The next Star Trek MMORPG: Another Epic Fail?

[Barrister]

Space combat does not feel deep. (I still like it. I liked Bridge Commander. But not as much as I liked Starfleet Command 1 and 2.)  Maneuvering, fitting out your ship, and waiting for a chance to sneak in a torpedo is all STO has to offer.

Wait until you fight some of the harder battles and you acquire crew members with skills.  Shifting shields, shifting power to various systems and using skills becomes more important.

I used this analogy before.  Fighting wolves in Elwynn forest at level 1 didn't feel deep either.  It got better once you had more skills and abilities.

[Barrister]

Question for someone who has done more than just the tutorial:

So for ground combat they've introduced the idea of personal shields.  It rather niftily gets around the problem of how do you survive a disruptor blast, and it's somewhat "canon" since the Borg had them, and I guess the Federation learned how to build them.

But does the game give these shields to every enemy you fight, ever?  Surely not everyone in the galaxy has developed this technology in the last 30 years?

[grumbler]

One way you could try to get away from the "tank" group encounter mechanic would be to create a substantial penalty for NOT engaging every target.

Lets say that in a typical fight, anyone who is not being fired at by someone (suppresssed) does 3x as much damage.

Then, the combat mechanics start revolving around trying to suppress everyone else, while having someone on your side NOT be suppressed. Maybe the better way to think of it is that anyone suppressed does 1/3rd damage, or whatever.

This would be quite accurate in terms of historical long-range-gunfire warship combat, where ships not being fired at didn't have to jink and duck, reducing their own accuracy.  A failure to engage every ship possible was considered a serious breakdown in command and control, as at Dogger Bank, where HMS Tiger's failure to engage SMS Moltke cost the British heavy damage.

[crazy canuck]

One way you could try to get away from the "tank" group encounter mechanic would be to create a substantial penalty for NOT engaging every target.

Lets say that in a typical fight, anyone who is not being fired at by someone (suppresssed) does 3x as much damage.

Then, the combat mechanics start revolving around trying to suppress everyone else, while having someone on your side NOT be suppressed. Maybe the better way to think of it is that anyone suppressed does 1/3rd damage, or whatever.

This would be quite accurate in terms of historical long-range-gunfire warship combat, where ships not being fired at didn't have to jink and duck, reducing their own accuracy.  A failure to engage every ship possible was considered a serious breakdown in command and control, as at Dogger Bank, where HMS Tiger's failure to engage SMS Moltke cost the British heavy damage.

This seems to be how the ground combat works.  If someone is left alone they can "aim" and do much more damage.  Plus the combination of moving to flank and firing an aimed shot is devastating.

I have not fought in a multiple ship combat yet so I am not sure whether similar dynamics are used in space but hopefully it is similar.

[katmai]

Beeb, no not every enemy has personal shields.

[starbright]

I used this analogy before.  Fighting wolves in Elwynn forest at level 1 didn't feel deep either.  It got better once you had more skills and abilities.

You have a point and so do I. People who played SFC2 and SFC3 will know what I am talking about. SFC3 had a very innovative combat system where accuracy was based on relative motion of two ships and power allocation mattered a little bit. It was fun, but SFC2 system was more fun. Ships felt more like ships than fighters.

[Barrister]

Beeb, no not every enemy has personal shields.

So can you disintegrate those enemies with a single phaser blast?

[katmai]

Beeb, no not every enemy has personal shields.

So can you disintegrate those enemies with a single phaser blast?

Hmmm not usually, most will take 2 shots. and some of them do vaporize like in the movies.

[katmai]

I like the little app/widget they have on front page of STO that shows your friends status if they are ingame or not.

[grumbler]

This would be quite accurate in terms of historical long-range-gunfire warship combat, where ships not being fired at didn't have to jink and duck, reducing their own accuracy.  A failure to engage every ship possible was considered a serious breakdown in command and control, as at Dogger Bank, where HMS Tiger's failure to engage SMS Moltke cost the British heavy damage.

This seems to be how the ground combat works.  If someone is left alone they can "aim" and do much more damage.  Plus the combination of moving to flank and firing an aimed shot is devastating.

If true, this would seem to answer the 'how does this differ from WoW" argument (if I understand WoW combat, which isn't likely, quite frankly!  )

[Barrister]

$239 lifetime subscription.   

[Caliga]

 

[Barrister]

I like the little app/widget they have on front page of STO that shows your friends status if they are ingame or not.

The friends service is currently down.

[Berkut]

Yeah, I can run the game now!

Booo, I cannot get past the "Connecting to Login Server..." screen. It just times out eventuallly.

Worst.
Game.
Ever.

[Caliga]

Yeah, I can run the game now!

Booo, I cannot get past the "Connecting to Login Server..." screen. It just times out eventuallly.

Worst.
Game.
Ever.

"Goddamn it I WANT A REFUND!"

Oh wait...