| Mail |
You might also like: WoW Insider, Joystiq, and more

Reader Comments (19)

Posted: Oct 21st 2009 8:33PM Innocentte said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
Based on what Cryptic did at the launch of Champions Online, I do not believe that you can depend on any promises or claims they might make related to gameplay. Just best to ignore it all until the game is released and launched. Then see what it is all about.

Posted: Oct 22nd 2009 3:20AM blomma said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Champions had it's fair bit of problems at launch and still do, but the overwhelming problem with it is that its so shallow, this more than anything will be it's biggest problem when it comes to holding onto subscribers.

If STO can avoid this problem, and i hope they do, im sure it will be a very nice game.
Reply

Posted: Oct 22nd 2009 8:35AM Aganazer said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Do you mind giving some examples of what interviews mislead you about Champions?

I don't remember any interviews promising that Champions will have god-mode that lets players face-roll through 100% of the content.

I don't remember any interviews promising that Champions will have enough content to play multiple times without repeating content.

I don't remember any promises of mind blowing PvP or perfectly balanced powers.

I'm not saying CO is a great game, but I guess I am not understanding what grounds you have to disbelieve what they are saying. As with any game ever produced, knowing the feature list doesn't automatically make it fun or enjoyable. It doesn't mean that it will meet 100% of your expectations.
Reply

Posted: Oct 21st 2009 10:15PM elocke said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
So true. After the debacle of them completely changing how the game played in open beta vs. launch day(which made me quit and never look back) I wholeheartedly DO NOT want to beta test or play this until it has launched.

Posted: Oct 21st 2009 10:29PM Anatidae said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
I wish they would get rid of levels. No need for a sidekick system when you don't have levels. Games like EVE, even a new player can be valuable even if they can't pilot the same level of ship a long time player can. Some of the first MMOs, like Ultima Online, without levels at all players still managed to adventure and help one another while feeling a definite sense of progression.

Posted: Oct 22nd 2009 12:11AM (Unverified) said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
I totally agree. I have learned to hate levels. It's a shallow system that only serves to segregate a game's playerbase. If a game needs to reward player with "dings" to be interesting, I'm not interested in playing it. If players need "dings" to keep themselves interested in a game, I'm not interested in playing with them.
Reply

Posted: Oct 22nd 2009 12:49AM Ingrod said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
For what I learn the progression will be how in SWG-CU, you have both, levels and skill boxes, when you complete some number of skill boxes you gain a level. Is a mixed system.

9 skill ranks per skill box
10 clases per player rank (First Class Captain, Second Class Captain, etc.)
10 classes x five player ranks = 50 levels

9 skill ranks x several skills x 50 levels = a "ding" every few minutes xD

For me is good, give a sense of advancement inclusive if you only can play few hours per week.

Posted: Oct 22nd 2009 12:55AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Wasted oppurtunity. Star Trek Online already failed. All it is now is a typical space MMO with space and planet gameplay. Ridiculous waste of potential.

Want to see what the backbone of a Star Trek MMO should be? Play SIlent Hunter 3. ALL bridge personal should be human players, each with a specialized role. Having every player as a captain really ruins what could have been a top-tier MMO.

Posted: Oct 22nd 2009 3:51AM Interitus said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I've said this for so long. The majority of the show revolves around the ship (or station). Things happening on the ship, to the ship. It could have opened a really fun game if they had started with fully fleshed out ships and then added ground based in an expansion. Like SWG did with JtL but backwards. And they could have made in interesting, but to me it feels like they didn't think twice and just went with the ship avatars and everyone is a captain because everyone wants to be captain. (for the record, I don't want to be a captain)
Reply

Posted: Oct 22nd 2009 6:59AM archipelagos said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I'm also somewhat disappointed about the execution of the concept as I feel that there was an opportunity here for something very special and unique. As it stands it's more generic but it could still be enjoyable - on it's own terms. It's not the Star Trek MMO that some people (including me) may have wished to see but as a Sci-Fi MMO it may still succeed. Wait and see I guess.
Reply

Posted: Oct 22nd 2009 7:03AM LaughingTarget said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
The game would fail under that model, no arguments about it. Forced grouping, inconsistent groups, and less interactive roles. Who would want to be a captain? He doesn't do squat but sit in a chair and give orders. What if other players simply chose to ignore the others and do their own thing? The entire ship is at the mercy of the guy at the helm. If a member of your forced group decides to drop, you're SOL until you find a way back to a station to get a replacement.

Attempting to plan play sessions around a group of trusted players is not something that everyone can pull off. In my entire circle offriends, only my brother plays MMOs.

Your idea of a fun STO would fold in under 6 months. The target market is just too slim and too reliant on players willing to split play time doing boring tasks.
Reply

Posted: Oct 22nd 2009 9:52AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Actually the Perpetual design was based around (At least partially) explorable ship interiors and a player crew. Their solution to the situation of a captain being present, but with no helm was to give the captain control over navigation and the helm be 'manned' by an animated npc which existed as an aesthetic place-holder.
The other stations would be controlled by npcs until such a time as a human player chose to take over. (In the same way we often saw nameless crew members brushed aside when the main cast appeared, or rush to fill their station when they left for an away mission etc...)
Their plan was to have two types of crews, permanent (Such as a 'guild' or clan) and temporary. (A group formed of strangers with a ship granted for a short mission.) From my reading of their intent, for the most part you'd just solo in a small craft when you were not part of a guild in a larger starship. Whoever had the highest rank would be in command of the guild starship if the assigned captain wasn't logged on.
Having said that, I don't think Perpetual would have done this concept justice. But it is a much better aspiration than what Cryptic have on offer. I wouldn't even mind as much if the graphics and animations didn't look so very cheap. I would have at least expected a game with as big a budget as STO to have better space visuals than EVE or Black Prophecy.
Reply

Posted: Oct 22nd 2009 5:31PM LaughingTarget said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Still, it doesn't get around a fundamental playability function. There are only two possible scenarios:

A. The captain is a useless placeholder character that probably will only be a generic buff character since everyone else may or may not pay attention to what he says.

B. All the other players are just glorified hotkeys for whoever is playing the captain, simply carrying out whatever order he happens to decide on at the time.

B is the closest thing to a simulation of the universe but A is the most logical outcome. Even that would promote problems since there would be a tug of war between engineering, science, and weapons as to who gets the limited power output. It certainly won't be fun when you decide the shields need to be raised yet the guy at the helm wants more maneuverability and the guy on weapons wants more phaser power. Who gets it? Does the captain decide this? If so, it falls back into players being nothing more than those hotkeys.

It sounds like a fun time for an incredibly small group of dedicated players, but given the size of the IP, it's a bad idea to try and appease that group. Star Trek is a big property, more so now the latest movie hit, it nearly pulled down $400 million worldwide. Cryptic needs to cash in on that lest they pull a Star Wars Galaxy, a game that was too obtuse to keep the bulk of its player base or even come close to hitting the fanbase. Star Wars is likely a bigger property than Star Trek, yet SWG only peaked out at 300k (from what I've seen).

The current system Cryptic is going with is the best model to keep it financially viable. At the end of the day, Star Trek Online is still a business, and businesses need to make money to cover expenses to justify their existence. A model where even NPCs take up ship positions when players aren't available still forces players out of playing much more iconic vessels like the Galaxy class since that would have been used as a hub in the Perpetual version or a guild/group-only ship in your idea. It blocks out the majority of players who would like to jump into an Enterprise and explore the galaxy, but don't have the time to invest to do it with a guild, me being one of them.

Silent Hunter 3 wasn't a commercial success for a reason.
Reply

Posted: Oct 22nd 2009 2:20AM Ingrod said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I like the Cryptic approach, the progresion system remembers me the good SWG old days pre-NGE, the skill system and officers for ships is good too. I need know more about the exploration system before judge this game.

For me a good exploration and compeling missions/episodes are more important for make a good Star Trek game, mandatory human bridge officers for me dont are decisive for that matter.

This is a game about all Star Trek, not a submarines simulation.

Posted: Oct 22nd 2009 11:02AM Thac0 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
All i can say is that if i wanted ship avatars and not explorable ships I'd go play EvE they do that very well. Star Trek is all about the human experience not being a starship. I'm very disappointed there will be no state rooms and interiors to run around in and places to invite your friends.

What RP (some call them fluff) elements do they have in STO? I am curious.

Posted: Oct 22nd 2009 12:07PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Yeah, it's good to know that they totally said that there's going to be no explorable ship interiors and all... oh wait, they didn't! Why not wait and read the whole transcript before jumping on the "Bash Cryptic" bus, eh?
Reply

Posted: Oct 22nd 2009 1:16PM Thac0 said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
I don't know what they said, I'm just commenting on what I have learned from this thread. I don't think i Bashed anyone, just gave my honest opinion based on what i have heard. I really have no agenda.
Reply

Posted: Oct 22nd 2009 4:27PM Ingrod said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
The game will have starbases (hubs) and ship interiors for some missions, I read that in a dev FAQ, and you can see then in some screenshot around the web.
Reply

Posted: Oct 22nd 2009 4:35PM Ingrod said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
For me Star Trek is about space exploration, discover new worlds, make first contact with other species, filosofic themes and episodic storylines, not only about "life inside a ship", the show is named "Stat Trek", not "Starship Enterprise"

I believe that they plan add bridge interaction in a future, but now they cant build interesting interiors for all the ships without sacrifice many others contents much more importants or put in their game very few ships or only federation ships. Instead they are put their efforts in develop a game core with space and planets content, and perhaps in the future add ships interiors content. Put ships interiors first and add planets surfaces for an expansion will be the recipe for fail, forcing then to cut many other fundamental Star Trek contents: in the most of the Star Trek episodes the ship tripulation are bean to explore planet surfaces and interact with other species and cultures.

Also how capitan you can specialice in other careers too, you can have science (and inside the doctor tree), engineering and tactical (same that profession of the main characters in the show), and your role in planetary combat is determined by you career, you only are captain in space.

Featured Stories

Engadget

Engadget

Joystiq

Joystiq

WoW Insider

WoW

TUAW

TUAW