It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Originally posted by Morrok"Seriously, what would you do?":
Given the vagaries of "fun" this line of argument is unlikely to convince him. Simpler is showing that Cryptic's route is wrong.
Originally posted by Nebless I'll second that.There was an episode of Babylon 5 called 'View from the Gallery (I think)'. It followed the work day of a couple of maintenance guys. Yes they had to go fix a couple of things (1 stuck elevator?) but you also saw them eat lunch and 'buff' the floor. Not much in the way of mini-game's. "Yo Engineer, got a clogged toilet in room 556. Fix it."
Yeah, that toilet might be a "real" problem, but ofc nothing to "satisfy" people in a game.
But why stop at this laughable example?Why do you not think beyond that?
What do YOU do at work/in school/whatever when work (or whatever your normal day-occupation) is slow?You either go read something, surf or - if you are a "good" employee, you train your skills.
So why don't we just assume that the Char in STO would be a "good fleetie" and train his skills?This could be implemented in "away-mission-simulations" to enhance the tactical or GUI-using skills (how do i aim that rocket launcher or use the sniper rifle, in BF2-speech).Or, IF they'd implement an economy (which they should but apparently omitted also until now, certainly Dana would say because it does not appeal to the "mass audience" duh...), chars could/would spend their time in the workshops aboard the ship for their tradeskill.
But yeah... with the neglect the Dev's trat all non-combat aspects of gaming in general and the Trek-universe specifically i guess one has to make excuses like "does not appeal to mass audience" to justify that blatant LACK of content
Just call it that then: omission to neglect/not caring, don't make up silly excuses that are "reinforced" by even more laughable examples like the above!!!
Originally posted by DanaOriginally posted by CayneJobb This is such a narrow view, and it seems to me that it come from having limited knowledge about Star Trek. This is probably the same view that Cryptic has. The more I hear about the game, the more I feel like they have a passing knowledge about Star Trek, but like Dana, they think it's all about the captain and the rest of the crew are just there to tinker with engines or mend broken bones.Fans of Star Trek know that most episodes of Star Trek focused on characters other than the captain, and followed them through various challenges they had to face, and believe it or not episodes about the doctor were never about treating runny noses. As an example off the top of my head, there was an episode of Deep Space Nine where Chief O'Brian is kidnapped by the Cardassians. Just because he is an engineer doesn't mean all of his challenges have to be about balancing ship power or repairing ruptured conduits.
Well, I'm not actually a supporter of player crews, exactly. I just hate the idea of crew characters being nothing more than a set of stats to be traded with other players like Pokemon cards.
My utopian vision of STO would have players create and play their whole senior crew, not just the captain. It might feel a little bit like the Captain is your main, and the rest of the senior staff are alts. Cryptic is known for their character creation systems with which players like to create bunches of alts anyway, so why not make alts part of the game. You would start out creating your captain and you control a small ship. Then when you upgrade to a larger ship you gain a first officer, so you go back to the character creator to create your first officer character. Then later you upgrade again, and now you go back to the character creator and add your security and engineering officers. And then finally once you have a full-fledged starship, you add science and medical officers.
This would open up the game to do various quest lines for each character. Maybe there's a mission where a plague has broken out on a Federation planet. How would this work in Cryptic's STO? My captain puts on his medic's hat and beams down with a medkit? That should be a mission for the medical officer. It would be a chance to get involved in a story for that character.
Anyway, that's one way to do it. That's how I'd probably do it. If not, I would at least like to see the crew be real characters and not just trophies to stick in the chairs around the bridge and give me +5 phaser power or something.
Finally... FINALLY! We're starting to get some ship interiors! This has been my #1 "sticking point" for many months now, so, for me, this game just went from a "maybe OK" to a "probably good" status.
This still perhaps isn't the STO I had once envisioned, but if I sit back and just accept it for what it looks like it's shaping up to be, I think it has a LOT of potential.
"Make it so..."
<img src="http://img207.imageshack.us/img207/1707/eryxxsigtraz4.jpg" alt="Image Hosted by ImageShack.us"/>
Originally posted by Morrok
Laughable, really. Yeah, that toilet might be a "real" problem, but ofc nothing to "satisfy" people in a game.But why stop at this laughable example?Because it was a joke!
I was actually an early supporter of either Ppl taking the NPC slot option (should appeal to those that wish to RP) or using Ppl's on ships like they do in SWG multi-player ships:
Captain is in tactical charge and steers (Capt & Helm), someone calling targets and shield/power shunting (Tactical & Sensors), gunner(s) shoot (Tactical) and your spare guy (Eng) repairs battle damage.
All good combat related mini-games. It seems to be the non-combat time that's the problem. Yes I could train my toon but how fun would that be during a 5 hour weekend play session?
A real good example would be my DDO time last night. I logged on, spent an hour running down the F2P quest list to see which I could do that would be new, then went and did a quest for 1 1/2 hours, died and spent 1/2 hour AFK healing and then logged off. So I was on for 3 hours. An hour was killed doing paperwork, lost 1/2 hour running to and fro and really got to play only 1 hour while doing a dungeon, and lost 1/2 hour by dieing.
Meaningful playtime for me would really only be that 1 hour in the dungeon, the rest .... meh. Now I'd hope I'd have the option in STO to do other stuff but would the above be worth $15.00 a month if I knew that's all I had to look forward to? Yes maybe I could play in the simulator or borrow a shuttle and go off on my own etc... etc.... but then what happens if the ship's schedule changes and I just missed out on the fun part?
SWG (pre-cu) - AoC (pre-f2p) - PotBS (pre-boarder) - DDO - LotRO (pre-f2p) - STO - GnH (beta tester) - SWToR - Neverwinter
Originally posted by Morrok The problem is NOT to find things for people to do, the REAL problem is the laziness of Dev's (and perhaps budget constraints) to implement them......NPC bridge crews are ok, as an OPTION.But at the same time, people (and especially "trekkies" ) would want at least the OPTION to have PC crews (do something with their RL friends, TOGETHER), and if given the proper tools they'd FIND stuff to do during "downtimes", just as they do in other MMO's.Heck, people (read: Trekkies) are making their own fictions and MOVIES, for god's sake.Do you REALLY, honestly think that playing "picard" all day and meeting other people in the game only happening via meeting up with their ships/doing AWAY-missions together does REALLY cut it for a TREKKIE?Heck, even the "mass audience" you are mentioning?To ME, one cannot really be that ignorant - more like it's a mindless repetition of what Dev's and suits use as an excuse for them NOT working on content that's been asked by their "natural" target-audience.
Two things. One, the stuff you described is a whole other game. This isn't laziness. What you're asking is eight times their budget if they actually wanted to do it. You're describing like eight different games rolled into one.
Secondly, those other games besides "flying around and fighting" only appeal to a very hardcore and very specific audience. In their current path, all players use all the content, more or less. You'd have them make games that 85% of their population never spend a second on. From a development perspective, spending man years on that kind of content for such a small audience is a very bad proposition.
Yes, what you describe would appeal to Trekkies. But, as you might have noticed, the last TV show they made was watched by barely anyone. The last movie, which many Trekkies lambasted as too "mainstream" and for throwing away all the cannon made more money than God. You need more than the hardcore audience.
The game you described is ideal, but it would require literally eight times the current development resources to accomplish without adding even close to eight times the number of interested players.
The average person is never going to balance plasma relays. Hell, the average person doesn't know or care what a plasma relay is.
All that said, what I'd personally like to see (and no I saw no particular indication they're planning this) is to do multi-person ships as end-game raid content. I believe, if I am recalling correctly, that was the plan Perpetual had. That alleviates the day-to-day grind since you'd only get on those huge ships for specific reasons.
Dana MasseyFormerly of MMORPG.comCurrently Lead Designer for Bit Trap Studios
Originally posted by Dana That's fine. I understand that the other characters are interesting, no one disputes that.The question for you and anyone who wants to have player crews is a simple one:Present to me compelling day-to-day gameplay for the ship's engineer? The doctor? The Security Officer?What would they do during the average play session? What would their typical 10 minute gameplay experience entail? Why would this be fun?Further to that, if I am in combat as a Captain and want to turn left. What would my experience then be if I had a player crew? Would the entire Captain gameplay experience consist of being on teamspeak trying to get other people on my ship to fire the phasers and turn the thing?Seriously, I've heard lots of examples from the show of why crew is awesome, but I've yet to see one compelling gameplay idea that would be remotely practical or fun.
I have already answered your first question (which you merely repeated in the above quote, despoite others having answered you on that too) so i will now try to answer your 2nd,3rd and 4th:
"What would they do during the average play session? What would their typical 10 minute gameplay experience entail? Why would this be fun?":Average gaming session would be:*Crew gets on, waits for more to come (very much as you do in ANY other game)*Crewman decides waiting is boring, so he goes to "his" room/workbench/whatever and spends the time tradeskilling or he goes to the comm station and uses the in-game browser to surf the net or go to the computer console and maintain the ship's records.(basically comparable to going somewhere to solo/tradeskill in another game while waiting)*Crewman is still alone, decides to take the ship out in a solo mission (as he can do in STO's current state, highest-ranking PC takes "command" of the ship)This is even more viable since they said you do not loose the ship, but instead simply re-appear at some savepoint.But the FUN truly starts when his other FRIENDS are online:*Crewman meets other PC-crew, they have a short chat on the bridge or in the ready-room what they are gonna do and who is doing what and go to computer to get the mission while one flies the ship towards where the mission takes place (yay! "felt" reduction of traveltime because there are two tasks performed parallel that would have to be done sequentially in other MMO's!)*crewmen do the mission TOGETHER.(even MORE fun than if you were doing it alone - shared fun is doubled fun. likewise, more fun if failed, shared burdens are half burdens)*Two (or more) friends play the game TOGETHER, the GAME provides the "YOU are the ST-show-crew" feeling, they play their own ST but you know.. TOGETHER.As it is, they play their own ST too, but individually.See the difference i hope!ST is about CREWS of single ships/stations (at least the shows all were), not about fleets of ships!In school you'd get a "F" for missing the topic if you were to submit articles under the name "Star Trek" that goes on babbling about epic space battles where (constantly) multiple ships take part or where 5SHIPS meet in Orbit of a planet to perform a joint "away mission".
5th question:"Further to that, if I am in combat as a Captain and want to turn left...":Come on... are you really that ignorant or are you putting us up?How about this: As Captain during combat, your primary "JOB" is to assign targets and beyond that, you help out with damage control ("send a security detail to teleporter-room1" or "repair team to STBD nacelle" ) if your engineering guy slacks or is too occupied, whatever.In the shows the CO simply says "evasive maneuver" and he trusts his pilot to be able and skilled enough to do as he asks.He never does it himself - pretty boring job, huh? WHY would ANYONE want to become captain then?In a multi-PC-crew setting OF COURSE the actual "duties" on the bridge differ from what you expect when you have only one player per ship.You specialize your char more in such skills that help you on "your" station.But the point is: the SHIP as such is more powerful/has more options than if it were crewed with a single player.
6th question:"Why would it be fun?"Yes, playing Uhura might not be much fun, UNLESS the Dev's make the comm-station MEANINGFUL in combat.It is not really MY place as acustomer to tell the Devs HOW to do their job, but it IS my place to voice WHAT i want in "my" product that i am supposed to buy/subscribe to.You see, FUN comes with doing something you LIKE.For some that is blowing up stuff, at their own schedule - and that's ok. they can (or rather could, if "true ST" were impleneted) use the NPC crew for that.Kiddies that want to be Picard can pretend to be him and order their NPC crew around (not really, just put their skills to use!)But "Trekkies" for which "fun" comes from interacting with people, solving stuff diplomatically etc, they could (and certainly can NOt now) derive much of their fun from the company of their FRIENDS, on the SAME ship - which is actually something different (on the "feel" side at least) than having your warrior, wizard and cleric ship doing a mission together.It is STAR TREK where a ship has a CREW after all, not SW where people fly in their own X wings!
You seem to make it your correspondent's job to ridicule people asking for something different (or rather: more) than what is currently offered and do so by using made-up rhetorical questions.Answer your own questions, use your imagination!
And if you TRULY need more input to fire up your imagination, feel free to leave a message i will then forward you some design motes on (what i consider) a "good" game...
Originally posted by DanaYes, what you describe would appeal to Trekkies. But, as you might have noticed, the last TV show they made was watched by barely anyone. The last movie, which many Trekkies lambasted as too "mainstream" and for throwing away all the cannon made more money than God. You need more than the hardcore audience.
A bit off topic...
The last TV show they made sucked. That's why hardly anyone watched. Voyager had a lot of bad writing too. That's the very simple reason why TNG and DS9 had much better ratings. If you want a Star Trek show with good ratings, then get good writers. It's not hard (in principle).
Anyhow, lambasting the new movie because it had a plot that didn't make sense, a Kirk who was an idiot, and no ethical center doesn't mean that something similar to that movie couldn't have been made and done well. There are mainstream movies that have a sense of right and wrong, intelligent plot, and main character's that don't behave like little children. The Lord of the Rings is certainly an example of that. Just because American audiences will accept action crap doesn't mean that they only accept action crap, and it doesn't mean that Star Trek should be action crap. That's what Trekkers objected to.
Originally posted by Morrok
I'm not ridiculing your ideas, what I'm saying is that I don't honestly believe what the "full player crew" contingent wants is even remotely practical. It's way too much content to develop for way too few people to use it. The budget would be absurd.
Originally posted by Drachasor Originally posted by DanaYes, what you describe would appeal to Trekkies. But, as you might have noticed, the last TV show they made was watched by barely anyone. The last movie, which many Trekkies lambasted as too "mainstream" and for throwing away all the cannon made more money than God. You need more than the hardcore audience.
Nemesis made 67 million globally. The new Trek made 384 million.
People like action.
Originally posted by Dana
Ok, you used the "eight times the budget" argument twice above.I wonder how you came to that wisdom?
Frankly, if you can handle ANY multiplayer-operations, you can handle them whether they take place in ONE "object" or many.It's merely the design that matters, and so in the end yes it IS laziness on the Dev's part if they use an existing engine basically and match the lore/setting to it rather than the other way around.
Yes, with the engine they ARe using one probably cannot do what i ask for that easily.Not my problem if they use an existing suboptimal product for such an endeavour, or is it?
"The average person"...Will get to KNOW what a plasma relay is if he plays a while.It's how things work:If they are itneresting, people will "learn" (assimilate) the "nerd talks" that come with it.
At first, they did not even plan to put in bridges, yet they have.In the past they said they would not detail the interior, now they at least say they're thinking about it.If i were NOT asking for an "ideal" ga,e, i'd never get it, instead i'd be fed the scraps they'd throw at me.
MORE budget? yes certainly.8TIMES the budget? hardly! (and i know what i speak of too)
STO in it's current state (as i am able to glean from the released info) is but a shooter.I have no idea yet what missions you are going to do, or what would even be "trekkie" about using violence to achieve your goals.I have said elsewhere that the approach they seem to use fits a fantasy MMO, but hardly a space MMO.The Bridge question is but one aspect of quite a few shortcomings.
You see, people have expectations, and in the case of STO it is fair to assume that those expectatinos are based primarily on the shows, be it TOS,ENT,VOY,TNG or DS9. In those shows, "epic space battles" were very, VERY seldom. in STO they are to be the norm. Isn't that a contradiction to you too? isn't that merely (ab)using the IP to market a (in my judgement) suboptimal product to a wider audience?What, exactly, do "battles in space" have to do with ST? i mean, aside from the fact that both take place in space?
And Bridge crews are just one side-effect/issue, yet should really be the center of an ST-based game since all the shows were about a CREW overcoming obstacles (yes, violence too but not exclusively), not about a number of ships doing battles.
Thge least they could do, and i fully expect them to, is to ADD the OPTION of having multiple PC's crewing one ship.It'd even make SENSE to me if that were kind of "limited" a) in numbers (on all ships) or b) to larger ships only (suboptimal).In that light, your "end-game" reference makes sense to me, but i would again hate to see it LIMITED to "end game".Perhaps you could/should start out "solo", no objections to soloing even in STO (and with bridge crew the way it is currently inmplemented), but before long they should offer the OPTION (and no., NOT at a surcharge or via RMT!) to take a friend or two or three aboard.(perhaps limited to the number of stations a ship has, so that each PC can be used on the bridge during missions/combat if that is all the content they have)
But ST withOUT bridge crew simply is not STAR TREK.At best it would be star WARS with the wrong uniforms and ship models.
Eight times might be hyperbole, but what you described is essentially designing a unique gameplay experience for each of the individual "classes" within a ship, correct?
Thus, you would need to double up the content for each class, because they would have totally different experiences. The current version, everyone has variations on the same core experience. Everytime you add a brand new experience, you're adding a lot of time, money and manpower to the schedule.
Originally posted by Dana I'm not ridiculing your ideas, what I'm saying is that I don't honestly believe what the "full player crew" contingent wants is even remotely practical. It's way too much content to develop for way too few people to use it. The budget would be absurd.
1) I truly wonder how you got that wisdom about the cost or practicability.Heck, the "content" that is multi-PC-crew *SPECIFIC* is actually quite limited.ALL there is to it is a DIFFERENT design approach!Missions/other content would not even HAVE to be different (other than offer non-violent solutions at least ALSO if they were truly to be "trek" ).For a "normal" mission (such as are implemented to date) it would not even MATTER if it is a solo ship or a multi-PC-crew one.Ok, PERHAPS it'd take a bit more balancing effort to allow for the wider range of ship options that come from using PCs instead of NPCs in the current system (as i understand it).
They have said, that you have to manage your ship's power and such anyways, even as a solo player.So why would it be that much different from what they hav eNOw if one player would do that, while another would aquire the targets and use the guns while the 3rd would actually fly and the 4th and 5th would handle "debuffs" (science/defelctor use) and repairs.
You would have basically the same "roles" they have now, but not on different ships, but on a single one.Even though it would be more than suboptimal, i could even imagine them using it with the methods they have coded right now, just "arranged" (called) a bit diferently.
The only "true" argument against this, currently, would be that such a ship (crewed by multiple PCs) would rip that content apart, run through it like a hot knife through butter, whereas a solo player would possibly struggle.But that is a design/balancing issue, and as such not a valid "contra argument" imo.At worst (the most simple "solution" ) when you get the mission you'd get a different instance for a soloer and for a multiple-PC-crew.(basically the same mission but with different SETTINGS to the opponents, i.e. more shields or whatever, so at most a bit more testing and balancing effort, not THAT much more design or implementation effort.)
2) "people like action"...
*sigh* yes they do.Even i do, at times.But if "action" is all you get, it gets boring pretty fast.
I have every ST movie on DVD, BUT the last one - for a reason.And while that movie might have gotten paying viewers that other ("true" ) ST movies did not, i am by far not the only one that does not link that movie to ST, like at all.
Basically, people in my vicinity say "ok movie, nice effects - but it is not Trek".And that is the problem really.ST went downhill with Gene's death basically.And all the writers/suits could come up with to counter that was "more action".How typically american: if you have a problem, start a war! (Wag the Dog, anyone?)
Originally posted by Dana Originally posted by Morrok
I'm not ridiculing your ideas, what I'm saying is that I don't honestly believe what the "full player crew" contingent wants is even remotely practical. It's way too much content to develop for way too few people to use it. The budget would be absurd.
Ah, you apparently aren't interested in a serious discussion. Bringing Nemesis which was a TERRIBLE movie in all ways makes that clear. For the record, I was pretty clear I was saying that the new Star Trek was action CRAP. All action is not action crap (LOTR is action, but not action crap).
In any case, back to the main topic, a Star Trek RPG where the crew has no personality is pretty stupid. You apparently prefer the more nebulous argument about player-based crew rather than talking about the bigger problem (of which a player-based crew is only one solution). They could have worked on crew personalities and they would have had plenty of time to do so if STO had a normal development cycle. Instead they made a cheap hack-job of having a crew, which is lame and unappealing.
I Have to agree 100% with your thott's here. I also am hoping for the more room upin up u can't keep troyph and fix up your bridge like a House. If a game don't have housing or crafting they just don't hold up in the MMO buss. at least not for me. Aion sadly has the worse crafting system and lack of housen of corse the future of Aion is going to fix that.:-P in 2011. This is already pre order for me for alot reason loved space only reason really keepin SWG plus the cards lmao. Where is my Wing Commander MMO!!!! While don't think I will ever see that but at least 12-10 or early 2011 when ToR come's out I got STO to keep me Co. But hear's hoping for som early patchs to More room on Ship and Tropyh's. As for the Slave Market comment. Hey is kind messed up tell your boy srry i need a new engie see u. But at same they say they want u to be friend your guy then sell him for a engie. I agree with u Dana give me at least a few xtra Officers spare if u would. and with a Few Key Officers not being in the game it is dishearting. But yes his 3 Gen officer statement make since plus hey u need something for next year hehe got keep the content and money flowin. :-()
I can see STO and TOR being like the MO vs DFO arguments that never end, tire my eyes, and are so fucking boring.
Both in space. Yeah.
Hordes of ST and SW geeks running around clammering for their next phaser / lightsaber. Yeah.
Other than that I doubt they will be similar in the least, yet they are compared numerous times in the thread, among others. Hopefully when TOR is released, which will probably be a bit after STO, their wont be the "STO pwns TOR +1 epic fail blah blah im an idiot" threads everywhere. But a man can dream.
Originally posted by Dana Eight times might be hyperbole, but what you described is essentially designing a unique gameplay experience for each of the individual "classes" within a ship, correct?Thus, you would need to double up the content for each class, because they would have totally different experiences. The current version, everyone has variations on the same core experience. Everytime you add a brand new experience, you're adding a lot of time, money and manpower to the schedule.
The thing is if u only got 1 Story u got No replay value. But as for a PC Crew it is a worthless Idea for alot reason of corse u would have some ppl who just sit there pushing 1 button once every 10 mins which is borin of corse some ppl love that stuff. Which I can see them making a few ship where it take's a few ppl to crew Kind of like the PoB ship's of other game's but of corse with PoC is one that u had to get more PC to use bigger ship which was lame I don't want be stuck on a small ship because my server is full of ppl I can't stand or i work when everyone's on. But as for having to make unique Gamplay for each person of corse to a poiint but hell some ppl like eng. just sit around untill u get damage and got repair the problem so not like they got make a Arcade style non stop play for every crew member. But think that is a Worthless Idea to have PC crew anyways . NPC crew with more of a story would have been nice but that would mean going back to stage 3 and start over way to much work and money .
P.S 1 Last Thott. As for Money they spead on the STO. When u are Bring to life a Tek or SW hell even a LotRO u got put alot money into it u already got a Fan base that can put u in the 1 Mill+ mark if done right so not no Trig Prof. but 15 dollor's x even 700k Sub's u will get your money back plus some. If u throw together something that will have 7 servers and 150 ppl per server yes u are done as a Co. Close the door's. Guess it's up to your Backer's do they have faith in u or just want a fast return from great openin week sale's and no repeat sub's.
Originally posted by Dana Eight times might be hyperbole, but what you described is essentially designing a unique gameplay experience for each of the individual "classes" within a ship, correct?Not quite.You design the different staions and give them (and the players) some abilities, in it's most basic state.Not TOO much different from what they do now, really.Though yes, IDEALLY (i.e. if designed "right" from the start!), the gaming experience from, say, helm would differ a lot from tactical.But then, not so much that you could not learn to do both as a player - you COULD crosstrain in skills too, as you are said to be able now also.Thus, you would need to double up the content for each class, because they would have totally different experiences. The current version, everyone has variations on the same core experience. Everytime you add a brand new experience, you're adding a lot of time, money and manpower to the schedule.
Forget "class" when talking space MMO's please.Do not talk "class" when talking STO either.According to the Dev's you have "skills" and that basic "kit", your "class" perhaps.But not "enough" class to make them not overlap a lot -. at least when you listen to the dev's intentions.(when we players ofc KNOW that min/maxing will happen and lead to "classes", even though they won't - apparently - be actually "defined" in-game)
In a space MMO you should not have a class, only skills.If you have multiple stations on a bridge, but only a single char, that char should be able to operate them ALL (i.e. perform all functions/tasks that are offered by he game), but at skill-dependent "efficiency".Depending on the station/task it would result in a lower success-probability or a longer duration or somesuch, but in effect one char could "do it all".With NPC-crew, he could make up in part for his own lack (or selection) of skills with those NPCs.With PC crew, different people would - normally - specialize in such a way that their skills "naturally" complement each other.In STO terms: One would specialize in engineering, the other in science and the 3rd in tactical - one in offensive perhaps, and one in defensive skills of that field.But even if you had two PCs specialized in "offensive tactical" would work - they would perhaps lack some defense, but make up for it in offensive powers.
Your last sentence is ONLY true when you put the cart before the horse:If you design a game with certain features IN MIND (rather than "design" a game around an existing core-code) then the "added" effort is minimal.
And that is my major gripe with STO atm:It's rather obvious that they did not say "hmm, we got the ST license... what do we need to make the most of it?", but that instaad they went at it "We have this engine and these experiences, now we also got that huge marketing trick called ST.... what do we do to make it "look" ST while being able to keep as much as we can unaltered from what we already have?"
I cannot say yet "it FEELS as if it were EQ (or some other fantasy game) in space" but i CAN say "it LOOKS as if it were".And that, i regret, deeply!I will still try it, but with the info i have now i do not think i would subscribe long, if at all.And the more i learn about hte game, the less likely i become to subscribe, unfortunately.(i say "unfortunately" without sarcasm or anything, as i REALLY waited for a ST-like MMO for a long time, actually.)
Originally posted by Drachasor In any case, back to the main topic, a Star Trek RPG where the crew has no personality is pretty stupid. You apparently prefer the more nebulous argument about player-based crew rather than talking about the bigger problem (of which a player-based crew is only one solution). They could have worked on crew personalities and they would have had plenty of time to do so if STO had a normal development cycle. Instead they made a cheap hack-job of having a crew, which is lame and unappealing.
To be fair, I was only responding to the idea of a player crew, I didn't even comment back on what they are actually doing.
To me, from a development point of view, there are only three possible choices:
1) Vague Crew As Objects: What they're doing. They're essentially items or gear with faces, there's no dancing around it. The logic being that the game has Cryptic customization, so people will make them their own. It's a neat system, but yes, it is the "easiest" option.
2) NPC Crew As Characters: Make full blow characters you collect and join you, like say Dragon Age. The downside is that this is an MMO and practically speaking there is no way they could make enough characters so that everyone didn't have virtually the same crew.
3) Player Crew: As I said before, I don't think this is even remotely possible from a development point of view.
So, they went with Vague Crew and decided to have crew that is generally unique to each person and let people define those stories and roles themselves. Personally, I'd prefer the NPC Crew, but I recognize the amount of work that would take and the inherit flaws that has in any MMO, especially a more social one. SWTOR will have companions, which are more like Dragon Age, but it also appears to be a less social game. It would be silly if we all brought "Worf" with us on an away mission and there were three of him running around. It's a tough hurdle. If they try to keep up with demand, the characters are too vague to be any fun and they waste all their time on it.
Fact is, development only has so long. I know you think its rushed - maybe it is? - but this is a business for them and it has to get out the door on budget and on time or it doesn't get out the door at all.
Player Crew is such a can of worms that I can never see it being done in a reasonable time frame in a way that would appeal to anyone but the most hardcore.
NPC Crew with personalities has so many holes in an MMO experience that I can see why they chose to focus elsewhere.
You have to picture this like a budget. You cannot just add more without taking something away. Perhaps they could do NPC crew, but that might well mean no ground game whatsoever, let alone ship interiors. Something would have to give to fit that in. There is no conspiracy. I am sure they're making the best game they can in the time and budget they have.
Originally posted by Nebless I loved this statement with reference to the future:"If there’s a demand, of course more interiors will be added."And while I get the size vs game 3D capabilities, yea those suckers look HUGE! Especially since you're only talking a handful of bridge officers. Guess they thought my naming it the 'social hub' you'd be having ballroom dancing in there.Also what was with the one tag "Retro Bridge Look", what retro was he looking at, cuz I couldn't place it.It is good they put it in, too bad you won't be able to pilot the ship from that screen as I know a few on the forums had hoped for that. I'd probably try it once just to see and then would go back to 3rd person view which works better for me.Game seems to be shaping up OK, moving in the right direction so far. Got to see if I can do open beta to check it out.
agreed, i mean the Cap sould fit in his chair comfortably not be some 10 year old in daddy's big seat
Originally posted by Dana Originally posted by Drachasor In any case, back to the main topic, a Star Trek RPG where the crew has no personality is pretty stupid. You apparently prefer the more nebulous argument about player-based crew rather than talking about the bigger problem (of which a player-based crew is only one solution). They could have worked on crew personalities and they would have had plenty of time to do so if STO had a normal development cycle. Instead they made a cheap hack-job of having a crew, which is lame and unappealing.
When ever someone whines about player crew i pull out my trump card, "ok now give me a system that has a player crew and can acominate that crew going AFK at random or logging off mid mission, or not showing up the next day cause Little Timmy has socker pratice."
You can have characters that are NOT as detailed as those in Dragon Age and still have personalities easily enough. That takes a lot less development time and so you could have a lot more of them. If you have enough personalities and slowly expand on them, then each crew will be pretty unique. Or as you somewhat suggested even just one or two unique personalities would have done wonders to the game. (And I wouldn't diss SW:TOR on the social front yet, because we honestly don't know much about it. Certainly we don't have a lot of detail on how social STO is really...so the comparison is rather silly, imho).
Obviously the more impressive way to go would have been if they utilized something like translator technology to take generic text and add a character's spin onto it (so Vulcan statements sounded more logical, perhaps). I'm pretty confidant that's a good bit of work but doable with our current level of technology. It would have required more development time, but when making a good game that's what you do. It isn't like the Star Trek Franchise couldn't have gotten them another year or two when that's much closer to standard development times.
What they decided to do is make STO on the cheap. The lack of character and so forth reflects that. Yeah, it was a business decision to make the game cheaply, but that doesn't mean we have to just blindly accept that as ok. They made Star Trek cheaply? Fine. I just won't buy it.
Edit: On the mathematics of unique crews. If you have say 8 crew members and there are 20 personalities, then there are 20!/(8!*12!), or 20*19*18*17*16*15*14*13/(8*7*6*5*4*3*2)=19*17*2*15*13 = 125,970 possible crews NOT considering they could have different posts from crew to crew (which explodes the number). Dragon Age doesn't have 20 characters, admittedly, but cutting down the development on each character and expanding out the number is QUITE doable.
Originally posted by Drachasor What they decided to do is make STO on the cheap. The lack of character and so forth reflects that. Yeah, it was a business decision to make the game cheaply, but that doesn't mean we have to just blindly accept that as ok. They made Star Trek cheaply? Fine. I just won't buy it.
Well that's the analysis they have to do. Theoretically, you could develop an MMO forever. The key is to find the point that has enough content to attract the maximum number of people without developing too long. We'll see in February if they picked that spot or not, I guess
Originally posted by Drachaso
K Here is Why they don't give them a xtra 6 month's.They want to beat ToR out. They want to jump on the Back of the movie's so called Hit. Which sadly I watched ppl walk out said they didn't come to watch SW they thott it was Star Trek. So now they think they can ride the coat tail's of other's. lmao Don't get me wrong I done got my Pre -Order in and But in my Defence I try everything and uselly keep everything for at least 6 to 9 months hoping for everything to get iron out. But anywho the reason they are rushin them are hey we have our self a nice pumped up Fan base ( Not true Trek fan)I think the game is goig to be a blast is it going to keep me coming back for 3+ years like WoW, LotRO and EQ while still to soon to say. LotRO I'm a Lifetime member hehe I wish all MMO's did that But then I would prolly need more time and miss out on way to much :-P hehe
I liked that statement too, i know its very likely there WILL be such demand in the future. I for one am content with a bridge as it is for launch. After it launches and as the usual post launch bug fixing and fine tuning etc, i think its safe to figure some day in the future of STO we will have those extra interiors.
As to the crew personality thing. Ive watched plenty of star trek myself, and i think it'd be a neat future addition if there were limited personalities at the least . I dont just say this cause i have played Dragon Age and loved the personalities and dialogue in that game, but as a general gamer who is familiar with star trek and the various personalities of the crew that added to the whole experience.
All and all im still looking forward to giving this game a go at launch and hopefully a bit of open beta just to get a feel for it pre launch.
Waiting For: FF14,Guild Wars2RIP: Tabula Rasa&Hellgate:London(online)Playing:Fallen Earth&Guild Wars& Dragon Age
Originally posted by Dana To be fair, I was only responding to the idea of a player crew, I didn't even comment back on what they are actually doing.To me, from a development point of view, there are only three possible choices:1) Vague Crew As Objects: What they're doing. They're essentially items or gear with faces, there's no dancing around it. The logic being that the game has Cryptic customization, so people will make them their own. It's a neat system, but yes, it is the "easiest" option.2) NPC Crew As Characters: Make full blow characters you collect and join you, like say Dragon Age. The downside is that this is an MMO and practically speaking there is no way they could make enough characters so that everyone didn't have virtually the same crew.3) Player Crew: As I said before, I don't think this is even remotely possible from a development point of view....Fact is, development only has so long. I know you think its rushed - maybe it is? - but this is a business for them and it has to get out the door on budget and on time or it doesn't get out the door at all.Player Crew is such a can of worms that I can never see it being done in a reasonable time frame in a way that would appeal to anyone but the most hardcore.NPC Crew with personalities has so many holes in an MMO experience that I can see why they chose to focus elsewhere.You have to picture this like a budget. You cannot just add more without taking something away. Perhaps they could do NPC crew, but that might well mean no ground game whatsoever, let alone ship interiors. Something would have to give to fit that in. There is no conspiracy. I am sure they're making the best game they can in the time and budget they have.
1) "vague crew":as you say, those are basically items. kind of boing but i guess they do the job they're designed for.You WILL have 3"Worf's" - no doubt about it.
2) "NPCs with personality":There is a (single-player) game called "Space colony" that has some. or "The Sims". not too bad to program them and introduce "traits" in a modular way.You'd still have 3"Worf's" , but each would "behave" a bit differently.
3) "All PC crews":An "ALL PC-crew" approach, if used exclusively, has it's own shortcomings.(namely "what do i do if my pilot is AWOL?" )But that is why i never asked for a PC-crew ONLY implementation..But i want - need really - the OPTION to have other PCs aboard, if i am to "feel" like "in space".Even moreso if i am to think it's Trek, since Trek - to me - means crews and overcoming one's shortcomings more than "ships" and "action".
4) the "PC crews are such a can of worms..".line:There is (at least) one game out there, that DOES have PC crews.As much as i do NOT like that game presently, and especially certain elements of their "community", they have more than PROVEN that PC crews are viable and all BUT impractical.They use PCs exclusively (no NPCs) which i think is a big minus, especially since they ALSO have divided the controls between the stations (no flying and checking sensors with the same char for example).BUT they have proven beyond doubt that PC crews are not only possible but viable.And, believe it or not, if THEY can do it, ANYONE could.Mix the PC crews with the option to use NPCs instead (or "superconsoles" where you control all the functions if needed) and you'd have a viable system in place - all further "nay-saying" is just that: nay-saying without real reason.
5) budget:Yes you are right: One only has that much budget and that much time.To get a proper opinion on the "time" argument, read Tom De Marco.And to the budget:You only have x amount of cash to burn, yes.But the important thing is HOW you use it, and under what PREMISES.I do not know how much cash was spent by Cryptic during development, but i am fairly confident that with that cash (including what "value" they put on their existing engine) and 10 skilled and dedicated people plus some contracting i could provide a MUCH better game in 2year's time - plus 6months of closed/open testing (and some time in preparation spent on selecting that dedicated core-team)Especially with an IP as rich as Trek.It is a complete WASTE of the license to dumb it down to mere combat.
6) "doing more without taking something away":You are right perhapsAt THIS TIME they possibly cannot anymore.But they COULD have, and should have.It was their CHOICE to focus on what they did, and it was not the best of decisions.With the choices they have made, it will be a major undertaking to make a viable MMO out of what they'll put on the table in 2months.Completely ignoring Economy is a no-go nowadays, just as other aspects that they have completely ignored.Some are easier (read: cheaper) to "fix" - implement afterwards - than others, but PC crew has to come - if only as an option and if only at "end-game" but it HAS to come.