Star Trek Lots of potential

Lots of potential

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 10837

Report this Oct. 20 2005, 7:46 am

PvP in holo-decks:
1. Very open ended, might see things from elite force, Doom, and Real Tournament.

2. There should be ship to ship battles in there too, only Bridge access on the holo-decks.

PvP outside of the holo-decks:

1. Hoping for wargames between ship to ship combat.

2. Expansions will be the finial answer to open PvP.

68th

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 527

Report this Oct. 20 2005, 8:55 am

I dont claim to have loads of mmo experience!
The reason I 'pester' these boards is because I'm a fan of all things Trek and I hate to see huge potential go to waste. You can call that what you want Randul!

You think there will be some fps style combat in the game? Well yeah, that does sound cool but I haven't even seen a hint of this yet.
In my LIMITED experience of pvp, all I did was click icons on my screen and watch my character perform them and watch my oponnent perform his. This became incredibly boring since clicking icons and watching a theatre piece was essentially all I did. Is this not the way STO pvp will be handled?

TxHawkeye

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 12

Report this Oct. 20 2005, 12:42 pm

The only available information currently posted by the developers of STO regarding combat is the following:

----------
What will ground combat be like?

Our real-time combat system is going to take advantage of many of the skills and abilities seen in Star Trek: using heavy weapons, energy shields, pattern enhancers, and more. Players can form away-teams with any mix of defensive, offensive, and support characters.

Can I crouch and jump?

Yes, hiding behind obstacles will be a good way to avoid fire.
----------

How you manage to come to the conclusion that all combat in the game will be "push-button theatrical" is beyond me, though I would be interested in hearing it.

You need to understand STO is still in its pre-production phase of development, which means the majority of the game mechanics are still on paper. Even if those conceptual ideas had made it to hard coding and eventually testing, everything is subject to change prior to its final release.

Constructive idealism is always welcome in the development of any game. In fact, developers not only want this kind of idealism from their future consumers, they expect it. However, there is a fine line between speculating on how the game will be and what you want the game to become. I strongly suggest staying with the latter option.

68th

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 527

Report this Oct. 20 2005, 12:58 pm

True true TxHawkeye. I understand that combat against computer controlled characters maybe designed in more of a 1st or 3rd person shooter way, especially after just reading this STO interview from IGN which put a huge smile on my face!

IGNPC: So you're planning on more action oriented combat that doesn't involve turns or the roll of dice?

Joe: In a word, yes. The details of that will be made public over time. As a company we're committed to raising the level of combat action in massively multiplayer games.

But I still worry about the pvp aspect. Surely the most interesting and exciting combat would be against each other? So will pvp be in the traditional 'click icons and watch' method, or more of a fps style which is what I'm greatly in favour for?

TxHawkeye

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 12

Report this Oct. 20 2005, 1:13 pm

Let's use a little deductive reasoning for a second.

For hypothetical purposes, let's say Perpetual instituted the FPS style of combat, first and/or third person perspective. You receive a combat mission that has you on the surface of a planet and you enter the objective area where your target is supposedly located. You come face to face with the NPC you're assigned to kill and combat ensues in FPS non-theatrical push-button style. Do you honestly think that the developers would take the extra time to re-code an entirely new method of combat simply because you replaced that NPC with a player?

Xenesis

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1448

Report this Oct. 20 2005, 1:36 pm

Quote

But I still worry about the pvp aspect. Surely the most interesting and exciting combat would be against each other? So will pvp be in the traditional 'click icons and watch' method, or more of a fps style which is what I'm greatly in favour for?

In other words will combat be like SWG where you target someone and sit there just clicking the different combat buttons till death, or like true fps combat like elite forces, quake, unreal, doom, halflife, planetside etc where you actually have to target and fire?.

Going by what they've stated so far, we believe it will be like the latter, true fps combat.

68th

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 527

Report this Oct. 20 2005, 1:43 pm

So (if I understand you correctly) you believe the pvp combat will be the same as NPC combat, which looks more and more likely to be fps style?

I cant see how pvp (in the holodeck) would take that style. You're obviously going to have to get consent before combat. Are you then just expected to blast hell out of each other as soon as it has been given?
Sounds cool to me but I dont see a lot of the hardcore RPG crowd going for that.

Also, how do you think combat between other races such as klingon and Romulan will be handled when both characters will be controlled by real people? (providing the expansions allow you to)

To Xenesis - true fps combat sounds cool to me. I still see trouble with the consent when fighting real players from different races (again, providing we will be ble to...)

Xenesis

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1448

Report this Oct. 20 2005, 2:01 pm

I don't think they need a consent system for pvp in the holodeck, I'm sure you'll know before entering a holodeck program if there's pvping going on, entering that program would be consent enough, and if you don't like it, you can leave it to the safety of your ship.

Don't think there will be a consent system for pvping with other races outside of the holodeck, it would be annoying waiting for permission to attack someone, if anything a flagging system will be built in for pve servers, if you want to pvp, slip your flag up and go ahead. This is why most games make PvE servers seperate from PvP servers, so you can either ignore the enemy and go about your pveing business, or engage the enemy anytime without needing permission on the pvp servers.

IMO WoW got it right. PvE servers allow the pve lovers to play the game how they want without worry of griefers, and if they want in some of the pvp action they can activate their pvp flag, or attact enemy npcs and be flagged automatically. PvP servers have the newbie zones that shelter you from pvp for about 20 levels(you can also flip your flag on in those levels if you wish), then it's open pvp for the rest of the zones in the game.

The ground game I suspect will turn out much like Planetside type of combat, not like the turn based combat like the rest of the mmog's current out there, and that's not a bad thing, I prefer that.

68th

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 527

Report this Oct. 20 2005, 2:13 pm

(I prefer that style to Xenesis)
But lets say that you're Romulan and I'm Federation :laugh:

, we're not on any active mission to go kill each other but we meet on neutral ground at a base/planet somewhere. You should be able to kill me there and then unprovoked and the other way around. I'd have no problem with that. For me it would add an element of realism (or as real as you can get for star trek) and make the game more exciting.
BUT! I see a lot of people having issues with that idea.

LtPowers

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 65

Report this Oct. 20 2005, 3:20 pm

Quote (68th @ Oct. 19 2005, 2:13 pm)

(I prefer that style to Xenesis)
But lets say that you're Romulan and I'm Federation :laugh:

There is nothing realistic or exciting about worrying whether or not the player on the other side of the Romulan avatar wants to play "Gank the Feddies" when I want to engage in roleplayed negotiations.

As for combat style, understand that it will never be totally FPS-style. In an FPS, all avatars (I can't really call them characters) are theoretically equal -- or at least balanced. It's left almost entirely up to player skill to decide who wins. In an RPG, though, different characters have different abilities (based on experience, species/race, profession, etc.). Those abilities have to affect combat in some way. For those of us who like to keep "character" separate from "player," it doesn't make much sense to have our character's ability limited by our own.

It will be interesting to see what kind of mix PE goes with.

Powers &8^]

Xenesis

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1448

Report this Oct. 20 2005, 3:36 pm

Yeah on PvP servers that would be fine, on PvE it should be required for people to put up their pvp flags if they wish to engage pc enemies. Some people may not like the idea of flagging, it's not realistic for them, in which case join the pvp server to avoid that restriction. Most PvE'ers like to hunt in peace without the corpse camping or griefing, and PE should cater to that crowd as well, there are just as much if not more people who pve than pvp, and there are games that already prove that, even WoW which has at least half it's servers designated as PvE's.

68th

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 527

Report this Oct. 20 2005, 7:28 pm

' There is nothing realistic or exciting about worrying whether or not the player on the other side of the Romulan avatar wants to play "Gank the Feddies" when I want to engage in roleplayed negotiations. '

LMAO!

How often did everything in Star Trek go smoothly for away teams?
A little bit of potential trouble here and there and you dont like it and say it's unrealistic.
Well guess what, the Dominion never asked humans for permission before shooting them

STOCaptain01

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1369

Report this Oct. 20 2005, 10:42 pm

This is how I think PvP in the holodeck is going to be. You set up an arena, or "map" which you want to fight in. And youll be able to have teams in large "maps". Each side will have an aount of reinforcements like in SWBF. When you run out you loose. Maybe they can also add a "Capture the Flag" system. I doubt the pvp will be twitch based only. They might let players choose. (doubftul but possible).

Also, I imagine they will let captains simulate battles, like in Bridge COmmander when you first received command of the Sovereign you could simulate a battle. You wouldnt really do damage to the other person's ship, just simulated damage.

Also, if your expecting faction vs. faction open war pvp. Then dont expect Klingons. The Federation and Klingons are allied, wouldnt make a lot of sense to have them fighting. I could however imagine a conflict with the split Romulan Empire.

bluebolian

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 292

Report this Oct. 23 2005, 8:31 pm

Quote (68th @ Oct. 19 2005, 12:29 pm)

To be honest, the star trek episodes that attracted the largest audiences were the ones where wars and large space battles were taking place. If this game ends up like being one of those peace and love episodes where they just talk 99% of the time, then I cant see this game sticking around for long

[QUOTE]

I happened to like the more peaceful style. You can find redundant action blast them/kill everything type games everywhere! Yes, there will be action but it is not the core of the ST experience. It will be the science and diplomacy missions that add that origianal something to set the game apart. If you want action just get assigned to a warship.

As for PvP. It wouldn't be such a big deal since the risk of loss isn't as great. anything you could loose, namely equipment, can easily be replaced since it would be given to you to begin with. Starfleet wouldn't refuse to give you a simple phaser simply because you lost your last one on a mission.
One aspect of PvP I would like to see though are your classic barroom brawls. If I want to deck a crewmate because he lost my copy of klingon opera I should. And when two dosen other people want to join in the fun we can start a party. :honorable: