PVP:Yes | Distribution:Retail | Retail Price:n/a | Pay Type:Subscription
Desktop Client | System Req:
Star Trek Online Previews: Inside Beta: You Got That Star Trek Feelin'?
MMORPG.com's Jon Wood continues our inside Star Trek Online's beta test series by answering the question of whether or not that game has managed to capture the overall feel of the IP.
By Jon Wood on December 15, 2009
Star Trek Online, since the day it was first announced, has been steeped in controversy, from the days when it was in the hands of another development company right up until now, in the closed beta of Cryptic Studios' version. Much of that controversy has revolved around the idea of whether or not the game would "feel like Star Trek."
With that in mind, I made my way into the Closed Beta test with a single question in mind: Has Cryptic managed to create a game that feels enough like Star Trek to appeal to the legions of fans that particular franchise carries.
Let me preface this by saying that I've played a number of Star Trek games over the years, from Star Trek: The Next Generation - A Final Unity all the way up to Star Trek Legacy, and up until this point I have yet to really enjoy any of them. They've always felt a little bit like poorly designed games with a Trek skin. Logging in for the first time to Star Trek Online I'll be honest in saying that my hopes were high, but my expectations were low. Also, I'm a huge Trek nerd.
)
So, the question remains, does STO actually feel like Star Trek?
Soundtrack
It's amazing how important a role sound actually plays in determining mood and setting. I hadn't really thought about it until I logged in with the express purpose of determining the game's "trekkieness." That's when it really hit me: If the music and sound effects fail to impress, this game just won't feel like Trek.
Fortunately, the sound in the game hit the nail on the head completely. Right from the get-go when you're introduced to Star Trek Online's theme, you feel at least lightly immersed in the universe. For those who might be curious, the theme starts off sounding very much like the opening to the original series, so much so that you almost expect Shatner to break in with "Space... the final frontier." It doesn't happen though, and instead launches into the same kind of high energy brass instrument and drums music that became iconic with The Next Generation. It's a nice blend of the styles without actually sounding like either. On a side note, I'd like to commend the powers that be for resisting the urge to implant their own version of the "space, the final frontier," speech into their theme. That kind of thing works when it's William Shatner or Patrick Stewart. There's nothing worse than hearing those iconic words come from an unfamiliar voice.
)
Sticking with music, I was also impressed by the score that went along with ground and space missions. It swelled and got appropriately angsty at the appropriate moments. Seriously, go back and watch your favorite episode of TNG with the score removed. It doesn't work very well. Cryptic's integration of this here was well done.
I can gush similarly about the game's sound effects as even the ambient sounds will spark thoughts of Trek in even a casual fan of the series. Phasers, communicators, doors, warp drives, they all fit the lore perfectly.
I'll do you a deal Jon, you give me your beta log in and I'll give you my first born.... and my wife (not my car though, gotta have priorities)
I agree with you on that last complaint, hopefully that's something they change before release.
Thanks for the preview, this game is really looking stunning.
From the screenshots, it looks like all the space battles are of a scale seldom seen in Star Trek. How many times in the movies or any series did you see 20 ships on screen battling it out? I know there are a few examples, but most altercations were limited to two or three ships max. In the numbers we see in screenshots the ships look almost disposable.
Let's be honest though, the reason that you didn't see large scale battles was because those shots were super expensive to create. As the technology improved for it, you started to see it more often. The precedent set in the Trek universe for the Federation at all out war was set in DS9, and quite frankly the major battles were HUGE and epic. Or there's I suppose the war with the borg... where lots of ships were.
If you think about it, that's the only way war makes sense. In war, there might be smaller skirmishes, but there are also always huge battles with lots of conbatants on either side. it's been that way throughout history.
Don't worry, there's plenty of opportunity in the game for small scale battles as well. You vs. 3 or 4 ships, etc. that captures the trek feeling you're thinking of.
Cryptic advertises the big battles cause they look cooler, that doesn't mean that's all there is to the game.
Very cool, glad you got a chance to check it out. Immersion is definately important, so i'm glad that upon at least initial review, the immersion appears to be there. Will just have to wait and see for the rest. Now, about sharing that closed beta account....
Let's be honest though, the reason that you didn't see large scale battles was because those shots were super expensive to create. As the technology improved for it, you started to see it more often. The precedent set in the Trek universe for the Federation at all out war was set in DS9, and quite frankly the major battles were HUGE and epic. Or there's I suppose the war with the borg... where lots of ships were.
If you think about it, that's the only way war makes sense. In war, there might be smaller skirmishes, but there are also always huge battles with lots of conbatants on either side. it's been that way throughout history.
Don't worry, there's plenty of opportunity in the game for small scale battles as well. You vs. 3 or 4 ships, etc. that captures the trek feeling you're thinking of.
Cryptic advertises the big battles cause they look cooler, that doesn't mean that's all there is to the game.
I grew up watching reruns of the original series and then TNG. I never really watched much DS9, so I guess I missed most of the larger scale battles you mentioned... other than the borg battles in the later movies. I see this as the only way to make this a real mulitplayer game after the one player / one ship decision was set in stone.
While this isn't the Star Trek game I envision, I still have to admit they had me at "to boldly go". ;)
I think there was a massive fleet battle in First Contact.
On the issue of costume customization....dont forget Kirk's wrap around tunic, Deanna Troi's unique costume, Bones' short sleeve tunic, Worf's klingon stuff or the fact that no costume from either of the series was the same....the DS9 uniforms were different from the NG and Voyager crews
It would make for a pretty boring mmo if all you ever did was solo the game, right? Not that I'm a support of raid or die, but in general people should have the option to solo or to group. Grouping will likely take you out of the pure immersion, but is still a vital component of an online game. Sometimes you just have to give a little for the bigger picture.
Aside from the many spelling errors in this article......I have never read more...that said less than this article.
Two whole pages from closed beta that told me absolutely nothing. This used to be my go-to sight for information on MMORPGs now it appears to be just an Ad heavy bullshit source for no information what-so-ever.
Oh well....there is always Massively.com.
I don't think there will ever be "pure" immersion in an MMO until there is virtual reality. Hahaha
The game looks very promising my main concern has been how much time is spent in space doing space battles, vs ground/planet exploration
Hobbles into work
Boss:"What happened to you?"
Player:"PVP"
It would make for a pretty boring mmo if all you ever did was solo the game, right? Not that I'm a support of raid or die, but in general people should have the option to solo or to group. Grouping will likely take you out of the pure immersion, but is still a vital component of an online game. Sometimes you just have to give a little for the bigger picture.
I fall in the group that was hoping for grouping inside a ship as well as between multiple ships. I understand that they couldn't really force us in to player crews, but I would have loved the option. Some of my fondest gaming memories are from inside mulit-person ships in SWG.
Keep selling it. Use of phrases like "don't worry" tell me what I already knew.
Hobbles into work
Boss:"What happened to you?"
Player:"PVP"
In such a case, pray that they never produce an MMO based on life in a prison.
Regarding the OP, I think it's an interesting article, if a bit short. One of my main concerns about the game, one shared by many, is exactly how "Trek" will it feel. I know that they have to make allowances to ensure that it's also a fun MMO, but at least the first impression appears to be pretty good.
Wow that's a bit harsh.
I found the article to be rather useful. Sure it may not seem like "ground breaking" news, but for a good many of us, we do care about many of the things mentioned in the article. We want to know if it will feel like Star Trek, or if it will be WoW in space (or Star Wars Galaxies for that case). I'm glad to see that a article was written looking at these things. There will be plenty of articles that will look at PvE and PvP and gameplay, but considering things like atmosphere is often barely mentioned in reviews.
The single-biggest IP-breaking aspect of the game is the lack of player crews. This article glosses over that with one or two sentences.
So much for being a big Trek fan.
its already been mentioned that there wont be player crews...should they repeat the same information we already know or report on whats actually in the game
Yes, they should repeat it - for the sake of fans who haven't heard it yet.
Every preview or review should mention it at the start since it breaks the Trek IP.
Thanks good article..
Gotta say I was getting a little worried that I wasnt seeing any complaints or 'can do better.."'s till I saw em at the end :)
Hopefully this will be enough for all the people who haven't played the game, but still complain "it doesn't feel like star trek!".
On the subject of player crews, I completely understand where you're coming from. The problem is you would have to rely too much on other people to do anything in the game. Cryptic felt it would be more fun for everyone to be at the helm and in command. I understand some people don't like this, but I also understand there's a lot of people who like this idea better. Having played Puzzle Pirates, I can say that player crews for ships are great when everyone meshes well together, but they can be quite terrible if the team dynamic is off. I think it must have been a difficult design decision, but they've given out a number of reasons why they believe it was the right one. As an avid MMO player, I believe they made the right decision.
I urge anyone who's worried about having to be a captain to wait and try the game before saying it was the wrong decision.
Yes, they should repeat it - for the sake of fans who haven't heard it yet.
Every preview or review should mention it at the start since it breaks the Trek IP.
there is a difference between objective reporting and whining
I was just curious were they going to let you beta the Klingons? Although i was plan on buying the game either or I wanted to get much information on to there side. I was aware of there progress being pvp oriented. Any information on that would be greatly apreciated.
Objective reporting requires coverage of positives and negatives. Not that this site has anything to do with 'reporting'.
Objective reporting requires coverage of positives and negatives. Not that this site has anything to do with 'reporting'.
hmmm then why do you continue to come to a website that you question their motives to discuss a game that you arent going to be playing????
I find many of the discussions interesting ( I have always enjoyed a good argument), and there are often good game design ideas brought up.
The game has bridge crew, which fits with the IP.
The IP doesn't require them to be player controlled. Making them "pets" was a design decision based on what would reasonably produce better overall gameplay for the most people.
You might not agree with the decision, but it doesn't mean it breaks the IP.
Anyway, might I suggest some online Trek RP communities, like http://www.star-fleet.com/webb/ . It might be what you're looking for, since you can't like STO.
I find many of the discussions interesting ( I have always enjoyed a good argument), and there are often good game design ideas brought up.
fair enough....i just dont see the point in bringing up something that was mentioned when Cryptic took over the game.
Based on what would be cheap and easy to produce.
Player crews could have been made optional for those who didn't want them, but they weren't.
Well, SWG didn't have multi-player ships until quite a bit after Jump to Lightspeed, so perhaps they will come in an expension or just released along with a patch. If I remember correctly, the latter is how they entered SWG.
Based on what would be cheap and easy to produce.
Player crews could have been made optional for those who didn't want them, but they weren't.
And it won't surprise me if at some point in the future they don't give players the ability to crew the same ship. It just isn't like that now. My understanding is that players can cooperatively perform ground missions, which is part of the solution.
Besides, Nimoy, Frakes, and Blalock were all contractually obligated to show up on the set to record their respective shows. Players are under no such obligation. What happens when Spock gets a new RL job and quits, Riker decides to cross over to Star Wars: The Old Republic, and T'Pol gets banned for hacking? You'll be going through bridge crew faster than Tiger Woods goes through condoms - which also doesn't mesh well with the IP. Or, you'll be Picard, sitting on the bridge all by himself. That also doesn't fit.
Personally, I like the decision they've made, with the hope that they continue to expand the game. In any event, I'm going to at least try the game myself, which is probably more than you'll do, though you'll certainly continue to "Doubt" it as much and as loudly as possible.
I'll try the game when and if I can do so without paying them for the opportunity. I don't buy a car in order to test drive it. Especially not one with so few features and so many obvious flaws.
As for crew replacements - I will repeat what I and others have said before. It is nothing that guilds in other MMORPGs don't deal with every day, and temporary substitions are in line with the IP. The bridge crew in the various series change with virtually every episode.
Given how unbelivably broad the scope is of the IP compared to how narrow the scope of the game is, I find it hard to believe that the game will feel 'trekkish' to many people.
(note: Not saying many people won't like the game. Just talking about it feeling trekkish)
Not agreeing with you doesn't mean we're bad at our jobs, shills for Cryptic, or anything else. Some people out there actually have a different opinion than you.
We went over that one ad nauseum in a previous thread, do you really need to repeat the conversation?
So, I offer you a deal...
You seem to be able to string a few words together, so how about you put your ideas where you mouth is. Email me (dana@mmorpg.com) and I'll hook you up with a slot to do a freelance editorial (we'll pay you for if it makes the cut). You can have an entire article on "The Argument For Player Crews." Tell us why you feel it's important to the IP and how you would include it in the game if you could, or in the future.
You're clearly passionate about this topic and feel it needs to be highlighted. If the article needs rebuttal, I'll also circle back with Cryptic and try to get answers to a couple of your related questions to use in the article.
I'm still skeptical about the game because I have no confidence whatsoever in Cryptic's competence as an MMORPG developer.
I'm still going to try the game out because I've been a SciFi and Fantasy geek since I was about 8 years old and I loved the original and the next gen.
I still like Babylon 5 better and Farscape trumps all as the coolest and most engrossing SciFi show ever. (I miss that show. It was so awesome and funny as hell too.)
I'll try the game when and if I can do so without paying them for the opportunity. I don't buy a car in order to test drive it. Especially not one with so few features and so many obvious flaws.
As for crew replacements - I will repeat what I and others have said before. It is nothing that guilds in other MMORPGs don't deal with every day, and temporary substitions are in line with the IP. The bridge crew in the various series change with virtually every episode.
You probably also wouldn't test drive a car that you've already determined that you don't like the looks of, or the features that it comes with. One need not be Nostradamus to see which way your "test" of STO will be going. RIP objectivity.
Games that mandate group play most or all of the time, or are based on an overreliance on other players, to do anything of consequence are going to have problems. WAR is a perfect example here - without a critical mass of friendlies to play with, or enemies to fight, the main focus of the game was impossible to enjoy.
A similar thing would likely occur in STO, especially during off-peak times, as you spam the LFC (looking for crew) channel just to operate your ship and play the game at its most rudimentary level. Most other games are more solo-friendly than such an STO design would be. Guilds in other games generally don't need to run minimum manning schedules 24 hours a day.
Again, I believe the design decision was made to give players the best overall experience at all times. I'm hoping they will continue to expand it, and make it so characters can man the same ship, but I understand and agree with the decision they've made so far.
Of course, I haven't played it yet, so don't know how much I'll enjoy it. I'm going to give it a fair shot, however.
Not agreeing with you doesn't mean we're bad at our jobs, shills for Cryptic, or anything else. Some people out there actually have a different opinion than you.
We went over that one ad nauseum in a previous thread, do you really need to repeat the conversation?
So, I offer you a deal...
You seem to be able to string a few words together, so how about you put your ideas where you mouth is. Email me (dana@mmorpg.com) and I'll hook you up with a slot to do a freelance editorial (we'll pay you for if it makes the cut). You can have an entire article on "The Argument For Player Crews." Tell us why you feel it's important to the IP and how you would include it in the game if you could, or in the future.
You're clearly passionate about this topic and feel it needs to be highlighted. If the article needs rebuttal, I'll also circle back with Cryptic and try to get answers to a couple of your related questions to use in the article.
mmo_doubter, this is a good opportunity. I think you should do it.
Not agreeing with you doesn't mean we're bad at our jobs, shills for Cryptic, or anything else. Some people out there actually have a different opinion than you.
We went over that one ad nauseum in a previous thread, do you really need to repeat the conversation?
So, I offer you a deal...
You seem to be able to string a few words together, so how about you put your ideas where you mouth is. Email me (dana@mmorpg.com) and I'll hook you up with a slot to do a freelance editorial (we'll pay you for if it makes the cut). You can have an entire article on "The Argument For Player Crews." Tell us why you feel it's important to the IP and how you would include it in the game if you could, or in the future.
You're clearly passionate about this topic and feel it needs to be highlighted. If the article needs rebuttal, I'll also circle back with Cryptic and try to get answers to a couple of your related questions to use in the article.
Can anyone take advantage of that? I've written several posts about how player crews could be done to the benefit of all, even those against player crews, but they usually get lost in the storm of posts about player crews.
mmo_doubter, this is a good opportunity. I think you should do it.
Yeah go for it, I'm interested to see how you fill an entire objective editorial with trolling, should be fun.
Can anyone take advantage of that? I've written several posts about how player crews could be done to the benefit of all, even those against player crews, but they usually get lost in the storm of posts about player crews.
I offered it to him first (there's little value in several articles on the same topic) so we'll see what he says. If he doesn't, consider yourself second in line.
Again, no promise we post it. I have no writing sample to go off save those two sentences above, but provided it's readable and can at least be edited, and makes a coherent point (even if I don't agree with it) we'd use it.
I have to say I'm impressed by this offer. There have been a lot of well written and clearly thought out posts in the STO subsection of the forums recently, both by people in favor of Cryptics current offering and by those who would have done it differently. I hope mmo_doubter does take you up on this offer, or if he decides not to that somebody else does, and is able to provide a clear, concise and workable idea for player crews. Not that I think it would make any difference to STO, since STO has already been designed to play the way it is, and attempting to simply add this to the existing system would most likely not be all that fun, but maybe in future a developer might choose to design a game where player crews are a central component if they know that the interest is there.
Either way, regardless of whether someone does submit an article that is good enough to be published or not, hats off to Dana for making the offer!
You probably also wouldn't test drive a car that you've already determined that you don't like the looks of, or the features that it comes with. One need not be Nostradamus to see which way your "test" of STO will be going. RIP objectivity.
Games that mandate group play most or all of the time, or are based on an overreliance on other players, to do anything of consequence are going to have problems. WAR is a perfect example here - without a critical mass of friendlies to play with, or enemies to fight, the main focus of the game was impossible to enjoy.
A similar thing would likely occur in STO, especially during off-peak times, as you spam the LFC (looking for crew) channel just to operate your ship and play the game at its most rudimentary level. Most other games are more solo-friendly than such an STO design would be. Guilds in other games generally don't need to run minimum manning schedules 24 hours a day.
Again, I believe the design decision was made to give players the best overall experience at all times. I'm hoping they will continue to expand it, and make it so characters can man the same ship, but I understand and agree with the decision they've made so far.
Of course, I haven't played it yet, so don't know how much I'll enjoy it. I'm going to give it a fair shot, however.
How many times, really, does this canard have to be rebutted? No one advocates mandatory grouping to fill ship roles. The ship roles would be filled by NPCs as needed -- the very system that's in place now I expect. But one would have the option of playng as Bridge Crew in lieu of NPCs -- just like grouping in any MMO where people have differing roles AND differing game mechanics to learn for their selected "position".
That's actually not true at all. Multi-player ships were available at JtL launch. I beta tested that xpac -- back when beta testing meant something, haha. But you have a point in so far as the JtL xpac was released months after the initial launch, so STO could possibly add Player Crew functionality.
But here's my fear, since I keep hearing from STO developers that if there's enough player demand, they'll add Player Crews: After launch they'll see if they've placated enough people with their current system in order to satisfy the bean counters -- to this end, I think they'll be successful. Thus STO won't feel obliged to introduce Player Crews because, through self-fullfilling rationalization, there won't be any 'demand'. You see how that's a self-fulfilling rationalization? It's like US automakers saying there isn't any demand for hybrid/electric cars, and yet how do they know or measure that demand when they aren't producing any of that product? lol. (Okay, let's not get into car talk here, it was just an example).
The ironic thing regarding SWG:JtL xpac was that there wasn't nearly the hue and cry for multi-player ships as there is here for STO. Yet those old SWG devs thought it would be cool and fun to add -- and they were right. Not only that, they figured out a way, as really good, creative developers can, a way to make multiple roles fun. Crafters repairing the ship as it breaks down, medics running around healing injured crew. They didn't even have NPC crews, something that a STO system would have.
/sigh
I think the bodies are too thin. I don't see any variety, and not much variety in heads, either. I think it's important to gain an attachment to your character. A friend who plays in the beta, says he doesn't feel that attachment.
I'm a big fan of Champions Online, and watched all seasons of NG/DS9/VOY, but unless I am really far off in my assesment of the typical MMO gamer, STO is headed for a record breaking level of fail that will also, sadly for me, nail the coffin of CO. Even if the game defies my expectation and becomes a sales success, I am 100% sure that experienced MMO players will not be able to enjoy this game. All the flaws of Champions, and none of the graces...
I was very disappointed by the lack of detail on the non-combat mission. It made it sound like it was beaming down, clicking a couple times, and then it was done. Then again, maybe it was just that. I can't honestly say I expect any non-combat depth from this game. If the non-combat play is paper-thin, then I don't see how it would really feel like Star Trek.
Multi-player crews only work in SWG because you really only need one person to fly the ship and fire some of the guns. Other players could man gunnery turrets and spam heal the ship but they weren't necessary to play the game and they ship didn't feel as empty since the maximum crew was supposed to be 2-5 anyways.
Star Trek's about huge ships with hundreds of crew members, even if you took the bridge crew you're still talking 7-9 people. Away team? You're talking 3-5 with 2 of them basically being NPC pets.
The MMO scene being what it is, I don't fault Cryptic for going the "player-is-captain" route. My only nitpick is that you have to be an "Admiral" in order to Captain a Sovereign-class ship. They could have gone with "Fleet Captain" if they needed a rank above Captain.
My biggest questions about STO are more fundamental. Is the game balanced? Is the game fun to play for the long-term? How much of the stuff they put into the game will actually work two months after launch? Take away the Trek set dressing and does the game stand on it's own?
mmo_doubter, this is a good opportunity. I think you should do it.
Yeah go for it, I'm interested to see how you fill an entire objective editorial with trolling, should be fun.
SACK-UP!! Here's your chance.
I'm rooting for you to canvas this topic and give stage to all ways it could be done. Even WOW now has a system coming that would play right into this with "beaming" members to a ship. Go for it MMO_Doubter, you can do it!
Sorry did I miss the NDA being dropped on the beta? (I appreciate press have different rules) That sure would make for better conversation.
Else I think the best some of us can do is say we agree with some things that were said...
The player crew thing is kind of strange, but there's obviously different games you can make with the IP (there have been a LOT of Star Trek games). The "player captain + bot crew" is a different game to the "player crew" one, while conceptually I would have truly loved to play the later but I don't know how well it works in practice. It's hard enough to keep peoples attention when they're in the spotlight, let alone running a background role.
Sure would have been a unique game though.
[LFG] Captain Pikeard : "Looking to run Scarlet Nebular, need 1 Security, and First Officer. No Science".
Yeah, I had the same thought actually. I would have liked more detail from Jon on that mission since we hardly ever hear anything about non-combat missions.
Was there any complexity to it? Was there a chance of failure? If so, what were the consequences of failure? In the various TV series, there was almost always a complication to seemingly easy, benign missions. Did this non-combat mission have any complications from the expected?
Great offer Dana! Way to put the lid on MMO_Doubter. Funny how some folks, when seriously challenged to make their real point can't because all they want to do is whine. Love it. STO is going to rock and I mean ROCK the BLOCKS.. I cannot wait to test and play it...
Hmm, regarding player crews, it'd actually be possible to do if you had the player beam over, come onto the bridge and "relieve" your NPC. Since we have captain roles, the visiting captain could have substantial buffs over the NPC bridge officer ones, even possibly giving your ship some of the abilities of their regular one.
It'd be a neat way to "mentor" someone too, as early ships just don't belong in some scenarios, say one where it takes a certain amount of shields to survive background radiation, or you need the sensors of a Science ship to locate something but are ambushed by a heavy military force, etc.
Just my .02 cred.
W
Edit - oh and good article Dana, thanks for the additional info. Good to hear they got a good "feel" going in the game, that's very important to keep people from just playing through to the endgame as fast as they can. I think it'll keep people from lapsing into WoW-in-space mode :)
Where do you see that MMO_Doubter has declined, refused or otherwise indicated a response to Dana's offer?
Where do you see that MMO_Doubter has declined, refused or otherwise indicated a response to Dana's offer?
He's going by Internet time, lack of response for a number of hours (not days) results in forfeit.
That is a kind and generous offer.
Writing full articles is not my thing. It's a long time since English class and I do not write professionally. I rely on temporary inspiration to fuel my posting. Which is why I alternate from one-liners to walls of text.
I'm not sure if I can do more than re-state what I and others have already posted on this subject, but I will see what I can cobble together over the next few days. Available time permitting.
At least the readers here can enjoy a respite from my usual posting habits.
I'll see what I can do.
That's great I love that he was offered a chance to write it out rather than being banned into oblivion. That being said and seeing there's some actual thought going on here....
What do you have to say about how Klingons have been handled? If not for the fact that they've been downsized to a monster play type of experience than how about how much of a doofus move it was to not market the 2nd faction as a different experience altogether?
There's another post on this but it's filled with so much angst it's difficult to get a thoughtful response out of anyone who isn't extremely pissed that they can't turn the redlights on, eat live worms and set their phasers to DOMINATE.
Only thing I want to know about this game is, what form of crafting does this game have?
Alot of info has been released about the game, but, very little has ben said about crafting. Are we looking at another game that crafting and player economy is a secondary, maybe even last minute, add on?
That's actually not true at all. Multi-player ships were available at JtL launch. I beta tested that xpac -- back when beta testing meant something, haha. But you have a point in so far as the JtL xpac was released months after the initial launch, so STO could possibly add Player Crew functionality.
But here's my fear, since I keep hearing from STO developers that if there's enough player demand, they'll add Player Crews: After launch they'll see if they've placated enough people with their current system in order to satisfy the bean counters -- to this end, I think they'll be successful. Thus STO won't feel obliged to introduce Player Crews because, through self-fullfilling rationalization, there won't be any 'demand'. You see how that's a self-fulfilling rationalization? It's like US automakers saying there isn't any demand for hybrid/electric cars, and yet how do they know or measure that demand when they aren't producing any of that product? lol. (Okay, let's not get into car talk here, it was just an example).
The ironic thing regarding SWG:JtL xpac was that there wasn't nearly the hue and cry for multi-player ships as there is here for STO. Yet those old SWG devs thought it would be cool and fun to add -- and they were right. Not only that, they figured out a way, as really good, creative developers can, a way to make multiple roles fun. Crafters repairing the ship as it breaks down, medics running around healing injured crew. They didn't even have NPC crews, something that a STO system would have.
I stand corrected, but I think that point should be emphasized lest we forget; Star Wars Galaxies... wait a sec... that needs more emphasis... *STAR* Wars... launched without a space component AT ALL.
Is that what destroyed the game?
I think not.
Still, one would likely be correct to point out that times have changed. Can you imagine what these boards would look like right now if Bioware had announced that TOR had no space combat? Hehehe... Epic Fail would suddenly become the two most used words in the English language.
Times may have changed indeed. Still, it was the love of the IP, not to mention a decent game, that caused players to temporarily live with that gaping hole.
I submit to the assembled that Star Trek is a similarly loved IP, and will survive minor bumps in the road such as launching without multi-player ships (not to mention perhaps not a fully fleshed out second faction like the Klingons).
You probably also wouldn't test drive a car that you've already determined that you don't like the looks of, or the features that it comes with. One need not be Nostradamus to see which way your "test" of STO will be going. RIP objectivity.
Games that mandate group play most or all of the time, or are based on an overreliance on other players, to do anything of consequence are going to have problems. WAR is a perfect example here - without a critical mass of friendlies to play with, or enemies to fight, the main focus of the game was impossible to enjoy.
A similar thing would likely occur in STO, especially during off-peak times, as you spam the LFC (looking for crew) channel just to operate your ship and play the game at its most rudimentary level. Most other games are more solo-friendly than such an STO design would be. Guilds in other games generally don't need to run minimum manning schedules 24 hours a day.
Again, I believe the design decision was made to give players the best overall experience at all times. I'm hoping they will continue to expand it, and make it so characters can man the same ship, but I understand and agree with the decision they've made so far.
Of course, I haven't played it yet, so don't know how much I'll enjoy it. I'm going to give it a fair shot, however.
How many times, really, does this canard have to be rebutted? No one advocates mandatory grouping to fill ship roles. The ship roles would be filled by NPCs as needed -- the very system that's in place now I expect. But one would have the option of playng as Bridge Crew in lieu of NPCs -- just like grouping in any MMO where people have differing roles AND differing game mechanics to learn for their selected "position".
There have indeed been at least a few advocates for mandatory player crew in the past (a quick review of threads from the "Everyone's a Captain" announcement era on several MMO boards confirms this). The idea of players replacing NPCs is a relatively new one, obviously stemming from that very announcement. Incidentally, there are still quite a few bemoaning this, as they yearn for PE's early vision of their Star Trek MMO.
While I would also like the option to eventually have multiple players crew the same starship, I'm sure there are a number of design problems that make a balanced implementation of this in STO very difficult, given the type of game it is. I can't imagine that Cryptic didn't examine this as a possibility, or is intentionally trying to piss off as many prospective players as possible by rejecting the idea out of hand. But let me ask you about your vision of player crews:
Do you think that player controlled stations would have to offer compelling, effective, powerful gameplay to the player working that station (something more complex than AI can realistically handle)? If so, does this in effect make a ship with player crew more powerful/effective than one controlled by the captain and NPC crew alone?
Or, do you think that NPC AI-controlled bridge crew should be able to equal the capabilities and effectiveness of human players? Is that even possible?
Given the above, how does Cryptic tune the content of the entire game to account for all the variables of crew manning to ensure that it offers the appropriate level of challenge in most circumstances?
How would player characters of different "levels" on the same ship be handled?
Lastly, given the current design, doesn't the idea of the captains of other ships routinely filling bridge positions on another ship also violate the IP? Or is your vision predicated on not all players being captains?
As I said, I'd also like to see player crew implemented, but in response to your "rebuttal" comment, I have yet to see an airtight, balanced, and well-considered solution offered - just the simple "sub a player for the NPC and giv'em a station interface" response.
Hey, at least then the complaining could transition from "game doesn't have player crew stations" to "game has poorly considered and unbalanced gameplay".
As far as I know - there has been no space combat announced for the SWTOR launch. Once again - that's a deal-breaker for me.
As far as I know - there has been no space combat announced for the SWTOR launch. Once again - that's a deal-breaker for me.
You seem to have a pretty specific set of deal-breakers when it comes to video games you might otherwise enjoy. personally, I prefer to judge games for what they are, rather than what they aren't.
I thought they said crafting was going to be in the game and AH and such. Though, given how the Klingon Empire turned out, I wouldn't hold out hopes of it being much good.
I rarely (next to never) agree with MMO_Doubters' comments, but I would be interested in seeing what he/she actually writes. I'm sure they have editors on-staff that can help with the English, grammar, and general verbiage since he/she isn't proficient in that area. I'm actually interested in what MMOs that poster actually likes since every post seems to be about what he/she dislikes. I may be surprised. Perhaps I missed a few 100 posts from him/her...but it seems, in a gaming genre where you see so many negatives, one has to wonder why you follow MMORPGS at all.
How many times, really, does this canard have to be rebutted? No one advocates mandatory grouping to fill ship roles. The ship roles would be filled by NPCs as needed -- the very system that's in place now I expect. But one would have the option of playng as Bridge Crew in lieu of NPCs -- just like grouping in any MMO where people have differing roles AND differing game mechanics to learn for their selected "position".
There have indeed been at least a few advocates for mandatory player crew in the past (a quick review of threads from the "Everyone's a Captain" announcement era on several MMO boards confirms this). The idea of players replacing NPCs is a relatively new one, obviously stemming from that very announcement. Incidentally, there are still quite a few bemoaning this, as they yearn for PE's early vision of their Star Trek MMO.
And there are a few advocates everywhere who would like to see mandatory grouping in all MMOs. Thankfully the exception doesn't prove the rule. I see that you're obviously new to the discussion, so I'll be gentle. The idea of players replacing crews has been around a long time, even when Perpetual had the IP. Because guess what? The same tired argument was attempted, and shot down then as it is now.
While I would also like the option to eventually have multiple players crew the same starship, I'm sure there are a number of design problems that make a balanced implementation of this in STO very difficult, given the type of game it is. I can't imagine that Cryptic didn't examine this as a possibility, or is intentionally trying to piss off as many prospective players as possible by rejecting the idea out of hand. But let me ask you about your vision of player crews:
Intentionally trying to piss of people? No. Willfully? Yes. They know they are pissing off people. As I said elsewhere, it is highly possible that Cryptic devs simply aren't talented enough to pull off multi-player ships like the talented system designers of SWG. I guess there shouldn't be any shame in that -- not everyone is a genius. Doesn't mean I can't be disappointed.
Do you think that player controlled stations would have to offer compelling, effective, powerful gameplay to the player working that station (something more complex than AI can realistically handle)? If so, does this in effect make a ship with player crew more powerful/effective than one controlled by the captain and NPC crew alone?
I don't know, you tell me? Is your standard fantasy MMO group of tank/DPS/Healer/crowd control more powerful than a solo player? Or a solo player with a pet? I think you know the answer. Of course groups of players are going to be more poweful -- that is what group content is for.
Or, do you think that NPC AI-controlled bridge crew should be able to equal the capabilities and effectiveness of human players? Is that even possible?
See my answer above. Pets have typical MMO AI -- nothing different. Now I can imagine a design in which NPCs are buffed in some manner to balance human players -- but then again I see a clear separation between group content which would be exploited (not in the bad sense of the word) by Player Crews, and Solo content which could use AI.
Given the above, how does Cryptic tune the content of the entire game to account for all the variables of crew manning to ensure that it offers the appropriate level of challenge in most circumstances?
I don't know, ask any dev that has to balance fantasy MMO roles of tank/DPS/healer/crowd control. You make it sound as though balancing content for groups is some how a new and bizarre concept. Seriously, people, this concept isn't foreign at all.
How would player characters of different "levels" on the same ship be handled?
Uhm, again, how are players of different levels handled while grouping in a fantasy MMO? In many cases, it doesn't happen. But just look at how Cryptic solved this problem with CoH -- they used a mentoring system. Is it that far fetched to think the same company that invented the mentoring system couldn't implement something similar in one of their own games???
Lastly, given the current design, doesn't the idea of the captains of other ships routinely filling bridge positions on another ship also violate the IP? Or is your vision predicated on not all players being captains?
The idea behind Player Crews is that you are that officer, be it Science, Engineering, medical. That would be your choice as a character occupation. Could your character then 'captain' another ship as per Cryptic's own definition? Sure. This has been seen in many situations throughout the various series.
As I said, I'd also like to see player crew implemented, but in response to your "rebuttal" comment, I have yet to see an airtight, balanced, and well-considered solution offered - just the simple "sub a player for the NPC and giv'em a station interface" response.
Then you really aren't following closely.
Hey, at least then the complaining could transition from "game doesn't have player crew stations" to "game has poorly considered and unbalanced gameplay".
Only if you believe Developers in general are unable to balance gameplay across roles within groups -- then yes, and it wouldn't be a problem unique to this vision of STO.
I want games that use a big name IP to draw in customers to match what the IP has to offer. Space combat is a huge part of Star Wars.
It's because of the potential for entertainment in a really well-made MMO. Some of the best times I have had in gaming have come while playing MMOs. If I had no hope of a quality gaming experience, I would have left the genre long ago.
It's a lot like dating - you put up with a lot of disappointment because you only have to hit the jackpot once for it all to be worthwhile. I guess I'm a romantic, at heart.
Well, I'll be dipped. You're right.
I guess I just assumed that there would be after watching the "sacking of Coruscant" trailer, which contains spacecraft (they are just not in space is all). There are also an interesting spacescape at the beginning of another trailer called "Diverse worlds".
Doesn't mean anything though, I suppose.
I do not understand the angst about this game (I am by no way garaunteeing success). Can anyone who is upset about player crews honestly tell me you would be 100% satisfied with the game if player crews were included? Conversely, those who are in favor of the current format... are 100% happy with the game without player crews? I realize no one has played it publicly but I would venture to say that everyone has their issues with the game. In fact, that is true with any game. You can never please anyone. If Cryptic included player crew only format (I realize that empty spot could be populated by NPCs), I'm sure there would just as much of an outcry from the non-player crew side of things.
Instead of focusing on the negative (no dorsal/ventral shields per se, Lack of klingon information/development it would seem, among a few other things) I try to keep in perspective a few things: 1) This is Cryptics offering of Star Trek, 30 years after Nemisis....how different is our lives now than they were 30 years ago? 2) The masses will never be please 100% (Cryptic has limited resources) 3) Don't knock it until you try it.
I have not played the game yet... I intend to try the open BETA. I do not preorder games for promotional stuff like access to BETA, Starship X etc (that is not to say ppl are dumb for doing it).
Just get OPen BETA and give it a try
Given that player crews would be optional, what would soloers have to complain about?
you have the game that you reviewed mixed up with the STO in "this" reality
it might have started off that way with the previous owner,, its not now.
that misson you did with no combat on the planet was there combat elsewhere on that misson? how was the grouping with other players?
I think that all but the most dulisonal and blind star trek fans will be severly dissapointed and mad with STO
my sugestion is wait a few months and see what real players say after their first 30 days
not the stealth advertizers and promoters.
Yes but what Star Trek feel exactly? The devil may care, tongue in cheek feel of the original series, with its large dose of cold war paranoia Americanism? The more mature, and somewhat constipated feel of STNG? The more wild wild west frontier justice meets space opera feel of Deep Space Nine? The strangers in a strange land feel of Voyager? Or the somewhat haphazard and confused feel of Enterprise?
Star Trek is a big big universe with a ton of history. From what I have seen so far is it looks like they just took all of it, tossed it in a blender and hit frappe. While this ersatz Trek salad may appeal to many fans, it just does not appeal to me. Honestly considering the nitpickiness of most Trek fans, no version they create will please all. Personally I think the best idea they could have used was to allow people to be a part of the Star Trek universe without having to be a part of Starfleet.
I know, your job isn't to comment on what could or should have been, but what is. However as a Trek fan yourself, Jon, do you think this game really nails the "in the Star Trek Universe" feeling, or will it just seem like we are hanging out at a virtual Trek convention?
I think a lot of people are forgetting just how conceptually massive the Star-Trek universe actually is, how could anyone possibly hit all of the nuances & possibilities within this IP & be produced by & represented in an MMO in under 30 years is just not possible.
I think people should judge the game on it's merits & what is can do on release, this potentially could become the most-expanded game in history thanks to it's hugely encompassing IP, but it has to start somewhere right?
I don't like the comments that Star Trek is equally about space and ground. I don't agree with that at all. Take DS9. There was rarely planet-side action. Generally, all the action was aboard the station or in a ship. Likewise, with Voyager almost all of the action took place on Voyager. Enterprise I would say was skewed more towards in-space action. I think TNG was a little more balanced and TOS was probably the most balanced space to ground. My point is Star Trek, as others have pointed out, encompasses a massive canon. Some people in the ST universe live their entire lives in space. I'm a little turned off by being fed this notion that every mission should involve ground action. It's just not true. It would be nice to be able to select missions that allow you to only do space actions. I'm not sure if that's supported or not, but it would be nice.
This is a nice comparision. Mind if I steal it?
I guess you never watched the last two seasons of Deep Space 9. There were massive battles all over the place.
If you're looking for a carbon copy of your favortie trek series then you're going to be disappointed. If you're looking for something that, on its own merits fits into the trek universe, then yeah, it's got that Star Trek feeling.
Look at it this way: People have complained that each and every Star Trek spinoff hasn't felt Star Trek enough, from TNG right up to Enterprise. Everyone has a different view of what Star Trek is, but like I said in the article, the game feels like a part of the universe.
I think that you think your opinion carries more weight than it does. You're welcome to it, of course, but try expressing it without insulting people who don't think like you do is more effective for grown ups.
I'm a Trek fan and I'm neither blind nor delusional (you spelled it wrong, by the way).
That is a kind and generous offer.
Writing full articles is not my thing. It's a long time since English class and I do not write professionally. I rely on temporary inspiration to fuel my posting. Which is why I alternate from one-liners to walls of text.
I'm not sure if I can do more than re-state what I and others have already posted on this subject, but I will see what I can cobble together over the next few days. Available time permitting.
At least the readers here can enjoy a respite from my usual posting habits.
I'll see what I can do.
Keep in mind, most people don't read the forums. So repeating a few of those old arguments will be necessary for it to make sense. All I ask is that the article make sense unto itself with no background reading. Bring in a wider range of voices.
Anyway, if you can get me something by Tuesday next week, we can use it this year. Keep me posted (by email, as I likely won't stay on this thread forever).
on the player crew vs npc crew, its faster and easier to put the npc in at first, and given time, modify the game...
it would be difficult to man a whole bridge crew right off the bat at start up...
with cryptics past examples of adding content and new twists to the game over time, i think if it is possible to have pc crew members, and the demand is high enough after start, they will put it in...
for now, let them get the game live and working... feb 2010 is just a few months away... :)
cant wait until feb...
I didnt intend for my post to be a personal attack only that we have two very different views on STO so much so that it seems there are two different games.
the one im familar with seems to be all about shallow shoot em up some music is perfect,, some sounds like star wars battle music not quite there needs more hvy drums
I can only speak globaly that if you read between the lines of the trailers you can piece together some of the problems.
i think if people like this game 30 days after release than their game bar is set prety low
and your right my opinion carries about as much weight as a grain of sand,, maby someone sees my posts and takes a closer look before they drop down 50$ (maby they dont)
Ditto on this! Except I don't have a wife or kids, so I guess I offer you nothing. :)
Hmm, I'll ask again. Can we get some more detail on that non-combat mission?
People are comparing player crews to parties in fantasy MMOs. They truly aren't the same. Without even looking at the complexities or lack thereof of specific jobs, there's a specific model difference in execution. For example, let's look at a fantasy party. You have your setup of tank, heals, and Dps, right? Let's say a five player party. They combine their skills and resources and apply it directly towards the goal, which is defeating the boss/encounter. In a crew, it's a bit different. Each member of a crew is applying their skills to an intermediate goal, which is piloting a vessel. The vessel is then the focus towards the ultimate goal, defeating the boss/encounter.
The complication comes in with figuring out how the formula works. In the case of the fantasy party, all the efforts went directly into the ultimate goal, defeating the monster. Every player is in their own independent control of their own selves. Their own personal placement, what skills they used, how effectively they do their job, it all directly figures into the boss. Their abilities directly deal damage to the boss, the healer keeps the party going, the tank absorbs as much damage as he can without dying. In a sense, it will seem like they're operating one vessel in a figurative sense, but they're still very much in control of their selves, and the programmer doesn't have to come up with a magic formula to combine their skills. So, if they're of multiple level groups, individual contributions are already figured out without the need of it being intrinsically being programed into the game.
Let's look at SWG, and their space combat, in comparison to STO's. SWG decided to go with an entirely action based ship control. It is akin to a simple [yet admittedly well design] ship combat game, a la Rogue Squadron. They created an entirely different leveling tree for Piloting, and made no gains from that directly related to skill/damage/precision. They gave you access and the ability to pilot news ships, which were the only place stats came into play. You could equip your ship with new weapons/armor/shields/engines/etc. But, your own personal pilot level never came into play once you were out and shooting stuff. So, when you combined into a player crew, someone controlled the piloting, someone controlled the guns, and most of what everyone else did was related to keeping the ship going and didn't directly effect outside battles. Even if you have a crack medic and a natural crafter mending your ship, it wasn't going to make you kill other ships faster. Made you harder to kill, admittedly, but a ship that isn't doing any real damage isn't a threat and can be handled last with a concerted effort.
Another big difference is that Star Wars had personal fighters, and ships that were somewhat bigger than that. Meaning you rarely broke single digits in crew, ever. Imagine trying to pilot a capital ship, with thousands on board, it becomes a completely different mess. To control that with a smaller number of actual players, concepts become abstract. Rather than actually fixing the hull after damage, you're ordering the crew to do that. Instead of increasing speed, you're ordering the engineering crew to give 'er all she got, captain. The bridge's work is essentially is to relay information to you, and relay orders to the ship. Which is why they get to stand there instead of running around like a smaller crew would have to do, a la SWG. The work becomes so complicated, in fact, it's easy to get lost in keeping the ship going rather than focusing on maneuvers and targets and unit cohesion and other very important concepts, and whereas the chance to pilot a ship of that magnitude in simulation would be a blast it's clearly not the point of STO.
[><; Okay, I got a little sidetracked. Sorry, back on point.]
Having not played STO, I don't know how the combat actually works, but being such a big part of the game as compared to SWG where it wasn't as big, I'd say character levels play an important role in the piloting the ship. Exactly how much should level differences effect the ship's performance, and how much should each role account for the success?
Also, considering your bridge is essentially a go between for the captain and the actual crew of the ship, how exactly could a NPC not do it just as well if not better. If a problem occurs, the NPC will report it directly to the captain, whom would order it handled, whom would immediately handle said problem. With a human, you get human reaction times, the player officer will have to become aware of a problem, report it to the captain, receive orders, and then solve the problem themselves.
And even more pokey, is why conceptually should the same ship be more effective with a player button pusher than a NPC button pusher? A crew of captains isn't anymore better suited for a hard mission than a team of specialists. If you confer bonuses for Player Crews the entire experience would feel forced, as well as not fair in a pvp situation.
But I'm going to go ahead and shut up and get off this soapbox I've seemed to have found before I keep talking and make a total fool of myself.
Personally I think this should just switch to a thread on the STO board, it is more than a bit off topic. That said, the idea that every ensign, lieutenant, etc are created equal is ridiculous. In the show and real life, the the best ships have better people at any rank.* Place a random person from the fleet in one of those positions and you will have poorer performance (reaction time and judgment probably suffers). It is far from unreasonable to have something like this at work for player crews.
Anyhow, I'm just in this thread because I want that non-combat mission detailed more.
*Joke for those that didn't like Voyager: There's a reason why they weren't crewing a Galaxy-class ship.
ok it never astonishes me how at ad nauseaum people keep referring to cannon and the preservation of an ip. If the trek ip was kept as gene roddenberry had intended trek never would have become successful as it did. After the first season of TNG he was relegated to a consultant and not an executive producer of anything trek related from that point on. To argue that the fundamental changed cryptic made to ensure a fun, immersive game that attracts a broad swath of the public to atleast try the game breaks or some how alters the ip is a bit ridiculous. Half the games out out under the trek name failed because they tried too hard to appease the cannon hugging minority of the trek fan base. even most of the writers for all three recent series cited the suffocating constraints adhering to cannon and trek techno-babble as something that eventually led to the near death of trek. I for one was thrilled that they opted not to puse for player controlled crews, I despise depending on people who are inherently undependable to show up for mmo events and or participate in raids etc. And for the peopel who argue that it fundamentally stops being a trek experience for me trek was and always will be about the ships, which cryptic as painstakingly made an effort to get right both in exploration and combat. There's always going to be nay-sayers but for the love of god stop citing ip and cannon when in fact the ip and or cannon hasn't been adhered to for some time, and stop say my or our trek..it isn't your franchise to mainuplate it's paramounts and for once it looks as if they found the right people to do justice to us fans who have suffered through over a decade of awful trek games
*cough**cough* Amen.
Also, I for one very much enjoyed the recent and action packed Star Trek. <.<
@Cylon8 & kushinagi your walls of text hurt my eyes. Edit for brevity for the love of all that is holy and just.
It's because of the potential for entertainment in a really well-made MMO. Some of the best times I have had in gaming have come while playing MMOs. If I had no hope of a quality gaming experience, I would have left the genre long ago.
It's a lot like dating - you put up with a lot of disappointment because you only have to hit the jackpot once for it all to be worthwhile. I guess I'm a romantic, at heart.
This puts it in perspective, and actually makes me more interested to see what you come up with. Again, I agree with another poster where I tend to focus on what the MMO is more than what it isn't. I also see the potential of a well-made MMO, and over the course of time I've seen significant improvement in the genre overall (and not just graphically). It's easier to become disappointed with an MMO because they don't live up to the potential the you can envision. Would I have included player-run ships (no NPCs, players running the ship taking up different roles) at launch...you bet your @#$. Would I have focused less on how neat-o I can customize my Ferengi's ears and more on player races and the intricacies of ground exploration and diplomacy (aka exploring new worlds and new civilizations)...you bet your @#$.
But the sad truth is, I can't have a player-run/nonNPC run ship at launch, but I can still play in a team and do ground missions with my friends and family. I think the exploration and diplomacy bits will not be nearly as intricate as they could potentially be, but I can still run a diplomatic-type quest and I can still explore to a certain extent. Like I said, I can only look at the game for what it is (not what it isn't)...my internal disappointment-meter is better for it.
[Edit: fixed typo]
There are plenty more articles to come.
I'll turn this around, aside from non-combat missions (just noted it), what would you guys like us to focus on?
There are plenty more articles to come.
I'll turn this around, aside from non-combat missions (just noted it), what would you guys like us to focus on?
Group combat mechanics (particularly in space) would also be nice. One rarely sees them discussed in general, but they are an important part of any MMO.
Im interested in how much breathing room you have in space. How long does it take to run into an invisible barrier?
Also, have you run into any missions that require you to use a shuttlecraft instead of the transporter?
How long can you go in a tier ship before you HAVE to upgrade? I'm a old school trekkie and my ultimate ship was and will forever be the Constitution Class, both her original and refit versions. Would I be able to complete missions in one of those ship far into the content? Not worried about it be very difficult, I'd just like to get as much time as possible in the center seat of those beauties.
Jotting these down (and the above post).... :)
There are plenty more articles to come.
I'll turn this around, aside from non-combat missions (just noted it), what would you guys like us to focus on?
There are loads of things I'd love to ask, but the ones I've been wondering about most recently relate to klingons and cloaking. Hopefully some (or all) of these will be answered when the article on klingon gameplay comes out.
In almost all the Star Trek shows the ships only ever raise shields right before combat (often only after the enemy has locked weapons). One huge advantage of a cloaking device was/is therefore to be able to attack an enemy before they raise shields by surprising them. Does STO have any sort of system/mechanism in place to simulate this or should we expect players to fly around with shields at maximum all the time?
We already know that science vessels will have ways of detecting cloaked ships, but it would be great if we could get some details on how this works. Will it be similar to the shows where the crew is able to detect anomalies that might be cloaked ships, and if so will there also be other anomalies and/or sensor ghosts/glitches that give similar readouts but that aren't cloaked ships?
In several different episodes of TNG, and also in DS9, we see examples of ships using their cloaking device to de-cloak, fire off one or two shots and then rapidly re-cloak before the ship under attack is able to lock weapons on them. While I can see that this would not make for a fun pvp experience I am curious if the game attempts to model this process of acquiring a target and locking weapons. For example, if I target a ship while cloaked and start attacking (making myself visible) will the enemy have to target me, will this take time (faster with a better bridge officer skill etc), or will it be like most MMOs where as soon as I attack the game autotargets me back?
This is a nice comparision. Mind if I steal it?
Thanks. Knock yourself out.
If you're looking for a carbon copy of your favortie trek series then you're going to be disappointed. If you're looking for something that, on its own merits fits into the trek universe, then yeah, it's got that Star Trek feeling.
Look at it this way: People have complained that each and every Star Trek spinoff hasn't felt Star Trek enough, from TNG right up to Enterprise. Everyone has a different view of what Star Trek is, but like I said in the article, the game feels like a part of the universe.
Fair enough. Thanks for the response.
Sorry was a bit rushed with my last post.
By breathing room I ment both using impulse and warp engines. Warp is always the main travel speed, but how much room do we have to roam on impulse?
Just thought of another one, are they using the same naming structure they did with Champions, where your characters name is followed by a global handle? I think it was Armysurplus@trekjunkie or something like that.
Granted I will be taking advantage of the open beta, but any tidbits that you are allowed to pass along would be most welcome.
This article isn't telling me very much at all. Actually it almost reads like the first impressions of someone excited to be able to play the STO beta.
I agree that the music and sound effects are important, and from what I've seen the SFX are nearly spot on for Star Trek (there are a few City of Heroes/Champions Online sound effects mixed in I've noticed.) However, apart from the opening fanfare, none of the music seems very "Star Trek" to me (not to say it isn't at least decent.) Why hasn't Cryptic raided the Star Trek music archive and used iconic pieces from the shows and movies? One thing I loved about the Starfleet Academy video game for SNES was that I engaged in battles with the midi strains of the amazing Star Trek II soundtrack. Cryptic would be completely amiss to ignore Star Trek's rich musical heritage.
What's everyone's take on the recent new that Zachary Quinto is being used as a voice over for the EMH program within the game?
Personally I feel like it's a sellout move to capitalize off of the most recent movie's popularity. If you're going to get Quinto use him for Spock. Use Robert Picardo for the EMH, who knows he might even be cheaper to hire out for talent right now than Quinto is.
One of the defining elements of MMO gaming for me has always been individuality. WoW, for all it's community related shortcomings, is a masterpiece of gaming in many ways. One of those ways is certainly not making the player feel like an individual, a unique or important presence. Your look = your gear. End of. Your character = your archetype. Join a team and you are "Tank" or "Healer" etc. Just another drone. Sure, you might be "drone with big shiny stick +2 to mana" but a drone nonetheless.
Which brings me to why I enjoyed CoH/'V so much, and played them way more than any of the numerous other MMO's I've ever tried. The best character customization tool in the history of gaming. No matter how skilled or creative you were at designing your look, it was always there as a point of conversation with your fellow Heroes/'Villains:
"Man that's a good outfit!"
"Gee...big fan of black then?"
"I see what you did there. Like "The Thing" but purple. Like it."
Your look, along with your power customization choices, made your character feel unique. In a team, you always had a distinct presence, greater than the sum of your archetype parts.
The same could be said of Champions of course, but getting into the debate of "over-compensating for the soloists who want to play alone in an MMO" would be inappropriate here :)
So, my question is: How important/unique/defined are you as an individual in STO?
Am I "Another Captain", or am I "The Character I Created"?
There are plenty more articles to come.
I'll turn this around, aside from non-combat missions (just noted it), what would you guys like us to focus on?
PvP. I'm an ESAK type but oddly, I do like PvP as a part - a well executed, griefers not allowed part- of a game. I would ask:
How is Cryptic's implementation of PvP zones for fighting purposes? Got room, can things turn into endless kiting, etc?
How are the rewards for victory - or actually, ARE there any rewards for victory in PvP?
How are the death penalties - I understand that it's just travel time only, so how does that affect a battle? Can you rejoin if you're fast enough, and does that lead to endless (and therefore victoryless) fights?
Thanks for asking BTW, this is a very good direction for you guys.
Sorry to butt in, but in that way aren't 4 players "optional" in L4D?
Them bots sure are skillful... :)
Sorry to butt in, but in that way aren't 4 players "optional" in L4D?
Them bots sure are skillful... :)
Never played L4D -- and I can't speak to the amount of effort the developers put into their AI. I've played plenty of games where the AI is more than adequate, and some where the inefficiencies of the AI were compensated for by giving the NPCs buffs.
And since Cryptic is using NPCs crews already, one better hope that they've written fantastic AI. Because of that, I think you're sarcasm is unfounded.
But I've answered this already in a post above if you want a more in depth response.
Just FYI, have either of you read "Memories of the Future" by Wil Wheaton? It is an excellent read on the making of ST:TNG and shed an amazing amount of light for me on why I HATED that series, despite my real liking of the actors and their performances and my being raised on Star Trek lol.
Wil has some podcasts of excerpts on his site, but he'd started it as a series of blog episodes, so you can actually read some of the early content here - http://www.tvsquad.com/2007/01/03/star-trek-the-next-generation-encounter-at-farpoint-part-i/ .
Warning, Wil works blue (dirty) in his language quite a bit. It's always to point, but definitely something to be aware of.
Sorry to butt in, but in that way aren't 4 players "optional" in L4D?
Them bots sure are skillful... :)
Never played L4D -- and I can't speak to the amount of effort the developers put into their AI. I've played plenty of games where the AI is more than adequate, and some where the inefficiencies of the AI were compensated for by giving the NPCs buffs.
And since Cryptic is using NPCs crews already, one better hope that they've written fantastic AI. Because of that, I think you're sarcasm is unfounded.
But I've answered this already in a post above if you want a more in depth response.
Actually my sarcastic appraisal of botskills was founded on a bedrock of experience. The experience of playing this scenario: Team A is entirely controlled by players. Team B has just 1 A.I controlled player, AKA - Bot. Bot does something stupid. Team B dies. Bot is incapable of moving with the fluidity and accuracy of a player; Team B fails. Bot has inferior situational prioritizing skills (eg. The "I, Robot" problem). Team B dies gradually, 1 at a time.
Anyone who's played L4D recognizes the above scenarios but then the same could be true of most games where an A.I player is on your team against human players. While I concur that the issues would be nowhere near as pronounced for an A.I controlled Security officer on a ships' Bridge, the fact remains: Inherent, unequivocal, inferiority. Well not fact, opinion.
Of course the importance of the inherent, unequivocal, inferiority of bots is somewhat diminished, if every ship is full of bots...and just one player per ship to rule them all.
If player crews were included in STO, I would be approximately 35-50% more satisfied with the game than I am now. If full starship interiors were included I would be another 35-50% more satisfied with the game. These are my two biggest gripes with this game, and I feel that the game would be much, much, much more "Star Trek," much more unique and much more fun with both aspects in the game.
Also, I personally don't want to play a game set 30 years after Nemesis. That movie sucked and that era doesn't interest me in the slightest. I would love to play an MMO that takes place at the height of the Dominion War because DS9 was my very favourite Star Trek series, but all things considered I can live with Cryptic's "30 years after Nemesis."
PvP. I'm an ESAK type but oddly, I do like PvP as a part - a well executed, griefers not allowed part- of a game. I would ask:
How is Cryptic's implementation of PvP zones for fighting purposes? Got room, can things turn into endless kiting, etc?
How are the rewards for victory - or actually, ARE there any rewards for victory in PvP?
How are the death penalties - I understand that it's just travel time only, so how does that affect a battle? Can you rejoin if you're fast enough, and does that lead to endless (and therefore victoryless) fights?
Thanks for asking BTW, this is a very good direction for you guys.
From what I've heard from several sources, there is no PvP in the beta atm, so that can't do a beta report on it. Maybe they can get information elsewhere though. They have said Klingons will get skills and all advancement from PvP...one imagines a Fed player could as well (but who knows?)
There are plenty more articles to come.
I'll turn this around, aside from non-combat missions (just noted it), what would you guys like us to focus on?
I know this is probably impossible, but anything at all on Klingons would be really wonderful!
All Cryptic has to do is crank up the settings on the bots and they will eat any human player alive.
The difficulty with bots is not how well they play. It's slowing them down enough so a human can play against them.
New topic:
Cryptic appears to have been given a tough job. Finish this game within the time frame.
The choices made will leave a playable game at release.
That time frame after release is when Cryptic will need good feedback.
That is when we players can let them know what features we want added or changed.
Explain your desires reasonably and be specific as possible.
Think about the possibilities! : )
According to the devs, expect a lot of Klingon info from Jack himself within the next couple of days.
You could say the same thing about Champions Online, and that doesn't seem to have helped much. You're basically telling people to pay money to beta test.
Resistance is futile!
You will all be assimilated!
It's a game. Get over yourselves.
If this one doesn't work for you, great!
Go play the one you want!
I agree about the last one too. Too bad the game requires a pixel shader. My computer has a G-Force 4 video card, no pixel shader. Oh well, i'll get one one way, or another. I am a trekie too, so i will play this game.
Never played L4D -- and I can't speak to the amount of effort the developers put into their AI. I've played plenty of games where the AI is more than adequate, and some where the inefficiencies of the AI were compensated for by giving the NPCs buffs.
And since Cryptic is using NPCs crews already, one better hope that they've written fantastic AI. Because of that, I think you're sarcasm is unfounded.
But I've answered this already in a post above if you want a more in depth response.
Actually my sarcastic appraisal of botskills was founded on a bedrock of experience. The experience of playing this scenario: Team A is entirely controlled by players. Team B has just 1 A.I controlled player, AKA - Bot. Bot does something stupid. Team B dies. Bot is incapable of moving with the fluidity and accuracy of a player; Team B fails. Bot has inferior situational prioritizing skills (eg. The "I, Robot" problem). Team B dies gradually, 1 at a time.
Anyone who's played L4D recognizes the above scenarios but then the same could be true of most games where an A.I player is on your team against human players. While I concur that the issues would be nowhere near as pronounced for an A.I controlled Security officer on a ships' Bridge, the fact remains: Inherent, unequivocal, inferiority. Well not fact, opinion.
Of course the importance of the inherent, unequivocal, inferiority of bots is somewhat diminished, if every ship is full of bots...and just one player per ship to rule them all.
Of course, but now you're creating specific situations to prove a narrow point. My comment refers to a comparison of NPC crews vs Player crews as it pertains to the PvE content.
Obviously, in PvP situations, this is different. And being obvious, I didn't think it bore mentioning. Sorry. In order to level the playing field, you could have PvP instances that are NPC crew only OR Player Crew only -- but likely not a mixture for the reason you stated.
Excellent! Many thanks for mentioning these, Wootin. I never new that Weaton was such a talented and hilarious writer.
I read the review and all the replies. I have not been following this game but am mildly curious. I guess the questions I have are, "Was it fun for you?"; "Was the game somehow truly unique and, if so, in what ways?"; "In its present condition, could you see yourself playing the game for 1 month, 3 months, 6 months, or for year(s)?"
My fear for the non-combat attempts at "feeling" Trek will be superficial at best.
Mission: Captain, the population of Space Station Zebra is threatening to riot... go be diplomatic or something.
Zebra Officer: People are mad about stuff. Go talk to John to find out why.
*go talk to John with the little ? over his head*
John: People like strawberry ice cream. We only get chocolate. But that's not all, go talk to Sarah.
*go talk to Sarah with the little ? over her head*
Sarah: My favorite TV show has too many commercials. But that's not all, go talk to Tim.
*go talk to Tim with the little ? over his head*
Tim: Every time I get my clothes back from the laundromat, they make me itchy! But that's not all, go talk to Betty.
*can't find Betty. Check broadcast channel*
Broadcast: Anyone know where Betty is?
Broadcast: ur mom
Broadcast: i been lookin 2. any1 no?
Broadcast: did u check the wiki?!?!?
Broadcast: Hey, anyone know where I can find Betty?
Broadcast: that was just asked idiot
Broadcast: Sorry, I just got here... :/
*eventually find Betty*
Betty: My cat ran away and no one will help me. You should go back to the Zebra Officer.
*return to Zebra Officer with the ? over his head*
Zebra Officer: Oh, you're back... what did you find out? Do the residents prefer chocolate ice cream?
*no*
Zebra Officer: Do the residents like all of our information breaks during entertainment programming?
*no*
Zebra Officer: Should our laundromats use more fabric softeners?
*yes*
Zebra Officer: Should we allocate more resources to pet rescue?
*yes*
Zebra Officer: Wow, Captain, you sure did your homework. With all this new information, we'll be able to end the riots!
*select reward: Explodo Ray Cannon, a new bridge officer recruit, and some ambiguous cash*
... Does that "feel" like Star Trek? Not to me. That's like Super NIntendo levels of play. Sometimes I think I'd rather have no execution of a playstyle than a really poor execution.