I must admit that I will be getting this game REGARDLESS
Ive waited for such a long time for a startrek morpg.
There is really only one thing that I have to say and its this; Ive played other online spece games some of whych had some very good guild systems or lots of shipes etc, but I left those games because I felt lonely even though I was not on my own in the real world.
One thing about startrek is that you dont see people in space on their own that much, so im hoping that you can have other characters on your ship with you in the morpg. it is also important to be able to break the monotony of space, and yes space will get monotonous from time to time, so please could you make some planetside rest-places too.
Thanks for giving us the opportunity to play startrek, im really looking forward to it
Originally posted by Mordacai Well a few perceptions I've made of the STO game. No klingons to play as-That turned me off right there, no matter what I'd want to be Klingon and fight in a BOP for glory of the battle.
I am not sure where you got that impression, but Klingons are among the playable species alongside Vulcans, Bolians, Humans, Andorians, Cardassians, Tellarites, Bajorans, and Ferengi.
As for the Bird of Prey and 'glory of the battle', though, you have to wait until whatever expansion introduces the Klingon Empire.
Favorites: EQ, EVE | Playing: None. Mostly VR and strategy | Anticipating: CU, Pantheon
Originally posted by WoodenDummy Originally posted by chiefarchon I must admit that I will be getting this game REGARDLESS Ive waited for such a long time for a startrek morpg.
I know this will sound rude, and I don't mean it to but I'm going to say it anyway.
People like you are the reason that we get a massive number of crappy games with a well known licence tagged on.
Each to their own though.
I think you phrased that incorrectly. It sort of sounded like you have to play crappy games because of people who drive a certain market by buying games based on name instead of content, in truth you don't have to play these games at all. It is YOUR choice as to what YOU get.
I must admit I do agree in general with your statement, but it should read more like
" People like you are the reason there are a large number of crappy games released with a known licence tag on it "
The quest for a good game rules everything Perpetual does, according to Stinnett. If it fits the Star Trek universe, but simply is not fun, they won’t do it. They’re making a game, not a simulation.
This quote concerns me greatly. This kind of thinking is what ruined SWG. While they don't come out and say it, to companion principal to this is, just because it doesn't fit in the Star Trek universe, we won't keep it out if its fun.
I think it's strange that they are building this game from the ground up with respect to ship-to-ship combat. Aren't there already a lot of ST ship battle games out there? Why are they re-inventing the wheel?
Originally posted by THodges I think it's strange that they are building this game from the ground up with respect to ship-to-ship combat. Aren't there already a lot of ST ship battle games out there? Why are they re-inventing the wheel?
I like that kind of "virtual world" thinking. Years ago, back when I was playing EQ, I saw somebody playing a computer fishing game simulation. EQ had a cute little fishing minigame in it, but it was a very, very simple one. I thought, "Why doesn't EQ just license the software for games like that to insert into its world?
OK, I know there'd have to be a lot of modification done, and I don't know if the graphics would be any use at all. But somebody's already done a lot of thinking on how to simulate this: stuff like current, water temperature, etc. Why not use that? You could have turned EQ fishing into an entire career instead of just a little passtime.
I mean, that's the ultimate goal isn't it? To create an ever-expanding world, not just code a new game and stop there. Right?
Originally posted by Saerain Originally posted by Mordacai Well a few perceptions I've made of the STO game. No klingons to play as-That turned me off right there, no matter what I'd want to be Klingon and fight in a BOP for glory of the battle.
I am not sure where you got that impression, but Klingons are among the playable species alongside Vulcans, Bolians, Humans, Andorians, Cardassians, Tellarites, Bajorans, and Ferengi.
As for the Bird of Prey and 'glory of the battle', though, you have to wait until whatever expansion introduces the Klingon Empire.
That was my main sticking point to it. In the context they set it in, you can only play those races as Federation and you can't be a true Klingon warrior, in the empire, for the empire and for the Glory of the Battle! In true Klingon spirit of course running around in your BOP, as it appears to me I'd be....Worf.
Combat should be a choice between outside the ship with floating windows for your assigned station or inside with character animation. I mean they'll have to cut to that for all those borg beam overs to the bridge and the bridge fights. This whole "being the ship" thing stinks. I want to be me IN the ship with an external camera option.
I agree there will be a balance between the size of space and not taking *too* long to get from one end to the other. However, I can put up with some distance though as I think it adds detail and reality to the game.
Earth and Beyond had something, albeit cartoony with avatars on the stations and the 3rd person cockpit view. I've thought for a long time if someone could develop a game that allowed you to move within the ship and repair systems while in the fight, that would be COOL. THAT to me is Star Trek / Millenium Falcon style.
Finally, I enjoy team PvP the best. I like the concept of being able to pilot and use larger vessels with a team. I think the larger groups that are able to work together deserve to have a reward for that amount of team work. Hopefully it will also filter more mature players in who are willing to cover a station or task to reach the team goal. They'll have to let people have minors or 2-3 sub skillsets I think so they don't feel pigeon-holed.
For once, I would like to see a realistic simulation of just being an ordinary schmo in space.
If they really had trouble determining how to do promotions, and assign roles to people who are not going to be on all the time, they could just delve into ST lore, because there is plenty of it.
In most versions of ST, I'm pretty sure there is no currency to grades of leadership, and given that it is developed by nerds, I suppose it is supposed to be about proficiency. Since most mmos equate proficiency to grinding, I don't think we will get very far before 97% of the crew is eligible to be the captain. Thus, instead of meritocracy, we're going to have to look for popularity contests.
If everyone is assigned to a starbase initially, they could sign up to be deployed on starships, especially if they are able to form cells whilst on the starbases. Cells could be incorporated into the formal gameplay of missions and such. Cells could have a basic, fair, voting system to do one of several things:1) promote a leader or, 2)split the cell.
The system could automatically appoint you into the lowest rungs of cell systems the moment you log in based on initially selected online hours. You would have the option of changing cells by invite, or forming rogue or maybe even freelance ones, but you'd always be in one of them. Cells are always subgrouped into larger categories where leaders are promoted to the next level where there are similar voting tools, but fewer private options such as personal reassignment. Changing to another division means starting over from the bottom of a social ladder.
Popularity itself is useful for galvanizing people, and useful for launching initiaves, even wrong headed ones. This is more important than the ability to make the right tactical decisions all the time. Politics is excellent because it can fill in lots of downtime in a game and it keeps people engaged in providing their own storylines. Prompting cell splits is an excellent way to get ahead when you have too many leader types in the same cell. Cells also become training tools. When you have lots and lots of tiers, it becomes exponentially more difficult to twink the system, and even if they succeed, their division will be inefficient.
Whatever arrangements are made, it's pretty much a given that only 20-25% of members will be active at any given moment. This means that a ship crew of 200 might only be 40-50 people divided into X number of role divisions, each with a lead figure to make sure other leaders are coordinating information and getting tasks done. The lower tiers actively determine what needs doing, and relay for resources to solve those problems.
People that choose to avoid politics get to work with hands-on projects and communicating with other techs, while those that do enjoy politics can play the role of appeasing many many people all while competing with other directors for resources needed to get things done without making them too mad. At the highest end, captains compete with others to recieve prized missions or needed resources from admirals. Nobody gets any uber equipment or levels - they just get roles assigned to their personality preferences within one big organism. I would like to see really nerdy problems in a game for once, like at least pentanomial maths on calibrating coffeemaker shielding.
Lastly, StarTrek without smaller civilian vessels and crews would be pretty bland. Those should be more freeform, and probably more capitalistic, though still not geared to single players. For single players, I would go with planetbound jobs, or station environments, or perhaps if the ST universe accomodates single seat fighters with limited deployability that would be ok. The latter would require another game engine just to make it work unfortunately.
I'm going to necro this because there's no newer news thread on STO.
I've been waiting for this title for a LONG time and I'm going to buy it no matter what, because it will just be too cool to be online in the ST universe, regardless of whether they get the gameplay right.
But I will say this. Like the leopard, a game team rarely changes its spots. If they don't quite know what they're doing with the game right now, even though the graphics we've seen look gorgeous, then I will predict that 6 months after release, the biggest critique of STO will be that they don't quite know what they're doing with the game, although it looks gorgeous.
Then there is the Eleven Factor. JJ Abrams has his movie in the early pipeline. It will probably hit the screen at about the same time this game releases. Paramount would be idiots not to tie them together. And that means there will be late content changes to integrate chunks of whatever STXI turns out to involve. But remember the leopard. So I will also predict that the second big critique of STO is that the "movie content" seems pasted onto an otherwise unrelated game engine.
I very much want to be wrong about all of this. The STO team is invited to help me be as wrong as possible
I've been waiting for this title for a LONG time and I'm going to buy it no matter what, because it will just be too cool to be online in the ST universe, regardless of whether they get the gameplay right.
We HAVE to stop doing things like this, this is why we end up with games like SWG. This is why we end up with a 100 and 1 BAD games every year based on films, they know they can throw them out and people will just buy them anyway.
Originally posted by WoodenDummy I've been waiting for this title for a LONG time and I'm going to buy it no matter what, because it will just be too cool to be online in the ST universe, regardless of whether they get the gameplay right.
We HAVE to stop doing things like this, this is why we end up with games like SWG. This is why we end up with a 100 and 1 BAD games every year based on films, they know they can throw them out and people will just buy them anyway.
I can't really agree with this. Despite its many problems and eventual ruin, Galaxies on the day of release did feel like Star Wars. There was some well deserved bellyaching about bugs and delayed content, but I don't remember anyone with a crystal ball warning us that Sony's suits never really understood Koster's game design, didn't like what they did understand, and would eventually drop it in favor of frenzied rewrites searching for some mythical new audience while the old one resigned in disgust. All of that came later. If Galaxies 1.0 hadn't felt like Star Wars, nobody would have bought it. If Trek Online 1.0 doesn't feel like Star Trek, neither I nor most others will buy it. If it does, we will. If they mess it up later, we'll leave. I don't know what else an audience can reasonably be expected to do.
Your point makes no difference to what I said, so SWG felt like Star Wars did it? How long did that last?
Buying something based on the IP is what makes publishers think they can get away with doing whatever they want to a game, it makes them think they can give us bad games filled with bugs "but hey who cares they will still buy it, it's Star Wars right?" And for a lot of players that IS the only reason they kept playing.
It's no different from the people who spend $100s on ebay for beta accounts, what kind of message does it send to a publisher when people are willing to spend $100s for a half complete, bug ridden copy of WoW?
I'm not telling you how to spend your money, but an IP should not be a reason to buy a game.
Originally posted by WoodenDummy so SWG felt like Star Wars did it? How long did that last?
Not counting beta, a year to 18 months, depending on whether you consider the breaking point to have been the ridiculous Jedi explosion or the kandy-kolored kindergarten Combat Upgrade. The big sales surge (to SW fans) took place in the first year. Either way, the feeling was long gone by the time the NGE came to kick the corpse around.
I'm not telling you how to spend your money, but an IP should not be a reason to buy a game.
Agreed that the mere fact that a game title has a franchise license shouldn't be a reason to buy. But if the developer succeeds in recreating the look and feel of the franchise, that MAY be reason enough to buy for many users, even if there are problems with the game mechanics. Not everybody is an MMO theory wonk who insists on airtight game design. Some people just want to shoot womp rats with their friends.
Comments
I must admit that I will be getting this game REGARDLESS
Ive waited for such a long time for a startrek morpg.
There is really only one thing that I have to say and its this; Ive played other online spece games some of whych had some very good guild systems or lots of shipes etc, but I left those games because I felt lonely even though I was not on my own in the real world.
One thing about startrek is that you dont see people in space on their own that much, so im hoping that you can have other characters on your ship with you in the morpg. it is also important to be able to break the monotony of space, and yes space will get monotonous from time to time, so please could you make some planetside rest-places too.
Thanks for giving us the opportunity to play startrek, im really looking forward to it
I am not sure where you got that impression, but Klingons are among the playable species alongside Vulcans, Bolians, Humans, Andorians, Cardassians, Tellarites, Bajorans, and Ferengi.
As for the Bird of Prey and 'glory of the battle', though, you have to wait until whatever expansion introduces the Klingon Empire.
People like you are the reason that we get a massive number of crappy games with a well known licence tagged on.
Each to their own though.
People like you are the reason that we get a massive number of crappy games with a well known licence tagged on.
Each to their own though.
I think you phrased that incorrectly. It sort of sounded like you have to play crappy games because of people who drive a certain market by buying games based on name instead of content, in truth you don't have to play these games at all. It is YOUR choice as to what YOU get.
I must admit I do agree in general with your statement
, but it should read more like
" People like you are the reason there are a large number of crappy games released with a known licence tag on it "
The quest for a good game rules everything Perpetual does, according to Stinnett. If it fits the Star Trek universe, but simply is not fun, they won’t do it. They’re making a game, not a simulation.
This quote concerns me greatly. This kind of thinking is what ruined SWG. While they don't come out and say it, to companion principal to this is, just because it doesn't fit in the Star Trek universe, we won't keep it out if its fun.
I like that kind of "virtual world" thinking. Years ago, back when I was playing EQ, I saw somebody playing a computer fishing game simulation. EQ had a cute little fishing minigame in it, but it was a very, very simple one. I thought, "Why doesn't EQ just license the software for games like that to insert into its world?
OK, I know there'd have to be a lot of modification done, and I don't know if the graphics would be any use at all. But somebody's already done a lot of thinking on how to simulate this: stuff like current, water temperature, etc. Why not use that? You could have turned EQ fishing into an entire career instead of just a little passtime.
I mean, that's the ultimate goal isn't it? To create an ever-expanding world, not just code a new game and stop there. Right?
I am not sure where you got that impression, but Klingons are among the playable species alongside Vulcans, Bolians, Humans, Andorians, Cardassians, Tellarites, Bajorans, and Ferengi.
As for the Bird of Prey and 'glory of the battle', though, you have to wait until whatever expansion introduces the Klingon Empire.
That was my main sticking point to it. In the context they set it in, you can only play those races as Federation and you can't be a true Klingon warrior, in the empire, for the empire and for the Glory of the Battle! In true Klingon spirit of course running around in your BOP, as it appears to me I'd be....Worf.
http://www.forceofarms.com/index.php
Combat should be a choice between outside the ship with floating windows for your assigned station or inside with character animation. I mean they'll have to cut to that for all those borg beam overs to the bridge and the bridge fights. This whole "being the ship" thing stinks. I want to be me IN the ship with an external camera option.
I agree there will be a balance between the size of space and not taking *too* long to get from one end to the other. However, I can put up with some distance though as I think it adds detail and reality to the game.
Earth and Beyond had something, albeit cartoony with avatars on the stations and the 3rd person cockpit view. I've thought for a long time if someone could develop a game that allowed you to move within the ship and repair systems while in the fight, that would be COOL. THAT to me is Star Trek / Millenium Falcon style.
Finally, I enjoy team PvP the best. I like the concept of being able to pilot and use larger vessels with a team. I think the larger groups that are able to work together deserve to have a reward for that amount of team work. Hopefully it will also filter more mature players in who are willing to cover a station or task to reach the team goal. They'll have to let people have minors or 2-3 sub skillsets I think so they don't feel pigeon-holed.
If they really had trouble determining how to do promotions, and assign roles to people who are not going to be on all the time, they could just delve into ST lore, because there is plenty of it.
In most versions of ST, I'm pretty sure there is no currency to grades of leadership, and given that it is developed by nerds, I suppose it is supposed to be about proficiency. Since most mmos equate proficiency to grinding, I don't think we will get very far before 97% of the crew is eligible to be the captain. Thus, instead of meritocracy, we're going to have to look for popularity contests.
If everyone is assigned to a starbase initially, they could sign up to be deployed on starships, especially if they are able to form cells whilst on the starbases. Cells could be incorporated into the formal gameplay of missions and such. Cells could have a basic, fair, voting system to do one of several things:1) promote a leader or, 2)split the cell.
The system could automatically appoint you into the lowest rungs of cell systems the moment you log in based on initially selected online hours. You would have the option of changing cells by invite, or forming rogue or maybe even freelance ones, but you'd always be in one of them. Cells are always subgrouped into larger categories where leaders are promoted to the next level where there are similar voting tools, but fewer private options such as personal reassignment. Changing to another division means starting over from the bottom of a social ladder.
Popularity itself is useful for galvanizing people, and useful for launching initiaves, even wrong headed ones. This is more important than the ability to make the right tactical decisions all the time. Politics is excellent because it can fill in lots of downtime in a game and it keeps people engaged in providing their own storylines. Prompting cell splits is an excellent way to get ahead when you have too many leader types in the same cell. Cells also become training tools. When you have lots and lots of tiers, it becomes exponentially more difficult to twink the system, and even if they succeed, their division will be inefficient.
Whatever arrangements are made, it's pretty much a given that only 20-25% of members will be active at any given moment. This means that a ship crew of 200 might only be 40-50 people divided into X number of role divisions, each with a lead figure to make sure other leaders are coordinating information and getting tasks done. The lower tiers actively determine what needs doing, and relay for resources to solve those problems.
People that choose to avoid politics get to work with hands-on projects and communicating with other techs, while those that do enjoy politics can play the role of appeasing many many people all while competing with other directors for resources needed to get things done without making them too mad. At the highest end, captains compete with others to recieve prized missions or needed resources from admirals. Nobody gets any uber equipment or levels - they just get roles assigned to their personality preferences within one big organism.
I would like to see really nerdy problems in a game for once, like at least pentanomial maths on calibrating coffeemaker shielding.
Lastly, StarTrek without smaller civilian vessels and crews would be pretty bland. Those should be more freeform, and probably more capitalistic, though still not geared to single players. For single players, I would go with planetbound jobs, or station environments, or perhaps if the ST universe accomodates single seat fighters with limited deployability that would be ok. The latter would require another game engine just to make it work unfortunately.
*U KNow I Love U*
I'm going to necro this because there's no newer news thread on STO.
I've been waiting for this title for a LONG time and I'm going to buy it no matter what, because it will just be too cool to be online in the ST universe, regardless of whether they get the gameplay right.
But I will say this. Like the leopard, a game team rarely changes its spots. If they don't quite know what they're doing with the game right now, even though the graphics we've seen look gorgeous, then I will predict that 6 months after release, the biggest critique of STO will be that they don't quite know what they're doing with the game, although it looks gorgeous.
Then there is the Eleven Factor. JJ Abrams has his movie in the early pipeline. It will probably hit the screen at about the same time this game releases. Paramount would be idiots not to tie them together. And that means there will be late content changes to integrate chunks of whatever STXI turns out to involve. But remember the leopard. So I will also predict that the second big critique of STO is that the "movie content" seems pasted onto an otherwise unrelated game engine.
I very much want to be wrong about all of this. The STO team is invited to help me be as wrong as possible
We HAVE to stop doing things like this, this is why we end up with games like SWG. This is why we end up with a 100 and 1 BAD games every year based on films, they know they can throw them out and people will just buy them anyway.
We HAVE to stop doing things like this, this is why we end up with games like SWG. This is why we end up with a 100 and 1 BAD games every year based on films, they know they can throw them out and people will just buy them anyway.
I can't really agree with this. Despite its many problems and eventual ruin, Galaxies on the day of release did feel like Star Wars. There was some well deserved bellyaching about bugs and delayed content, but I don't remember anyone with a crystal ball warning us that Sony's suits never really understood Koster's game design, didn't like what they did understand, and would eventually drop it in favor of frenzied rewrites searching for some mythical new audience while the old one resigned in disgust. All of that came later. If Galaxies 1.0 hadn't felt like Star Wars, nobody would have bought it. If Trek Online 1.0 doesn't feel like Star Trek, neither I nor most others will buy it. If it does, we will. If they mess it up later, we'll leave. I don't know what else an audience can reasonably be expected to do.
Your point makes no difference to what I said, so SWG felt like Star Wars did it? How long did that last?
Buying something based on the IP is what makes publishers think they can get away with doing whatever they want to a game, it makes them think they can give us bad games filled with bugs "but hey who cares they will still buy it, it's Star Wars right?" And for a lot of players that IS the only reason they kept playing.
It's no different from the people who spend $100s on ebay for beta accounts, what kind of message does it send to a publisher when people are willing to spend $100s for a half complete, bug ridden copy of WoW?
I'm not telling you how to spend your money, but an IP should not be a reason to buy a game.
Not counting beta, a year to 18 months, depending on whether you consider the breaking point to have been the ridiculous Jedi explosion or the kandy-kolored kindergarten Combat Upgrade. The big sales surge (to SW fans) took place in the first year. Either way, the feeling was long gone by the time the NGE came to kick the corpse around. Agreed that the mere fact that a game title has a franchise license shouldn't be a reason to buy. But if the developer succeeds in recreating the look and feel of the franchise, that MAY be reason enough to buy for many users, even if there are problems with the game mechanics. Not everybody is an MMO theory wonk who insists on airtight game design. Some people just want to shoot womp rats with their friends.