Hmmm nice review...but i supose he FORGOT to cover PvP like he wanted to...lolz!

ops!

Maybe there will be part 3?

Excellent article Dana. Very informative. I now know some items I will petition hard for when I get into Open Beta. I would ask this community to get involved if they get into Open Beta as well. Dana has some key points of areas that need some improvement, we need to reinforce those changes and/or improvements already stated by Dana in the article as well as whatever else we wee as issues. Petition, petition, petition. As a long time Beta guy, I see this as unbelievably important for STO so that the IP is as well represented as it can be. I cannot wait for Open Beta and doing my due dilligence as a player and tester to bringing about the improvements that Dana has already pointed out because they are good and valid observations. Come on January!!

Ok, fool me once shame on me, fool me twice shame on you. They have done it AGAIN, and this time there is no excuse Cryptic could not know it better, so I must assume they do it on evil purpose. What I am talking about?

Quote:

"There is just a list of skills with descriptions and sometimes it's very hard to tell what specifically they do. This is largely a UI issue, which I'll address later, but while I like the system once I got my head around it, they need to do a better job of communicating these things to the player. Frankly, it can be very overwhelming.

The problem is that all of your Lieutenant skills are available from day one and some of them can, at a glance, seem quite similar. With my tactical character for example, one skill is "Tactical Team Lead" and another is "Assault Training." The former improves the performance of your Tactical Bridge Officers, while the latter improves my own performance. It sounds obvious, but it took me a small bank of nearly wasted skill points before I finally figured out the difference."

THIS is exactly what they did in Champions, skill texts which are MF riddels! And why? People complained often enough about bad skill descriptions in CO, so if Cryptic does the same in STO it has ONE REASON ALONE: to get our money for expensive respecs in their RMT. THATS WHY.

Damn you, Cryptic, DAMN YOU!

Originally posted by tman5

So you can make your ship look anyway you want, colored anyway you want or decalled up the wazoo. 

 

Then why not create a completely original game, with fully customizable ships and avatars that players can make look anyway they want, with gameplay unhindered by an existing IP?  Then you wouldn't have to put up with people- such as myself- who drop in periodically and point out the obvious  - THIS IS NOT STAR TREK.

 

Just seems simpler, with so much less noise.

 

One Simple Reason.

No one would buy it.

People are going to buy this for one reason and one reason only it says "Star Trek" on the box.

Personally I'll pass on this rushed to market attempt at a quick buck. I'm waiting for Star Wars The Old Republic.

Originally posted by nubadak

Hmmm nice review...but i supose he FORGOT to cover PvP like he wanted to...lolz!

ops!

Maybe there will be part 3?

 

I believe the item states quite clearly what happened to the PvP section, as does a post in this thread.

Bottom line: Limited impressions in part 3. However, it was too big of a subject for one article, so a full article on PvP is to follow separately from these previews.

Of course, if you'd prefer to think it's a conspiracy of some kind, please feel free.

Originally posted by Dana

Originally posted by Cerion

Dana wrote: Should players also be able to group inside a single ship? Some argue vehemently yes, and that's their opinion, but in my personal experience I never missed it.

Yeah, I remember back in 2003 when I never missed having a cell phone either.  Oh, and back in the 1990s, I never missed having a laptop computer. And when I was 5 years old, I never missed having a car.

Point being, how can you even make such a statement? It has no logical basis since you have nothing to compare your experience to.

 

On top of that, yet again, a MMORPG staff writer resorts to a strawman arguement to dismiss player crews by invoking the "minutia rationale".

 

 

Anyway, as hard as this is to believe, some people just don't agree with you. You're entitled to your opinion on player crews, it's a perfectly valid opinion, but not agreeing with you is just as valid of an opinion...

 

...Naturally, no one so much as bothered to email me on the subject. It's one thing to whine on a forum and call us names, but so far I've yet to see one person come up with a well reasoned editorial that explains how this would realistically work and why it would be fun to more than just a few hardcore Trek fans. I even offered to pay for the article. No takers, no surprise.

Well said!

I think it's hilarious that those posters after your comment claimed that they would do the pro-playercrew review but declined for various reasons.  Absolutely LOL!

--------

Dana, I was hoping that you might answer a question for me.  I know you haven't had a chance to experience the whole game and all of it's content, but I wanna ask anyway.  

One of the mistakes that I believe Cryptic made with Champions Online was a lack of content in the *very* beginning.  What is your opinion on the availability of missions and active content in STO?  Do you have any feeling that might suggest Cryptic is pushing too fast and not providing enough content at launch?

Originally posted by Dana

I believe the item states quite clearly what happened to the PvP section, as does a post in this thread.

Bottom line: Limited impressions in part 3. However, it was too big of a subject for one article, so a full article on PvP is to follow separately from these previews.

Of course, if you'd prefer to think it's a conspiracy of some kind, please feel free.

The longer it takes before the downside is shown, the more pre-orders get sold.

PvP and Klingon coverage was originally promised for part two.

Release gets closer and closer.

People - look at the way Cryptic has handled Champions Online and what they are doing now with STO. They are not being up front and open. Keep that in mind when you make your decision.

Originally posted by MMO_Doubter

Originally posted by Dana

I believe the item states quite clearly what happened to the PvP section, as does a post in this thread.

Bottom line: Limited impressions in part 3. However, it was too big of a subject for one article, so a full article on PvP is to follow separately from these previews.

Of course, if you'd prefer to think it's a conspiracy of some kind, please feel free.

People - look at the way Cryptic has handled Champions Online and what they are doing now with STO. They are not being up front and open. Keep that in mind when you make your decision.

That's the first smart thing I've heard you say on these forums.  Congratulations I suppose.

I was very disappointed in the lack of content that Champions Online had provided at launch.  I also ran into an issue where their servers were dead and they didn't bother even to tell anyone they knew of the issue until 6-8 hours later (followed by a fix a few hours after that).  It was my understanding from the community that it wasn't the first time they did that.  I found that to be a disgusting customer service issue.

That said, I'm willing to give Cryptic one more chance....but ONLY because it's Star Trek and I'm a big fan of Star Trek.  If they burn this game, they will likely go down as a huge failure in the MMO world  (Move over SOE?).  Imagine being the laughing stock of the largest fanbase, that is trekkies.

Time will tell...

A commonly held theory on Champions Online seemed to be that it was cut short becuase they pulled all their best developers into the STO project. If that is the case (and I read it on these forums so it must be true! ;oP)  then setting expectations for STO on how Champions was at release seems a little unfair.

I'm no expert on Cryptic's release history, but I played COH/COV for a couple of years and had a lot of fun... it was solid, had a tonne of new content added at regular intervals. Not suggesting it was the perfect MMO but it was good. If they put the same effort into STO (which given the value of the IP, they'd be daft not to) then it'll be a good, solid, fun game.

My only major gripe with COH was the simillarity of the missions (lets face it, there were only actually about 3 different missions to do, over and over again). Cryptic have focused on making the mission generation at least complex enough to keep us interested longer in STO. Their Genesis system looks well thought out, and yes, after your 500th server generated area things will almost certainly feel a bit samey but I'm not sure you can do much about that. The hidden grind in STO is at least purposefully well hidden, and I hope they'll aim to have updates with more hand scripted missions on a simillar schedule to COH.

...and come on guys, it's more than just a generic idea with a big Star Trek sticker hastily applied to it. That argument just doesn't stand up to inspection when put against the reviews out there by pretty much everyone who's actually got their hands on it. From what I've read they have managed to capture "That Star Trek Feeling" and this only comes from underlying planning and design, not just a Logo and some well known sound effects slapped on something they already had or could do easily. (Yes... do post links to reviews that blow this theory out the water if you have them, I'd like to give them a read).

For me (yes... this is all just my opinion... shocking to find that from someone posting on a forum but just go with it, it'll be OK ;o) I recon it's worth a few quid to find out, and has a very good chance of being a very good game.

Whether it becomes a great game... well only time will tell. No MMO I've played has been "great" at release. 

Originally posted by Perdition_uk

...and come on guys, it's more than just a generic idea with a big Star Trek sticker hastily applied to it. That argument just doesn't stand up to inspection when put against the reviews out there by pretty much everyone who's actually got their hands on it.

Those who have gotten their hands on it are either under NDA, or have an interest in pleasing Cryptic. So much for an unbiased review.

Originally posted by Lektronik 

Well said!

 

I think it's hilarious that those posters after your comment claimed that they would do the pro-playercrew review but declined for various reasons.  Absolutely LOL!

Next time you lose someone close to you, see how eager you are to write an article for a generally hostile audience.

Anyone else who wants to write the article in question is free to PM me for the notes I compiled in preparation for it.

Originally posted by MMO_Doubter

Next time you lose someone close to you, see how eager you are to write an article for a generally hostile audience.

Anyone else who wants to write the article in question is free to PM me for the notes I compiled in preparation for it.

Sorry to hear that, man. I myself lost my best friend to liver cancer two weeks ago. Kinda tough on everyone.

Originally posted by MMO_Doubter

Originally posted by Lektronik 

Well said!

 

I think it's hilarious that those posters after your comment claimed that they would do the pro-playercrew review but declined for various reasons.  Absolutely LOL!

Next time you lose someone close to you, see how eager you are to write an article for a generally hostile audience.

Anyone else who wants to write the article in question is free to PM me for the notes I compiled in preparation for it.

I'm sorry for your loss. It is said that time heals all wounds. Take as much time as you need. Look forward to your posts whenever you are ready.

Originally posted by MMO_Doubter

Originally posted by Lektronik 

Well said!

 

I think it's hilarious that those posters after your comment claimed that they would do the pro-playercrew review but declined for various reasons.  Absolutely LOL!

Next time you lose someone close to you, see how eager you are to write an article for a generally hostile audience.

Anyone else who wants to write the article in question is free to PM me for the notes I compiled in preparation for it.

Another generic, lame response as to why you don't do the review.  Nothing new.  Playing the death card just makes you sound that much more desperate.  If you don't want to do the review that's fine.  There are most likely several easy counters to any argument you could make in support of player crews anyway,  so I don't blame you.  But your best option would have been to keep quiet instead of saying "I would but I won't".  Nobody wants to hear excuses.

I also work in publishing and understand that things can get "mixxed up on the flats."  The start of the over view states PvP will be covered and it wasn't, but it really doesn't matter you wrote a desperatly needed indepth review and we are all happy you did.

I supose the PvP in Star Trek Online will be a cornerstone of the games mechanic's and I look forward to your PvP article. 

Thanks for the replay Dana,

Nub's

"We want what we want"

Originally posted by Dana

Originally posted by nubadak

Hmmm nice review...but i supose he FORGOT to cover PvP like he wanted to...lolz!

ops!

Maybe there will be part 3?

 

 

I believe the item states quite clearly what happened to the PvP section, as does a post in this thread.

Bottom line: Limited impressions in part 3. However, it was too big of a subject for one article, so a full article on PvP is to follow separately from these previews.

Of course, if you'd prefer to think it's a conspiracy of some kind, please feel free.

I also work in publishing and understand that things can get "mixxed up on the flats." The start of the over view states PvP will be covered and it wasn't, but it really doesn't matter you wrote a desperatly needed indepth review and we are all happy you did.

I supose the PvP in Star Trek Online will be a cornerstone of the games mechanic's and I look forward to your PvP article.

Thanks for the replay Dana,

Nub's

"We want what we want"
 

Bill Roper said that PvP progression in CO was faster then PvE and that was a lesson learned?

First of all Bill Roper is incompetent regarding MMORPG PvP, and whatever he says about the matter should be ignored. Second of all I was in CO at launch and I can tell you that PvP was not significantly faster then PvE. Rather it was OK. They nerfed it so that PvE became the fastest way to level but I dont see how that is a good thing as both ways should be a viable way to level and in CO PvP became way too slow which forced you to grind moronic AI mobiles just to make some progress.

That wasnt the main issue in that game by far but PvP should be as viable as PvE when it comes to leveling. Why should it not be? People should decide their forms of leveling based on what they enjoy, not based on which is quicker.

Originally posted by MMO_Doubter

Originally posted by Lektronik 

Well said!

 

I think it's hilarious that those posters after your comment claimed that they would do the pro-playercrew review but declined for various reasons.  Absolutely LOL!

Next time you lose someone close to you, see how eager you are to write an article for a generally hostile audience.

Anyone else who wants to write the article in question is free to PM me for the notes I compiled in preparation for it.

No matter the circumstances, I think few people actually thought you'd ever produce an article.  You're a critic (in the worst, modern sense of that word), not a creator.

I notice that your circumstances haven't kept you from "doubting" as loudly and as often as you can, though.

Face it - you weren't coming up with anything, at least nothing that would have been clearly better than Cryptic's version of a Star Trek MMO.

Seeying the new amount of doubt-posts he already made his grief was either very short or non-existance....

Good write-up,

I have more faith in this product now.  I still stand on that its really Star Trek experiance light but I think I can make those allowances if they continue to improve it.