I wonder where peole get the idea there will be 2 differnt combat systems in place... that would be TRIBBLE.
So far what i know is, that the whole system will get revamped and you will have the option to play it more fps like or in the traditional 3rd person view., e.g. in 1st person view you probably will see a model of the weapon and maybe even a hud, but you still have to press 1 to shot or better maybe it gets rebound to mouse button 1, but the mechanics are basically the same.
You don't suddenly will have a twitch based system and a normal turn based system that try to coexsist with each other.
The mechanics will be the same for both, if one of those view will provide an advantage above the other needs to be seen, but generally i tend to say a 3rd person view givs you a better overview of the area while 1st person view lets you see thing more detailed, but that changes nothing on the underlying game mechanics.
Oh I agree with you completely, but my point was never whether ED or anything else was good or bad. My point was about sweeping changes that anger a lot of the players.
A lot of people couldn't, and apparently still can't, see the point that I was trying to make because their anger brought by the mere mention of the NGE blinded them. Which is why I've already said that using it as a comparison in my OP was a mistake.
It wasnt a mistake, PF. I was there when it happened. I also recognize that the parallels between SOE and Cryptic... You see, when SOE launched SWG, they did so minus the very things that were the game's biggest talking points: Vehicles, mounts, player cities, essentially all the key mechanics that were supposed to set it a part from EverQuest. And the skill-based advancement system aside what they launched with was essentially EverQuest with lasers and a Star Wars skin. The talking points for STO were things like interstellar trade, limitless exploration and as you have in your current sig, Two factions, Klingon and Federation, Full PvE.
I know why STO failed to deliver on those things. They were up against a hard deadline from the beginning and simply ran out of time. But now that they have launched, they are about to spend a massive amount of time inventing a new combat system. I would much rather see them spend that time developing the stuff they didnt have time to develop for launch.
Jack Emmert, if you are reading this, you are CEO now. YOU can issue a directive for forward going development to bring the game in-line with the vision you shared with us when none other than Leonard Nimoy introduced you to a massive crowd, and you looked us all in the collective eye and made promises that, through no fault of your own, could not be kept for the launch product. You spoke for Cryptic not just for yourself. Now's your chance to make good on those promises. Direct your STO team to get the core mechanics working as intended and get the systems in place that will contribute towards an endgame mechanic that everyone can get involved with. But more importantly, so that both factions will be equally viable.
I wonder where peole get the idea there will be 2 differnt combat systems in place... that would be TRIBBLE.
So far what i know is, that the whole system will get revamped and you will have the option to play it more fps like or in the traditional 3rd person view.
The mechanics will be the same for both, if one of those view will provide an advantage above the other needs to be seen, but generally i tend to say a 3rd person view givs you a better overview of the area while 1st person view lets you see thing more detailed, but that changes nothing on the underlying game mechanics.
It comes from a post a dev made saying that they were revamping the system and the new system will be optional. What most people seem to be saying is that is more of a misleading statement because the revamp can't be entirely optional otherwire we would end up with 2 combat systems. Which likely isn't going to happen.
The complete lack of details of what in the mechanics is changing is where the concern is coming from.
It comes from a post a dev made saying that they were revamping the system and the new system will be optional. What most people seem to be saying is that is more of a misleading statement because the revamp can't be entirely optional otherwire we would end up with 2 combat systems. Which likely isn't going to happen.
The complete lack of details of what in the mechanics is changing is where the concern is coming from.
I know, but again afair it was said the view will be optional, but the system will be the same for both. Regardless if you use the current 3rd person view or the new first person view.
I know, but again afair it was said the view will be optional, but the system will be the same for both. Regardless if you use the current 3rd person view or the new first person view.
are you just trying to argue with me? we are saying the same thing but you seem to want to argue anyway....
It comes from a post a dev made saying that they were revamping the system and the new system will be optional. What most people seem to be saying is that is more of a misleading statement because the revamp can't be entirely optional otherwire we would end up with 2 combat systems. Which likely isn't going to happen.
The complete lack of details of what in the mechanics is changing is where the concern is coming from.
I agree, the only thing that can really be optional is the combat VIEW, not the actual system itself. Otherwise, it would be impossible for 2 people to group with different settings.
My point was about sweeping changes that anger a lot of the players.
I agree. To be honest, as long as it was an overall improvement, I would not mind a completely different ground combat system and one that is not just fluff. I cannot imagine it getting much worse.
They have made huge strides with improving the mission content and such since launch, but my concern is that what they are calling a "revamp" is just adding in new targetting systems when what (IMO) the game needs is a complete ground overhaul. That is a lot of work to do in just a few months and that is where my concern is - we will just get the fluff and no substance.
I am hoping Cryptic will get it right the first time. With the upcoming MMO competition being launched, they will have one chance to make a good impression. You are spot on that those who bailed on CoX when ED was introduced never came back to the game no matter what they did to improve it.
You don't suddenly will have a twitch based system and a normal turn based system that try to coexsist with each other.
Exactly what I'm trying to point out as well. Simply adding a first-person interface won't actually change ground combat at all, and making actual power use framework changes optional would be beyond ludicrous.
What is now the point of this discussion? Sweeping changes to a part of the game the majority of player dislike is not going to anger the majority of the player base. Yes there will be some unhappy people, but that will happen no matter what.
If you are opposed to ground combat changes, why are you opposed to it?
Do you not like the fact that they are taking time to do this?
Do you actually like the ground system as it is now?
If you don't like ground as it is now why are you opposed to changing it?
What is the nature of your objection?
I actually enjoy ground combat as it is now, But I am very happy to hear they are changing it, it could certainly use some work.
You never roll back, it doesn't happen in the industry, it won't happen, things will be changed but never will you go back. CoH/CoV lost people b/c their game play was stagnant. How do I know? I was there. These changes are gonna happen, going around in logical circles of players don't like changes, isn't going effect that. So why not be constructive, and say what would make ground combat interesting for you.
Saying that ground combat sucks, but I don't have any idea how to fix and I'm opposed to making changes to it because it cost the game players is useless.
If you are opposed to ground combat changes, why are you opposed to?
Do you not like the fact that they are taking time to do this?
Do you actually like the ground system as it is now?
If you don't like ground as it is now why are you opposed to changing it?
What is the nature of your objection?
(snip).
I am not opposed to ground combat changes, but i am concerned with a 4 month schedule that implies a major overhaul, with the minimal resources this game operates on that is a significant commitment to an overhaul we know very little about.
I am not opposed to the time they are taking, just concerned.
the ground combat currently doesn't bother me.
My concern comes from seeing the results of other games having had disastrous results from major overhauls. But i could be wrong, in fact i hope i am wrong and that there upgrade is the greatest thing ever.
Adding cross hairs and changing the UI isn't really sweeping changes. The only thing I heard so far that was going to be different is the weapon changes. What it sounded like they were just adjusting ranges and powers. Sure, the weapon changes will make some angry.
I really doubt they could make the AI any worse, but it's possible.
I really don't think ground combat will be much different than it is now. It will still play the same, but the weapon ranges and AI are going to be different.
Hopefully they will add a first person view for those that want to use it. You can scroll into first person view in most of the MMO's I have played.
I am not opposed to ground combat changes, but i am concerned with a 4 month schedule that implies a major overhaul, with the minimal resources this game operates on that is a significant commitment to an overhaul we know very little about.
I am not opposed to the time they are taking, just concerned.
the ground combat currently doesn't bother me.
My concern comes from seeing the results of other games having had disastrous results from major overhauls. But i could be wrong, in fact i hope i am wrong and that there upgrade is the greatest thing ever.
The 4 month commitment isn't that ground combat revamp will take 4 months.
The STO team is moving the game over to a new code branch which is scheduled to be available then. Some of the ground combat changes aren't possible without that new code technology - as is new tech that will feature into endgame and exploration plans for future seasons.
Also, that four months has a number of systems:
both the Duty Officer and Bridge Officer systems (which Heretic says are on track to release together),
new KDF content including a tutorial and content to lead them to level 6 (when PvP and the weeklies become available),
If the tutorial is as large as for feds, that means ~9 missions for tutorial alone and another 11 till you reach Lt6, so basically 21 missions (even it is only speak with npc xy and then go to npc zy).
If the tutorial is as large as for feds, that means ~9 missions for tutorial alone and another 11 till you reach Lt6, so basically 21 missions (even it is only speak with npc xy and then go to npc zy).
I think everyone counts the tutorial as one mission (with several sections, much like the weeklies have several distinct sections)
There's one other item that's missing from that list of things that should be appearing in Season 4:
A Very Long List Of Bug Fixes
Yes, and the game needs bugfixes like peanut butter and jelly need bread.
Also, there's the instance finder and finally being able to, you know, do Fleet Actions with your fleet. That's almost a bugfix in itself: to fix such a glaring omission.
Comments
So far what i know is, that the whole system will get revamped and you will have the option to play it more fps like or in the traditional 3rd person view., e.g. in 1st person view you probably will see a model of the weapon and maybe even a hud, but you still have to press 1 to shot or better maybe it gets rebound to mouse button 1, but the mechanics are basically the same.
You don't suddenly will have a twitch based system and a normal turn based system that try to coexsist with each other.
The mechanics will be the same for both, if one of those view will provide an advantage above the other needs to be seen, but generally i tend to say a 3rd person view givs you a better overview of the area while 1st person view lets you see thing more detailed, but that changes nothing on the underlying game mechanics.
It wasnt a mistake, PF. I was there when it happened. I also recognize that the parallels between SOE and Cryptic... You see, when SOE launched SWG, they did so minus the very things that were the game's biggest talking points: Vehicles, mounts, player cities, essentially all the key mechanics that were supposed to set it a part from EverQuest. And the skill-based advancement system aside what they launched with was essentially EverQuest with lasers and a Star Wars skin. The talking points for STO were things like interstellar trade, limitless exploration and as you have in your current sig, Two factions, Klingon and Federation, Full PvE.
I know why STO failed to deliver on those things. They were up against a hard deadline from the beginning and simply ran out of time. But now that they have launched, they are about to spend a massive amount of time inventing a new combat system. I would much rather see them spend that time developing the stuff they didnt have time to develop for launch.
Jack Emmert, if you are reading this, you are CEO now. YOU can issue a directive for forward going development to bring the game in-line with the vision you shared with us when none other than Leonard Nimoy introduced you to a massive crowd, and you looked us all in the collective eye and made promises that, through no fault of your own, could not be kept for the launch product. You spoke for Cryptic not just for yourself. Now's your chance to make good on those promises. Direct your STO team to get the core mechanics working as intended and get the systems in place that will contribute towards an endgame mechanic that everyone can get involved with. But more importantly, so that both factions will be equally viable.
It comes from a post a dev made saying that they were revamping the system and the new system will be optional. What most people seem to be saying is that is more of a misleading statement because the revamp can't be entirely optional otherwire we would end up with 2 combat systems. Which likely isn't going to happen.
The complete lack of details of what in the mechanics is changing is where the concern is coming from.
I know, but again afair it was said the view will be optional, but the system will be the same for both. Regardless if you use the current 3rd person view or the new first person view.
are you just trying to argue with me? we are saying the same thing but you seem to want to argue anyway....
I agree, the only thing that can really be optional is the combat VIEW, not the actual system itself. Otherwise, it would be impossible for 2 people to group with different settings.
I agree. To be honest, as long as it was an overall improvement, I would not mind a completely different ground combat system and one that is not just fluff. I cannot imagine it getting much worse.
They have made huge strides with improving the mission content and such since launch, but my concern is that what they are calling a "revamp" is just adding in new targetting systems when what (IMO) the game needs is a complete ground overhaul. That is a lot of work to do in just a few months and that is where my concern is - we will just get the fluff and no substance.
I am hoping Cryptic will get it right the first time. With the upcoming MMO competition being launched, they will have one chance to make a good impression. You are spot on that those who bailed on CoX when ED was introduced never came back to the game no matter what they did to improve it.
Exactly what I'm trying to point out as well. Simply adding a first-person interface won't actually change ground combat at all, and making actual power use framework changes optional would be beyond ludicrous.
If you are opposed to ground combat changes, why are you opposed to it?
Do you not like the fact that they are taking time to do this?
Do you actually like the ground system as it is now?
If you don't like ground as it is now why are you opposed to changing it?
What is the nature of your objection?
I actually enjoy ground combat as it is now, But I am very happy to hear they are changing it, it could certainly use some work.
You never roll back, it doesn't happen in the industry, it won't happen, things will be changed but never will you go back. CoH/CoV lost people b/c their game play was stagnant. How do I know? I was there. These changes are gonna happen, going around in logical circles of players don't like changes, isn't going effect that. So why not be constructive, and say what would make ground combat interesting for you.
Saying that ground combat sucks, but I don't have any idea how to fix and I'm opposed to making changes to it because it cost the game players is useless.
I am not opposed to ground combat changes, but i am concerned with a 4 month schedule that implies a major overhaul, with the minimal resources this game operates on that is a significant commitment to an overhaul we know very little about.
I am not opposed to the time they are taking, just concerned.
the ground combat currently doesn't bother me.
My concern comes from seeing the results of other games having had disastrous results from major overhauls. But i could be wrong, in fact i hope i am wrong and that there upgrade is the greatest thing ever.
I really doubt they could make the AI any worse, but it's possible.
I really don't think ground combat will be much different than it is now. It will still play the same, but the weapon ranges and AI are going to be different.
Hopefully they will add a first person view for those that want to use it. You can scroll into first person view in most of the MMO's I have played.
The 4 month commitment isn't that ground combat revamp will take 4 months.
The STO team is moving the game over to a new code branch which is scheduled to be available then. Some of the ground combat changes aren't possible without that new code technology - as is new tech that will feature into endgame and exploration plans for future seasons.
Also, that four months has a number of systems:
Yes, and the game needs bugfixes like peanut butter and jelly need bread.
Also, there's the instance finder and finally being able to, you know, do Fleet Actions with your fleet. That's almost a bugfix in itself: to fix such a glaring omission.