The crew of your ship should be more than a simple stat. That is the easy way out. Of course I'm not surprised. Virtually everything Cryptic puts out about STO is garbage in my opinion.

---

Originally posted by Cerion

False dichotomy...It is not inconceivable to design a game that appeals to hard core ST fans AND other types of players. Of course one HAS to draw the line somewhere with these so-called 'other types of players' since including Grandma who enjoys a nice game of Bridge with her friends probably can't be persuaded.
To me it makes more sense to design the game for ST Fans, and then grow the size of your net to capture other players. Why? Because how many of you self-ascribed 'other players' are going to abandon your current game, you  know the game that the devs designed for that 'other player', and join on to Star Trek? And then when the next game comes along that's designed for 'other players', you'll jump the Star Trek ship for that one, and so on, and so on.  If you design the game for Star Trek Fans, then you have them locked in. They won't be going anywhere. Whereas many of the fly-by-night 'other players' will be soon gone no matter what you design.

---

Ha ha! Forward thinking and sound reasoning are not something you typically find in dev teams...at least not when they have to think about paying back that 50 mil their employer borrowed to make the game in the first place.

---

Originally posted by madeux
Just because you cannot conceive it, does not make it inconceivable.  Appealing to varying audiences is the key to a successful MMO.  The fact is, there just aren't enough Star Trek nerds out there to make the game viable on it's own.  Without a broad audience, it will fail.
 

---

You're saying that there aren't a few hundred thousand Star Trek fans who would be in to playing a Star Trek MMO? Let's not get carried away with WoW numbers. They are an outlier. Success of an MMO does not have hinge on having over a million subs, nor over a half million. Of course different people have different ideas of success but any western developer going in to match or beat WoW's numbers or even get a million subs has unrealistic expectations.

Not saying that tookg and hope you find a developer who wants to go in that direction.  At the same time Cryptic never wanted to go in that direction and so complaining about it now sounds like sour grapes.  When the old developer was headed in a direction you favored, i took a look, saw it as totally off base of anything I was remotely interested in and left the site.  What i didn't do is complain daily on how they were not going in the direction i wanted, after all they told me up front what their vision was.  Bottom line is this game isn't for the "crewmember" crowd so get over it!

Originally posted by TookyG

 

---

Originally posted by madeux
Just because you cannot conceive it, does not make it inconceivable.  Appealing to varying audiences is the key to a successful MMO.  The fact is, there just aren't enough Star Trek nerds out there to make the game viable on it's own.  Without a broad audience, it will fail.
 

---

 

You're saying that there aren't a few hundred thousand Star Trek fans who would be in to playing a Star Trek MMO? Let's not get carried away with WoW numbers. They are an outlier. Success of an MMO does not have hinge on having over a million subs, nor over a half million. Of course different people have different ideas of success but any western developer going in to match or beat WoW's numbers or even get a million subs has unrealistic expectations.

I will certainly say that there are not a few hundred thousand Star Trek fans who will play this game.  There are plenty of fans, but how many of them will be into this game?

Look at how poorly Star Trek movies regularly do in theaters?  The success of the recent film was mostly due to it's appeal to a larger audience.

Originally posted by buegur

Not saying that tookg and hope you find a developer who wants to go in that direction.  At the same time Cryptic never wanted to go in that direction and so complaining about it now sounds like sour grapes.  When the old developer was headed in a direction you favored, i took a look, saw it as totally off base of anything I was remotely interested in and left the site.  What i didn't do is complain daily on how they were not going in the direction i wanted, after all they told me up front what their vision was.  Bottom line is this game isn't for the "crewmember" crowd so get over it!

...I wasn't quoting you.  However, I'll respond to your response to a response you thought was to you.  

I didn't say I was part of the crew member crowd.  I said I think that crew should be more than a stat.  My feathers aren't ruffled about not being able to play a crew member on a ship.  I find the direction development has taken to be unfavorable, and express that through this forum and the official one, but that doesn't mean I'm being unreasonable in my opinion and need to "get over it" like I'm in some sort of fit of rage.

Not only will STO do well, it will probably exceed at least a few expectations. Looking at what they are trying to accomplish as well as setting the timeline ahead of Nemesis was a brilliant idea. The ships being talked about that can be attained by rank and by accomplishment is really incredible. STO will not only have Star Trek fans playing but it will most assuredly bring in Sci-fi lovers/gamers as well. It may not be as huge a hit as Star Wars The Old Republic Online will do, but I feel it will hold itself in pretty good stead. I predict numbers around or better than City of Heroes for STO... and that ain't shabby!

Originally posted by bluegrazz

Originally posted by DeaconX

I'm sure I'll probably get flamed for this, but I still think it would have been a lot cooler design for the game if it took 'guilds' to run large ships... if the game leant more towards a 'simulation' feel.  I could be totally wrong... we'll see what Cryptic does.. but after playing Champions Online, I'm not expecting anything revolutionary or even really impressive...

 

This would be an AWESOME idea. Yeah, it would end up with a much smaller player base but could be really cool... REALLY COOL.

And it'd only cost 1000 bucks a month since its subscriber base would be so small.

"but that doesn't mean I'm being unreasonable in my opinion and need to "get over it" like I'm in some sort of fit of rage."

Was too harsh, but don't understand why the constant complaining daily of a game that wasn't designed for those that are complaining.  If Cryptic had said the game mechanics were being designed around crew members and than they dropped it or butchered it, than some critisicm would be valid.  Even than daily complaining about it would be over the top in my opinion, say your peace and move on.  I did that when SWG went in another direction, said my piece and moved on. 

Originally posted by buegur

"but that doesn't mean I'm being unreasonable in my opinion and need to "get over it" like I'm in some sort of fit of rage."

 

Was too harsh, but don't understand why the constant complaining daily of a game that wasn't designed for those that are complaining.  If Cryptic had said the game mechanics were being designed around crew members and than they dropped it or butchered it, than some critisicm would be valid.  Even than daily complaining about it would be over the top in my opinion, say your peace and move on.  I did that when SWG went in another direction, said my piece and moved on. 

As I'm not one who is posting daily, or even reading the forums daily, I can only surmise that it's because they are offering counter-points to the arguments presented to them.  Would it not be over the top for supporters of game X to post daily if it's over the top for its detractors to post daily?

If they were actually addressing problems with what the designers were trying to accomplish, that could be useful. Complaining about a aspect of the game the designers aren't including is over the top. This site is known for its trolls complaining about every new game, but this is a new low in my opinion.  People daily complaining about stuff thats was never meant to be in the game is even odd for this site.

Originally posted by madeux

Just because you cannot conceive it, does not make it inconceivable.  Appealing to varying audiences is the key to a successful MMO.  The fact is, there just aren't enough Star Trek nerds out there to make the game viable on it's own.  Without a broad audience, it will fail.

 

There are millions of Trek fans out there. IMO, a combat-heavy, RP-lite MMO will appeal to far fewer of them than a player crew and story-focused game would.

Originally posted by MMO_Doubter

Originally posted by madeux

Just because you cannot conceive it, does not make it inconceivable.  Appealing to varying audiences is the key to a successful MMO.  The fact is, there just aren't enough Star Trek nerds out there to make the game viable on it's own.  Without a broad audience, it will fail.

 

There are millions of Trek fans out there. IMO, a combat-heavy, RP-lite MMO will appeal to far fewer of them than a player crew and story-focused game would.

a crew focus sounds fun but i ask you "what happens when your tactical officer has to take his kid to the dentist?"

do you really want a pug crew half the time? What if you play in off hours on a non standardized schedual?

After reading through some of the website, I think the only real problem is that they have everyone be Captain.  If I got to design my ship and bridge officers and then play any or all of the bridge officers, that would be ok.  For example, I make my ship the Enterprise and staff it with bridge officers Kirk, Spock, Bones, Uhura, Sulu, Chekov, and Scotty.  I then get to have away teams of the bridge officers (plus a red shirt for fodder) using any combination of the bridge officers (since away teams are limited to 5 members) but am not required to take the captain (which is required now according to the devs).

Alternatively, I could play any of my bridge officers in other away teams or in other play locations (like space stations or ships with other players).  The idea would be that the officers are my alts on the server that I can play individually or in a group.  As it is now, you play a Captain and your bridge officers are pets (that you can trade with other captains), and if you go on a mission with other players, you play your captain.

Originally posted by MMO_Doubter

Originally posted by madeux

Just because you cannot conceive it, does not make it inconceivable.  Appealing to varying audiences is the key to a successful MMO.  The fact is, there just aren't enough Star Trek nerds out there to make the game viable on it's own.  Without a broad audience, it will fail.

 

There are millions of Trek fans out there. IMO, a combat-heavy, RP-lite MMO will appeal to far fewer of them than a player crew and story-focused game would.

There are millions out there... But how many of them are gamers?  How many of those are MMO gamers?  And how many of those will choose this game as the MMO they choose to pay monthly for?

I think the number is 12.  Maybe 13 on a good day.

Having a broad appeal is the key to the success of this game.

Originally posted by daveroach75

After reading through some of the website, I think the only real problem is that they have everyone be Captain.  If I got to design my ship and bridge officers and then play any or all of the bridge officers, that would be ok.  For example, I make my ship the Enterprise and staff it with bridge officers Kirk, Spock, Bones, Uhura, Sulu, Chekov, and Scotty.  I then get to have away teams of the bridge officers (plus a red shirt for fodder) using any combination of the bridge officers (since away teams are limited to 5 members) but am not required to take the captain (which is required now according to the devs).

Alternatively, I could play any of my bridge officers in other away teams or in other play locations (like space stations or ships with other players).  The idea would be that the officers are my alts on the server that I can play individually or in a group.  As it is now, you play a Captain and your bridge officers are pets (that you can trade with other captains), and if you go on a mission with other players, you play your captain.

that's actually a really nice tweak

"Make it so!"

People can bash Cryptic and this game all they want ... its their right, and that seems to be the preccupation of most the people who post on MMORPG.

But I will choose to wait and see what they do with a very difficult IP.

No matter what they do, there will be people disappointed and who will flame them.

The sim'ers will be disappointed because its not enough of a Sim.   The WoW'ers will be disappointed because its NOT enough like WoW.

The Star Trek fans will be upset because there's too much combat, the non-trekkies will be upset because there is not enough focuse on uber gear and combat.

The carebear player will be upset because there isn't enough focus on exploration and diplomacy, he PvP crowd will be upset because resources were used to put exploration and diplomacy in the game.

How about we accept that Cryptic took an IP that had crashed and burned under Perpetual and are actually finally giving us a game ... and let's see what that game is before we classify it as an Epic Failure.

Rather than rooting for the game's failure, how about we root for its success so that other developers see the potential market for the genre (possibly even the IP).

(Zepath on the STO Forums)

Originally posted by Zinderin

People can bash Cryptic and this game all they want ... its their right, and that seems to be the preccupation of most the people who post on MMORPG.

 

But I will choose to wait and see what they do with a very difficult IP.

 

No matter what they do, there will be people disappointed and who will flame them.

 

The sim'ers will be disappointed because its not enough of a Sim.   The WoW'ers will be disappointed because its NOT enough like WoW.

 

The Star Trek fans will be upset because there's too much combat, the non-trekkies will be upset because there is not enough focuse on uber gear and combat.

 

The carebear player will be upset because there isn't enough focus on exploration and diplomacy, he PvP crowd will be upset because resources were used to put exploration and diplomacy in the game.

 

How about we accept that Cryptic took an IP that had crashed and burned under Perpetual and are actually finally giving us a game ... and let's see what that game is before we classify it as an Epic Failure.

 

Rather than rooting for the game's failure, how about we root for its success so that other developers see the potential market for the genre (possibly even the IP).

 

(Zepath on the STO Forums)

 

 

I agree with your outlook.
 

Coming from a sim'er mind set, having tasted Pre-CU, I expected a Star Trek game to cater first to the hardcore Trekkie (Trekker) that would engross themselves in the nerdgasm aspect of such a game.  A characteristic that has followed its fandom and been often made light of.  Why can I say this is?  I am such a Star Trek fan.  I wanted that challenge.

That all understood, I would hope this game would be a kind of substitute but add something missing in the current crop of MMO's.  I do look forward to this game and will no doubt try it.  Cryptic needs to really invest themselves in producing a finished bug free launch.  CO's launch has made some even more leary of this game.

I have posted in the past that Star Trek is a very difficult IP to do a MMO for the crew situation.  I guess I was right with that.  Stargate SG-1 is perfect for a MMO, however,  Stargate Worlds has trouble from a developer support and financing direction.  Sad really.

STO will not be a breakout WOW killer but lets hope it does a good showing in the general market.  Paramount is going to get what they pay for.