Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 81 Yay an awsome mmorpg
02-20-2009, 05:53 PM
iIcan't wait till this game comes out, finally a mmorpg worth playing cuz after playing wow i have been turned off to mmorpgs until i found out about this. One thing i would like to see in this game is the Q continuum. I think it would be fascinating to see how they interpret the Q into a mmorpg.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 82 I got one!
02-20-2009, 06:06 PM
Quote:
Cryptic has mentioned there will not be a traditional "mana bar" for ships, but what about a player's individual character? Will a security officer have an energy bar for his equipment? What if he has psionic powers (Vulcan/Betazed/ etc), will their biological abilities be independent from their tech/branch skills?

We are still working with different models for ground combat, but it will not be complex. There will not be separate energy pools for weapons and abilities (like the psionic powers you mentioned). Right now we are experimenting with no mana bar for ground at all, and simply limiting certain abilities with cool-down times alone. Another possible model may be a simple power bar for advanced weapon attacks (like a wide beam cone attack) but no cost for basic shots and no cost for special abilities (except cool-down times where applicable).
Whoo Hoo! I finally got one answered! This was a very good Ask Cyptic all around though. The ship information is really shaping up. Thanks again Cryptic.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 83
02-20-2009, 06:14 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by sorsor1 View Post
iIcan't wait till this game comes out, finally a mmorpg worth playing cuz after playing wow i have been turned off to mmorpgs until i found out about this. One thing i would like to see in this game is the Q continuum. I think it would be fascinating to see how they interpret the Q into a mmorpg.
I have a feeling if they do place the Q in any form in the game ... it will be GM or Dev driven characters. Such as for events that bring in both factions and the like.

....

Has anyone else noticed Q is a moderator for ALL these forums??
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 84
02-20-2009, 09:18 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Temtavia View Post
I get the impression from the information presented in the Q&A that the bridge crew stations operate as passive enhancements rather than active skills.
That is a very interesting observation. Now that I think about it, I'm getting the same impression, in which case this becomes a candidate for the "not-so-good" category.

This is why I disapprove of buffs: they're passive gameplay. Passive gameplay is the easy way out of the need to create gameplay features. You just create a button that, when the player mashes it, applies a +/-10% change in some numeric value for some random length of time. Hey, presto -- Content!

Certainly that's "better" in the sense of costing less developer time than working up an imaginative yet practical design for some kind of active gameplay feature. But is "easier for the developer" really the definition of "better" that should be preferred over "more fun for the players"?

Bridge crew assignment isn't all bad as described so far, since one component of it will apparently be deciding which skills to give our bridge officers. That's an opportunity for a form of active gameplay.

But how useful that will be if putting those skills to work is a sort of fire-and-forget exercise in dragging a name or picture into a slot? That, I don't know.

Making a MMORPG is about having to make a million tiny decisions, each one of which is guaranteed to be described by someone in highly unflattering terms. In a way, creating a MMORPG is a kind of Kobayashi Maru: there's just no way to really win. Someone's always going to be unhappy with your creative decisions or your implementation of those decisions.

That said, there really are some principles of game design that just make sense. And one of them is that active gameplay is more valuable than passive gameplay. It's definitely more expensive to make active gameplay, but the upside is that every piece of active gameplay you create lowers the odds of people canceling their subscriptions after complaining, "But there's nothing to DO!"

For that reason, I hope we'll be able to interact with our bridge officers as characters, as people with names and histories and goals and fears and quirks, each of whom has interesting stories to tell as the co-stars of our Star Trek adventure. I believe that would offer considerably more value than implementing bridge officers as passive buffs.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tym
Flatfingers, where DO you find the time for all that writing?!
Passion for Star Trek + passion for game design + preference for Explorer-oriented game features + serious lack of sleep + an apparent love of the sound of my own voice = eye-glazingly detailed analyses in support of a game that no one will ever make.



If only these powers could be used for good instead of evil....

--Flatfingers
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
Immediately I agreed that passive bridge crew is essentially a bad thing, but then I gave it a little more thought. When a captain assigns a crew member to a post he/she is confident that that person is both capable at their job and the best person available for that job in the current situation. I believe that the crew member would perform 95% of their duties without direct intervention or orders from the captain. After all the captain is a busy person and has to take a hollistic view of any given situation, the rest of the crew are there to carry out their commands.

However, every good captain consults their bridge officer at specific instances to gain their input, which is the hardest part to encorporate into an MMO. Again all this is pure speculation since it is not confirmed that bridge crew are passive enhancements. I will be very interest to see how Crytic tackles this balance between crew member autonomy and interaction with the Captain. In real life the Captain would define this balance with their personal leadership style, some people like to be hands on with involvement in even the smallest decisions and others perfer to let people "do their jobs" without continually monitoring their progress. Some more food for thought.

Tem
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 86
02-21-2009, 02:46 AM
Intrepid class , can they land on the planet?
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 87
02-21-2009, 08:20 AM
I'm so excited for the game that it's driving me crazy!
Too bad I'm not Vulcan eh!
Thanks though
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 88
02-21-2009, 10:03 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by General View Post
Thank you for this most informed Ask Cryptic to date.

"We are still working with different models for ground combat, but IT WILL NOT BE COMPLEX."

As much as I want this to be intuitive I hope the ground and space combat isn't TOO simple.

Nothing wrong with having to think about getting out of a tight situation in my book.
I agree.

I would hope ground combat is atleast as complex as WoW --- and far more challenging. Being coddled is far less enjoyable than being challenged and actually losing in a good fight. Leave 'baby mode' to WoW pls.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 89
02-21-2009, 10:17 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anichent View Post

I love how Cryptic is well known for their customization. And knowing that the ships in STO were going to be customizable was great...but this isn't just customization. The words "ship class" no longer have meaning. Now Cryptic seems to be saying only ship types matter, and that theoretically you could take a "light cruiser" type and it would not look like any class. Esentially, there are no classes any more except for those few people who choose to make their "configurations" look like a Centaur or a Miranda.

Losing the idea of ship classes is a big loss for me. Sure I can make my ship configuration match existing classes, and I will, but STO will lose a lot of its feel for me whe I can see Klingon and Federation ships in unlimited combinations. Thats not Star Trek....Thats Star Wars!
I am worried about this as well. Ships should be recognized by their general profile -- which is what I am hoping is what the AC was basically saying.

I am hoping that basically it means that the "enterprise" still retains its basic profile:
  • 1x saucer - forward and above hull body
  • 2x nacels - upward 'V' formation above and slightly behind hull body
  • 1x hull body - located below nacels and saucer section

Basically you should be able to tell a ship from is shadow outline.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 90
02-21-2009, 11:33 AM
When they say ground combat won't be complex I have a worried feeling it will be under balanced from Space combat. I know they don't want it to be difficult but I hope its at least tactical and not (for the lack of a better phrase) "button mashing".

All the customization and power balancing is excellent news. I love what I see so far. However I notice a significant tendency to pass along info in the "Federation" sense. "Miranda", "Saucer section", "Registry Numbers and letters". I know Klingons might be slight less in numbers but the lack of info on the Klingon side of the table is a bit worrying. Any way we can flesh the Klingon side of things? Is there just no info yet or has there not been enough work on the opposing faction to give out that info? I just feel like there is so little facts on the other side I don't even know if the "light cruiser", "science vessal", "science lab", "duty station" (are they the same stations for Klingons?) stuff even applies to both sides or if its strictly Federation.
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:42 AM.