In regards to ground manabar: I think going the route of having cooldown rather than a manabar is probably the best effect. I mean, power management rarely came up in ground combat in star trek, and I can't imagine any of the missions lasting that long that the supertech of the trek era would have to worry about battery life. Especially when you can just beam down a replacement.
From the description of movement, it sounds like we will be able to visit all planets in a solar system (if not on ground at least in orbit) which sounds cool to me. I wonder if we will be able to beam down to barren planets or planets with no intelligent life or missions? On the one hand it is cool, on the other hand I would rather that time be devoted to varied mission content.
Stats and history and captains log: How about number of times in spacedock? Or number of times refit? Or even just a ship history (or captain history) ALA the species history in spore? I think that is what I would like to see.
Might even be cool if you could set your history to public or private and other players could get a history on your captain, like what ships they have commanded, battles lost, ships commanded, crewmembers added and whatnot.
It's that time that you've all been waiting for. Exciting new questions with brand new answers! I bring you, Ask Cryptic Volume 8. Have you ever wanted to now how Ship Modification will work? You're going to have to read more to find out!
When traveling within a system, you will not be able to travel at warp. Impulse speed is the norm here, but you can travel impressively fast at full impulse speeds. You can warp to another planet in a system, which is basically instantaneous. However, when travelling from star system to star system (or other points of interest in the galaxy), you will travel at warp speed. You will be able to set your warp factor and the quality of your warp engines and your engineers skills will determine your maximum warp speed.
Awen, your comment contradict's itself. You say that you can not warp within a system, but yet you can warp to another planet within the system?
I'm not looking forward to another cooldown timer abilities bar thing that's in every MMO. I want to look at the action, not those stupid bars and cooldowns.
I'm not looking forward to another cooldown timer abilities bar thing that's in every MMO. I want to look at the action, not those stupid bars and cooldowns.
Better than watching "Mana" bars . I guess with any MMO that uses abilities there has to be some way to balance their use, so some type of indicator or timer has to be applied for balance. Doesn't really bother me at all if the UI is done right.
In regards to ground manabar: I think going the route of having cooldown rather than a manabar is probably the best effect. I mean, power management rarely came up in ground combat in star trek, and I can't imagine any of the missions lasting that long that the supertech of the trek era would have to worry about battery life. Especially when you can just beam down a replacement.
In The Siege of AR-558 they did distribute battery packs behind the lines as a form of ammunition. Though TBH, I can't recall anyone experiencing phazor fizzle in the middle of a firefight.
[This turned into another long one. My apologies to anyone annoyed by the length of this post; please feel free to skip past it if you'd rather not try to follow all the details.]
Thanks to Cryptic for this latest "Ask Cryptic." This was without doubt one of the most specific regarding planned features that we've seen yet, and this willingness to communicate with us is very much appreciated.
As other commenters have, I liked most of the things I saw. There were a few things that I wasn't wild about, and I hope it's OK if I address them, too, but for the most part the items mentioned seem like appropriate gameplay ideas, and I'm glad to see them.
For whatever they're worth, here are some of the specific reactions I had, which I offer in the hope that something in them might be useful along with the comments of others here. No one should read too much into them; they're simply the opinions of one person and deserve to be held in no higher (or, I hope, lower!) regard than anyone else's opinions.
Good things:
All cryptic games have always had entity to entity collision. Star Trek online will continue to make use of this tech both on the ground and in space.
Good. That way we can dispense completely with the "aggro" concept, which has value only when mobs can pass through each other, which was only necessary in the 20th century when even bounding boxes ate too many CPU cycles.
You will be able to set your warp factor and the quality of your warp engines and your engineers skills will determine your maximum warp speed.
Good, although I would hope that there's a dynamic element at play here -- I'd like to see my Chief Engineer constantly tinkering with all my ship's systems to get the most out of them. (When they're not being blown up, anyway.) (The ship systems, that is, not my Chief Engineer.)
When you have a ship that is a certain configuration, you will be able to modify all the parts the saucer, the nacelles, the pylons, the primary hull, etc. You will also be able to modify colors, decals, and other bits. However, the configuration will remain recognizable.
Good. "Recognizable" is an important goal in extracting maximum value from the Star Trek IP.
"Hey, look at that cool Prometheus variant!"
So, you're saying that the Prometheus class will be in the game?
Eeeeeeeexcellent.
You will also be able to modify the ship's systems. You will modify and upgrade primary items like your weapons, shields, deflector dish, impulse and warp engines, etc. You will also be able to add lots of enhancements to your systems, such as targeting computers for better accuracy, EPS conduits upgrades to improve power transfer rates, better biobeds for your sick bay, etc. Different ships will have different enhancement slots (so an escort vessel will have more tactical upgrade slots).
Good. This is both good Star Trek and good gameplay.
Will our upgrades be better if our character has Engineering skills and does the work personally? Or will that even be an option?
Finally, the primary way you will customize your ship is by what Bridge Officers you assign to your duty stations.
Nothing inherently wrong with this as a concept.
Implementation-wise, however.... (See "not-so-good" below.)
You will be able to transfer power between your weapons, shields, engines or auxiliary power systems. Additionally, you can balance shield power to your fore, aft, port and starboard shield emitters.
I'm glad to see this. I do wonder: will applying power to a shield take full effect instantly, or will the strength of the shield determine the amount of time required to fully charge that shield?
We have considered some game stats, like kill counts, but have not given more thought to the matter at this time. It is an interesting idea and we will consider it.
Good. I hope it's not overdone; mindless chest-thumping posturing is not something I'd like to see encouraged by any game or support system related to Star Trek Online. But some aggregate statistical info could be fun to have.
How about when you create your ship, you get your registry number, and then we tack on an -A, -B, -C, etc to the end each time your ship gets blown up .
Sounds good to me... but what happens after "-Z"?
Not-so-good things:
Your Bridge Officers will come with unique skills that can only be used if they are at a duty station.
So, clicking on a name or 2D drawing and dragging it into a slot on a graphic UI overlaying an exterior image of our ship, then....
Again, I don't mind the concept; it's the probable implementation I find uninspiring.
We are still working with different models for ground combat, but it will not be complex.
I'm trying not to be catty here, but I honestly can't help feeling that this suggests that somebody has decided that all gameplay throughout Star Trek Online must be scaled down to whatever console users with controllers are capable of coping with. A, B, triangle, square, win? Say it ain't so!
Before I get jumped on, I am absolutely not saying that I think ground combat (or space combat, or any other play activity in this game) should be complicated just to be complicated. I'd like Star Trek Online to be welcoming to relatively casual players; that's a worthwhile design goal.
My viewpoint is that there should be some systems in this game that have depth, that the environment in particular needs to be sufficiently full of detectable and interactive phenomena to enable interesting tactical choices. It's OK if the control scheme for getting at that depth is relatively streamlined; what's not OK is to rip environmental richness out of the entire gameworld under the theory that having different ways to solve a problem will scare people away.
I don't want to assume as a certainty that that's what "it will not be complex" means. What I'm doing here is expressing the hope that "it will not be complex" is simply a reassurance that combat will be fun and not overwhelming for new and casual players, and that it does not mean the gameworld itself will be stripped down to the point that only range and line-of-sight matter.
Right now we are experimenting with no mana bar for ground at all, and simply limiting certain abilities with cool-down times alone. Another possible model may be a simple power bar for advanced weapon attacks (like a wide beam cone attack) but no cost for basic shots and no cost for special abilities (except cool-down times where applicable).
Sigh. I dislike cool-down timers almost as much as I dislike buffs; both strike me as cheap hacks used as quick and mindless fixes to get past the requirement of structuring gameplay actions, rather than making an effort to conceive and implement mechanics that are actually pertinent to the game being developed.
Sadly, when dealing with powered technological systems, "cool-down timer" and "recharge time" are basically synonymous. One just sounds less like an artificial imposition and more like a reasonable technology-based limitation on action.
So I guess I can cope with this, but I hope some active thought is being given to other ways of managing character actions than just reaching for the "cool-down timer" mechanic.
Things apparently intended to drive poor Flatfingers directly into the looney bin:
Altogether, ship customization will be an important part of the game both visually and strategically.
No. No, no, no. Not "strategically" -- not unless being able to apply customizations to our ships will depend on our entire faction locating, acquiring, harvesting, transforming, distributing, and defending finite resources scattered across many sectors for real-time months.
If the intention is instead to say that ship customizations will affect individual ship capabilities in solo or small-group ship-vs-ship combat engagements, that is a tactical application -- NOT strategic.
If I seem like I'm being a bit of a pest about this distinction, it's not because I'm one of those people who frets and complains over every misuse of terminology by other people. I'm not. (If I were, you would have seen many, many, many posts by me before now pointing out that the word is "canon," not "cannon.")
I'm continuing to point out the persistent misuse of the term "strategic" because it suggests a misunderstanding that may lead to Cryptic's missing a great opportunity to create enjoyable high-level content in this game.
"Tactics" is about local fights. Tactics is about short-duration conflicts between small groups of warriors across a limited space where local environmental features can be used to affect the outcome.
"Strategy" is about theater-level struggles. Strategy is about long-duration conflicts between very large groups of diverse combatants and support staff across enormous areas where resource management and logistical advantage determine the outcome.
To put it simply: "Tactics" win battles, and "strategy" wins campaigns.
(And "grand strategy" wins wars, but I wouldn't expect or want to see players acting at that level in a MMORPG.)
I point all this out because calling tactical-level gameplay "strategic" implies that developers actually think they're creating strategic-level gameplay when they're not. It's OK if they're not... but the thing is, they can't create the kind of thoughtful, planning-oriented, high-level gameplay that truly is strategic play as future content if they think they're already doing it!
So, Cryptic personnel (you know who you are!): go ahead and keep saying that "everyone will start out as a captain" if you feel you must. I've become resigned to that one. But please, if my sanity means anything to you, please -- stop saying that any ship-vs-ship combat will be "strategic" in any way.
Unless when you use the word "strategic" you really do mean "long-term wide-area logistical planning and resource management" gameplay.
In which case... never mind.
...
Sincere thanks again for this very detailed "Ask Cryptic," and for allowing folks like me the privilege of commenting, I hope for the most part, constructively.
It seems there is a lot more customization of ships than we originally guessed, and it looks like the bridge crew discussion is still a bit vague...
I was hoping that there would be the option of a Flagship for Fleets that members of the fleet could man the duty stations of... that sounds like it might be a big expansion though... I would still like to see this possibility addressed and come to eventuality where a ships entire critical crew could be manned by players.
Nice read and nice release of detailed information. I remain hungry for more.
Flagships for Fleets Cryptic... Say that over and over and imagine the possibilities and the guild vs guild pvp ramifications that would have... Flagships for Fleets...
It seems there is a lot more customization of ships than we originally guessed, and it looks like the bridge crew discussion is still a bit vague...
I was hoping that there would be the option of a Flagship for Fleets that members of the fleet could man the duty stations of... that sounds like it might be a big expansion though... I would still like to see this possibility addressed and come to eventuality where a ships entire critical crew could be manned by players.
Nice read and nice release of detailed information. I remain hungry for more.
Flagships for Fleets Cryptic... Say that over and over and imagine the possibilities and the guild vs guild pvp ramifications that would have... Flagships for Fleets...
Flagships for Fleets...
While I love the idea of Flagships, not in the way you are describing it.
It should be more of a "morale boost", when you get a flagship style ship on the battlefield every in that fleet gains a bonus to something.
Eve has something similar I believe, but don't hold me to that.
What I would like to see is their be multiple "Flagship classes" built by fleets of course, and can only be one flagship class in the fleets "party", and when that flagship is present it gives various bonuses, like a warship type flagship would provide a bonus to the combat abilities of the ships, a science vessel would do something more sciency. I would think flagships as the "Relics" "God gear" "etc" type deal, the ones that are going to be very few in the game.
Alternativley they could make it where any ship could serve as the flagship for the "fleet your traveling with" and depending on the class/configuation of said ship it would give bonuses to the others.
As for everyone manning a station on one ship, I honestly don't mind if its there, I just don't see it being implemented, I mean really...that just seems boring to me out of RP reasons of course. I think it would make a much better different game altogether, rather then tacking it on here.
Awesome Thank you tytytytyt for this new info.. Love hearing it.. Um.. 1 question I have.. about the Warp stuff.. I am a little confused about the Warp speeds.. If Warping to a different System will be instantainious.. then what does it matter what speed of Warp we goto...
Alternatively, does this mean.. that the further away you warp.. there will be a definate time delay to get there rather then instantly warping there?
Also.. I am not sure if its been asked.. but will we have the ability to wander around in a first person mode on our ships.. We customize the outsides and add different stuff inside.. will we be able to walk around inside our "own" ship.. to see points of interest.. like Engine room, our quarters and the like.. to help with those of us that love to roleplay completely immerse ourselves in this wonderful universe you are creating? I would like a Dev if Possible to answer these things for me.. Thank you )
I remeber seeing some starship recognition books when I was a kid that had alot of variants in it like a Constitution class that had a completly different saucer from the Enterprise as we know it. So I think the customization thing they are talking about will work perfectly well.
I remeber seeing some starship recognition books when I was a kid that had alot of variants in it like a Constitution class that had a completly different saucer from the Enterprise as we know it. So I think the customization thing they are talking about will work perfectly well.
The constitution variants never had a radical change in saucer sections...unless it was some fan fiction one.
Awesomeness in a jar, guys; I can't wait to set sail in my "cool Prometheus variant!"
How about when you create your ship, you get your registry number, and then we tack on an -A, -B, -C, etc to the end each time your ship gets blown up .
I wonder who will be first to get a second letter? Are we going to get to see the U.S.S. Fabulous, NCC-11826-Y-M-C-A come in and save the day?
I finally got my question about Ship to Ship combat answered. Although I think the developers meant to say ship to ship combat will be more tactical in the positioning of ships and what not, not strategic.
"When you have a ship that is a certain configuration, you will be able to modify all the parts the saucer, the nacelles, the pylons, the primary hull, etc. You will also be able to modify colors, decals, and other bits. However, the configuration will remain recognizable. If you are in the light cruiser configuration, you can make it look just like a Miranda, a Centaur, or something completely unique. The combinations are massive, however, you will not be able to have 4 nacelles or make your light cruiser look like a Galaxy class ship. So your ship will be unique, but others will be able to recognize its general capabilities. People will be able to look at someones ship and say, Hey, thats like a Nebula, so I know its an advanced science vessel, or Hey, look at that cool Prometheus variant!
I love how Cryptic is well known for their customization. And knowing that the ships in STO were going to be customizable was great...but this isn't just customization. The words "ship class" no longer have meaning. Now Cryptic seems to be saying only ship types matter, and that theoretically you could take a "light cruiser" type and it would not look like any class. Esentially, there are no classes any more except for those few people who choose to make their "configurations" look like a Centaur or a Miranda.
Losing the idea of ship classes is a big loss for me. Sure I can make my ship configuration match existing classes, and I will, but STO will lose a lot of its feel for me whe I can see Klingon and Federation ships in unlimited combinations. Thats not Star Trek....Thats Star Wars!
Flatfingers, where DO you find the time for all that writing?!
Second, and more to the point...
Hull letters might be better used when a player wishes to apply an already used ship name to a different class ship. Every Enterprise that had a new hull letter was also a different class ship. Yes, it is true that the 1701-A was identical to the 1701 refit, and got the -A by virtue of having been destroyed, but if I remember correctly, the new ship was Constitution II Class. Following that, 1701-B was Excelcior Class, -C was Ambassador class, -D was Galaxy Class, and finally -E was Sovereign Class.
Since this is a game, I doubt having one's ship 'destroyed' will be a rare occurrence, so it stands to reason that perhaps the ship would not be destroyed per se, but rather damaged to the point of needing to be towed back to a starbase and reassembled. If a player wanted to keep a given name for a new ship of a different class, then add a letter. I don't see people having 26 different ships all with the same name...but I could be wrong
EDIT: Just noticed several posts with this same idea in the Discussion forum...great minds think alike
With regard to ship customization, it would be fun to go to a spack dock to do ship refits. Internal system changes would use a more mundane interface, but the external refit system should be more cinematic! Meaning that the player could be positioned outside the ship and could maneuver the camera around the ship allowing the player to click on the ship parts and install new components and get to see them 'installed' rather than seeing the ship on a computer screen and flipping through new parts as it was with the Starship Creator software. This cinematic aspect would truly add that awe inspiring atmosphere that is one of the hallmarks of Star Trek. I don't know about you, but that scene of the Enterprise leaving drydock in ST:TMP put shivers down my spine! I know I'm probably asking too much especially for the initial launch of STO, but it would be nice to see later
Comments
From the description of movement, it sounds like we will be able to visit all planets in a solar system (if not on ground at least in orbit) which sounds cool to me. I wonder if we will be able to beam down to barren planets or planets with no intelligent life or missions? On the one hand it is cool, on the other hand I would rather that time be devoted to varied mission content.
Stats and history and captains log: How about number of times in spacedock? Or number of times refit? Or even just a ship history (or captain history) ALA the species history in spore? I think that is what I would like to see.
Might even be cool if you could set your history to public or private and other players could get a history on your captain, like what ships they have commanded, battles lost, ships commanded, crewmembers added and whatnot.
It's that time that you've all been waiting for. Exciting new questions with brand new answers! I bring you, Ask Cryptic Volume 8. Have you ever wanted to now how Ship Modification will work? You're going to have to read more to find out!
Collisions, Warp clarification, Ship Customization!
(Though, I hope they were joking about taking on A, B, C. I hate to see someone with so many Z's that it won't fit on the hull anymore.
But one thing confuses me:
Awen, your comment contradict's itself. You say that you can not warp within a system, but yet you can warp to another planet within the system?
Better than watching "Mana" bars . I guess with any MMO that uses abilities there has to be some way to balance their use, so some type of indicator or timer has to be applied for balance. Doesn't really bother me at all if the UI is done right.
In The Siege of AR-558 they did distribute battery packs behind the lines as a form of ammunition. Though TBH, I can't recall anyone experiencing phazor fizzle in the middle of a firefight.
Thanks to Cryptic for this latest "Ask Cryptic." This was without doubt one of the most specific regarding planned features that we've seen yet, and this willingness to communicate with us is very much appreciated.
As other commenters have, I liked most of the things I saw. There were a few things that I wasn't wild about, and I hope it's OK if I address them, too, but for the most part the items mentioned seem like appropriate gameplay ideas, and I'm glad to see them.
For whatever they're worth, here are some of the specific reactions I had, which I offer in the hope that something in them might be useful along with the comments of others here. No one should read too much into them; they're simply the opinions of one person and deserve to be held in no higher (or, I hope, lower!) regard than anyone else's opinions.
Good things:
Good. That way we can dispense completely with the "aggro" concept, which has value only when mobs can pass through each other, which was only necessary in the 20th century when even bounding boxes ate too many CPU cycles.
Good, although I would hope that there's a dynamic element at play here -- I'd like to see my Chief Engineer constantly tinkering with all my ship's systems to get the most out of them. (When they're not being blown up, anyway.) (The ship systems, that is, not my Chief Engineer.)
Good. "Recognizable" is an important goal in extracting maximum value from the Star Trek IP.
So, you're saying that the Prometheus class will be in the game?
Eeeeeeeexcellent.
Good. This is both good Star Trek and good gameplay.
Will our upgrades be better if our character has Engineering skills and does the work personally? Or will that even be an option?
Nothing inherently wrong with this as a concept.
Implementation-wise, however.... (See "not-so-good" below.)
I'm glad to see this. I do wonder: will applying power to a shield take full effect instantly, or will the strength of the shield determine the amount of time required to fully charge that shield?
Good. I hope it's not overdone; mindless chest-thumping posturing is not something I'd like to see encouraged by any game or support system related to Star Trek Online. But some aggregate statistical info could be fun to have.
Sounds good to me... but what happens after "-Z"?
Not-so-good things:
So, clicking on a name or 2D drawing and dragging it into a slot on a graphic UI overlaying an exterior image of our ship, then....
Again, I don't mind the concept; it's the probable implementation I find uninspiring.
I'm trying not to be catty here, but I honestly can't help feeling that this suggests that somebody has decided that all gameplay throughout Star Trek Online must be scaled down to whatever console users with controllers are capable of coping with. A, B, triangle, square, win? Say it ain't so!
Before I get jumped on, I am absolutely not saying that I think ground combat (or space combat, or any other play activity in this game) should be complicated just to be complicated. I'd like Star Trek Online to be welcoming to relatively casual players; that's a worthwhile design goal.
My viewpoint is that there should be some systems in this game that have depth, that the environment in particular needs to be sufficiently full of detectable and interactive phenomena to enable interesting tactical choices. It's OK if the control scheme for getting at that depth is relatively streamlined; what's not OK is to rip environmental richness out of the entire gameworld under the theory that having different ways to solve a problem will scare people away.
I don't want to assume as a certainty that that's what "it will not be complex" means. What I'm doing here is expressing the hope that "it will not be complex" is simply a reassurance that combat will be fun and not overwhelming for new and casual players, and that it does not mean the gameworld itself will be stripped down to the point that only range and line-of-sight matter.
Sigh. I dislike cool-down timers almost as much as I dislike buffs; both strike me as cheap hacks used as quick and mindless fixes to get past the requirement of structuring gameplay actions, rather than making an effort to conceive and implement mechanics that are actually pertinent to the game being developed.
Sadly, when dealing with powered technological systems, "cool-down timer" and "recharge time" are basically synonymous. One just sounds less like an artificial imposition and more like a reasonable technology-based limitation on action.
So I guess I can cope with this, but I hope some active thought is being given to other ways of managing character actions than just reaching for the "cool-down timer" mechanic.
Things apparently intended to drive poor Flatfingers directly into the looney bin:
No. No, no, no. Not "strategically" -- not unless being able to apply customizations to our ships will depend on our entire faction locating, acquiring, harvesting, transforming, distributing, and defending finite resources scattered across many sectors for real-time months.
If the intention is instead to say that ship customizations will affect individual ship capabilities in solo or small-group ship-vs-ship combat engagements, that is a tactical application -- NOT strategic.
If I seem like I'm being a bit of a pest about this distinction, it's not because I'm one of those people who frets and complains over every misuse of terminology by other people. I'm not. (If I were, you would have seen many, many, many posts by me before now pointing out that the word is "canon," not "cannon.")
I'm continuing to point out the persistent misuse of the term "strategic" because it suggests a misunderstanding that may lead to Cryptic's missing a great opportunity to create enjoyable high-level content in this game.
"Tactics" is about local fights. Tactics is about short-duration conflicts between small groups of warriors across a limited space where local environmental features can be used to affect the outcome.
"Strategy" is about theater-level struggles. Strategy is about long-duration conflicts between very large groups of diverse combatants and support staff across enormous areas where resource management and logistical advantage determine the outcome.
To put it simply: "Tactics" win battles, and "strategy" wins campaigns.
(And "grand strategy" wins wars, but I wouldn't expect or want to see players acting at that level in a MMORPG.)
I point all this out because calling tactical-level gameplay "strategic" implies that developers actually think they're creating strategic-level gameplay when they're not. It's OK if they're not... but the thing is, they can't create the kind of thoughtful, planning-oriented, high-level gameplay that truly is strategic play as future content if they think they're already doing it!
So, Cryptic personnel (you know who you are!): go ahead and keep saying that "everyone will start out as a captain" if you feel you must. I've become resigned to that one. But please, if my sanity means anything to you, please -- stop saying that any ship-vs-ship combat will be "strategic" in any way.
Unless when you use the word "strategic" you really do mean "long-term wide-area logistical planning and resource management" gameplay.
In which case... never mind.
...
Sincere thanks again for this very detailed "Ask Cryptic," and for allowing folks like me the privilege of commenting, I hope for the most part, constructively.
--Flatfingers
I was hoping that there would be the option of a Flagship for Fleets that members of the fleet could man the duty stations of... that sounds like it might be a big expansion though... I would still like to see this possibility addressed and come to eventuality where a ships entire critical crew could be manned by players.
Nice read and nice release of detailed information. I remain hungry for more.
Flagships for Fleets Cryptic... Say that over and over and imagine the possibilities and the guild vs guild pvp ramifications that would have... Flagships for Fleets...
Flagships for Fleets...
While I love the idea of Flagships, not in the way you are describing it.
It should be more of a "morale boost", when you get a flagship style ship on the battlefield every in that fleet gains a bonus to something.
Eve has something similar I believe, but don't hold me to that.
What I would like to see is their be multiple "Flagship classes" built by fleets of course, and can only be one flagship class in the fleets "party", and when that flagship is present it gives various bonuses, like a warship type flagship would provide a bonus to the combat abilities of the ships, a science vessel would do something more sciency. I would think flagships as the "Relics" "God gear" "etc" type deal, the ones that are going to be very few in the game.
Alternativley they could make it where any ship could serve as the flagship for the "fleet your traveling with" and depending on the class/configuation of said ship it would give bonuses to the others.
As for everyone manning a station on one ship, I honestly don't mind if its there, I just don't see it being implemented, I mean really...that just seems boring to me out of RP reasons of course. I think it would make a much better different game altogether, rather then tacking it on here.
Alternatively, does this mean.. that the further away you warp.. there will be a definate time delay to get there rather then instantly warping there?
Also.. I am not sure if its been asked.. but will we have the ability to wander around in a first person mode on our ships.. We customize the outsides and add different stuff inside.. will we be able to walk around inside our "own" ship.. to see points of interest.. like Engine room, our quarters and the like.. to help with those of us that love to roleplay completely immerse ourselves in this wonderful universe you are creating? I would like a Dev if Possible to answer these things for me.. Thank you
The constitution variants never had a radical change in saucer sections...unless it was some fan fiction one.
Edit: http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/scans/constitution1.htm the differences are minuscule.
I also appreciate the guys taking the time out to answer questions. They are busy and yet they still find time to keep the community informed. Kudos!
T
"We are still working with different models for ground combat, but IT WILL NOT BE COMPLEX."
As much as I want this to be intuitive I hope the ground and space combat isn't TOO simple.
Nothing wrong with having to think about getting out of a tight situation in my book.
I love how Cryptic is well known for their customization. And knowing that the ships in STO were going to be customizable was great...but this isn't just customization. The words "ship class" no longer have meaning. Now Cryptic seems to be saying only ship types matter, and that theoretically you could take a "light cruiser" type and it would not look like any class. Esentially, there are no classes any more except for those few people who choose to make their "configurations" look like a Centaur or a Miranda.
Losing the idea of ship classes is a big loss for me. Sure I can make my ship configuration match existing classes, and I will, but STO will lose a lot of its feel for me whe I can see Klingon and Federation ships in unlimited combinations. Thats not Star Trek....Thats Star Wars!
sweet i love that ship the Prometheus owns
Flatfingers, where DO you find the time for all that writing?!
Second, and more to the point...
Hull letters might be better used when a player wishes to apply an already used ship name to a different class ship. Every Enterprise that had a new hull letter was also a different class ship. Yes, it is true that the 1701-A was identical to the 1701 refit, and got the -A by virtue of having been destroyed, but if I remember correctly, the new ship was Constitution II Class. Following that, 1701-B was Excelcior Class, -C was Ambassador class, -D was Galaxy Class, and finally -E was Sovereign Class.
Since this is a game, I doubt having one's ship 'destroyed' will be a rare occurrence, so it stands to reason that perhaps the ship would not be destroyed per se, but rather damaged to the point of needing to be towed back to a starbase and reassembled. If a player wanted to keep a given name for a new ship of a different class, then add a letter. I don't see people having 26 different ships all with the same name...but I could be wrong
EDIT: Just noticed several posts with this same idea in the Discussion forum...great minds think alike
With regard to ship customization, it would be fun to go to a spack dock to do ship refits. Internal system changes would use a more mundane interface, but the external refit system should be more cinematic! Meaning that the player could be positioned outside the ship and could maneuver the camera around the ship allowing the player to click on the ship parts and install new components and get to see them 'installed' rather than seeing the ship on a computer screen and flipping through new parts as it was with the Starship Creator software. This cinematic aspect would truly add that awe inspiring atmosphere that is one of the hallmarks of Star Trek. I don't know about you, but that scene of the Enterprise leaving drydock in ST:TMP put shivers down my spine! I know I'm probably asking too much especially for the initial launch of STO, but it would be nice to see later
Thank you Cryptic for the great info.