Trending Games | Paladins | World of Warcraft | Dark and Light | Osiris: New Dawn

    Facebook Twitter YouTube YouTube.Gaming
Login:  Password:   Remember?  
Show Quick Gamelist Jump to Random Game
Members:3,398,867 Users Online:0

Show Blog

Link to this blogs RSS feed

Star Trek Online Developer Blog

The folks from Cryptic Studios' Star Trek Online have started this exciting new developer blog here at

Author: Awenyddion

Jack Emmert – Taking on Star Trek Online

Posted by Awenyddion Friday February 27 2009 at 12:50PM
Login or Register to rate this blog post!

We first became involved with Star Trek very tangentially. Cryptic Studios was looking around at various investment opportunities in the second half of 2007. We were working on Champions and were trying to decide our next steps. We happened to strike up a conversation with Francisco Partners; a great bunch of guys who introduced us to Perpetual. We’d of course heard of Perpetual and both of its projects (STO and Gods & Heroes). As MMO fans, we were looking forward to playing both games. People from both companies visited one another and showed off technology and development. Believe it or not, it’s pretty common to do this; the game industry is very congenial.

That’s about where things stood as 2007 came to a close. Our president, Michael Lewis, kept in touch with the folks at Perpetual because it never hurts to keep the lines of communication open, and we had let them know that if the Star Trek license ever happened to come free, we’d be interested. Many of us are big Star Trek fans, and a few I’d say are even proud to call themselves Trekkers.

Businesswise, there are very, very few IPs that fit the MMO genre better than Star Trek. It isn’t about a single story or narrative – it’s about a galactic community and how it interacts. Star Trek is a vast world teeming with interesting places and cool creatures. There’s mystery … and conflict. Historically, Trek hadn’t fared well in the video game world, so I think some people wrongly devalued the IP. In our minds, no game had really done justice to Star Trek. Plus, we already heard the rumblings of the forthcoming movie, so we knew interest in Star Trek was going to rise.

I’m not privy to what went on at Perpetual, other than what I have heard third-hand or read on the Internet. I had seen what they’d done in Star Trek, but that was about it. In early 2008, Perpetual decided to sell the license to us. Naturally, we were thrilled, but before we could finalize the deal there were a ton of hoops to jump through.

Unfortunately, it was a pretty open secret (at least online) that something was going on. Several web sites lamented the fact that no one would say anything, and we felt really bad about that. We wanted to let the fans know, but we couldn’t announce anything until everything had been signed.
That’s the story of how Star Trek ended up at Cryptic. Now, what we decided to do next is another story altogether …

carlr writes:

Interesting read, i always wanted ot know more details on how Cryptic got the IP and the situation of that time with the 2 companys.

Look forward to the next one!

Fri Feb 27 2009 6:49PM Report
Cerion writes:

Cryptic understands one thing at least: That the Star Trek IP has been underserved by video game developers, and that the MMO space is a perfect fit. 

Too bad I'm highly skeptical of their offering thus far however.  I like Cryptic as a company, and thought City of Heroes was top notch MMO. They "got" super heroes.  I really don't have the same sense that they 'get' Star Trek though.

Star Wars was about conflict; Star Trek was about avoiding conflict. All this talk of combat regarding STO has me worried. I'll be as candid as I can here. The first reason the single player Star Trek games failed for me was because they involved TOO MUCH combat.  No game developer gets that with regard to Trek.

The second reason these single player Trek games failed  was because I wanted to feel like I was part of a crew manning one of these ships. I don't see Cryptic making this a focus either.

So while I agree with Mr Emmert that Star Trek is uniquely suited for the MMO space, I see Cryptic failing on the fundemental understandings of would make the Trek universe appealing.

Fri Feb 27 2009 9:33PM Report
kokoleka writes:

This might be a little OT but who decided we are Trekkers and not Trekkies? Just wondering because I've been a TREKKIE for 46yrs!!!  And yes, I was born a Trekkie and I'm going out a Trekkie!!!

Fri Feb 27 2009 10:24PM Report
mirkrim writes:

the header image link is wrong.  It should be, without the dash.

Sat Feb 28 2009 3:13AM Report
Flummoxed writes:

If you go to the conventions, the hard core group of fans who've memorized every tv episode and every movie line and read every book refer to themselves as "Trekkers".  That's the correct term. 

"Trekkie" was coined by non-fan media commentators when they first noticed a fan base was springing up around the tv series.

Sat Feb 28 2009 5:29AM Report
Flummoxed writes:

and i agree with Cerion, as the classic intro says:

"Space... the Final Frontier. These are the voyages of the starship Enterprise. Its five-year mission: to explore strange new worlds, to seek out new life and new civilizations, to boldly go where no man has gone before."

While nearly all of the original episodes had some kind of fighting as part of the story, that wasn't the point of the series, it was about exploration and discovering strange new worlds.

Hope the mmo doesn't turn out to be just a space-based shooter.

Sat Feb 28 2009 5:46AM Report
Antioche writes:

I will second the opinion about star trek and 'combat', whether person to person, or ship to ship. Star Trek should be about exploration first. I think diplomacy should factor largely into it as well. Weapon systems and such should be available. Now, this is, strictly speaking, the play style of humans. Assuming you can play klingons, or cardassians, then perhaps the opportunity to be more warlike should be available.

Sadly, I have very little hope for the star trek universe to be brought to life anytime soon. You would need years of development time, and a massive team. You'd need to create some amazing new technologies for your game engine/server that would allow this massive universe to be brought to life with a great level of detail. Anything less will simply disappoint 'trekkers', and those of us who enjoy the star trek universe. I wish you the best of luck, Cryptic, in holding to the highest possible commitment to be true to the IP, and offer the very best that you can to the fanbase.

Sat Feb 28 2009 9:45AM Report
StubbyGB writes:

I have to say that i agree with the main gist of the previous posts, but one thing i would say is that i dont think it is just game companies that dont 'get' Trek.

The more recent series (since the death of the original creator) have suffered from the same problem. They have shifted away from the avoidance of conflict, to focus more and more on war.

While it seems Cryptic have good intentions of serving the fans to the best of their abilities, i am not all that optimistic. the trailer on the web site has a lot of focus on combat.

Sat Feb 28 2009 10:08AM Report
Zeroxin writes:

Most star trek trailers have involved lots of fighting so that point is a little mute. Other than that I read another interview on massively with Craig Zinkievich who is the exec. producer for the game and this is what he had to say about diplomatic quests; Diplomatic gameplay is tricky.? ?We want to make sure that the gameplay is fun and doesn't feel contrived.? ?We're constantly trying new things to try to get more non-combat gameplay in.? I believe even if they do not hit the mark initially they will definitely pick it up as they go on, what players and trekkers want that is.

Sat Feb 28 2009 6:04PM Report
wootin writes:

They need to take a page from CoH's new feature and put player created missions as part of the beta and the ongoing game. That will teach them all they need to know about what players want, and also give a fighting chance at populating the game (which has arguably the MOST environment of any game to fill) with believable, engaging missions that are true to the spirit of the original creator.

Sat Feb 28 2009 10:37PM Report
Terranah writes:

I kind of disagree with the direction this game is going in, but try as I might I can't really think how I would make this game if it were up to me.  So I guess I'll just sit back and see what they come up with and hope it's something I like. 


I was disappointed we won't have ship interiors.  That's something I would really like to see.  Also I didn't want to be a captain, but I like the idea of being in control of my own ship.  I would like to be a medical officer, a science officer, a security officer and maybe an engineer.  All those things interest me.


And lastly, someone mentioned the 'trekker vs trekkie' thing.  I have watched Star Trek since the early 1970's, own a Captain's uniform, have two different kinds of phasers, two different kinds of communicators and two different kinds of tricorders, have been to numerous conventions, have met many of the actors, and read hundreds of the novels.  I think it's safe to say I am a fan.  And I have no problem being called a Trekker or a Trekkie.  I'm already a big enough geek, arguing something so petty would feel ridiculous.

Sun Mar 01 2009 11:56AM Report
esarphie writes:

You know, I've always found the basic inherent contradiction of Star Trek to be fascinating. Much hoopla surrounded Roddenberry's original concept of a peaceful future in space, however, there is not a single episode of the original series without physical conflict or tense confrontation with the threat of arms. The only "peace" that existed was between members of the Federation, and in later series even that was put to the test a few times.

To constantly bring up the idea that diplomacy and pure exploration needs to be the primary focus of any Star Trek game ignores the fact that the source of all this material couldn't manage stick to that format for an entire episode, let alone the whole series.

Sun Mar 01 2009 12:42PM Report
breatack writes:

I personaly am very grateful that STO is not going with making players be a "Crew member" on a ship.  That would be the single worst mistake they could make.  I personaly do not want to say, be an Engineer, on board some ship that someone else is deciding where it goes, what it dose, ect ect, while I simply stare are some console for even 5 min waiting to see if something goes "beep!" and then get to push some buttons to avoid a core breach.....BLECH. 

Now I understand that not everyone wants to be a "Captain" class, some people want to be Doctor's, Engineer's, Weapon's Officer's, ect. and that is awesome, to each thier own I say.  The TV series, starting with TNG has opened the door wide open for just such things to happen AND for you to be a "Captain" of your own ship. 

Many time's during that series it would show different classifications of ship's with captains that were not merely a command class.  For example, the episode where Beverly Crusher was the Captain of a medical ship.  She commanded a ship, but was not a command "class". 

So what I would like to see is people able to be ANY class they want to be but they ships they are "Captains" of have specific abilities that other ships don't have.  For instance, an Engineering ship, would have the ability to repair itself or another ship/ship's much faster or at no cost due to the fact that it is designed for Engineering.  It's loaded to the hilt with repair facilities,crew, and away team's/boarding parties, dedicated to Engineering.  And you could do this with every "Class".  Medical Ship's, Weapon Ship's, Navigation Ship's, Engineering Ship's.  And when the time arrives for these ships to join together in any type of Fleet action then they would be able to complement each other to complete the task.  And those task's could be endless as well, not just combat, but say the evacuation of a planets population due to a natural disaster or the exploration of a newly discovered planet/star system, creature, ect, ect, ect.

Now I also do not want to see just a spaced based shooter, I have played EvE and pretty much that's all it is.  It has other aspects to the game, but basically it boils down to you do 1 of 2 things, you either go out and shoot people/do missions or you boringly set and shoot mining beams at roids so you can be a merchant/builder.  Star Trek is so much more then that and while there will alway's be some form of combat, cause let's face it, not every other race out there is as enlightened as the Federation, cough, Klingons, cough, there is going to be some head bumping.  :)

I truely hope Cryptic does the IP justice, unlike how Sony destroyed anothe IP, Star Wars, that was just as rich and expansive as Star Trek. The sheer potential of the Star Trek univers alone is going to be a challenge, just the scope of the univers itself make's me wonder how they are going to pull it off.  Now I will obiously give this game a try, being the Trekkie/Trekker that I am, how could I not.  But Cryptic need's to also understand they are under a HUGE amount of scrutiny, this is a series that has survived everything, from attempts by the government to shut them down in the 1960's for "devulging military secrets" to nothing but just reruns of the old TV show running because there was nothing being made.  It rightfully holds the title of the "Series that couldn't be killed".  And because of this the Fans guard thier genere with the fierceness that a mother protects her childern with.  I sincerely wish Cryptic the greatest luck with this, because this is going to make or break them.  They will either be known for pulling off a master piece or just being another Sony.  Good luck boys and girls!!!  I don't envy you the task you have ahead.  :)

Sun Mar 01 2009 12:54PM Report
Battleskar writes:

Cerion we all know that Star Trek was about Exploration,not just avoiding combat,thats why they had ships that could defend themselves if they happened to find themselves in combat. How many episodes put them in harms way where combat was needed? Star Trek really got popular with The Next Generation and really got going with DS9 and Voyager ,and they all had Combat and Wars,not to mention the cross references to past Wars with other races.I am reserved on judging this game until more about comes to light.I hope tho,they have plenty of exploration included in the game along with combat and discovery:)

Sun Mar 01 2009 1:58PM Report
Battleskar writes:

Cerion we all know that Star Trek was about Exploration,not just avoiding combat,thats why they had ships that could defend themselves if they happened to find themselves in combat. How many episodes put them in harms way where combat was needed? Star Trek really got popular with The Next Generation and really got going with DS9 and Voyager ,and they all had Combat and Wars,not to mention the cross references to past Wars with other races.I am reserved on judging this game until more about comes to light.I hope tho,they have plenty of exploration included in the game along with combat and discovery:)

Sun Mar 01 2009 1:58PM Report
happytklz writes:

I think there's a little nuance here to bring up:  Star Trek "universe" consists of several streams of input into the lore.   Shows (which as others have mentioned have deteriorated into outright conflict with Roddenberry's vision, but which have prior to that formed the essential parameters and values of the universe); movies; and I believe most richly and importantly, FICTION.  Why?  Because everything that is in the shows and movies is explored with more depth and breadth in the best of the novels.  There is much more scope for cultural interplay, and career development, and exploration, in the material found in the books.

I hope that Cryptic sees this, and also sees the extent to which Star Trek's appeal is founded on following the arcs of sets of characters. Translated to an mmo, I can only envision this as an ability to develop one's place within one's faction/organization not only through fighting or "winning," but through learning, problem solving, interaction with others.  some might see this as a loser, but in my opinion, without this element, STO will just be a combat mmo with a ST skin.

Sun Mar 01 2009 2:16PM Report
severius writes:

It was only a year ago that perpetual shut down?  Wow... for some reason I thought Gods and Heroes went the way of the dodo over 2 years ago and along with it Perpetual.  Oh well, guess its gonna be a couple 2 or 3 years before we see beta coming out for this :(

Mon Mar 02 2009 1:42AM Report
kokoleka writes:

In reply to Flummoxed, sorry but how can you be sure that I don't know more about the series, movies, books, memorized more lines, gone to more conventions than you?  Just because I call myself Trekkie and not Trekker?  I'm going to take a guess here and say I was watching TOS before you were born!  And just because you don't like the term doesn't mean that the rest of us ORIGINALS don't want to use it for ourslves, since we may have been calling ourselves that since before you were born! Sorry to rant but this has been bugging me for awhile now. I think you should call yourself what you want and no-one should assume anything about it!

As far as the online game, I hope there is lots of exploration, problem solving and crew/alien interaction and not so much combat.  I think to make a series or movie a big, big hit they have to add combat because some people won't watch unless there is fighting.  I think the basic vision gets twisted because of that. 

I think playing any role on a ship would be awesome.  If you don't want real players on the other side of the other crew members why not make them npcs?  And they could also make that a choice, npc or real players.  And, I totally agree about book vs movie/series, books always win with more information! 


Mon Mar 02 2009 1:38PM Report
Kartuhn writes:

Were they to have used the ship as the persistant world without a player captain and left the quests scenarios to occur in progression in whatever locale (new unexplored world, tactical space fight or diplomatic mission etc.) and allowed players to choose their roles on the ship I think it would have been possible to satisfy the fans. Along with this idea there should have been no levels but rather rank to reflect progression. I fear that approaching the game from the standpoint that we all have/are the ships will  force the game into the "space shooter" catagory and really put a cramp in the feeling of being in a true "Star Trek" universe.

I will always have high hopes for any effort made to capture the feel of the Star Trek movies and series and look forward to playing whatever it is that happens to be that Cryptic turns out.

Mon Mar 02 2009 2:56PM Report
themilton writes:

Wherever you have 2 or more people in one place, you're going to have conflict. But peace was always a goal. At least on the part of the Federation, combat was supposed to be a last resort. They may have never achieved total peace, but they tried. Look at the difference between the Mirror Universe and the 'normal' universe and the different attitudes of the counterparts.

Mon Mar 02 2009 3:14PM Report
b003 writes:

I hope that 90210 trek doen't have a negative impact on this, although I've always been highly critical of every series and movie that followed the original series. This at least, I'm looking forward to. Not trekkie, nor trekker just a FAN of Trek that expects a lot more from the franchise than I've been getting. 

Mon Mar 02 2009 3:47PM Report
syllvenwood writes:

though i am anxiously awaiting this game, we should here groaning from gene's grave and pwned you becomes a new federation term....

Mon Mar 02 2009 6:45PM Report
techdog writes:

there are 2 factions: klingons and federation at launch

PvP is restricted to pvp areas

the universive allows for infinite exploration

you can customize your character to the point you can create your own race or simply use a known species

ships are customizable

bridge crew is customizable

ship interiors are coming after launch "it's on the to do list" according to the executive producer

exploration is a major focus of the game

Tue Mar 03 2009 4:22AM Report
techdog writes:

even though your a captain you can specialize in engineering, tactial, science, medical, etc... also

Tue Mar 03 2009 4:23AM Report
techdog writes:

lastly before i forget, you can explore space and the can bring other players with you or take your bridge crew, there is also space and ground combat as well...

sorry its 2:30 am ill stop posting seperate threads like this

Tue Mar 03 2009 4:26AM Report
Yldvarg writes:

@ kokoleka - Agreed! Trekkies FTW!


I really can't wait for the release of this game :3 Eeee!

Tue Mar 03 2009 5:32AM Report
Sortran writes:

@cerion as was stated by perpetual and I imagine crytic is thinking the same thing, a star trek mmo isnt made for trekkies (nothing against trekkies mind you) its just not the target base. I look forward to seeing this game in action down the road, as i enjoyed some of the single player games for ST.

im sure fans in some cases with be disappointed but the concept of a peaceful crew traveling space on exploration would have never survived one season with people then and definately not now.

Tue Mar 03 2009 2:08PM Report
nefermor writes:

 Ok wait ... so this is actually going somewhere?  

Do we look forward to some actual good development or is this going to be more age old graphics to a half baked game playing of a popular  story  like most of the newer games these days?



Tue Mar 03 2009 6:26PM Report
cylon8 writes:

i'm gonna go out on a limb here ask ask anyone who's watch the movies and the tv series what were your favorite moments from them. Was it really picard trying to placate some group of people through diplomacy, spock meditating in his quarters?  I'd go out on a limb and say 80% was enoucters liek wolf 359, the cardassian/dominion wars...things that pumped blood and vitality into trek and fleshed out alot of the characters.  A Trek mmo needs to keep its user base interested in something other than macro games where you solve things diplomatically....if you want a game like that than maybe a trek rts is more your vein of game and not an mmo.  Personal a trek mmo is the only thing I'd be interested as  I  don't get off on orcs n swords...unless a bsg mmo ever came along.  But hey to each their own I think the fanboys need to take a step back and embrace changes, bsg fans did and we ended up with an amazing reborn show.

Wed Mar 04 2009 10:08AM Report
DevilHawk writes:

Why would they need to add any mechanics towards diplomacy. They should give the players a sandbox, the tools to fight, explore, trade, and build and let the community deal out its own diplomacy.

I would have to agree that a large contingent of trek may be avoidance (for the Federation at least) however, war, violence and hand to hand fighting has been around Trek since the very beginning.

The game needs drama, Trekkers(ies) are more then capable to deliver tons of drama where needed. =)

I just ask that the Devs don't box the game in, keep it a free flowing sandbox and allow the players the choice of what direction they want to take it in. 

Wed Mar 04 2009 1:51PM Report
Xondar123 writes:

That was quite short. I hope for more information in the future Cryptic!

Thu Mar 05 2009 7:37PM Report
Dodger0000 writes:

You better believe it's all about combat, instant gratification...oooh everyone is a Captain. What a load of crap. Can't call a game Trek if you are going to just toss out the elements that makes it Trek. Cryptic is even refusing to have an RP server. How is that possible? Face it. The game is written for a certain audience and it sure ain't the fans of Trek.

Sat Mar 07 2009 10:38AM Report
Manchine writes:

I have been following the game for some time.  Face it this game is for the fans of Star Trek although not for Trekkies.  Can't wait to play it.  =)

Sat Mar 07 2009 6:20PM Report
spdkilla writes:

I agree with this post 100% - Manchine said, "I have been following the game for some time. Face it this game is for the fans of Star Trek although not for Trekkies. Can't wait to play it. =)" I couldn't have said it better myself although i have tried...

IMO a game that is mostly diplomacy and exploration with small bits of combat  is a game that won't attract many to the genre and will have a very, very, limited player base. Thats not  what cryptic or any mmo fan should want for their mmo to have in order to succed in the long run....

I can work i suppose but why make success or just staying out of the red more difficult?

 /carry on people

Mon Mar 09 2009 10:26AM Report
DoomsDay01 writes:

@cylon8 For me, I can't say that my favorite episode was a big battle. My favorite scene, probably of all time, was when the defiant fired its phaser canons for the very first time. That just looked freaking AWESOME! However, Probably my favorite show of all time was when picard lived out an entire lifetime on a planet and he learned how to play that flute. No real fighting other than them trying to shut down the probe. I admit, I love me a good space battle but a really well written story can whip a space battle any time of the day.

Also as note. I used to like DS9 till they went to war. That war changed the crew and turned Cisco to militarish. I actually got to where I couldn't watch the show because of how they changed him. Also, the last star trek movie when they changed the enterprise and the uniforms. I hate it with a passion. They went to far and tried to make the federation look like a bad ass military organization. The enterprise was their flag ship and to make it look like a ship of war was, in my opinion, the absolute wrong way to go.

Mon Mar 16 2009 9:01PM Report
silandril writes:

No player crews is a game breaker for me. Love Star Trek, but can't imagine playing in a solo ship running capacity. Good luck :)

Tue Mar 17 2009 10:31AM Report
MacAllen writes:

The problem with "station" play is the lack of participation of every station equally.  I've played the ST PnP RPG's since they first started with FASA back in the 80's, and that's always been a problem.  The FASA version had divided up ship combat precisely in that manner, with "game boards" for each station, and 90% of every fight involved tactical and helm...the capt played one of those 2 boards because otherwise the capt had nothing to do but shout orders.  Comms, engineering, science, and medial sit on their hands most of the time.  There are episodes of TOS where Uhura is not seen at all.

I can see, down the road, Cryptic allowing voluntary player-crewed ships, but it absolutely can not allow mandatory ones.  No player should ever be allowed to dictate the play experience of another...that's about as anti-ST as is possible to be.

Tue Mar 17 2009 10:42AM Report
vortrek writes:

I think that that the biggest problem of STO without npc's would be that there wouldnt be enough players. Just imagine how much people the game would need to be realy playable. I dont think that there will be enough players to fill in all the roles like captain, 1st officer etc for EVERY ship,planet,station or whatever in the game, so as long as i am ask(ok im not :D) its good that they decided to make every player a captain.

Tue Mar 17 2009 6:12PM Report
spdkilla writes:

 I wanted to give a big "Thank You"  to the other commentors, thx to all of you (Jackfetch, Breatack, Battlescar, cylon8, Sortran and Manchine) you all covered everything I was thinking and even a few i had not thought of.  The decision to have no player crews at launch is very good news imo. That should allow for a much smoother launch, more focus on general gameplay ,content , polish , lower cost and a shorter development cycle.

      -I think adding and testing mini-games, writing up mini-game interfaces, linking them to real time combat and or systems, and trying to change them and make them fun for 100's if not 1000's of hours is overly ambitious and way too costly at this point in the games development. On top of that i don't think it will be a heavily used option for most non-trekkers/trekkies. i don't think it would be a big enough bang for Cryptics buck so to speak. Again at least not at launch.

    -  I think that designing the core to accept some of this at a later date (as they did with CoH and CoV)if at all, is the best option.  Ship interiors (at least the bridge) , starbase interiors player ran multi-guild starbases.

   -Lets say x number of guilds together buy small, medium or large (ie.. outpost, space station or starbase) base and guilds with more of a certain type of players get more points and in a certain type of upgrade than others for better gear or vendors only for the base. The base can't be totaly destroyed but all your base gear can be. Then possibly heavy NPC attacks on player starbase sectors during prime time 1 or 2 times a week (maybe at random days / times) would be nice to add in later.

   I don't know how much creative license they have to add new tech or races and conflicts to the game but that could be a great way to add new content to the game. After all if Star Trek 90210 can be made why not new stuff for STO?

     -  That said they should get a good solid, well tested , fun, and easy to learn and play, but hard to master game out first. I don't want a game with a 35-60 min learning curve (ie..  Eve anyone, or maybe FFXI) just to move around and fight....   (yes there is some exaggeration  in that example granted) A game with a steep learning curve and a poor tutorial tends to severely limit new players and interest in the game.

    - The bottom line to me is get the core done first and make it easy to add features to it. Then (like CoX) allow some free updates and some major expansions to bolster content and features as they envision them. If Cryptic can keep the updates rolling in with new content the game won't get boring very quickly and with more advertising than CoX ever had they would pull in new customers especially if they can work an ad into Star Trek 90210 on May 8th and maybe a couple onto the SCI-FI channel and/or web site and maybe Spike TV / G4 TV as well.

Wed Mar 18 2009 11:26AM Report
fansede writes:

 I think Cryptic should waltz over to NC Soft and get some ideas with the new architect system for COH/COV. I bet it could get them in the direction for player run ships, where other players can step on and do missions on the ship.


Wed Apr 15 2009 8:02AM Report
fansede writes:

 @breatack - while many share your point about not being dependent on other players to complete your missions as a reason to not have player run ships..

NPCs crew solve that problem. You "join" a ship (group) lead by a Captain that goes AFK or disconnected or worse, incompetent. You leave the group and get ported/ shuttled to closest base.  The captain could come back and lose his group, but has NPCs to fill in the void. 

As a specialist (Engineer, Medic, Security, Tactical, Science, diplomacy, etc) you could be assigned missions suited to your skill sets.

Skill sets could be developed to have a meaningful role in ship combat (hardest part), ground combat is easier.  Engineers are the support role for the ship (heals, buffs), Medics are support for the crew ( and efficiency/ performance of the ship), Security (Pally like skills for ship protection, shines more when ship is boarded and ground missions), tactical (more offensive and handles ship weapon systems, targeting, ground missions++) Science Officer- information gathering data,  provides all the info for the team for a space target ( what is 'cons', its stats, its abilitties and weakness, etc.), shines with exploration and so on..

It can be done.. Its just more time and work involved


Wed Apr 15 2009 8:23AM Report
Krash87 writes:

I agree with mitch about the point about give us a release date allready. It's ice to hear about the team creating the game but i feel like I'm being dragged along like a kitten with a mouse on a string. As far as a traditionalist standpoint about exploration and solving conficts without even firing a single weapon. I think you could easily accomodate these things with co op play or private party type things. Like in call of duty. Just an opinion. Cuz some of us old folks cant shoot that fast

Tue May 12 2009 7:56AM Report
55memo55 writes:

MMORPG games are in Turkey! For detailed information and game reviews

Sun Dec 13 2009 10:04AM Report
ergonomi writes:

Thanks for the Article

Mon Feb 14 2011 4:34PM Report
erdek writes:

Super article and thanks for post


<a href="">erdek</a>

Thu May 05 2011 5:32AM Report writes:
Login or Register to post a comment

Special Offers