test content
Logo
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc
What grade would you give STO?
thetruthurts
Member Posts: 22 Arc User
I have 3 questions for the forum community:
1) How long have you been playing?
2) What grade would you give STO?
3) Why do you feel that way?
Thanks in advance for sharing your opinions
1) How long have you been playing?
2) What grade would you give STO?
3) Why do you feel that way?
Thanks in advance for sharing your opinions
Post edited by thetruthurts on
0
Comments
2) B+
3) I don't feel like writing a book here. B+ because it's not the best game I have ever played. It's not even in the top 3, but it has kept me coming back for more pretty consistently for 9 months now, and neither my fun nor enjoyment from the game are waning at this point. I see it entertaining me for months if not years to come. Does it have it's problems ? Oh hell yes it has it's problems. But overall, I'm still playing the game, and I still care enough to talk about it on the forums. So , yeah, B+
2. C+
3. The game lacks polish. Exploration is rubbish. Engine used is terrible. Development seems focused on lock boxes and expensive store items, although it has improved...a little. Game is perpetually bugged and lacks good quality assurance. In some cases, it still feels like a beta. The only bright spots seem to be space combat and visuals.
EDIT: And my oh my, let's not forget how crafting is total crud!
2) B-
3) It's Star trek, it's one of very few trek games that marries both ground and space. It loses a lot on the missed opportunities though, so much unrealised potential that by now will likely go unrealised for the life of the game. I stick around in the hope that it'll get better but my time with MMOG's has jaded me on that hope.
D+
To add, while I do think the game is rendered beautifully, I'm not a fan of the art direction that said planets should be soccer ball-sized orbs covered with dust and surrounded by oreo crumbs. Scaling is my biggest issue with art direction.
However, my biggest disappointment is the heavy-handed monetization of everything, and despite the ridiculous amount of money players are spending on items that have no value, development tends toward more lockbox fluff and grind systems that require uncomfortable amounts of time (starbases).
10/char/above
Okay Nagus, I'll bite.
1. Since Beta (technically, haven't played in god knows how long).
2. F for fail.
3. Wasn't what was said on the tin. Lots of areas been neglected. The EP talks too much spin and has "deceived" too many times. Game turned from being poor before f2p to now being a poor gambling, make your own content, massive time sinks with still no direction of what exactly it wants to be. Unless it just wants to be a game that shamefully exploits the franchise. Wait...
6 months
2) What grade would you give STO?
On a 1-10 scale (10 best), 4. (9 for the artwork)
3) Why do you feel that way? +1
Additionally the lack of any annual FE's is bothersome as well as the devs desire to keep player interaction outside of social arenas to a minimum. The game can't be the best at ground combat and space at the same time but STO does neither exceptionally well and with the lack of new story content every so often the game quickly turns into a grind for 'stuff'.
I don't recall modern warfare or black ops being like this, but again they may not consider those MMO's.
Awoken Dead
Now shaddup about the queues, it's a BUG
Since the headstart.
C
While it's come a long (very long) way from it's initial launch, it still has improvements to make to some of it's systems (exploration, PvP, and crafting being the highlights, but not in any particular order).
The success of Star Trek Online, as it has been thus far, I think has to do with the lack of popular sci-fi MMO's out there, the biggest competitors being SW:TOR and EVE Online. There are two major things I think that set STO apart though, those being 1) it's Star Trek, and 2) it's Space Combat which is more tactile than EVE's which is done through context menus and double-clicks, and isn't on a rail like SW:TOR (which is changing from what I understand at some point).
1) Since before closed beta.
2) B-.
3) The customization and chat are tops in the industry, and the amount of content free players can access is the same. However, the overemphasis on story when the size of the dev team is too small to keep releasing more with sufficient frequency has lead to a deficiency in the variety of grind available, leading to burnout curves that are too short to maintain momentum between updates.
2: A- (or 8.8 out of 10)
3: although the game still has bugs, many of witch i have never experienced, or really don't bother me so much i need to complain about it. I can see the massive potential this game has to keep growing, year after year. I have been here since the start, and I will be here until the end, and i think the next 2 seasons will be the ones to really judge on where STO is headed.
Overall not the best but getting there.
the user formally known as kiss.my.rear.admiral
2.5 Years now, since open beta.
2) What grade would you give STO?
B-
3) Why do you feel that way?
Well for graphics this is an awesome game, especially for a MMO. However the direction the game has taken away from ST canon as well as the game itself being lite on content and the game also being a bit buggy at times knock the grade down quite a bit. Also a weak PvP system and an extremely weak crafting come into play in knocking the grade down even further. Customization, an area where Cryptic (a developer who has always prided itself on customization) is also lacking. Exploration and the 2nd faction (KDF) could also use some improvements.
2. B
3. Star Trek Online has held my interest for quite some time, and I'll likely be playing it for the forseeable future. I enjoy the Trek aspect of the game and feel that space environments and ships have been beautifully crafted.
The game has some awesome and amazing potential, as can be seen with the Featured Episode series, and new episodes such as Alpha and Hearts and Minds. New missions being released are top grade, and really pull me into the Trek world.
Unfortunately, where the game loses points in my books, is the time delay between releases of story content. Story missions are what drives Trek, and unfortunately, new story outside of the Foundry, is so sparsely released, that it can be really disheartening.
Additionally, the lack of customization of your personal spaces within the Trek universe, such as ship and Starbase interiors, is a let-down. Other MMOs have capitalized on this, charging people for paint and other accessories to decorate their housing with. This has the potential to be a big winner as far as player enjoyment and income, but unfortunately, we're all flying around with identical ship interiors, NPC crews and Starbase interiors as everyone else in the game. The lack of customization doesn't make me feel unique in the universe, and the game loses points there for me.
All in all, I enjoy STO, and look forward to its continued development, hopefully at an extremely accelerated pace, as we move forward.
1. Since early 2010
2. C-
3. A plethora of reasons are why I feel this way. The main reasons for me are a lack of persistent world elements within the game alongside a lack of customization options. You can't customize the inside of your ship in meaningful ways like changing the layout, adding plants, controlling AI movements, etc. The inside of the ship is a waste of time besides having to go in there for the doff missions. If you're going to make doff missions part of the interior of the ship, at least make the interior be more exciting than just watching AI do the same movements over and over. Also, let us be able to move through sector space from the bridge or the ready room.
Potential Mini-games in interior of your ship: Green house to take care of plants in real-time. Certain plants could have a chance to give benefits to your team on away missions. Certain plants have a chance to yield certain pods/flowers that you can mix together in an alchemy mini-game. Thus, you could have a mini-game within a mini-game-taking care of plants and practicing alchemy.
In addition, you could have animal pens on the inside of your ship much like the targ pens Klingons had in the mess halls of some of their ships. Here, you could breed and take care of alien animals. Within your on-ship farm, you could have different categories of pens like a tribble breeding pen exclusively for breeding tribbles.
All of these mini-games could be somehow linked to the doff system missions. Meaning, for example, say your tribble breeding farm yielded a certain kind of tribble needed for a doff mission. Within a global menu that combines doff missions and interior ship mini-games, a player could move the tribble created in his farm to the doff mission requiring that particular type of tribble. Within the same global window, one could also pull up the results of an alchemy experiment for use with a doff mission.
These mini-games could even be incorporated into the Fleet system by having a Fleet exchange where members could exchange animals, plants, etc. for free within their own fleet.
The second main reason for me the devs have not given the proper care and attention the KDF faction. With respect to the Fed faction, the KDF hasn't received enough story content, free ships, and c-store ships. Moreover, they've been relegated to a secondary faction by the developers as evidenced by the devs intentionally stunting the growth of KDF player base by first requiring that Feds be level 7 and subsequently in 2012 (post-F2P transition) that Feds be level 25 in order to begin a KDF faction character. They have repeatedly stated that the KDF lack of content is due to the chicken and egg issue of not enough numbers justifying more content but needing more numbers to justify content. This is a poor excuse for not allowing the KDF player base to grow naturally by allowing new players to begin a KDF character from day 1. In fact, solving the KDF player base and content controversy might be the key to jump-starting PVP. Once a new pvp system is developed and more Klingon content is released, Cryptic should release both of these simultaneously while lowering the level requirement for beginning a KDF character to 0. Then Cryptic will see PVP grow to be healthy once again.
To add to the PVP discussion, Cryptic must do a major rebalancing of PVP in order to attract the less diehard fans. A good idea would be to segment it so there are novice, intermediate, and hardcore PVP game-types. Novice would be completely random matchmaking without the ability to team up with friends or fleet members. No c-store/zen store consoles could be used in the novice game-type. Intermediate would allow teaming up, but c-store/zen store consoles would still be forbidden. Hardcore would allow teams and c-store/zen store consoles.
The third main reason is a major lack of regular story content. FE's don't come often enough and repetitive, grindy time events are not my idea of fun. I like doing them a few times but doing them over and over isn't my cup of tea. The developers need to establish a regular and consistent FE release schedule that is both realistic in that takes into account the time it takes to develop them but fair to the players in the sense that releases happen frequently enough that players don't get bored out of their minds with the game.
The fourth reason is lock boxes. Lock boxes are being released too frequently, and there is too much fanfare around them. Lock boxes that require an average of a $200 down payment are exploitative and encourage terrible gambling habits that are self-destructive and psychologically damaging to players. If the devs are going to tread all over the moral and ethical boundaries that these lock boxes have violated, they can at least advertise the chances of winning the ships inside of them. That way, at least people know what they're getting into.
Alongside the lock box problem is the issue of the flyby messages that announce the winners of lock boxes. This instills in the player a false sense of how easy it is to win a lock box ship because it seems as though people are winning them all the time. Therefore, the reasoning should be that because people win them all of the time, that I, too, should have a good chance of winning one when I open it. This practice is quite deceptive and despicable. People should have the option of turning off the flyby messages without affecting any other aspect of the game; in other words, there should be an option within settings that is dedicated solely to lockbox winner flyby messages. In fact, first-time STO players should be given a small tutorial on lock boxes that explains to them: their chances of winning, gives them the option to turn off lock box winner flybys and recommends that players play through the game at least once before opening up lock boxes. I would also recommend instituting daily limits how many lock boxes you can open. For example, first-time players, per day, can only open up 5 lock boxes. At level 30, they can open up 10. At level 50, they can open up 20 per day. Monthly limits should also be instituted. Players couldn't open more than 300 lock boxes per month, regardless of their experience or time playing.
The 5th reason is star bases really don't offer much to the player other than a place to do a brief tour. The devs should work on adding green houses, farms, and special engineering projects (upgrading warp core, upgrading internal defenses for PVP, building bridges, etc.).
It's free and very rarely crashes, if ever
More than I have come to expect from games post anno 2000
Wow... I'm actually quite surprised at how low you scored the game in the following categories:
- Character design
- Combat
- IP use
- Role play support
- Community
I guess the criteria are unknown to me, but on the surface, my perception of the game, puts all of those categories much higher. The most surprising to me is the low marks for the community.
Again, without knowing your criteria, I can't make a completely informed comment, but with the huge number of podcasts and videocasts relating to the game, in addition to the huge Foundry mission database, my feeling is that the community deserves much more recognition
2. B- or B (can't decide) now, C- when I started.
3. The game succeeds on all the basic levels I require for an RPG; solid customization, a wide variety of valid approaches to combat, fun gameplay, a story that doesn't make me outright facepalm.
My enjoyment has only grown, all things considered. Increasing ship variety makes for tons of fun trying new things, Ground 2.0 is a night-and-day improvement over the old version, the constant (if slow) increase in quality in story missions is greatly welcome. Then there's starbases, a fantastic, if rough, addition. And the biggest, most consistently praised win in the game's history, the DOff system, has added a whole new layer of complexity and things to do that make the game something more than a mindless shooter.
However, there are several areas that continue to fail to impress, or even entertain, or have managed to get worse despite the game largely getting better otherwise. Exploration is still terribad, crafting is the biggest and least funny joke a game has ever played on its playerbase, and the drastic increase in grind is grating on my nerves. Frankly my score is about as high as it can get without the game undergoing some serious spring cleaning to tie together all the great ideas that go nowhere into something coherent.
I Support Disco | Disco is Love | Disco is Life
Since 18th of February 2010.
2) What grade would you give STO?
On a 1 - 10 scale where 10 is excellent and 1 is absolute rubbish i would say 2.
3) Why do you feel that way?
Because the game has been poorly handled by cryptic, we have long waits between getting meager scrapings of new mission content to do which usually arrives somewhat in an incomplete state and barely working. Also Cryptic appear to have no idea what to do with the game which leaves the game feeling like it lacks a direction, through most of the storyline it highlights the war with the klingons and the iconians causing trouble but it just seems to be going round in circles with no real progress on any storyline.
As for game engine performance, when i first started playing i had a geforce 8800 GT and could run the game at max settings with x8 AA and had a cpu usage of around 30% and got a nice solid 60fps, these days im using a Geforce GTX 670 with a CPU usage of 60 - 100% and getting between 35 - 50 FPS. Considering the graphics quality hasnt really increased much i consider this to be a massive fail.
Rampant cash milking of the trek fandom. From the first cstore ship to what we have now things have only gotten more expensive and plentiful. Now i wouldn't be opposed to this if the cash earned was being put back into the game to make it better but it isn't, we get constant milking and very little effort on cryptics part to improve the game.
To sum it all up cryptic are useless at being game developers, their mentality would work if they made single player games but they lack the commitment or scope to truly make and properly support MMO's. And this affects STO largely, STO had the potential to be the ultimate cash cow but has been marred by severe lack of playable mission content which gives the players nothing to do and doesn't really offer much incentive to keep players playing. Sure we can all get the next latest, greatest lockbox ship or cstore ship but what do we do with them ? the same old rubbish missions we have been playing for the past 2 and a half years ???? i dont think so.....
I'll use your scale.
Graphics: 9 (Going by MMO standards)
Sound: 6 (I give them credit for adding music tracks recently. The original tracks sucked but the sound FX are great)
Game Design: 4 (Outside of space, not innovative and seems to designed to use cost saving measures to imitate more stable and better designed games)
Character Design: 8 (Really, just needs a few more details to be solid)
World Design: 6 (Average of ground and space. Not a fan of any of the ground map looks prior to Deferra or the interiors prior to the replicas. Strongly prefer Tacoboy's art design but most of it isn't his. On the flipside, every space map looks like a gorgeous painting.)
Immersiveness: 3 (Mainly gets points for the text raising questions and Nimoy's dialogue. I'd rate the FEs a 6.5 but everything else weighs the number down.)
IP Use: 3 (Mainly for using IP characters like Spock and Scotty and quite a few obscure ships like the Akira and Luna. The space combat feels very IP appropriate. The ground combat less so. The overall IP feel is lacking or even contrary to the IP though.)
Combat: 6 (Averaged scores for ground & space, mainly loses points do to poor documentation and unclear stats)
Crafting: 1 (I give one point for the anomaly mini-game. Otherwise, it doesn't exist. Now, I question whether it should exist or needed to but, like many things, I wind up judging Cryptic based on what they attempt. I'd omit this category if Cryptic decided not to have crafting and spent that effort improving other areas.)
RP/Social: 5 (Great roleplay options like ship interiors and nice hubs. Gains massive points for the Foundry as a roleplay tool. Loses points for instancing.)
Replay: 4 (I find the replay is below average replayability. Group content focuses on challenge, which invokes tedium. Solo content is more polished but lacks replayability.)
Company: 6 (History of solid communication and listening. While they may by money grubbing in the eyes of many, my crunching of the numbers suggests the bulk of that is reinvested and that without the perceived cashgrabs, the game would fold. I've had a good history with GM tickets and service. Biggest complaint is that they hear without listening sometimes and that they ask us for feedback without giving us the information to supply informed feedback. Still, the rudest experience I've had with a Cryptic employee was close to the nicest I've ever had anywhere else.)
Community: 8 (Probably the best and most helpful community I've seen in an MMO. Second only to Cryptic's super-hero games. They falter in many ways but seem to attract the best gaming communities.)
Average: 5.3
Not the categories I would have used, mind you. In general, I think if your average score is a 5, you're getting too quantative. I prefer more of an ABC method where the average is an 85. It lets you rip into flaws more meaningfully where they exist while not totally trashing the high value of good work.
Thread title should be more obvious and just say: What grade would you give STO? and why is it a fail?
100 Point Scale
5 points (1-5) -> PvP Quality (Broken down into system and community)
5 points (1-5) -> Sense of Achievement (Broken down down into system and community)
20 points (1-20) -> Community and Socialization
10 points (1-10) -> Exploration, World Building, Puzzles, and Easter Eggs
10 points (1-10) -> Gameplay, Power Customization, Action-based Immersion, and integration of an internally coherent lore into character skills and gameplay
(This all represents roughly the percentage of players interested in those things in MMOs and is the first half. The second half of the 100 points is dedicated to company and design.)
15 points (1-15) -> Environmental Graphics
5 points (1-5) -> Character Graphics
15 points (1-15) -> Quality of Content
10 points (1-10) -> Player Investment and Return (Cost of playing in cash and time for a player with average gear and average power, without considering competition between players. Quality of rewards. Rate of content development relative to player completion of content and demand for content.)
5 points (1-5) -> Cost of Elite Play (How much work is it to be the best or to have nearly everything?)
10 points (1-10) -> Extra Credit: Novel Forms of Engagement or Innovation in Game Mechanics
10 points (1-10) -> Extra Credit: Transcendant or Emotionally Gripping Storytelling
Because Nagus is being Nagus.
I don't think he knows himself, whether he thinks the game is a fail or not.
So I'd give it a 68 on its own merits and have a second score, "The WoW Curve," where I'd say that in relation to WoW, STO is an 87.2.
1) Since Closed Beta
2) C
3) Why?
Space Combat: B+.
Ground Combat: C
Content: D
PvP: F
My main reasoning is that the majority of the content is the same as it was when STO launched. And Cryptic relies heavily on fluff and remastered content as a grind to keep players in STO than utilizing the massive amounts of potential the game has by expanding the game beyond the current borders.
I would have to give STO an A-
I absolutely enjoy playing this game. The game isn't perfect and I understand other players complaints about game, but I personally enjoy having fun. I used to be a console gamer, but after serving in the military, there were a lot of games that I love, but couldn't play anymore, such as call of duty. Finding STO was a blessing. I can even say that it is therapeutic in some ways. I can forget about the stress of everyday life and escape into STO. I guess my opinion is pretty biased, but I have to say that this is one of my all time favorite games.
2) B-
3) I give the game a B- because, despite all it's flaws (which, as usual, have been beat to death in many of the previous posts in the thread so I won't add anymore to it), it is still pretty darn entertaining...:D
Co-Founder of TOS Veterans and TOS Qan Mang
2) B-
3) STO's gameplay is excellent. The ground combat is still rough in a few places (the sticky phaser beams are annoying).
Unfortunately, the total lack of respect to canon and the complete absence of PvP drags the game down for me. Treatment of the KDF drags the score down as well.
Ultimately, I'd like to see a three-way war between the RSE, KDF, and FED with a real territorial PvP component which would allow we, the players, to actually prosecute the war.
I just wish people would lay off all of the constant QQing for more one-off FEs that end with, "ZOMG, IT WAS THE ICONIANS!!!"
We need something replayable, not one-off themepark content. A real factional war with territorial control would offer exactly that.
And if Cryptic could better integrate the Foundry into the rest of the game than the devs wouldn't even need to worry about story content. Taking the stand-out Foundry missions and integrating them into cluster exploration is the future for STO's story content.
If STO could accomplish those two things, and maybe even integrate starbases into PvP, STO would be amazing.
I guess they can look at it and laugh at all the folks rating it B+ and above as fanboys and everyone giving it a C- and below as hating the game as much as they do. So folks should post what they feel it doesn't matter, everyone will get their rocks off and have a good time till the 1K vet reward shows up.
Oh man folks are going be so mad when the 1K Vet reward shows up. I can't wait.
Since open beta testing.
General: C
The combat is great, character customization is nice, graphics are great. However, the Klingon faction has always been horribly stunted. The leveling process is far too fast. Crafting is poor. Annoying bugs show up too frequently. Lots and lots of zoning doesn't appeal to many players.
Personal: A
The combat works great for my play style. I like the graphics and character models (unlike Champions Online). I'm a soloist, and I never feel the need to team up. I enjoy the DOff system. I like the zoned missions, and I don't care about the crafting. I'd like to see improvements to the KDF faction, but I could live without them.