I might play it if its F2P. However I will more likely need a new computer as well, since mine is several years old.
Lastly its not Star Trek, so I will keep playing this game. As I still love and enjoy it. Granted it has some issues, but what game don't.
It is like GW2: buy the box to play and then use the MT Store for other purchases.
The System Requirements are 2.0 gig Quad Core, 2 gigs Ram, Direct X 11, and GTX 260/ATI 4870 card.
STO is about my Liberated Borg Federation Captain with his Breen 1st Officer, Jem'Hadar Tactical Officer, Liberated Borg Engineering Officer, Android Ops Officer, Photonic Science Officer, Gorn Science Officer, and Reman Medical Officer jumping into their Jem'Hadar Carrier and flying off to do missions for the new Romulan Empire. But for some players allowing a T5 Connie to be used breaks the canon in the game.
Having tried the combat demo of ED, I generally like it. Nice graphics, very good sound effects, nice music.
The learning curve is high thou. Takes quite some tweaking to get the controls set just so.
Takes a lot getting back to the dogfighting ways from the good old days of X-Wing and TIE Fighter games, but getting there slowly.
Being so used to the way ships handle here on STO is very different to how ships handle in ED. In STO there is no dogfighting, but in ED, there sure is a lot of that, looping in behind your target, makeing sure the shots hit, avoid asteroids and so on.
Will ED be a contender for STO?
Hard to say really, since ED seems to be more of a space combat simulator, whereas STO is not.
I would say that ED is an indirect competitor, the only thing that ties STO and ED is that both are space based games...
You're kidding, right?! The Galaxy class flagship from TNG is only one of the most iconian Trek ships ever!
You mean iconic.
And yes, of course. Unless it where the 80s again and you were a big TOS fan. And then someone says there is a new Star Trek show, and you get to see the Galaxy Class starship for the first time and see a bald Captain and the only guy from the old cast is ancient and only a guest star that talks with an Android that for some reason has pale-white skin unlike all the Androids in the original show.
As for the rest, all these shows offered different things/ships, yes. And heretofore Cryptic based its ships on those canon models. They seem to be heading towards a more 'fantasy' model ship line now, though (for one, because they're rapidly running out of canon ships, I reckon). I'm not saying that is bad; or that I even dislike it. But my point is, when a game develops towards non-Trek, other non-Trek games could more easily take its place, is all.
I think "non-Trek" is an argument for something like an Elachi ship, but not something that looks like an oversized flat Defiant or a Prometheus continuation. It just cannot hide it's Trek heritage.
Star Trek Online Advancement: You start with lowbie gear, you end with Lobi gear.
The System Requirements are 2.0 gig Quad Core, 2 gigs Ram, Direct X 11, and GTX 260/ATI 4870 card.
It's kind of funny, how the system requirements for many games for some of the more casual gamers out there will keep them here. Glad you pointed out those system requirements, because it's something that's often overlooked in discussions oddly enough.
The GPU upgrade to be able to run that game (looking at a GT 740/R7 250) would be ~$80+ for the nVidia card and $90+ for the AMD card. And that's if there were no other upgrades required to the machine, PSU, perhaps the mobo/RAM/CPU would create a bottleneck, etc, etc, etc.
It's kind of funny, how the system requirements for many games for some of the more casual gamers out there will keep them here. Glad you pointed out those system requirements, because it's something that's often overlooked in discussions oddly enough.
The GPU upgrade to be able to run that game (looking at a GT 740/R7 250) would be ~$80+ for the nVidia card and $90+ for the AMD card. And that's if there were no other upgrades required to the machine, PSU, perhaps the mobo/RAM/CPU would create a bottleneck, etc, etc, etc.
And thus STO goes on...
LOL you can put together a PC to play any new game for not much more than the launch price of a PS4 these days.
TBH if people don't meet the requirements of ED which are very low in reality then the computer they are using is probably a toaster.
Most people don't buy computers with their actual needs in mind hence most computers are either under or over specced for the user's habits. Most mid-range gfx cards for instance don't require a 650W PSU and can run quite happily on that bargain basement 400W that came with the PC.
Chris Robert's on SC:
"You don't have to do something again and again and again repetitive that doesn't have much challange, that's just a general good gameplay thing."
LOL you can put together a PC to play any new game for not much more than the launch price of a PS4 these days.
TBH if people don't meet the requirements of ED which are very low in reality then the computer they are using is probably a toaster.
Most people don't buy computers with their actual needs in mind hence most computers are either under or over specced for the user's habits. Most mid-range gfx cards for instance don't require a 650W PSU and can run quite happily on that bargain basement 400W that came with the PC.
Virusdancer is correct. System requirements are often overlooked by people looking at new games. People also seldom want to recognize or accept any system requirements put out by the developers are the bare minimum needed to simply play the game. And the dev team for any game is going to make sure their systems are capable of playing a game with all of the eye candy turned on. Which means they will have access to enough funding to make sure their rig is fully specced out. Something not everyone who plays a game may have the money for. Unless their parents were the Waynes.
Still, some people will play ED with everything turned to the lowest settings and put up with the same sort of problems they have here, yet insist it is better.
For their sakes, I hope it is. But with the problems here and the things which have gone on with Ubisoft and others, I think ED will have to better than their wildest imaginings. And when it turns out to be not all that with a side order of fries and a diet root beer, will they shriek as long and as loud as they do here?
be interesting to go and see, doncha think?
A six year old boy and his starship. Living the dream.
It's almost 4am and I was failing in my attempt to highlight that PC's these days are very cheap to upgrade to run almost any game. It's not like STO has low requirements, it's just it doesn't run that efficiently on anything.
To make the grade these days is pretty easy and any Intel CPU from the last 5 years as well as even a Phenom II or better from AMD is possible for current gen gaming. Admittedly the AMD will hold you back a lot more than an Intel as their performance per MHz isn't as good as Intel's and they suffer badly in single threaded gaming, but at the end of the day those who play STO on a toaster are probably not the audience interested in a game that has basically modelled the entire Milky-Way
P.S. If I missed the point again, TRIBBLE it I'm going to bed
Chris Robert's on SC:
"You don't have to do something again and again and again repetitive that doesn't have much challange, that's just a general good gameplay thing."
You're kidding, right?! The Galaxy class flagship from TNG is only one of the most iconian Trek ships ever!
Sure it is.... now.... that was not the case always though. The new faction T6 ships most certainly show a lineage from canon designs, just like all the rest of the non-canon faction ships. This is a star trek game, and we see new ships flying around with older workhorse ships.... the kind of stuff we've been seeing SINCE TNG.... really since the TOS movies.
It's almost 4am and I was failing in my attempt to highlight that PC's these days are very cheap to upgrade to run almost any game. It's not like STO has low requirements, it's just it doesn't run that efficiently on anything.
So, what you're saying is that I can play this game for only $60 for the game itself, plus another $400 for a computer capable of running it with all the fancy eye candy turned off?
Sure it is.... now.... that was not the case always though. The new faction T6 ships most certainly show a lineage from canon designs, just like all the rest of the non-canon faction ships. This is a star trek game, and we see new ships flying around with older workhorse ships.... the kind of stuff we've been seeing SINCE TNG.... really since the TOS movies.
Like I said, I don't mind the new designs. But the new T6 ships (apart from the Guardian Cruiser, of course) don't really look all that canon to me. Like the Scryer, for instance; if I saw that ship show up in Babylon V or something, it would not have looked horridly out of place to me.
While not disliking the new ships, still, nothing feels as good to me as taking the wheel of a Galaxy, or a Connie, IP-wise.
Like I said, I don't mind the new designs. But the new T6 ships (apart from the Guardian Cruiser, of course) don't really look all that canon to me. Like the Scryer, for instance; if I saw that ship show up in Babylon V or something, it would not have looked horridly out of place to me.
While not disliking the new ships, still, nothing feels as good to me as taking the wheel of a Galaxy, or a Connie, IP-wise.
Scryer looks about out of place to me as a Luna or a Nebula.... which is not at all. It bears the skelleton of Federation design esthetics. If you want to fly specific on screen IP ships, they are in the game too. Are they a bit outdated? Yes....... we're 50 years ahead of the goings on of TNG. Flying a Galaxy in STO is like flying an Excelsior in TNG..... it's an old Workhorse.... but it's not a top of the line ship any longer.
Not hostile, puzzled. What's the point of hanging out in the forums of a game you don't play, trying to pour your own bad attitude all over people who do?
I used to play WoW. Like, a lot. Spent years playing, from about the time Burning Crusade dropped to just after the Cataclysm. (Dwarf Hunters are kind of fun, with those steampunk rifles instead of bows.) About that time, though, it finally sank in that I'd never be able to get a toon higher than around the mid-60s, because after a while in order to advance you have to be able to run high-level dungeons, and if you didn't spend your entire WoW career grinding out the very latest gear nobody would run the dungeon with you, and solo simply isn't an option there.
So I quit. Let my account lapse, walked away from it all, and (this is the important part) left the forums, where I had been fairly active. No point wasting my time trying to convince everyone who was having fun playing their game that they weren't really having fun.
Tried EvE, using one of those two-week guest passes from my roommate. Didn't care for it, stopped when the two weeks ended, and did not go into their forums telling them their game was stupid and boring and they should all play STO instead.
And I truly don't understand the sort of people who feel it necessary to be like that here. There are those who say they're not playing, but posting here in the hope of improving the game, and I can at least sort of understand that, even if I think it's quixotic in the extreme. But if you don't play, don't like anything about the game, don't believe it can ever be improved to the point you might come back - but you're here anyway? Why?? What's the point?
Scryer looks about out of place to me as a Luna or a Nebula.... which is not at all. It bears the skelleton of Federation design esthetics. If you want to fly specific on screen IP ships, they are in the game too. Are they a bit outdated? Yes....... we're 50 years ahead of the goings on of TNG. Flying a Galaxy in STO is like flying an Excelsior in TNG..... it's an old Workhorse.... but it's not a top of the line ship any longer.
Well, I didn't say Galaxy is top-of-the-line nowadays; just that it still feels awesome flying, because of its iconic value.
And nope, Scryer still looks odd to me. :P Some would say my Phantom looks like a pancake, though, whereas it looks fine, and plausibly future-canon to me.
Not hostile, puzzled. What's the point of hanging out in the forums of a game you don't play, trying to pour your own bad attitude all over people who do?
I used to play WoW. Like, a lot. Spent years playing, from about the time Burning Crusade dropped to just after the Cataclysm. (Dwarf Hunters are kind of fun, with those steampunk rifles instead of bows.) About that time, though, it finally sank in that I'd never be able to get a toon higher than around the mid-60s, because after a while in order to advance you have to be able to run high-level dungeons, and if you didn't spend your entire WoW career grinding out the very latest gear nobody would run the dungeon with you, and solo simply isn't an option there.
So I quit. Let my account lapse, walked away from it all, and (this is the important part) left the forums, where I had been fairly active. No point wasting my time trying to convince everyone who was having fun playing their game that they weren't really having fun.
Tried EvE, using one of those two-week guest passes from my roommate. Didn't care for it, stopped when the two weeks ended, and did not go into their forums telling them their game was stupid and boring and they should all play STO instead.
And I truly don't understand the sort of people who feel it necessary to be like that here. There are those who say they're not playing, but posting here in the hope of improving the game, and I can at least sort of understand that, even if I think it's quixotic in the extreme. But if you don't play, don't like anything about the game, don't believe it can ever be improved to the point you might come back - but you're here anyway? Why?? What's the point?
I don't think most of the people here (although there are a few) who are complaining actually believe that the game is beyond saving.
You keep saying the same thing, asking why we are still here if we hate STO....
And you keep ignoring it every single time someone explains it.
You seem a lot smarter than that - are you simply missing the posts in the current scrollfest that defines the DR threads?
Read the bottom part of my sig, that explains it about as poetically as is possible.
And as to the system requirements of STO vs. ED - as I have said several times in several threads now, STO 's engine is a poorly optimized mess. It has the capability to display sub-20 FPS frame rates on SLI GTX 970s at 1080p. If you have a GPU that can actually play STO at consistent, acceptable (and I will take the enthusiast standard of 30FPS being playable, 60 FPS being the lowest truly acceptable), you can play ED. It looks pretty, but the particle effects are very conservative, and due to almost exclusively space-based gameplay, requires significantly less GPU horsepower compared to STO.
Whether or not the graphics are actually more intensive in polygon counts or texture memory requirements, the fact is that STO is a mess - some zones can fill up more than 6gb of texture memory, despite the fact that there probably aren't a total of 6gb of textures in the whole game. The GUI and text floaters can make it a slideshow on an absolute killer system. Some effects like SSAO drop more frames in STO than they do in Shadow of Mordor. The performance doesn't even scale with resolution - I can run STO at 4k and at 1080 at capped 60 FPS, with the same FPS drops and slideshows in the exact same zones - the STO graphics engine is junk, pure and simple.
My guess is "hope" keeps people not playing but posting on the forums. For others, its a path of sad realization and closure. Grieving takes time. The worst "haters" here love the game, or did at some point.
So, what you're saying is that I can play this game for only $60 for the game itself, plus another $400 for a computer capable of running it with all the fancy eye candy turned off?
Yeah, real bargain there.
Not at all, bit of an absurd argument really. For $400 worth of upgrades you can play ED on max pretty much, but it would be more relevant if you were playing more than just one game.
What I'm saying is that you can play ED on low if you play STO on low. You'll lose eyecandy if you try but you probably don't care about that already. If you however like your eyes and don't mind spending a bit to have a computer from this decade not the last one, then you can probably turn the detail up a fair bit.
Either way I don't really give a TRIBBLE about your opinion as it's been shown to have bias towards reductio ad absurdum to attempt to prove your agenda correct.
Chris Robert's on SC:
"You don't have to do something again and again and again repetitive that doesn't have much challange, that's just a general good gameplay thing."
Not hostile, puzzled. What's the point of hanging out in the forums of a game you don't play, trying to pour your own bad attitude all over people who do?
I used to play WoW. Like, a lot. Spent years playing, from about the time Burning Crusade dropped to just after the Cataclysm. (Dwarf Hunters are kind of fun, with those steampunk rifles instead of bows.) About that time, though, it finally sank in that I'd never be able to get a toon higher than around the mid-60s, because after a while in order to advance you have to be able to run high-level dungeons, and if you didn't spend your entire WoW career grinding out the very latest gear nobody would run the dungeon with you, and solo simply isn't an option there.
So I quit. Let my account lapse, walked away from it all, and (this is the important part) left the forums, where I had been fairly active. No point wasting my time trying to convince everyone who was having fun playing their game that they weren't really having fun.
Tried EvE, using one of those two-week guest passes from my roommate. Didn't care for it, stopped when the two weeks ended, and did not go into their forums telling them their game was stupid and boring and they should all play STO instead.
And I truly don't understand the sort of people who feel it necessary to be like that here. There are those who say they're not playing, but posting here in the hope of improving the game, and I can at least sort of understand that, even if I think it's quixotic in the extreme. But if you don't play, don't like anything about the game, don't believe it can ever be improved to the point you might come back - but you're here anyway? Why?? What's the point?
I still firmly believe that STO can be saved. I'll be here until I believe otherwise.
Not at all, bit of an absurd argument really. For $400 worth of upgrades you can play ED on max pretty much, but it would be more relevant if you were playing more than just one game.
What I'm saying is that you can play ED on low if you play STO on low. You'll lose eyecandy if you try but you probably don't care about that already. If you however like your eyes and don't mind spending a bit to have a computer from this decade not the last one, then you can probably turn the detail up a fair bit.
Either way I don't really give a TRIBBLE about your opinion as it's been shown to have bias towards reductio ad absurdum to attempt to prove your agenda correct.
And as I pointed out, ED will run better for most people on equivalent hardware than STO will.
The same way that the latest edition of the Unreal engine will run better on equivalent hardware than idTech 5. There is a difference in the optimization, and the efficiency as well as the general concept of the engine. Cryptic's engine was never designed to handle the amount of effects, the size of the areas, and the amount and resolution of the textures that STO has thrown at it, not to mention that it is effectively a cross-platform engine that was designed with console ports in mind, and not exclusively for PC.
My guess is "hope" keeps people not playing but posting on the forums. For others, its a path of sad realization and closure. Grieving takes time. The worst "haters" here love the game, or did at some point.
Not hostile, puzzled. What's the point of hanging out in the forums of a game you don't play, trying to pour your own bad attitude all over people who do?
I used to play WoW. Like, a lot. Spent years playing, from about the time Burning Crusade dropped to just after the Cataclysm. (Dwarf Hunters are kind of fun, with those steampunk rifles instead of bows.) About that time, though, it finally sank in that I'd never be able to get a toon higher than around the mid-60s, because after a while in order to advance you have to be able to run high-level dungeons, and if you didn't spend your entire WoW career grinding out the very latest gear nobody would run the dungeon with you, and solo simply isn't an option there.
So I quit. Let my account lapse, walked away from it all, and (this is the important part) left the forums, where I had been fairly active. No point wasting my time trying to convince everyone who was having fun playing their game that they weren't really having fun.
Tried EvE, using one of those two-week guest passes from my roommate. Didn't care for it, stopped when the two weeks ended, and did not go into their forums telling them their game was stupid and boring and they should all play STO instead.
And I truly don't understand the sort of people who feel it necessary to be like that here. There are those who say they're not playing, but posting here in the hope of improving the game, and I can at least sort of understand that, even if I think it's quixotic in the extreme. But if you don't play, don't like anything about the game, don't believe it can ever be improved to the point you might come back - but you're here anyway? Why?? What's the point?
I wouldnt say its bad attitude, its only a way to show others that there is another space game that people would possibly be intrested. And if you check this whole thread you will see that there are some who didnt even know the game existed and they will check it out.
Sto forums are hostile and negative enough even with or without these kinds of threads. Sto, or no other game should be as you describe it, eternal. Its not a job, not a marriage. People hop from games to games and migrate from time to time. Some are just too stubborn to stick around and greef how sto sucks. They have all the right to stay where they want even if they feel bad about it.
This thread is just one way to give people another hint of a game that they might be intrested and perhaps later they come back with fresh feeling to sto and check it out if it has gotten any better. I hope it will. I know i will be logging in from time to time, just to see some awesome people who i call friends. They game might suck, but ive met some really nice people ingame and thats the most and best reason why im still around.
I wouldnt say its bad attitude, its only a way to show others that there is another space game that people would possibly be intrested. And if you check this whole thread you will see that there are some who didnt even know the game existed and they will check it out.
Sto forums are hostile and negative enough even with or without these kinds of threads. Sto, or no other game should be as you describe it, eternal. Its not a job, not a marriage. People hop from games to games and migrate from time to time. Some are just too stubborn to stick around and greef how sto sucks. They have all the right to stay where they want even if they feel bad about it.
This thread is just one way to give people another hint of a game that they might be intrested and perhaps later they come back with fresh feeling to sto and check it out if it has gotten any better. I hope it will. I know i will be logging in from time to time, just to see some awesome people who i call friends. They game might suck, but ive met some really nice people ingame and thats the most and best reason why im still around.
The problem is with your sig. It is one thing to say that "Here is Elite Dangerous. It is a Space Simulator that allows you to go to 400 billion star systems where you can explore, trade and/or fight." It is a problem to say "Here is Elite Dangerous. It is more Star Trek than STO even though you can't go on away teams with your crew and has no extensive story content."
What I'm saying is that you can play ED on low if you play STO on low.
Compare STOs requirements
System Requirements
If the system doesn't meet the requirements of the game, the game will either not run at all or give a less than desirable performance. To ensure a smooth gaming experience, we recommend that you meet the following settings:
Windows
Mac
Operating System
Windows XP SP2 / Windows Vista / Windows 7 (32 or 64-bit)
CPU
Intel Core 2 Duo 1.8 Ghz or AMD Athlon X2 3800+
RAM
Memory: 2GB RAM
Hard Disk
10GB Free Disk Space
Graphic Display
NVIDIA GeForce 7950 / ATI Radeon X1800 / Intel HD Graphics
Sound Drivers
DirectX 9.0c Compatible Soundcard
Network
Broadband Internet Connection Required
to EDs requirements
Minimum recommended hardware specification:
Direct X 11
Quad Core CPU ( 4 x 2Ghz is a reasonable minimum)
2 GB System RAM (more is always better)
DX 10 hardware GPU with 1GB video ram
Nvidia GTX 260
ATI 4870HD
Internet connection
Supported Operating Systems:
Windows 7.x
Windows 8.x
You don't have to care about other people's machines, but there will be STO players, however few, whose machines are too far behind for ED, who don't want to spend the equivalent of a PS4 console to catch up with EDs hardware requirements.
And one or two of them might be posting in this thread.
Not at all, bit of an absurd argument really. For $400 worth of upgrades you can play ED on max pretty much, but it would be more relevant if you were playing more than just one game.
What I'm saying is that you can play ED on low if you play STO on low. You'll lose eyecandy if you try but you probably don't care about that already. If you however like your eyes and don't mind spending a bit to have a computer from this decade not the last one, then you can probably turn the detail up a fair bit.
Either way I don't really give a TRIBBLE about your opinion as it's been shown to have bias towards reductio ad absurdum to attempt to prove your agenda correct.
STO vs. ED
Dual 1.8 vs. Quad 2.0
DX 9 vs. DX 11
1GB Ram vs. 2GB Ram
GeForce 7950/X1800 vs. GTX 260/HD 4870*
Win XP/Vista/7 vs. Win 7/8
*That's a 9 tier difference for the nVidia card and an 11 tier difference for the AMD card based on Tom's GPU Hierarchy.
You can play STO on a toaster, but you need a microwave for ED...
Jorando, check out the post of the person of whom I asked the question. He was proud of the fact that he no longer played STO. Hence my question. And he's not the only one who's boasted of such a stance, and of whom I've asked the question.
So far, the only folk who have answered the question have been those like you, who still play but want the game to be so much more. As I said, I think that's rather quixotic, but who knows, you might knock that windmill down. But that's not his attitude.
Nor is it the attitude of curedmen here, who appears to be little more than a paid shill for Elite Dangerous. (And honestly, that's more than a little tiresome by this point. How many threads does he need to threadcrap in?)
You don't have to care about other people's machines, but there will be STO players, however few, whose machines are too far behind for ED, who don't want to spend the equivalent of a PS4 console to catch up with EDs hardware requirements.
And one or two of them might be posting in this thread.
And it will probably cost them a new computer since they need to replace the motherboard as well. My old rig could have handled Elite Dangerous, but I had to get a new rig last month due to Dragon Age Inquisition requiring a 64 bit Operating System and other steep minimum requirements. The problem is that if you just meet the minimum requirements, then you have to upgrade again in a year or two when some game you like with impressive minimum requirements gets released.
Comments
Lastly its not Star Trek, so I will keep playing this game. As I still love and enjoy it. Granted it has some issues, but what game don't.
USS Casinghead NCC 92047 launched 2350
Fleet Admiral Stowe - Dominion War Vet.
The System Requirements are 2.0 gig Quad Core, 2 gigs Ram, Direct X 11, and GTX 260/ATI 4870 card.
The learning curve is high thou. Takes quite some tweaking to get the controls set just so.
Takes a lot getting back to the dogfighting ways from the good old days of X-Wing and TIE Fighter games, but getting there slowly.
Being so used to the way ships handle here on STO is very different to how ships handle in ED. In STO there is no dogfighting, but in ED, there sure is a lot of that, looping in behind your target, makeing sure the shots hit, avoid asteroids and so on.
Will ED be a contender for STO?
Hard to say really, since ED seems to be more of a space combat simulator, whereas STO is not.
I would say that ED is an indirect competitor, the only thing that ties STO and ED is that both are space based games...
And yes, of course. Unless it where the 80s again and you were a big TOS fan. And then someone says there is a new Star Trek show, and you get to see the Galaxy Class starship for the first time and see a bald Captain and the only guy from the old cast is ancient and only a guest star that talks with an Android that for some reason has pale-white skin unlike all the Androids in the original show.
I think "non-Trek" is an argument for something like an Elachi ship, but not something that looks like an oversized flat Defiant or a Prometheus continuation. It just cannot hide it's Trek heritage.
But to prevent the later you can switch to single player mode AFAIK.[/QUOTE]
Are you talking about the stand alone mode mentioned in a couple of their kickstarter tiers?
They were only joking! Not gonna happen.
It's kind of funny, how the system requirements for many games for some of the more casual gamers out there will keep them here. Glad you pointed out those system requirements, because it's something that's often overlooked in discussions oddly enough.
The GPU upgrade to be able to run that game (looking at a GT 740/R7 250) would be ~$80+ for the nVidia card and $90+ for the AMD card. And that's if there were no other upgrades required to the machine, PSU, perhaps the mobo/RAM/CPU would create a bottleneck, etc, etc, etc.
And thus STO goes on...
No you can play solo mode but still need to be online because of the way the server handles everything.
LOL you can put together a PC to play any new game for not much more than the launch price of a PS4 these days.
TBH if people don't meet the requirements of ED which are very low in reality then the computer they are using is probably a toaster.
Most people don't buy computers with their actual needs in mind hence most computers are either under or over specced for the user's habits. Most mid-range gfx cards for instance don't require a 650W PSU and can run quite happily on that bargain basement 400W that came with the PC.
"You don't have to do something again and again and again repetitive that doesn't have much challange, that's just a general good gameplay thing."
Not sure what that has to do with what I said...
Still, some people will play ED with everything turned to the lowest settings and put up with the same sort of problems they have here, yet insist it is better.
For their sakes, I hope it is. But with the problems here and the things which have gone on with Ubisoft and others, I think ED will have to better than their wildest imaginings. And when it turns out to be not all that with a side order of fries and a diet root beer, will they shriek as long and as loud as they do here?
be interesting to go and see, doncha think?
It's almost 4am and I was failing in my attempt to highlight that PC's these days are very cheap to upgrade to run almost any game. It's not like STO has low requirements, it's just it doesn't run that efficiently on anything.
To make the grade these days is pretty easy and any Intel CPU from the last 5 years as well as even a Phenom II or better from AMD is possible for current gen gaming. Admittedly the AMD will hold you back a lot more than an Intel as their performance per MHz isn't as good as Intel's and they suffer badly in single threaded gaming, but at the end of the day those who play STO on a toaster are probably not the audience interested in a game that has basically modelled the entire Milky-Way
P.S. If I missed the point again, TRIBBLE it I'm going to bed
"You don't have to do something again and again and again repetitive that doesn't have much challange, that's just a general good gameplay thing."
Sure it is.... now.... that was not the case always though. The new faction T6 ships most certainly show a lineage from canon designs, just like all the rest of the non-canon faction ships. This is a star trek game, and we see new ships flying around with older workhorse ships.... the kind of stuff we've been seeing SINCE TNG.... really since the TOS movies.
Out of sheer curiosity, how so?! I don't get it. What has flying in a Connie to do with Delta Rising?
It is the JJPrise.
Yeah, real bargain there.
Like I said, I don't mind the new designs. But the new T6 ships (apart from the Guardian Cruiser, of course) don't really look all that canon to me. Like the Scryer, for instance; if I saw that ship show up in Babylon V or something, it would not have looked horridly out of place to me.
While not disliking the new ships, still, nothing feels as good to me as taking the wheel of a Galaxy, or a Connie, IP-wise.
Scryer looks about out of place to me as a Luna or a Nebula.... which is not at all. It bears the skelleton of Federation design esthetics. If you want to fly specific on screen IP ships, they are in the game too. Are they a bit outdated? Yes....... we're 50 years ahead of the goings on of TNG. Flying a Galaxy in STO is like flying an Excelsior in TNG..... it's an old Workhorse.... but it's not a top of the line ship any longer.
I used to play WoW. Like, a lot. Spent years playing, from about the time Burning Crusade dropped to just after the Cataclysm. (Dwarf Hunters are kind of fun, with those steampunk rifles instead of bows.) About that time, though, it finally sank in that I'd never be able to get a toon higher than around the mid-60s, because after a while in order to advance you have to be able to run high-level dungeons, and if you didn't spend your entire WoW career grinding out the very latest gear nobody would run the dungeon with you, and solo simply isn't an option there.
So I quit. Let my account lapse, walked away from it all, and (this is the important part) left the forums, where I had been fairly active. No point wasting my time trying to convince everyone who was having fun playing their game that they weren't really having fun.
Tried EvE, using one of those two-week guest passes from my roommate. Didn't care for it, stopped when the two weeks ended, and did not go into their forums telling them their game was stupid and boring and they should all play STO instead.
And I truly don't understand the sort of people who feel it necessary to be like that here. There are those who say they're not playing, but posting here in the hope of improving the game, and I can at least sort of understand that, even if I think it's quixotic in the extreme. But if you don't play, don't like anything about the game, don't believe it can ever be improved to the point you might come back - but you're here anyway? Why?? What's the point?
Well, I didn't say Galaxy is top-of-the-line nowadays; just that it still feels awesome flying, because of its iconic value.
And nope, Scryer still looks odd to me. :P Some would say my Phantom looks like a pancake, though, whereas it looks fine, and plausibly future-canon to me.
I don't think most of the people here (although there are a few) who are complaining actually believe that the game is beyond saving.
You keep saying the same thing, asking why we are still here if we hate STO....
And you keep ignoring it every single time someone explains it.
You seem a lot smarter than that - are you simply missing the posts in the current scrollfest that defines the DR threads?
Read the bottom part of my sig, that explains it about as poetically as is possible.
And as to the system requirements of STO vs. ED - as I have said several times in several threads now, STO 's engine is a poorly optimized mess. It has the capability to display sub-20 FPS frame rates on SLI GTX 970s at 1080p. If you have a GPU that can actually play STO at consistent, acceptable (and I will take the enthusiast standard of 30FPS being playable, 60 FPS being the lowest truly acceptable), you can play ED. It looks pretty, but the particle effects are very conservative, and due to almost exclusively space-based gameplay, requires significantly less GPU horsepower compared to STO.
Whether or not the graphics are actually more intensive in polygon counts or texture memory requirements, the fact is that STO is a mess - some zones can fill up more than 6gb of texture memory, despite the fact that there probably aren't a total of 6gb of textures in the whole game. The GUI and text floaters can make it a slideshow on an absolute killer system. Some effects like SSAO drop more frames in STO than they do in Shadow of Mordor. The performance doesn't even scale with resolution - I can run STO at 4k and at 1080 at capped 60 FPS, with the same FPS drops and slideshows in the exact same zones - the STO graphics engine is junk, pure and simple.
Not at all, bit of an absurd argument really. For $400 worth of upgrades you can play ED on max pretty much, but it would be more relevant if you were playing more than just one game.
What I'm saying is that you can play ED on low if you play STO on low. You'll lose eyecandy if you try but you probably don't care about that already. If you however like your eyes and don't mind spending a bit to have a computer from this decade not the last one, then you can probably turn the detail up a fair bit.
Either way I don't really give a TRIBBLE about your opinion as it's been shown to have bias towards reductio ad absurdum to attempt to prove your agenda correct.
"You don't have to do something again and again and again repetitive that doesn't have much challange, that's just a general good gameplay thing."
I still firmly believe that STO can be saved. I'll be here until I believe otherwise.
And as I pointed out, ED will run better for most people on equivalent hardware than STO will.
The same way that the latest edition of the Unreal engine will run better on equivalent hardware than idTech 5. There is a difference in the optimization, and the efficiency as well as the general concept of the engine. Cryptic's engine was never designed to handle the amount of effects, the size of the areas, and the amount and resolution of the textures that STO has thrown at it, not to mention that it is effectively a cross-platform engine that was designed with console ports in mind, and not exclusively for PC.
I wouldnt say its bad attitude, its only a way to show others that there is another space game that people would possibly be intrested. And if you check this whole thread you will see that there are some who didnt even know the game existed and they will check it out.
Sto forums are hostile and negative enough even with or without these kinds of threads. Sto, or no other game should be as you describe it, eternal. Its not a job, not a marriage. People hop from games to games and migrate from time to time. Some are just too stubborn to stick around and greef how sto sucks. They have all the right to stay where they want even if they feel bad about it.
This thread is just one way to give people another hint of a game that they might be intrested and perhaps later they come back with fresh feeling to sto and check it out if it has gotten any better. I hope it will. I know i will be logging in from time to time, just to see some awesome people who i call friends. They game might suck, but ive met some really nice people ingame and thats the most and best reason why im still around.
The problem is with your sig. It is one thing to say that "Here is Elite Dangerous. It is a Space Simulator that allows you to go to 400 billion star systems where you can explore, trade and/or fight." It is a problem to say "Here is Elite Dangerous. It is more Star Trek than STO even though you can't go on away teams with your crew and has no extensive story content."
You don't have to care about other people's machines, but there will be STO players, however few, whose machines are too far behind for ED, who don't want to spend the equivalent of a PS4 console to catch up with EDs hardware requirements.
And one or two of them might be posting in this thread.
STO vs. ED
Dual 1.8 vs. Quad 2.0
DX 9 vs. DX 11
1GB Ram vs. 2GB Ram
GeForce 7950/X1800 vs. GTX 260/HD 4870*
Win XP/Vista/7 vs. Win 7/8
*That's a 9 tier difference for the nVidia card and an 11 tier difference for the AMD card based on Tom's GPU Hierarchy.
You can play STO on a toaster, but you need a microwave for ED...
So far, the only folk who have answered the question have been those like you, who still play but want the game to be so much more. As I said, I think that's rather quixotic, but who knows, you might knock that windmill down. But that's not his attitude.
Nor is it the attitude of curedmen here, who appears to be little more than a paid shill for Elite Dangerous. (And honestly, that's more than a little tiresome by this point. How many threads does he need to threadcrap in?)
And it will probably cost them a new computer since they need to replace the motherboard as well. My old rig could have handled Elite Dangerous, but I had to get a new rig last month due to Dragon Age Inquisition requiring a 64 bit Operating System and other steep minimum requirements. The problem is that if you just meet the minimum requirements, then you have to upgrade again in a year or two when some game you like with impressive minimum requirements gets released.