I don't think it can be done if you launch using Arc or Steam but it's easy launching stand alone. Just launch, log into one account, then minimize, launch again, log into next account, repeat. Then you can alt-tab between them.
When I did it farming Omegas it was .......fun. By the time I had the third instance running flying to the Omegas was so choppy/laggy it wasn't funny. Although it was neat seeing all our ships parked in formation at the same location. I didn't even try actually doing the Omega mini game with the lag, just alt-tab between the three, collect the minimum reward and start the next one. My son has since started playing on XBox when he plays at all and my wife just plain quit playing. I don't think anyone has logged into either of those accounts in about a year. Hmmm, I might need to go in and send myself any Omegas they still have since I doubt if they'll ever use them.
Ahh... I just click on arc and launch that way Definitely sounds like it saves all that logging in and out malarky though
"I fight for the Users!" - Tron
"I was here before you, I will be here after you are gone. I am here, regardless of your acknowledgement or acceptance..." - The Truth
Don't the five 'people' need to be at the same place at the same time to activate/create a new fleet?
yep, but having 5 clients running at the same time shouldn't be that much of a hazzle these days. I'd imagine that researching the means to do that and creating 5 accounts takes less time than spamming zone chat for 4 people to help you. After all, solo fleeters want the FULL solo experience in an MMO, am I right?
I would have thought running five accounts at the same time, would require five computers, so the player could directly interact with them at the appropriate times Then again, I know next to nothing about computers other than pushing the on switch, and yanking the power cord out when it doesn't respect mah authoritah
I had a run in with a super bad fleet that demanded resources but only the fleet owner could get any gear from. Next fleet was so full I could not earn fleet credits on any projects.
So I made a few free accounts on old ESD. Had four of them follow me to the fleet registrar. And made a fleet for myself. Dumped all but one alt account. That account exists solely to invite my alts into my Fed fleet. It can be slow levelling the fleet as I am unfocused on the specific tasks or get distracted by new shiney things. But it is certainly doable. My only slow down is earning the often thousands of Fleet Marks needed for the upgrades.[/quote]
Hmm, might be worth a try
"I fight for the Users!" - Tron
"I was here before you, I will be here after you are gone. I am here, regardless of your acknowledgement or acceptance..." - The Truth
Yes, you should be able to start a fleet with just one player...as long as it came with a disclaimer you had to accept, saying the fleet holdings are designed for large groups and you're not allowed to complain it's "too expensive" to do it alone.
Do you realize how many storage fleets this would produce?
Yes, you should be able to start a fleet with just one player...
why? what would be the reasoning for it? "player demand" certainly isn't one, since you can have a solo fleet anyway already.
it definately goes against the MMO aspect of this MMORPG. the question is: "does a (build in) solo fleet feature make any sense in an MMORPG?" if your answer to that is "yes" you are besically asking for a single player Star Trek themed RPG...that is in fact a nice idea for a game, but it ain't what STO is, or is supposed to be.
Why not? What purpose does it serve to require players to jump through hoops to create a fleet?
Because this is an MMORPG, that is supposed to be enjoyed and played with other people? And a fleet is by its very definition an effort of many people coming together to do something a single person can't do or isn't suppoed to do? And giving an easy option to create a "fleet" (not really a fleet then) would completely contradict the very idea of an MMORPG?
I mean it really can't be too hard to comprehend that if you give single player options for EVERYTHING in the game, the game is no longer an MMORPG.
Asking for a single player fleet option in STO is like asking for a trailer hook on your lamborghini. You can probably have one, but you are not at all supposed to tow something with it.
just sayin though, you answered my question with a question (to avoid to give a comprehensive reason for your opinion, I assume) that was already answered in the other 2 sentences I wrote below my question.
As you're putting it as a question, I'll give my perspective accordingly: No, it's not a multiplayer game. It's a game which allows for cooperative play, and offers enticements to that end to create said community feel (fleets) But IMO it's not a multiplayer game, because the storyline content is all single player. There's not one levelling mission which requires cooperative play. Some, such as on Kobalistan, are definitely easier with other players partnering up, but they're not an essential requirement to playing the mission, and the mission isn't loaded as an instance for those two (or more) players.
On a personal level, I'm not really one for PvP, but I can understand how some may want to test/show off their build against another player rather than an AI-Controlled NPC. In that regard, I think PvP should be better balanced, and available to all players on all levels, but only on a level-appropriate matching, and I think that would be enjoyable (for some). Same with the queues. That's not storyline-mandated stuff, but Endgame shenanigans.
They went with the MMORPG format, because it fits the concept, but rather than saying it is a multi-player game, I would say that it is a game with multiple players playing simultaneously, rather than cooperatively, and IMO, it is the in-game level of cooperation which defines something as 'multiplayer' or not, not just the title which can be applied to it
"I fight for the Users!" - Tron
"I was here before you, I will be here after you are gone. I am here, regardless of your acknowledgement or acceptance..." - The Truth
Yes, you should be able to start a fleet with just one player...as long as it came with a disclaimer you had to accept, saying the fleet holdings are designed for large groups and you're not allowed to complain it's "too expensive" to do it alone.
Do you realize how many storage fleets this would produce?
Yes, you should be able to start a fleet with just one player...
why? what would be the reasoning for it? "player demand" certainly isn't one, since you can have a solo fleet anyway already.
it definately goes against the MMO aspect of this MMORPG. the question is: "does a (build in) solo fleet feature make any sense in an MMORPG?" if your answer to that is "yes" you are besically asking for a single player Star Trek themed RPG...that is in fact a nice idea for a game, but it ain't what STO is, or is supposed to be.
Why not? What purpose does it serve to require players to jump through hoops to create a fleet?
Because this is an MMORPG, that is supposed to be enjoyed and played with other people? And a fleet is by its very definition an effort of many people coming together to do something a single person can't do or isn't suppoed to do? And giving an easy option to create a "fleet" (not really a fleet then) would completely contradict the very idea of an MMORPG?
I mean it really can't be too hard to comprehend that if you give single player options for EVERYTHING in the game, the game is no longer an MMORPG.
Asking for a single player fleet option in STO is like asking for a trailer hook on your lamborghini. You can probably have one, but you are not at all supposed to tow something with it.
just sayin though, you answered my question with a question (to avoid to give a comprehensive reason for your opinion, I assume) that was already answered in the other 2 sentences I wrote below my question.
That's not an answer, though. I take that means you don't actually know a useful purpose for requiring players to jump through hoops to create fleets, which is exactly what I expected. "But I don't like it" is not a useful reason.
I would also say that an arbitrary game-mechanical restriction is pretty much the worst conceivable reason to do anything as a group.
Yes, you should be able to start a fleet with just one player...as long as it came with a disclaimer you had to accept, saying the fleet holdings are designed for large groups and you're not allowed to complain it's "too expensive" to do it alone.
Do you realize how many storage fleets this would produce?
Yes, you should be able to start a fleet with just one player...
why? what would be the reasoning for it? "player demand" certainly isn't one, since you can have a solo fleet anyway already.
it definately goes against the MMO aspect of this MMORPG. the question is: "does a (build in) solo fleet feature make any sense in an MMORPG?" if your answer to that is "yes" you are besically asking for a single player Star Trek themed RPG...that is in fact a nice idea for a game, but it ain't what STO is, or is supposed to be.
Why not? What purpose does it serve to require players to jump through hoops to create a fleet?
Because this is an MMORPG, that is supposed to be enjoyed and played with other people? And a fleet is by its very definition an effort of many people coming together to do something a single person can't do or isn't suppoed to do? And giving an easy option to create a "fleet" (not really a fleet then) would completely contradict the very idea of an MMORPG?
I mean it really can't be too hard to comprehend that if you give single player options for EVERYTHING in the game, the game is no longer an MMORPG.
Asking for a single player fleet option in STO is like asking for a trailer hook on your lamborghini. You can probably have one, but you are not at all supposed to tow something with it.
just sayin though, you answered my question with a question (to avoid to give a comprehensive reason for your opinion, I assume) that was already answered in the other 2 sentences I wrote below my question.
That's not an answer, though. I take that means you don't actually know a useful purpose for requiring players to jump through hoops to create fleets, which is exactly what I expected. "But I don't like it" is not a useful reason.
I would also say that an arbitrary game-mechanical restriction is pretty much the worst conceivable reason to do anything as a group.
Identifying a game as an MMORPG is not just an "arbitrary game mechanical restriction", it is at the core of what defines a game. It fundamentaly impacts design decissions, such as forming and developing a fleet. Asking other players in an MMORPG is not "jumping through hoops", it is a central part of the gaming experience in an MMORPG!!
Also, my reasons are quite valid, you just happen to disagree or blatantly ignore them to avoid actually debating them. I listed a few more reasons btw. none of them was "I don't like it".
Yes, you should be able to start a fleet with just one player...as long as it came with a disclaimer you had to accept, saying the fleet holdings are designed for large groups and you're not allowed to complain it's "too expensive" to do it alone.
Do you realize how many storage fleets this would produce?
Yes, you should be able to start a fleet with just one player...
why? what would be the reasoning for it? "player demand" certainly isn't one, since you can have a solo fleet anyway already.
it definately goes against the MMO aspect of this MMORPG. the question is: "does a (build in) solo fleet feature make any sense in an MMORPG?" if your answer to that is "yes" you are besically asking for a single player Star Trek themed RPG...that is in fact a nice idea for a game, but it ain't what STO is, or is supposed to be.
Why not? What purpose does it serve to require players to jump through hoops to create a fleet?
Because this is an MMORPG, that is supposed to be enjoyed and played with other people? And a fleet is by its very definition an effort of many people coming together to do something a single person can't do or isn't suppoed to do? And giving an easy option to create a "fleet" (not really a fleet then) would completely contradict the very idea of an MMORPG?
I mean it really can't be too hard to comprehend that if you give single player options for EVERYTHING in the game, the game is no longer an MMORPG.
Asking for a single player fleet option in STO is like asking for a trailer hook on your lamborghini. You can probably have one, but you are not at all supposed to tow something with it.
just sayin though, you answered my question with a question (to avoid to give a comprehensive reason for your opinion, I assume) that was already answered in the other 2 sentences I wrote below my question.
As you're putting it as a question, I'll give my perspective accordingly: No, it's not a multiplayer game. It's a game which allows for cooperative play, and offers enticements to that end to create said community feel (fleets) But IMO it's not a multiplayer game, because the storyline content is all single player. There's not one levelling mission which requires cooperative play. Some, such as on Kobalistan, are definitely easier with other players partnering up, but they're not an essential requirement to playing the mission, and the mission isn't loaded as an instance for those two (or more) players.
On a personal level, I'm not really one for PvP, but I can understand how some may want to test/show off their build against another player rather than an AI-Controlled NPC. In that regard, I think PvP should be better balanced, and available to all players on all levels, but only on a level-appropriate matching, and I think that would be enjoyable (for some). Same with the queues. That's not storyline-mandated stuff, but Endgame shenanigans.
They went with the MMORPG format, because it fits the concept, but rather than saying it is a multi-player game, I would say that it is a game with multiple players playing simultaneously, rather than cooperatively, and IMO, it is the in-game level of cooperation which defines something as 'multiplayer' or not, not just the title which can be applied to it
Fair enough, the story is actually single player driven, though not exclusive to single player. But your last paragraph is literally just semantics.
"I would say that it is a game with multiple players playing simultaneously"
With that definition for a multiplayer game with single player options, there literally would not be a single MMO(RPG) out there that isn't that way. Every MMORPG has parts that are doable as a single player (or even intended to be done solo), they are still without a question MMORPGs and follow basic gameplay rules of an MMORPG. In other words, your definition does not exclude STO out of a list of MMORPGs, your definitions fits them all anyway.
Yes, you should be able to start a fleet with just one player...as long as it came with a disclaimer you had to accept, saying the fleet holdings are designed for large groups and you're not allowed to complain it's "too expensive" to do it alone.
Do you realize how many storage fleets this would produce?
Yes, you should be able to start a fleet with just one player...
why? what would be the reasoning for it? "player demand" certainly isn't one, since you can have a solo fleet anyway already.
it definately goes against the MMO aspect of this MMORPG. the question is: "does a (build in) solo fleet feature make any sense in an MMORPG?" if your answer to that is "yes" you are besically asking for a single player Star Trek themed RPG...that is in fact a nice idea for a game, but it ain't what STO is, or is supposed to be.
Why not? What purpose does it serve to require players to jump through hoops to create a fleet?
Because this is an MMORPG, that is supposed to be enjoyed and played with other people? And a fleet is by its very definition an effort of many people coming together to do something a single person can't do or isn't suppoed to do? And giving an easy option to create a "fleet" (not really a fleet then) would completely contradict the very idea of an MMORPG?
I mean it really can't be too hard to comprehend that if you give single player options for EVERYTHING in the game, the game is no longer an MMORPG.
Asking for a single player fleet option in STO is like asking for a trailer hook on your lamborghini. You can probably have one, but you are not at all supposed to tow something with it.
just sayin though, you answered my question with a question (to avoid to give a comprehensive reason for your opinion, I assume) that was already answered in the other 2 sentences I wrote below my question.
As you're putting it as a question, I'll give my perspective accordingly: No, it's not a multiplayer game. It's a game which allows for cooperative play, and offers enticements to that end to create said community feel (fleets) But IMO it's not a multiplayer game, because the storyline content is all single player. There's not one levelling mission which requires cooperative play. Some, such as on Kobalistan, are definitely easier with other players partnering up, but they're not an essential requirement to playing the mission, and the mission isn't loaded as an instance for those two (or more) players.
On a personal level, I'm not really one for PvP, but I can understand how some may want to test/show off their build against another player rather than an AI-Controlled NPC. In that regard, I think PvP should be better balanced, and available to all players on all levels, but only on a level-appropriate matching, and I think that would be enjoyable (for some). Same with the queues. That's not storyline-mandated stuff, but Endgame shenanigans.
They went with the MMORPG format, because it fits the concept, but rather than saying it is a multi-player game, I would say that it is a game with multiple players playing simultaneously, rather than cooperatively, and IMO, it is the in-game level of cooperation which defines something as 'multiplayer' or not, not just the title which can be applied to it
Fair enough, the story is actually single player driven, though not exclusive to single player. But your last paragraph is literally just semantics.
"I would say that it is a game with multiple players playing simultaneously"
With that definition for a multiplayer game with single player options, there literally would not be a single MMO(RPG) out there that isn't that way. Every MMORPG has parts that are doable as a single player (or even intended to be done solo), they are still without a question MMORPGs and follow basic gameplay rules of an MMORPG. In other words, your definition does not exclude STO out of a list of MMORPGs, your definitions fits them all anyway.
Absolutely it's a matter of semantics What I'm saying, is that STO is a single player game (as evidenced by the mission content) which allows for cooperative play, either at particular times, or in specific Endgame content, rather than being a multiplayer game which requires cooperative play on all missions. It's the difference between 'multiplayer' and 'multiple players'
The term MMORPG can fit, but only as a loose catch-all for the general type of game, rather than a true description of the content
"I fight for the Users!" - Tron
"I was here before you, I will be here after you are gone. I am here, regardless of your acknowledgement or acceptance..." - The Truth
Yes, you should be able to start a fleet with just one player...as long as it came with a disclaimer you had to accept, saying the fleet holdings are designed for large groups and you're not allowed to complain it's "too expensive" to do it alone.
Do you realize how many storage fleets this would produce?
Yes, you should be able to start a fleet with just one player...
why? what would be the reasoning for it? "player demand" certainly isn't one, since you can have a solo fleet anyway already.
it definately goes against the MMO aspect of this MMORPG. the question is: "does a (build in) solo fleet feature make any sense in an MMORPG?" if your answer to that is "yes" you are besically asking for a single player Star Trek themed RPG...that is in fact a nice idea for a game, but it ain't what STO is, or is supposed to be.
Why not? What purpose does it serve to require players to jump through hoops to create a fleet?
Because this is an MMORPG, that is supposed to be enjoyed and played with other people? And a fleet is by its very definition an effort of many people coming together to do something a single person can't do or isn't suppoed to do? And giving an easy option to create a "fleet" (not really a fleet then) would completely contradict the very idea of an MMORPG?
I mean it really can't be too hard to comprehend that if you give single player options for EVERYTHING in the game, the game is no longer an MMORPG.
Asking for a single player fleet option in STO is like asking for a trailer hook on your lamborghini. You can probably have one, but you are not at all supposed to tow something with it.
just sayin though, you answered my question with a question (to avoid to give a comprehensive reason for your opinion, I assume) that was already answered in the other 2 sentences I wrote below my question.
As you're putting it as a question, I'll give my perspective accordingly: No, it's not a multiplayer game. It's a game which allows for cooperative play, and offers enticements to that end to create said community feel (fleets) But IMO it's not a multiplayer game, because the storyline content is all single player. There's not one levelling mission which requires cooperative play. Some, such as on Kobalistan, are definitely easier with other players partnering up, but they're not an essential requirement to playing the mission, and the mission isn't loaded as an instance for those two (or more) players.
On a personal level, I'm not really one for PvP, but I can understand how some may want to test/show off their build against another player rather than an AI-Controlled NPC. In that regard, I think PvP should be better balanced, and available to all players on all levels, but only on a level-appropriate matching, and I think that would be enjoyable (for some). Same with the queues. That's not storyline-mandated stuff, but Endgame shenanigans.
They went with the MMORPG format, because it fits the concept, but rather than saying it is a multi-player game, I would say that it is a game with multiple players playing simultaneously, rather than cooperatively, and IMO, it is the in-game level of cooperation which defines something as 'multiplayer' or not, not just the title which can be applied to it
Fair enough, the story is actually single player driven, though not exclusive to single player. But your last paragraph is literally just semantics.
"I would say that it is a game with multiple players playing simultaneously"
With that definition for a multiplayer game with single player options, there literally would not be a single MMO(RPG) out there that isn't that way. Every MMORPG has parts that are doable as a single player (or even intended to be done solo), they are still without a question MMORPGs and follow basic gameplay rules of an MMORPG. In other words, your definition does not exclude STO out of a list of MMORPGs, your definitions fits them all anyway.
Absolutely it's a matter of semantics What I'm saying, is that STO is a single player game (as evidenced by the mission content) which allows for cooperative play, either at particular times, or in specific Endgame content, rather than being a multiplayer game which requires cooperative play on all missions.
The term MMORPG can fit, but only as a loose catch-all for the general type of game, rather than a true description of the content
Again, name another MMORPG that has NO content that is doable alone. Your definition, which I called semantics, applies to each and every game out there labeled an MMORPG. There simply is no MMORPG that absoultely requires you to do each and every aspekt of the game, especially story, in a group.
You are trying to sell bananas here as apples, by simply calling them elongated yelklow apples!
Yes, you should be able to start a fleet with just one player...as long as it came with a disclaimer you had to accept, saying the fleet holdings are designed for large groups and you're not allowed to complain it's "too expensive" to do it alone.
Do you realize how many storage fleets this would produce?
Yes, you should be able to start a fleet with just one player...
why? what would be the reasoning for it? "player demand" certainly isn't one, since you can have a solo fleet anyway already.
it definately goes against the MMO aspect of this MMORPG. the question is: "does a (build in) solo fleet feature make any sense in an MMORPG?" if your answer to that is "yes" you are besically asking for a single player Star Trek themed RPG...that is in fact a nice idea for a game, but it ain't what STO is, or is supposed to be.
Why not? What purpose does it serve to require players to jump through hoops to create a fleet?
Because this is an MMORPG, that is supposed to be enjoyed and played with other people? And a fleet is by its very definition an effort of many people coming together to do something a single person can't do or isn't suppoed to do? And giving an easy option to create a "fleet" (not really a fleet then) would completely contradict the very idea of an MMORPG?
I mean it really can't be too hard to comprehend that if you give single player options for EVERYTHING in the game, the game is no longer an MMORPG.
Asking for a single player fleet option in STO is like asking for a trailer hook on your lamborghini. You can probably have one, but you are not at all supposed to tow something with it.
just sayin though, you answered my question with a question (to avoid to give a comprehensive reason for your opinion, I assume) that was already answered in the other 2 sentences I wrote below my question.
That's not an answer, though. I take that means you don't actually know a useful purpose for requiring players to jump through hoops to create fleets, which is exactly what I expected. "But I don't like it" is not a useful reason.
I would also say that an arbitrary game-mechanical restriction is pretty much the worst conceivable reason to do anything as a group.
Identifying a game as an MMORPG is not just an "arbitrary game mechanical restriction", it is at the core of what defines a game. It fundamentaly impacts design decissions, such as forming and developing a fleet. Asking other players in an MMORPG is not "jumping through hoops", it is a central part of the gaming experience in an MMORPG!!
Also, my reasons are quite valid, you just happen to disagree or blatantly ignore them to avoid actually debating them. I listed a few more reasons btw. none of them was "I don't like it".
Identifying a game as an MMORPG is not game mechanics, it's marketing. Requiring 5 playesr in a team before one of them is allowed perform an action that requires no input from the other players is an arbitrary game-mechanical restriction. Asking other players is jumping through hoops, if asking other players does not serve a useful purpose.
And no, you didn't list any reasons beyond your personal opinion of how the game is "supposed to be enjoyed."
Yes, you should be able to start a fleet with just one player...as long as it came with a disclaimer you had to accept, saying the fleet holdings are designed for large groups and you're not allowed to complain it's "too expensive" to do it alone.
Do you realize how many storage fleets this would produce?
Yes, you should be able to start a fleet with just one player...
why? what would be the reasoning for it? "player demand" certainly isn't one, since you can have a solo fleet anyway already.
it definately goes against the MMO aspect of this MMORPG. the question is: "does a (build in) solo fleet feature make any sense in an MMORPG?" if your answer to that is "yes" you are besically asking for a single player Star Trek themed RPG...that is in fact a nice idea for a game, but it ain't what STO is, or is supposed to be.
Why not? What purpose does it serve to require players to jump through hoops to create a fleet?
Because this is an MMORPG, that is supposed to be enjoyed and played with other people? And a fleet is by its very definition an effort of many people coming together to do something a single person can't do or isn't suppoed to do? And giving an easy option to create a "fleet" (not really a fleet then) would completely contradict the very idea of an MMORPG?
I mean it really can't be too hard to comprehend that if you give single player options for EVERYTHING in the game, the game is no longer an MMORPG.
Asking for a single player fleet option in STO is like asking for a trailer hook on your lamborghini. You can probably have one, but you are not at all supposed to tow something with it.
just sayin though, you answered my question with a question (to avoid to give a comprehensive reason for your opinion, I assume) that was already answered in the other 2 sentences I wrote below my question.
As you're putting it as a question, I'll give my perspective accordingly: No, it's not a multiplayer game. It's a game which allows for cooperative play, and offers enticements to that end to create said community feel (fleets) But IMO it's not a multiplayer game, because the storyline content is all single player. There's not one levelling mission which requires cooperative play. Some, such as on Kobalistan, are definitely easier with other players partnering up, but they're not an essential requirement to playing the mission, and the mission isn't loaded as an instance for those two (or more) players.
On a personal level, I'm not really one for PvP, but I can understand how some may want to test/show off their build against another player rather than an AI-Controlled NPC. In that regard, I think PvP should be better balanced, and available to all players on all levels, but only on a level-appropriate matching, and I think that would be enjoyable (for some). Same with the queues. That's not storyline-mandated stuff, but Endgame shenanigans.
They went with the MMORPG format, because it fits the concept, but rather than saying it is a multi-player game, I would say that it is a game with multiple players playing simultaneously, rather than cooperatively, and IMO, it is the in-game level of cooperation which defines something as 'multiplayer' or not, not just the title which can be applied to it
Fair enough, the story is actually single player driven, though not exclusive to single player. But your last paragraph is literally just semantics.
"I would say that it is a game with multiple players playing simultaneously"
With that definition for a multiplayer game with single player options, there literally would not be a single MMO(RPG) out there that isn't that way. Every MMORPG has parts that are doable as a single player (or even intended to be done solo), they are still without a question MMORPGs and follow basic gameplay rules of an MMORPG. In other words, your definition does not exclude STO out of a list of MMORPGs, your definitions fits them all anyway.
Absolutely it's a matter of semantics What I'm saying, is that STO is a single player game (as evidenced by the mission content) which allows for cooperative play, either at particular times, or in specific Endgame content, rather than being a multiplayer game which requires cooperative play on all missions.
The term MMORPG can fit, but only as a loose catch-all for the general type of game, rather than a true description of the content
Again, name another MMORPG that has NO content that is doable alone. Your definition, which I called semantics, applies to each and every game out there labeled an MMORPG. There simply is no MMORPG that absoultely requires you to do each and every aspekt of the game, especially story, in a group.
I don't need to name another game, because we're not twlking about other gwmes, we're talking about this game. (I also don't play any other such games, so I can't speak from experience, and won't just pull names out my aft-shuttlebay to satisfy a misleading question.
As I said in my edit, it's the difference between 'multiplayer' and 'multiple players'. STO has multiple players, of a game which the mission content is all single-player, but has some instances allowing cooperative play. IMO, a multiplayer game, would require several players to be partnering up on missions all the time, as in, you and I decide to play Stop The Signal together in a private instance. That's multiplayer. Where if you happen to see Kek running round Kobalistan blasting on fools, so decide to follow him (because Ellie Flores has a nice aft-shuttlebay) and it makes the level easier for us both to complete, that's multiple players.
I guess it depends on one's understanding of what an MMORPG is, and how the industry would actually define the term to mean Personally, I understand it to mean multiplayer requirements, rather than just multiple players. Then again, I'm not a big gamer, so I may be misunderstanding the term, in which case, feel free to take my opinion with a pinch of salt
"I fight for the Users!" - Tron
"I was here before you, I will be here after you are gone. I am here, regardless of your acknowledgement or acceptance..." - The Truth
Dranuur Colony is one reason why Solo Fleets are a very, very bad idea.
Unless of course you're not interested in holding progression. Which makes me wonder...
What's to be gained by being in a fleet of 1 ?
Is it the extra bank space ? (I guess some people are too cheap to buy the extra bank/inventory slots they need, so instead they misuse fleet holdings to circumvent another purchase) ?
Only other reason I can come up with is RP... Which can be done within another "Real" fleet of actual players, who are actually "working together" towards a goal. Like what was envisioned by the dev team when they implemented the Fleet system.
"Solo fleet" defeats the very purpose and intention of fleets. Not only that, but it also dilutes the player base even further.
All this because some antisocial gamers expect all the fleet holdings to play within, without committing to the community at all.
Or they just want the extra bank space they're too cheap to pay for.
What I would do however, (for those who are serious about the RP aspects that solo fleets can provide or just really want fleet holdings of their own) would be to allow anyone in sector space to fly up to a fleet holding location and enter the maps, look around at full tiered holdings/RP at whatever holding they like.
Of course there would be no vendors or bank/mail/exchange, nor tailor, No bank space. Nothing but the maps to visit and look around/hang out.
I think that's fair. They could pretend they own the locations.
I'd even offer a purchasable "Fleet Name Tag" in the c-store for those who want to have a fleet tag they can customize (while not being in a Real fleet).
What's not fair; is solo fleets circumventing an intentionally designed "social aspect" of a mmorpg for their own advantage/gain(free fleet bank).
Solo Fleet/Guild is an oxymoron as stated earlier in the thread. And shouldn't be allowed in any mmorpg. Especially since it goes against the very intention and spirit of these social systems.
Don't want to play ball and take part in the specifically designed social aspects of an mmorpg ? No problem, but don't expect to be a special snowflake and be able to take advantage of all the perks that specific social aspect of gameplay offers.
I'd even go so far as to limit Fleet creation to those who have subscribed to the game for a minimum of 3 months, or own LTS.
Yes, you should be able to start a fleet with just one player...as long as it came with a disclaimer you had to accept, saying the fleet holdings are designed for large groups and you're not allowed to complain it's "too expensive" to do it alone.
Do you realize how many storage fleets this would produce?
Yes, you should be able to start a fleet with just one player...
why? what would be the reasoning for it? "player demand" certainly isn't one, since you can have a solo fleet anyway already.
it definately goes against the MMO aspect of this MMORPG. the question is: "does a (build in) solo fleet feature make any sense in an MMORPG?" if your answer to that is "yes" you are besically asking for a single player Star Trek themed RPG...that is in fact a nice idea for a game, but it ain't what STO is, or is supposed to be.
Why not? What purpose does it serve to require players to jump through hoops to create a fleet?
Because this is an MMORPG, that is supposed to be enjoyed and played with other people? And a fleet is by its very definition an effort of many people coming together to do something a single person can't do or isn't suppoed to do? And giving an easy option to create a "fleet" (not really a fleet then) would completely contradict the very idea of an MMORPG?
I mean it really can't be too hard to comprehend that if you give single player options for EVERYTHING in the game, the game is no longer an MMORPG.
Asking for a single player fleet option in STO is like asking for a trailer hook on your lamborghini. You can probably have one, but you are not at all supposed to tow something with it.
just sayin though, you answered my question with a question (to avoid to give a comprehensive reason for your opinion, I assume) that was already answered in the other 2 sentences I wrote below my question.
That's not an answer, though. I take that means you don't actually know a useful purpose for requiring players to jump through hoops to create fleets, which is exactly what I expected. "But I don't like it" is not a useful reason.
I would also say that an arbitrary game-mechanical restriction is pretty much the worst conceivable reason to do anything as a group.
Identifying a game as an MMORPG is not just an "arbitrary game mechanical restriction", it is at the core of what defines a game. It fundamentaly impacts design decissions, such as forming and developing a fleet. Asking other players in an MMORPG is not "jumping through hoops", it is a central part of the gaming experience in an MMORPG!!
Also, my reasons are quite valid, you just happen to disagree or blatantly ignore them to avoid actually debating them. I listed a few more reasons btw. none of them was "I don't like it".
Identifying a game as an MMORPG is not game mechanics, it's marketing. Requiring 5 playesr in a team before one of them is allowed perform an action that requires no input from the other players is an arbitrary game-mechanical restriction. Asking other players is jumping through hoops, if asking other players does not serve a useful purpose.
And no, you didn't list any reasons beyond your personal opinion of how the game is "supposed to be enjoyed."
Well, I guess that playing with other people was one "minor" (/sarcasm) design idea they wanted to implement when they made this "massive multiplayer online roleplaying game". But it seems words don't really mean anything anymore if they contradict a subjective opinion.
It's just marketing...they basically said: "Hey lets make a single player game around Star Trek, but because MMORPGs are popular right now, and monthly subscription is hip we advertise it as an MMORPG" yes, sure, that's what they had in mind /sarcasm
I love how you refute the multiplayer content (like 50 or so missions) of this game as "arbitrary game-mechanic restriction". like you literally see the content that requires other people in an MMORPG as a nuisance. Like the game forcing you to group up with folks is a punishment or a failed game mechanic! If it wasn't actually your honest opinion, it would be a funny joke.
"Meh, not again group content. What a TRIBBLE MMO"
Again, interacting with other players serves a useful puprose in a MMORPG...it is one of the "M" after all.
I guess what you are looking for is a MSORPG...massive single player online roleplaying game.
Identifying a game as a MMORPG is not game mechanics, but is impacts game mechanics heavily. OFcourse I specifically wrote it as such: "It fundamentaly impacts design decissions...", but I guess you stopped actually reading my comments on page 2 of this thread.
Yes, you should be able to start a fleet with just one player...as long as it came with a disclaimer you had to accept, saying the fleet holdings are designed for large groups and you're not allowed to complain it's "too expensive" to do it alone.
Do you realize how many storage fleets this would produce?
Yes, you should be able to start a fleet with just one player...
why? what would be the reasoning for it? "player demand" certainly isn't one, since you can have a solo fleet anyway already.
it definately goes against the MMO aspect of this MMORPG. the question is: "does a (build in) solo fleet feature make any sense in an MMORPG?" if your answer to that is "yes" you are besically asking for a single player Star Trek themed RPG...that is in fact a nice idea for a game, but it ain't what STO is, or is supposed to be.
Why not? What purpose does it serve to require players to jump through hoops to create a fleet?
Because this is an MMORPG, that is supposed to be enjoyed and played with other people? And a fleet is by its very definition an effort of many people coming together to do something a single person can't do or isn't suppoed to do? And giving an easy option to create a "fleet" (not really a fleet then) would completely contradict the very idea of an MMORPG?
I mean it really can't be too hard to comprehend that if you give single player options for EVERYTHING in the game, the game is no longer an MMORPG.
Asking for a single player fleet option in STO is like asking for a trailer hook on your lamborghini. You can probably have one, but you are not at all supposed to tow something with it.
just sayin though, you answered my question with a question (to avoid to give a comprehensive reason for your opinion, I assume) that was already answered in the other 2 sentences I wrote below my question.
As you're putting it as a question, I'll give my perspective accordingly: No, it's not a multiplayer game. It's a game which allows for cooperative play, and offers enticements to that end to create said community feel (fleets) But IMO it's not a multiplayer game, because the storyline content is all single player. There's not one levelling mission which requires cooperative play. Some, such as on Kobalistan, are definitely easier with other players partnering up, but they're not an essential requirement to playing the mission, and the mission isn't loaded as an instance for those two (or more) players.
On a personal level, I'm not really one for PvP, but I can understand how some may want to test/show off their build against another player rather than an AI-Controlled NPC. In that regard, I think PvP should be better balanced, and available to all players on all levels, but only on a level-appropriate matching, and I think that would be enjoyable (for some). Same with the queues. That's not storyline-mandated stuff, but Endgame shenanigans.
They went with the MMORPG format, because it fits the concept, but rather than saying it is a multi-player game, I would say that it is a game with multiple players playing simultaneously, rather than cooperatively, and IMO, it is the in-game level of cooperation which defines something as 'multiplayer' or not, not just the title which can be applied to it
Fair enough, the story is actually single player driven, though not exclusive to single player. But your last paragraph is literally just semantics.
"I would say that it is a game with multiple players playing simultaneously"
With that definition for a multiplayer game with single player options, there literally would not be a single MMO(RPG) out there that isn't that way. Every MMORPG has parts that are doable as a single player (or even intended to be done solo), they are still without a question MMORPGs and follow basic gameplay rules of an MMORPG. In other words, your definition does not exclude STO out of a list of MMORPGs, your definitions fits them all anyway.
Absolutely it's a matter of semantics What I'm saying, is that STO is a single player game (as evidenced by the mission content) which allows for cooperative play, either at particular times, or in specific Endgame content, rather than being a multiplayer game which requires cooperative play on all missions.
The term MMORPG can fit, but only as a loose catch-all for the general type of game, rather than a true description of the content
Again, name another MMORPG that has NO content that is doable alone. Your definition, which I called semantics, applies to each and every game out there labeled an MMORPG. There simply is no MMORPG that absoultely requires you to do each and every aspekt of the game, especially story, in a group.
I don't need to name another game, because we're not twlking about other gwmes, we're talking about this game. (I also don't play any other such games, so I can't speak from experience, and won't just pull names out my aft-shuttlebay to satisfy a misleading question.
As I said in my edit, it's the difference between 'multiplayer' and 'multiple players'. STO has multiple players, of a game which the mission content is all single-player, but has some instances allowing cooperative play. IMO, a multiplayer game, would require several players to be partnering up on missions all the time, as in, you and I decide to play Stop The Signal together in a private instance. That's multiplayer. Where if you happen to see Kek running round Kobalistan blasting on fools, so decide to follow him (because Ellie Flores has a nice aft-shuttlebay) and it makes the level easier for us both to complete, that's multiple players.
I guess it depends on one's understanding of what an MMORPG is, and how the industry would actually define the term to mean Personally, I understand it to mean multiplayer requirements, rather than just multiple players. Then again, I'm not a big gamer, so I may be misunderstanding the term, in which case, feel free to take my opinion with a pinch of salt
I guess not needing to name examples is quite convenient in debates...your opinion is above facts after all when you can make such convincing arguments and not at all use semantic maneuvers like: "the difference between 'multiplayer' and 'multiple players'", (/sarcasm)
"I guess it depends on one's understanding of what an MMORPG is..." yes, so you may not know it, but words have meanings attached to them, so people can communicate and understand each other.
"so I may be misunderstanding the term" ... obviously
Dranuur Colony is one reason why Solo Fleets are a very, very bad idea.
Unless of course you're not interested in holding progression. Which makes me wonder...
What's to be gained by being in a fleet of 1 ?
Is it the extra bank space ? (I guess some people are too cheap to buy the extra bank/inventory slots they need, so instead they misuse fleet holdings to circumvent another purchase) ?
Only other reason I can come up with is RP... Which can be done within another "Real" fleet of actual players, who are actually "working together" towards a goal. Like what was envisioned by the dev team when they implemented the Fleet system.
"Solo fleet" defeats the very purpose and intention of fleets. Not only that, but it also dilutes the player base even further.
All this because some antisocial gamers expect all the fleet holdings to play within, without committing to the community at all.
Or they just want the extra bank space they're too cheap to pay for.
What I would do however, (for those who are serious about the RP aspects that solo fleets can provide or just really want fleet holdings of their own) would be to allow anyone in sector space to fly up to a fleet holding location and enter the maps, look around at full tiered holdings/RP at whatever holding they like.
Of course there would be no vendors or bank/mail/exchange, nor tailor, No bank space. Nothing but the maps to visit and look around/hang out.
I think that's fair. They could pretend they own the locations.
I'd even offer a purchasable "Fleet Name Tag" in the c-store for those who want to have a fleet tag they can customize (while not being in a Real fleet).
What's not fair; is solo fleets circumventing an intentionally designed "social aspect" of a mmorpg for their own advantage/gain(free fleet bank).
Solo Fleet/Guild is an oxymoron as stated earlier in the thread. And shouldn't be allowed in any mmorpg. Especially since it goes against the very intention and spirit of these social systems.
Don't want to play ball and take part in the specifically designed social aspects of an mmorpg ? No problem, but don't expect to be a special snowflake and be able to take advantage of all the perks that specific social aspect of gameplay offers.
I'd even go so far as to limit Fleet creation to those who have subscribed to the game for a minimum of 3 months, or own LTS.
Dranuur Colony is one reason why Solo Fleets are a very, very bad idea.
Unless of course you're not interested in holding progression. Which makes me wonder...
What's to be gained by being in a fleet of 1 ?
Is it the extra bank space ? (I guess some people are too cheap to buy the extra bank/inventory slots they need, so instead they misuse fleet holdings to circumvent another purchase) ?
Only other reason I can come up with is RP... Which can be done within another "Real" fleet of actual players, who are actually "working together" towards a goal. Like what was envisioned by the dev team when they implemented the Fleet system.
"Solo fleet" defeats the very purpose and intention of fleets. Not only that, but it also dilutes the player base even further.
All this because some antisocial gamers expect all the fleet holdings to play within, without committing to the community at all.
Or they just want the extra bank space they're too cheap to pay for.
What I would do however, (for those who are serious about the RP aspects that solo fleets can provide or just really want fleet holdings of their own) would be to allow anyone in sector space to fly up to a fleet holding location and enter the maps, look around at full tiered holdings/RP at whatever holding they like.
Of course there would be no vendors or bank/mail/exchange, nor tailor, No bank space. Nothing but the maps to visit and look around/hang out.
I think that's fair. They could pretend they own the locations.
I'd even offer a purchasable "Fleet Name Tag" in the c-store for those who want to have a fleet tag they can customize (while not being in a Real fleet).
What's not fair; is solo fleets circumventing an intentionally designed "social aspect" of a mmorpg for their own advantage/gain(free fleet bank).
Solo Fleet/Guild is an oxymoron as stated earlier in the thread. And shouldn't be allowed in any mmorpg. Especially since it goes against the very intention and spirit of these social systems.
Don't want to play ball and take part in the specifically designed social aspects of an mmorpg ? No problem, but don't expect to be a special snowflake and be able to take advantage of all the perks that specific social aspect of gameplay offers.
I'd even go so far as to limit Fleet creation to those who have subscribed to the game for a minimum of 3 months, or own LTS.
Just feel there needs to be a rebuttal here. But there are enough bad fleets/guilds that working alone so you reap your own rewards for your hard work makes it well worth it. Every item unlocked belongs to me and I have access to it if I so choose. Not I did the work and unlocked 10 items for the fleet and either others were faster to drain those out so you got none. Or lock access to the fleet store so you may not use it at all while you are contributing. When can I be promoted so I can access it? Never.
Most guilds I have seen in games are by definition, Antisocial.
Originally Posted by pwlaughingtrendy
Network engineers are not ship designers.
Nor should they be. Their ships would look weird.
Dranuur Colony is one reason why Solo Fleets are a very, very bad idea.
Unless of course you're not interested in holding progression. Which makes me wonder...
What's to be gained by being in a fleet of 1 ?
Is it the extra bank space ? (I guess some people are too cheap to buy the extra bank/inventory slots they need, so instead they misuse fleet holdings to circumvent another purchase) ?
Only other reason I can come up with is RP... Which can be done within another "Real" fleet of actual players, who are actually "working together" towards a goal. Like what was envisioned by the dev team when they implemented the Fleet system.
"Solo fleet" defeats the very purpose and intention of fleets. Not only that, but it also dilutes the player base even further.
All this because some antisocial gamers expect all the fleet holdings to play within, without committing to the community at all.
Or they just want the extra bank space they're too cheap to pay for.
What I would do however, (for those who are serious about the RP aspects that solo fleets can provide or just really want fleet holdings of their own) would be to allow anyone in sector space to fly up to a fleet holding location and enter the maps, look around at full tiered holdings/RP at whatever holding they like.
Of course there would be no vendors or bank/mail/exchange, nor tailor, No bank space. Nothing but the maps to visit and look around/hang out.
I think that's fair. They could pretend they own the locations.
I'd even offer a purchasable "Fleet Name Tag" in the c-store for those who want to have a fleet tag they can customize (while not being in a Real fleet).
What's not fair; is solo fleets circumventing an intentionally designed "social aspect" of a mmorpg for their own advantage/gain(free fleet bank).
Solo Fleet/Guild is an oxymoron as stated earlier in the thread. And shouldn't be allowed in any mmorpg. Especially since it goes against the very intention and spirit of these social systems.
Don't want to play ball and take part in the specifically designed social aspects of an mmorpg ? No problem, but don't expect to be a special snowflake and be able to take advantage of all the perks that specific social aspect of gameplay offers.
I'd even go so far as to limit Fleet creation to those who have subscribed to the game for a minimum of 3 months, or own LTS.
Just feel there needs to be a rebuttal here. But there are enough bad fleets/guilds that working alone so you reap your own rewards for your hard work makes it well worth it. Every item unlocked belongs to me and I have access to it if I so choose. Not I did the work and unlocked 10 items for the fleet and either others were faster to drain those out so you got none. Or lock access to the fleet store so you may not use it at all while you are contributing. When can I be promoted so I can access it? Never.
Most guilds I have seen in games are by definition, Antisocial.
But given the OP stated that they don't like grind, they're likely not going to actually be building their fleet. They can't even throw real-world cash at it, because the fleet projects I've seen (unless the requirements are truly cusomizable by the fleet owner) require more resources than just dill, and stuff which can't be cash-converted purchased like marks: It requires grind. And when someone openly says they don't like doing that, it's hard to believe that, even if the optiion was actually made available, that they would actually undertake it to progress their fleet of one As taylor mentioned, it sounds more like someone wanting extra bank space and a private starbase without paying for it, rather than someone who would actually enjoy building the fleet
"I fight for the Users!" - Tron
"I was here before you, I will be here after you are gone. I am here, regardless of your acknowledgement or acceptance..." - The Truth
Yes, you should be able to start a fleet with just one player...as long as it came with a disclaimer you had to accept, saying the fleet holdings are designed for large groups and you're not allowed to complain it's "too expensive" to do it alone.
Do you realize how many storage fleets this would produce?
Yes, you should be able to start a fleet with just one player...
why? what would be the reasoning for it? "player demand" certainly isn't one, since you can have a solo fleet anyway already.
it definately goes against the MMO aspect of this MMORPG. the question is: "does a (build in) solo fleet feature make any sense in an MMORPG?" if your answer to that is "yes" you are besically asking for a single player Star Trek themed RPG...that is in fact a nice idea for a game, but it ain't what STO is, or is supposed to be.
Why not? What purpose does it serve to require players to jump through hoops to create a fleet?
Because this is an MMORPG, that is supposed to be enjoyed and played with other people? And a fleet is by its very definition an effort of many people coming together to do something a single person can't do or isn't suppoed to do? And giving an easy option to create a "fleet" (not really a fleet then) would completely contradict the very idea of an MMORPG?
I mean it really can't be too hard to comprehend that if you give single player options for EVERYTHING in the game, the game is no longer an MMORPG.
Asking for a single player fleet option in STO is like asking for a trailer hook on your lamborghini. You can probably have one, but you are not at all supposed to tow something with it.
just sayin though, you answered my question with a question (to avoid to give a comprehensive reason for your opinion, I assume) that was already answered in the other 2 sentences I wrote below my question.
That's not an answer, though. I take that means you don't actually know a useful purpose for requiring players to jump through hoops to create fleets, which is exactly what I expected. "But I don't like it" is not a useful reason.
I would also say that an arbitrary game-mechanical restriction is pretty much the worst conceivable reason to do anything as a group.
Identifying a game as an MMORPG is not just an "arbitrary game mechanical restriction", it is at the core of what defines a game. It fundamentaly impacts design decissions, such as forming and developing a fleet. Asking other players in an MMORPG is not "jumping through hoops", it is a central part of the gaming experience in an MMORPG!!
Also, my reasons are quite valid, you just happen to disagree or blatantly ignore them to avoid actually debating them. I listed a few more reasons btw. none of them was "I don't like it".
Identifying a game as an MMORPG is not game mechanics, it's marketing. Requiring 5 playesr in a team before one of them is allowed perform an action that requires no input from the other players is an arbitrary game-mechanical restriction. Asking other players is jumping through hoops, if asking other players does not serve a useful purpose.
And no, you didn't list any reasons beyond your personal opinion of how the game is "supposed to be enjoyed."
Well, I guess that playing with other people was one "minor" (/sarcasm) design idea they wanted to implement when they made this "massive multiplayer online roleplaying game". But it seems words don't really mean anything anymore if they contradict a subjective opinion.
It's just marketing...they basically said: "Hey lets make a single player game around Star Trek, but because MMORPGs are popular right now, and monthly subscription is hip we advertise it as an MMORPG" yes, sure, that's what they had in mind /sarcasm
I love how you refute the multiplayer content (like 50 or so missions) of this game as "arbitrary game-mechanic restriction". like you literally see the content that requires other people in an MMORPG as a nuisance. Like the game forcing you to group up with folks is a punishment or a failed game mechanic! If it wasn't actually your honest opinion, it would be a funny joke.
"Meh, not again group content. What a **** MMO"
I love how you call 4 players standing around while one player talks to an NPC "multiplayer content."
Again, interacting with other players serves a useful puprose in a MMORPG.
Only if those other players actually have a useful purpose in the "interaction," as opposed to just being there because the game says so.
Dranuur Colony is one reason why Solo Fleets are a very, very bad idea.
Wonder if any of those who want to go solo ever checked tribble for themselves and find out whats coming and that it will be virtually impossible for anyone doing a solo fleet anymore? sorry NOT fleets but Cryptic will make the solo fleets an extinct species...
Yes, you should be able to start a fleet with just one player...as long as it came with a disclaimer you had to accept, saying the fleet holdings are designed for large groups and you're not allowed to complain it's "too expensive" to do it alone.
Do you realize how many storage fleets this would produce?
Yes, you should be able to start a fleet with just one player...
why? what would be the reasoning for it? "player demand" certainly isn't one, since you can have a solo fleet anyway already.
it definately goes against the MMO aspect of this MMORPG. the question is: "does a (build in) solo fleet feature make any sense in an MMORPG?" if your answer to that is "yes" you are besically asking for a single player Star Trek themed RPG...that is in fact a nice idea for a game, but it ain't what STO is, or is supposed to be.
Why not? What purpose does it serve to require players to jump through hoops to create a fleet?
Because this is an MMORPG, that is supposed to be enjoyed and played with other people? And a fleet is by its very definition an effort of many people coming together to do something a single person can't do or isn't suppoed to do? And giving an easy option to create a "fleet" (not really a fleet then) would completely contradict the very idea of an MMORPG?
I mean it really can't be too hard to comprehend that if you give single player options for EVERYTHING in the game, the game is no longer an MMORPG.
Asking for a single player fleet option in STO is like asking for a trailer hook on your lamborghini. You can probably have one, but you are not at all supposed to tow something with it.
just sayin though, you answered my question with a question (to avoid to give a comprehensive reason for your opinion, I assume) that was already answered in the other 2 sentences I wrote below my question.
That's not an answer, though. I take that means you don't actually know a useful purpose for requiring players to jump through hoops to create fleets, which is exactly what I expected. "But I don't like it" is not a useful reason.
I would also say that an arbitrary game-mechanical restriction is pretty much the worst conceivable reason to do anything as a group.
Identifying a game as an MMORPG is not just an "arbitrary game mechanical restriction", it is at the core of what defines a game. It fundamentaly impacts design decissions, such as forming and developing a fleet. Asking other players in an MMORPG is not "jumping through hoops", it is a central part of the gaming experience in an MMORPG!!
Also, my reasons are quite valid, you just happen to disagree or blatantly ignore them to avoid actually debating them. I listed a few more reasons btw. none of them was "I don't like it".
Identifying a game as an MMORPG is not game mechanics, it's marketing. Requiring 5 playesr in a team before one of them is allowed perform an action that requires no input from the other players is an arbitrary game-mechanical restriction. Asking other players is jumping through hoops, if asking other players does not serve a useful purpose.
And no, you didn't list any reasons beyond your personal opinion of how the game is "supposed to be enjoyed."
Well, I guess that playing with other people was one "minor" (/sarcasm) design idea they wanted to implement when they made this "massive multiplayer online roleplaying game". But it seems words don't really mean anything anymore if they contradict a subjective opinion.
It's just marketing...they basically said: "Hey lets make a single player game around Star Trek, but because MMORPGs are popular right now, and monthly subscription is hip we advertise it as an MMORPG" yes, sure, that's what they had in mind /sarcasm
I love how you refute the multiplayer content (like 50 or so missions) of this game as "arbitrary game-mechanic restriction". like you literally see the content that requires other people in an MMORPG as a nuisance. Like the game forcing you to group up with folks is a punishment or a failed game mechanic! If it wasn't actually your honest opinion, it would be a funny joke.
"Meh, not again group content. What a **** MMO"
I love how you call 4 players standing around while one player talks to an NPC "multiplayer content."
Again, interacting with other players serves a useful puprose in a MMORPG.
Only if those other players actually have a useful purpose in the "interaction," as opposed to just being there because the game says so.
you know, you might not be familiar with "human interaction" but those 5 people were talking to each other before, maybe even played missions together and decided to form a fleet, because they seemed to "like" or "get along" with each other. I know, must be a completely foreign concept to you, but those things happen in an MMO...by design. Single player games don't do that.
The game "says so" is the developers way of offering you a possiblity to interact with other players. So even the most socially handicapped among us might find a friend or two in this online world.
Dranuur Colony is one reason why Solo Fleets are a very, very bad idea.
Unless of course you're not interested in holding progression. Which makes me wonder...
What's to be gained by being in a fleet of 1 ?
Is it the extra bank space ? (I guess some people are too cheap to buy the extra bank/inventory slots they need, so instead they misuse fleet holdings to circumvent another purchase) ?
Only other reason I can come up with is RP... Which can be done within another "Real" fleet of actual players, who are actually "working together" towards a goal. Like what was envisioned by the dev team when they implemented the Fleet system.
"Solo fleet" defeats the very purpose and intention of fleets. Not only that, but it also dilutes the player base even further.
All this because some antisocial gamers expect all the fleet holdings to play within, without committing to the community at all.
Or they just want the extra bank space they're too cheap to pay for.
What I would do however, (for those who are serious about the RP aspects that solo fleets can provide or just really want fleet holdings of their own) would be to allow anyone in sector space to fly up to a fleet holding location and enter the maps, look around at full tiered holdings/RP at whatever holding they like.
Of course there would be no vendors or bank/mail/exchange, nor tailor, No bank space. Nothing but the maps to visit and look around/hang out.
I think that's fair. They could pretend they own the locations.
I'd even offer a purchasable "Fleet Name Tag" in the c-store for those who want to have a fleet tag they can customize (while not being in a Real fleet).
What's not fair; is solo fleets circumventing an intentionally designed "social aspect" of a mmorpg for their own advantage/gain(free fleet bank).
Solo Fleet/Guild is an oxymoron as stated earlier in the thread. And shouldn't be allowed in any mmorpg. Especially since it goes against the very intention and spirit of these social systems.
Don't want to play ball and take part in the specifically designed social aspects of an mmorpg ? No problem, but don't expect to be a special snowflake and be able to take advantage of all the perks that specific social aspect of gameplay offers.
I'd even go so far as to limit Fleet creation to those who have subscribed to the game for a minimum of 3 months, or own LTS.
Just feel there needs to be a rebuttal here. But there are enough bad fleets/guilds that working alone so you reap your own rewards for your hard work makes it well worth it. Every item unlocked belongs to me and I have access to it if I so choose. Not I did the work and unlocked 10 items for the fleet and either others were faster to drain those out so you got none. Or lock access to the fleet store so you may not use it at all while you are contributing. When can I be promoted so I can access it? Never.
Most guilds I have seen in games are by definition, Antisocial.
But given the OP stated that they don't like grind, they're likely not going to actually be building their fleet. They can't even throw real-world cash at it, because the fleet projects I've seen (unless the requirements are truly cusomizable by the fleet owner) require more resources than just dill, and stuff which can't be cash-converted purchased like marks: It requires grind. And when someone openly says they don't like doing that, it's hard to believe that, even if the optiion was actually made available, that they would actually undertake it to progress their fleet of one As taylor mentioned, it sounds more like someone wanting extra bank space and a private starbase without paying for it, rather than someone who would actually enjoy building the fleet
Well that to me is, silly. What, they want to just buy the items in the fleets and be done with them?
I can see building a fleet alone. Not skipping all that and having the rewards too.
Originally Posted by pwlaughingtrendy
Network engineers are not ship designers.
Nor should they be. Their ships would look weird.
Dranuur Colony is one reason why Solo Fleets are a very, very bad idea.
Unless of course you're not interested in holding progression. Which makes me wonder...
What's to be gained by being in a fleet of 1 ?
Is it the extra bank space ? (I guess some people are too cheap to buy the extra bank/inventory slots they need, so instead they misuse fleet holdings to circumvent another purchase) ?
Only other reason I can come up with is RP... Which can be done within another "Real" fleet of actual players, who are actually "working together" towards a goal. Like what was envisioned by the dev team when they implemented the Fleet system.
"Solo fleet" defeats the very purpose and intention of fleets. Not only that, but it also dilutes the player base even further.
All this because some antisocial gamers expect all the fleet holdings to play within, without committing to the community at all.
Or they just want the extra bank space they're too cheap to pay for.
What I would do however, (for those who are serious about the RP aspects that solo fleets can provide or just really want fleet holdings of their own) would be to allow anyone in sector space to fly up to a fleet holding location and enter the maps, look around at full tiered holdings/RP at whatever holding they like.
Of course there would be no vendors or bank/mail/exchange, nor tailor, No bank space. Nothing but the maps to visit and look around/hang out.
I think that's fair. They could pretend they own the locations.
I'd even offer a purchasable "Fleet Name Tag" in the c-store for those who want to have a fleet tag they can customize (while not being in a Real fleet).
What's not fair; is solo fleets circumventing an intentionally designed "social aspect" of a mmorpg for their own advantage/gain(free fleet bank).
Solo Fleet/Guild is an oxymoron as stated earlier in the thread. And shouldn't be allowed in any mmorpg. Especially since it goes against the very intention and spirit of these social systems.
Don't want to play ball and take part in the specifically designed social aspects of an mmorpg ? No problem, but don't expect to be a special snowflake and be able to take advantage of all the perks that specific social aspect of gameplay offers.
I'd even go so far as to limit Fleet creation to those who have subscribed to the game for a minimum of 3 months, or own LTS.
Just feel there needs to be a rebuttal here. But there are enough bad fleets/guilds that working alone so you reap your own rewards for your hard work makes it well worth it. Every item unlocked belongs to me and I have access to it if I so choose. Not I did the work and unlocked 10 items for the fleet and either others were faster to drain those out so you got none. Or lock access to the fleet store so you may not use it at all while you are contributing. When can I be promoted so I can access it? Never.
Most guilds I have seen in games are by definition, Antisocial.
Ehh yeah okay.. I understand the "Bad" Leadership thing.
But, any fleet that operates like you describe would have trouble keeping good recruits around anyway. So in the end they're just sabotaging themselves and their holding progression.
They may get an immediate bump in contributions by taking advantage of a new recruit... but at some point, in the long run, that type of behavior and restrictions will only lead to an empty roster, and unfinished holdings.
What's the point of sticking around with a group like that ?
It's not like you give up your FC if you decide to leave a fleet. So there's no point in sticking around if you find yourself in such a situation.
There's plenty of good fleets around in game which would gladly take players in and make a new recruit feel welcomed and valued.
Don't even have to look far or wide, they're all around. Many of them are here commenting in this thread offering membership/friendship.
Personally, I know people from many different fleets in game, and I'd gladly join any of them if I wasn't already involved with a good fleet.
There are literally hundreds of good quality/fair practice fleets out there. There's even a fleet recruitment page on these forums.
So at some point, part of the onus is on the individual to know when to get out of a bad situation.
I can understand if someone would go from "bad fleet" to "bad fleet" to "bad fleet" over and over again... but with so many good reputation fleets with minimal/no restrictions out there, I find it hard to believe that its such a chore to find one that treats its members fairly.. Its a bit of a stretch using bad leadership as an excuse all the time.
Granted it can happen.... But I don't think its as common as some people make it out to be.
Dranuur Colony is one reason why Solo Fleets are a very, very bad idea.
Unless of course you're not interested in holding progression. Which makes me wonder...
What's to be gained by being in a fleet of 1 ?
Is it the extra bank space ? (I guess some people are too cheap to buy the extra bank/inventory slots they need, so instead they misuse fleet holdings to circumvent another purchase) ?
Only other reason I can come up with is RP... Which can be done within another "Real" fleet of actual players, who are actually "working together" towards a goal. Like what was envisioned by the dev team when they implemented the Fleet system.
"Solo fleet" defeats the very purpose and intention of fleets. Not only that, but it also dilutes the player base even further.
All this because some antisocial gamers expect all the fleet holdings to play within, without committing to the community at all.
Or they just want the extra bank space they're too cheap to pay for.
What I would do however, (for those who are serious about the RP aspects that solo fleets can provide or just really want fleet holdings of their own) would be to allow anyone in sector space to fly up to a fleet holding location and enter the maps, look around at full tiered holdings/RP at whatever holding they like.
Of course there would be no vendors or bank/mail/exchange, nor tailor, No bank space. Nothing but the maps to visit and look around/hang out.
I think that's fair. They could pretend they own the locations.
I'd even offer a purchasable "Fleet Name Tag" in the c-store for those who want to have a fleet tag they can customize (while not being in a Real fleet).
What's not fair; is solo fleets circumventing an intentionally designed "social aspect" of a mmorpg for their own advantage/gain(free fleet bank).
Solo Fleet/Guild is an oxymoron as stated earlier in the thread. And shouldn't be allowed in any mmorpg. Especially since it goes against the very intention and spirit of these social systems.
Don't want to play ball and take part in the specifically designed social aspects of an mmorpg ? No problem, but don't expect to be a special snowflake and be able to take advantage of all the perks that specific social aspect of gameplay offers.
I'd even go so far as to limit Fleet creation to those who have subscribed to the game for a minimum of 3 months, or own LTS.
Just feel there needs to be a rebuttal here. But there are enough bad fleets/guilds that working alone so you reap your own rewards for your hard work makes it well worth it. Every item unlocked belongs to me and I have access to it if I so choose. Not I did the work and unlocked 10 items for the fleet and either others were faster to drain those out so you got none. Or lock access to the fleet store so you may not use it at all while you are contributing. When can I be promoted so I can access it? Never.
Most guilds I have seen in games are by definition, Antisocial.
Ehh yeah okay.. I understand the "Bad" Leadership thing.
But, any fleet that operates like you describe would have trouble keeping good recruits around anyway. So in the end they're just sabotaging themselves and their holding progression.
They may get an immediate bump in contributions by taking advantage of a new recruit... but at some point, in the long run, that type of behavior and restrictions will only lead to an empty roster, and unfinished holdings.
What's the point of sticking around with a group like that ?
It's not like you give up your FC if you decide to leave a fleet. So there's no point in sticking around if you find yourself in such a situation.
There's plenty of good fleets around in game which would gladly take players in and make a new recruit feel welcomed and valued.
Don't even have to look far or wide, they're all around. Many of them are here commenting in this thread offering membership/friendship.
Personally, I know people from many different fleets in game, and I'd gladly join any of them if I wasn't already involved with a good fleet.
There are literally hundreds of good quality/fair practice fleets out there. There's even a fleet recruitment page on these forums.
So at some point, part of the onus is on the individual to know when to get out of a bad situation.
I can understand if someone would go from "bad fleet" to "bad fleet" to "bad fleet" over and over again... but with so many good reputation fleets with minimal/no restrictions out there, I find it hard to believe that its such a chore to find one that treats its members fairly.. Its a bit of a stretch using bad leadership as an excuse all the time.
Granted it can happen.... But I don't think its as common as some people make it out to be.
The "bad leadership" argument is just a strawmen argument...if you actually manage to hop from one psycho fleet to the next, some soul searching would be appropriate. And yes, there are far more reasonably normal fleets out there than psycho fleets.
But we might have it all wrong here... after all if people claim that this game is actually a single player game by design and only is called an MMO for "marketing" reasons and that interacting with people in an MMO should not be "forced" onto people, the crazies might not be the fleets they have joined after all. Just a thought, though.
Yes, you should be able to start a fleet with just one player...as long as it came with a disclaimer you had to accept, saying the fleet holdings are designed for large groups and you're not allowed to complain it's "too expensive" to do it alone.
Do you realize how many storage fleets this would produce?
Yes, you should be able to start a fleet with just one player...
why? what would be the reasoning for it? "player demand" certainly isn't one, since you can have a solo fleet anyway already.
it definately goes against the MMO aspect of this MMORPG. the question is: "does a (build in) solo fleet feature make any sense in an MMORPG?" if your answer to that is "yes" you are besically asking for a single player Star Trek themed RPG...that is in fact a nice idea for a game, but it ain't what STO is, or is supposed to be.
Why not? What purpose does it serve to require players to jump through hoops to create a fleet?
Because this is an MMORPG, that is supposed to be enjoyed and played with other people? And a fleet is by its very definition an effort of many people coming together to do something a single person can't do or isn't suppoed to do? And giving an easy option to create a "fleet" (not really a fleet then) would completely contradict the very idea of an MMORPG?
I mean it really can't be too hard to comprehend that if you give single player options for EVERYTHING in the game, the game is no longer an MMORPG.
Asking for a single player fleet option in STO is like asking for a trailer hook on your lamborghini. You can probably have one, but you are not at all supposed to tow something with it.
just sayin though, you answered my question with a question (to avoid to give a comprehensive reason for your opinion, I assume) that was already answered in the other 2 sentences I wrote below my question.
As you're putting it as a question, I'll give my perspective accordingly: No, it's not a multiplayer game. It's a game which allows for cooperative play, and offers enticements to that end to create said community feel (fleets) But IMO it's not a multiplayer game, because the storyline content is all single player. There's not one levelling mission which requires cooperative play. Some, such as on Kobalistan, are definitely easier with other players partnering up, but they're not an essential requirement to playing the mission, and the mission isn't loaded as an instance for those two (or more) players.
On a personal level, I'm not really one for PvP, but I can understand how some may want to test/show off their build against another player rather than an AI-Controlled NPC. In that regard, I think PvP should be better balanced, and available to all players on all levels, but only on a level-appropriate matching, and I think that would be enjoyable (for some). Same with the queues. That's not storyline-mandated stuff, but Endgame shenanigans.
They went with the MMORPG format, because it fits the concept, but rather than saying it is a multi-player game, I would say that it is a game with multiple players playing simultaneously, rather than cooperatively, and IMO, it is the in-game level of cooperation which defines something as 'multiplayer' or not, not just the title which can be applied to it
Fair enough, the story is actually single player driven, though not exclusive to single player. But your last paragraph is literally just semantics.
"I would say that it is a game with multiple players playing simultaneously"
With that definition for a multiplayer game with single player options, there literally would not be a single MMO(RPG) out there that isn't that way. Every MMORPG has parts that are doable as a single player (or even intended to be done solo), they are still without a question MMORPGs and follow basic gameplay rules of an MMORPG. In other words, your definition does not exclude STO out of a list of MMORPGs, your definitions fits them all anyway.
Absolutely it's a matter of semantics What I'm saying, is that STO is a single player game (as evidenced by the mission content) which allows for cooperative play, either at particular times, or in specific Endgame content, rather than being a multiplayer game which requires cooperative play on all missions.
The term MMORPG can fit, but only as a loose catch-all for the general type of game, rather than a true description of the content
Again, name another MMORPG that has NO content that is doable alone. Your definition, which I called semantics, applies to each and every game out there labeled an MMORPG. There simply is no MMORPG that absoultely requires you to do each and every aspekt of the game, especially story, in a group.
I don't need to name another game, because we're not twlking about other gwmes, we're talking about this game. (I also don't play any other such games, so I can't speak from experience, and won't just pull names out my aft-shuttlebay to satisfy a misleading question.
As I said in my edit, it's the difference between 'multiplayer' and 'multiple players'. STO has multiple players, of a game which the mission content is all single-player, but has some instances allowing cooperative play. IMO, a multiplayer game, would require several players to be partnering up on missions all the time, as in, you and I decide to play Stop The Signal together in a private instance. That's multiplayer. Where if you happen to see Kek running round Kobalistan blasting on fools, so decide to follow him (because Ellie Flores has a nice aft-shuttlebay) and it makes the level easier for us both to complete, that's multiple players.
I guess it depends on one's understanding of what an MMORPG is, and how the industry would actually define the term to mean Personally, I understand it to mean multiplayer requirements, rather than just multiple players. Then again, I'm not a big gamer, so I may be misunderstanding the term, in which case, feel free to take my opinion with a pinch of salt
I guess not needing to name examples is quite convenient in debates...your opinion is above facts after all when you can make such convincing arguments and not at all use semantic maneuvers like: "the difference between 'multiplayer' and 'multiple players'", (/sarcasm)
What's the relevance of naming other games?
Why do you want me to name other games?
We're not talking about other games, we're talking about this game. Star Trek Online.
How other games, even similar ones, is structured and constructed and interracted with, is irrelevant to this game: A game with content, the majority of which you have already acknowledged, which is single player. You've already agreed that the levelling missions (the majority of the games' content) is single player, so why are you now demanding additional game names, as if that holds some secret to the genre?
"I guess it depends on one's understanding of what an MMORPG is..." yes, so you may not know it, but words have meanings attached to them, so people can communicate and understand each other.
"so I may be misunderstanding the term" ... obviously
So what's the standard definition of MMORPG?
My understanding of the meaning, is 'Massively Multiplayer Online Role Playing Game'.
Is that correct?
Again, IMO, I believe there is a difference between a game offering the option for cooperative play to multiple players (as STO does) and a game requiring multiplayer interaction (meaning two or more players having to undertake the missions together as a group each time, every time, and with no option to play the content as a solo player)
If you disagree with that opinion, fair enough. But remember that your disagreement does not invalidate the opinion. Again, I can't name examples of games which I've no knowledge of; I do however, know how STO's content is participated in, and also how it is not participated in. There's optional content for multiple players to play cooperatively at Endgame, and a few battlezones where the option of cooperative play exists while levelling up. But all the storyline missions, are single player; thus my opinion that STO is a game with multiple players, rather than a multiplayer game
"I fight for the Users!" - Tron
"I was here before you, I will be here after you are gone. I am here, regardless of your acknowledgement or acceptance..." - The Truth
Dranuur Colony is one reason why Solo Fleets are a very, very bad idea.
Unless of course you're not interested in holding progression. Which makes me wonder...
What's to be gained by being in a fleet of 1 ?
Is it the extra bank space ? (I guess some people are too cheap to buy the extra bank/inventory slots they need, so instead they misuse fleet holdings to circumvent another purchase) ?
Only other reason I can come up with is RP... Which can be done within another "Real" fleet of actual players, who are actually "working together" towards a goal. Like what was envisioned by the dev team when they implemented the Fleet system.
"Solo fleet" defeats the very purpose and intention of fleets. Not only that, but it also dilutes the player base even further.
All this because some antisocial gamers expect all the fleet holdings to play within, without committing to the community at all.
Or they just want the extra bank space they're too cheap to pay for.
What I would do however, (for those who are serious about the RP aspects that solo fleets can provide or just really want fleet holdings of their own) would be to allow anyone in sector space to fly up to a fleet holding location and enter the maps, look around at full tiered holdings/RP at whatever holding they like.
Of course there would be no vendors or bank/mail/exchange, nor tailor, No bank space. Nothing but the maps to visit and look around/hang out.
I think that's fair. They could pretend they own the locations.
I'd even offer a purchasable "Fleet Name Tag" in the c-store for those who want to have a fleet tag they can customize (while not being in a Real fleet).
What's not fair; is solo fleets circumventing an intentionally designed "social aspect" of a mmorpg for their own advantage/gain(free fleet bank).
Solo Fleet/Guild is an oxymoron as stated earlier in the thread. And shouldn't be allowed in any mmorpg. Especially since it goes against the very intention and spirit of these social systems.
Don't want to play ball and take part in the specifically designed social aspects of an mmorpg ? No problem, but don't expect to be a special snowflake and be able to take advantage of all the perks that specific social aspect of gameplay offers.
I'd even go so far as to limit Fleet creation to those who have subscribed to the game for a minimum of 3 months, or own LTS.
Just feel there needs to be a rebuttal here. But there are enough bad fleets/guilds that working alone so you reap your own rewards for your hard work makes it well worth it. Every item unlocked belongs to me and I have access to it if I so choose. Not I did the work and unlocked 10 items for the fleet and either others were faster to drain those out so you got none. Or lock access to the fleet store so you may not use it at all while you are contributing. When can I be promoted so I can access it? Never.
Most guilds I have seen in games are by definition, Antisocial.
But given the OP stated that they don't like grind, they're likely not going to actually be building their fleet. They can't even throw real-world cash at it, because the fleet projects I've seen (unless the requirements are truly cusomizable by the fleet owner) require more resources than just dill, and stuff which can't be cash-converted purchased like marks: It requires grind. And when someone openly says they don't like doing that, it's hard to believe that, even if the optiion was actually made available, that they would actually undertake it to progress their fleet of one As taylor mentioned, it sounds more like someone wanting extra bank space and a private starbase without paying for it, rather than someone who would actually enjoy building the fleet
Well that to me is, silly. What, they want to just buy the items in the fleets and be done with them?
I can see building a fleet alone. Not skipping all that and having the rewards too.
I can't speak for the OP's motives or intentions.
All I can say, is that they said that they didn't like grinding.
Fleet building requires grinding, which can't be bought simply by throwing cash at it.
So my belief, is that even if they were to be able to set up a private fleet, they likely wouldn't do much with it due to the grind involved. So for the hassles of getting a private fleet, they may as well just join a decent fleet, contribute their resources, and have access to decent acquisition opportunities in exchange
"I fight for the Users!" - Tron
"I was here before you, I will be here after you are gone. I am here, regardless of your acknowledgement or acceptance..." - The Truth
The "bad leadership" argument is just a strawmen argument...if you actually manage to hop from one psycho fleet to the next, some soul searching would be appropriate. And yes, there are far more reasonably normal fleets out there than psycho fleets.
But we might have it all wrong here... after all if people claim that this game is actually a single player game by design and only is called an MMO for "marketing" reasons and that interacting with people in an MMO should not be "forced" onto people, the crazies might not be the fleets they have joined after all. Just a thought, though.
I think this quote summarizes the point well made above regarding this whole thread
Yes, you should be able to start a fleet with just one player...as long as it came with a disclaimer you had to accept, saying the fleet holdings are designed for large groups and you're not allowed to complain it's "too expensive" to do it alone.
Do you realize how many storage fleets this would produce?
Yes, you should be able to start a fleet with just one player...
why? what would be the reasoning for it? "player demand" certainly isn't one, since you can have a solo fleet anyway already.
it definately goes against the MMO aspect of this MMORPG. the question is: "does a (build in) solo fleet feature make any sense in an MMORPG?" if your answer to that is "yes" you are besically asking for a single player Star Trek themed RPG...that is in fact a nice idea for a game, but it ain't what STO is, or is supposed to be.
Why not? What purpose does it serve to require players to jump through hoops to create a fleet?
Because this is an MMORPG, that is supposed to be enjoyed and played with other people? And a fleet is by its very definition an effort of many people coming together to do something a single person can't do or isn't suppoed to do? And giving an easy option to create a "fleet" (not really a fleet then) would completely contradict the very idea of an MMORPG?
I mean it really can't be too hard to comprehend that if you give single player options for EVERYTHING in the game, the game is no longer an MMORPG.
Asking for a single player fleet option in STO is like asking for a trailer hook on your lamborghini. You can probably have one, but you are not at all supposed to tow something with it.
just sayin though, you answered my question with a question (to avoid to give a comprehensive reason for your opinion, I assume) that was already answered in the other 2 sentences I wrote below my question.
That's not an answer, though. I take that means you don't actually know a useful purpose for requiring players to jump through hoops to create fleets, which is exactly what I expected. "But I don't like it" is not a useful reason.
I would also say that an arbitrary game-mechanical restriction is pretty much the worst conceivable reason to do anything as a group.
Identifying a game as an MMORPG is not just an "arbitrary game mechanical restriction", it is at the core of what defines a game. It fundamentaly impacts design decissions, such as forming and developing a fleet. Asking other players in an MMORPG is not "jumping through hoops", it is a central part of the gaming experience in an MMORPG!!
Also, my reasons are quite valid, you just happen to disagree or blatantly ignore them to avoid actually debating them. I listed a few more reasons btw. none of them was "I don't like it".
Identifying a game as an MMORPG is not game mechanics, it's marketing. Requiring 5 playesr in a team before one of them is allowed perform an action that requires no input from the other players is an arbitrary game-mechanical restriction. Asking other players is jumping through hoops, if asking other players does not serve a useful purpose.
And no, you didn't list any reasons beyond your personal opinion of how the game is "supposed to be enjoyed."
Well, I guess that playing with other people was one "minor" (/sarcasm) design idea they wanted to implement when they made this "massive multiplayer online roleplaying game". But it seems words don't really mean anything anymore if they contradict a subjective opinion.
It's just marketing...they basically said: "Hey lets make a single player game around Star Trek, but because MMORPGs are popular right now, and monthly subscription is hip we advertise it as an MMORPG" yes, sure, that's what they had in mind /sarcasm
I love how you refute the multiplayer content (like 50 or so missions) of this game as "arbitrary game-mechanic restriction". like you literally see the content that requires other people in an MMORPG as a nuisance. Like the game forcing you to group up with folks is a punishment or a failed game mechanic! If it wasn't actually your honest opinion, it would be a funny joke.
"Meh, not again group content. What a **** MMO"
I love how you call 4 players standing around while one player talks to an NPC "multiplayer content."
Again, interacting with other players serves a useful puprose in a MMORPG.
Only if those other players actually have a useful purpose in the "interaction," as opposed to just being there because the game says so.
you know, you might not be familiar with "human interaction" but those 5 people were talking to each other before, maybe even played missions together and decided to form a fleet, because they seemed to "like" or "get along" with each other. I know, must be a completely foreign concept to you, but those things happen in an MMO...by design. Single player games don't do that.
The game "says so" is the developers way of offering you a possiblity to interact with other players. So even the most socially handicapped among us might find a friend or two in this online world.
People who want to talk to each other in the game have plenty of opportunity to do so, as well as more interesting things to do together than attending a meaningless hoop-jumping exercise. And of course, people who don't want to do that...don't want it.
If someone actually wants to bring an entourage to perform a simple administrative function, they can do so at will. Other people would rather just get things done without unnecessary hassle and don't appreciate being forced to bring an entourage for no good reason. Nobody benefits from having an entourage be required.
Really, what are you trying to defend? Do you really believe someone thinks "oh, how wonderful it is I have to get 4 people to come here and wait while I talk to this NPC?" Who are you to dictate "human interaction" to other players?
I am not sure what your goal is for owning a solitary fleet.
A friend and I created a fleet a long time ago...we wanted to play together. He spent most of his time teaching and showing me how to work a computer for playing a video game. We could not be bothered with distractions caused by drama and intrigues of "socializing" on the internet. I get easily distracted by such things. LOL!
Building the "holdings" was completely a sideline. We are close to 5 years in, and still not finished. Even though we are in an Armada. For much of the time, we were sitting in empty buildings...I don't believe you can even transwarp between holdings without leveling up then buying transwarp unlocks.
IF your goal for having a Fleet is just to have access to the "goodies"....making one by yourself is a bad idea.
You will spend more of your resources and time building Tiers to your Fleet Holdings....than it will cost you to find a good casual fleet that accommodates your play style and has access already. Most only run projects to make Fleet Credits for someone.
See....it is a chore to do the building, really. But someone has to...but not really....not any more. It would be likely the Fleet will have the Provisions...and you will be sent off to Public Service channels to get fleet invites to another Fleet's completed holding to make your purchases.
IF your goal is to have projects to fill up because you are out of content, bored and have nothing to spend buku amounts of game currency on.....and filling bars endlessly is a challenge.... then go for it.
Good luck and plot out at least 5+ years for this endeavor....10+ years if you want to attempt that Colony, too.
Tip: Finish the Dilithium Mine first.
Post edited by where2r1 on
"Spend your life doing strange things with weird people." -- UNK
“Tell me and I forget. Teach me and I remember. Involve me and I learn.” -- Benjamin Franklin
Yes, you should be able to start a fleet with just one player...as long as it came with a disclaimer you had to accept, saying the fleet holdings are designed for large groups and you're not allowed to complain it's "too expensive" to do it alone.
Do you realize how many storage fleets this would produce?
Yes, you should be able to start a fleet with just one player...
why? what would be the reasoning for it? "player demand" certainly isn't one, since you can have a solo fleet anyway already.
it definately goes against the MMO aspect of this MMORPG. the question is: "does a (build in) solo fleet feature make any sense in an MMORPG?" if your answer to that is "yes" you are besically asking for a single player Star Trek themed RPG...that is in fact a nice idea for a game, but it ain't what STO is, or is supposed to be.
Why not? What purpose does it serve to require players to jump through hoops to create a fleet?
Because this is an MMORPG, that is supposed to be enjoyed and played with other people? And a fleet is by its very definition an effort of many people coming together to do something a single person can't do or isn't suppoed to do? And giving an easy option to create a "fleet" (not really a fleet then) would completely contradict the very idea of an MMORPG?
I mean it really can't be too hard to comprehend that if you give single player options for EVERYTHING in the game, the game is no longer an MMORPG.
Asking for a single player fleet option in STO is like asking for a trailer hook on your lamborghini. You can probably have one, but you are not at all supposed to tow something with it.
just sayin though, you answered my question with a question (to avoid to give a comprehensive reason for your opinion, I assume) that was already answered in the other 2 sentences I wrote below my question.
As you're putting it as a question, I'll give my perspective accordingly: No, it's not a multiplayer game. It's a game which allows for cooperative play, and offers enticements to that end to create said community feel (fleets) But IMO it's not a multiplayer game, because the storyline content is all single player. There's not one levelling mission which requires cooperative play. Some, such as on Kobalistan, are definitely easier with other players partnering up, but they're not an essential requirement to playing the mission, and the mission isn't loaded as an instance for those two (or more) players.
On a personal level, I'm not really one for PvP, but I can understand how some may want to test/show off their build against another player rather than an AI-Controlled NPC. In that regard, I think PvP should be better balanced, and available to all players on all levels, but only on a level-appropriate matching, and I think that would be enjoyable (for some). Same with the queues. That's not storyline-mandated stuff, but Endgame shenanigans.
They went with the MMORPG format, because it fits the concept, but rather than saying it is a multi-player game, I would say that it is a game with multiple players playing simultaneously, rather than cooperatively, and IMO, it is the in-game level of cooperation which defines something as 'multiplayer' or not, not just the title which can be applied to it
Fair enough, the story is actually single player driven, though not exclusive to single player. But your last paragraph is literally just semantics.
"I would say that it is a game with multiple players playing simultaneously"
With that definition for a multiplayer game with single player options, there literally would not be a single MMO(RPG) out there that isn't that way. Every MMORPG has parts that are doable as a single player (or even intended to be done solo), they are still without a question MMORPGs and follow basic gameplay rules of an MMORPG. In other words, your definition does not exclude STO out of a list of MMORPGs, your definitions fits them all anyway.
Absolutely it's a matter of semantics What I'm saying, is that STO is a single player game (as evidenced by the mission content) which allows for cooperative play, either at particular times, or in specific Endgame content, rather than being a multiplayer game which requires cooperative play on all missions.
The term MMORPG can fit, but only as a loose catch-all for the general type of game, rather than a true description of the content
Again, name another MMORPG that has NO content that is doable alone. Your definition, which I called semantics, applies to each and every game out there labeled an MMORPG. There simply is no MMORPG that absoultely requires you to do each and every aspekt of the game, especially story, in a group.
I don't need to name another game, because we're not twlking about other gwmes, we're talking about this game. (I also don't play any other such games, so I can't speak from experience, and won't just pull names out my aft-shuttlebay to satisfy a misleading question.
As I said in my edit, it's the difference between 'multiplayer' and 'multiple players'. STO has multiple players, of a game which the mission content is all single-player, but has some instances allowing cooperative play. IMO, a multiplayer game, would require several players to be partnering up on missions all the time, as in, you and I decide to play Stop The Signal together in a private instance. That's multiplayer. Where if you happen to see Kek running round Kobalistan blasting on fools, so decide to follow him (because Ellie Flores has a nice aft-shuttlebay) and it makes the level easier for us both to complete, that's multiple players.
I guess it depends on one's understanding of what an MMORPG is, and how the industry would actually define the term to mean Personally, I understand it to mean multiplayer requirements, rather than just multiple players. Then again, I'm not a big gamer, so I may be misunderstanding the term, in which case, feel free to take my opinion with a pinch of salt
I guess not needing to name examples is quite convenient in debates...your opinion is above facts after all when you can make such convincing arguments and not at all use semantic maneuvers like: "the difference between 'multiplayer' and 'multiple players'", (/sarcasm)
"I guess it depends on one's understanding of what an MMORPG is..." yes, so you may not know it, but words have meanings attached to them, so people can communicate and understand each other.
"so I may be misunderstanding the term" ... obviously
Actually, you're both wrong. MMORPG stands for Many Men Online Role Playing Girls. :P Okay, LOL, as you were.
What benefits would you get from a 1 person fleet?
Unless you are just grinding mats 24/7 you aren't going to build any fleet locations and unlock fleet gear.
You get a fleet bank, but you can just as easy mail your alts stuff.
Other than just having a Fleet Name attached to your toons, I don't see any substantial benefits, other than not having to fight to get your Fleet Marks turned into Fleet Credits.
Have to agree with the 'first responder' here.
Also, the larger issue is that, at this point, there's no point even starting a Fleet at all, as y'all be way too far behind on the rest; rudely put, no one's gonna help you struggle for the next 3 years, when they can just easily join an existing Fleet.
Comments
"I was here before you, I will be here after you are gone. I am here, regardless of your acknowledgement or acceptance..." - The Truth
I had a run in with a super bad fleet that demanded resources but only the fleet owner could get any gear from. Next fleet was so full I could not earn fleet credits on any projects.
So I made a few free accounts on old ESD. Had four of them follow me to the fleet registrar. And made a fleet for myself. Dumped all but one alt account. That account exists solely to invite my alts into my Fed fleet. It can be slow levelling the fleet as I am unfocused on the specific tasks or get distracted by new shiney things. But it is certainly doable. My only slow down is earning the often thousands of Fleet Marks needed for the upgrades.[/quote]
Hmm, might be worth a try
"I was here before you, I will be here after you are gone. I am here, regardless of your acknowledgement or acceptance..." - The Truth
On a personal level, I'm not really one for PvP, but I can understand how some may want to test/show off their build against another player rather than an AI-Controlled NPC. In that regard, I think PvP should be better balanced, and available to all players on all levels, but only on a level-appropriate matching, and I think that would be enjoyable (for some). Same with the queues. That's not storyline-mandated stuff, but Endgame shenanigans.
They went with the MMORPG format, because it fits the concept, but rather than saying it is a multi-player game, I would say that it is a game with multiple players playing simultaneously, rather than cooperatively, and IMO, it is the in-game level of cooperation which defines something as 'multiplayer' or not, not just the title which can be applied to it
"I was here before you, I will be here after you are gone. I am here, regardless of your acknowledgement or acceptance..." - The Truth
I would also say that an arbitrary game-mechanical restriction is pretty much the worst conceivable reason to do anything as a group.
Identifying a game as an MMORPG is not just an "arbitrary game mechanical restriction", it is at the core of what defines a game. It fundamentaly impacts design decissions, such as forming and developing a fleet. Asking other players in an MMORPG is not "jumping through hoops", it is a central part of the gaming experience in an MMORPG!!
Also, my reasons are quite valid, you just happen to disagree or blatantly ignore them to avoid actually debating them. I listed a few more reasons btw. none of them was "I don't like it".
Fair enough, the story is actually single player driven, though not exclusive to single player. But your last paragraph is literally just semantics.
"I would say that it is a game with multiple players playing simultaneously"
With that definition for a multiplayer game with single player options, there literally would not be a single MMO(RPG) out there that isn't that way. Every MMORPG has parts that are doable as a single player (or even intended to be done solo), they are still without a question MMORPGs and follow basic gameplay rules of an MMORPG. In other words, your definition does not exclude STO out of a list of MMORPGs, your definitions fits them all anyway.
The term MMORPG can fit, but only as a loose catch-all for the general type of game, rather than a true description of the content
"I was here before you, I will be here after you are gone. I am here, regardless of your acknowledgement or acceptance..." - The Truth
Again, name another MMORPG that has NO content that is doable alone. Your definition, which I called semantics, applies to each and every game out there labeled an MMORPG. There simply is no MMORPG that absoultely requires you to do each and every aspekt of the game, especially story, in a group.
You are trying to sell bananas here as apples, by simply calling them elongated yelklow apples!
And no, you didn't list any reasons beyond your personal opinion of how the game is "supposed to be enjoyed."
As I said in my edit, it's the difference between 'multiplayer' and 'multiple players'. STO has multiple players, of a game which the mission content is all single-player, but has some instances allowing cooperative play. IMO, a multiplayer game, would require several players to be partnering up on missions all the time, as in, you and I decide to play Stop The Signal together in a private instance. That's multiplayer. Where if you happen to see Kek running round Kobalistan blasting on fools, so decide to follow him (because Ellie Flores has a nice aft-shuttlebay) and it makes the level easier for us both to complete, that's multiple players.
I guess it depends on one's understanding of what an MMORPG is, and how the industry would actually define the term to mean
"I was here before you, I will be here after you are gone. I am here, regardless of your acknowledgement or acceptance..." - The Truth
Unless of course you're not interested in holding progression. Which makes me wonder...
What's to be gained by being in a fleet of 1 ?
Is it the extra bank space ? (I guess some people are too cheap to buy the extra bank/inventory slots they need, so instead they misuse fleet holdings to circumvent another purchase) ?
Only other reason I can come up with is RP... Which can be done within another "Real" fleet of actual players, who are actually "working together" towards a goal. Like what was envisioned by the dev team when they implemented the Fleet system.
"Solo fleet" defeats the very purpose and intention of fleets. Not only that, but it also dilutes the player base even further.
All this because some antisocial gamers expect all the fleet holdings to play within, without committing to the community at all.
Or they just want the extra bank space they're too cheap to pay for.
What I would do however, (for those who are serious about the RP aspects that solo fleets can provide or just really want fleet holdings of their own) would be to allow anyone in sector space to fly up to a fleet holding location and enter the maps, look around at full tiered holdings/RP at whatever holding they like.
Of course there would be no vendors or bank/mail/exchange, nor tailor, No bank space. Nothing but the maps to visit and look around/hang out.
I think that's fair. They could pretend they own the locations.
I'd even offer a purchasable "Fleet Name Tag" in the c-store for those who want to have a fleet tag they can customize (while not being in a Real fleet).
What's not fair; is solo fleets circumventing an intentionally designed "social aspect" of a mmorpg for their own advantage/gain(free fleet bank).
Solo Fleet/Guild is an oxymoron as stated earlier in the thread. And shouldn't be allowed in any mmorpg. Especially since it goes against the very intention and spirit of these social systems.
Don't want to play ball and take part in the specifically designed social aspects of an mmorpg ? No problem, but don't expect to be a special snowflake and be able to take advantage of all the perks that specific social aspect of gameplay offers.
I'd even go so far as to limit Fleet creation to those who have subscribed to the game for a minimum of 3 months, or own LTS.
Well, I guess that playing with other people was one "minor" (/sarcasm) design idea they wanted to implement when they made this "massive multiplayer online roleplaying game". But it seems words don't really mean anything anymore if they contradict a subjective opinion.
It's just marketing...they basically said: "Hey lets make a single player game around Star Trek, but because MMORPGs are popular right now, and monthly subscription is hip we advertise it as an MMORPG" yes, sure, that's what they had in mind /sarcasm
I love how you refute the multiplayer content (like 50 or so missions) of this game as "arbitrary game-mechanic restriction". like you literally see the content that requires other people in an MMORPG as a nuisance. Like the game forcing you to group up with folks is a punishment or a failed game mechanic! If it wasn't actually your honest opinion, it would be a funny joke.
"Meh, not again group content. What a TRIBBLE MMO"
Again, interacting with other players serves a useful puprose in a MMORPG...it is one of the "M" after all.
I guess what you are looking for is a MSORPG...massive single player online roleplaying game.
Identifying a game as a MMORPG is not game mechanics, but is impacts game mechanics heavily. OFcourse I specifically wrote it as such: "It fundamentaly impacts design decissions...", but I guess you stopped actually reading my comments on page 2 of this thread.
I guess not needing to name examples is quite convenient in debates...your opinion is above facts after all when you can make such convincing arguments and not at all use semantic maneuvers like: "the difference between 'multiplayer' and 'multiple players'", (/sarcasm)
"I guess it depends on one's understanding of what an MMORPG is..." yes, so you may not know it, but words have meanings attached to them, so people can communicate and understand each other.
"so I may be misunderstanding the term" ... obviously
"I was here before you, I will be here after you are gone. I am here, regardless of your acknowledgement or acceptance..." - The Truth
Just feel there needs to be a rebuttal here. But there are enough bad fleets/guilds that working alone so you reap your own rewards for your hard work makes it well worth it. Every item unlocked belongs to me and I have access to it if I so choose. Not I did the work and unlocked 10 items for the fleet and either others were faster to drain those out so you got none. Or lock access to the fleet store so you may not use it at all while you are contributing. When can I be promoted so I can access it? Never.
Most guilds I have seen in games are by definition, Antisocial.
Originally Posted by pwlaughingtrendy
Network engineers are not ship designers.
Nor should they be. Their ships would look weird.
"I was here before you, I will be here after you are gone. I am here, regardless of your acknowledgement or acceptance..." - The Truth
Only if those other players actually have a useful purpose in the "interaction," as opposed to just being there because the game says so.
Wonder if any of those who want to go solo ever checked tribble for themselves and find out whats coming and that it will be virtually impossible for anyone doing a solo fleet anymore? sorry NOT fleets but Cryptic will make the solo fleets an extinct species...
you know, you might not be familiar with "human interaction" but those 5 people were talking to each other before, maybe even played missions together and decided to form a fleet, because they seemed to "like" or "get along" with each other. I know, must be a completely foreign concept to you, but those things happen in an MMO...by design. Single player games don't do that.
The game "says so" is the developers way of offering you a possiblity to interact with other players. So even the most socially handicapped among us might find a friend or two in this online world.
Well that to me is, silly. What, they want to just buy the items in the fleets and be done with them?
I can see building a fleet alone. Not skipping all that and having the rewards too.
Originally Posted by pwlaughingtrendy
Network engineers are not ship designers.
Nor should they be. Their ships would look weird.
Ehh yeah okay.. I understand the "Bad" Leadership thing.
But, any fleet that operates like you describe would have trouble keeping good recruits around anyway. So in the end they're just sabotaging themselves and their holding progression.
They may get an immediate bump in contributions by taking advantage of a new recruit... but at some point, in the long run, that type of behavior and restrictions will only lead to an empty roster, and unfinished holdings.
What's the point of sticking around with a group like that ?
It's not like you give up your FC if you decide to leave a fleet. So there's no point in sticking around if you find yourself in such a situation.
There's plenty of good fleets around in game which would gladly take players in and make a new recruit feel welcomed and valued.
Don't even have to look far or wide, they're all around. Many of them are here commenting in this thread offering membership/friendship.
Personally, I know people from many different fleets in game, and I'd gladly join any of them if I wasn't already involved with a good fleet.
There are literally hundreds of good quality/fair practice fleets out there. There's even a fleet recruitment page on these forums.
So at some point, part of the onus is on the individual to know when to get out of a bad situation.
I can understand if someone would go from "bad fleet" to "bad fleet" to "bad fleet" over and over again... but with so many good reputation fleets with minimal/no restrictions out there, I find it hard to believe that its such a chore to find one that treats its members fairly.. Its a bit of a stretch using bad leadership as an excuse all the time.
Granted it can happen.... But I don't think its as common as some people make it out to be.
The "bad leadership" argument is just a strawmen argument...if you actually manage to hop from one psycho fleet to the next, some soul searching would be appropriate. And yes, there are far more reasonably normal fleets out there than psycho fleets.
But we might have it all wrong here... after all if people claim that this game is actually a single player game by design and only is called an MMO for "marketing" reasons and that interacting with people in an MMO should not be "forced" onto people, the crazies might not be the fleets they have joined after all. Just a thought, though.
Why do you want me to name other games?
We're not talking about other games, we're talking about this game. Star Trek Online.
How other games, even similar ones, is structured and constructed and interracted with, is irrelevant to this game: A game with content, the majority of which you have already acknowledged, which is single player. You've already agreed that the levelling missions (the majority of the games' content) is single player, so why are you now demanding additional game names, as if that holds some secret to the genre?
So what's the standard definition of MMORPG?
My understanding of the meaning, is 'Massively Multiplayer Online Role Playing Game'.
Is that correct?
Again, IMO, I believe there is a difference between a game offering the option for cooperative play to multiple players (as STO does) and a game requiring multiplayer interaction (meaning two or more players having to undertake the missions together as a group each time, every time, and with no option to play the content as a solo player)
If you disagree with that opinion, fair enough. But remember that your disagreement does not invalidate the opinion. Again, I can't name examples of games which I've no knowledge of; I do however, know how STO's content is participated in, and also how it is not participated in. There's optional content for multiple players to play cooperatively at Endgame, and a few battlezones where the option of cooperative play exists while levelling up. But all the storyline missions, are single player; thus my opinion that STO is a game with multiple players, rather than a multiplayer game
"I was here before you, I will be here after you are gone. I am here, regardless of your acknowledgement or acceptance..." - The Truth
All I can say, is that they said that they didn't like grinding.
Fleet building requires grinding, which can't be bought simply by throwing cash at it.
So my belief, is that even if they were to be able to set up a private fleet, they likely wouldn't do much with it due to the grind involved. So for the hassles of getting a private fleet, they may as well just join a decent fleet, contribute their resources, and have access to decent acquisition opportunities in exchange
"I was here before you, I will be here after you are gone. I am here, regardless of your acknowledgement or acceptance..." - The Truth
I think this quote summarizes the point well made above regarding this whole thread
If someone actually wants to bring an entourage to perform a simple administrative function, they can do so at will. Other people would rather just get things done without unnecessary hassle and don't appreciate being forced to bring an entourage for no good reason. Nobody benefits from having an entourage be required.
Really, what are you trying to defend? Do you really believe someone thinks "oh, how wonderful it is I have to get 4 people to come here and wait while I talk to this NPC?" Who are you to dictate "human interaction" to other players?
A friend and I created a fleet a long time ago...we wanted to play together. He spent most of his time teaching and showing me how to work a computer for playing a video game. We could not be bothered with distractions caused by drama and intrigues of "socializing" on the internet. I get easily distracted by such things. LOL!
Building the "holdings" was completely a sideline. We are close to 5 years in, and still not finished. Even though we are in an Armada.
IF your goal for having a Fleet is just to have access to the "goodies"....making one by yourself is a bad idea.
You will spend more of your resources and time building Tiers to your Fleet Holdings....than it will cost you to find a good casual fleet that accommodates your play style and has access already. Most only run projects to make Fleet Credits for someone.
See....it is a chore to do the building, really. But someone has to...but not really....not any more. It would be likely the Fleet will have the Provisions...and you will be sent off to Public Service channels to get fleet invites to another Fleet's completed holding to make your purchases.
IF your goal is to have projects to fill up because you are out of content, bored and have nothing to spend buku amounts of game currency on.....and filling bars endlessly is a challenge.... then go for it.
Good luck and plot out at least 5+ years for this endeavor....10+ years if you want to attempt that Colony, too.
Tip: Finish the Dilithium Mine first.
“Tell me and I forget. Teach me and I remember. Involve me and I learn.” -- Benjamin Franklin
Actually, you're both wrong.
Have to agree with the 'first responder' here.
Also, the larger issue is that, at this point, there's no point even starting a Fleet at all, as y'all be way too far behind on the rest; rudely put, no one's gonna help you struggle for the next 3 years, when they can just easily join an existing Fleet.