Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
PROOF: Crusier=Tank, Science=Support, Escort=DPS
This discussion has been closed.
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Comments
Twisting the quote around and repeating it in an incorrect fashion doesn't allow you to pretend the issue has been resolved. That kind of behavior really hurts your credibility.
This is the REAL quote:
"Resourceful Captains will also be able to recognize and utilize the different classes of starships. Cruisers as tanks, science vessles as support and escorts for lighting strikes."
Lets break this quote down the CORRECT way, shall we?
First it says: "Resourceful Captains will also be able to recognize and utilize the different classes of starships." It doesn't say any of the things Blurr claims it says. It doesn't say that resourceful captains have the option to do it this way or that resourceful captains might choose to do it this way. Nor does any part of the quote suggest that there are alternate options. It directly says "Resourceful Captains will" attach specific roles to specific ships. Nothing about the statements suggests that there is a choice involved here. No where does this phrase use the word "can" as Blurr claims. It directly says resourceful captains WILL do it this way.
Secondly it says: "Cruisers as tanks, science vessles as support and escorts for lighting strikes." Nothing about this part of the quote suggests that there are alternate options available. It directly and without question assigns each ship type to a specific role. There are no hints given about how great or how large the possible advantages and disadvantages are that these ships will have in these roles. But it makes it clear in an undeniable way exactly which ships have been designed with which roles in mind. There is NO way to ignore this.
So its a FACT that specific ships have been designed by the developers with specific roles in mind. Its also a FACT that they believe resourceful captains WILL use these ships for these roles.
(And Blurr, I notice you didn't even TRY to reply to my point about your hypocrisy in claiming I might be wrong because I didn't play the game when you weren't willing to admit you might be wrong for the same reason. Nor have I seen you attempt to mount any kind of defense aginst Drachasor's point that Tanking doesn't make sense in the Star Trek universe.)
(I also notice that our new "friend" DanaDark pretty much agreed with me in post #140 where he goes into great detail explaining how Cruisers will tank, Escorts will DPS and Science ships will support.)
The History of the Order of The Golden Shields
Frankly, the whole concept of science vessels 'healing' other ships makes me sick. The idea of tanks (presumably with some 'taunt' abilities) is only slightly less silly. Perhaps each tank ship has a version of General Chang spouting quotes from Shakespeare (in the 'original' Klingon)?
Ranged 'healing' whether personal or ship-related is not part of Trek. Tanking is a fantasy RPG concept developed to substitute for collision detection (blocking) and use of terrain features (like NWN had).
These are ridiculous ideas and the Cryptic devs should be shunned for putting them into this game. Thanks for adding magic to Trek.
"" Voice acting isn't an RPG element....it's just a production value." - grumpymel2
We are on the same page. I had a similar idea for a name, but you took it, so I won't steal your thunder.
The Cryptic devs don't care, they designed a game to amuse themselves, not the fans.
Sigh, there is no reasoning with some people, even with detailing examples.
Ranged healing isn't magic. Shields require power, they go down usually because of drained power as they absord hits. A power transfer, which is a ranged tactic, can replenish the shields. Power transfers are seen in Star trek episodes between ships.
Engineering and Medical teams are also ranged as they depart the ship and head to other ships by shuttle or transport. Star Trek Nemesis had such teams mentioned after the final engagement.
EVERYTHING in space combat is ranged. I would be bothered to see a ship bust out with a bandaid and place it on another ship using its "hands".
Tanking is seen in Star Trek as the Enterprise, in several episodes, has extended its sheilds around other vessels al also has drawn fire using substantially less effective weaponry (Saucer section using an antimatter spread on a cube while the Star Drive section fires phasers and torpedoes... yet the cube puts its attention on the nearly defenseless saucer).
You inability to see these issues highlights not only your lack of fandom in Star Trek, but also your complete lack of creativity.
I'm late in this thread but just wanted to voice my opinions also heh.
I'm alittle miffed about that video myself....
What I wanted to say was about the people comparing tanking, dpsing and such to real naval combat. I am no profession, but it seems to me that vessels (or units) have certain tasks, that much is clear (in real combat). However, I wouldnt exactly compare it to the trinity. My biggest example would be a submarine. Now, I don't know much about naval combat, but I'm pretty sure Destroyer class ships were submarine bane? Atleast I think that was the ship class title heh. Cruisers ( I think ) are more head to head ship vs ship thing. Put one against a submarine and they get eaten. Yet put that Cruiser against the Destroyer and the Cruiser wins. Atleast I think that is how it works. The ship titles might be off but the basic premise is, each class of ship has its strengths and weaknesses. No one ship would be a tank. And if anything I would hope that the crew of the starship would be the healers heh, not some other damn ship.
Land warfare would be somewhat similar. Real tanks, while tough and damaging to alot of things and fairly vulnerable to air strikes. AA guns are needed here, while being weak to umm tanks and infantry?
My point is, a military as a whole is what makes it work. Certain things counter certain things while being weak to other things... Sorry too many things there lol.
Anyway, I kinda feel thats how Cryptic should have went about it. And maybe they did, but that video sure didn't give me a good feeling about where its heading heh.
Inability has no bearing here. You are blindly supporting a product because it has a brand name label on it. 'Star Trek' blinds you.
The point is, Cryptic is releasing a very limited and monotonous and ubiquitous concept to the masses, and the reason people like MMO_Doubter and I are railing against the combat system is because that is all Cryptic is focused on...war, combat, leveling, gearing up, etc.
All Cryptic shows us is combat, war, more combat, more war...if that's all they show us, what are we supposed to 'see'?
I wanted a game (and was being offered a game in the beginning) where I could be an Engineer and monitor the warp core, or be a bridge officer where I could reroute power from the engines to shields in a fight...where I could work alongside other players on one single ship to accomplish a common goal...whether it be combat, exploration, first contact with another race, or a diplomatic mission to another planet. You tell me what I've named above that ISN'T synonymous with Star Trek.
But, oh, I forgot, Cryptic is shoveling this other dung down my throat where everybody gets a ship and a 'pet' crew. And all we do is fight. On the ground, in space, etc. Oh, that sounds like monotonous fun. Maybe if you put any other name on it besides Star Trek, I might buy into this, but this game is not what Star Trek is about. Star CRAFT, perhaps. It's a giant sandbox space battleground piece of junk. No, I know nothing about the game. And I'm telling you that flat out. WITH confidence. You'll be paying for an ongoing beta with a very limited gaming experience. War.
Might add that the interviews are with game developers... whom are not always the best at conveying ideas and such. I doubt that what they say is in it is the ONLY thing that is in it.
Your assessment is pretty much on the mark.
Nothing in the real world matches tanks and healers in RPGs.
"" Voice acting isn't an RPG element....it's just a production value." - grumpymel2
Oh, get real. Now the devs don't even know what they are saying. Just stop now.
"" Voice acting isn't an RPG element....it's just a production value." - grumpymel2
Bah, I am no fan of brand names and make my judgements based on facts at hand, and quite simply, there are noot enough facts at hand to make a proper judgement of the game.
Simply because I try to remind you that you cannot make such a determinate judgement at this time, does not, in any way, mean I proclaim it has a major success.
And creativity has EVERYTHING to do with customization in a game. No creativity on your part means no customization for you.
However, none of you seem to be able too logically reason, so it would seem trying to convince you that the end is not near is a futile effort. I can say I am glad I can count on the fact there won't be people such as yourselves in the game though, it'd make for one depressing time.
Cryptic is trying to sell a product. If there were more content than they were letting on, why wouldn't they just tell the audience? They stand to make more money that way if there is more content available.
Developer interviews are not about advertising, it is about inqueries. Selling a product is the marketing teams deal, not the developers. Business. And judging that they haven't gone bankrupt so far, they seem to know what they are doing... I don't see your game developing company floating around anywhere...
You really should stop making up these assumptions. Mine are based on experience, having played more than half a dozen MMOs in the last 10 years.
Interviews are nothing more than opportunities for the developers to plug the product. If all this magical 'hidden content' is there in the game and they just haven't told us about it yet so close to launch, I ask you again, what would they stand to gain by not telling their audience?
The answer is simple, and common sense. It isn't there.
As I said, they are DEVELOPERS not MARKETING SLAVES.
People had questions, they answered some questions. People wanted a few extra details on combat, customization, etc, so they gave some.
Would you prefer they just released the entire source code?
Developer =/= Public Relations Agent, Marketing Team, CEO... etc.
If you cannot make that distinction, then there is no way to convince you otherwise for you obviously live in a different reality than the rest of humanity.
A: Boosting the shields of another ship by transferring power is one thing... but restoring the condition of their hull with a beam from a deflector? That can't be explained away nor is there any refrence in Star Trek to defend it.
B: Two problems here. First, sending repair crews would be an engineering skill, not a science skill, so why are science ships the healing ships? Secondly, as you pointed out yourself, repair crews would do their jobs AFTER a battle, not in the middle of it. A science ship isn't going to show up in the middle of a fight and say "woah, wait a second Mr.Klingon, I gotta beam some guys over to this ship to repair their hull. Come back in about three hours and we can fight some more."
C: Thats a tactic used to draw attention which makes SNESE. Of course you are going to attack the ship which is causing the most damage to you because they are the biggest threat. But thats not the way "tanking" works in MMOs. Usually the tank is the guy doing the least amount of damage but is being attacked because he uses some kind of "taunt" power that makes all the bad guys go after him while ignoring the mages and rogues who are doing most of the real damage. So traditional MMO style "tanking" still does not make sense in the context of Star Trek.
The History of the Order of The Golden Shields
It's quite funny. The way some people get so worked up by hearing one quote, then reading into it how they assume the game is going to be, developing all these ways that the game therefore has to be, going so far as to create scenarios how the game must therefore work and basically designing the whole game themselves. All over reading into one quote while ignoring other quotes that prove their fears unfounded. But of course, it seems to me that some of these people have got it into their heads that they are going to hate the game, and are therefore using every chance they can (indeed, to the point of twisting the developers words) in order to bash the game. These people conveniently ignore reason and proof.
You guys are going so far deep into the minutia of things that you have no proof of. You twist the words of the developers to say that everyone has to be tank/dps/support, and therefore the game must work like this and therefore it's awful. You assume that shields are going to be used this way and power management will be used this way and this person doesn't need to move at all. No proof to back up any of that other than "Well, that just has to be the way it works". Sorry, no.
That's the problem with the arguments by these posts. They are trying to pull the argument down into details that they claim must be true, but they can't even prove themselves. It's a common tactic of people trying to attack something they don't actually have hard evidence on. "Well I assume this, so that is this way, and therefore the game is awful."
I could go through every one of these argumentative posts and pick them apart piece by piece, but frankly it's evident that they're going to bash the game anyways. When the issue is taken to the root, they ignore that.
I just wish that the NDA was down, because I'm sure some beta players would love to get in here and prove you wrong. Alas, we'll just have to wait.
It's quite simple. Once again, the root of the issue, as directly answered by the developers.
Bizzaro_Daeke: <]AoA[Vmann|work> In play testing, have players gravitated to the trinity of MMO roles (healer/tank/DPS), and if so, any plans on how to break up the old and tired group formula for STO ship combat?
CripticZinc:Yes and no. Some people gravitate to those roles beacuse they're MMO players. It's a vocabulary that they know and is familiar. That being said - once people realize in what directions and limits they can customize their load-outs, what Bridge Officers they activate - they end up seeing that there's far more depth and team makeup to be had.
Plain english. If you are having trouble comprehending this, then you should perhaps look at what is colouring your view of the game. The developers directly answered this already, months ago. Trying to claim otherwise makes it look like you have an agenda against the game.
"Because it's easier to nitpick something than to be constructive." -roach5000
Simply because it was mentioned AFTER the engagement, does not mean one cannot do it DURING. And science ships will have a crew, so no matter what, more engineering crew will result in more repairs.
Direct hull damage should have to be repaired at a starbase. I have not seen any information saying that a ship can repair another ships hull... Then again, specially designed ships should be allowed to repair other ships if that's what they were built for, a sort of portable repair station, but would only make sense in a non-combat area.
As for the anti-matter spread, that was a low damage tactic, caused almost nothing but an annoyance. A full volley of torpedoes would definately always do way more damage than a simple anti-matter spread... or else you'd see way more saucers in battles! Yet, this minor annoyance caught the attention of the Borg and drew fire away from a ship doing more damage. Now place that ability on a heavily armored vessel and viola, a "tank".
Is this exactly how it WILL work? I dunno. I am offering theories that could possibly coincide with the current game, to counter those theories others present depicting a more more docile and boring mechanic.
Its actually quite funny how I keep catching you in situations where you are a pot calling a kettle black.
We both have a quote from the developers. We both believe our quote to be true. We both believe our quote supports our opinion.
Yet YOU are the only one hurling insults, insisting that anyone who relies on a quote is only making assumptions and has some kind of bias.
But you are doing the exact same thing, making assumptions about the game all based off of one vague little quote from a dev chat. You scream and clamour that everyone else is wrong because they are making assumptions and blowing things out of preportion... but if that is the case then you must also admit you too must be wrong as well.
The History of the Order of The Golden Shields
As far as "healing" goes, there's also regenerative hull plating, borg technology, I'm sure they can direct a polaron stream to help strengthen the affected areas. They could polarize the ally's hull for them, giving it a temporary boost in strength. Perhaps they shoot a beam of charged borg nanoprobes which can assist in repairs. They do have access to borg technology now, at least partially, and borg can heal themselves, it's not hard to think the technology could be adapted over range.
"Because it's easier to nitpick something than to be constructive." -roach5000
Once again, you are completely dodging my point.
And you are extremely incorrect about a developer's position when they agree to do an interview for an online game. They do have responsibility. The marketing people may tell them what to say and what not to say, but you make it sound as if they can just say what they want. And that DOES make them public relations people when they agree to an interview, even if the role is limited to that interview.
With an online game, using a genre with a popularity magnitude of Star Trek, developers still have to be careful of what they say. This lesson goes all the way back to the beginning of online gaming, hell, even further with high profile game titles.
Your posts have done nothing but blither on about finding the 'positives' in this game. I have clearly stated my position, and why I feel this game is going to be a complete waste, and not what the fans want. I have stated why. I also asked you a question, which you have ignored answering twice. You really need to learn the art of conversation.
I said nothing about releasing the source code, don't be foolish. And I don't see YOU marketing an online game of your own, either, save that insipid sort of arguing for someone less intelligent.
I don't like the idea of this game. So do many Star Trek fans. I have stated why. And I will continue to state why. If you don't like it, then that is essentially your problem.
Is this the same Blurr from SWG Beta and Live?
_____________________________
Currently Playing: LOTRO; DDO
Played: AC2, AO, Auto Assault, CoX, DAoC, DDO, Earth&Beyond, EQ1, EQ2, EVE, Fallen Earth, Jumpgate, Roma Victor, Second Life, SWG, V:SoH, WoW, World War II Online.
Games I'm watching: Infinity: The Quest for Earth, Force of Arms.
Find the Truth: http://www.factcheck.org/
If I am incorrect on the position of developer, please show me where it says in Cryptic Game Developer's employment contract obligating them to also market the game. If you cannot produce this, please stop making stuff up.
I mention nothing about "finding positives" rather, I mention the fact that while you read something and gravitate immediate;y to negatives using speculation, I use the same speculation to produce a positive, which means your ideals on how it IS, is quite frankly wrong.
You do not like the "idea" of the game. So? Do you also post at EVERY other MMO you dislike the idea behind and tell them all why? If not, then your argument is greatly flawed.
And ofcourse I do not market my own company for I do not have one, and therefor do not make unrealistic and unreasonable, not to mention completely irrational, demands of others.
Generally, all i ask of others is some basis of logic and reasoning, which you seem to lack.
As for a question you asked twice now, I hadn't noticed I missed it, will go back and look so I may answer it. Just getting on so many topics here gets a little hard to keep them all on track he he.
"It's quite funny. The way some people get so worked up by hearing one quote, then reading into it how they assume the game is going to be, developing all these ways that the game therefore has to be, going so far as to create scenarios how the game must therefore work and basically designing the whole game themselves. All over reading into one quote while ignoring other quotes that prove their fears unfounded. But of course, it seems to me that some of these people have got it into their heads that they are going to hate the game, and are therefore using every chance they can (indeed, to the point of twisting the developers words) in order to bash the game. These people conveniently ignore reason and proof."
Reason and proof of WHAT? I'm not talking about some small thing here when I make my posts. We're not talking about whether or not the photon torpedo banks on the Galaxy class ships look accurate. We're not talking about whether or not phaser types are correct (which a Cryptic developer HAS). I'm not talking about details in the painting. I'm talking about something much larger, iconic and even bigger than even the broadstrokes. I'm talking about the canvas. Another company had a great, exciting idea for a Trek game, for whatever reasons beyond our control, was pulled from that project, Cryptic takes it over and assumes that we'll like a different canvas.
If this were something small, I wouldn't bother making my voice heard about it. Most fans wouldn't. But it's hardly small. It's very acute and obtuse in its vision. Star Trek is bigger than fighting, and unless you're in actuality a developer with Cryptic incognito, even you have to agree with that.
As for the developer comment you quoted (after bashing people for quoting developers, I won't point out the hypocrisy here), I couldn't care less about being able to CUSTOMIZE A SHIP. I am tired of stating this, over and over, in post after post. I've done this before in SWG. It's not that exciting, even if the scope of it is broader. It's still all war-centric and centered on the fighting aspects of the game, who has the bigger badder car on the block.
"Plain english. If you are having trouble comprehending this, then you should perhaps look at what is colouring your view of the game. The developers directly answered this already, months ago. Trying to claim otherwise makes it look like you have an agenda against the game."
I have been playing Star Trek games for years, and have been waiting for this game. What is 'colouring' my view of the game is the fact that Cryptic is releasing an obtuse online enhanced version of Bridge Commander. As far as I am concerned, this is not a Massively Multiplayer Online Roleplaying Game, nor will it be as long as its primary premise and focus is on war, leveling, gear rewards and rank.
I will play the beta. If my mind is changed, I will come back to this community and admit that I was wrong. Gladly. I always admit when I'm wrong. But it will be the first time I have been wrong about any MMO, and I have played many.
Yeah... I guess I just totally forgot about all those Science ships they had back in WWII that ran around using their deflector dish to repair the other ships...
Oh wait...
Oh wait they didn't have phasers and starships in WW2. Neither did they have jamming, cloaking, etc... technology in WW2. What is your point again other then to compare apples to oranges?
Games I've played/tried out:WAR, LOTRO, Tabula Rasa, AoC, EQ1, EQ2, WoW, Vangaurd, FFXI, D&DO, Lineage 2, Saga Of Ryzom, EvE Online, DAoC, Guild Wars,Star Wars Galaxies, Hell Gate London, Auto Assault, Grando Espada ( AKA SoTNW ), Archlord, CoV/H, Star Trek Online, APB, Champions Online, FFXIV, Rift Online, GW2.
Game(s) I Am Currently Playing:
GW2 (+LoL and BF3)
Oh, why not tell the audiance... sorry, i took that as a rhetorical question.
Why should they? They have absolutely no contractual nor legal obligation too do so. Not every game has detailed every single detail about every aspect of the game. usually a brief description, avoiding too much detail, is best. A basic summary of things. Full fledged details, when given, are usually always subject to change, especially before release.
Conversely, several things they havent said WONT be in the game. So, if you have A, B, and C, and they say A WILL be iin game and C WILL NOT, you cannot logically make ANY assumption or conclusion regarding B.
And believe it or not, there are some things they've said WILL be in game that I dislike, and some things they said WILL NOT be in the game that I wish was. But I didn't come expecting this to be the fruition of all my dreams and desires rolled up into one MMO and IP.
And I am indeed equally annoyed with the super fanbois as I am the doomsayers. Just EVERYONE here seems to be a doomsayer so I have to bring a few extra flowers and all.