test content
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc

What do you think of a STO 2/ sequel?

13»

Comments

  • This content has been removed.
  • mayito2009mayito2009 Member Posts: 643 Arc User
    Never going to happen
    Seek and ye shall find. Ask and ye shall receive. Rabboni
    Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety" (Benjamin Franklin).

    Most unexpectedly, this turned into a flame-fest! Closed it goes!. /sigh What flamefestery is this? pwlaughingtrendy
  • soundwisdomsoundwisdom Member Posts: 248 Arc User
    Sadly TOR deliv
    A different parent company and development studio.
    This right here.
    ...personally I'm fine with cryptic. Of all the game's I've played recently Star Trek Online is the least reprehensible. And for making a better second STO I'd rather have people involved who know through experience how to handle the IP, format, gameplay style, continuing development, ect. than random oiks who'll probably make the same reasonable mistakes Cryptic has over the years.

    I think for a bit of perspective you guys should try out Bungie's latest offerings. They've got more good will than any developer rightly deserves but they're still more than willing to pull TRIBBLE that makes any viscous "cash grab" on Cryptic's part seem like a gentle hug from grandma.

    "Don't know how good you have it" sums up the point quite nicely.
    I've played about 13 or so MMO's and almost every AAA title release.

    If you think Cryptic is anything near a reputable studio and PWE is anything near a quality company -- you're delusional.

    Edit: Yea you have 2500 posts on these forums and you joined 6 months ago. Cryptic white knight here; move along.
    HAahahahaa!!!! Does this mean you don't consider Blizzard an AAA company? :p I can't think of any other way you could have played 13 MMOs....

    Because Blizzard has had 1 MMO - and there is only 13 on the market right?
  • edited September 2015
    This content has been removed.
  • goodscotchgoodscotch Member Posts: 1,680 Arc User
    edited September 2015
    Rather than ask the question, "What do you think of an STO/2 sequel?" maybe the question to ask is "What would improve STO enough where you would be satisfied with the current version?"

    And as much as I'd like to say a T6 K'tinga, it can't possibly be just the introduction of a new ship.
    klingon-bridge.jpg




  • markhawkmanmarkhawkman Member Posts: 35,236 Arc User
    Sadly TOR deliv
    A different parent company and development studio.
    This right here.
    ...personally I'm fine with cryptic. Of all the game's I've played recently Star Trek Online is the least reprehensible. And for making a better second STO I'd rather have people involved who know through experience how to handle the IP, format, gameplay style, continuing development, ect. than random oiks who'll probably make the same reasonable mistakes Cryptic has over the years.

    I think for a bit of perspective you guys should try out Bungie's latest offerings. They've got more good will than any developer rightly deserves but they're still more than willing to pull TRIBBLE that makes any viscous "cash grab" on Cryptic's part seem like a gentle hug from grandma.

    "Don't know how good you have it" sums up the point quite nicely.
    I've played about 13 or so MMO's and almost every AAA title release.

    If you think Cryptic is anything near a reputable studio and PWE is anything near a quality company -- you're delusional.

    Edit: Yea you have 2500 posts on these forums and you joined 6 months ago. Cryptic white knight here; move along.
    HAahahahaa!!!! Does this mean you don't consider Blizzard an AAA company? :p I can't think of any other way you could have played 13 MMOs....
    Because Blizzard has had 1 MMO - and there is only 13 on the market right?
    Depends on your definition, but I'd say at least 3. So what 13 DID you play if not Blizzard's?

    @edalgo : what makes you think that CBS can't do a licensing deal to make another game while STO is still going? It's more likely that they don't WANT to.
    -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
    My character Tsin'xing
    Costume_marhawkman_Tsin%27xing_CC_Comic_Page_Blue_488916968.jpg
  • This content has been removed.
  • markhawkmanmarkhawkman Member Posts: 35,236 Arc User
    Again... is that because the deal with Cryptic is exclusive, or because CBS doesn't feel like licensing stuff?
    -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
    My character Tsin'xing
    Costume_marhawkman_Tsin%27xing_CC_Comic_Page_Blue_488916968.jpg
  • This content has been removed.
  • soundwisdomsoundwisdom Member Posts: 248 Arc User
    Sadly TOR deliv
    A different parent company and development studio.
    This right here.
    ...personally I'm fine with cryptic. Of all the game's I've played recently Star Trek Online is the least reprehensible. And for making a better second STO I'd rather have people involved who know through experience how to handle the IP, format, gameplay style, continuing development, ect. than random oiks who'll probably make the same reasonable mistakes Cryptic has over the years.

    I think for a bit of perspective you guys should try out Bungie's latest offerings. They've got more good will than any developer rightly deserves but they're still more than willing to pull TRIBBLE that makes any viscous "cash grab" on Cryptic's part seem like a gentle hug from grandma.

    "Don't know how good you have it" sums up the point quite nicely.
    I've played about 13 or so MMO's and almost every AAA title release.

    If you think Cryptic is anything near a reputable studio and PWE is anything near a quality company -- you're delusional.

    Edit: Yea you have 2500 posts on these forums and you joined 6 months ago. Cryptic white knight here; move along.
    HAahahahaa!!!! Does this mean you don't consider Blizzard an AAA company? :p I can't think of any other way you could have played 13 MMOs....
    Because Blizzard has had 1 MMO - and there is only 13 on the market right?
    Depends on your definition, but I'd say at least 3. So what 13 DID you play if not Blizzard's?

    @edalgo : what makes you think that CBS can't do a licensing deal to make another game while STO is still going? It's more likely that they don't WANT to.

    DoAC
    SWG
    Tera
    Aion
    Eve
    Neverwinter
    LOTRO
    Rift
    TOR
    GW 1,2
    FFXI, FFXIV

    Those are the ones I've hit 'max level' in. I've give everything else a try
  • markhawkmanmarkhawkman Member Posts: 35,236 Arc User
    I'm pretty sure EVE is a sociopathy simulator and not an MMO. :p

    So, please, explain why you feel all of them are better than STO/Cryptic.
    -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
    My character Tsin'xing
    Costume_marhawkman_Tsin%27xing_CC_Comic_Page_Blue_488916968.jpg
  • soundwisdomsoundwisdom Member Posts: 248 Arc User
    I'm pretty sure EVE is a sociopathy simulator and not an MMO. :p

    So, please, explain why you feel all of them are better than STO/Cryptic.

    Cryptic is a solid C-/D+ ranked company when it comes to just about everything we - as a playerbase would want. It only got worse after PWE.
  • markhawkmanmarkhawkman Member Posts: 35,236 Arc User
    I'm pretty sure EVE is a sociopathy simulator and not an MMO. :p

    So, please, explain why you feel all of them are better than STO/Cryptic.
    Cryptic is a solid C-/D+ ranked company when it comes to just about everything we - as a playerbase would want. It only got worse after PWE.
    And the other companies? Also rated by who?
    -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
    My character Tsin'xing
    Costume_marhawkman_Tsin%27xing_CC_Comic_Page_Blue_488916968.jpg
  • azurianstarazurianstar Member Posts: 6,985 Arc User
    Cryptic is a solid C-/D+ ranked company when it comes to just about everything we - as a playerbase would want. It only got worse after PWE.

    As much as I hate to say it, but Cryptic isn't really a leader in MMO innovation given they basically been relying on the same engine for years. While the engine worked, over time it has shown it's limits like we've seen with STO. So instead of an MMO, their games pretty much are Single-Player in an Multi-Player Social.
    goodscotch wrote: »
    Rather than ask the question, "What do you think of an STO/2 sequel?" maybe the question to ask is "What would improve STO enough where you would be satisfied with the current version?"

    And as much as I'd like to say a T6 K'tinga, it can't possibly be just the introduction of a new ship.

    Too many to list.

    How about a ship upgrade system withing reselling the same ship multiple times?
    Duh, Exploration! (Actual exploration, not a random-mission generator).
    Actual Diplomacy! (Easily can be intergrated with Exploration).
    Every Canonical ship added to the game (even the ones Geko hates).
    Actual Crafting (not George Jetson style - push button).
    Battle from Bridges (they say it's not possible, but I know it's possible.)

    These are at the top of my Head. Now if I only had $100 mil to start a STO2. :P
  • leemwatsonleemwatson Member Posts: 5,532 Arc User
    We don't need an STO2. STO is modular by design. Since launch they have upgraded the graphics engine (twice I think). All the game needs is a new engine (Physics and Graphics) plus canonizing of every ship hardpoint and arc (so they make sense) and a major over-haul of the damage system (the present one is out of control!).
    "You don't want to patrol!? You don't want to escort!? You don't want to defend the Federation's Starbases!? Then why are you flying my Starships!? If you were a Klingon you'd be killed on the spot, but lucky for you.....you WERE in Starfleet. Let's see how New Zealand Penal Colony suits you." Adm A. Necheyev.
  • azurianstarazurianstar Member Posts: 6,985 Arc User
    leemwatson wrote: »
    We don't need an STO2. STO is modular by design. Since launch they have upgraded the graphics engine (twice I think). All the game needs is a new engine (Physics and Graphics) plus canonizing of every ship hardpoint and arc (so they make sense) and a major over-haul of the damage system (the present one is out of control!).

    STO isn't modular.

    They never upgraded the graphics engine. At best they implemented DX11 that improved graphics.

    And you can't change engines in an MMO, it's locked in until the day it's unpluged. At best you update the engine to help keep it modernized with newer technology. Not to mention creating a new engine isn't cheap.

  • uryenserellonturyenserellont Member Posts: 858 Arc User
    goodscotch wrote: »
    Rather than ask the question, "What do you think of an STO/2 sequel?" maybe the question to ask is "What would improve STO enough where you would be satisfied with the current version?"

    Functional bridges and ship interiors including being able to travel around sector space while inside them and to interact with NPCs, contacts etc. through the viewscreen.

    In other words, things STO's engine can't do.

    Not that I'm not satisfied with the game. It went downhill in a major way starting with the crafting revamp but in my opinion has been improved enough recently that it no longer deserves to be uninstalled.

  • leemwatsonleemwatson Member Posts: 5,532 Arc User
    leemwatson wrote: »
    We don't need an STO2. STO is modular by design. Since launch they have upgraded the graphics engine (twice I think). All the game needs is a new engine (Physics and Graphics) plus canonizing of every ship hardpoint and arc (so they make sense) and a major over-haul of the damage system (the present one is out of control!).

    STO isn't modular.

    They never upgraded the graphics engine. At best they implemented DX11 that improved graphics.

    And you can't change engines in an MMO, it's locked in until the day it's unpluged. At best you update the engine to help keep it modernized with newer technology. Not to mention creating a new engine isn't cheap.

    You obviously have no experience in programming! They did improve the graphics engine back, in 2012 or 13 if I remember correctly. Mostly it affected glows and textures and as I run this in DX9, it wasn't just the DX11 integration they updated.

    If STO wasn't modular, then the game would break at the first change. There are multiple 'engines' running in STO, which can be chopped and changed without affecting the functionality of the others.
    "You don't want to patrol!? You don't want to escort!? You don't want to defend the Federation's Starbases!? Then why are you flying my Starships!? If you were a Klingon you'd be killed on the spot, but lucky for you.....you WERE in Starfleet. Let's see how New Zealand Penal Colony suits you." Adm A. Necheyev.
  • lianthelialianthelia Member Posts: 7,903 Arc User
    rattler2 wrote: »
    Make it a combination of Star Trek Bridge Commander and Elite: Dangerous and I'm in. Star Trek without commanding from the bridge loses a lot of that Star Trek feel.

    I disagree. The Elite Force games were FPS games and still felt Star Trek. The Armada games felt like you were commanding a fleet. The Starfleet Command games and Legacy felt like Star Trek...

    And I still do not see the appeal of Elite: Dangerous. What's so special about it besides being an online version of Wing Commander Privateer?

    I loved the Armadas and SFC up to Orion Pirates...didn't care for 3 much though.


    On what the OP asked...I suppose I wouldn't mind seeing a STO 2...new system would be nice...maybe they would try harder to bust bugs and balance...maybe they could design a system where mobs can be more challenging for multitude of abilities they use, not just spam one or two annoying ones and be a complete damage sponge with millions of HP.

    Only thing I don't agree with is the make your own ship stuff...like I posted in a thread about the make your own ship topic specifically...I think it would be extremely silly to have something like the size of a Scimitar zoom around with a 18 turn rate like a T'varo.
    Can't have a honest conversation because of a white knight with power
  • flash525flash525 Member Posts: 5,441 Arc User
    Do we need an STO2? It would probably require a huge undertaking, but there's nothing to stop them from upgrading this game engine and working from that.

    As for what I would desire, I've got a list longer than my arm. A FPS style mode would make better use of ground scenarios, although whatever is used, needs to be smoother. We need to be able to take cover and climb etc (rather than just jump).

    As already mentioned too, I would decide how many factions they want to play with, and then create specific content around them. None of this universal rubbish. Better flesh out the Tholian and Breen, allow us to play as Cardassian, remove the Orion from the KDF (and whilst they're at it, rename the KDF to IDF; should be Imperial Defense Force, not Klingon Defense Force. Last I checked, it wasn't solely Klingons in that faction.
    attachment.php?attachmentid=42556&d=1518094222
  • azurianstarazurianstar Member Posts: 6,985 Arc User
    leemwatson wrote: »
    You obviously have no experience in programming! They did improve the graphics engine back, in 2012 or 13 if I remember correctly. Mostly it affected glows and textures and as I run this in DX9, it wasn't just the DX11 integration they updated.

    If STO wasn't modular, then the game would break at the first change. There are multiple 'engines' running in STO, which can be chopped and changed without affecting the functionality of the others.

    Oh, so you worked for Cryptic as a programmer and can confirm what you said with absolutity?
  • jorantomalakjorantomalak Member Posts: 7,133 Arc User
    leemwatson wrote: »
    You obviously have no experience in programming! They did improve the graphics engine back, in 2012 or 13 if I remember correctly. Mostly it affected glows and textures and as I run this in DX9, it wasn't just the DX11 integration they updated.

    If STO wasn't modular, then the game would break at the first change. There are multiple 'engines' running in STO, which can be chopped and changed without affecting the functionality of the others.

    Oh, so you worked for Cryptic as a programmer and can confirm what you said with absolutity?


    No but he did stay at a holiday in express :D

  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited September 2015
    For the sake of augment let's say it starts production now and finishes in 2017-18 with updated graphics, engine and more capabilities,


    What would you like to see in a sequel and would you enjoy it?

    It not be Perfect World that makes it.

    Huge Galaxy to explore, something similar to the scale of Elite Dangerous (though not their ship system).

    No "factions" per se. We can see how Factions and PvP becomes irrelevant to the story, which is really what Trek is about. I think different story arcs other than a starter arc is troublesome for development. Especially if you want a larger universe. So starter arcs for different species would be fine before jumping into a unified main story. It also allows more concurrent stories to be told rather than just one. It would also make it easier to have more cultures at the beginning, and to add later.

    Sorry PvPers, I really enjoy PvP myself in most game, but it just doesn't work in a Trek game imo, for the above reason.

    More customization in general from creation to later.






  • poopington#0578 poopington Member Posts: 4 Arc User
    > @highcommand5 said:
    > For the sake of augment let's say it starts production now and finishes in 2017-18 with updated graphics, engine and more capabilities,
    >
    > What would you like to see in a sequel and would you enjoy it?
    >

    1. You already stated it but I think it deserves repeating: an updated engine and graphics.
    2. A revamped ground combat game that is an instanced cover-shooter and/or it has good puzzles for non-combat mission. These shouldn't be an after-thought or a task for interns to do passably but should be created by a seasoned casual indie game designer who has proven capable of designing good puzzles. The cover-shooter should be something like Mass Effect with very few special skills for each class, but leveling up should allow us to not only improve them, but give us branching advancement paths that change how they work. Additionally, we won't get enough points to unlock everything in a build, so choices will matter. Both systems will be skill-based gaming that can be assisted with gear and character advancement, but are still skill tasks.
    3. The space game is already excellent. The only changes I would make is to reduce the number of skills from leveling up greatly. Again, I'd use Mass Effect 3's progression design that limits the total number of skills but allows us to power up passives and to greatly alter how those skills work and how often they refresh. So we might only have 4-5 skills, but that would be in addition to firing weapons, positioning the ship, and managing energy levels. Those skill-based parts of the space combat system should be made more important again - especially at launch because mud-flation is certain to increase the number of skills and devices that must be clicked as the game ages. This would also help make it a much easier port to consoles as you could map all the important keys to a gamepad.
    4. I would limit the scope of the game by starting **only** with the Federation faction but I'd keep the production value high. The game would be voiced and the bridge officers would be story-based. Players can still change bridge officer appearances, but their race and gender will be static so that they can be voice-acted. Think of them more like Star Wars companions than randomly generated.
  • edited December 2017
    This content has been removed.
  • legendarylycan#5411 legendarylycan Member Posts: 37,284 Arc User
    and it's on the FCT to boot...​​
    Like special weapons from other Star Trek games? Wondering if they can be replicated in STO even a little bit? Check this out: https://forum.arcgames.com/startrekonline/discussion/1262277/a-mostly-comprehensive-guide-to-star-trek-videogame-special-weapons-and-their-sto-equivalents

    #LegalizeAwoo

    A normie goes "Oh, what's this?"
    An otaku goes "UwU, what's this?"
    A furry goes "OwO, what's this?"
    A werewolf goes "Awoo, what's this?"


    "It's nothing personal, I just don't feel like I've gotten to know a person until I've sniffed their crotch."
    "We said 'no' to Mr. Curiosity. We're not home. Curiosity is not welcome, it is not to be invited in. Curiosity...is bad. It gets you in trouble, it gets you killed, and more importantly...it makes you poor!"
    Passion and Serenity are one.
    I gain power by understanding both.
    In the chaos of their battle, I bring order.
    I am a shadow, darkness born from light.
    The Force is united within me.
  • seaofsorrowsseaofsorrows Member Posts: 10,919 Arc User
    > @highcommand5 said:
    > For the sake of augment let's say it starts production now and finishes in 2017-18 with updated graphics, engine and more capabilities,
    >
    > What would you like to see in a sequel and would you enjoy it?
    >

    1. You already stated it but I think it deserves repeating: an updated engine and graphics.
    2. A revamped ground combat game that is an instanced cover-shooter and/or it has good puzzles for non-combat mission. These shouldn't be an after-thought or a task for interns to do passably but should be created by a seasoned casual indie game designer who has proven capable of designing good puzzles. The cover-shooter should be something like Mass Effect with very few special skills for each class, but leveling up should allow us to not only improve them, but give us branching advancement paths that change how they work. Additionally, we won't get enough points to unlock everything in a build, so choices will matter. Both systems will be skill-based gaming that can be assisted with gear and character advancement, but are still skill tasks.
    3. The space game is already excellent. The only changes I would make is to reduce the number of skills from leveling up greatly. Again, I'd use Mass Effect 3's progression design that limits the total number of skills but allows us to power up passives and to greatly alter how those skills work and how often they refresh. So we might only have 4-5 skills, but that would be in addition to firing weapons, positioning the ship, and managing energy levels. Those skill-based parts of the space combat system should be made more important again - especially at launch because mud-flation is certain to increase the number of skills and devices that must be clicked as the game ages. This would also help make it a much easier port to consoles as you could map all the important keys to a gamepad.
    4. I would limit the scope of the game by starting **only** with the Federation faction but I'd keep the production value high. The game would be voiced and the bridge officers would be story-based. Players can still change bridge officer appearances, but their race and gender will be static so that they can be voice-acted. Think of them more like Star Wars companions than randomly generated.


    1. Welcome to the forums.

    2. They have rules here against bumping any thread over 30 days old. You'll get better response posting in a current thread.
    Insert witty signature line here.
  • baddmoonrizinbaddmoonrizin Member Posts: 11,090 Community Moderator
    edguN8y.png
    GrWzQke.png
    Star Trek Online Volunteer Community Moderator and Resident She-Wolf
    Community Moderators are Unpaid Volunteers and NOT Employees of Gearbox/Cryptic
    Views and Opinions May Not Reflect the Views and Opinions of Gearbox/Cryptic
    ----> Contact Customer Support <----
    Moderation Problems/Issues? Please contact the Community Manager
    Terms of Service / Community Rules and Policies / FCT
    Want the latest information on Star Trek Online?
    Facebook / Twitter / Twitch
This discussion has been closed.