I understand that people want to play on PC crews. I think it would be fun if there was in depth game play there, but there would be HUGE gaps of time where it would be hard to find things for certain possitions to do (think com officer or transporter room specialist). You would also allow NPCs to take over because you can't expect people to fill a crew every time they play, or there would be long periods of time where whole groups can't even play. There are just a lot of logistical barriers like that. Cryptic seems committed to constantly adding things to the game, so they'll probably end up with enough content eventually to warrant PC crews. The thing I don't understand is all this talk of lack of group play... The game seems to be group based. At it's core, every action you do, can be done with a group: exploration, episodic missions, creating your own races/sharing them, etc. And, there are many parts of the game that are designed solely for group play: FactionvFaction combat, Fleet star bases with FleetvsFleet battles, grouped defense against "an ancient threat", borg, and whatever other PvE content they decide, etc. They have even said that Fleets can have their own ship yards and produce their own ships. With this system there will be resource networks, tech trading etc. I do feel bad for the people who won't get the type of group exprience that they want, but I really think that some of your perceptions are skewed because of your feelings on the no PC crew decisions. This game simply isn't taking the direction that many of you are representing. Sorry, I tried to say that as nicely as possible. As for the comparissons with EVE: STO will have a rich PvE aspect, Faction vs Faction warfare, no ship permadeath, won't take you forever to get from point A to B, won't have the same slow skill system (STOs is exp based), you will have an Avatar and %50 of the mission based content will be on the surface, etc. There is a lot more. About the only similarities are that you will be in space and you will have a resource network that will help in customization and building of your ships. I would say those are the good aspects of EVE though, why not use them too?
Well said. I also fail to see the comparison with EVE since it has no avatar, no interiors, no landing parties and no ground based combat. I also fail to see how this game won't be pro-group when everything I have been reading has told me that it will be so.You just won't be doing it inside of a ship. I think some people just saw "No player crew" and "no free roaming interiors" and just threw their hands up in the air and screamed "EVE Clone!!!!!!"
The Difference: In a PC Crew situation, players can interact as separate entities on their own starships, or collude to form a single entity within a single starship. In the latter case, no one expendable, and everyone is necessary, not just the healer or the tank. Everyone is also more specialized... not everyone is attacking to be useful, for instance. Besides, in this IP, there aren't healer ships and tanking ships, so you limit your class versatility... however within the ship there are classes that mitigate damage (Tactical, Helm) and there are classes that heal damage (Engineering, Medical). So you get more versatility in a PC Crew situation when it comes to teaming, unless you force EQ classes onto Star Trek ship classes, which would be absurd, but that's what they have to do without PC Crews.
Since so many others are nitpicking, I may as well, too.
Hype, there are specialized ships in Starfleet beyond the Miranda/Constitution/Sovereign/Galaxy power differences/updgrades.
There seems to be an "all-around" ship that we've seen most often in the Enterprise line. These are the ships at the frontier, capable of handling pretty much any mission assigned to it. They explore, they fight, they transport, they host.
In "All Good Things...", Dr. Crusher is the captain of the Pasteur, a medical ship - a ship equipped with specialized equipment, facilities and crew for medically-specific missions like fighting a plague or helping survivors of a major disaster. It's basically a flying hospital. In STO, you might be assigned to escort such a ship through hostile territory or to rendezvous with one to transfer a cure/sample/patient. Or if you're the captain of one (or have one in your party), maybe you have a mission to explore a planet or region of space to find the cause the of a plaque.
There are also science vessels. I can't name a specific one, but I know I've heard lines like "Starfleet will be sending a science vessel to do a full investigation of the phenomenon" in the shows and in the novels. Or they've been destroyed and the cause investigated. Wasn't the original Vulcan-crewed Intrepid a science vessel? These ships have light armaments and slow engines but have very powerful, sensitive, and specific sensor arrays and facilities. They're useful when an in-depth scientific investigation is warranted and other, more powerfully armed ships are needed elsewhere. In STO, these could be used to map star clusters or research a phenomenon occurring within friendly space.
And then there are the ships like the Defiant - warships with microscopes. While still capable of exploration, this line of ships is used in known hostile territory and situations. Other ships went through the Bajoran wormhole, but the survival rate on ST:DS9 was very low. If you weren't on the Defiant, you may as well have been a redshirt.
I do have to agree that ship-based buffs would be absurd. Totally doesn't fit the IP.
------------- The less you expect, the more you'll be surprised. Hopefully, pleasantly so.
I'm not sure this is the correct thread, but I wanted to take the opportunity to thanks those who pointed me toward StarQuest Online. It is EXACTLY the type of game I was looking for in terms of the Star Trek genre and represents how a space game with cooperative play, multi-player crews and full ship interiors can be done and done well.
The only short-coming of that game is a buggy code-base, but that is completely understandable given the shoe-string budget indie developer that produces it...and the magnitude of what the fame actually encompases.
For those of you, like me, who were looking for a style of game that is different then the route STO chose to go...I would highly encourage you to check out StarQuest. It very much offers the flavor of game-play that alot of us were looking for from STO...but clearly aren't going to get.
What they need to do is just design the game how they planned to do it and ignore all the whining and complaining. You can't make a game that everyone will love, it's just impossible. All games have communities, some more than others; they definitly won't have to worry about this game failing, considering the genra it's based on, unless they do something incredibly stupid like SOE did with SWG.
I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use. - Galileo Galilei
I see that some of you guys are completely wacked in the head. ;-) Are some of you seriously arguing that you do not want to play a game where forced grouping is required for some content? What then, may I ask, is the fracking point? If you honestly get what you want out of the developers of this game, I am forced to agree with the OP. Star Trek: Online will be an elaborate single player game with multiplayer functionality and an elaborate multiplayer "hub."
The whole point of the MMO genre is that you socialize with other people and that you participate in playing the game, as well as making the world, together. That you're complaining about this, again, telegraphs to me you don't actually want to play an MMO.
If you're sick of pick-up groups and you don't have any friends, then join a guild. Make friends. The hardest game content should always require multiple people to complete. Hell, I'd even go as far to say that the best games are sanbox games, where almost everything worth doing requires vast amounts of player interaction. Then again, I play EVe so I am a bit biased in that regard.
However, I am honestly perplexed how you could want, out of an MMO, a game that is completely soloable. Where is the sense of accomplishment from completing something difficult that required you to coordinate with your friends? What exactly is there to look forward to? Strangely enough, despite your protestations to the contrary, what you are asking for precisely IS a single player grindfest.
Good luck with this game if it ends up like you want it. It will be dead in less than a year.
I see that some of you guys are completely wacked in the head. ;-) Are some of you seriously arguing that you do not want to play a game where forced grouping is required for some content? What then, may I ask, is the fracking point? If you honestly get what you want out of the developers of this game, I am forced to agree with the OP. Star Trek: Online will be an elaborate single player game with multiplayer functionality and an elaborate multiplayer "hub."
The whole point of the MMO genre is that you socialize with other people and that you participate in playing the game, as well as making the world, together. That you're complaining about this, again, telegraphs to me you don't actually want to play an MMO.
If you're sick of pick-up groups and you don't have any friends, then join a guild. Make friends. The hardest game content should always require multiple people to complete. Hell, I'd even go as far to say that the best games are sanbox games, where almost everything worth doing requires vast amounts of player interaction. Then again, I play EVe so I am a bit biased in that regard.
However, I am honestly perplexed how you could want, out of an MMO, a game that is completely soloable. Where is the sense of accomplishment from completing something difficult that required you to coordinate with your friends? What exactly is there to look forward to? Strangely enough, despite your protestations to the contrary, what you are asking for precisely IS a single player grindfest. Good luck with this game if it ends up like you want it. It will be dead in less than a year.
-R
I agree that some group content is good. What it takes is a balance of the two. As for it being dead within a year, if it is it wont be because its possible to solo most or all of it. Look at WOW. Probably the most solo able game there is. LOTRO is also very easy to solo and while it doesnt have WOW numbers it is very healthy. You do need a balance so you have something to do while waiting on a group. DDO is as group intense as any game ive played and while it still hangs in there, its numbers arnt real good.
Well said. I also fail to see the comparison with EVE since it has no avatar, no interiors, no landing parties and no ground based combat. I also fail to see how this game won't be pro-group when everything I have been reading has told me that it will be so.You just won't be doing it inside of a ship. I think some people just saw "No player crew" and "no free roaming interiors" and just threw their hands up in the air and screamed "EVE Clone!!!!!!"
You should hope and pray for a clone of EVE for this game. Seriously.
And CCP is adding Avatars and walking in Stations in their winter patch. And planetary interaction is in the design phase at the moment as well.
I see that some of you guys are completely wacked in the head. ;-) Are some of you seriously arguing that you do not want to play a game where forced grouping is required for some content? What then, may I ask, is the fracking point? If you honestly get what you want out of the developers of this game, I am forced to agree with the OP. Star Trek: Online will be an elaborate single player game with multiplayer functionality and an elaborate multiplayer "hub."
The whole point of the MMO genre is that you socialize with other people and that you participate in playing the game, as well as making the world, together. That you're complaining about this, again, telegraphs to me you don't actually want to play an MMO.
If you're sick of pick-up groups and you don't have any friends, then join a guild. Make friends. The hardest game content should always require multiple people to complete. Hell, I'd even go as far to say that the best games are sanbox games, where almost everything worth doing requires vast amounts of player interaction. Then again, I play EVe so I am a bit biased in that regard.
However, I am honestly perplexed how you could want, out of an MMO, a game that is completely soloable. Where is the sense of accomplishment from completing something difficult that required you to coordinate with your friends? What exactly is there to look forward to? Strangely enough, despite your protestations to the contrary, what you are asking for precisely IS a single player grindfest. Good luck with this game if it ends up like you want it. It will be dead in less than a year.
-R
I agree that some group content is good. What it takes is a balance of the two. As for it being dead within a year, if it is it wont be because its possible to solo most or all of it. Look at WOW. Probably the most solo able game there is. LOTRO is also very easy to solo and while it doesnt have WOW numbers it is very healthy. You do need a balance so you have something to do while waiting on a group. DDO is as group intense as any game ive played and while it still hangs in there, its numbers arnt real good.
It is possible to play a lot of those games you just mentioned solo (too much if you ask me); however, the most challenging content? The epic quests? Dungeons? End game content? Most of it in this case requires a large amount of player interaction, grouping, raiding and working in concert.
These things make the games you mention MMOs. Not the type I prefer to play, but hey.
If you can do everything in a game solo, but you could also "group" if you want, what you have is a single player action rpg with multiplayer functionality. It doesn't matter how elaborately you dress us the multiplayer hub interface.
I see that some of you guys are completely wacked in the head. ;-) Are some of you seriously arguing that you do not want to play a game where forced grouping is required for some content? What then, may I ask, is the fracking point? If you honestly get what you want out of the developers of this game, I am forced to agree with the OP. Star Trek: Online will be an elaborate single player game with multiplayer functionality and an elaborate multiplayer "hub."
The whole point of the MMO genre is that you socialize with other people and that you participate in playing the game, as well as making the world, together. That you're complaining about this, again, telegraphs to me you don't actually want to play an MMO.
If you're sick of pick-up groups and you don't have any friends, then join a guild. Make friends. The hardest game content should always require multiple people to complete. Hell, I'd even go as far to say that the best games are sanbox games, where almost everything worth doing requires vast amounts of player interaction. Then again, I play EVe so I am a bit biased in that regard.
However, I am honestly perplexed how you could want, out of an MMO, a game that is completely soloable. Where is the sense of accomplishment from completing something difficult that required you to coordinate with your friends? What exactly is there to look forward to? Strangely enough, despite your protestations to the contrary, what you are asking for precisely IS a single player grindfest. Good luck with this game if it ends up like you want it. It will be dead in less than a year.
-R
I agree that some group content is good. What it takes is a balance of the two. As for it being dead within a year, if it is it wont be because its possible to solo most or all of it. Look at WOW. Probably the most solo able game there is. LOTRO is also very easy to solo and while it doesnt have WOW numbers it is very healthy. You do need a balance so you have something to do while waiting on a group. DDO is as group intense as any game ive played and while it still hangs in there, its numbers arnt real good.
It is possible to play a lot of those games you just mentioned solo (too much if you ask me); however, the most challenging content? The epic quests? Dungeons? End game content? Most of it in this case requires a large amount of player interaction, grouping, raiding and working in concert.
These things make the games you mention MMOs. Not the type I prefer to play, but hey.
If you can do everything in a game solo, but you could also "group" if you want, what you have is a single player action rpg with multiplayer functionality. It doesn't matter how elaborately you dress us the multiplayer hub interface.
-R
Yes as i said you need both to make a successful game.
It is the "forced" grouping that I dislike. I like having the option to group up, but I also like having the option of going solo. MMO's have a lot of depth, something hard to find in a standard single player RPG.
Well said. I also fail to see the comparison with EVE since it has no avatar, no interiors, no landing parties and no ground based combat. I also fail to see how this game won't be pro-group when everything I have been reading has told me that it will be so.You just won't be doing it inside of a ship. I think some people just saw "No player crew" and "no free roaming interiors" and just threw their hands up in the air and screamed "EVE Clone!!!!!!"
You should hope and pray for a clone of EVE for this game. Seriously.
And CCP is adding Avatars and walking in Stations in their winter patch. And planetary interaction is in the design phase at the moment as well.
No thank you. A definite fail for this game would be for it to try and be like EVE. It needs to be its own game which so far it is doing.
Well said. I also fail to see the comparison with EVE since it has no avatar, no interiors, no landing parties and no ground based combat. I also fail to see how this game won't be pro-group when everything I have been reading has told me that it will be so.You just won't be doing it inside of a ship. I think some people just saw "No player crew" and "no free roaming interiors" and just threw their hands up in the air and screamed "EVE Clone!!!!!!"
You should hope and pray for a clone of EVE for this game. Seriously.
And CCP is adding Avatars and walking in Stations in their winter patch. And planetary interaction is in the design phase at the moment as well.
No thank you. A definite fail for this game would be for it to try and be like EVE. It needs to be its own game which so far it is doing.
I don't know if this is true or not. Certainly I disagree about the "fail" part. Also though, the more I hear about this game, the more it sounds like a clone of City of Heros... meaning I doubt the veracity of your statement.
Well said. I also fail to see the comparison with EVE since it has no avatar, no interiors, no landing parties and no ground based combat. I also fail to see how this game won't be pro-group when everything I have been reading has told me that it will be so.You just won't be doing it inside of a ship. I think some people just saw "No player crew" and "no free roaming interiors" and just threw their hands up in the air and screamed "EVE Clone!!!!!!"
You should hope and pray for a clone of EVE for this game. Seriously.
And CCP is adding Avatars and walking in Stations in their winter patch. And planetary interaction is in the design phase at the moment as well.
No thank you. A definite fail for this game would be for it to try and be like EVE. It needs to be its own game which so far it is doing.
I don't know if this is true or not. Certainly I disagree about the "fail" part. Also though, the more I hear about this game, the more it sounds like a clone of City of Heros... meaning I doubt the veracity of your statement.
-R
And others think it's cloning EVE,World of Warcraft or POTBS, so I'd say my statment is valid.
If bullshit was money most on these forums would be rich. Every game listed has or is going to fail according to the self appointed gaming experts. If one got theie information on games from this site alone no one would be playing anything. So far this game has been a clone of what? Three other games? Its going to be a single player game, its going to be Mass Effect online and im sure there are several ive missed. WOW sucks, EQ2 sucks, LOTRO is boring Warhammer and AOC are going broke and STO is going to fail. Guess i will sell all my shit and watch tv.
Well said. I also fail to see the comparison with EVE since it has no avatar, no interiors, no landing parties and no ground based combat. I also fail to see how this game won't be pro-group when everything I have been reading has told me that it will be so.You just won't be doing it inside of a ship. I think some people just saw "No player crew" and "no free roaming interiors" and just threw their hands up in the air and screamed "EVE Clone!!!!!!"
You should hope and pray for a clone of EVE for this game. Seriously.
And CCP is adding Avatars and walking in Stations in their winter patch. And planetary interaction is in the design phase at the moment as well.
No thank you. A definite fail for this game would be for it to try and be like EVE. It needs to be its own game which so far it is doing.
I don't know if this is true or not. Certainly I disagree about the "fail" part. Also though, the more I hear about this game, the more it sounds like a clone of City of Heros... meaning I doubt the veracity of your statement.
-R
And others think it's cloning EVE,World of Warcraft or POTBS, so I'd say my statment is valid.
Well of course its cloning WoW to some extent. For the market they're looking for (see the "I want to solo everything" comments further up) they'd be stupid not to. This is, afterall a business.
As a very long time Star Trek fan I was highly anticipating the IP being made into an MMO. I guess I just wish that it was an MMO directed at *my* tastes in MMOs. And tbh City of Heros and City of Villians just aren't great games. They're passable I suppose, but in the final analysis I'm sort of sad Cryptic ended up with this game.
As I've sad. I'm a hardcore Trekie (oh the shame) so I *will* spend $50 at launch for this game and play it. From the looks of things so far, I'll probably play it for a week and quit. Here is hoping I'm wrong.
If bullshit was money most on these forums would be rich. Every game listed has or is going to fail according to the self appointed gaming experts. If one got theie information on games from this site alone no one would be playing anything. So far this game has been a clone of what? Three other games? Its going to be a single player game, its going to be Mass Effect online and im sure there are several ive missed. WOW sucks, EQ2 sucks, LOTRO is boring Warhammer and AOC are going broke and STO is going to fail. Guess i will sell all my shit and watch tv.
Yes, you're right. The sad truth is, however, that the MMO market is over saturated. Many of these games will and DO fail. So the neigh sayers are guessing, yes--but there is some basis for their conjecture.
It is the "forced" grouping that I dislike. I like having the option to group up, but I also like having the option of going solo. MMO's have a lot of depth, something hard to find in a standard single player RPG.
I too enjoy playing with others around and grouping from time to time but like to be able to solo as well. I would also point out that most other players do as well. Look at what games are doing well and which ones are failing. The only game that comes to mind with "forced grouping" that ive tried is DDO and i think any dev of a new game would prefer numbers of say WOW or LOTRO which are solo friendly. They will make what sells not what 5% of the MMO community wants.
if they make sto right itll have plenty you can solo, but borg raids will require entire fleets, and pvp wont be solo friendly cause groups will always do better then lone wolves when it comes to a firefight =D
anyway i really hope they dont just reskin wow, cause then the game will be boringly too easy with no challenge/risk/reward feel, just the heres my money now dont give me anything new to do for gods sake hum drum we have all come to despise in the current mmo market that wow ruined.
From what I have read STO is going to be a massive single player game.
You have not read enough.
Yes thousands of players will be playing their missions online, but how do players interact during play?
I thought that was SW:TOR, a single player RPG where others share a sever but do all their adventure solo......I am hoping STO is the opposite.
This is the most interesting question and statement in the whole thread. A game can be setup so thousands of players are connected but if the game is setup to also seperate those people then I would not consider it an MMORPG.
For example: AoC has massive instancing in virtually every zone where about a maximum of 50 players can be in one zone before it "clones" another one. That for me is not an MMORPG.
Other ways of games not being an MMORPG, in its true sense, if there simply are no incentives or reasons to interact with other people.
So the question begs: How will STO be like? Will it have lots of instancing? Will there be an incentive to group/fight or otherwise interact with other players?
Or will it be a single player game online where you follow a storyline that is totally independant on the server as a whole?
Comments
Well said. I also fail to see the comparison with EVE since it has no avatar, no interiors, no landing parties and no ground based combat. I also fail to see how this game won't be pro-group when everything I have been reading has told me that it will be so.You just won't be doing it inside of a ship. I think some people just saw "No player crew" and "no free roaming interiors" and just threw their hands up in the air and screamed "EVE Clone!!!!!!"
Currently Playing: World of Warcraft
Since so many others are nitpicking, I may as well, too.
Hype, there are specialized ships in Starfleet beyond the Miranda/Constitution/Sovereign/Galaxy power differences/updgrades.
There seems to be an "all-around" ship that we've seen most often in the Enterprise line. These are the ships at the frontier, capable of handling pretty much any mission assigned to it. They explore, they fight, they transport, they host.
In "All Good Things...", Dr. Crusher is the captain of the Pasteur, a medical ship - a ship equipped with specialized equipment, facilities and crew for medically-specific missions like fighting a plague or helping survivors of a major disaster. It's basically a flying hospital. In STO, you might be assigned to escort such a ship through hostile territory or to rendezvous with one to transfer a cure/sample/patient. Or if you're the captain of one (or have one in your party), maybe you have a mission to explore a planet or region of space to find the cause the of a plaque.
There are also science vessels. I can't name a specific one, but I know I've heard lines like "Starfleet will be sending a science vessel to do a full investigation of the phenomenon" in the shows and in the novels. Or they've been destroyed and the cause investigated. Wasn't the original Vulcan-crewed Intrepid a science vessel? These ships have light armaments and slow engines but have very powerful, sensitive, and specific sensor arrays and facilities. They're useful when an in-depth scientific investigation is warranted and other, more powerfully armed ships are needed elsewhere. In STO, these could be used to map star clusters or research a phenomenon occurring within friendly space.
And then there are the ships like the Defiant - warships with microscopes. While still capable of exploration, this line of ships is used in known hostile territory and situations. Other ships went through the Bajoran wormhole, but the survival rate on ST:DS9 was very low. If you weren't on the Defiant, you may as well have been a redshirt.
I do have to agree that ship-based buffs would be absurd. Totally doesn't fit the IP.
-------------
The less you expect, the more you'll be surprised. Hopefully, pleasantly so.
I'm not sure this is the correct thread, but I wanted to take the opportunity to thanks those who pointed me toward StarQuest Online. It is EXACTLY the type of game I was looking for in terms of the Star Trek genre and represents how a space game with cooperative play, multi-player crews and full ship interiors can be done and done well.
The only short-coming of that game is a buggy code-base, but that is completely understandable given the shoe-string budget indie developer that produces it...and the magnitude of what the fame actually encompases.
For those of you, like me, who were looking for a style of game that is different then the route STO chose to go...I would highly encourage you to check out StarQuest. It very much offers the flavor of game-play that alot of us were looking for from STO...but clearly aren't going to get.
You have not read enough.
Yes thousands of players will be playing their missions online, but how do players interact during play?
I thought that was SW:TOR, a single player RPG where others share a sever but do all their adventure solo......I am hoping STO is the opposite.
What they need to do is just design the game how they planned to do it and ignore all the whining and complaining. You can't make a game that everyone will love, it's just impossible. All games have communities, some more than others; they definitly won't have to worry about this game failing, considering the genra it's based on, unless they do something incredibly stupid like SOE did with SWG.
I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use. - Galileo Galilei
I see that some of you guys are completely wacked in the head. ;-) Are some of you seriously arguing that you do not want to play a game where forced grouping is required for some content? What then, may I ask, is the fracking point? If you honestly get what you want out of the developers of this game, I am forced to agree with the OP. Star Trek: Online will be an elaborate single player game with multiplayer functionality and an elaborate multiplayer "hub."
The whole point of the MMO genre is that you socialize with other people and that you participate in playing the game, as well as making the world, together. That you're complaining about this, again, telegraphs to me you don't actually want to play an MMO.
If you're sick of pick-up groups and you don't have any friends, then join a guild. Make friends. The hardest game content should always require multiple people to complete. Hell, I'd even go as far to say that the best games are sanbox games, where almost everything worth doing requires vast amounts of player interaction. Then again, I play EVe so I am a bit biased in that regard.
However, I am honestly perplexed how you could want, out of an MMO, a game that is completely soloable. Where is the sense of accomplishment from completing something difficult that required you to coordinate with your friends? What exactly is there to look forward to? Strangely enough, despite your protestations to the contrary, what you are asking for precisely IS a single player grindfest.
Good luck with this game if it ends up like you want it. It will be dead in less than a year.
-R
How does this differ from every MMO released after 2004?
What about eve? Wait. It was released in 2003. Touche.
I agree that some group content is good. What it takes is a balance of the two. As for it being dead within a year, if it is it wont be because its possible to solo most or all of it. Look at WOW. Probably the most solo able game there is. LOTRO is also very easy to solo and while it doesnt have WOW numbers it is very healthy. You do need a balance so you have something to do while waiting on a group. DDO is as group intense as any game ive played and while it still hangs in there, its numbers arnt real good.
Well said. I also fail to see the comparison with EVE since it has no avatar, no interiors, no landing parties and no ground based combat. I also fail to see how this game won't be pro-group when everything I have been reading has told me that it will be so.You just won't be doing it inside of a ship. I think some people just saw "No player crew" and "no free roaming interiors" and just threw their hands up in the air and screamed "EVE Clone!!!!!!"
You should hope and pray for a clone of EVE for this game. Seriously.
And CCP is adding Avatars and walking in Stations in their winter patch. And planetary interaction is in the design phase at the moment as well.
I agree that some group content is good. What it takes is a balance of the two. As for it being dead within a year, if it is it wont be because its possible to solo most or all of it. Look at WOW. Probably the most solo able game there is. LOTRO is also very easy to solo and while it doesnt have WOW numbers it is very healthy. You do need a balance so you have something to do while waiting on a group. DDO is as group intense as any game ive played and while it still hangs in there, its numbers arnt real good.
It is possible to play a lot of those games you just mentioned solo (too much if you ask me); however, the most challenging content? The epic quests? Dungeons? End game content? Most of it in this case requires a large amount of player interaction, grouping, raiding and working in concert.
These things make the games you mention MMOs. Not the type I prefer to play, but hey.
If you can do everything in a game solo, but you could also "group" if you want, what you have is a single player action rpg with multiplayer functionality. It doesn't matter how elaborately you dress us the multiplayer hub interface.
-R
I agree that some group content is good. What it takes is a balance of the two. As for it being dead within a year, if it is it wont be because its possible to solo most or all of it. Look at WOW. Probably the most solo able game there is. LOTRO is also very easy to solo and while it doesnt have WOW numbers it is very healthy. You do need a balance so you have something to do while waiting on a group. DDO is as group intense as any game ive played and while it still hangs in there, its numbers arnt real good.
It is possible to play a lot of those games you just mentioned solo (too much if you ask me); however, the most challenging content? The epic quests? Dungeons? End game content? Most of it in this case requires a large amount of player interaction, grouping, raiding and working in concert.
These things make the games you mention MMOs. Not the type I prefer to play, but hey.
If you can do everything in a game solo, but you could also "group" if you want, what you have is a single player action rpg with multiplayer functionality. It doesn't matter how elaborately you dress us the multiplayer hub interface.
-R
Yes as i said you need both to make a successful game.
It is the "forced" grouping that I dislike. I like having the option to group up, but I also like having the option of going solo. MMO's have a lot of depth, something hard to find in a standard single player RPG.
Well said. I also fail to see the comparison with EVE since it has no avatar, no interiors, no landing parties and no ground based combat. I also fail to see how this game won't be pro-group when everything I have been reading has told me that it will be so.You just won't be doing it inside of a ship. I think some people just saw "No player crew" and "no free roaming interiors" and just threw their hands up in the air and screamed "EVE Clone!!!!!!"
You should hope and pray for a clone of EVE for this game. Seriously.
And CCP is adding Avatars and walking in Stations in their winter patch. And planetary interaction is in the design phase at the moment as well.
No thank you. A definite fail for this game would be for it to try and be like EVE. It needs to be its own game which so far it is doing.
Currently Playing: World of Warcraft
Well said. I also fail to see the comparison with EVE since it has no avatar, no interiors, no landing parties and no ground based combat. I also fail to see how this game won't be pro-group when everything I have been reading has told me that it will be so.You just won't be doing it inside of a ship. I think some people just saw "No player crew" and "no free roaming interiors" and just threw their hands up in the air and screamed "EVE Clone!!!!!!"
You should hope and pray for a clone of EVE for this game. Seriously.
And CCP is adding Avatars and walking in Stations in their winter patch. And planetary interaction is in the design phase at the moment as well.
No thank you. A definite fail for this game would be for it to try and be like EVE. It needs to be its own game which so far it is doing.
I don't know if this is true or not. Certainly I disagree about the "fail" part. Also though, the more I hear about this game, the more it sounds like a clone of City of Heros... meaning I doubt the veracity of your statement.
-R
Well said. I also fail to see the comparison with EVE since it has no avatar, no interiors, no landing parties and no ground based combat. I also fail to see how this game won't be pro-group when everything I have been reading has told me that it will be so.You just won't be doing it inside of a ship. I think some people just saw "No player crew" and "no free roaming interiors" and just threw their hands up in the air and screamed "EVE Clone!!!!!!"
You should hope and pray for a clone of EVE for this game. Seriously.
And CCP is adding Avatars and walking in Stations in their winter patch. And planetary interaction is in the design phase at the moment as well.
No thank you. A definite fail for this game would be for it to try and be like EVE. It needs to be its own game which so far it is doing.
I don't know if this is true or not. Certainly I disagree about the "fail" part. Also though, the more I hear about this game, the more it sounds like a clone of City of Heros... meaning I doubt the veracity of your statement.
-R
And others think it's cloning EVE,World of Warcraft or POTBS, so I'd say my statment is valid.
Currently Playing: World of Warcraft
If bullshit was money most on these forums would be rich. Every game listed has or is going to fail according to the self appointed gaming experts. If one got theie information on games from this site alone no one would be playing anything. So far this game has been a clone of what? Three other games? Its going to be a single player game, its going to be Mass Effect online and im sure there are several ive missed. WOW sucks, EQ2 sucks, LOTRO is boring Warhammer and AOC are going broke and STO is going to fail. Guess i will sell all my shit and watch tv.
Well said. I also fail to see the comparison with EVE since it has no avatar, no interiors, no landing parties and no ground based combat. I also fail to see how this game won't be pro-group when everything I have been reading has told me that it will be so.You just won't be doing it inside of a ship. I think some people just saw "No player crew" and "no free roaming interiors" and just threw their hands up in the air and screamed "EVE Clone!!!!!!"
You should hope and pray for a clone of EVE for this game. Seriously.
And CCP is adding Avatars and walking in Stations in their winter patch. And planetary interaction is in the design phase at the moment as well.
No thank you. A definite fail for this game would be for it to try and be like EVE. It needs to be its own game which so far it is doing.
I don't know if this is true or not. Certainly I disagree about the "fail" part. Also though, the more I hear about this game, the more it sounds like a clone of City of Heros... meaning I doubt the veracity of your statement.
-R
And others think it's cloning EVE,World of Warcraft or POTBS, so I'd say my statment is valid.
Well of course its cloning WoW to some extent. For the market they're looking for (see the "I want to solo everything" comments further up) they'd be stupid not to. This is, afterall a business.
As a very long time Star Trek fan I was highly anticipating the IP being made into an MMO. I guess I just wish that it was an MMO directed at *my* tastes in MMOs. And tbh City of Heros and City of Villians just aren't great games. They're passable I suppose, but in the final analysis I'm sort of sad Cryptic ended up with this game.
As I've sad. I'm a hardcore Trekie (oh the shame) so I *will* spend $50 at launch for this game and play it. From the looks of things so far, I'll probably play it for a week and quit. Here is hoping I'm wrong.
-R
Yes, you're right. The sad truth is, however, that the MMO market is over saturated. Many of these games will and DO fail. So the neigh sayers are guessing, yes--but there is some basis for their conjecture.
-R
I too enjoy playing with others around and grouping from time to time but like to be able to solo as well. I would also point out that most other players do as well. Look at what games are doing well and which ones are failing. The only game that comes to mind with "forced grouping" that ive tried is DDO and i think any dev of a new game would prefer numbers of say WOW or LOTRO which are solo friendly. They will make what sells not what 5% of the MMO community wants.
if they make sto right itll have plenty you can solo, but borg raids will require entire fleets, and pvp wont be solo friendly cause groups will always do better then lone wolves when it comes to a firefight =D
anyway i really hope they dont just reskin wow, cause then the game will be boringly too easy with no challenge/risk/reward feel, just the heres my money now dont give me anything new to do for gods sake hum drum we have all come to despise in the current mmo market that wow ruined.
You have not read enough.
Yes thousands of players will be playing their missions online, but how do players interact during play?
I thought that was SW:TOR, a single player RPG where others share a sever but do all their adventure solo......I am hoping STO is the opposite.
This is the most interesting question and statement in the whole thread. A game can be setup so thousands of players are connected but if the game is setup to also seperate those people then I would not consider it an MMORPG.
For example: AoC has massive instancing in virtually every zone where about a maximum of 50 players can be in one zone before it "clones" another one. That for me is not an MMORPG.
Other ways of games not being an MMORPG, in its true sense, if there simply are no incentives or reasons to interact with other people.
So the question begs: How will STO be like? Will it have lots of instancing? Will there be an incentive to group/fight or otherwise interact with other players?
Or will it be a single player game online where you follow a storyline that is totally independant on the server as a whole?
My gaming blog