Neutral Zone, are PvE innovations.
Cryptic knows the market.
Multiplayer ships will have the same capabilities as singleplayer ships and will use the same content. What rebalancing will have to be done, exactly?
Now, that doesn't mean a multiplayer approach won't take work to pull off but, I suspect, much of that work is already being done as they design the singleplayer, with NPC crew, experience. They say they're not doing anything to shut the door on multiplayer ships and if that's true, which I assume it is, they're putting hooks in for later development as they go. You can't retroactively design this. It has to be in place - now - for later development.
I know you don't like that the developers have said there will be interiors, when they figure out how to make it functional not just decorative, or that they aren't closing the door on multiplayer ships in the future.
But Cryptic has said precisely these things.
Take it up with them.
Always notice what you notice.
Probably the biggest reason the perception is out there is because enough people actually know how these games work, instead of just throwing things out there and crossing fingers.
They can't be just thrown in the mix without any thought behind the effects they might have. If they are included, that means either having to re- balance the entire game so that they aren't overpowered in comparison, or (and what would most likely happen what with the cost of doing that as seen in game after game in situations that are even remotely similar) they are just added and are overpowered thus making them the primary way people feel they have to play the game to be competitive.
Best to have them just be possible in specific instanced episodes where they don't ruin the rest of the game.
When have you ever been someone who knew how these things actually work, Hagon? I boggle with gobsmacked amazement! You constantly make claims that are quickly disproven by people with actual knowledge and facts to back it up. If you're trying to help STO, somehow, the best thing you can do is walk away. Do the game, which I support too, and yourself a very big favor.
No, no rebalancing has to be done if multiplayer ships are an option. Singleplayer ships will always be more effective. Five people in five different starships will always be able to do more than five people on one starship bridge. This is called basic math. I'd look into it.
What multiplayer ships offer is a fun option for people who want it but not as an uber-edge in combat. Even in SWG where singleplayer snubs are, theoretically, not as rugged as PoB freighters and gunships they still, given equal numbers of players in the snubs and crewing one PoB, will always win and win easily.
But that's PvP. If it's PvP you're obsessing about I wouldn't. Only a fraction will be coming to STO for that. The numbers in the only poll I've seen heavily weight to PvE (and Federation PvE alone) for that matter by huge margins. PvPers will continue to have more flexible, from their point of view, content in Eve Online anyhow. All the major innovations in STO, procedurally generated missions and competitive PvE in the Neutral Zone, are PvE innovations.
Cryptic knows the market.
Multiplayer ships will have the same capabilities as singleplayer ships and will use the same content. What rebalancing will have to be done, exactly?
Now, that doesn't mean a multiplayer approach won't take work to pull off but, I suspect, much of that work is already being done as they design the singleplayer, with NPC crew, experience. They say they're not doing anything to shut the door on multiplayer ships and if that's true, which I assume it is, they're putting hooks in for later development as they go. You can't retroactively design this. It has to be in place - now - for later development.
I know you don't like that the developers have said there will be interiors, when they figure out how to make it functional not just decorative, or that they aren't closing the door on multiplayer ships in the future.
But Cryptic has said precisely these things.
Take it up with them.
I have no issues with them adding them in later IF they can, but as I said, I don't think they're going to be able to as a general feature. Only in instanced episodes.
As for the rest of your wild theories, you really are desperate aren't you? You just go on the attack without having a clue what you're going on about. It's actually amusing. Well it would be if it wasn't more just a little bit sad.
A dynamic for satisfying both types of players is simple.
Ships below a certain class can be solo piloted.
Ships above a certain class size require a crew. Crew positions can be filled either by other players or by npc. Bonuses to piloting/weapons/etc for number of players in crew. NPC skills dependent on captain's lvl/skill.
A player logs out, the position is automatically filled by an npc.
See, this whole argument about whether its do-able or not is pointless, of course its do-able. It could be done well, and in ways that satisfy both types of player.
The real argument and the cause of the nerdrage is that a Star Trek mmorpg without meaningful ship interior environments and player crews, removes a significant and important part of what Star Trek is all about for a lot of people. It denies an opportunity for fun that a lot of players could have made for themselves in those environments and as player crews.
Yes, and we all know how popular they were. /sarcasmoff
Fact is, every game that has tried to introduce too much "sandbox" has been a major fail. Even UO started to change from being too "sanboxish" eventually. SWG was a major fail of epic proportions, and the list goes on. The games today that are sandbox, like A Tale in the Desert for instance, sit with miniscule populations even though they're very well crafted games.
You're actually daring Cryptic to make a game that will fail within a year.
Unfortunately for your "Facts", they are wrong. Completely wrong. Lets take WoW out of this comparison as it is an by far an exception. Lets compare some of the pay to play games shall we?
UO: Slightly less popular than EQ but still very popular until EA ruined it.
SWG: Had over 300k stable subscribers until SOE ruined it.
Eve Online: Has over 250k subscribers and continues to grow to this day.
Now lets look at some of those "thriving" non-sandbox games:
WAR: Population dropped well under said sandbox games.
AoC: Population dwindling, although fans claim it is on the rise again
LotR: What, 100k subscribers tops?
In fact, while you like to claim that every sandbox game was an "Epic failure", the only non-sandbox pay to play games that are more successful than the few sandboxes created are WoW, the Lineages, and the original EQ. Currently an incredibly niche sandbox game holds the number 3 spot for most subscribed, and that is Eve. I love sandboxes and don't really care for Eve. Now just imagine if there was a good sandbox out that actually appealed to all of the sandbox fans. I'm guessing it would give the lineages a run for their money.
Actually no, I'm not wrong. I just don't do as you have and regurgitate the revised history of some of these games, but instead stick to the reality of what was.
UO, initially popular but quickly was losing it's popularity due to it's lack of focus and harsh rule sets. Devs began to move away from both.
SWG was a dismal failure at release. It sold 800k to 1 million boxes and could only retain 250K after the first month, down to 200K after the second month, and was losing 10K subscribers a month thereafter. Reasons cited for people not liking the game - lack of focused game play, too many convoluted and useless career paths, terrible combat mechanics, mind numbing grind, and th couldn't play what most people that play a Star Wars game want to play (Jedi).
EvE - fudges it's numbers by including free subscribers and dormant subscriptions. actual number probably more around 150K (if that) and this after all these years. Population has more to do with friends getting other friends to play with them than people actually liking the game all that much. Has had probably well over a couple million people try the game out but turn their stomachs ... err... I mean their noses up at it.
After an initial drop, WAR has a pop of @ 350K , but is now growing again.
AoC had many problems at launch and had an initial drop as well, but it's population is now growing again too.
LOTRO - Actually @ 300K subscribers and has held that number for quite awhile.
and you can't take WoW out of the comparison, sorry. It isn't an exception. It proves the rule. It is by far the most popular MMO in the world and it's popularity has a great deal to do with it's focused game play.
Then there are the other games with focused game play and @million + subscriptions like L, L2, and FFXI.
I know people think they sound like they have gaming cred calling for sandbox, but really it just shows they haven't a clue what most people like.
Actualy I think your both wrong, people like BOTH types of games. Some people like only SANDBOX games, some people like only highly Story driven "theme-park" games. Some people like both types. Also interesting to note that ALOT of players do sandbox type stuff in Story Centric games. Rp-ing thier own storylines that they make up with freinds and guild-mates and using the game environment as a backdrop for it....it's NOT mutualy exclusive. As long as the game engine has some provision for it,
I am currently doing exactly that with my Guild in LOTRO (argueably labeled on of the most prominent example of "Theme Park" type games)...and it's going very well. I've also done something similar in WOW in the past.
Note that I think there is plenty of room for BOTH types of games... they both have plenty of fans. I think the relative success of the different MMO's mentioned have very little to do with the Sandbox/Theme Park factor and have more to do with unrelated issues.
UO - Was very popular in it's day, although I didn't like it much. It lost popularity as it started to look dated against some of the newer offerings..... and yes they did a bad job of policing the environment.
SWG - Never played it....although I've heard it had a very loyal core following. The biggest complaints I heard about the game was that they drasticaly changed the nature of the game in mid-stream and didn't do a very good job of interfacing with the player community when they did it. Nothing can muck up your business like serving a customer steak and then switching it to chicken in mid-meal ....and not understanding when the customer complains.
EVE - Never played it....but I understand it has a substantial and very loyal core audience.
Vanguard - Failed not due to being sandbox....but by being bug-laden, performance killing, steaming pile from a purely technical standpoint at launch. I've heard they've made alot of improvements..... but these days it's really hard to recover from a launch like that.
WAR - No desire to play it. The biggest billing on it is that it is pretty much PvP centric.... so it's success or failure is going to be driven primarly on the PvP features it offers.
AOC - Have not tried it do to reports of bugginess and steep performance requirements. Not sure if that's true.... but those kind of reports are going to steer plenty of potential customers away.
LOTRO - My favorate MMO to date. I'd say the 300K sub numbers seems accurate....and I still see new players every day...especialy since MOM. It's often labeled as THE "Theme Park" game....but really, there is plenty of opportunity to do sand-box stuff if you want. It's popularity (IMO).....
1) It's Middle Earth.....many players (including alot of non-gamers) flock to it SIMPLY because of that setting.
2) Solid game mechanics and incredibly polished release and content updates.
3) Even though it's "Theme Park", the stories, quests, and story arcs are EXTREMELY well thought out and well written. A "Theme Park" type game can even appeal to alot of people that are more drawn to sandbox environments (like me)....if the story it is telling is very compelling and very high quality....if it's just mediocre... then it'll fall flat for that audience. That's the real risk for Theme Park style games....you've got to have very talented writers...not just good programers, game designers and level writers.
Probably the biggest reason the perception is out there is because enough people actually know how these games work, instead of just throwing things out there and crossing fingers.
They can't be just thrown in the mix without any thought behind the effects they might have. If they are included, that means either having to re- balance the entire game so that they aren't overpowered in comparison, or (and what would most likely happen what with the cost of doing that as seen in game after game in situations that are even remotely similar) they are just added and are overpowered thus making them the primary way people feel they have to play the game to be competitive.
Best to have them just be possible in specific instanced episodes where they don't ruin the rest of the game.
There's so many things wrong with this post it boggles my mind. I have not clue how to respond to this level of myopia. I'll just list the top three things you're wrong on.
1) People in general, don't know what the heck they're talking about, much less how MMO's 'work.' If they're right, its because of social programming, not by some mass insight.
2) Most proponents of PC Crews I've spoken with have a well detailed plan on how it could have been done, one that involves no finger crossing.
3) Who is talking about adding things in now?
The one thing you are right about, is that teamed instances are the best that they can do in regards to this at this point. It's one of the reasons that I can't get excited about the game, regardless of how good it may or may not be. This is just Star Trek Galaxies to me. Great game, a lot of people love it, but the central part of the mythos, in this case, the teamwork between a group of intelligent self-motivated crew members, is lost. It's just like having a Star Wars game without Jedi to me. Fun, maybe... a great game, why not? But its hard to enjoy your beloved IP without your favorite part of it.
Which is why I loved the idea of this thread. A chance to show how I would have done it, and have it examined by intelligent folk for ways to be improved. Somehow, though, this thread is still filled with single minded lobbyists who have already determined what the opposing argument is, so even when someone explains a plan and addresses concerns, you've already decided that all of the 'opposition' "doesn't know how these games work" and is just "crossing fingers" and continue with the same statements over and over as though your concerns are eternal.
You're blind, and it's really annoying for you to come on and say things without taking into account what's going on around you.
The Illusion of Choice