Star Trek

Quote (Elric666 @ July 15 2005, 7:28 pm)

the CO doesnt need 30 ppl tellin him how to do his job

Sometimes the CO needs at least a couple of people to.  (In extreme situations, if the CO has lost perspective, lost his marbles, etc.)

So we all should become mindless zombies bound to the will of the CO.

What if you dont agree with his approach? What if there is another way around things that the CO hasnt seen? Keep quiet? I dont think so.

I already suggested that the CO give a goal and let his crew acheive it, thats a loose suggestion but you argued against that.

Micromanagement is not to be tolerated. Nor is zombiehood.

~Ortus

Elric, Starfleet captains often say, "I am open to suggestions".  They are not obligated to follow the suggestions, but there is no harm in hearing them.

Quote

So we all should become mindless zombies bound to the will of the CO. What if you dont agree with his approach? What if there is another way around things that the CO hasnt seen? Keep quiet? I dont think so. I already suggested that the CO give a goal and let his crew acheive it, thats a loose suggestion but you argued against that. Micromanagement is not to be tolerated. Nor is zombiehood. ~Ortus

a lowly ensign wouldnt exacly b able to walk up to the CO and say, ur plan sucks, hed have him outa the airlock in seconds, to b of infulence to the CO u have to earn it. If the CO dont wana listen and belives the black hole really can make his beard grow grab a transfer

Did I say listen to idiots? No.

Did I say cast a shipwide vote before any action is taken? No.

The Captain can give orders, the command crew can object if they have a valid objection.

Causing trouble or acting the monkey is precisely that, a waste of time.

~Ortus

This reply deals with the responses from page 1. I'll deal with page 2 in a minute.

I never meant to suggest that the CO's orders are intended for micromanagement. It may seem like that, but it isn't. In all if the Trek shows we've seen, the captain is the one who tells the crew what he wants. Sometimes it's expressed specifically, and other times, generally.

But if I am CO, and I know what procedures work in a given circumstance, because experience will have taught me as I rose through the ranks, I can issue commands to the apropriate crew members laying down the best strategy. If that means telling Tactical which ship I think he should treat as a priority target, or whatever, I am doing my part to contribute to the success of the mission. They CAN elect to target an alternative ship. But if by doing so, the ship I specified has time to charge its supercannon and takes out our shields, then when the mission fails, the tactical officer deserves a penalty for not following orders. As I said, if orders remain in a queue for each player who has received one at the point of mission failure, then it is safe to assume that the mission failed because orders were ignored. If the mission is successful, then it doesn't matter. It's all good.

Having said that, I believe that NOBODY should achieve the rank of captain until they have served in a variety of missions, including space combat, ground combat, diplomacy, etc. One has to know how things work before he can just start telling people what to do.

I would submit that a captain's arsenal of commands should start being built even as early as the rank of ensign. If they've done it, they can order it when they've got the authority.

The old saying, "You can't lead where you haven't been willing to go" comes in handy here.

Incidentally, the "hold your fire" command was tossed out there precisely because of the players with the Leet Dewd mentality who like shooting at anything that moves. With that in effect, they can't ruin a diplomatic mission on a whim.

In Christ,
G. B. Jackson

"They're probably accustomed to your orders making sense!"
- Lilly, "Star Trek: First Contact"

What if the Captain is clearly being a jerk, can we mutiny?

Well... I don't think that forcing options to be shut off or turned on at the whim of the Captain's orders is a good idea. Captains give orders to the crew, and the crew carries it out to the best of their ability. There should be no 'forced' situation...

 And what if you do have that dumb-brained player who wants to shoot up your diplomatic mission? Simple. Have the captain be able to lock out that player's console, and take direct control until another player comes in.

 Face it people. Abuse is going to happen. It's up to us to join the crews that are good at what they do, or create our own. Don't give suggestions that will, in the end, become micromanagement and make the game end up being less involved.

 "Red Alert." Sure, you could have the Captain say that and shields and weapons automatically come on. But cmon, that's Tactical's job. Let the player do it.
 "Bearing 42.0 by 120. Engage." Well, Helm receives the order, but what if there was an asteroid in that spot that the Captain didn't notice? :P
  Basiclly what I'm getting at is... this is a game about Captain, and CREW. The Captain is the leader, sure, but it's the crew that can, in the end, win the day.

Quote

What if you dont agree with his approach? What if there is another way around things that the CO hasnt seen? Keep quiet? I dont think so.

That's where the ability to relieve a CO of command if his orders are clearly putting the ship and crew at risk. It would require the concurrance of the first officer and the senior staff, or the first officer and the CMO/Counselor.

Quote

Micromanagement is not to be tolerated. Nor is zombiehood.

I agree. Players should feel free to disobey orders, but if the mission fails, then it is on their conscience. They deserve penalty. If the mission fails in spite of the crew following orders, then the captain clearly made wrong decisions and deserves the blame.

The thing is, in a crew that works well together, the captain isn't going to be making stupid decisions, and the crew won't be bucking him. They will trust that his orders are correct, and he will trust them to follow them. And everyone will feel rewarded when they successfully complete the missions and gain prestige.

Successful ships will have successful crews. And successful crews will come from their members working together. Incidentally, strategy can be hashed out in discussion in the conference lounge, at the nice big table with the beautiful warp-generated starlines seen through the vireports. The team can discuss what they know about the mission, and a plan can be formed.

A lot of times, with a good crew, the CO player will be able to simply make suggestions via spatial conversation rather than issuing an order. The order system is intended to ensure that a military structure can exist with the game in control over what orders can be given. And to make sure that those who are serious about playing the game RIGHT can do so in spite of being stuck with some players who would be better off staying with Unreal Tournament or Halo 2...

If I decide to run my ship with a near control-freak mentality, thay is my right as captain. Nobody will be holding a disruptor to any player's head forcing them to join my crew. But if my ship has extremely high prestige, and I do, to, then those who want to be on a winning crew will accept that I am merely a strict CO, and will either toe the line or leave. Those who want all the freedom will just join someone else's crew.

Every captain will be different. Some will be push-overs. Some will be hard-core military types. Some will be somewhere in between. In the same vein, Crews will all be different, too. If my strict CO character has earned enough prestige points be transferred to a new ship, then I should expect that the existing crew of that ship will need some adjustment time, and so will I.

It's like that episode where Picard was captured by the cardassians while he was on a covert operation, and that other captain took over on the enterprise. His children's drawing deccorated the ready room, but "that fish" had to go. He also repremanded Troi for not wearing a duty uniform on the bridge. Things that the crew had become used to were changed. Not necessarily a bad thing, but change takes getting used to. Like when you get a new boss at your job, and he starts making all these changes...

Some crew members may not be able to make the adjustment. They may transfer off the ship. New players will join the crew. Eventually things will balance out.

On the issue of objecting to a captain's order, this should be possible, but very sparingly done. In the middle of a battle, there will be little time to discuss the situation. A smart captain who isn't sure of his strategy may take an anything goes policy and let the crew just do what it takes. "Disregard previous orders. Do whatever it takes to get the survivers off that transport before their warp core goes critical!"

The order there is "Disregard previous orders!" At this point all orders in queue for all bridge crew members are removed and the players may proceed without fear of consequences if the mission fails. You cannot be blamed for not following orders if the orders were nullified... So the Captain is taking full responsibility.

The scenario I mentioned above on how the ship could push past the enemy, beam the survivers off the transport and then get the heck out of there may be what just happens without a single order being issued.

Quote

What if the Captain is clearly being a jerk, can we mutiny?

Yes. The captain could and should be relieved of command if he is clearly putting the ship at risk because of an I'm right and you're wrong attitude. Ego should never be allowed to put a captain out of control to the point where he endangers the ship. A first officer's first duty is to the ship. Therefore, it is his/her responsibility to do what it takes to protect the ship, even if it means calling for circumvention of the captain's authority.

I think we will see a lot of jerk captains at the start, because a lot of people will be letting the fact that they have gained the rank and position of CO go to their head. When enough people mutiny under him, then he'll figure it out and tone it down. or else he'll quit, and that's one less jerk to worry about.

It's all the same to the players. We've been told that we'll be able to do missions on loaner ships when a PC ship is not available. A lot of PC crews will form from players who serve on the same NPC ship.

Lots of good discussion here. Keep it up.

In Christ,
G. B. Jackson

"I'M Captain Kirk!!!"
-Evil Captain Kirk, TOS Episode "The Enemy Within"

I feel that this is not needed if a crew knows each other and holds the respect. ALTHOUGH I do think there should be a function for the Captain to relieve a member from duty, ie either stopping or limiting thier ability to use ship functions, the same can be for the Chief Medical Officer for the Captain. CMO can relieve Captain, and Captain relieve any crewmember.

On the other note, the command Fire at Will will give the Tactical freedom to fire when and where his training tells him. For flight con the Capt just has to say something like evasive maneuvers etc, and that gives the Con freedom to flow how they see fit. So, just roleplay it, wait for the Cpt to give you the freedom.

Quote (Elric666 @ July 15 2005, 6:05 pm)

Anyone who doesnt follow an order spends an hour in the brig, quite sure that will deture ppl from not following orders

[QUOTE]

Plus it will have the added effect of ensuring the game is remembered with such MMO smash hits as Matrix Online and Horizons.  

You need to face the fact that in general you need to give MMO gamers a wide lattitude.  If you restrict them, give someone else the ability to order them around, or give someone the ability to punish them, they will quite simply leave the game.  

A captains ability to give orders should be limited to the same power any guild leader has in most other MMOs.  Meaning the guild leader/leaders have the ability to boot players from the guild.  That's enough and that is about all players will tolerate.  

Most players don't RP, and will not willingly listen to someone else simply because the game tells them so and so is three ranks above you.  You in general need to rely on, in PC ships anyway, players forming bonds and friendships that will motivate them to work as a team.  You can encourage teamwork and followership, but if you begin to enforce it too much then there goes your game.  

I'm not even going to get into punishment.  If anyone at any time ever has the ability to relieve someone from duty, put a crewmate in the brig, or punish them in any way, it will surely be a decesion the develolers will come to regret.  It will lead to abuse and grief in a way you couldn't imagine.  

GBJ I would respond more directly to your concerns if your threads were a more managable length.  One or two long ones here and there is ok.  But I can't sit through and read when ever single reply is a essay.

Phew...some long posts here, but it's an important topic. I don't think that the game designers will give (nor should they) the captain total control over players. Moreover the captain will have control over general ship modes like going to yellow/red alert, which will enable/disable certain ship abilities.

I think a chat window will be sufficient for many directions like "need 2 engineers to repair the warp core" or "could you medical officers report to deck 11 aft...got a couple men down"

I like the idea of rewarding crews/captains for completeing missions, and for MINOR penalties for failure (something on the order of a loss of experience points if this were an RPG).

But most importantly, the designers need to make sure that STO requires TEAMWORK and COOPERATION in order for players to be successful.  If someone is being a jerk or flaming or intentionaly sabatoging the ship, the captain should have the ability to boot the player from the ship, just like any group leader in many MMO's can boot players from their group.