Star Trek Online: Bridge Crews

Stradden with folks losing there jobs and employment tighting up gamers are gonna be more pickey and there are going to be fewer dollars going to gaming. In your opion are the folks at Cryptic gonna be able to pull this rabbit out of a hat and support it. Or are we looking at another run of the mill mmo. Be honnest and say what you think.

Folks ask for different...well this is as different as they get.  Pretty cool gaming concept, I like it, but I hope it works too

Originally posted by m240gulf

Folks ask for different...well this is as different as they get.  Pretty cool gaming concept, I like it, but I hope it works too

It really doesn't sound different. As I read the article, I for a moment thought I was reading about Gods and Heroes again. It sounded exactly like Gods in Heroes in space. Not surprising considering where cryptic got the IP from, I'm just surprised they were bringing the concept to Trek.

I too hope it works. To the other poster, if they make a good game people will play it even in the bad economy.  Its one downfall may be when it comes to Trek people want to live in that world more so then play a game. So hopefully its not run from mission A,B, C rinse repeat.

Elsa, in bad economic times people may cut corners, but they never fully stop entertainment expenses. Life is just unrelenting dreariness otherwise. During the Great Depression, movie theaters, film studios, baseball clubs, and board game manufacturers all still did fairly well.  (Remember, Monopoly was marketed during that time.)

Considering how much you get for your dollar, I'll bet MMOs as a whole will do pretty good in the coming years, and when MMO companies have to cut corners they'll do it by cutting back on unprofitable games. Star Trek is a potential gold mine for Cryptic, so I wouldn't worry too much about it before we've had a chance to try it out.  If it sucks it might get hurt, but even if it's bad it may sell well just because of the IP.  Just look at Star Wars Galaxies.

Oh yes, this sounds really cool!  Getting a much better idea of how things would work.

Still, I think they should make it so that certain "special skills" are not transferable to just any bridge officer.

Data for example is an android and therfore can do comutational skills much quicker than a biological being, so if he had some super computer skill then I dont think that should be transferable! o,O

They should have made this a single player game, cause it seems to be going that way anyway. Whats multiplayer about having a NPC crew? Star Wars: The Old Republic's companions sound better, at least you can pull stories, quests, and romance out of them. This has Cryptic faill all over it. Sorry I never like City of Heroes or any other Cryptic games.

Cryptic is going to piss off a lot Trekkies and you don't want to piss off Trekkies. Their worst fanbois of all time, they can get violent. Lol. Trekkies want to role play, not give commands to NPCs. They would have been better off with making starships, guild ships. Making the guild leader captain, and the guild leader appoints the different jobs to the different crew/guild members. It would be more multiplayered that way. So the Trekkies can have their own little Star Trek role play fantasies.

Originally posted by purewitz

 They would have been better off with making starships, guild ships. Making the guild leader captain, and the guild leader appoints the different jobs to the different crew/guild members. It would be more multiplayered that way.

See now you're talking forced grouping and that's not going to fly with alot of casual gamers. 

Hopefully they'll have a way that you can replace one or more of your NPC officers with live players (hey NPC Bob take a hike it's my turn).  Then those that want to solo can and those that want to group can.  It would also take care of the problem of 'needing a 6 man group to fly your ship', but Mike had a family emergency and can't make it tonight, instead you go with 5 and an NPC.

Originally posted by Nebless

Originally posted by purewitz

 They would have been better off with making starships, guild ships. Making the guild leader captain, and the guild leader appoints the different jobs to the different crew/guild members. It would be more multiplayered that way.

 

See now you're talking forced grouping and that's not going to fly with alot of casual gamers. 

Hopefully they'll have a way that you can replace one or more of your NPC officers with live players (hey NPC Bob take a hike it's my turn).  Then those that want to solo can and those that want to group can.  It would also take care of the problem of 'needing a 6 man group to fly your ship', but Mike had a family emergency and can't make it tonight, instead you go with 5 and an NPC.

as a mostly solo player in MMOs and pretty casual (not sure what that really means - though i'm pretty layed back) if i was to play a trek game i would expect to be part of a crew - that's kinda the point

not sure how it could be handled properly though as what do you do when the captain ain't on board (ingame) etc

but yes, for me trek is definitely roleplay so it seems the game is progressing in the wrong direction - but hey, early days......

and "gods and heroes" wasn't a bad game but from playing beta it seemed the devs were reading the writing on the wall well before they got sacked - they just gave up and starting cutting most of the cool stuff out

 I still think that the ideal solution would be to have exactly what they have described here -- but also have the option of rotating players into any of the bridge crew slots.  This would give those who want a shared bridge crew experience exactly what they want without ever forcing anyone to group.  None of your friends available right now?  Use the NPC crew.  A couple friends on?  Play with them.  There is even precedent in canon for this.  Several times throughout all the series there have been people temporarily added to the bridge crew or away team.

The catch, as some people have mentioned before, is that Cryptic would have to come up with things for these players to do.  I don't think that's so impossible.  I still have many fond memories of playing the Star Trek Starship Tactical Combat Simulator, which had an option for using a crew of players.  It worked well and was a lot of fun.

People do not read.......... 

While on the ground, players will be able to direct the team individually or as a group. Players grouping for planet exploration will choose which officers to bring with them as away teams consist of five characters whether players or Bridge Crew.

..

Now every one wana be a captian, you dont wana boring comunication officer

its like the Jedi in swg, everyone wanted to be a jedi, 90% of swg is jedi.

you roleplay a captain and manage your own crew, next to that you play in fleets and rp the missions both in space and on thr ground whit other players. those players and you fill in the roles of the crew as you have your jobs .. your not only captian, but also a xxxxx officer.  guild leader highest rank? then he is the away team boss.,  your the medic and joe is the science officer. now go find and cure that wierd virus thats killing the planet...

theres always someting to nitpick about for anny mmo, but on this subject i beleve cryptic as put a lot of good tought in it..
 

Since they do have bridge crews, they could have easily let the spots on the bride be played either by players or npc's. If a player leaves, auto-replaced by npc.

I've finally come to realize that while Cryptic may make a game I want to play, they're not making a Star Trek game I would want to play. Because they've chosen an IP that has such a following and so much lore built into it, and so much expectation driving it, the argument of whether its a good game and whether its a good Star Trek game are two different arguments.

Originally posted by Nebless 

See now you're talking forced grouping and that's not going to fly with alot of casual gamers. 

Hopefully they'll have a way that you can replace one or more of your NPC officers with live players (hey NPC Bob take a hike it's my turn).  Then those that want to solo can and those that want to group can. 

That sounds good in theory but in practice it would mean that hardly anyone would ever group.  Why take time to put a group together when you can just go right now with a NPC crew?  And because it would be so much more convenient for people to just use NPCs the people who are willing to group even though it's less convenient will be so few and far between that even they will be effectively forced to solo.  The path of least resistance rules these games and if soloing is the path of least resistance then it will be a solo game.

I think that instead of having people use their own personal ship all the time (I assume that's what they are doing) they should set it up so that when you go to a space station you can be reassigned to different ships.  Ok, then have ships that can be used solo, ships for duo, ships for three players, four, five, and six. 

So you use a smaller, solo ship, ok you can do stuff but it's a little slower and you have to be a little more carefull.  The bigger the ship is the faster and easier it is to do stuff.  So people would go to space stations and put groups together.  "Group looking for tactical officer"...."Group looking for Engineer" and so on.  You get your group together, get assigned to a ship and off you go.

The way they are setting it up it looks to me like it's going to be the typical <solo all the time untill you get to max level and then raid> type of game.  Run solo missions (quests) untill you get to max rank (level) and then do fleet actions (raids) with a large bunch of ships running through instanced scenerios.

The typical solo-on-rails then grind instanced raids for phat lewt type of game.

Yayyyy..?

Originally posted by Eladi

People do not read.......... 

 While on the ground, players will be able to direct the team individually or as a group. Players grouping for planet exploration will choose which officers to bring with them as away teams consist of five characters whether players or Bridge Crew.

Now every one wana be a captian, you dont wana boring comunication officer

its like the Jedi in swg, everyone wanted to be a jedi, 90% of swg is jedi.

you roleplay a captain and manage your own crew, next to that you play in fleets and rp the missions both in space and on thr ground whit other players. those players and you fill in the roles of the crew as you have your jobs .. your not only captian, but also a xxxxx officer.  guild leader highest rank? then he is the away team boss.,  your the medic and joe is the science officer. now go find and cure that wierd virus thats killing the planet...

 theres always someting to nitpick about for anny mmo, but on this subject i beleve cryptic as put a lot of good tought in it..
 

Eladi we were talking about players (specifically a dedicated guild group manning a guild ship) while the ship was IN SPACE.  Yes your comment is perfectly correct in regards to a Away Team ON THE GROUND, but has nothing to do with the ship while in space.

According to the OP the game will currently support, we'll call it face to face RP, grouping while on the ground, but while in space the groupings will really be the ships. 

There are some that would like to be able to do face to face RP in a group while all are on the same ship, even if that means someone plays the boring comunication officer.

From a non-RP stand point, I have 2 son's (14 & 10) and if all 3 of us played I know the youngest would rather be on the same ship as his brother or me than flying on his own.  Not everybody want's to be the Captain.  I know in SWG that if given the chance I would rather be a ships gunner than fly my own ship.  It was just something I was better at and could contribute more to the mission or Pvp by shooting than flying.

Originally posted by Neanderthal

Originally posted by Nebless 

See now you're talking forced grouping and that's not going to fly with alot of casual gamers. 

Hopefully they'll have a way that you can replace one or more of your NPC officers with live players (hey NPC Bob take a hike it's my turn).  Then those that want to solo can and those that want to group can. 

That sounds good in theory but in practice it would mean that hardly anyone would ever group.  Why take time to put a group together when you can just go right now with a NPC crew?  And because it would be so much more convenient for people to just use NPCs the people who are willing to group even though it's less convenient will be so few and far between that even they will be effectively forced to solo.  The path of least resistance rules these games and if soloing is the path of least resistance then it will be a solo game.

I think that instead of having people use their own personal ship all the time (I assume that's what they are doing) they should set it up so that when you go to a space station you can be reassigned to different ships.  Ok, then have ships that can be used solo, ships for duo, ships for three players, four, five, and six. 

So you use a smaller, solo ship, ok you can do stuff but it's a little slower and you have to be a little more carefull.  The bigger the ship is the faster and easier it is to do stuff.  So people would go to space stations and put groups together.  "Group looking for tactical officer"...."Group looking for Engineer" and so on.  You get your group together, get assigned to a ship and off you go.

The way they are setting it up it looks to me like it's going to be the typical <solo all the time untill you get to max level and then raid> type of game.  Run solo missions (quests) untill you get to max rank (level) and then do fleet actions (raids) with a large bunch of ships running through instanced scenerios.

The typical solo-on-rails then grind instanced raids for phat lewt type of game.

Yayyyy..?

Unfortunitly I believe you are 100% correct.  And yes I'm sure the coding to allow players to swap with NPC's would probably be larger than anyone could expect so would be dropped when looked at in a cost/return analysis. 

While it would be nice for the game to be designed to support RP since ST really begs for it, the direction it appears to be going doesn't seem to support it. 

They could've gone the 'start as a cadet and work your way up route', but honestly, think about how many lowly, boring jobs a cadet or low-ranking officer would have to do to get to a "fun" position.

I think most people would be happier being a captain from day one, and gradually getting bigger and better ships.

Personally, i love the direction this game is going, and FWIW, I consider myself a dedicated trekkie/trekker or whatever term is in fashion these days.

To add something else to what I was suggesting (even though it's completely pointless) I think that there shouldn't even be a specific "Captain" proffession.  If they had set it up as more of a grouping game (which they didn't and won't) the captain could have simply been the person who formed the group. 

So you would be a tactical, science, engineering, helmsman, or whatever officer and that's what you would do in groups.  But if you formed the group you would also be the "Captain" which would really just be token label because you were the one who formed the group.  That would get around the problem of everyone wanting to be a Captain and so nobody wanting to be a subordinate because being a captain would then just be a relatively meaningless label that just means you were the one who formed the group.

Originally posted by SwampRob

They could've gone the 'start as a cadet and work your way up route', but honestly, think about how many lowly, boring jobs a cadet or low-ranking officer would have to do to get to a "fun" position.

I think most people would be happier being a captain from day one, and gradually getting bigger and better ships.

Personally, i love the direction this game is going, and FWIW, I consider myself a dedicated trekkie/trekker or whatever term is in fashion these days.

I see this argument a lot but its easily dismissed. As a beginner you're a captain, but of smaller less powerful ships. As you gain in skill or level you gain the abiltiy to command larger more powerful craft and its the larger ones that require a crew that can be done either by npc's or other players. Other players might be willing to crew with xp incentives, especially if they are trying to level, or they could stick with there own one-man ships and level that way. Or players might do it because it would be fun for some people.

Originally posted by SwampRob

They could've gone the 'start as a cadet and work your way up route', but honestly, think about how many lowly, boring jobs a cadet or low-ranking officer would have to do to get to a "fun" position.

I think most people would be happier being a captain from day one, and gradually getting bigger and better ships.

I don't know about starting as a cadet, but wasn't there a ST:TNG episode where Picard sends out a group of Ensigns on a mission  (Almost had the feel of a series spin off episode) ?  That would be one way to start low with just a shuttle and slowly work your way up in rank and ship command.  The other of course would be the standard 'ship battle / damage / emergency, you're the most senior still alive - take command!' situation and you work up from there.

Be interesting to see the back story on how you came to command a small destroyer / science vessel at the start 10 to 12 years into your career.

Star Trek will either shine or get mediocre subscription. I think by the time it is released all if the hype the movie brought up will be gone. If they time the release with the DvD release, maybe they will get the subs needed. Crypitc is a very good company and I expect it to do well. But it will depend on the economy. And as people have stated that usually in a bad economy entertainment is hardly hit. But something people forget is the internet payment plus the game payment, which might make the difference.

 Ok it is better than nothing. At least we have some improvement over the you are a ship avatar design. Like others had said it is interesting that the now defunct Perpetual Entertainment (PE) had Gods and Heroes. The game hailed players having monster companions to run with them.  When Cryptic bought STO from them, Jack Emmert said in essence that their work on STO was of little use to them. In a nutshell, STo was built from the ground up by Crpytic. 

Maybe not everything PE did was tossed out. I wonder if PE was planning this for STO as well.

Originally posted by Nebless

Originally posted by Eladi

People do not read.......... 

 While on the ground, players will be able to direct the team individually or as a group. Players grouping for planet exploration will choose which officers to bring with them as away teams consist of five characters whether players or Bridge Crew.

Now every one wana be a captian, you dont wana boring comunication officer

its like the Jedi in swg, everyone wanted to be a jedi, 90% of swg is jedi.

you roleplay a captain and manage your own crew, next to that you play in fleets and rp the missions both in space and on thr ground whit other players. those players and you fill in the roles of the crew as you have your jobs .. your not only captian, but also a xxxxx officer.  guild leader highest rank? then he is the away team boss.,  your the medic and joe is the science officer. now go find and cure that wierd virus thats killing the planet...

 theres always someting to nitpick about for anny mmo, but on this subject i beleve cryptic as put a lot of good tought in it..
 

 

Eladi we were talking about players (specifically a dedicated guild group manning a guild ship) while the ship was IN SPACE.  Yes your comment is perfectly correct in regards to a Away Team ON THE GROUND, but has nothing to do with the ship while in space.

According to the OP the game will currently support, we'll call it face to face RP, grouping while on the ground, but while in space the groupings will really be the ships. 

There are some that would like to be able to do face to face RP in a group while all are on the same ship, even if that means someone plays the boring comunication officer.

From a non-RP stand point, I have 2 son's (14 & 10) and if all 3 of us played I know the youngest would rather be on the same ship as his brother or me than flying on his own.  Not everybody want's to be the Captain.  I know in SWG that if given the chance I would rather be a ships gunner than fly my own ship.  It was just something I was better at and could contribute more to the mission or Pvp by shooting than flying.

But unlike in SWG there will be no 3d moving around asfar I know.
and no guns to get in,.

designing a mini game for each crew job would be verry expencive.   its resorces vs amound of players wanting someting.
And in this case, most wana be captain ;) 

me,..I would love to have a big ship chatroom that acts as a RP comunity home , have internal plots and stuff on..but..well.. for 90%of tha gamers thats boring,silly and not needed.

We can dream, but a 100% rp friendly . RP build mechanics mmo you will not see for the next 10 years .

I think that for the release the feature list is fine and gooed enoug for both RP'ers and Others.
In time when enoug people ask for it they may bring out maybe guild stations ?   guild mining ships ala the new movie :P 
but it needs to make money, and money it will not get fromt he 10% roleplayers.. (20% in a big IP like this I guess) 

Originally posted by Nebless

Originally posted by SwampRob

They could've gone the 'start as a cadet and work your way up route', but honestly, think about how many lowly, boring jobs a cadet or low-ranking officer would have to do to get to a "fun" position.

I think most people would be happier being a captain from day one, and gradually getting bigger and better ships.

I don't know about starting as a cadet, but wasn't there a ST:TNG episode where Picard sends out a group of Ensigns on a mission  (Almost had the feel of a series spin off episode) ?  That would be one way to start low with just a shuttle and slowly work your way up in rank and ship command.  The other of course would be the standard 'ship battle / damage / emergency, you're the most senior still alive - take command!' situation and you work up from there.

Be interesting to see the back story on how you came to command a small destroyer / science vessel at the start 10 to 12 years into your career.

"Captain" is both rank and honor. I've been going through the ST:DS9 dvds lately, and this is shown quite frequently. Technically, Sisco is the only captain by rank, but whenever he turns over the Defiant to Worf or Dax or Kira and leaves the ship, the officer left in command is called "captain."
 

This is rather a humorous thread.  To all those that think they need a bridge crew made of up players please explain how you would implement it.  So far, in all the threads I had read both on the site boards and here, not one of you has even come close to an playable solution.

So all that brainpower comes up empty and yet you still continue to whine about it?

Besides the captain there is little to do on the bridge for the other roles when flying, how many players would be happy doing such, 1 ...2 ...a few more?  Besides what happens when the rest of the party disagrees with the captain?    I could go on and on with all the issues Cryptic would face implementing such an idea.

All I can say is thank heavens they decided against it, or this game would never see the light of day.

Next time before you whine please come up with some workable solutions.

Originally posted by Ozmodan

This is rather a humorous thread.  To all those that think they need a bridge crew made of up players please explain how you would implement it.  So far, in all the threads I had read both on the site boards and here, not one of you has even come close to an playable solution.

So all that brainpower comes up empty and yet you still continue to whine about it?

Besides the captain there is little to do on the bridge for the other roles when flying, how many players would be happy doing such, 1 ...2 ...a few more?  Besides what happens when the rest of the party disagrees with the captain?    I could go on and on with all the issues Cryptic would face implementing such an idea.

All I can say is thank heavens they decided against it, or this game would never see the light of day.

Next time before you whine please come up with some workable solutions.

Beginning players start out able to command small ships. As they level or whatever they gain the ability to command larger more powerful ships. This ensures anyone who wants to solo, can solo all they want. Ships above a certain size require crews. Crews can be provided either by npc's or other players.  In the case of a player disconnecting, the position is automatically filled by an npc. Positions that would make sense are engineering (speed), helm (direction), weapons, communications. Lower level players could be given incentives to play a crewman (xp bonus for example. and a reminder, they can still captain their own ships limited to the level/skill if they don't want to crew.) or groups of friends could do it because it would be fun. Crews that disagree with the captain would probably fail at whatever task they're about.

What's the difference between a group of "healers, tank, dps" running around together and a group of "officers" sitting on the same "ship"? If you set up some kind of "perma-group" that had it's own ship that they could hop on whenever they were all online I don't see why it couldn't work. There could even be different levels, say a group of 3 has a "small ship" and a group of 6 gets a "medium" ship to work with ect ect, and make it so the ship itself levels up and so forth, basically a "guild" with a fun graphic slapped on it. 

Originally posted by Eladi

People do not read.......... 

 

While on the ground, players will be able to direct the team individually or as a group. Players grouping for planet exploration will choose which officers to bring with them as away teams consist of five characters whether players or Bridge Crew.

..

 

Now every one wana be a captian, you dont wana boring comunication officer

its like the Jedi in swg, everyone wanted to be a jedi, 90% of swg is jedi.

you roleplay a captain and manage your own crew, next to that you play in fleets and rp the missions both in space and on thr ground whit other players. those players and you fill in the roles of the crew as you have your jobs .. your not only captian, but also a xxxxx officer.  guild leader highest rank? then he is the away team boss.,  your the medic and joe is the science officer. now go find and cure that wierd virus thats killing the planet...

 

theres always someting to nitpick about for anny mmo, but on this subject i beleve cryptic as put a lot of good tought in it..
 

I really have to pull myself together not to YELL at you. Sorry, I dont mean this bad but... in SWG, it was NOT THAT 90% were Jedi. This wasnt the case in no time! I was very happy with my Dancer, and there were a LOT Entertainers, not even doing any combat in the Pre-NGE era. And even later, when Jedi was for all. It is just a myth, that everyone wants to be Captain. I would love to be Science Officer or Councilor/Diplomat in STO. No, no and no.

Despite my deep distrust against making everyone Captain - it still sounds very lonesome to me - this plan does sound interesting. I like that part that you can make the Bridge crew member all look like you design. So cool! Now expect me to make all sexy looking guys, surrounding me, muhahaha. :D  I'll use them for unimaginable things, when the com-screen goes off, hrhr.

Ok, one can dream, no? Dont tell me you straight guys are not tempted to surround yourself all with girls in mini-skirts!

...

Sheesh... did I write this...

Originally posted by themilton

Originally posted by Nebless

Originally posted by SwampRob

They could've gone the 'start as a cadet and work your way up route', but honestly, think about how many lowly, boring jobs a cadet or low-ranking officer would have to do to get to a "fun" position.

I think most people would be happier being a captain from day one, and gradually getting bigger and better ships.

I don't know about starting as a cadet, but wasn't there a ST:TNG episode where Picard sends out a group of Ensigns on a mission  (Almost had the feel of a series spin off episode) ?  That would be one way to start low with just a shuttle and slowly work your way up in rank and ship command.  The other of course would be the standard 'ship battle / damage / emergency, you're the most senior still alive - take command!' situation and you work up from there.

Be interesting to see the back story on how you came to command a small destroyer / science vessel at the start 10 to 12 years into your career.

"Captain" is both rank and honor. I've been going through the ST:DS9 dvds lately, and this is shown quite frequently. Technically, Sisco is the only captain by rank, but whenever he turns over the Defiant to Worf or Dax or Kira and leaves the ship, the officer left in command is called "captain."
 

Correct.  "Captain" refers either to the military rank, in this case a Naval O-6 who commands a fairly large vessel or a small task force, or the honorific title of a ship's commanding officer.  In several areas in Star Trek, commanding officers of grades lower than Captain are found, at least down through Lieutenant Commander.  In fact, I think Lieutenant Commander is the grade at which one can achieve command of their own ship.  But on that ship, their title would be 'Captain', and even another Captain who happened to be on board would be required to refer to them as such.  The visiting Captain, I believe, is titled 'Commodore' while aboard to alleviate confusion.

Originally posted by Ozmodan

This is rather a humorous thread.  To all those that think they need a bridge crew made of up players please explain how you would implement it.  So far, in all the threads I had read both on the site boards and here, not one of you has even come close to an playable solution.

So all that brainpower comes up empty and yet you still continue to whine about it?

Besides the captain there is little to do on the bridge for the other roles when flying, how many players would be happy doing such, 1 ...2 ...a few more?  Besides what happens when the rest of the party disagrees with the captain?    I could go on and on with all the issues Cryptic would face implementing such an idea.

All I can say is thank heavens they decided against it, or this game would never see the light of day.

Next time before you whine please come up with some workable solutions.

If they couldn't come up with things for five or six people (playing different roles) to do then they are pretty pathetic as game developers.  As someone else pointed out, what's the difference between this and the typical sort of game with tanks, healers, buffers, etc.?

You can't think of anything?  The devs can't think of anything?  Ok, just off the top of my head here are some ideas.

Helmsman---flies the ship.  Controls speed and positioning.  Tries to avoid enemy fire while positioning his ship so that the tactical officer can fire at vulnerable points on the enemy.

Tactical---Aims and fires the weapons.  Decides which areas of the sheilds get how much of the power alloted to the shields.

Science officer---Uses sensors to detect weakness in enemy sheilds and vulnerble points on enemy ship.  Spots stealthed ships.  Jams enemy sensors.  Detects if enemy sheilds have "phased" to a different "frequency" or some such.  The tactical officer will rely on the science officer to inform him where the best targeting points are.  Also detects incoming fire, the helmsman will rely on him to advise evasive action.

Engineer----Directs repair crews to various parts of the ship that are damaged.  Has to decide which repairs are most critical.  Controls overall power allotments....30% to weapons, 20% to sensors, 10% to lifesupport, 20% to sheilds, 20% to engines...that sort of thing.  If he gives 20% to sheilds the tactical officer then decides how to split that 20% between forward, aft, etc. sheilds.

Ok, that's four right there off the top of my head.

So how would it play out in a battle?  You are fired on by an enemy ship.  The science officer sceams, "Incoming from 45 degrees!"  (meaning the front right side).  The helmsman kicks the ship in the ass forward and veers left then tries to bring it around so the weapons can bear on the enemy ship while avoiding further fire.  But you take some hits as he brings it around.  The engineer is deploying repair crews but the power is dropping so he cuts power to the engines and diverts it to weapons so you can hit the enemy hard on the first pass.

The science officer determines that the lower aft center shields of the enemy ship are weakest and informs tactical.  Tactical screams, "I can't hit it from this angle!   Take us below and turn the f-ck around when we get behind him!" 

The helmsman screams, "Engine power is too low!  I can't get behind unless I get some speed.  Engineer wake the hell up!!"

The engineer screams, "Ok, damn it!  But you canna have full power for all systems when we've ony got 70% power left!  Cutting power to shields.  Full impulse...NOW!"

ZOOMMM....the helmsman sweeps under and behind the enemy and turns about.  While he's doing this the tactical officer diverts all shield power to the topside shields (because you're going under the enemy ship).   BOOM---KABOOM...everyone leans hard to the left for a few seconds.  But it's not as bad as it could have been because the science officer was jaming their sensors and they couldn't tell that they should have targeted the very rear of the ship instead of the top center.

The engineer screams, "They just took out our main phaser array!"

Tactical--"I'll have to use photons and the secondary array!  Give me all you've got RIGHT NOW!

Engineering--diverts all power to weapons just as the helmsman gets the ship into position and the science officer verifies the exact spot to target.

Tactical targets...fires all weapons.   KABLEWY, the enemy ship explodes in a pretty fireworks display.

Now wouldn't that be a heck of a lot more fun than having mindless NPCs automatically doing everything for you?

Originally posted by Neanderthal

Originally posted by Ozmodan

This is rather a humorous thread.  To all those that think they need a bridge crew made of up players please explain how you would implement it.  So far, in all the threads I had read both on the site boards and here, not one of you has even come close to an playable solution.

So all that brainpower comes up empty and yet you still continue to whine about it?

Besides the captain there is little to do on the bridge for the other roles when flying, how many players would be happy doing such, 1 ...2 ...a few more?  Besides what happens when the rest of the party disagrees with the captain?    I could go on and on with all the issues Cryptic would face implementing such an idea.

All I can say is thank heavens they decided against it, or this game would never see the light of day.

Next time before you whine please come up with some workable solutions.

 

If they couldn't come up with things for five or six people (playing different roles) to do then they are pretty pathetic as game developers.  As someone else pointed out, what's the difference between this and the typical sort of game with tanks, healers, buffers, etc.?

You can't think of anything?  The devs can't think of anything?  Ok, just off the top of my head here are some ideas.

Helmsman---flies the ship.  Controls speed and positioning.  Tries to avoid enemy fire while positioning his ship so that the tactical officer can fire at vulnerable points on the enemy.

Tactical---Aims and fires the weapons.  Decides which areas of the sheilds get how much of the power alloted to the shields.

Science officer---Uses sensors to detect weakness in enemy sheilds and vulnerble points on enemy ship.  Spots stealthed ships.  Jams enemy sensors.  Detects if enemy sheilds have "phased" to a different "frequency" or some such.  The tactical officer will rely on the science officer to inform him where the best targeting points are.  Also detects incoming fire, the helmsman will rely on him to advise evasive action.

Engineer----Directs repair crews to various parts of the ship that are damaged.  Has to decide which repairs are most critical.  Controls overall power allotments....30% to weapons, 20% to sensors, 10% to lifesupport, 20% to sheilds, 20% to engines...that sort of thing.  If he gives 20% to sheilds the tactical officer then decides how to split that 20% between forward, aft, etc. sheilds.

Ok, that's four right there off the top of my head.

So how would it play out in a battle?  You are fired on by an enemy ship.  The science officer sceams, "Incoming from 45 degrees!"  (meaning the front right side).  The helmsman kicks the ship in the ass forward and vears left then tries to bring it around so the weapons can bear on the enemy ship while avoiding further fire.  But you take some hits as he brings it around.  The engineer is deploying repair crews but the power is dropping so he cuts power to the engines and diverts it to weapons so you can hit the enemy hard on the first pass.

The science officers determines that the lower aft center shields of the enemy ship are weakest and informs tactical.  Tactical screams, "I can't hit it from this angle!   Take us below and turn the f-ck around when we get behind him!" 

The helmsman screams, "Engine power is too low!  I can't get behind unless I get some speed.  Engineer wake the hell up!!"

The engineer screams, "Ok, damn it!  But you canna have full power for all systems when we've ony got 70% power left!  Cutting power to shields.  Full impulse...NOW!"

ZOOMMM....the helmsman sweeps under and behind the enemy and turns about.  While he's doing this the tactical officer diverts all shield power to the topside shields (because you're going under the enemy ship).   BOOM---KABOOM...everyone leans hard to the left for a few seconds.  But it's not as bad as it could have been because the science officer was jaming their sensors and they couldn't tell that they should have targeted the very rear of the ship instead of the top center.

The engineer screams, "They just took out our main phaser array!"

Tactical--"I'll have to use photons and the secondary array!  Give me all you've got RIGHT NOW!

Engineering--diverts all power to weapons just as the helmsman gets the ship into position and the science officer verifies the exact spot to target.

Tactical targets...fires all weapons.   KABLEWY, the enemy ship explodes in a pretty fireworks display.

Now wouldn't that be a heck of a lot more fun than having mindless NPCs automatically doing everything for you?

Someone please wrap this post round a brick and throw it through the window at their next board meeting..

Originally posted by Neanderthal

Originally posted by Ozmodan

This is rather a humorous thread.  To all those that think they need a bridge crew made of up players please explain how you would implement it.  So far, in all the threads I had read both on the site boards and here, not one of you has even come close to an playable solution.

So all that brainpower comes up empty and yet you still continue to whine about it?

Besides the captain there is little to do on the bridge for the other roles when flying, how many players would be happy doing such, 1 ...2 ...a few more?  Besides what happens when the rest of the party disagrees with the captain?    I could go on and on with all the issues Cryptic would face implementing such an idea.

All I can say is thank heavens they decided against it, or this game would never see the light of day.

Next time before you whine please come up with some workable solutions.

 

If they couldn't come up with things for five or six people (playing different roles) to do then they are pretty pathetic as game developers.  As someone else pointed out, what's the difference between this and the typical sort of game with tanks, healers, buffers, etc.?

You can't think of anything?  The devs can't think of anything?  Ok, just off the top of my head here are some ideas.

Helmsman---flies the ship.  Controls speed and positioning.  Tries to avoid enemy fire while positioning his ship so that the tactical officer can fire at vulnerable points on the enemy.

Tactical---Aims and fires the weapons.  Decides which areas of the sheilds get how much of the power alloted to the shields.

Science officer---Uses sensors to detect weakness in enemy sheilds and vulnerble points on enemy ship.  Spots stealthed ships.  Jams enemy sensors.  Detects if enemy sheilds have "phased" to a different "frequency" or some such.  The tactical officer will rely on the science officer to inform him where the best targeting points are.  Also detects incoming fire, the helmsman will rely on him to advise evasive action.

Engineer----Directs repair crews to various parts of the ship that are damaged.  Has to decide which repairs are most critical.  Controls overall power allotments....30% to weapons, 20% to sensors, 10% to lifesupport, 20% to sheilds, 20% to engines...that sort of thing.  If he gives 20% to sheilds the tactical officer then decides how to split that 20% between forward, aft, etc. sheilds.

Ok, that's four right there off the top of my head.

So how would it play out in a battle?  You are fired on by an enemy ship.  The science officer sceams, "Incoming from 45 degrees!"  (meaning the front right side).  The helmsman kicks the ship in the ass forward and vears left then tries to bring it around so the weapons can bear on the enemy ship while avoiding further fire.  But you take some hits as he brings it around.  The engineer is deploying repair crews but the power is dropping so he cuts power to the engines and diverts it to weapons so you can hit the enemy hard on the first pass.

The science officers determines that the lower aft center shields of the enemy ship are weakest and informs tactical.  Tactical screams, "I can't hit it from this angle!   Take us below and turn the f-ck around when we get behind him!" 

The helmsman screams, "Engine power is too low!  I can't get behind unless I get some speed.  Engineer wake the hell up!!"

The engineer screams, "Ok, damn it!  But you canna have full power for all systems when we've ony got 70% power left!  Cutting power to shields.  Full impulse...NOW!"

ZOOMMM....the helmsman sweeps under and behind the enemy and turns about.  While he's doing this the tactical officer diverts all shield power to the topside shields (because you're going under the enemy ship).   BOOM---KABOOM...everyone leans hard to the left for a few seconds.  But it's not as bad as it could have been because the science officer was jaming their sensors and they couldn't tell that they should have targeted the very rear of the ship instead of the top center.

The engineer screams, "They just took out our main phaser array!"

Tactical--"I'll have to use photons and the secondary array!  Give me all you've got RIGHT NOW!

Engineering--diverts all power to weapons just as the helmsman gets the ship into position and the science officer verifies the exact spot to target.

Tactical targets...fires all weapons.   KABLEWY, the enemy ship explodes in a pretty fireworks display.

Now wouldn't that be a heck of a lot more fun than having mindless NPCs automatically doing everything for you?

And what does the Captain do in your scenario? The problem is... everyone will want to be the captain, or even the Pilot. What if you pilot flies all over the place and refuses to listen to the Captain? Then what?

If you say the Captain has all the power, well then what's the difference between the captain having the power over PC's or just being the Captain of your ship? Many people would rather just be the captain of their own ship there.

If you say there's nothing they can do, well then what fun is it if you're at the mercy of just 1 person? And if that's the case, why would anyone want to be anything other than the pilot?

Pffff, its too deep to be true. Highly doubt it will make release.

Originally posted by Linthead4504

And what does the Captain do in your scenario? The problem is... everyone will want to be the captain, or even the Pilot. What if you pilot flies all over the place and refuses to listen to the Captain? Then what?

If you say the Captain has all the power, well then what's the difference between the captain having the power over PC's or just being the Captain of your ship? Many people would rather just be the captain of their own ship there.

If you say there's nothing they can do, well then what fun is it if you're at the mercy of just 1 person? And if that's the case, why would anyone want to be anything other than the pilot?

If you read my earlier post in my opinion their shouldn't be a specific "captain" profession.  Everyone should be either a helmsman, a tactical officer, science officer, or whatever but no specific "captain" career.

When you put a group together the person who forms the group would be the Captain of that particular crew for the duration of the session.  So sometimes you would be the captain and sometimes someone else would be the captain.  But even if you are the captain you would still do your specific job in the group (piloting or engineer or tactical or whatever).  If they actually had you on the bridge inside the ship we can just assume that all jobs could be done from the captains chair.

If you get an idiot in your group like a pilot who "flies all over the place" you just leave that group and remember never to group with that guy again.   Take a shuttle back to the space station or beam back or whatever and get a different group or get a different pilot.  It's hardly an insurmountable task.

 Sounds like an interesting game mechanic that fits in nicely with the feel of Star Trek.   I'll be interested to see how Cryptic pulls it off.  

This idea (NPC bridge crews) sucks.

How the hell is this going to be an MMO?!?!  Jeez, if I want to have a gaggle of NPCs to direct, I'll install IceWind Dales and play through that game, or one of the many others just like it. 

I don't like passing judgment on games before they're released because impressions are often incorrect, but this just sounds horrible.  Ugh.  I'll still keep on eye on STO, but this doesn't sound the least bit revolutionary, innovative, or interesting.

Originally posted by Linthead4504

And what does the Captain do in your scenario? The problem is... everyone will want to be the captain, or even the Pilot. What if you pilot flies all over the place and refuses to listen to the Captain? Then what?

If you say the Captain has all the power, well then what's the difference between the captain having the power over PC's or just being the Captain of your ship? Many people would rather just be the captain of their own ship there.

If you say there's nothing they can do, well then what fun is it if you're at the mercy of just 1 person? And if that's the case, why would anyone want to be anything other than the pilot?

I see this argument a lot too in discussions against player crews and it too is easily dismissed:  In every mmo I've played when there is a group, someone is the leader.  Whats the problem?

I'm really excited to hear this, but I'm kind of worried at how he compares bridge officers to freaking epic gear. I think he even said "phat lootz" like a idiot also. Wouldn't it be kind of stupid for like, everyone to be trying to get the SAME person on their ship? All crew members and bridge officers should be uniquely named.

Originally posted by Neanderthal

Originally posted by Linthead4504

And what does the Captain do in your scenario? The problem is... everyone will want to be the captain, or even the Pilot. What if you pilot flies all over the place and refuses to listen to the Captain? Then what?

If you say the Captain has all the power, well then what's the difference between the captain having the power over PC's or just being the Captain of your ship? Many people would rather just be the captain of their own ship there.

If you say there's nothing they can do, well then what fun is it if you're at the mercy of just 1 person? And if that's the case, why would anyone want to be anything other than the pilot?

 

If you read my earlier post in my opinion their shouldn't be a specific "captain" profession.  Everyone should be either a helmsman, a tactical officer, science officer, or whatever but no specific "captain" career.

When you put a group together the person who forms the group would be the Captain of that particular crew for the duration of the session.  So sometimes you would be the captain and sometimes someone else would be the captain.  But even if you are the captain you would still do your specific job in the group (piloting or engineer or tactical or whatever).  If they actually had you on the bridge inside the ship we can just assume that all jobs could be done from the captains chair.

If you get an idiot in your group like a pilot who "flies all over the place" you just leave that group and remember never to group with that guy again.   Take a shuttle back to the space station or beam back or whatever and get a different group or get a different pilot.  It's hardly an insurmountable task.

It seems to me that not many people have actually gone to the STO website and actually read about this title. The role of captain is not a profession. Everybody is their own captain and everybody commands their own ship. The point of a group is to increase the potential fire-power while bringing you own personal skills to the table. Captain #1 is an excellent strategist, captain #2 is an explorer, captain #3 can be even be a paleontologist! What's the point? Everybody uses their own personal skills to further to the advancement of a group but do so from their own ship. At no point have I seen anything on the STO site that said you could become a member of another player's bridge crew, that's just insanity! Visiting another ship to see what the captain has done with it, on the other hand, is an interesting idea. Boarding an enemy vessel to carry out a tactical seizure of the vessel or just oust the captain, that would be interesting. Becoming a member of another captain's bridge crew to sit there staring at an LCARS screen and carry out orders.... Sure, it's RP, but it's not fun.

Even more to add would be the fact that not all players assess the same situation in the same way. When one person says to do something a particular way at a certain time, reaction times could suffer immensely. We don't live in an age where all internet connections are created equally, you know? What if your tactical officer were experiencing a high amount of lag when the helmsman manuevers in for the perfect shot and you miss your chance and everybody dies? Well, I see all the players that just lost their lives on this mission being extremely PO'd! "Sorry captain, my LCARS screen was extremely boring and froze on me multiple times...." That's not RP, that's crappy internet in a RTS simulation.

Where did people get the idea that grouping up would mean that you become a member of another player's bridge crew? I don't get it, I really don't. Never once have I seen the Defiant come to the aid of the Enterprise by transferring the bridge crew over... would that even make sense? Hell no it wouldn't!

"U.S.S. Yorktown here to assist you in the fight against these Klingons, prepare for a new bridge crew"

"Sure thing, just dock your capital ship with my skow so you can help me." States the captain of a trade vessel.

No, this doesn't work. Get a clue and then post here please?

Originally posted by Neanderthal

Originally posted by Linthead4504

And what does the Captain do in your scenario? The problem is... everyone will want to be the captain, or even the Pilot. What if you pilot flies all over the place and refuses to listen to the Captain? Then what?

If you say the Captain has all the power, well then what's the difference between the captain having the power over PC's or just being the Captain of your ship? Many people would rather just be the captain of their own ship there.

If you say there's nothing they can do, well then what fun is it if you're at the mercy of just 1 person? And if that's the case, why would anyone want to be anything other than the pilot?

 

If you read my earlier post in my opinion their shouldn't be a specific "captain" profession.  Everyone should be either a helmsman, a tactical officer, science officer, or whatever but no specific "captain" career.

When you put a group together the person who forms the group would be the Captain of that particular crew for the duration of the session.  So sometimes you would be the captain and sometimes someone else would be the captain.  But even if you are the captain you would still do your specific job in the group (piloting or engineer or tactical or whatever).  If they actually had you on the bridge inside the ship we can just assume that all jobs could be done from the captains chair.

If you get an idiot in your group like a pilot who "flies all over the place" you just leave that group and remember never to group with that guy again.   Take a shuttle back to the space station or beam back or whatever and get a different group or get a different pilot.  It's hardly an insurmountable task.

Because ships in the Star Trek universe changed captains every engagement?

Originally posted by gauge2k3

Because ships in the Star Trek universe changed captains every engagement?

We're talking about a game, remember?  If there were going to be human bridge crews people would have to let this slide just like in fantasy games they accept the fact that the same dragon can be killed a million times but never truly die.  It is a game after all, it's about having fun.  So let some other guy be captain today, you can be the captain tommorrow...geez, don't they teach good sportsmanship anymore?

And if you found a good group of people you really liked then you could always just stick with that group.  If you all agreed to let one member of the group always be the captain, then fine, do that.  If you were playing one day and your friends weren't logged on then maybe you could overcome your stubborness and join someone elses group for a while.  Yes, you might have to let some other guy be captain for a hour or two, God forbid, but I don't think it would kill you. 

The thing about this is that if being the captain wasn't that big a deal (he's just the guy who formed the group) I don't think people would get so hung up on it.

Originally posted by zeifertstc 

No, this doesn't work. Get a clue and then post here please?

I don't think you understood what I was talking about.  I was suggesting how it could have worked if they had decided to go more of a grouping route with player crews.  In my suggestion we wouldn't all be flying around in our own customized, hot rod, Star ships.  You wouldn't park your ship and then beam over to another guys ship.  You would group up with some people and then the group would be assigned to a standard configuration ship.  Maybe the rank of the crew members would determine which types of ships you could be assigned to.

But if you want to talk about ridiculous, immersion breaking silliness.  It's going to be pretty silly to have every player in the game flying around in his/her own personal, customized ship.  The ships in Star Trek were all standard issue models with just a very few special exceptions.  Each captain didn't have a modified hot rod to fly around in. 

Yeah, I can just see it now.  <<Captain Jaimes TTT Kirck #00347>>  Flying around in the <<Enterprise #558211098>> with spoilers on the warp nascelles, a turbo charger, and pretty flames painted on the sides.  Oh yeah, that's real "Star Trekky". 

Everyone gets to be Capt Kirk.  How stupid and lame.  Like everyone gets to be a Jedi, remember that one? 

Just garbage.

Originally posted by Neanderthal

So how would it play out in a battle?

This is a good example of creating a game in your head that ignores how players actually behave. Hardcore guild players - or those disciplined enough to play as a team - might work, but the vast majority of players wouldn't. Pick up groups (PUGs) would be out entirely.

Here's how it would actually play out:

You are fired on by an enemy ship. The science officer screams, "54 degs!", accidentally transposing the '4' and the '5' when typing. The helmsman - who'd had the ship on autopilot and had gone off to get a drink because they weren't at the mission zone yet, does nothing and the ship takes some hits. The engineer is deploying repair crews but the power is dropping so he cuts power to the weapons because he wants shields up and hates random encounters and wants engines powered to get away.

The science officer determines that the lower aft center shields of the enemy ship are weakest and informs tactical. Tactical screams, "Eng need powre foton torpedoes!"

The helmsman comes back and finds everyone screaming at him. "OMG laaaaaggg!" he screams.

The engineer screams, "no eng to weapons, eng to shields, eng to engines - run away. mob gives lousy xp and drops"

Tactical screams, "i wanna fight - take 5 mins ez kill'

Helmsman is already turning the ship around because he just wants to get the mission xp and quit the ship because he's going out tonight (it's D&D night).

ZOOMMM....the helmsman sweeps under and behind the enemy and turns about. While he's doing this the tactical officer Engineer diverts all shield power to the topside shields (because you're going under the enemy ship). BOOM---KABOOM...everyone leans hard to the left for a few seconds everyone watches their ship fly under the under ship in a range of differing graphics quailty and system lag. But it's not as bad as it could have been because the science officer was debuffing their sensors accuracy and was also using a -dmg debuff.

The Engineer screams, "y u fly thru them? run away"

Tactical--"FITEFITEFITEFITEFIT n00bs FITEFITEFITEFITE" because he can't do anything else since Engineering has control over his weapon power.

Engineering--keeps all power in engines and shields so they can fly away with minimal damage.

Tactical screams, "u all sux <CENSORED> later loosers" and quits.

Science officer changes to Tactical position because firing guns is much better than applying debuffs.

Engineer screams, "cant do away mission on this map with only 3 palyers - needs 4 min"

Helmsman goes "omg wtf? i gotta go bye" and quits because he doesn't want to have to wait while they recruit another team member.

Engineer quits without saying goodbye.

The former Science Officer, now Tactical offer switches to Helmsman and the ship to solo mode and goes back to blow up the random encounter mob.

Now wouldn't that be a heck of a lot more fun than having mindless NPCs automatically doing everything for you?

More memorable? Yes. More fun? No.

Everything the system previously described puts your effectiveness in the hands of another player. That's a recipe for disaster. Bad Helmsman? Tactical can't do their job, Engineering has to repair more damage. Bad Tactical Officer? You are slow in taking out your oppontent. Bad Engineer? They get the shields and repair wrong and the ship gets blown up (unless the Helmsman can run away fast enough).

Even Puzzle Pirates, which uses a team-based system, still has a Captain who actually makes the decisions. Starfleet / the military aren't democracies. Group decision making sucks in pressure situations where everyone has their own preferences and no-one has the final say on which direction they all go in.

Originally posted by UnSub

Originally posted by Neanderthal

So how would it play out in a battle?

This is a good example of creating a game in your head that ignores how players actually behave. Hardcore guild players - or those disciplined enough to play as a team - might work, but the vast majority of players wouldn't. Pick up groups (PUGs) would be out entirely.

Here's how it would actually play out:

You are fired on by an enemy ship. The science officer screams, "54 degs!", accidentally transposing the '4' and the '5' when typing. The helmsman - who'd had the ship on autopilot and had gone off to get a drink because they weren't at the mission zone yet, does nothing and the ship takes some hits. The engineer is deploying repair crews but the power is dropping so he cuts power to the weapons because he wants shields up and hates random encounters and wants engines powered to get away.

The science officer determines that the lower aft center shields of the enemy ship are weakest and informs tactical. Tactical screams, "Eng need powre foton torpedoes!"

The helmsman comes back and finds everyone screaming at him. "OMG laaaaaggg!" he screams.

The engineer screams, "no eng to weapons, eng to shields, eng to engines - run away. mob gives lousy xp and drops"

Tactical screams, "i wanna fight - take 5 mins ez kill'

Helmsman is already turning the ship around because he just wants to get the mission xp and quit the ship because he's going out tonight (it's D&D night).

ZOOMMM....the helmsman sweeps under and behind the enemy and turns about. While he's doing this the tactical officer Engineer diverts all shield power to the topside shields (because you're going under the enemy ship). BOOM---KABOOM...everyone leans hard to the left for a few seconds everyone watches their ship fly under the under ship in a range of differing graphics quailty and system lag. But it's not as bad as it could have been because the science officer was debuffing their sensors accuracy and was also using a -dmg debuff.

The Engineer screams, "y u fly thru them? run away"

Tactical--"FITEFITEFITEFITEFIT n00bs FITEFITEFITEFITE" because he can't do anything else since Engineering has control over his weapon power.

Engineering--keeps all power in engines and shields so they can fly away with minimal damage.

Tactical screams, "u all sux <CENSORED> later loosers" and quits.

Science officer changes to Tactical position because firing guns is much better than applying debuffs.

Engineer screams, "cant do away mission on this map with only 3 palyers - needs 4 min"

Helmsman goes "omg wtf? i gotta go bye" and quits because he doesn't want to have to wait while they recruit another team member.

Engineer quits without saying goodbye.

The former Science Officer, now Tactical offer switches to Helmsman and the ship to solo mode and goes back to blow up the random encounter mob.

 

Now wouldn't that be a heck of a lot more fun than having mindless NPCs automatically doing everything for you?

More memorable? Yes. More fun? No.

Everything the system previously described puts your effectiveness in the hands of another player. That's a recipe for disaster. Bad Helmsman? Tactical can't do their job, Engineering has to repair more damage. Bad Tactical Officer? You are slow in taking out your oppontent. Bad Engineer? They get the shields and repair wrong and the ship gets blown up (unless the Helmsman can run away fast enough).

Even Puzzle Pirates, which uses a team-based system, still has a Captain who actually makes the decisions. Starfleet / the military aren't democracies. Group decision making sucks in pressure situations where everyone has their own preferences and no-one has the final say on which direction they all go in.

Same can be said nearly any MMO out the... that just sounds like a bad PuG.  Most games now have elements that require coordination and teamwork to come out successfully.  You wouldn't attempt to  solo an at level instance in your favorite game knowing the encounter requires a full group. Sure it requires you to trust someone to do their job but what group scenario doesn't?  You have to trust the tank to hold aggro.  You have to trust the healer to keep said tank up.  You have to trust the buffers/debuffers to do what they do.  You have to trust the DPS to ... DPS.  If you don't want to trust someone else to do what they are supposed to be doing maybe you should lay off the MMO genre and stick to the single person games.

PC bridge crews is one element that I hope they plan on including.  Half the fun of playing a MMO game is the player interactions. 

These bridge crew fanatics are incredible.  Pretty sad when they list a page full of arguments, none of which make any sense.

Still waiting for someone to post a practical way to implement player bridge crews because it is my opinion you will fault flat on your face as all the previous posters have.

Originally posted by Ozmodan

These bridge crew fanatics are incredible.  Pretty sad when they list a page full of arguments, none of which make any sense.

Still waiting for someone to post a practical way to implement player bridge crews because it is my opinion you will fault flat on your face as all the previous posters have.

...  wut? pretty sure i read 1 or 2 in the 5 previous pages.  Maybe you need it more simply stated.

Already been said missions start from a station.  So you get 4 or 5 friends... and get on a ship.  I know! I know!  It's confusing but stay with me here.  One dude sits down at tactical and sees... get this... tactical stuff!  The next dude sits down at navigation and sees ... *gasp*.. a way to control how the ship moves.  And wait heres a really good part!  The guy that sits in engineering... repairs the ship!  No, really!

Not sure what you mean by "impliment" but technically there is no reason a PC can't take the place of an NPC.  It's already been stated they can for away missions, why not for ship duties?

Originally posted by UnSub

Originally posted by Neanderthal

So how would it play out in a battle?

This is a good example of creating a game in your head that ignores how players actually behave. Hardcore guild players - or those disciplined enough to play as a team - might work, but the vast majority of players wouldn't. Pick up groups (PUGs) would be out entirely.

Here's how it would actually play out:

You are fired on by an enemy ship. The science officer screams, "54 degs!", accidentally transposing the '4' and the '5' when typing. The helmsman - who'd had the ship on autopilot and had gone off to get a drink because they weren't at the mission zone yet, does nothing and the ship takes some hits. The engineer is deploying repair crews but the power is dropping so he cuts power to the weapons because he wants shields up and hates random encounters and wants engines powered to get away.

The science officer determines that the lower aft center shields of the enemy ship are weakest and informs tactical. Tactical screams, "Eng need powre foton torpedoes!"

The helmsman comes back and finds everyone screaming at him. "OMG laaaaaggg!" he screams.

The engineer screams, "no eng to weapons, eng to shields, eng to engines - run away. mob gives lousy xp and drops"

Tactical screams, "i wanna fight - take 5 mins ez kill'

Helmsman is already turning the ship around because he just wants to get the mission xp and quit the ship because he's going out tonight (it's D&D night).

ZOOMMM....the helmsman sweeps under and behind the enemy and turns about. While he's doing this the tactical officer Engineer diverts all shield power to the topside shields (because you're going under the enemy ship). BOOM---KABOOM...everyone leans hard to the left for a few seconds everyone watches their ship fly under the under ship in a range of differing graphics quailty and system lag. But it's not as bad as it could have been because the science officer was debuffing their sensors accuracy and was also using a -dmg debuff.

The Engineer screams, "y u fly thru them? run away"

Tactical--"FITEFITEFITEFITEFIT n00bs FITEFITEFITEFITE" because he can't do anything else since Engineering has control over his weapon power.

Engineering--keeps all power in engines and shields so they can fly away with minimal damage.

Tactical screams, "u all sux <CENSORED> later loosers" and quits.

Science officer changes to Tactical position because firing guns is much better than applying debuffs.

Engineer screams, "cant do away mission on this map with only 3 palyers - needs 4 min"

Helmsman goes "omg wtf? i gotta go bye" and quits because he doesn't want to have to wait while they recruit another team member.

Engineer quits without saying goodbye.

The former Science Officer, now Tactical offer switches to Helmsman and the ship to solo mode and goes back to blow up the random encounter mob.

 

Now wouldn't that be a heck of a lot more fun than having mindless NPCs automatically doing everything for you?

More memorable? Yes. More fun? No.

Everything the system previously described puts your effectiveness in the hands of another player. That's a recipe for disaster. Bad Helmsman? Tactical can't do their job, Engineering has to repair more damage. Bad Tactical Officer? You are slow in taking out your oppontent. Bad Engineer? They get the shields and repair wrong and the ship gets blown up (unless the Helmsman can run away fast enough).

Even Puzzle Pirates, which uses a team-based system, still has a Captain who actually makes the decisions. Starfleet / the military aren't democracies. Group decision making sucks in pressure situations where everyone has their own preferences and no-one has the final say on which direction they all go in.

That was some pretty good stuff there, Unsub.  Honest to God I almost did roll on the floor laughing.  Not being sarcastic either, it was very funny.

But yeah, sure, you would get some bad groups sometimes.  That's life, that's just how it goes.  But usually people would join a group because they want to do their part.  They want to accomplish something. Not so they can screw with people.

Something that might be helpfull would be sort of an un-friends list.  Call it a de-merits list that you could put people on to help you remember that you don't want to group with that person again.  It could even be automated so all you have to do is target a person or type their name in and then run a quick scan to see if they are on your list without having to read through the whole thing every time you want to check on someone.

To add to that idea, let people know how many different de-merit lists they have been added to.  If a person sees that he/she has been put on 40 different de-merit lists out the 50 people he/she has grouped with it might even encourge a few people to modify their behavior.

You said:

"Everything the system previously described puts your effectiveness in the hands of another player."

Well that's kind of the point of a player crew.  You each would rely on each other.  Each person does his or her job or you all die together.

No doubt about it there would be times when you would end up grouped with some idiot but then you just need to remember not to group with that guy again.  I suppose the captain (the group leader) could /kick someone from the group which would automatically send that person back to the nearest space station.  Then I suppose he, depending on how they wanted to work it, could either beam in a replacement from the LFG tool or the ship would automatically return to the space station so he could pick up a replacement there.  It doesn't have to be as impossible a thing as some people imagine.

Originally posted by willseeya

Originally posted by Ozmodan

These bridge crew fanatics are incredible.  Pretty sad when they list a page full of arguments, none of which make any sense.

Still waiting for someone to post a practical way to implement player bridge crews because it is my opinion you will fault flat on your face as all the previous posters have.

...  wut? pretty sure i read 1 or 2 in the 5 previous pages.  Maybe you need it more simply stated.

Already been said missions start from a station.  So you get 4 or 5 friends... and get on a ship.  I know! I know!  It's confusing but stay with me here.  One dude sits down at tactical and sees... get this... tactical stuff!  The next dude sits down at navigation and sees ... *gasp*.. a way to control how the ship moves.  And wait heres a really good part!  The guy that sits in engineering... repairs the ship!  No, really!

Not sure what you mean by "impliment" but technically there is no reason a PC can't take the place of an NPC.  It's already been stated they can for away missions, why not for ship duties?

Ya this person is a tool. Practical solutions have been provided on this and various other threads. You can tell he's full of it, cause he  doesn't actually refute anything which anyone interested in an actual discussion as opposed to trolling would do.

As another poster earlier on in this thread has stated, this game is sounding very reminiscent of Gods and Heroes -- a game that, unfortunately, never saw the light of day.

But more than that, STO reminds me a lot in basic design of Guild Wars, giving players the option of playing in groups or with henchmen/Heroes or with a mix of both other players and NPCs.

I think this is a really good thing. There are plenty of MMOs out there for group-minded individuals; there are relatively few that allow players to form their own crews/teams and just play the game rather than futzing around endlessly in LFG.

Simply stated, I like grouping occasionally, but if this game was not offering the NPC crew option, I would not play it. I see this game, if handled correctly, as a successor to Guild Wars (much more so than GW2, in fact). I am really looking forward to playing it.

Originally posted by UnSub

Originally posted by Neanderthal

So how would it play out in a battle?

This is a good example of creating a game in your head that ignores how players actually behave. Hardcore guild players - or those disciplined enough to play as a team - might work, but the vast majority of players wouldn't. Pick up groups (PUGs) would be out entirely.

Here's how it would actually play out:

You are fired on by an enemy ship. The science officer screams, "54 degs!", accidentally transposing the '4' and the '5' when typing. The helmsman - who'd had the ship on autopilot and had gone off to get a drink because they weren't at the mission zone yet, does nothing and the ship takes some hits. The engineer is deploying repair crews but the power is dropping so he cuts power to the weapons because he wants shields up and hates random encounters and wants engines powered to get away.

The science officer determines that the lower aft center shields of the enemy ship are weakest and informs tactical. Tactical screams, "Eng need powre foton torpedoes!"

The helmsman comes back and finds everyone screaming at him. "OMG laaaaaggg!" he screams.

The engineer screams, "no eng to weapons, eng to shields, eng to engines - run away. mob gives lousy xp and drops"

Tactical screams, "i wanna fight - take 5 mins ez kill'

Helmsman is already turning the ship around because he just wants to get the mission xp and quit the ship because he's going out tonight (it's D&D night).

ZOOMMM....the helmsman sweeps under and behind the enemy and turns about. While he's doing this the tactical officer Engineer diverts all shield power to the topside shields (because you're going under the enemy ship). BOOM---KABOOM...everyone leans hard to the left for a few seconds everyone watches their ship fly under the under ship in a range of differing graphics quailty and system lag. But it's not as bad as it could have been because the science officer was debuffing their sensors accuracy and was also using a -dmg debuff.

The Engineer screams, "y u fly thru them? run away"

Tactical--"FITEFITEFITEFITEFIT n00bs FITEFITEFITEFITE" because he can't do anything else since Engineering has control over his weapon power.

Engineering--keeps all power in engines and shields so they can fly away with minimal damage.

Tactical screams, "u all sux <CENSORED> later loosers" and quits.

Science officer changes to Tactical position because firing guns is much better than applying debuffs.

Engineer screams, "cant do away mission on this map with only 3 palyers - needs 4 min"

Helmsman goes "omg wtf? i gotta go bye" and quits because he doesn't want to have to wait while they recruit another team member.

Engineer quits without saying goodbye.

The former Science Officer, now Tactical offer switches to Helmsman and the ship to solo mode and goes back to blow up the random encounter mob.

 

Now wouldn't that be a heck of a lot more fun than having mindless NPCs automatically doing everything for you?

More memorable? Yes. More fun? No.

I would hate if everybody became a captain but on the other hand, you're totally correct it would play out like that if it were implemented. It would require teamwork and finding random PUG's that has it is next to impossible. Good teamwork that is. Happens sometimes but not so often. The only groups of people it would work for are friends and guildmates.

However, I really liked the idea nonetheless. It sounds like you could feel alone quite easily if each person captained their own private ship.

So I wondered - maybe the better the ships, the more people it would require to fly it optimally as the tasks get increasingly difficult. Small ships only require you as the captain since they don't have so many different functions. Or just replace those positions with NPC's in small ships for the sake of gameplay.

That way, depending on the size of the guild, you would get more powerful ships but which also requires more people. A group of friends would also be able to fly in one ship, albeit a weaker one than a guild would be able to require - but that's how it always is, I guess.

Of course, there's the question: why use 4 people in one ship when you could have 4 different ships then. But that's a matter of balance. Say each small ship can only debuff or attack or whatever, having a large ship with ALL of those functions would still perform as well as the small ones combined. I could come up with more suggestions but I'll leave that to the developers (hopefully : P)

Another thing would be the lore. I'm not sure whether or not such small ships already exist but I guess with some artistic freedom, they do exist : )

I doubt I'll be playing this since I rather this be more of a group game. To me this just sounds like your run of the mill single player game. When I think of Star Trek, I think of a ship with a crew of other people. Not NPC's that you earn by doing certain things in the game. Star Trek Online should have it where people should work together on ships.

Well, if we couldn't have a sandbox Star Trek mmog, where one would start as a cadet at the Academy, train, start at a space station and perhaps go work at a starship and perhaps achieve captain's chair, I think what they've come up is good, even interesting.

Still, I can't stop thinking on the comparison: the bridge crew are the weapons of the captain-warrior - you train with each one and develop your skills on it. After that successful dungeon last night, he managed to get a green new crew member, which he'll equip on the new slot (station) and trade or sell his previous crew member.

Crew members grant buffs? What a magical thing! I wonder to whom will the captain-warrior turn to when his bridge crew worns out? A shore-leave on a quick warp to the planet "Re-pair IX"?

I shiver, thinking of raid nights so that everybody in the Fleet gets their purple items...

Originally posted by UnSub

Originally posted by Neanderthal

So how would it play out in a battle?

This is a good example of creating a game in your head that ignores how players actually behave. Hardcore guild players - or those disciplined enough to play as a team - might work, but the vast majority of players wouldn't. Pick up groups (PUGs) would be out entirely.

Here's how it would actually play out:

You are fired on by an enemy ship. The science officer screams, "54 degs!", accidentally transposing the '4' and the '5' when typing. The helmsman - who'd had the ship on autopilot and had gone off to get a drink because they weren't at the mission zone yet, does nothing and the ship takes some hits. The engineer is deploying repair crews but the power is dropping so he cuts power to the weapons because he wants shields up and hates random encounters and wants engines powered to get away.

The science officer determines that the lower aft center shields of the enemy ship are weakest and informs tactical. Tactical screams, "Eng need powre foton torpedoes!"

The helmsman comes back and finds everyone screaming at him. "OMG laaaaaggg!" he screams.

The engineer screams, "no eng to weapons, eng to shields, eng to engines - run away. mob gives lousy xp and drops"

Tactical screams, "i wanna fight - take 5 mins ez kill'

Helmsman is already turning the ship around because he just wants to get the mission xp and quit the ship because he's going out tonight (it's D&D night).

ZOOMMM....the helmsman sweeps under and behind the enemy and turns about. While he's doing this the tactical officer Engineer diverts all shield power to the topside shields (because you're going under the enemy ship). BOOM---KABOOM...everyone leans hard to the left for a few seconds everyone watches their ship fly under the under ship in a range of differing graphics quailty and system lag. But it's not as bad as it could have been because the science officer was debuffing their sensors accuracy and was also using a -dmg debuff.

The Engineer screams, "y u fly thru them? run away"

Tactical--"FITEFITEFITEFITEFIT n00bs FITEFITEFITEFITE" because he can't do anything else since Engineering has control over his weapon power.

Engineering--keeps all power in engines and shields so they can fly away with minimal damage.

Tactical screams, "u all sux <CENSORED> later loosers" and quits.

Science officer changes to Tactical position because firing guns is much better than applying debuffs.

Engineer screams, "cant do away mission on this map with only 3 palyers - needs 4 min"

Helmsman goes "omg wtf? i gotta go bye" and quits because he doesn't want to have to wait while they recruit another team member.

Engineer quits without saying goodbye.

The former Science Officer, now Tactical offer switches to Helmsman and the ship to solo mode and goes back to blow up the random encounter mob.

 

Now wouldn't that be a heck of a lot more fun than having mindless NPCs automatically doing everything for you?

More memorable? Yes. More fun? No.

Everything the system previously described puts your effectiveness in the hands of another player. That's a recipe for disaster. Bad Helmsman? Tactical can't do their job, Engineering has to repair more damage. Bad Tactical Officer? You are slow in taking out your oppontent. Bad Engineer? They get the shields and repair wrong and the ship gets blown up (unless the Helmsman can run away fast enough).

Even Puzzle Pirates, which uses a team-based system, still has a Captain who actually makes the decisions. Starfleet / the military aren't democracies. Group decision making sucks in pressure situations where everyone has their own preferences and no-one has the final say on which direction they all go in.

That is a perfect example of what would happen and the game would die quick. Not to mention the fun that is had by all of even looking for groups in the first place. You would have tons of players hanging around starports shouting "LFG" just like they did in SWG. Sometimes you would find a group in 5 minutes and at other times it would take as long as 30 minutes. That's valuable time being wasted and not everyone has multiple hours to kill. Then after you FINALLY get your group together people would start  leaving after the first few lairs until eventually you are back at the starport looking for people. No thanks.

---

Originally posted by ktanner3

---

Originally posted by UnSub

---

Originally posted by Neanderthal

 

So how would it play out in a battle?

---

This is a good example of creating a game in your head that ignores how players actually behave. Hardcore guild players - or those disciplined enough to play as a team - might work, but the vast majority of players wouldn't. Pick up groups (PUGs) would be out entirely.
Here's how it would actually play out:
You are fired on by an enemy ship. The science officer screams, "54 degs!", accidentally transposing the '4' and the '5' when typing. The helmsman - who'd had the ship on autopilot and had gone off to get a drink because they weren't at the mission zone yet, does nothing and the ship takes some hits. The engineer is deploying repair crews but the power is dropping so he cuts power to the weapons because he wants shields up and hates random encounters and wants engines powered to get away.
The science officer determines that the lower aft center shields of the enemy ship are weakest and informs tactical. Tactical screams, "Eng need powre foton torpedoes!"
The helmsman comes back and finds everyone screaming at him. "OMG laaaaaggg!" he screams.
The engineer screams, "no eng to weapons, eng to shields, eng to engines - run away. mob gives lousy xp and drops"
Tactical screams, "i wanna fight - take 5 mins ez kill'
Helmsman is already turning the ship around because he just wants to get the mission xp and quit the ship because he's going out tonight (it's D&D night).
ZOOMMM....the helmsman sweeps under and behind the enemy and turns about. While he's doing this the tactical officer Engineer diverts all shield power to the topside shields (because you're going under the enemy ship). BOOM---KABOOM...everyone leans hard to the left for a few seconds everyone watches their ship fly under the under ship in a range of differing graphics quailty and system lag. But it's not as bad as it could have been because the science officer was debuffing their sensors accuracy and was also using a -dmg debuff.
The Engineer screams, "y u fly thru them? run away"
Tactical--"FITEFITEFITEFITEFIT n00bs FITEFITEFITEFITE" because he can't do anything else since Engineering has control over his weapon power.
Engineering--keeps all power in engines and shields so they can fly away with minimal damage.
Tactical screams, "u all sux <CENSORED> later loosers" and quits.
Science officer changes to Tactical position because firing guns is much better than applying debuffs.
Engineer screams, "cant do away mission on this map with only 3 palyers - needs 4 min"
Helmsman goes "omg wtf? i gotta go bye" and quits because he doesn't want to have to wait while they recruit another team member.
Engineer quits without saying goodbye.
The former Science Officer, now Tactical offer switches to Helmsman and the ship to solo mode and goes back to blow up the random encounter mob.
 
Now wouldn't that be a heck of a lot more fun than having mindless NPCs automatically doing everything for you?
More memorable? Yes. More fun? No.
Everything the system previously described puts your effectiveness in the hands of another player. That's a recipe for disaster. Bad Helmsman? Tactical can't do their job, Engineering has to repair more damage. Bad Tactical Officer? You are slow in taking out your oppontent. Bad Engineer? They get the shields and repair wrong and the ship gets blown up (unless the Helmsman can run away fast enough).
Even Puzzle Pirates, which uses a team-based system, still has a Captain who actually makes the decisions. Starfleet / the military aren't democracies. Group decision making sucks in pressure situations where everyone has their own preferences and no-one has the final say on which direction they all go in.

---

 

 
That is a perfect example of what would happen and the game would die quick. Not to mention the fun that is had by all of even looking for groups in the first place. You would have tons of players hanging around starports shouting "LFG" just like they did in SWG. Sometimes you would find a group in 5 minutes and at other times it would take as long as 30 minutes. That's valuable time being wasted and not everyone has multiple hours to kill. Then after you FINALLY get your group together people would start  leaving after the first few lairs until eventually you are back at the starport looking for people. No thanks.

---

 
Nobody is saying you must have PCs on the bridge.  The NPC's will fill in for those that want to solo or if you can't find that navigation guy at the station grab your gunner and engineer friends and the 3 of you and a couple NPC to fill out the group and you're good to go.  If you want to stick around station for a little while to get a group full of PCs that's great but you wouldn't be required to.  That's what all the training you give your NPCs if for.  You'll still want good NPC "pets" and some of them may be better at say engineering than your friend that wants to come with you. 
 
A little reading on the STO forums leads me to believe that PC bridge crews won't be available at launch but could possible be added in at a later time. 
 

---

No cooperative bridge play, at least not at launch.

---

 
as posted in a sticky at STO fourms written by Hyord, his reference was a Q&A session at Gencon 2008

The thing is, no one here has ever said do away with the NPC crew idea entirely.  All everyone want's is the ability / option of allowing another player to come onto his ship, group and do stuff together.  Yes harder missions will require 'groups' which I'm sure will mean 2, 3 or more ships grouped into a fleet to beat the boss MOB, but for other missions, why not hang with your buddies?

And for our friend that keeps whinning for a how to:  Want an easy, already tried 'what the other players are going to do' solution?  SWG Multi-player ships.  Pilot (Captian), Ops postion (sensors, Engineering), and gunners (tactical).  Sure seems to work there.  Saturday afternoon Starsider Imp vs Reb Space Pvp battles - 3 or more hours of hammering the dog snot out of each other.  Don't want to group? Don't, solo in your own ship, want to group? let people know you're up to be someone's crew.  Pug's all the way and you know what?  We all wanted to be there so you rarely got the village fool type coming on.  If you couldn't fly with an extra body in case of a drop out, the Ops guy would shift to a gun and run both.  It worked just fine, even with lag, different internet speeds, different computer spec's.

I wouldn't want to HAVE to group on the same ship 100% of the time, I'm a casual player, log on play for 1-2 hours log off.  That wouldn't be a good addition to a group.  But there are times I'm on long, or I get invited to go see area X which is levels above me and would be instant death when going on a strong players ship would be nice.

I've never actually posted on a thread here, but I felt compelled to respond to this one.

Firstly, I have to say that I agree completely with Unsub, trying to get anything done when your bridge crew is made up of players sounds like a complete nightmare waiting to happen.  Imagine trying to play your cleric where one player is in charge of movement, one player is in charge of your weapons, one player is in charge of healing and one player is in charge of offensive spells- that's how I view this thought of players on a crew.

No, the way they have planned where grouping means an armada of ships is perfect.  Yes, grouping is an important part of any MMO, but you never want to be in a position where you are so very reliant on the group to not make your avatar worthless.... And while you are in space, the ship is your avatar.  It needs to be able to move, defend and fight all at ONE PERSON'S direction.  Group play in space just means making the encounters involve more ships.  Five romulan craft zip in from the aft side of your armada and you each have your role to play to survive the encounter as a group.  You may have a big destroyer class ship, everyone's going to see you as the tank.  Larry over there has a Hermes class ship and is kinda like the ranger of the group, darting about and taking potshots where he can.

I really can't even imagine playing this game if I had to play a <whatever> officer on a ship and didn't get to just have my own ship in the armada.  In fact, I had little more than idle interest in this game until I read this article.

[Helmsman]: "I'm bringing her around, I think we have them on their last legs!"
[Engineer]: "ZOMG NEWB I told u we hav no shields!!!!! L2P!!!"

Originally posted by TCrossBar

I've never actually posted on a thread here, but I felt compelled to respond to this one.

Firstly, I have to say that I agree completely with Unsub, trying to get anything done when your bridge crew is made up of players sounds like a complete nightmare waiting to happen.  Imagine trying to play your cleric where one player is in charge of movement, one player is in charge of your weapons, one player is in charge of healing and one player is in charge of offensive spells- that's how I view this thought of players on a crew.

No, the way they have planned where grouping means an armada of ships is perfect.  Yes, grouping is an important part of any MMO, but you never want to be in a position where you are so very reliant on the group to not make your avatar worthless.... And while you are in space, the ship is your avatar.  It needs to be able to move, defend and fight all at ONE PERSON'S direction.  Group play in space just means making the encounters involve more ships.  Five romulan craft zip in from the aft side of your armada and you each have your role to play to survive the encounter as a group.  You may have a big destroyer class ship, everyone's going to see you as the tank.  Larry over there has a Hermes class ship and is kinda like the ranger of the group, darting about and taking potshots where he can.

I really can't even imagine playing this game if I had to play a <whatever> officer on a ship and didn't get to just have my own ship in the armada.  In fact, I had little more than idle interest in this game until I read this article.

[Helmsman]: "I'm bringing her around, I think we have them on their last legs!"
[Engineer]: "ZOMG NEWB I told u we hav no shields!!!!! L2P!!!"

Gameplay-wise, I agree with you.

But "trekkie"-wise, isn't it what exactly happens in the bridge of command of a Starfleet starship? Everyone does his/her job and the captain is counting on each one to do their best? Another comparison could be with American football. Wouldn't it be awesome to be playing with friends and know you won the battle or saved the ship or whatever, just because the "officers" did what they were supposed to be? REAL teamwork?

Would be hard to come up with something like that in a MMOG, where you have lots of casual players (at best), but it does happen in Star Trek play-by-mails (no, I'm not urging a pbmMMOG). But then it would have to be something more like a hardcore sandbox mmog, instead of the crappy "casual" tendency of nowadays...

Originally posted by dhayes68

Since they do have bridge crews, they could have easily let the spots on the bride be played either by players or npc's. If a player leaves, auto-replaced by npc.

I've finally come to realize that while Cryptic may make a game I want to play, they're not making a Star Trek game I would want to play. Because they've chosen an IP that has such a following and so much lore built into it, and so much expectation driving it, the argument of whether its a good game and whether its a good Star Trek game are two different arguments.

I wonder if these bridge slots will actually be NPC avatars, or will they be icons on a toolbar?  The former implies Bridge interior which we know won't exist at launch.  My guess is that while on ship, you have your crew icons and then just click on them to activate their various functionality.

Originally posted by Ozmodan

These bridge crew fanatics are incredible.  Pretty sad when they list a page full of arguments, none of which make any sense.

Still waiting for someone to post a practical way to implement player bridge crews because it is my opinion you will fault flat on your face as all the previous posters have.

Your challenge was rebutted, successfully. That it disproves your point is apparent because all you can do is resort to name-calling and generalized attacks rather than a reasoned response.

Originally posted by ktanner3

Originally posted by UnSub

Originally posted by Neanderthal

So how would it play out in a battle?

This is a good example of creating a game in your head that ignores how players actually behave. Hardcore guild players - or those disciplined enough to play as a team - might work, but the vast majority of players wouldn't. Pick up groups (PUGs) would be out entirely.

Here's how it would actually play out:

You are fired on by an enemy ship. The science officer screams, "54 degs!", accidentally transposing the '4' and the '5' when typing. The helmsman - who'd had the ship on autopilot and had gone off to get a drink because they weren't at the mission zone yet, does nothing and the ship takes some hits. The engineer is deploying repair crews but the power is dropping so he cuts power to the weapons because he wants shields up and hates random encounters and wants engines powered to get away.

The science officer determines that the lower aft center shields of the enemy ship are weakest and informs tactical. Tactical screams, "Eng need powre foton torpedoes!"

The helmsman comes back and finds everyone screaming at him. "OMG laaaaaggg!" he screams.

The engineer screams, "no eng to weapons, eng to shields, eng to engines - run away. mob gives lousy xp and drops"

Tactical screams, "i wanna fight - take 5 mins ez kill'

Helmsman is already turning the ship around because he just wants to get the mission xp and quit the ship because he's going out tonight (it's D&D night).

ZOOMMM....the helmsman sweeps under and behind the enemy and turns about. While he's doing this the tactical officer Engineer diverts all shield power to the topside shields (because you're going under the enemy ship). BOOM---KABOOM...everyone leans hard to the left for a few seconds everyone watches their ship fly under the under ship in a range of differing graphics quailty and system lag. But it's not as bad as it could have been because the science officer was debuffing their sensors accuracy and was also using a -dmg debuff.

The Engineer screams, "y u fly thru them? run away"

Tactical--"FITEFITEFITEFITEFIT n00bs FITEFITEFITEFITE" because he can't do anything else since Engineering has control over his weapon power.

Engineering--keeps all power in engines and shields so they can fly away with minimal damage.

Tactical screams, "u all sux <CENSORED> later loosers" and quits.

Science officer changes to Tactical position because firing guns is much better than applying debuffs.

Engineer screams, "cant do away mission on this map with only 3 palyers - needs 4 min"

Helmsman goes "omg wtf? i gotta go bye" and quits because he doesn't want to have to wait while they recruit another team member.

Engineer quits without saying goodbye.

The former Science Officer, now Tactical offer switches to Helmsman and the ship to solo mode and goes back to blow up the random encounter mob.

 

Now wouldn't that be a heck of a lot more fun than having mindless NPCs automatically doing everything for you?

More memorable? Yes. More fun? No.

Everything the system previously described puts your effectiveness in the hands of another player. That's a recipe for disaster. Bad Helmsman? Tactical can't do their job, Engineering has to repair more damage. Bad Tactical Officer? You are slow in taking out your oppontent. Bad Engineer? They get the shields and repair wrong and the ship gets blown up (unless the Helmsman can run away fast enough).

Even Puzzle Pirates, which uses a team-based system, still has a Captain who actually makes the decisions. Starfleet / the military aren't democracies. Group decision making sucks in pressure situations where everyone has their own preferences and no-one has the final say on which direction they all go in.

 

That is a perfect example of what would happen and the game would die quick. Not to mention the fun that is had by all of even looking for groups in the first place. You would have tons of players hanging around starports shouting "LFG" just like they did in SWG. Sometimes you would find a group in 5 minutes and at other times it would take as long as 30 minutes. That's valuable time being wasted and not everyone has multiple hours to kill. Then after you FINALLY get your group together people would start  leaving after the first few lairs until eventually you are back at the starport looking for people. No thanks.

This reply is so intellectually dishonest -- Every MMO in existence already experiences the mock scenario described above. And no MMO has died because of it.  And if you think it will NOT happen in the current STO configuration, your naive. Their will be group content for multiple ships, no doubt. Players will be hanging around starbases with their ships (just as they do at times in EVE), looking for groups. 

The contorted lengths to which some posters will go in order 'win the internets argument' is astounding.

Originally posted by TCrossBar

I've never actually posted on a thread here, but I felt compelled to respond to this one. (Whose alt account are you?)

Firstly, I have to say that I agree completely with Unsub, trying to get anything done when your bridge crew is made up of players sounds like a complete nightmare waiting to happen.  Imagine trying to play your cleric where one player is in charge of movement, one player is in charge of your weapons, one player is in charge of healing and one player is in charge of offensive spells- that's how I view this thought of players on a crew.

Imagine trying to play your warrior when one player is in charge of healing you, one player is in charge of feeding you power, one player is in charge of buffing you, one player is in charge of keeping agro on you...

Your example is completely irrelevant as the PC bridge crew described in this thread would mimic almost every experience one already has in MMOs.  And if one needed further proof, others have pointed out that SWG multi-crew ships worked extremely well -- someone piloting, someone gunning, someone putting out fires.

Originally posted by Cerion

Originally posted by TCrossBar

I've never actually posted on a thread here, but I felt compelled to respond to this one. (Whose alt account are you?)

Firstly, I have to say that I agree completely with Unsub, trying to get anything done when your bridge crew is made up of players sounds like a complete nightmare waiting to happen.  Imagine trying to play your cleric where one player is in charge of movement, one player is in charge of your weapons, one player is in charge of healing and one player is in charge of offensive spells- that's how I view this thought of players on a crew.

 

Imagine trying to play your warrior when one player is in charge of healing you, one player is in charge of feeding you power, one player is in charge of buffing you, one player is in charge of keeping agro on you...

Your example is completely irrelevant as the PC bridge crew described in this thread would mimic almost every experience one already has in MMOs.  And if one needed further proof, others have pointed out that SWG multi-crew ships worked extremely well -- someone piloting, someone gunning, someone putting out fires.

First off, SWG mutligun ships are ok, but they have very limited functionality.  You either fly or shoot, so it is a very limited multi function.  The problem that most of you can't get through your thick skulls is that beyond those functions coming up with something for others in the group to do that is meaningful in a fight is a real flight in fantasy.   So most will want to be captain, a few will want to be gunners and the rest well...good luck.  The more you think about it the more you will realize how a multi class crew just will not function well in a MMO setting.

Besides as someone pointed out previously on a ship, captains word is law, how is that going to fly in a MMO?  It isn't.  You can argue all you want about a bridge crew, but I have not seen one argument in this thread supporting it that makes one iota of sense.

Originally posted by Zerocyde

I'm really excited to hear this, but I'm kind of worried at how he compares bridge officers to freaking epic gear. I think he even said "phat lootz" like a idiot also. Wouldn't it be kind of stupid for like, everyone to be trying to get the SAME person on their ship? All crew members and bridge officers should be uniquely named.

My understanding is that it's not like everyone is going to get "Spock"--you complete a mission/arc/whatever and get a science officer with high level computing skills. Then you complete another arc and get an engineer who is really good at repair. Then you have your science officer cross-train your engineer and your engineer is able to acheive a more efficient dilithium mix.

So instead of getting specific named people, you get people with specific skills. Eventually, you can have one of your science officers cross-trained by all your other science officeres and wind up with an uber-science officer.

Originally posted by Ozmodan 

First off, SWG mutligun ships are ok, but they have very limited functionality.  You either fly or shoot, so it is a very limited multi function.  The problem that most of you can't get through your thick skulls is that beyond those functions coming up with something for others in the group to do that is meaningful in a fight is a real flight in fantasy.   So most will want to be captain, a few will want to be gunners and the rest well...good luck.  The more you think about it the more you will realize how a multi class crew just will not function well in a MMO setting.

I've gotten to the point here I actually look forward to your blue text as it always makes me smile, you just don't have a clue do you? If you've ever played SWG there's no way you'd even have posted the above.

While your first sentence "First off, SWG mutligun ships are ok, but they have very limited functionality."  is true, the fact that they are still in use means that players have found a place for them.

For the small 2 man ships, yes 'fly or shoot' is the only option be it strapped in the back of a Tie, or the top of a Y-wing or 'gila.  But for the larger you seem to have blown over the Ops position or even the spare body doing repair work.  I know the ships I've been on have lasted (well atleast 10 sec longer :) ) in a fire fight because the Ops guy shutted shields to protect us or the repair guy hustled his fanny down to fix a coolant leak.  So finding something meaningful in a fight isn't such a fantasy is it?

Did it get boring sitting in my gun turret while the pilot took us all over and I had nothing to do?  Yes but that's why chat was invented.  I never got the feeling I was a fifth wheel or something. 

If it's just all about you, then fine, fly your own ship, be the Captain and NPC crew and go to town.  No one's making you have players on your ship, but don't whine if no one wants you in thier fleet the next battle because you couldn't follow the orders of your squadron commander.  Oh wait there's that following orders for the good of the group thing again ......

Originally posted by TCrossBar

 Group play in space just means making the encounters involve more ships.  Five romulan craft zip in from the aft side of your armada and you each have your role to play to survive the encounter as a group.  You may have a big destroyer class ship, everyone's going to see you as the tank.  Larry over there has a Hermes class ship and is kinda like the ranger of the group, darting about and taking potshots where he can.

Ok, so what is the difference between everyone doing their part with different ships and everyone doing their part as crew on one ship?  Really, how can people so adamantly insist that one is impossible while the other is perfectly fine and workable when both scenerios come down to the same thing: people doing their part in a group.

So in your multi-ship groups what happens if the destroyer (tank) doesn't "hold agro"?  What happens if the DPS ships don't do their part?  What happens if the repair ship or science vessel or whatever doesn't do it's part?  What happens if a player controlling one of the ships lags at a critical moment?

How can people say that's it's impossible for people to successfully work together as a group when talking about player crew and then just assume that all of the problems they were just expounding will not affect groups of ships?

It's the same damn thing.  The only difference is that instead of having different jobs performed by crew on one ship you instead have multiple ships each performing different functions.

And what about away missions?  They have said that it will be possible to group with other players for those, groups entirely composed of ship Captains which is pretty damn silly..but whatever.  So why aren't people arguing that this shouldn't be included because of the impossibility of successfull cooperation between human players? 

And why aren't people bringing up the "but who's in charge" argument in regard to away missions and groups of ships?  Every argument that people have used against player crews could also be applied to fleets and away missions but, mysteriously, nobody is doing that.

You know, I was sort of joking around before when I was talking about everyone wanting to be Captain Kirk and having their own customized, hot rod starship.  But now I'm starting to think that that is what this argument is really all about.  The people arguing against player crews don't seem to have any problem with grouping as long it doesn't threaten their desire to have their own personal, ugpradable, hot rod to fly around in and to always be the Captain.  So it's not grouping that is the problem it's the percieved threat to personal e-peen that is getting people worked up.

Ok, so how about if everyone gets their own personal, upgradable ship...but...you could invite other players to crew on your ship?    So you guys could still do all the "Pimp my ride" stuff that you're dreaming about AND have player crews in the game at the same time.  Of course I don't expect this suggestion to change anyone's mind either because people would be afraid that they might occassionally have to leave their ship and serve as crew on someone else's ship, OMG!!!

So why can't I have a crew made up of my friends (or at least some of them) instead of all NPCs?  O_o

Fantastic approach to the game!

This makes it just about perfect for solo players, and groups alike! It reminds me of Guild Wars, where you could hire Henchmen and control them in combat. You could also group with another player and decide who would bring henchmen to round out the team.

Balancing content should also be easier, as you have a set group, 5 players always.

This seems like the best of both worlds for Solo and Group oriented players. If you're lucky I guess you can actually do away missions with 5 human players :-)

What would be interesting, though, is the AI. How much control will you have over your Bridge Team in battle?

The game that I found did this wonderfully is Final Fantasy XII with the Gambit system, whereby you could more or less setup your NPC team member's response to various situations such as Low Health, first line attacks etc. etc. This reduced Micromanagement in the heat of battle tremendously, and prevented fights from becoming crazy click-fests, but still allowed you finer control if you really needed it.

Well with the presentation of this NPC bridgecrew mechanic, we can safely say that we will never see player bridge crew in the game. Ever!

Thanks. But no thanks.

Basically, the only real grouping mechanic will be Space battles with numerious ships. And we got that already with EVE Online and upcoming titles as JGE and BP.

I cannot see ground away missions with a group of ship captains. Pretty much immersion breaking if you ask me and downright silly.

Cheers

Wow.  I'm wasn't sure who to exactly reply too, cos everyone brings up some very good points overall, so I'll just try to hit as many points as I can.

Firstly, I'm no alt account... I just have never posted on any of these forums ever.. I just thought that this particular conversation was specifically very interesting!  Especially since I originally assumed that everyone would start as a starfleet cadet and would have to work their way up through the ranks "Doing their time" on other people's ship, and thus had NO INTEREST IN THIS GAME until I read this blurb.

Next.. I didn't say that the idea of pc bridge crews were impossible, I just said that they would be incredibly frustrating.  I understand that everyone who is for them sees them as fundamentally the same thing, but they differ in some extremely important (to many of us) ways.

The biggest and most important difference is that one thing that players of every MMO seem to universally agree on is that it sucks to not have (for whatever mechanical reason) control over your character.  Stuns, fears, dazes, mezzes, slows, mc's, roots, snares.. whatever form they come in, it seems to be a universally hated mechanic.  If you have an entire group of people all on one ship, only a single person has control over that character's effective motion / movement.  To a purist, that one person should be the captain.  In gameplay terms, it winds up being the helm... which brings me to my second point.

In the movies, the captain says "Go left and fire full torpedoes!" and the helmsmen punches in "L E F T" and the ship goes left and the weapons officer punches the big bright red torpedo button and everyone goes "AHA! Bold move captain!"  In an MMO, the Captain says "GO LEFT ADN SHOOT TROPEDOS!" and fifteen seconds later the helmsman notices it and says "LOL OOPS" because the ship has already careened off to the right into a bigger group of enemies that the science officer picked up on scanner and failed to mention on group chat cos he's in vent with the captain and mentioned it there instead.  Meanwhile the weapons guy has just fired torpedoes into a group (cos he's a good group mate) as requested into the big group that was up until that moment actually neutral.  This kinda speaks to the points about doing play by mail, as well.  I have no problem agreeing that the sort of gameplay would be quite interesting and fun in a turn based type situation, but in a 'live' type setting, no matter which person I was in that group, I'd be annoyed... as the helmsman I'd be annoyed for not being told that the group was there hanging out right behind the asteroid debris, as the captain I'd be annoyed that my orders weren't followed, as the science guy I'd be annoyed that the helmsman refuses to buy headphones and a mic, and as the weapons officer I'd be annoyed that everyone is now yelling at me for doing what I was told to do.

Consider that scenario in an armada situation.   Big destroyer ship bears left and the rest of his group don't notice in time and break right, one member accidentally engages a gaggle of neutral mobs way too high for the group.. Everyone else can limp away, try to save him, try to slow the gaggle of neutrals and help him limp away... point is, there are choices that just don't have the complication and frustration factor that the 'pc bridge crew' model has.  Sure they have their own complications.. yes as a scout vessel I'm relying on my destroyer to keep the majority of the torpedoes aimed at him instead of me.. but I don't think it's too much to ask that your ship (which is, while in space, your character) work pretty much without a hitch unless acted upon by a specifically detrimental force.

The one thing that this detracts from in some ways is the 'surprise me' factor.  Happens in the movies, capt. gives general orders or isn't able to give orders and a member of the crew surprises him with some brilliant thing he pulls out of his ..exhaust port...?  But, I think we see those situations in group play on any MMO, and still can.. that scout that is under heavy fire and the 'tank' ship is having a hard time intercepting the ...interceptors.. and another scout comes out of nowhere and saves the day.. that sort of thing.  Sure you can't go "Good job, ensign, you deserve a promotion.. congrats you get to be chief engineer now!", but saving a fellow captain's ship has its own rewards, I think.

Lastly, to the comment about 'everyone wanting to be captain kirk with his own hot-rod ship'... I don't really see that generalization as a fair one, personally.  I know I don't really care what ship I have, as long as it suits the role I want to perform when in a 'space group' situation, and it gets me to where I want to go do 'away team' missions with my buddies.  Assuming that just because someone wants control of their own character means that they want to paint flames on the side of their character and brag about doing the kessel run in- wait.. wrong property... Anyway... Point being that the benefit of this system to me isn't that I want ooh phat lewtz ship bling, but rather that my standard issue ship is mine to point in the direction I choose and shoot at the things that I choose.

Oh, and just as an aside, I like the idea of having my crew being the 'loot', and I like that the crew will all be customizable (and thus very personal and unique), and tradeable.  Very cool, imo.

Originally posted by Nebless

Originally posted by Ozmodan 

First off, SWG mutligun ships are ok, but they have very limited functionality.  You either fly or shoot, so it is a very limited multi function.  The problem that most of you can't get through your thick skulls is that beyond those functions coming up with something for others in the group to do that is meaningful in a fight is a real flight in fantasy.   So most will want to be captain, a few will want to be gunners and the rest well...good luck.  The more you think about it the more you will realize how a multi class crew just will not function well in a MMO setting.

 

I've gotten to the point here I actually look forward to your blue text as it always makes me smile, you just don't have a clue do you? If you've ever played SWG there's no way you'd even have posted the above.

While your first sentence "First off, SWG mutligun ships are ok, but they have very limited functionality."  is true, the fact that they are still in use means that players have found a place for them.

For the small 2 man ships, yes 'fly or shoot' is the only option be it strapped in the back of a Tie, or the top of a Y-wing or 'gila.  But for the larger you seem to have blown over the Ops position or even the spare body doing repair work.  I know the ships I've been on have lasted (well atleast 10 sec longer :) ) in a fire fight because the Ops guy shutted shields to protect us or the repair guy hustled his fanny down to fix a coolant leak.  So finding something meaningful in a fight isn't such a fantasy is it?

Did it get boring sitting in my gun turret while the pilot took us all over and I had nothing to do?  Yes but that's why chat was invented.  I never got the feeling I was a fifth wheel or something. 

If it's just all about you, then fine, fly your own ship, be the Captain and NPC crew and go to town.  No one's making you have players on your ship, but don't whine if no one wants you in thier fleet the next battle because you couldn't follow the orders of your squadron commander.  Oh wait there's that following orders for the good of the group thing again ......

Actually the only clueless person posting here is you.  I tend to fly at least a couple weekends a month.  The fact is that no one wants to fly in the multiplayer ships, they are NO FUN!  I very rarely see them in action at all.  There are some two mans, but the bigger ships, nada.  Sure I have the bigger ships, but getting a crew together to fly it, not a chance.

Hence the point that it is meaningless to provide human bridge crew functionality when only a small percentage of the playerbase would utilize such.

Originally posted by TCrossBar

 I just said that they would be incredibly frustrating.  I understand that everyone who is for them sees them as fundamentally the same thing, but they differ in some extremely important (to many of us) ways.

- It would be frustrating if you had to group on 1 ship 100% of the time.  I would find it frustrating and I yet I still think having the OPTION to do it would be OK.

The biggest and most important difference is that one thing that players of every MMO seem to universally agree on is that it sucks to not have (for whatever mechanical reason) control over your character.  Stuns, fears, dazes, mezzes, slows, mc's, roots, snares.. whatever form they come in, it seems to be a universally hated mechanic.  If you have an entire group of people all on one ship, only a single person has control over that character's effective motion / movement.  To a purist, that one person should be the captain.  In gameplay terms, it winds up being the helm... which brings me to my second point.

-  True, but how much control do you really have even when playing in a group.  The healer is still going to heal who he thinks needs it.  Some yo-yo is still going to charge off to attack the boss MOB, even though everyone else has said 'lets wait a minute for our regen to finish, etc...'  I think we're looking at degree's of control.  In a large battle, more control.  Off to do a fluff mission, less control.  Also take in the fact that from time to time your guild may want to do the Super Level Killer Quest Mission.  Now you CAN go in your own low level newbie ship and try to enjoy the wopping 10sec of game time before you become space dust or you could crew on a guildie's ship, score some XP and get to see what the missions all about.  Your choice.

Alot of what you said is 100% on the money, especially your scenario's on what could happen.  Problem is they could just as easily happen if you were on your own ship, as on someone elses.

Originally posted by Ozmodan

Actually the only clueless person posting here is you.  I tend to fly at least a couple weekends a month.  The fact is that no one wants to fly in the multiplayer ships, they are NO FUN!  I very rarely see them in action at all.  There are some two mans, but the bigger ships, nada.  Sure I have the bigger ships, but getting a crew together to fly it, not a chance.

What server?  Because the large Sat. afternoon Starsider events I played in, Factions only rarely had problems fielding multi-player ships and crews. 

If you're talking about the Deep Space zero's battles (free for all's) then you are 100% totally correct.  Single ships all the way.

If you're talking the scripted event's like I am, then no, they are set up specifically to include Multi-player ships.  Planned in advanced and set up in advanced.

Multi-player ships while not the best idea (in SWG) do work and can have a purpose.  Heck one of the 100% kill on sight, problems a comin' ships was the Spinning Cloud.  A souped up YT-1300 (M. Falcon class) with 2 gunners, 1 ops spot and a pilot.  Multi-player all the way.  He was there for all the events and always gave us massive amounts of heart-ache and pain.  What that guy could do with a multi-player ship is probably the best reason for giving STO the OPTION of allowing players to crew on each others ships.

Originally posted by Ozmodan

Hence the point that it is meaningless to provide human bridge crew functionality when only a small percentage of the playerbase would utilize such.

-  Looking at a bigger picture (for other games, not just STO for example).  So they should also leave  Pvp, PvE, Housing, Crafting, Role-playing emotes, Storyline quest write up's, (add your example here) etc... etc.... etc..... because only a small percentage of the playerbase would utilize that function?  You cut something down too much and you've either totally niched the game or killed it from even getting off the ground. 

A good example would be Prep's version of ST.  Each ship was the server and all players had to be on that 1 ship?  Only Federation, no playing other organizations.  That didn't fly did it?

WoW.  Mainly a Pvp game I believe, isn't that the big selling point?  DoAC RvR is either it's main thrust or best point.  For either of them, why even have RP, PvE?  Easy to get around the PvE leveling.  Tutorial zone to teach you how, then straight into Combat.  But instead they have those other features.  They even have PvE only and RP server's.  DoAC has lot's of different kinds of server's pre-change, post-change, everyone's friends, normal.  With all those choices someone's going to count as the  'small percentage of the playerbase'.

Bottom line is; if it can be done at a reasonable expense.  Do you cut off that source of revenue?  Or put it in the game to attract more sub's (money)?

I want maned Predator Drones. OH and lets not forget MRE's for away missions.

Jihad works both ways

Originally posted by purewitz

They should have made this a single player game, cause it seems to be going that way anyway. Whats multiplayer about having a NPC crew? Star Wars: The Old Republic's companions sound better, at least you can pull stories, quests, and romance out of them. This has Cryptic faill all over it. Sorry I never like City of Heroes or any other Cryptic games.

Cryptic is going to piss off a lot Trekkies and you don't want to piss off Trekkies. Their worst fanbois of all time, they can get violent. Lol. Trekkies want to role play, not give commands to NPCs. They would have been better off with making starships, guild ships. Making the guild leader captain, and the guild leader appoints the different jobs to the different crew/guild members. It would be more multiplayered that way. So the Trekkies can have their own little Star Trek role play fantasies.

That that sounds gawd awful lame.  I don't want to have to be the guild leader to captain my own ship.

 See how you can't please everyone.

Am I the only person interested in this game for the Starships and not some lame forced RP crew environment?  I want my own ship, I want to customize its layout, look, name etc.  That is what a Star Trek game is about to me.  The Starship and the Universe it exists in... along with all the politicking that goes on between different species.  The exploration, the combat, the technology.

Don't get me wrong, I think its pretty clever how they are handling crew, much better that 99.9% of the ideas I hear on the boards. But its definitely not the make or break point of the game for me.

Originally posted by MrArchy

This idea (NPC bridge crews) sucks.

 

How the hell is this going to be an MMO?!?!  Jeez, if I want to have a gaggle of NPCs to direct, I'll install IceWind Dales and play through that game, or one of the many others just like it. 

 

I don't like passing judgment on games before they're released because impressions are often incorrect, but this just sounds horrible.  Ugh.  I'll still keep on eye on STO, but this doesn't sound the least bit revolutionary, innovative, or interesting.

I'll be damned, I didn't realize there is only one ship in the entire game.  Thanks for pointing out why this won't work.

first off there is more than 1 ship in the game.. secondly its not like u cant group up with other ships and form a armada.  It happened all the time in the star trek universe.  so plz stop saying not having a pc crew is going to be lonely because u will have other ships to party with. this is just people trying to troll and its annoying. there is no way being a science officer is going to be fun. and yes the scenario where they find the weakspot in sheilds could be fun wtf else are you going to do while the helmsman/captain are going from point a to b absolutely nothing.

There taking the easy route and its gonna cost em in sales and contunied subscriptions. My guess is they know this but bottom line they think they can get away with it and make money.

Jihad works both ways